Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20#Category:Articles with unsourced statements

:{{la|WorldVentures}} (restore|AfD)

Company is Notable Virgil06 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Article was discovered to be "missing" and resubmitted. Resubmission was flagged for speedy delete. After more research it seems it was ORIGINALLY deleted because it was said to be non-notable and read like an ad. As a network marketing company, the company does not employ traditional advertising and companies in the industry can therefore achieve higher levels of success and still not draw mainstream media converage. The article is not spam and was written with strict adherence to the journalistic neutral point of view policy. Per the Wikipedia Notability requirements (WP:CORP), "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."

The compnay has introduced close to 30,000 representatives in 15 months of operation which IS notable in the network marketing industry and has received a public endorsement by Dr. Charles King, internationally recognized expert on network marketing and professor of marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Editing the article to remove questionable content is one thing, but it is no more a candidate for deletion than Sibu (company), Vemma, or Tahitian Noni, just to name a few.

• Endorse deletion valid G4 deletion, as the thing was validly deleted at AfD just last week Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorldVentures. As for the 're-write' ALL the sources are from the company's own website, press releases, or that of the founder. Take it away.--Doc^g 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: I did the deletion. It wasn't "missing": it was deleted. The article fails to establish notability (A7) and then is a repost (G4). When the world notices (3rd parties) and comments, then it will be time for a Wikipedia article that digests those reports into a succinct explanation. None of that is the case now. Geogre 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, still no sources. It doesn't matter if there's a good reason for that, we still need them. WP:V is not negotiable. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion I remember this one--I think I noticed it on CatCSD on its way out.DGG 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|MoPo}} (restore|AfD)

NOTABLE 207.82.44.3 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihonjoe#MoPo

• Endorse deletion as admin who deleted the page. All of the link provided as references in the article were either directly tied to the subject of the article, or very closely related. There were zero reliable sources as far as I could tell. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn As the creator of the articla in question I would have appreciated an opportunity to justify its existence. Instead, I feel the article was a victim to an impulsive admin - policy specifically implies speedy deletion was not really indicated here. There are numerous memorabilia groups today, 2007, but in 1995 there was ONLY MoPo, and nothing else until the last few years - the founders of this group are some of the most renowned individuls in our community. The following resources either reference and link to MoPo directly, or are other third party support/references as requested. 1) One of the busiest reference sites on the topic of movie posters - http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com; 2) The ONLY print magazine devoted to the topic and was the ONLY on-topic resource prior to the internet - http://www.mcwonline.com; 3) The Internet Movie Data Base references MoPo in their movie poster section - http://www.imdb.com; 4) One of the founders of MoPo and main contributor to The Antiques Roafdshow, Rudy Franchi - http://www.nostalgia.com; 5) John Warren, one of the original contributors to MoPo and widely known for his price guides on the topic - http://www.icollectmovieposters.com/start-movieposters; 6) The auction site dedicated ONLY to the topic of movie memorabilia, and respected in community - http://www.movieposterbid.com; 7) Resource for beginning film makers and not necessarily hobby enthusiasts - http://www.film-makers.com; 8) The current price guide used by most in the community - http://www.posterprice.com/home; 9) The advertising aspect of movie posters also references MoPo - http://onesheetdesign.com; and, finally 10) The following independent dealer/community sites also reference MoPo as a main resource for the comminity: classicmovies.org, filmposters.com, passini.com, posteritati.com, emovieposter.com, cinemasterpieces.com, polishposter.com, vintageposterart.com, hollywoodposterframes.com, movieposter.com, and many others.

:I really hope this privides enough validity to a resource that most in the community find invaluable. I also believe a discussion to help me make it right would have been helpful, instead of just deleting. [user:phishman]] 207.82.44.3 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to the above, I want to include references to articles in the print media about our community, such as: FORBES Magazine at http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2005/07/13/collecting-vintageposters-lifestyle_cz_ms_0713conn_ls.html?partner=rss; BBC chimes in at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/dot_life/2631273.stm; Educational resources such as http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/literacy/bear.htm; and other Countries as well: http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/7474/recreation_and_sports/movie_poster_collecting.html - I can find more pretty easily, this was just a cursory glance on Google. user:phishman 207.82.44.3 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Sources above are about movie poster collecting, not about the MoPo mailing list. The article positively asserted non-notability. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The sources are SUPPOSED to be about Movie Poster Collecting because that is why the MoPo group exists in the first place. The artical did not "positively assert" anything but how important MoPo is to the rather large community of collectors and investors out there that are indeed interested in the topic of movie posters. Instead of just saying something is/is not notable, please be more specific - why are the resorces outlined above "non-notable," if that is your opinion. Afterall, this is about the opinion of a majority - and that majority would be any person interested in movie posters and/or collecting movie posters, and that majority should not include those that have NO interest in the subject. user:phishman 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: In order to be valid sources for an article about MoPo, they need to discuss MoPo itself as a main part of the article. Just discussing movie poster collection in general, with passing mention of MoPo, does not qualify the sources as a reliable source, and it therefore can not be used for a reference to help establish notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment: The people that participate in MoPo span the globe and are all interested in movie posters, whether for collecting or investing, or design, etc.. I ask you, with an obviously small population (in comparison to the Earth), what do you do when there are no "articles about MoPo" but there are dozens of references from various resources that are ALL on-topic? And, the population of collectors holds the MoPo group in high regard and recognize it as the first of its kind. While I can find multiple articles documenting the importance and value of movie posters, and movie poster collecting/investment, as well as multiple resources that cite MoPo as important to the community, the criticism here seems to be that the community itself is not notable enough? Well, that is subjective, don't ya think? And, there are plenty of groups on Wiki that have little/no articles about them, but are still notable, such as americablog and other blogs - the references listed on these are passing references, as the ones I listed were described above, rather than "about americablog." I can find other Wiki examples as needed. user:phishman 207.82.44.3 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The evidence provided so far is mostly about movie poster collecting in general, which should be covered in Film memorabilia and Film poster#Collecting, not an article about a particular Internet resource. For MoPo itself to warrant an article, it would have to satisfy WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: There is no establishing of this particular thing's notability. That it was the first one (1995 is the first one?) would be significant, but if it's the first one and didn't catch on, then it's still not really notability. What puts this aside from the stack of others? What makes this more than a fan's article? What makes this something that explains a phenomenon in the wider world? The article doesn't serve its primary function as an encyclopedia entry. Geogre 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: MoPo was the FIRST discussion group and on-line resource for collectors of movie memorabilia (not "film" memorabilia), and is widely recognized within the community as the "first" and most notable. It is not a "fan's" artical as there are no "fans" to movie posters, duh. I think that NOBODY is reading my comments or my position and just feel that if MoPo is insignificant to them, than it does not matter. Guess what? There are many more people in the world than the editors at Wiki, and there are thousands that utilize MoPo on a regular basis for research, investment, and collecting. As far as the article goes - an Admin decided to DELETE it without discussion or giving the creating editor (me) an opportunity to address the concerns - instead ity was just deleted - THAT IS NOT COOL PER WIKI POLICY, yet this has not been addressed either. I would have been happy to change it as necessary, but was NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE to do so. Why is that OK? Furthermore, just because you know nothing about the topic does NOT mean it is not notable. And, I see NOBODY has addressed the fact that other articles clearly are in the same situation as MoPo (see americablog), but are not deleted? What the hell is "Fair" on Wiki anymore? user:phishman 207.82.44.3 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Americablog very clearly meets WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N, so a comparison does nothing to support your claim of notability in this particular case. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See all comments above. user:phishman 207.82.44.3 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There was no procedural defect in the speedy deletion, and User:phishman appears not to grasp the need for reliable third-party commentary on MoPo. Millions and millions of people can be on the mailing list, but if no-one outside has written about the MoPo list by name, it's not for us. If anyone who joins this debate can provide a true source of 3rd-party notability, I'd reconsider my vote. EdJohnston 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Christopher_Lotito}} (restore|AfD)

Arguments for deletion TOO weak. 68.197.108.232 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I AM the individual in question. I did not write the article about myself. I do not appreciate having this article detailing political accusations towards me deleted (it makes it look like I did it myself and several of my opponents have accused me of this). My involvment in local politics, the extreme controversy and complication of the election (with respect to historical precedent), and the accusations leveled against me were fully cited in the form of newspaper articles. It appears from the comments that the article was deleted based upon lack of results in a Google search and bias towards self-published authors. If you'd like to remove the information about my status as a self-published author (WHICH I did not add) feel free to do that, rather than delete a good article. Also, I strongly question the idea that a Google search alone can bestow or revoke the notable status of an individual, I'm pretty sure that's history's job and you guys are just guessing. The short of it: ALL information in the article was verifiable, it was just deemed non-notable, which again I say was on the basis of a Google search with little consideration to the actual situation. Try reading the news articles.

P.S. I had a Wikipedia account at some point and have no idea how to access it now (or how to use it really) (full disclosure). Also, I can be reached at clotito@gmail.com for comment. I will be going back and deleting my email address from these discussions at a later date, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

EDIT: HERE is a far better basis for notability, at least in this case: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Christopher+Lotito%22+pequannock&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

EDIT: In response to commenters supporting deletion, questioning notability, and in general requesting more information:

Ok, once more, my argument for notability, as the defining factor in one of the most unique elections in the history of Pequannock Township NJ. NOT an argument for notability as an author, business person, or any other hat I may tend to wear. This argument is based off of the definitions presented in your article about "notability" on Wikipedia: "Multiple" "Independent" and "Reliable" "Published Works" have established "Non-Trivial" information detailing my roll as one of the two factors which caused on of the most disputed elections in my town, drawing public comment from newspapers, politicians, regular citizens, and even state officials. In non-Wikipedia-speak, that is, multiple articles were published in regional (not local) newspapers explaining that because of my youth and legal accusations made against me, that there were a much higher than usual number of write-ins in the school board election and that my legal status as a viable candidate was also in question. This article is not directory information. It is information about a person of historical significance. It would most likely be of interest only to residents of Pequannock, Pequannock historians, and those studying law or politics in New Jersey, however this point is of no concern as notability is NOT subjective. In fact, notability has already been permanently and expertly bestowed by several journalists (Rob Ratish, Gene Myers, etc) who decided that this topic was important enough to write articles about for their respective newspapers: The Star Ledger, The Record, and The Argus (to name a couple). That is pretty much the basis of my argument. I've already stated why I want this less than flattering article about myself preserved, however I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Hit Bull Win Steakfor making a good point about ways I can prove to my opponents that I didn't have this article deleted. If these efforst are futile, I will probably use that, so thanks. Before commenting, please be sure to read both the original Wikipedia article AS WELL AS the link to newspaper archives that I have provided as a much better and more objective method of verifying notability than a Google search. Also of note is the Wikipedia article on notability, which has been paraphrased in my general direction despite the fact that many of the commenters here seem not to be familiar with it.

• Endorse deletion. None of the articles are primarly about you. Just a mention here and there that you were a candidate once. Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements. For non-admins, there is a copy of the article [http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Y_x0EN0bI3UJ:www.answers.com/topic/christopher-lotito here]. — coelacan talk — 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The people commenting on the AFD raised valid points, and I don't think that a few articles about a school board election are enough to dispel their concerns about notability (per WP:BIO). If people are accusing you of having the article deleted yourself, you might want to direct them to this page or the AFD, to set the record straight. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, no credible reason advanced for overturning. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The consensus was that you are non-notable, and arguing that you are is not a good enough reason to overturn the consensus, if you don't have any new information that was not present in the debate. -Amarkov moo! 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if it's okay for me to comment here since I commented at the original AfD and I have to run to class so I don't have time to find out. But the subject of the article posted on my talk suggesting I reconsider. I endorse deletion as this still fails WP:BIO. Having political opponents accuse you of having an article deleted is not a valid reason to restore that article. If I'm not supposed to "vote" twice (yes, yes, I know this isn't a vote) then this is just a general comment. Natalie 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, commenting in an AfD and the DRV is fine. --W.marsh 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Audiokinetic}} (restore|AfD)

Speedy deletion for unknown reasons.

The article I wrote on the software company Audiokinetic Inc. was deleted, but I do not know who deleted it or for what reasons. I am willing to rewrite the article to correct any faults and suit Wikipedia's standards. I would like to contact the administrator who deleted it via his or her talk page, but I don't know how to figure out which one did it. I'd be grateful for any advice.

Kitsune Raynard 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:Comment it looks like User:Teke deleted it as WP:CSD#G11, which means the article is essentially corporate advertising. If you work at the company, it would be advisable to read the policies/guidelines at WP:COI and WP:CORP. The first one is the policy regarding "conflict of interest" and the other is the notability guideline for corporations. ColourBurst 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I'll try to resolve this.

Kitsune Raynard 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of the merge of {{tl|Infobox British television}} to {{tl|Infobox Television}}, a whole slew of images became unlinked and were subsequently automatically deleted by bots after seven days. I request this is reverted. I'm starting with these, I'm sure i'll find more later, and will add them here as well. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:NorthTonight.png], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Granada_Reports.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ScotlandToday.png], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVLookaround.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVCalendar.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Scotsport.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ShatteredLogo.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Primetime.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:TaggartTeam.png], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Vic_R_Big_Night_Out_DVD.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Des&Mel_logo.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Terrygaby.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:TFI_Friday.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Animalhospitallogo.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Catterick_dvd.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Night_And_Day_intro.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Tonight.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Star_Maidens.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVCashCab.JPG], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Love_Soup.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Hyperdrive_main.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Space-cadets.png], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Bleakhouse2005.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITV_NET.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:BBCspaceodyssey-cover.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Itvfromhell.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVSoapstarSuperstar.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Blinddate.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Morningglory.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Petrolheads.png], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:AdrenalineJunkieDVD.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Snuffbox.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVWestcountryLive.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:SundayLive.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:60MM.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVChannelReport.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITV_Love_Island.png], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:JeremyKyleShow.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Fun_Song_Factory.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Feeltheforce.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVAngliaTonight.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVWalesTonight.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVTheWestTonight.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:PoliticsNowSTV.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVWorldCuppa.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVSundayFeastlogo.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVSaturdayCooks.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVMumsonStrike.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVLookingGood.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Dayofthetriffids1981.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:CITV_FingerTips.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVCentralTonight.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Lrtvlogo1.png], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVBadLadsArmy.png], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Livetvbingo.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:MnbfTitleScreen.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Cbbc_crush_logo.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:STVClubCupid.gif], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITV_Thames_Valley_Tonight.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Playdate.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:STVUnsolved.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITV_Play_the_common_room.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Britains_Got_Talent.PNG]

::TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment deletion review isn't really the best first instance approach to this. Bots don't delete the images, bots tag them, admins then delete them. Have you explained the situation to the deleting admin and asked for them to be restored? What was their response? --pgk 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:List seems to be complete now. Images linked again, Involved admins alerted TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

::Mmm, the involved admins seem to be really quiet. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. {{tl|Infobox British television}} was redirected to {{tl|Infobox television}}. Because they used different formats for image links this unlinked all the British television images. So in essence a template conversion unintentionally orphaned many images, and then admins deleted the orphans. That's not the admins' fault, but isn't the way things should work either. Things should be restored to the status quo before the conversion accident. Dragons flight 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Probably should have been taken to the deleting admin(s) but we're already here now. — coelacan talk — 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:I needed to go trough almost 700 articles to track all this, where to take it wasn't my first priority :D. If you type undeletion in the searchbox, you end up here, so that's where I made my list. I don't really care how it gets solved TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:Simple undeletion request Im moving to WP:AN to have other admins undelete I dont have time at the moment to do so my self. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Actors by series}} (restore|CfD)

All the categories under this have been tagged to be listified and deleted, howvere there was no consensus to delete and this should be overturned. There were more people in support of keeping than there were of deleteing or listing. Roughly 41 to 33 but I may have lost count, there are so many on both sides! Mr. Stabs 13:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• My closing was as follows: "Rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." Converting a category to a list is not a removal of information. Endorse. >Radiant< 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and applaud closer. Let's begin with the blindingly obvious: XfD is not a vote. My eyes began to glaze over as I read through the 100K+ of repetitive arguments. The rationale for deleting these was much more convincing than the arguments against. No information is lost by creating lists, and navigation is easier (13+ categories for Ed Begley Jr?). These were an example of extreme over-categorisation in action. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This was a sensible response to the discussion. No information need be lost. No worries, then. — coelacan talk — 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. CFD is not a vote but a discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but deprecate the idea that voting is not a part of the process; that line of thought is just an excuse for the closing admin to do what he wants even if there is no consensus for it. Osomec 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Radiant! was bold to step in and close this at all, and his closure seems eminently sensible. the wub "?!" 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, there was no "clear consensus to delete", and "if there is no consensus to delete one week after posting on CfD, the decision shall be keep." Tim! 08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Good call, and no information is lost. Garion96 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and furthermore stick to the original wording, which was to rename to "cast", not "cast members" which resulted in several categories being renamed twice within a month. --BlueSquadronRaven 09:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|List of Peruvian Jews}} (restore|AfD)

There was a clear majority for retention of the main list. I appreciate that this is not a vote, but a good reason is needed to ignore a majority. The claim that it was because many supporters agreed with IZAK is odd; IZAK's reasoning was so sound that further argumentation would be of scant value. It may be that the closing admin was confused because there were a number of subsidiary lists also up for deletion, and many people supported the retention of the main list but not the subsidiaries. Newport 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - IZAK's argument (keep main list, remove all redlinks) was concise but appropriate. --Dweller 13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, suggest recreation as redirect -- May I just note here please that out of 100+ names on the list, only 8 were blue-links. And for 5 of these 8, there is no indication (either a source or a statement in the article) that the individuals listed are in fact of Jewish background. I agree List of Peruvian Jews should exist, but (for now) only as a redirect. It can be recreated when there is more content. The full list is still available in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Latin_American_Jews&oldid=90446377 this version] of List of Latin American Jews and the the "Peru" section of that article contains all of the blue-linked names. -- Black Falcon 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep this ONE list only because it is part of series that can be seen at Lists of Jews and at :Category:Lists of Jews. If this list remains vulnerable then all the lists at :Category:Lists of people by nationality can become the targets for deletion. I generally do not favor the notion of "lists of Jews" but since they do exist and have been accepted multiple times by the Wikipedia community (see: Talk:Lists of Jews; Category talk:Lists of Jews; Talk:Lists of American Jews) and multiple efforts over many years to delete them always fail by an overwhelming consensus to keep them, as examples, see these votes that always resulted in "KEEP" results, often even after two nominations: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews; Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish historians; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish historians 2; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Jewish-Americans; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination). Therefore, as things stand, and to be consistent with Wikipedia's standards for these lists, this list should be reinstated. By the way, I do not believe that we need all those lists of Peruvian Jews that consisted of mostly red links, but at least one main list like this one should certainly have been allowed to exist (and obsorbed any notable existing names of notable Peruvian Jews onto it) and it should not have been deleted. Thank you, IZAK 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I think Doc's reasoning in closing with delete lies within the administrator's discretion. While it's logical to have "List of Peruvian Jews" alongside "List of Canadian Jews," the ad hoc solution of moving the Peruvians to "List of Latin American Jews" was meant to deal with that (see in the AFD). Recreation as a redirect is not out of the question. Disclosure: I participated in the initial debate, and voted to delete. YechielMan 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Admin's reasoning: Please remember that this was a list of redlinks and utterly unsourced. And 'List of x who happen to be y' is always a poor start. The central comment in the case for keeping was IZAK's rationale that it should be kept as it was 'part of a series'. But that's not a reason at all. We regularly dismiss !votes on afd that say "you must keep my article because you kept article y which is similar". Articles stand or fall on their own merits. There were no merits indicated in the debate. I say again, this was unsourced redlinks, and I did say that the deletion as without prejudice to the possibility of it being "recreated as a sourced article" at a later stage. So, I've no idea why this is on DRV. If anyone wants the edit history in their userspace for reference, I'll be happy to oblige.--Doc^g 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It is not the quality of an article that matters - articles can always be edited. By Doc's reasoning, we should have to delete hundreds of lists, such as List of Asian American Writers (which has plenty of red links).--Runcorn 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, the list you cite is manly blue - whereas this one was not. But once again, arguments based on 'we'd have to do x if we do y' are spurious. When you lay that aside, all the arguments articulated in the AfD were for deletion.--Doc^g 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:Of over 100 names on the list (I don't remember the exact number), only 8 were blue-links. Where blue-links exist, they can be used as a sort of "soft" reference. However, this was not the case for the Peruvian Jews article. I don't think this should set any kind of precedent for other articles. It's just that a separate article was not warranted when the content could easily go into List of Latin American Jews. -- Black Falcon 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

::Agreed. If a Norwegian Jew doesn't merit a separate list, no reason a Peruvian Jew should. Usedup 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse I'm glad the arguments came across as they did. This deletion was perfectly valid. Noting also that it is possible somebody was contacting users who they knew would want to keep this list and telling them to vote "keep" on the article. Thats the only way I could see so many "keeps" creeping in at the end. Usedup 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Newport Mad Jack 23:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Having a lot of red links is no grounds for deletion. I have created several articles as a result of seeing such red links. How does anyone know if Norwegian Jews merit a separate list? Nobody's created one yet, but is there any reason to suppose that such a list would get an AfD against it? Anyway, there are more Jews in Peru than in Norway.--R613vlu 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:How many more? A few thousand? It really isn't a big difference. Usedup 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

::It may be this user's POV that a few thousand Jews don't matter much, but Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV.--Holdenhurst 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, it seems to be the standard POV of wikipedia. That's why we have :Category:Peruvian Australians, :Category:Peruvian Germans, :Category:Peruvian Swedes, and not list of Peruvian Australians, List of Peruvian Germans, and List of Peruvian Swedes. Usedup 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• No comment on the Afd decision, but due to GFDL requirements, the page should be undeleted and redirected to List of Latin American Jews because content was merged from the deleted article during the Afd. --- RockMFR 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, the GFDL requirements would be satisfied even better if the page was just undeleted; a redirect means that people looking just at the Latin America page would not see the history of the Peruvian one.--Holdenhurst 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: Oh, heavens above! Are we still going through these? List of X Jews is a delete. Delete for "Hollywood," for "New York," for "Russian," for anything you'd like. The reasoning is ancient, ancient, ancient. We have precedent after precedent here. No hitlist articles about "ethnicity" or religion. No "list of people," either, as any such "list" is infinite and without definite include/exclude criteria. Further, they are all inherently POV. No, a thousand times. Geogre 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:*OK, I endorsed deletion of this article like you, but I wen't nowhere near as far as you did. You want to delete all "list of people" articles? Why in heavens, hell, and anything in between would you want to do that? Your comment that "they are all inherently POV" just floors me. How so? Lastly, they do have definite include/exclude criteria: being a member of X group and being notable. -- Black Falcon 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:**Well, to explain, lists of people have to have a good reason for including/excluding, and we're always at the mercy of "suspected vs. technically vs. self-identified" when we go to identity markers. "List of Happy People" and "List of sad people" and "List of half-German and half-Sammi people" are all problematic because the author of an article like that is always inserting POV to assert that one type of identification is superior to another. Aside from that, such lists are far better done in categories. Aside from that, the actual utility of the designation is low, and it is an assertion of point of view that my identity as .02 Creek Indian, for example, is an important identifier instead of my identity as a Wikipedian or lion tamer. The existence of such a "list of people" article is asserting priority in identity and asserting the utility of identification by such a tag. To me, that's fishy at best and outrageous in general. Geogre 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::*One of the problems here, is the subjectivity of the list. Define 'Jewish Peruvian'?--Doc^g 18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Exactly. The term "Peruvian Jew" shows up on 8 pages of google. 8!! [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Peruvian+Jew%22&btnG=Search]. There is no reason why this list should be so sternly argued for, especially when I've already proven numerous time that most, if not all, of the people mentioned, will never have articles written for them on the English encyclopedia. Usedup 18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Doc makes a strange argument: it's a list of Jews born in Peru or who have emigrated there. How and where has Usedup proven that a single one of these redlinks will never have an article written about him or her? --Holdenhurst 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::When I randomly selected several of the names and showed how nothing written in English could be found about them? In fact, for most, nothing even written in Spanish !Usedup 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::::What does this prove? It may prove no more than that you were unable to search very thoroughly. Even if there really is nothing now, stuff may appear at some time in the future. Anyway, this says nothing at all about those not selected - for whatever reason, you may happen to have selected the least notable.--Brownlee 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well, I assure you, we can all check as "thoroughly" as internet search pages, document databases, and book preview search pages allow us to. We can even search foreign language web-pages, but the statement still holds that if these people only have minimal pages in Spanish written about them, then they are not English wikipedia material. Ok, fate may have had it that I did choose the least notables, but the argument that there are PLENTY of red links with absolutely no evidence of notability is still strong even with that possibility. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We're not going to have lists of people who "could" become notable in the future laying around. Nobody has yet to explain WHY the few Peruvian Jewish nota bles need to be on a separate article. Usedup 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::So by Usedup's own evidence, there is something written about some of them in Spanish; thus it is unlikely that nothing could ever be written about all of them. It will just take some time.--Osidge 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::"All" was an exaggeration. For a majority, there could be no "good" articles written for them. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that statement just by taking a quick analysis. Usedup 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

::::The biggest reason, historically, for not allowing "X Jews" articles is that their actual use for their authors and readers is as a hitlist. They're used as blacklists and anti-semitism, and not as boasts of the achievements of the people on the list. We don't need to be hosting the National Front's enemies lists. In this case, it's just a question of whether a notable physicist wakes up and the morning and says, "I must go be a Jew today" or "I must go do physics today." We have categories for Peruvians, for physicists, for authors. Geogre 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::Geogre, I disagree with you on these points. If anything, these are anti-anti-semitic lists, in others words, for most cases of questionable lists on Jews, they are ethnic-pride-and-awareness lists, not lists for neo-Hitlers as you are implying. There is really no other reason people would be so bothered by the lack of a "List of Peruvian Jews." If this was a "List of Chinese Peruvian," of whom there is a much greater population in Peru and of much greater historical signifance, there probably wouldn't be such a controversy over it being deleted. But because it is a list of Peruvian Jews, and anything Jewish has always been controversial in some way, similarly as anything "African-American" has, there is much more of an uproar. You calling these lists "hitlists" suggests that the people who make these lists are naive. Usedup 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion per all above. As stated although afd is not a vote, there has to be a b****y good reason to ignore an overwhelming majority Jcuk (I forgot to sign in sorry) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.154.53 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

::By overwhelming majority you mean 9 (if you count my nomination) to 11? Not counting a username that seemed to register on that very day. Usedup 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion The closing admin did not give due weight to the keep arguments, and was not within reasonable discretion to argue that the argument was for delete rather than undecided.--Holdenhurst 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::Actually the admin was giving more weight to WP:V, Wikipedia:Notability, and WP:BLP, which are all of greater importance than how people "feel" about a list. Usedup 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: Admin discretion was within line Feydakin 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It was improper to delete a member of a well established set of categories without consensus. The article should exist, and the fact that it was not better was just a result of systemic bias. We will get a better article sooner by having an article than by not having one. Sumahoy 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It seems that the closing admin may have been influenced by his own views, rather than making a dispassionate judgment on the basis of the discussion.--Brownlee 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There is no reason of principle why such a list should be deleted; any defects in the list should be fixed, and cannot be if the list does not exist.--Osidge 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are confusing a deletion review with a second afd. Repeating the same arguments used in the afd on this deletion review does not help. Doc Glasgow already made it clear in his closing that the "this list is part of series" argument is not holding water. This is everyone's opportunity to give new better arguments for restoring the list, not just a place to point fingers and relay your same reason as on the afd. Usedup 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn We have similar articles to this one, and they all contain notable people. The list violates no wikipedia policy that I am aware of, and it makes sense to have an article on this.--Sefringle 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm not convinced by the arguments that there were errors in the original AfD. It makes no sense to have a list consisting mainly of red links. It appears that the closing administrator may have given weight to WP:V, which is OK in my view. A list of red links is by definition a list of people without WP articles. In other words, Wikipedia has not been able to research them properly. If it's hard for us to document them, then I argue that we should be able to get along without the list. Lowering our quality standards is not the solution to the problem. It's like saying, 'Here is a possible list of Peruvian Jews, and we're sorry we don't know if it's correct or not, but there's probably somebody in the world who thinks it's correct.' I note that interesting lists made up entirely of blue links DO exist, for example List of Cubans. EdJohnston 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Buck the World}} (restore|AfD|Mass AfD)

I feel the admin acted against the consensus of the Wikipedians when it was deleted. It clearly passes a google test for reliable sources. However, if you want, I can remove some of the unsourced tracks and only put in the released singles (until a sourced tracklist is released). Tom Danson 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep redirected. Young Buck already contains all the info. When there are verifiable things to write about it, other than WP:NOT material like the track listing, then the redirect could be changed into an article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Mass AfD where everything was deleted is relinked. The first AfD was keep, however all the arguments are from WP:AADD and didn't explain why they should be kept according to policy. ColourBurst 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have a reliable source-an album review. [http://www.aftermathmusic.com/_extras/young_buck_buck_the_world.html It's right here.] Now would you look better on it? Tom Danson 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and keep redirected, but recreate when sufficient reliable sources become available. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&section=new Yamaguchi先生] 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The link cited up above is not an album review, not even close. It is a promotional advertisement ran by Aftermath which fails to present any new information that isn't already covered in the Young Buck article, sans the hype. (jarbarf) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians born in 1989}} (restore|UCfD)

Following the close of the WP:DRV on :Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, 1ne deleted :Category:Wikipedians born in 1989, apparently against concensus. Ryulong undeleted the category and 1ne deleted it again. The summaries in the log were:

• 22:51, February 20, 2007 {{user|Jaranda}} restored "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (9 revisions restored) (Further undeletion following start of this DRV)
• 03:47, February 17, 2007 {{user|1ne}} deleted "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (nah, some people in here are younger than 18)
• 00:50, February 17, 2007 {{user|Ryulong}} restored "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (9 revisions restored: This is a bit much, it passed CFD not five days ago)
• 23:32, February 16, 2007 {{User|1ne}} deleted "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (content was: 'Wikipedians who were born in 1989.Category:Wikipedians born in the 1980s')

Given that everyone in that category is 17 or 18 years old, the WP:CHILD based arguments that lead to the deletion of the 1993 category don't appear to apply. 1ne expressly says his reason for deleting the category was WP:IAR in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlast_san&diff=108898903&oldid=108870505 this post].

Although I'm not a huge fan of the "Wikipedians born in" categories, there does not seem to be a concensus to delete all of them. WjBscribe 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:It should be noted that the category has since been undeleted by Jaranda. WjBscribe 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strange – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Category:Wikipedians_born_in_1993]. The same admin was wheel-warring to keep a similar category that listed much younger users. I'll endorse it, in any case. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Partially explained by the fact that 1ne listed himself in the 1993 category, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A1ne&diff=108722414&oldid=108709548]. WjBscribe 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• 1ne is asking for trouble. This looks very much like WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I can see no valid reason for deletion. Tim 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, let's be consistent and get rid of all these "born in 0000" categories. >Radiant< 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and seriously question the no consensus close of the recent UCfD which was (a) apparently closed as a vote (the closer notes the number of editors "voting" for each option in his closing remarks), (b) closed by an editor who gave an opinion at the UCfD, and (c) closed in line with the opinion that the closer had given (no consensus == keep). Regarding Xevious's question, I would think that the rationale for deletion was that the consensus at the UCfD was for deletion, whether outright or by upmerging. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• In Mike Selinker's defense, he was more or less the only person ever willing to close UCFD's back then. If you look at the current UCFD page, I have particpated in and closed almost every single discussion due to lack of other admins willing to close them. VegaDark 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Indeed, that's true, and I apologise to Mike for the rather harsh tone of my comments, but I'm not minded to change my recommendation, or my view of the consensus of the debate. I don't feel that UCFD is a great idea: it simply doesn't get the attention that CFD gets, and CFD in turn isn't exactly popular compared to AFD. Anybody who wants to can close an AFD (MFD, RFD) easily enough, but closing a CFD or UCFD is rather arcane, which doesn't help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as it's been decided multiple times that categories with people under 18 are supposed to be deleted. But really, stop wheel warring. -Amarkov moo! 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion, list on CFD, send all wheel warring admins to Arbcom, do not pass go, do not collect $200. --- RockMFR 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my own deletion. Can be used to identify users under 18; JzG, I already said I had a change of heart on WP:AN. How about you stop baiting? 1ne 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, it can't be used to identify users under 18, because even if a user in this category _is_ under 18 there's no way to know that from inclusion in the category. --Random832 14:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse 1ne's deletion because frankly, I don't care about it, and I don't need to be dragged into a frivolous ArbCom as RockMFR states.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• There is a place for this; that place is not here. Overturn and relist. - I would support any CfD listing for all by-year articles, but that has to be done rather than out-of-process ad-hockery. --Random832 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC). See also Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians born in (YEAR). --Random832 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. Either delete all of these born by year categories or delete none.--Grace E. Dougle 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Most of these people are minors, and that is enough to rule this out as a good idea for me, using my own judgement about who needs protection, rather than following legal technicalities. Sumahoy 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This category is self-referential within Wikipedia, one of the things generally discouraged. Our business is to report topics that are verifiable outside of Wikipedia. ... Kenosis 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 among other age-categories existence are not worthy of wikipedia. Consistensy should be applied and they should all be deleted. What subjective irrational argument can there be for one to exists while not the other? Lord Metroid 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I added what I believe to be the relevant UCfD. If that's the one it would the basis for this review, and all changes to it would be a de-facto nomination for review. ~ trialsanderrors 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Articles with unsourced statements}}

I am asking for review of my own actions. I restored this in August under special circumstances and in just the last few days, several people (including a couple other admins) have jumped on me saying that doing so was horrible and asking that it be immediately re-deleted.

This category, and its dated subcategories, are collectively used on slightly less than 50,000 articles, primarily through association with {{tl|fact}}. The category is very similar to, but distinct from, :Category:Articles lacking sources which is associated to {{tl|unreferenced}}. (In case it is unclear, "fact" is applied to solitary unsourced statements in otherwise healthy articles, while "unreferenced" is a banner applied to articles that are generically without sources.)

Timeline:

• On July 19th, WP:CFD deleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements with 10 deletes and 4 keeps (log, closed by Syrthiss). The primary arguments of the nominator were that the category was too large to be workable and that the existence of such categories interfered with the user experience.
• After this was deleted, all references to it were replaced with Category:Articles lacking sources.
• On July 31st, CFD deleted Category:Articles lacking sources with 21 deletes and 8 keeps (log, closed by Kbdank71). Essentially the same reasons were advanced, i.e. that it was unworkable large and unhelpful to readers.
• On August 19th, DRV unanimously undeleted Category:Articles lacking sources with 23 undeletes and 0 endorse deletions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_August_14&diff=70587642&oldid=70587317 log], closed by Xoloz). Essentially the argument was that large meta-categories are a necessary evil and an accepted part of Wikipedia. I participated in this DRV, but did not close it. I had not participated in the prior CFDs.
• Later on August 19th, I undeleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements and restored it to {{tl|fact}} rather than having it merged into "Category:Articles lacking sources". I cited the DRV reasons for Category:Articles lacking sources as justifying the undeletion, even though this second category with not explicitly mentioned in the DRV. For the record, I only became aware of the progenitor category well after the DRV had started. I explicitly asked ANI to review my actions, and no one directly complained about this undeletion, though there was discussion of the radical conflict between the CFD and DRV results mentioned above.
• On September 11th, :Category:Articles with unsourced statements was again taken to CFD. This time it was closed speedy keep (after 2 days) with 8 keeps and 4 deletes (log, closed by JzG).
• On February 5th, Rich Farmbrough started the task of breaking this category into dated subgroups. Doing so seems to have provoked new complaints about how horrible and unusable this category is.
• Starting on February 18th, people began complaining that this category should not even exist because my undeletion was improper, including calls from admins that it be deleted without any further process.

Congratulations if you followed all that. So in summary, the category was deleted 8 months ago at CFD and unilaterally restored 7 months ago following a closely related DRV (all the same arguments applied in my opinion). This restoration was discussed at ANI at the time and unchallenged. Subsequently the category survived another CFD (6 months ago). And now there are calls that it should be "immediately deleted" because despite the ANI discussion and subsequent CFD, the appropriate "process" was not followed to justify undeletion several steps ago.

Frankly, I am bringing this here because I want to wash my hands of it. I'd ask people Endorse the undeletion, and oppose the kind of process obsession that led to these much delayed calls for deletion. At the absolute worst there ought to be a fresh deletion discussion given both that the last CFD was closed keep and that the dated subcategories didn't even exist at the time of prior discussions. Though I have said as much, several individuals have persisted in calling for immediate deletion. Dragons flight 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse status quo (with the category undeleted) If anyone wants this deleted on merit, rather than because the process wasn't perfect, I suggest a new CfD. There have been too many deletions/undeletions for any final state to truly have followed process, and the most recent CfDs and ANI discussions were to keep it. --ais523 11:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. First off, this is something of a "backwards DRV", in that it was deleted in July 2006, but unilaterally reinstated in August 2006 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&diff=70614720&oldid=63697861 ] ,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&diff=74737319&oldid=72967248 ] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&diff=next&oldid=74737319 ]), and a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_9#Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements new_CfD] was truncated when, after only two days of discussion by the community and votes on both sides of the issue, it was administratively terminated in a "speedy keep".

:

The category consists of articles with one or more "citation-needed" or "fact" templates on individual clauses, statements, sentences. It is a quagmire that constantly changes as these templates are added or removed by users throughout the wiki, and currently consists of over 40,000 articles (double the size of several months ago). It is easily conceivable that the vast majority of articles on the wiki could be in this category at some point in the future, given the rapidly increasing demand for citations on minutia throughout the wiki. Some of the relevant issues related to this DRV can be found in a recent exchange at Category_talk:Articles_with_unsourced_statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here,_AFAICS.

:

Please note carefully that this category is a sub-category of the more basic category "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources Category:Articles_lacking_sources]" (articles with the large "unreferenced" templates placed at the head of articles). This subcategory ("Articles with unsourced statements", involving "citation-needed" or "fact" templates on individual statements) currently makes up the overwhelming majority of the backlog at :Category:Articles lacking sources, involving tens of thousands of articles and still rapidly expanding. Category:Articles lacking sources, the more basic category, pertains directly to articles asserted to be not-in-keeping with the core WP policies of WP:Verifiability and/or WP:No original research. This category, on the other hand, deals with the same issues on a completely different level of operation, that is, little clauses, phrases and sentences within articles that users assert need citations for a specific statement. As most of us know already, that constitutes, and will likely continue to constitute, most of the entire wiki. And so the category continues to grow rapidly as more and more users put up "citation-needed" on one or more statements in tens of thousands of articles.

:

Here is the current orientation of categories relevant to this discussion: As of February 20, 2007, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_categories_sorted_by_month Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_categories_sorted_by_month] includes both [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources Articles_lacking_sources] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements Articles_with_unsourced_statements]. As of February 20, 2007, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements] currently includes a monthly list, many of which are obsolete and in need of maintenance, and all of which were top-level categorized as "Wikipedia:Maintenance categories sorted by month", a circular event from which there is no escape. The reason that there is no escape from this circular event, currently involving over 40,000 articles, is the increasing demand for sourcing of statements made on the wiki. Indeed the category foreseeably could ultimately involve virtually every article on Wikipedia. In other words, it's a real mess, beoming more and more of a mess as time passes, with no end to the mess in sight.

:Among the reasons this category should be deleted are:

:1) it is by far too overly inclusive, rapidly heading towards 50,000 articles and involving a growing mass of individual "citation-needed" or "fact" templates;

:2) the category constantly changes in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki);

:3) it is impossible to ever "fix" the issue this category represents, involving such a massive list, as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki constantly on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, and hour-by-hour basis, with the net number continually growing fast on the average and creating an ever-increasing backlog that is impossible to properly maintain;

:4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are an absolutely massive number of facts on the wiki in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template;

:5) the previous CfD for this category was administratively truncated or short-circuited. The community process with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" was bypassed and it was reinstated along with the higher-level category "Articles without sourcing" with no community review. Then a new CfD was truncated with a "speedy keep" after two days, well prior to seven days normally allotted. This development was interesting because the "vote" was tied between "keep" and "delete" after a little more than a day, then within a matter of about four hours several votes to keep were lodged and the discussion was administraively terminated. Since then, the talk page for this category, "Articles with unsourced statements" has had the appearance that the community had decided to keep this category, when in fact it was a virtually unilateral administrative decision.

:6) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007. ... Kenosis 11:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with fire and brimstone. No possible use for this category and its child categories. Completely agree with all of Kenosis' statements, with the additional issue that editors of an article are the best equipped to judge whether a statement is correctly sourced or not; hence adding this "backlog" (which it will be now and forever amen) solves nothing and diverts attention from the very real issue of articles with no sources whatsoever. Incredibly bad idea which results in reverse-productive allocation of editor time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll side with the nominating admin that he did nothing wrong in restoring the category. Honestly, I find the category a little annoying, but it works much the same way as the "cleanup" and "wikify" categories, which are also very large and could theoretically be much larger still. Having a note at the bottom that says "Articles with unsourced statements" is just a useful caveat that's worthwhile to know if you're looking there. YechielMan 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment. Interesting, and appreciated. Unlike the article templates placed at the top of the article page, though, these are just all over the place, and thousands of articles come and go and quite readily return again in an instant or two--Put up a "citation-needed" request and "poof" the article is in the cat; provide a citation and "poof" it's gone a couple hours later, perhaps to return shortly when another editor catches another little clause, etc.. In the meantime virtually no one looks for the category note, or lack thereof, at the bottom of the article, but instead the editors tend to be responding to the particular point of interest within an article rather than the article as a whole. Moreover, sometimes there's just a few citation-needed templates in an otherwise well-sourced article and editors not uncommonly decide to leave it(or them) in place for any of a very wide variety of editorial reasons, depending on the article, how many participants, how controversial the topic, etc. Again (speaking as just another user of WP whos's already invested a number of hours researching this particular matter) I genuinely appreciate this additional perspective into the complexities of perceptions of the issues involved here. ... Kenosis 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Kenosis and KC. Horrendous category with no positives. •Jim62sch• 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo, relisting on CfD optional. WP:IAR, after 6 months of (relatively) peaceful existence this should really go to a new CfD if you want deletion. BryanG^(talk) 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse undeletion. The "delete maintenance cats because they are too large and scary" reasoning is laughable. These categories will eventually become useful when the community develops a plan to tackle the problem of unreferenced information. Until that happens, there should be MANY distracting categories on the bottom of tagged articles. If you don't like the categories, then you should provide references for the questionable content. If these categories are annoying and distracting enough to cause editors to complain, then the system is working. --- RockMFR 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:*May as well begin discussing the merits of the likely upcoming CfD so it can be as informed as possible on both sides of the debate. "Large and scary", in my estimation, is not a problem because merely "large and scary" categories can easily be automated. Here, though, a constantly shifting, quantum particle-like category where fact requests dodge in and out of the cat is genuinely questionable. Keeping track of large quantities is doable, no question about it. I question the utility, on balance, of having a massive category where if there happens to be one little clause in the article that someone requests a citation for it, now the article's in the category; provide the citation, an instant later it's out of the category. For the moment, use the imagination to see the other implications of this. More importantly, each placement of a "citation-needed" on some little clause, sentence, or paragraph is an individual editorial decision by an editor somewhere on the wiki. I've only been here for a year now, and I have numerous "fact" templates in place, several of them having remained in place for the majority of that time on topics I'm quite familiar with. In some cases they're there as a courtesy to the editor who placed the clause or sentence. In several cases I myself placed the template on something I inserted, anticipating a day when I would get around to citing it (etc., etc., etc., etc., depending on the editorial decision-- and I'm just one editor among perhaps millions). Is the expectation here that every statement on the wiki will be expectied to have a citation attached to it??? And that the WP policy (one of three, we recall from the mouth of Jimbo) will ultimately not be "verifiable" but "verified and cited in writing for each and every statement on the wiki"? There's more to this potentially important analysis of course, but I just wanted to give these additional thoughts for the moment. ... Kenosis 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::*Personally, I'm not of the opinion that every statement should or can have a citation attached to it. However, when a citation is requested, this request should be taken seriously. The "lacking sources from DATE" categories at least provide encouragement to editors. They will also become informative of the article's reliability in years to come. When it is 2008 and I see an article with a "lacking sources from September 2006" category, I'm going to seriously question whether anything in the article is valid at all. --- RockMFR 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*In other words, now the category exists for purposes of futher tagging the tags with a date? ... Kenosis 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. An update: Dragons flight left a note for me that the orientation of the categories has just been changed somewhat. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_categories_sorted_by_month :Category:Articles_lacking_sources] (articles with the large unreferenced" templates) and [[:Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements (articles with the little "citation-needed" tags on one or more particular statements in an article) are now separate categories. Previously the latter had been a subcategory of "Articles lacking sources". Leaving aside potential naming issues involved in the phrase "Articles lacking sources" in reference to "unreferenced" templates, this new orientation of categories makes better sense in my estimation. And possibly it allows the existence of a category involving the little "fact" templates within articles to be debated on the merits with slightly less confusion between the two categories that was previously the case. Dragons_flight, this was a very sensible change in my opinion-- more importantly here, the change is duly noted for purposes of this DRV. ... Kenosis 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse undeletion. :Category:Articles with unsourced statements may not be useful to readers, but it is useful to editors. Not all editors enjoy going from article to article to source entire sections. Some (like myself), however, don't mind going through and sourcing (or performing other cleanup on) a couple of articles which have only 1 or 2 unsourced statements. Just like we have multiple {{tl|cleanup}} and {{tl|stub}} templates, we should also differentiate between articles which lack sources completely (and may thus be subject to deletion) and articles that lack sources for a few statements (which can be sourced or removed). For those who find the category "too large" or "unworkable" I have this to say: don't use it. But leave it available for others who do wish to utilize it. I extend my thanks to Dragons flight for the undeletion. -- Black Falcon 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to Kenosis. I would like to reply to the 6 points you bring up (especially as I get the feeling this article will be going to CFD if it kept).

::1) it is by far too overly inclusive, rapidly heading towards 50,000 articles and involving a growing mass of individual "citation-needed" or "fact" templates;

:::*With 50,000 articles, it currently includes only 3% of the English Wikipedia's article. Yes, the number of articles is high, but this is because the issue of unsourced statements is prevalent.

::2) the category constantly changes in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki);

:::*So? I would wager that the total inflow/outflow each day is not much more than 1% of the total (500 articles) at most. Also, it is a maintenace category, so it should be variable as old articles are fixed and new problems are found.

::3) it is impossible to ever "fix" the issue this category represents, involving such a massive list, as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki constantly on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, and hour-by-hour basis, with the net number continually growing fast on the average and creating an ever-increasing backlog that is impossible to properly maintain;

:::*You are essentially saying that it is impossibly to ever satisfy WP:V for all articles on Wikipedia. And as long as Wikipedia keeps expanding, I think you are right. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address problems that have been identified.

::4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are an absolutely massive number of facts on the wiki in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template;

:::*True, many statements need sourcing that aren't tagged with {{tl|fact}}. But why ignore those that are actually noted? Over time, editors will get around to the rest of the untagged statements.

::5) the previous CfD for this category was administratively truncated or short-circuited. The community process with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" was bypassed and it was reinstated along with the higher-level category "Articles without sourcing" with no community review. Then a new CfD was truncated with a "speedy keep" after two days, well prior to seven days normally allotted. This development was interesting because the "vote" was tied between "keep" and "delete" after a little more than a day, then within a matter of about four hours several votes to keep were lodged and the discussion was administraively terminated. Since then, the talk page for this category, "Articles with unsourced statements" has had the appearance that the community had decided to keep this category, when in fact it was a virtually unilateral administrative decision.

:::*As I think this DRV indicates, there is, if not a consensus for keeping the category, then at least a lack of consensus for deleting it.

::6) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

:::*February 2007 may be overrepresented, but I assume the bot will start working properly from now on. Besides, this is really a minor issue.

:In summary, let me say this: I find the category to be a useful maintenance category that provides a distinction from and alternative to the broader :Category:Articles lacking sources. I have never before utilized a WP:HARMLESS argument, but I think it is appropriate here. The category hurts no one, and is instead a useful tool for a certain portion of editors to help with ensuring compliance with WP:V. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*Comment. Black Falcon, I'm amazed anyone has actually read through this discussion! ;-) I've about had it for tonight (-5hrs from Greenwich time here) and will re-re-respond when I have time to get back in here. I do think it's important for both "sides" of the debate to get as effective a handle as possible on the attendant issues, especially inasmuch as some of them relate to the core policies of WP. ... Kenosis 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Black Falcon, I don't have time to respond to all six points at present, but please let me quickly tally just how "overrepresented" February is. As of early today:

:::The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, from January 2006 through November 2006 = a total of 21 articles on the wiki.

:::The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since December 2006 = 153.

:::The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since January 2007 = 1601.

:::The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since February 2007 = approximately 50,000.

:::

That's not harmless in my opinion. It's downright misleading. What it does, essentially, is say to everyone on the wiki: "OK, Wikipedians, here are your new marching orders. Starting February 2007 y'all are going to start keeping track of these "citation-needed" templates starting now. Date-tagging is now mandatory, or at least automated. All "citation-needed" tags that were lodged prior to January and February 2007 are hereby granted amnesty under our new program to more strictly enforce WP:VER (except for the ones from 2006 [in those 21+153=174 articles I mentioned] which fell through the cracks of our new program). We don't mind if you fail to put a "citation-needed" for those tens of millions of statements that should ideally be cited. But by golly, if you're going to use that template, we're going to keep track of those dates (starting February 2007 of course)." (END OF STATEMENT FROM WP BIG BROTHER) I'm sorry, but aside from that WP:HARMLESS is presently said to not be a valid argument against deletion, this situation is arbitrary, intrusive, and highly misleading as to the situation those "date tags" are supposed to address.

:::

If there's to be a new policy of this kind put into place, my belief is that it requires much more thorough discussions of the implications of such a "policy" among the interested participants in the broader community. And this DRV is a reasonable start in my estimation. Talk later; bye for now. ... Kenosis 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Kenosis, I don't see how {{tl|fact}} tags lodged prior to January and February 2007 are granted amnesty. My personal rule is that any statement tagged for more than 2 weeks can be deleted (or moved to the talk page). This doesn't even give "amnesty" to most of those tagged in February. Also, if this is your main problem with the article, we can simply have the bot stop dating the citation templates and remove the ones that exist. I see no need to delete the category as a whole. I don't see what's intrusive about it (that one line at the bottom?? really??) or "misleading". Are you opposed to the existence of the category or of the citation template itself? To me it sounds like you want to get rid of both. If it's the date tags that bother you, there's no need to delete the general "Articles with unsourced statements" category. Also, WP:HARMLESS is an article to avoid in discussions about mainspace articles. I don't think it applies to cleanup categories/templates. -- Black Falcon 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::Evidently you are willing to believe that the monthly categorizations are accurate? I have evidence to the contrary, among which are articles I'm involved in where there were templates placed upwards of a year ago and are now tagged "February 2007".

::::::

Well, I already pretty much gave my opinion. There's no need to date these templates, no need to categorize them, no need to do anything with them except let the editors that do the hard work decide on a case by case basis. If you work by a two week guideline then use it, consistently of course with the preferences of fellow editors on the articles you're working on. I already gave a perspective above that I am far more flexible about it, depending on the situation. Sometimes I remove them immediately or provide a cite, other times I place them and am comfortable, based on an assessment of the content to let them sit there for as long as need be. Anyone who wants to date them is welcome to date them. It's case by case, depending on the situation. But this current situation, in my estimation, is ridiculous and misleading. That is my opinion. ... Kenosis 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::

One additional thing and I'm outta' here. This is not just my opinion. It was the community's opinion, after which the category was unilaterally reinstated without a DRV until now, and a new CfD was administratively truncated on the basis that it was an "obvious" keep in that administrators view, when in fact the debate had just begun. But I already spoke a bit about that above. ... Kenosis 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Actually, I know they are not accurate. However, I don't see how they accuracy or inaccuracy has any relevance to the main :Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Truth be told, I don't see a need to date them. If an editor wants to know when a {{tl|fact}} tag was placed, she needs only look at the article's edit history. However, in light of your arguments, I'm changing my initial suggestion endorsing undeletion to endorse undeletion conditional on "by month" subcategoreis being deleted and {{tl|fact}} templates not being tagged. -- Black Falcon 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. We don't have a statue of limitations, but I don't think you can use DRV to overturn an undeletion 6 months after the fact. Take it to WP:CFD and see what the current consensus is. Chick Bowen 06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo (i.e. the category existing). One of the more important maintenance categories. The dating system will be useful after it has been operating for a few months, as something which has been fact-tagged for a couple months likely needs to be removed. No compelling reason for deletion presented, barring a broad rethinking of our use of maintenance categories; process issues are not a significant cause for concern. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist or delete. While I'd have a few words to spare about the usefulness of the category (for example, I'd like to hear some proofs for the assertions that it's useful or might have become), DRV is not supposed to be a XFD. Duja► 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Undeletion, BUT, this should be an empty category, that is - one with only subcategories. If we have to, date all the remaining undated ones as _now_, to start the clock ticking. --Random832 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It amazes me how low down the list of priorities people put good presentation and user-friendliness. This and the related categories would be acceptable if confined to talk pages, but as presently implemented they get in the way of navigation. I also have great doubts about their usefulness as a prompt to improve referencing. Most of the cititation requests are made for trivial points on minor articles, and people who want to do citation work would make a more useful contribution by concentrating on the major articles in their fields of interest. Osomec 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Kenosis. However the ideal solution to this issue - for all categories designed for editors rather than readers - would be to develop a software function whereby adding a template on an article page can add a category to the related talk page. Perhaps such a facility already exists. Does anyone know? Sumahoy 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If we are going to have {{fact}} tags at all, then I think we need this category. And the SmackBot dating is part of being sure the 'fact' tags are addressed. Does anyone have an alternate plan for dealing with unsourced statements in Wikipedia? The excessive number of February, 2007 dates will presumably go away as SmackBot continues with the new pattern for a while. EdJohnston 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment It is not a fact that any "plan" is needed for all fact tags on the Wiki. The plan was already in place, which is that editors who do the hard work of first noting that a citation appears needed or preferred on a particular statement, and later the harder work of finding citations, make these decisions on an article-by-article and statement-by-statement basis, in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS. I do not so easily accept in a cavalier way having an arbitrary starting point (e.g. "now", February, 2007) beyond which every fact tag will automatically have a date plunked onto it, at least not without the broader community participating in such a decision (and I know for a fact I am not alone in this opinion). I can just as easily plunk a date on the tag myself with the recently added date-attribute (and other users will learn too).

::

What I want to know is "What is the plan to deal with the tens of millions of unsourced statements on the wiki that do not have fact tags attached to them?" How about this solution: Program a bot to fact tag every sentence on the wiki without a citation and also attach a date to it starting February 2007. ... Kenosis 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Close without prejudice to listing at CfD. Given the time lapse since the last deletion debate, DRV is not the proper forum for this discussion. Eluchil404 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Close and Support undelete if the category hadn't been undeleted a new one would have been needed to perform it's role, perhaps "Unsourced statements from an unknown date".... And the name of the sub-cats is "... since XXX" which is intended to mean that they are at least that old. As remarked above, any really old unsourced statments need to be examined to understand whether they are unsourcable (and hence rmovable), or just "not got round to" (or maybe don't need the tag). What constitutes "really old" shuld become clear s the project progresses, and I hope will become less aged as time goes by. One suggestion above is 2 weeks, which means all the January and earlier ones should be dealt with now. While I respect the suggestion that examining the history is all that's needed to identify when a "fact" tag was added, with high traffic articles it would be somewhat time consuming, and with 50,000 articles (maybe twice as many tags) that's a lot of time spent. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05 24 February 2007 (GMT).
• Endorse undeletion, Keep and Close without Cfd. I strongly support the dating of the fact tags, as it helps editors know how long the tag has existed, and remove it if it has been uncited for too long. Specially in articles that get constantly updated, its really time consuming to go through the history to find when the tags were added.

:Although the cats may not seem useful now, editors could start going through them in he future and either cite the text or remove them completely. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment. The participants in WP:BOT have authorized many bots that correct spaces before commas, semicolons, various syntax issues, capitalization conventions, and all manner of minutiae on the wiki that do not involve categories. Why would a category be needed for the month-dating of fact templates as discussed by several WP-users in Template talk:Fact?. ... Kenosis 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Stanoje Stamatović Glavaš}} (restore|AfD)

Article was sourced, person was notable. The subject of the article was a prominent person in the first Serbian Revolution. There was a movie made about him, and a book. There are a school and a street named after him in Serbia. The article was only a stub, and I had intentionas of including more content from the full serbian wikipedia article about him, after having it professionally translated. There are two english language wikipedia articles which already inlcuded this person in them as being a famous person. There were listed in the article's see also section, and were cited on my hangon template. Jerry lavoie 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:Undelete per existing links and entry in Serbian wikipedia. Catchpole 13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)