Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3‎

:{{li|Last of the Time Lords.jpg}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg}} cache]|IfD)

The closing admin enforced his personal opinion of WP:NFCC#8 to delete the image despite no consensus in the debate. Additionally, the nominator, {{user|Fasach Nua}}, has a history for anti-fairuse disruption (remember, being right =/= being disruptive) and stifling discussion by not following IfD rules. See also, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_27#Image:FotD 007x.jpg, which is the same dispute, different image. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

:And, please, leave the discussion on whether the image did pass NFCC or not out of it. DRV, especially this one, is supposed to review whether the correct procedure was followed. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

::It would appear that this is a pattern of DW episode image deletion. While this image discussion indicated a clear 7:5 consensus to keep, the image was deleted. I should know; I was one of the ones voting to delete. That the image was deleted - again, against consensus or precedent - displays a disturbing trend that should be discussed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)\

:::This is pretty much the same dispute and pretty much the same misunderstanding that consensus equal headcount, which it does not. -Nv8200p talk 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn.
• :I think Sceptre has a point. The closer's statement was "Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative. Cited commentary about the image needs to exist in the article and the image placed in context with that commentary in order to justify using the image under fair use." Whilst that is a defensible opinion, it is not an accurate expression of our current policy. Moreover the use was far from decorative. I will quote from my argument to keep, which demonstrates the significance of the picture (which is amply treated in the article):
• :: A striking image of the Doctor's desperation to save the only other living Time Lord, whom he has known since childhood. The Tenth Doctor's extraordinary capacity for forgiveness towards The Master contrasts with his normally unforgiving, uncompromising nature ("No second chances, I'm that kind of man" -The Christmas Invasion, "You get one warning. That was it." -School Reunion). Despite all the evil things The Master has done, the Doctor forgives him and urges him to regenerate.
• : One might legitimately argue that text could be used instead of the picture; that is not our policy. One might say that the use was purely decorative, but my description shows this to be incorrect. If the closer's feeling was that the image was not close enough to the text it was associated with, that was not a deletion matter at all: anyone could move the image to the relevant part of the plot summary. --Jenny 07:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Your text was unsupported original research. "A striking image" is strictly opinion as is "The Tenth Doctor's extraordinary capacity for forgiveness." The arguments to keep were all of a similar nature. -Nv8200p talk 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - consensus was to keep the image, and there is no overriding policy violation that would require deletion. (The debate was whether the image satisfied the NFCC, and the consensus was that it did. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• :Because of the subjective, uncited text and equally unsupported arguments in the IFD, the image violated NFCC#8 and required deletion. -Nv8200p talk 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• ::FP has a point - should be a "no consensus" closure. However, to Nv8200p: that's your opinion, which I don't personally share and I don't think was shared by a majority at the debate. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. To Stifle: No, whatever this IfD was, it was most definitely not a "consensus for keep". I count five carefully argued delete votes (Fasach Nua, pd_Thor, PhilKnight, Arcane, myself; one equally serious conditional delete vote (JohnABerring27A, worded as "keep" but essentially saying "delete unless improved"); five argued keep votes; one "as per" keep vote with no new arguments, and one keep vote (Sceptre) given for blatantly disruptive WP:POINT reasons ("keep" because he doesn't like the nominator.) That's a "no consensus" at best, but in fact it's within the domain where a deletion decision on a non-free-content related IfD falls into admin discretion, as in many similar cases. - As a general note, I notice that User:Sceptre has made it a habit of systematically opposing IfD nominations made by Fasach Nua regardless of the merits of the case, just because he finds him "disruptive", and he is even using that as an argument for this DRV nomination. This is blatantly disruptive behaviour in itself, and in fact constitutes blockable harassment. Fair warning given. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive439#User:Fasach_Nua He actually got blocked for being disruptive] three weeks ago, and a RFC was opened on him six months ago. It isn't a huge logical jump to assume he is being disruptive (which is different from being right - people have been banned for disruptive improvement). Speedy keeping for disruption is allowed (WP:SK 2, especially iii) and is not harassment because I'm not wikistalking his nominations, I'm keeping an eye on the Doctor Who IFDs. If someone like Arcayne had nominated the image, I would've elected for a "weak delete". Sceptre ^(talk) 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::To begin with, attacking the motives of Sceptre? Unless you have picked up mind-reading at some point, maybe making such bad faith remarks is something to avoid since, as an admin, you know how false statements and inferences can poison the well of good faith in a discussion. Maybe you can stop doing that, as it is beneath that character which I tend to believe you posess.

:::::Secondly, you are allowed to interpret the votes however you wish. Discounting votes simply because they are "as per" or the like is foolish, especially when the "as per" in question makes solid enough arguments. Often enough, I've voted as per when I had nothing new to add to an argument already made, or could not phrase it better than it already had. Perhaps you are confusing as per votes with folk who come into WP IfD's with a certain agenda - like a preconception as to how NFC#1 or #8 should be interpreted (and not how it actually is by the community). As per votes use the same argument as the ones they are giving the nod to. The vote ''was'; a clear consensus, 8:6 (including the nominator) to keep. Spinning the result is better left to politics. It doesn't belong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Taking this to Sceptre's user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn (no consensus). Closer's rationale was a non-overriding new argument that he should have introduced as a new !vote. Also, the closer seemed to even suggest an editorial solution that would justfy keep. Closer is therefore just as unclear as the final consensus of the debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - for the reasons I noted above. The only serves to punctuate the problem I pointed out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_27#Image:FotD_007x.jpg in another DRV] over another Doctor Who image from yet another episodic article. Houston, I think we have a problem here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::The deletion was endorsed in the other DRV, so there was not a problem there. -Nv8200p talk 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - image clearly met the requirements, as the consensus seemed to establish. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 10:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Closer was placing their own interpretation on policy. There clearly was no consensus to delete. Sweeping statememnts like " Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative" show that the closer has an agenda of their own and maybe they should stay clear of IfD closes in future. RMHED (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (from closing admin) There is nothing in the article to support that the image significantly increased the reader's understanding on the topic. The text relating to the image "Just before dying in his opponent's arms, the Master muses on the constant drumming in his head, wondering if it will finally stop, and with a smile says, "I win" before he dies, leaving the Doctor to weep uncontrollably for both his lost adversary and the last remaining member of his species, leaving him once again the last of the Time Lords" is understandable without the image. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of the arguments versus Wikipedia policy. The arguments put forward such as "clearly describes the emotions and setting of the episode," "key element of narrative," etc. were original research or personal opinion, as there is no cited commentary to support those claims. Without cited commentary as to why the image itself is notable, use of the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and as a violation of policy must be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

::As was pointed out to you elsewhere, in the cases of a clear consensus, the image stays. Your opinion does not outweigh those opinions have the temerity of dissenting with your deletion. Frankly, you voting to sustain your own decision seems a bit self-serving. You are entitled to voice your opinion in the actual discussion, not by closing the discussion that you have already voiced a preference in policy interpretation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:::A small majority of keep votes in an IFD discussion does not make a clear consensus for an image to stay. In this case, weighing the arguments in the IFD against applicable policy (which has been dictated by the Wikimedia Foundation and shaped through consensus) determined the outcome. -Nv8200p talk 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, if you are looking to the small majority of Keep votes there and are deciding it doesn't matter - that you are going to do what you prefer, perhaps this DRV is helping to correct that misperception on your part. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::No, because reaching consensus in DRV is not about headcount either. -Nv8200p talk 01:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

:::As you are someone who has been keen to delete episodic content in Doctor Who articles, I am rather unconvinced of your impartiality. It begs the question - why even have people weigh as delete or keep in IfD's if someone like you - with a preconceived notion as to any episodic content - is simply going to disregard any opinion that differs from your own? Du to your admitted lack of neutrality regarding these images, you should maybe listen to opinions other than your own, or simply recuse yourself from images of episodic content. Frankly, I am incredibly disappointed at to your stubborn defiance to follow a consensus that contradicts your personal interpretation, and am starting to wonder if further action is called for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC

::::What you call preconceived notions, I call precedents set down by previous DRVs concerning non-free content. -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Closer's comment was basically a !vote in disguise, instead of addressing compliance to NFCC, then cites placement of the images as a reason for failing NFCC, which is not a creterion. Since NFCC is a matter of interpretation, closer should have focussed on consensus instead, which leaned toward Keep, and should have closed it as no consensus at best. — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

:*My statement in the closing "Cited commentary about the image needs to exist in the article and the image placed in context with that commentary in order to justify using the image under fair use" addresses the lack of compliance to NFCC. The theme that many have seemed to latched on to is the admin action of closing a discussion is a "vote in disguise." This logic could be applied to any closing at AFD or IFD as well to the closing of a DRV. Everytime an admin takes action it is a "vote in disguise". -Nv8200p talk 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

::Incorrect. Most admins, because they are taking a neutral stance when closing, almost never delete in cases of a clear consensus to keep, unless the image is so egregious as to demand immediate action. This image doesn't provoke such a response, and I suspect it is beginning to dawn on you that there wasn't a need to impose your own pet interpretation of the image. As you had already expressed an opinion in two closings of episodic image articles, you should have abstained from voting. Period. You made another mistake. How many of these have to pile up before you start to consider that we aren't "out to get you" or wreck the 'pedia?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

::::No mistake has been made yet. The last closing was endorsed. Deleting the image was not an expression of my opinion but was the community consensus against using non-free images in this manner. -Nv8200p talk 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*"Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative" Is what i was refering to, which looks very much opinionated. I also cannot find anything regarding 'placed in context' in WP:NFCC. — Edokter • Talk • 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

::::*My statement "Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative" is applicable to this IFD discussion as a symptom of the problem. It is not a generic statement about my opinion of fair use image in all infoboxes. There are infoboxes that have fair use images in them, such as a movie poster in the infobox in the article about the movie, because it was decided by community consensus that movie posters are inherently significant to the article about the movie. -Nv8200p talk 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::I would submit that if you see these images as symptoms of a larger problem, I would offer you the same advice you have offered others: take the battle to the appropriate forum, like NFCC or the Village Pump. Trying to forge a new interpretation in the crucible of IfD is malformed at best and malfeasance at worst. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::I did not say this image was part of a larger problem. I said it's use in the infobox was a symptom of the problem concerning this IFD and not infoboxes in general. -Nv8200p talk 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, that isn't what your comment indicated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn closure and relist - In what I've read so far, both in this discussion and elsewhere (contributions histories and page histories are often revealing), I think I have enough "evidence" (per WP:AGF) to personally satisfy myself that this apparently wasn't a neutral closure. That means "improper procedure" in the closing, which is one of the things we're to determine in a DRV discussion. The new IfD can determine the question of licensing and such. (And I'd like to see a notice of the IfD discussion dropped at such WikiProjects who might be fluent in image legalese.) - jc37 07:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment: Licensing and copyright legalise never was the issue with this one, its legal status was never in doubt. The issue is non-free content policies, and Nv8200p is perfectly competent to make a well-founded judgement call on the basis of project-wide policy consensus, with which he is intimately familiar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

::* (Noting that IANAL) Licensing, as per "usage". And the image's "usage", would seem to indeed be what's under discussion. And while I typically don't take a person's past actions under consideration regarding closures. That is, I tend to think most can be neutral, despite their biases. However, there is a clause to WP:AGF that I feel applies here: It is not required to AGF when presented with evidence to the contrary. And as I noted above, I felt I found enough evdence to convince me personally. And I am thinking of the recent ARBCOM case which involved episodes, which had some similar situations. (I can look for the links, if requested.) So no, I don't think that we should blindly continue to AGF concerning this closure if we don't feel that it's appropriate. (Incidentally, this is in no way a personal attack upon the editor, just a personal observation of patterns seemingly indicated by my own reading/research.) Now I've presented my perspective. It'll be up to the closer of the DRV to determine how to weigh my, and others' perspectives in this closure. - jc37 08:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC).

::*Clearly, it is not, FutPerf; he is unwilling to concede even the possibility that he made an error; an extraordinarily bad personality trait in an administrator. We trust them (perhaps unfairly) to make the right decisions, but when they don't, we certainly expect them to step up and ask for some independent oversight and admit they could have been mistaken. Additionally, "project-wide policy consensus" doesn't agree with his rather narrow interpretation of NFC#8 in this matter, so I feel that fairly invalidates your argument. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. An admin doesn't get to make the subjective decision on what "significantly enhances". That's a decision the community makes by consensus in a discussion, just like in the one this admin chose to close. According to guidelines, this admin should have closed, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. I think impartiality was not reached. If Nv8200p wants to make a judgement call on the basis of policy, they should participate in the discussion. When closing a debate they are allowed no judgement call. Hiding T 11:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

:Closing admins do not participate in the discussion. They close the IFD based on the arguments presented by others. The "Keep" arguments presented either contradicted policy or were based on opinion rather than fact. -Nv8200p talk 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

::Again, incorrect. The reason that admins "generally" do not participate in discussion is that, in the case of a tie, they cannot close without it appearing to be a closure of preference, not neutrality. It is your opinion (and clearly, pretty much only your opinion) that the arguments for keep were based upon less than solid arguments. You weighed those arguments against your predisposition of those arguments and were unconvinced, You were supposed to look at the larger consensus regarding the interpretation of the arguments they were making and act accordingly, You failed to do so here. In the future, you might wish to recuse yourself from closing those discussions regarding eitehr Doctor Who episode images or episodic images in general, as your neutrality in such instances is admittedly compromised. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

:::In case of a tie, it would not have mattered if the admin participated in the discussion or not because by your position on consensus the close would have to be "no action". -Nv8200p talk 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::::But the point is that you don't think that tie should be decided by the closing admin, which is actually incorrect. Your personal preference doesn't get to enter into it. You can say you are following policy as much as you wish, but the fact remains that you are adding a personal interpretation of our image policy that is not shared by the larger community consensus. If you wish to change that, then you should seek out the proper venue for that. IfD is not the place for you to use the buttons to create a consensus out of thin air. Recognize that a significant number of people are telling you that you are mistaken, and be wise enough to accept the criticism, note that you were wrong and grow from it. Remaining stubborn isn't going to serve either you or the Project. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::Here is your problem. It is an opinion, not a fact, whether something "significantly enhances". You are proving my point by insisting that such a subjective decision is a fact. The closing admin cannot discount opinion which forms a consensus on a subjective field. Let me put this one to you: If an article were listed for deletion as being a POV fork, but the consensus in the debate was that it wasn't, how would you close the debate? Would your opinion that it was indeed a POV fork influence your decision? Closing admins are impartial. You breached that impartiality in your close. If you want to make your opinion count, participate. If you want to act as a closing admin, act impartial. You don't get to do both. Hiding T 08:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Robert Eibl}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Robert Eibl}} cache]|AfD)

reason for deletion is absolutely not clear - and the administrator admits to be a "deletionist" - but sure not a scientist in this rather new field of nanobiotechnology Robert Eibl pioniered. The whole discussion was too short and almost nobody really discussed on this page, mainly , one former Stanford computer scientist and no real scientist from the field was able to really judge "notability" of someone who may have ennemies in the field of biophysics who have good contacts to Wikipedia deletionists, but Robert Eibl demonstrated remarkable findings and approaches already acknowledged by a Crafoord prize winner (Eugene Butcher/Stanford University) and by a Nobel candidate (Irving Weissman, California scientist of the Year 2001, and Robert-Koch prize winner 2008), as everybody can see on the homepage www.robert-eibl.de . Therefore the reason for deletion should be discussed and the discussion for deletion should remain for at least one month to give real experts in the field a chance to confirm notability - Why does the administrator feels to be above Who's Who in Medicine and above Who's Who in the World? I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should take care of deletionists 62.104.72.16 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The AfD participants already appear to have considered the evidence presented here and concluded that this person does not meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for academics. The verifiable facts presented in the discussion by the anonymous participant(s?) appear to have been duly considered (though the opinion portion of the of the anon comments appropriately discounted in accordance with established standards given the risk of sockpuppetry). A person's own website can be a supporting source for some incidental information about the subject but is not considered an independent or reliable source for the purposes of determining notability. I see no process problems in the AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• uncertain I originally voted keep at that AfD, & changed it to a weak delete on the basis that only the early work was cited significantly, and is was not independent. Reading the Afd, it becomes clear that there is a good deal hidden beneath the surface here DGG (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• uncertain The problem is that there is no real substantial evidence. I need to rely on the publicly available sources and facts like citations etc. From these, notability is not obvious. As DGG points out, the early work seems to be really established, but not independent. The newer work might be independent, notable and influential, but at the moment, it is not well documented by independent sources. Working together with truly influential people like Butcher or Weissman does not make a person influential himself. Furthermore, even this alleged cooperation is hardly verifiable. As it is, this independent newer work is only represented in non peer-reviewed books as chapters. Everyone who is slightly involved in the field can read the peer reviewed, original literature and write such a chapter, without being influential himself. The personal website is not very informative. Some accusations about not being cited, no CV, no publication record, no affiliation. Therefore, the website - beyond was Rossami was already pointing out - is not a good source for establishing notability. Perhaps one should wait until the newer work is well documented, and then include the article again. --Sisyphos happy man (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse own deletion, and would the IP please explain why he ignored the instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Fair reading of the AfD. No evidence of independent secondary sources. Keep arguments focused on the subjects work, not the subject. Of the two wikipedia articles linked in the cached version (medulloblastomas and PNETs), on which a notability claim seems to be based, neither article contains Eibl's name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. SmokeyJoe (reminds me of Sloppy Joe's bars I and II) mentioned PNET and medulloblastoma didn't contain Eibl as a source. This might be the case, but the english version of wikipedia is far behind the german version - and, sorry, but the english versions aren't good for an encyclopedia at all - this should be considered when using wikipedia and more energy should be used to make wikipedia more reliable than it is after so many years - so many mistakes in almost every article, but administrators appear wasting their time as deletionists rather than accepting the facts: Eibl is listed in "the original" Who's who, twice (in Medicine and, surprisingly, included in the next issue of Who'sWho in the World, then, 8 U.S. patents cite Eibl et al. as a source - not the wrong paper on CD44 which excluded CD44v in brain tumors a year earlier. Maybe the librarian of the administrators could easily check the world ranking list of neurosurgeons (and neuropathologists) which keep Robert Eibl listed (although he is not a neurosurgeon and didn't want to become a neuropathologist), but this list is not anymore open to public access (I think for good reasons). Maybe this could be verified with the Brain tumor center (Harvard Medical School). Although Eibl never reached the top 10 or top 100 his mentioning on a world wide list within the top 1000 (I remember about ranking 700 two years ago) of neurosurgeons/ neuropathologists is indeed notable. The reason why wikipedia exists, but sure will fail in the long range, is to provide reliable knowledge NOT easily found everywhere. Wikipedia could just use only those biopgraphies listed in the Brockhaus - so why bothering with early information? For Harvard University, the Who's Who is used but sure not Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.76.213 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:*If you improve Medulloblastoma and PNETs or other serious articles, and with consensus on those pages establish that Eibl is important enough for at least a blue-link mention (not "source") on other articles, then I would be inclined to support an independent article, on the basis that it is good for navigation. Finding Eibl in a primary source list, but without any actual commentary about him, doesn't do it for me. To have an article about a subject, there should be independent secondary sources with coverage (not just data) of the subject. You have to show that someone else has already written about him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion All the facts were discussed well at AfD and the IP hasn't brought up any new facts or arguments.Cst17 (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:Comment Eibl is "subject" of the 2006/7 Marquis' Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare, so it is written about him in an encyclopedia. Anybody who can read could check this in any good library (e.g. Harvard University and many others), or buy the book for probably more than 100 USD. Eibl is also selected for the soon to appear Marquis' Who's Who in the World. This is notability - no matter what his scientific ennemies or copycats in Munich may think. Eibl co-authored so many papers, often as second author, that it is clearly unimportant what exactly was his independent finding. It is more than likely that he is indeed the first to detect and to sequence p53 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas in 1991, and he at that time also found the high frequency of 50%. Since Andreas von Deimling who came from Harvard Medical School to visit Eibl in Zurich and to learn the technique from him could reproduce the findings from Eibl - and to combine it with less important chromosomal data, Andreas von Deimling became the first author, especially since Paul Kleihues and Otmar D. Wiestler didn't support Eibl to publish his findings on astrocytomas as first author (Eibl didn't want to become full professor of neuropathology). This is not against Andreas von Deimling since he had suggested to publish two papers in the same issue of Cancer Research, one first authored by Eibl. There is no doubt that Eibl in one way or the other contributed to many papers, including first authored papers, but many of his second-author papers were incedibly often cited by other scientists and MDs. This is sure "notable" but also shows that he was able to support a team, although the full independency of his work and research idea (especially being the first with the crazy idea to check and even find a surprising high frequency of p53 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas/benign tumors at a time when such mutations were categorically supposed to appear only in late stages of tumor progression, i.e. metastatic colon carcinomas, but never in benign tumors) can not easily be selected and proven nowadays. In addition, it is completely wrong to beleive, that "any Nobody" could publish alone a 50 page manuscript as book chapter and receiving money for this in a well established book series by Springer in biophysics, which includes a German Nobel winner as series editor ! How self-disqualifying is Wikipedia ? The article is very young, and there sure is room for improvement, but that's true (and unfortunately necessary for most Wikipages) but alltogether there is no doubt of notability, although sources should be improved soon and continuously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.77.44 (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

::Comment From the Marquis Who Is Who Website:If you are interested in submitting your biographical details for editorial review and possible inclusion in a Marquis Who's Who publication, please complete this biographical data form. Doesn't seem that someone wrote about him, and as stated in the AfD discussion Marquis Who Is Who is not a very critical publication. Again the IP doesn't bring any facts or arguments that weren't discussed in the AfD. Cst17 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment If it was that easy to get into the original Who's Who, then Cst17 should really submit her/his biographical data. If she/he gets included, maybe all Wikipedia writers should get included. It is well documented (surprisingly even in Wikipedia) that Harvard University uses the original Who's Who as a source. Isn't it funny that Cst17 is above editorial decisions of an independent source. If Eibl was on the first page of Times or Forbes, then one could argue, well that was just one editorial decision, - as it is for the Who's Who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.72.99 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment In the last few years Eibl was on several newspapers, Bavarian and Germany-wide radio interviews on the field of nanotechnology/biotechnology and Elite universities (together with a minister or state secretary). At least one of the newspaper editions was much more than a half page about his winning of Germany's largest local bussiness plan competitions in 2001, but despite some support he didn't get the millions for his planned startup, nor did he get a specific, but recommended support from a Munich professor of Bussiness Administration (who is affiliated with the "Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes", but Eibl was nominated later again with his bussiness plan, but also didn't to get the 20 million USD for his nanobiotech company - but was on several newspapers, not only in Bavaria (southern Germany), and many of the startup-magazines. Surprisingly, some of his "competitors" in Munich (I don't know why this word sounds similar as copycats) appear to have better connections (both, to the "Studienstiftung", which promotes mainly Germany's Elite (why does this remind me to Hitler?), i.e. "sons of big professors/influential people", and to the Munich-Mafia of biophysics/Organic Chemistry). Here is just one small link which still exists, but most of all the other newspapers are not online, and also written in German language http://www.munichnetwork.com/SITE/UPLOAD/DOCUMENT/041104Aussteller.pdf

In a current newsletter from 2008 the German Cancer Research Center also used a pic with Eibl receiving a prize from the director of the institution. And this is not notable ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.77.120 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Cst17 appears to beleive that anybody could submit whatever it needs to Who's Who. This might be the case, but Cst17 clearly speculates on this with absolutely no evidence - isn't there a rule for "living persons" of NOT damaging someones personal rights? Eibl states himself (e.g on his webpage) that he never applied or did anything else to get into the Who's Who - and he doesn't know who he nominated. Even if Cst17 is right that anybody could submit any biographical data or whatever to Who's Who, it appears to be ridiculous to beleive anybody then gets into Who's Who. I suggest all Wikipedia administrators submit whatever they think is necessary and we'll see how many of them (if at all) get included. If Cst17 then really gets included then one really should keep Eibl out of Wikipedia. Isn't there any rule that rules should not harm Wikipedia? Maybe Eibl is in many cases the exception of the rule: Eibl is an MD, finished his thesis in molecular cell biology (this is already strange for a German MD to clone a gene), but later pioniered even nanotechnology to create a new discipline: pharmacological nanotechnology (somewhere between all disciplines of physics, biology, immunology, cancer genetics and cancer pharmacology). He received a first prize of more than 750 competitors at a Munich bussiness plan competition, but then didn't get the millions he aimed for (and probably still needs to get his potential cancer therapy further established with the field of nanotechnology). Considering "notability" as proven with being cited about 1000 times by (international) scientific journals and at least hundreds of times in english textbooks of medicine and physics makes it unimportant if cited as first, second, last or co-author. If only the first or last author contributed intellectually to a paper, then one wouldn't need any co-authors. With such an extraordinary number of citations as second author, but also some first authored papers being cited, there is good evidence of notability and an argument for inclusion - especially if the rule of exception which should applied in this case is considered as a Wikipedia-rule. One should consider: many extremely good research has been re-invented 30 years later (Gregor Mendel: his genetics laws were not recognized for 30 years). Eibl opened a new research discipline - that's the fact and the reason why he is not cited so many times yet with his nanobiotech research - but this appears to be the reason why he really got nominated for not only the Who's Who... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.72.22 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Eibl was not only the first to detect p53 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas and at a high frequency (von Deimling, Eibl et al.), but also the first to detect p53 mutations in human medulloblastomas and at a surprisingly low frequency of about 10% (Ohgaki, Eibl et al.). The low frequency of p53 mutations was unexpected from his rat tumor model using SV40 Large T- antigen which was known to bind to and inactivate the p53 gene product, but also other proteins. Therefore his model became very interesting to Germany which invested millions to support a so-called "Sonderforschungsbereich" in Bonn to further elucidate the other proteins, which appear to be more important (in medulloblastomas and, perhaps, other tumors) than p53 gene products. Although Eibl is not first author in the two heavily cited papers, he made very significant contributions for which the papers where cited. He was not first author of his finding, because in both cases other findings where mixed with his original findings: von Deimling contributed chromosomal loss in their paper, and Ohgaki contributed a p53 mutation in another tumor entity, and since Eibl didn't speak english he could not get the support to publsih his findings, which contributed to such enormously cited papers - of different first authors. Conclusion: Eibl contributed in different ways to brain tumor research: he developed a unique animal model, he found the first p53 tumors in the human counterpart of that model, but at a low frequency of only 10% which increased the value of his animal model in order to find the other binding partners as crucial for the development of childhood brain tumors, and third, Eibl developed the idea of searching low-grade (benign) astrocytomas for p53 mutations and he found them first, and he found them at a surprisingly high-frequeny. This is really notable not only for neuroscientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.74.27 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|User talk:Black Kite}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:User talk:Black Kite}} cache]|AfD)

Was speedied by Black Kite under G7, but is not the work of one author. As I understand it, admins do not have the right to delete their talk pages simply because they are retiring. I have no problem with leaving the page blank, but the history should be retained. Father Goose (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• According to Right to vanish, we each have the right to leave the project and that generally does include the removal of userpages and sub-pages (which includes Talk in my experience). We limit that right when the Talk page includes large numbers of warnings and other evidence of investigations into malicious activity or editing. I see no indications that this was a bad-faith edit or that Black Kite left the project under suspicious or malicious circumstances. He/she did not, for example, remove the Talk page archives. (See here for an example.) This speedy-deletion seems to me to be well within reasonable standards of acceptability.
  Note: If the consensus is to overturn, please be sure only to overturn the most recent deletion. The removal of the personal attacks and threats (31 Mar - 1 April) were entirely appropriate and show admirable restraint on the part of this editor in the face of outrageous provocation.) Rossami (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Very well. I am changing my request to temporary undeletion, as certain comments made by Black Kite on his user talk page shortly before deleting it may have bearing on this other current deletion review.--Father Goose (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have reviewed the deleted content. There were no comments relevant to that discussion in the history. There was a minor discussion that was moved to his last archive - that content is still visible. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• It finally occurred to me to look it up via Google's cache. The language in question was at the top of the page: "This was supposed to be a Free Encyclopedia - but is rapidly turning it into a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written, complemented with lashings of copyright abuse." This is relevant to the aforementioned DRV, and I would again like to request undeletion until that DRV is closed.--Father Goose (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know what you're looking at when you refer to the Google cache but I have now double checked every version between the user's last archiving at 08:24, 28 June 2008 and the page deletion at 14:16, 30 June 2008. That comment is not in the deleted history of this page. I suggest that you look in his/her archives instead (pages which have not been deleted). Rossami (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• The comments in question were apparently made on June 15, and they are not in the archives because Black Kite deleted them instead of archiving them.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sorry but I don't think you are correct. According to the edit history, every edit that this user made to his talk page on 15 June 2008 was moved to User talk:Black Kite/Archive16. The deletion log shows no deletions. I also would question the relevance of a comment at that date. The DRV you cite was not opened until 1 July. The AfD ran from 22 Jun to 27 Jun. A general comment made a week prior does not appear to be some kind of smoking gun. It certainly is not proximate enough to breach his right to vanish. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I am willing to allow for a certain amount of leeway in a user's own subpages, particularly where there is no evidence of problems or wrongdoing. As that does not exist here I see no good reason to force the restoration of the page. Shereth 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete User talk pages should never be deleted for reasons of embarrassment. "Right to vanish" is not a right, but depends on the circumstances. I consider this circumstances here borderline at best, and I think permitting deletion in cases like this is a poor precedent. Incidentally, has he really vanished--does he still have admin rights?. Unless he gives them up, he has not vanished. What exactly is his status now? DGG (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete, courtesy blank, and protect. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete all non-libelous content. Faulty application of WP:CSD#G7. User:Black Kite was not the only author of the page. In the absence of compelling reasons, the talk page should remain accessible. I do not know what libelous, offending and non-offending content was deleted, but only libelous content should be deleted. Blanking is sufficient for things that are merely offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) The comment in question does not seem, to me anyway, to have any relevance to the DRV discussion for Cheshire Cat in Pop Culture but that is neither here nor there. Since the info that people claim is relevant has already been quoted both here and in the DRV for Cheshire Cat in Pop Culture there is no need whatsoever to restore this user's talk page other than to indulge those that would seek to restore their article by any means necessary. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Way to assume bad faith. None of what you claim here is the basis for my request.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Reiterating a time-sensitive request for temporary undeletion. The other active DRV upon which this request has bearing is about to close, and regardless of whether permanent undeletion is decided upon (I second DGG's comments in that matter), we need the page undeleted to be able to discuss it at the other DRV for just a few more days. The comments in question were apparently posted by Black Kite on his talk page on 15 June, and it would be easiest to find them in the history if Black Kite's deletion-on-his-way-out was simply undone, temporarily. Thank you.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Again, please look at the timeline in question. Absent some abusive anon comments, the only edits in this page and the only edits which were deleted were made between 28 and 30 June 2008. Edits prior to the 28th were moved by this user to an archive. Those archives still exist. Undeletion of this Talk page, even temporarily, will not show the comments that you assert interest in. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Can any admin briefly undelete the page so I can point out exactly what edits I'm talking about, which do exist, and were not transferred to the archives, despite Rossami's assertion that I'm somehow mistaken? This is not state secrets you're defending here, nor any plausible privacy invasion (admins do not have the right to cover their tracks at whim), and I'm not making the request for either idle or imaginary reasons. When did this place turn into The Castle all of a sudden? Seriously, this is absurd.--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Moot - see below. --Father Goose (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete and blank. I don't know anything about the other DRV discussion going on (nor do I care too much), but I don't think that talk pages should be deleted unless there's a -very- good reason, and I haven't seen one. Blanking it is fine, but a history of discussion with this user should remain. As for as right to vanish goes...fine, point out the personal info that's there, and then it can be deleted. But "vanishing" isn't a reason to delete your talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Further comment - I'd like to point out that the right to vanish does not necessarily allow for the deletion of your user talk page. Specifically: "User and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted." (bolding mine for emphasis). It's fair to say that many others have contributed to a person's user talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless there is some specific information that needs to be kept. While right to vanish isn't really a Wikipedia policy, it's the courteous thing to do if somebody is genuinely going and there is no content that might be needed. If there is a requirement for information at a later date, the deleted history can be restored then. --Jenny 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Clarification and partial apology. I'm finally catching on to where the confusion was. 1) Black Kite archived his talk pages via pagemoves, which is why Rossami insisted (correctly) that there was little history to restore on User talk:Black Kite itself. Not being able to see its history, it took me a while to realize this was where the miscommunication was. 2) The comments I was looking for, it turns out, were in a transcluded header, and were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Black_Kite/Menu&diff=222276043&oldid=219880822 deleted by Black Kite] between the time of the AfD closure on the 27th that's causing all the drama and his retirement on the 30th. So, Rossami, sorry to have gotten frustrated with you; we were each seeing different parts of the elephant.
  As for this undeletion request, I now realize it is pretty much moot; apparently there is almost no content to undelete at User talk:Black Kite due to the pagemoves. However, the principle of not nuking your talk page when retiring still stands, and this confusing episode is an object lesson as to why it's a bad idea.--Father Goose (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Osman Larussi}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Osman Larussi}} cache]|AfD)

Speedy Deleted when it should have just been tagged asking for sources. It is a verifiable (brief) biography on a noted hostage-taker in the Beslan hostagetaking. I admit the sources used were subpar, but that means a concerned editor should ask me to add sources, or throw a tag requesting sources and drawing attention the to the problem to the article. They are even welcome to start an AfD on the matter. But not that they should wantonly use their admin powers to simply delete the article without discussion or review. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have sources in mind you could have added to the article? I doubt it'll be undeleted unless you have some. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just provide some sources we can access.-Wafulz (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am the deleting editor. I was not the one who tagged it as an attack page, but the unsourced accusation was so drastic that I felt the better part of discretion was to delete it until it could be sourced. Especially after the Seigenthaler incident, we have to be extra careful about accusations of criminal activity. Even if :WP:BLP didn't apply, I agreed with the nominating editor that a claim like this, without sourcing, constituted an attack page. I created a sandbox for the editor to recreate the article with proper sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

::I am unclear what "creating a sandbox" means in your context, it's not even like you copy/pasted over the information, you just created a page with the word "Sandbox". Two random sources that back up the claim Larussi was wanted in connection with the hostagetaking are [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/03/chechnya.russia the Guardian] and [http://www.res.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=9844&nav1=1&nav2=2&nav3=2 the Centre for Security Studies]. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Sorry, thought you might want to start from scratch. I've restored the prior version to the aforementioned sandbox in your userspace for your use. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

::::That makes no sense. This is not a request to have the cached text, I can take that from Google cache or elsewhere. It's a request to have the deletion undone so the article can be improved with the addition of sources, as it should have been in the first place. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as tagger - found it browsing :Category:Terrorists, which is a warning light of an article's BLP passing. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion if content violated WP:BLP and encourage User:Sherurcij to read WP:BLP and WP:V before attempting to recreate the article in his userspace. If no BLP violation, then userfy to User:Sherurcij/Osman Larussi until it is properly sourced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the exact same comments as provided by SmokeyJoe above. LakeBoater (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Alan Cabal}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Alan Cabal}} cache]|AfD)

The debate leaned towards keep by 7 to 6 and the arguments were strongly for. This is a writer of note. This isn't a journalist who doesn't become a part of his work and simply writes articles. Cabal is well known and his work is filled to the brim with his personality. We put a lot of hard work into looking up references and vetting the article's facts. His work was cited by a university professor as a favorite quote, and the same article was noted by Arts & Letters Daily which is a yearly record of important articles. What more, he caused a huge controversy about his defense of the freedom of speech of Ernst Zundel. That's just what's available on the web. He has a whole oeuvre that can be found at the NYPL's archives of the New York Press. On top of that we were setting the record straight by offering a NPOV on the whole god damn Zundel controversy. That was something good; this deletion is bad. To go on, he also interjected himself into the whole Matt Taibbi mess about the controversial upcoming-death-of-the-Pope article in 2005 at NYPress. He writes for other publications too. This is all recent stuff he's done that doesn't include his more or less offline past from the early days of the Internet which aren't always so well reflected on our World Wide Web. I mean, Jesus Christ, why does one have to make these damn impassioned arguments for a notable writer when so many junky articles freely roam around here (you know who you are). And kudos to God too, whatever good that may do. -Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The AfD was fairly clear. I endorse Stifle's closure of it. As for the rest of your arguments, if you'd like I could userfy the article for you so you can add sources written about Mr. Cabal to the article. I doubt a little that any exist online, but offline sources would be fine. I also suggest you keep WP:CIVIL in mind when commenting, to avoid escalation. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Jeepers! Are you under the impression that there were no sources about Cabal? We had several and they were all from reliable sources. How could I call up the article again?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn -- i have to agree. the people who wroeked on the article has a tleast five or six WP:RS reliable sources indicating both Alan Cabals existence, his notoriety, and the instances win which he interjected himself into the whole Matt Taibbi mess about the controversial upcoming-death-of-the-Pope article fr as well as his praise of Holocaust researcher Earnest Zundel. I personally find the deletion was just a little prematrue since this writer had at least a few notable controversies to his name which is more than several other articles writetn about other people (ie athletes, low-level politicons, etc). have. Smith Jones (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the closure - I don't see any procedural issues here. Shereth 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural issue: The writer is notable and the required reliable sources have been used. YET the article was deleted. This is a big procedural issue so let's wake up here. -Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. I feel that the consensus among editors who demonstrated an understanding of guidelines was clearly to delete. There were no reliable sources produced demonstrating significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Jesus Christ, do you have to be a superstar journalist to have an article here at Wikipedia? We showed sources quoting him as a favorite, notable articles, Zundel controversy, resignation following fiasco, & etc. What event has to occur (seriously, maybe Cabal will cause it to occur and write an article about it) so that he can remain here at Wikipedia? Does he have to win a Pulitzer?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Your opinion that the decision should be overturned is clear from your nomination. It is acceptable to continue to participate in the discussion and to reply to other editors but please do not use the bulleted, bolded format at the front of your comment. It creates the impression that you are trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates potential confusion for the person who eventually has to close this discussion. Rossami (talk)
• Take it easy with the hyperbole, it's not really helping to get your point across. Nor is the constant linking to Jesus Christ - I'm not really certain what you are trying to accomplish. Shereth 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't know what is with my odd usage of religious overtones either. Maybe it is the stress of seeing this maddening discussion still continuing down this same road of questioning Cabal's notability. I don't know WP:BIO that well but at its heart it has to be about keeping articles about notable journalists.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I see a real danger here of this review discussion becoming as farcical as the deletion discussion that preceded it. This discussion is not about Cabal's notability, it's solely about the closing of the discussion.--Michig (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• The deeletion discussion was hardly a farce. both sidces for keeping an ddeleting raised well rationalized points and discussed them poolitely and respectfully. to casually dismiss the people who worked to present thei r case as to why the article should be kept or should be deleted deserve to have their optinions and their time respected. Thank you for your tme. Smith Jones (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn There were arguments for keeping and arguments for deleting. If anything, the arguments put forward for notability are the ones working as VS changes from Delete to Keep, SilkTork changes from Delete to Keep, and The ed17 !votes for Keep based on the notability arguments. The actual !votes for delete were 7, and the !votes for keep were 7. The convention is that if there is no clear consensus to delete that the closing is normally "no consensus" and the status quo is retained. The closer's argument is that despite the article following policy ("the articles provided as references prove that he exists"), that the references "do not confer notability", so closed on a personal interpretation of the guideline - which, in a sense, got the closer a little too involved in the !voting and decision making - a natural tendency we are not always aware of. There is no clear consensus in the discussion from which to make a delete decision. SilkTork *^YES! 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• To clarify the issue. The article meets policy as regards Verifiability (the closing admin confirms that in his closing statement), Original Research and NPOV. The discussion is regarding notability guidelines. Notability guidelines are drawn up and informed by the consensus found in AfD debates, and this consensus changes. In this particular case, no clear consensus emerged. The guidelines are not policy, and do not determine policy, they help guide us toward a decision based on past consensus. The WP:BIO guideline formed part of the discussion and a number of those taking part in the AfD discussion were aware of it. It would be inappropriate to close as Delete through a feeling that some people did not fully understand the nature of that guideline. As one of those involved in the AfD discussion I am fully aware of the WP:BIO guideline as I have helped structure it. SilkTork *^YES! 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Some contributors to the deletion discussion clearly did not understand what constitutes an independent source (citing articles written by Cabal as sources about him), a reliable source (citing a mirror of Wikipedia as a source), or significant coverage (brief mentions put forward as evidence of notability). The closure was, I believe, correctly based on the valid arguments put forward by both sides. It's not a question of whether WP:BIO should be slavishly followed. The article did not meet policy as regards notability or verifiability of facts about Cabal.--Michig (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Those were early efforts. The article was SIGNIFICANTLY improved and reliable sources were found here and there; in fact it was Cabal himself (who has been following somewhat this ongoing discourse) who pointed some of them out. In my researches I've come across an incredibly ridiculous incident involving an article about a restaurant called Mzoli's, which ended up being kept after a certain amount of stupidity but fortunately common sense ultimately won out. I mean, a restaurant! This is different: Cabal is a notable journalist.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• But seriously, this has become a farce. A good one though.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Zlan Cabal is a journalist and the deletion of hs article is a mistake. Deleting his article just beuase he is a journalist is bad as deleting the Tim Russert article or the Brian williams aryicle. Smith Jones (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Restore inaccurate reading of consensus.The closer should have jined in the debate instead of choosing to close on his personal view. DGG (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The discussion makes clear that the sources listed in the discussion were considered by the participants and ultimately determined to be inadequate to demonstrate that this person met Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies. Sources were added during the discussion and while they convinced one editor to change his/her opinion, the majority of subsequent editors evaluated them and still found them to be insufficient. The arguments which were based on incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sourcing or were variations of WP:OTHERSTUFF were appropriately weighted by the closer. I see no procedural problems in this discussion. This closure was within reasonable administrator discretion. Rossami (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:The point was raised during the discussion that the wording of the Verifiability policy does allow sources that are appropriate to the topic: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." My point here is that there is no clear clarity of consensus in the interpretation of notability sources arising from the discussion. The article appears to fulfill Wikipedia policy as regards sources - but it was not certain. So the dispute was about the nature of the sources - are the sources good enough? Unfortunately for everyone concerned in the discussion, no consensus emerged. As it is not clear that consensus felt that the article failed, then the process defaults to Keep. It would be inappropriate to continue the argument here about the nature of the sources. The point here is to decide if a consensus emerged from the discussion to delete the article. I see no such consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse own deletion. The killer bit was that the sources only prove he exists, and don't make out his notability in any way. AFD isn't a vote count. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:There was no consensus which had to emerge from the debate. You've injected your own opinion about the quality of the sources without looking at the debate.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn the deletion. The killer bit was that the sources kept getting better and we had established notability in many ways. Our argument was by far the stronger one. AFD isn't a vote count. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::Again, the nom already makes it clear which position you favor. Please do not add traditional style !votes. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No evidence of sources that are about the subject. There were lots of mentions of the subject in sources, and sources authored by the subject, but Wikipedia should only cover things where reliable sources contain coverage of the subject. None of the keep !votes seemed to appreciate this, and accordingly they were correctly discounted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:Have you been slamming your head against the wall one too many times? The entire "Zundel-gets-a-defense controversy" was instigated by Cabal's polemic about the guy's right to freedom of speech. What more, Alexander Cockburn was going to put the article on the Counterpunch web site to help us out. It wasn't about how Cabal was a part-time vegan who just happened to defend someone's freedom of speech one afternoon in an article, it was mostly about the controversial article he wrote with occasional commentaries about how Cabal was now to be classified as an anti-Semite & etc. If you want a source written about the personality of the man then you have one here: [http://www.nypress.com/14/32/news&columns/culture.cfm]. You have a whole spectrum or variety of sources about Cabal. Yet, I'm sure for every one I bring up Wikipedia's "lofty standards" will rear their ugly heads and quickly put it down. Isn't there a disturbing amount of articles about Pokemon (whatever the fuck that is) around here and other stuff? You do realize that journalism is a very serious endeavor and should be given more respect than it is receiving here.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::Do you have completely different views on what justifies standalone articles? You have to provide reliable sources that show that some third party has talked about the subject (the person, not his work). Alternatively, you can try showing that the subject is so important that he is mentioned by name in multiple existing wikipedia articles, and argue inclusion based on navigation purposes. What is not good enough is any independent measure of how important he is. It doesn't matter if he is, per se, important. It only matters if you can find someone independent who says he is important, or says anything at all about him, in a reliable source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I found more sources! I mean this is one of the most tiring episodes of Stupidity in Wikipedia history (a topic which I'm sure has enough secondary sources to justify an article of its own). I have found a source about Cabal's former band White Courtesy Telephone in which he went by the pseudonym Garbled Uplink [http://web.archive.org/web/19971026090244/www.echonyc.com/~hugh/wct/wctpr.html y'all read here if interested]. Now I'm looking for some additional sources on the band. Go ahead, whine me a river... Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::It's going in the right direction, but it's a press release. It is still useful, no doubt, but I'd like to see more. I'd also like to note that the deleted article did not make any mention of him being in a band, though it does state his pen name. My offer for userfication still stands, and now does seem to be the best choice. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:::There are some magazine articles that I will be going to the library to try and get a hold of, circa late 1990s. But I'd rather work on a mainspace (?) article than work privately in my little userspace. Already other editors have been very helpful in improving the Alan Cabal article and likely they would continue to be so.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Comment- I think you should work in the userfied article (I do not endorse moving into the mainspace until the article is final and the author has posted in this discussion letting us know of such). I would also have you invite those editors who have been helpful with the article to do the same with the userfied article (they can edit it as if it were a mainspace article). I think you should take this opportunity to improve the article with independent, reliable sources that establish notability under the Wikipedia guidelines rather than complianing about this being "one of the most tiring episodes of Stupidity in Wikipedia history". We are trying to help you out. Help us help you by improving the userfied article. LakeBoater (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Since when does Wikipedia demand that articles be finished? Almost every article here is a work in progress and there are entire policies I believe about grading that progress. I'm saying this article is already good enough and has met notability. Furthermore, having the article in mainspace will help improve it as other people will actually be able to find it. Working in userspace is a non-starter.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Manhattan Samurai, I am not saying the article has to be final, I am rather strongly advising that you improve the article so that it has WP:RS showing significant coverage and establishing notability and let us know when you have done such so we/I can render an opinion that considers the article in the best possible light with your recent additions. LakeBoater (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Just admit it. I've won. The people for whom this hole was created do not care about these finicky prissy issues. MediaBistro's FishbowlNY recently ran a post [http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/newspapers/new_york_press_where_are_they_now_68943.asp asking what happened to a lot of NYPress writers, and left off with: "Does anyone out there have any information on what Andrey Slivka, Tanya Richardson, Alan Cabal or Zach Parsi is up to? Let us know."] to which a blogger said: [http://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/2008/02/so-take-look-at-me-now.html "Alan Cabal: I have no idea what he's doing. I truly hope he's still alive. I loved that guy. He really was crazy. My favorite Cabal story: in the fall of 1999, I was opening NYP's mail, with stars in my eyes and fever-dreams of one day writing for the paper. I also happened to be writing for my school paper, and around this time there was yet another scandal in Camden, with the mayor selling crack or something. My assignment was to find some kind of how-does-this-affect-Rutgers angle. Meanwhile, Cabal came into the office and mentioned something to C.J. Sullivan (also a great guy) about his time in college in Camden being the high point of his drug use. One thing led to another, and soon I was interviewing Cabal -- on background! -- about how the contemporary Camden drug scandal was nothing like the 70s, when Cabal dealt out of his Rutgers dorm. The quote that made it into the Targum was like, "I sold pure pharmaceutical methedrine to biker gangs." (Yeah, so I just broke ground rules. Whatever.)"] So, like, I've won.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Blogposts and webpage comments are not reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Hmmm? What exactly do you mean by that? Did you just have this genius thought and decided to share with us?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::You cited a comment on a blog as if it were a source for the article. I'm pointing out that it is not, per our own guidelines. Also, I've already warned you once about insulting others. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:::http://web.archive.org/web/19971026090244/www.echonyc.com/~hugh/wct/wctpr.html is starting to get there, with "Cabal named the band and was responsible for most of the "electricity"". But it is not much on its own.

:::http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/newspapers/new_york_press_where_are_they_now_68943.asp says nothing about Cabal.

:::http://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/2008/02/so-take-look-at-me-now.html has material about Cabal, but it's a blog. That's a huge problem. Let's just ignore the dodginess of the commentary "Alan Cabal: I have no idea what he's doing. I truly hope he's still alive. I loved that guy. He really was crazy" for now. The blogger says "and soon I was interviewing Cabal". Has that interview been published in a reputable source? If so, it could be good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Most important source that the Internet Archives link unearthed (and the other blogs were just to show that Cabal is someone worth having an article about here at Wikipedia, screw all that notability nonsense) is this: "Despite Rob Tannenbaum's essay in DETAILS which laments the band's demise, the original lineup of White Courtesy Telephone still intends to continue at some point with Alan Cabal (Garbled Uplink) the sole vocalist." which apparently says stuff like this: "Cabal had been sure the article would never get published. The colorful stories concerning him probably won't hurt his career as a critic currently writing for the NY Press." I am going to the library this week to try and find it.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Good luck with the library. You have me persuaded that he is notable in the real-world sense. It is unfortunate that our inclusion criteria uses the word "notable" in a way that is specific to wikipedia and different to the real world use. Any source that has coverage of the subject is good, and for many of use, non web sources are even preferable. We have too much web bias. I suggest that you support the userfycation option mentioned below so that you are not unreasonably rushed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Deletion. For the reasons cited by SmokeyJoe and others. The author does not seem interested in trying to improve the article in a userfied space, which leads me to believe it cannot be improved much more. Therefore, based on the latest version, I do not think the article meets the notability guidelines. Furthermore, a good number of the references are not independent sources as they are authored by Cabal himself. One reference has no mention of Cabal... LakeBoater (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::userspace I am in favor of putting the article on my userpsace for further editing instead of on the mainspace. If someone coudl help me figure out how I can go about putting that on my own userpace that would be greately appreciate. Smith Jones (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Userfycation is a reasonable option here. You have to ask and wait for this DRV debate to run its course. The closing admin may restore the article at User:Smith Jones/Alan Cabal (journalist). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alright... It's been fun but lets just put this all behind us now and restore the article. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a level head that it's worthwhile to have an article about Alan Cabal just to know what the fuss is all about.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse This isn't AFD2 and I'm not seeing a strong procedural argument made in this nomination. And before I get replied to: AfD isn't a vote, it doesn't matter how strenuously you argue a point if policy isn't behind you, and even if you feel you are in the right, you may be in the wrong. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• :If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules! Which some poor soul such as myself obviously wrote several years ago after a breakdown.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

::*So what decision rule are we to apply so that all rules are not ignored all the time. I'm not applying the letter of the law, but the spirit. In this case the spirit of WP:BLP and WP:N (As well as the deletion guide and deletion instructions for admin, WP:CONSENSUS, and others) directs us to remove non-notable biographies. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• please im begging you this travesty has gon on long enough. Please close this deletion review as your earliest convenience and place this article on my userppace that SmokeyJoe created for me. PLEASE! Smith Jones (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• :We must continue... for the good... of Wikipedia.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Stifle's decision was clear and well reasoned. Besides, this DRV is merely being used as a second AfD[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smith_Jones&diff=prev&oldid=223341708] - a prime example of forum shopping. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The AfD was clear and fair. Please note that we are discussing the notability of a person, not if he is a good journalist. Maybe the article can be userfied and reentered as soon as his importance and notability can be proven with some articles about him and his writing in independent media.Cst17 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I can only see that AfD as a no consensus, but given that an overturn is unlikely then move to Userspace per Smith Jones' suggestion. RMHED (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral, I'm staying out of this, except to say I don't appreciate being mass-canvassed into discussions I'm not a party to simply because I comment in DRV. I suggest to the nom that they read that link. I also suggest to them they're not doing themselves any favors with their behavior.--UsaSatsui (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Mainspace articles wiki-linking to Alan Cabal include Thomas Pynchon, Gonzo journalism, High Times, New York Press, CounterPunch, Simon Necronomicon, Gareth Penn, and Peter Levenda. So it goes. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Got any you didn't add? Not that Wikipedia is a third-party source that proves notability. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• MUST this dragon for so long??? I mean we are goign through so many problems re: tis article that its bearly worth it. I am trying to AGF here but it seems to me that this AFD/deletion review is being extentionally dragged on for almost half a month simply to keep drubbing on Manhattan Samurai. If thats the reason for this then it should end NOW. It is obvous that the article will not be overturned as a result of this reivew in its current state and nothing of any substance or significantion is being debated here. PLEASE just place the article on my userspace we can get through and fix this article if it indeed can be repaired to standards meeting Wikipeda's policies and guidelines. Smith Jones (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• It is true that this is getting ugly. BUT I think it has been very valuable, as a record of what can go on at Wikipedia, as a forum to discover more about the bio of Alan Cabal, as a lesson in the failure of wikipolicies on the whole, and a real interesting window into the personalities roaming here at Wikipedia. This has been great but yes, eventually the Alan Cabal article must be improved and resurrected. And so, my dear Wikipedians, it is with pride that I sign myself affectionately yours, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|David Davis for Freedom campaign}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:David Davis for Freedom campaign}} cache]|AfD)

this afd discussion was closed by a non-admin less than 24 hours after it had been opened. The article is the worst example of wp:soap I have seen and the content is adequately covered in both Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 and David Davis (British politician) B1atv (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The AFD was opened in June. If it was a recent early closure I would reopen it but really, you should just relist the page on a new AFD. That's all that this DRV will suggest doing anyway. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Huh... While the usual guidelines for non-admin closures say that non-admins shouldn't do closes like this (since they're not excessively obvious), I'd have to say that he hit the nail on the head for what the debate was like at the time. I agree that the closure was a bit early (given that some delete !votes had been given later in the AfD), but I can't fault the closer's judgment otherwise. I'd say we ought smack him with a trout lightly for being a bit too bold, then relist. Reopening is an option, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Davis_for_Freedom_campaign&diff=222473427&oldid=220808284 it hasn't substantially changed since the closure], or you could just carry on with the merge discussion already going on. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Relist or reopen If non-admins are going to close like this, we should stop non-admin closes altogether. I agree with the view that is downright political spam. The advantage of going through Deletion Review is to publicise this sort of bad close so people will know not to do the like. DGG (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Relist or reopen. Was not an appropriate close. Neither Speedy nor snowball applied. The allegation "Not one of the cited references mentions the David Davis for Freedom Campaign" is serious and was not countered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Relist or reopen. The AFD speedy close was inappropriate, as it did not meet any of the criteria at WP:SK, and it's hard to argue that there was clear consensus for a close under WP:SNOW (five 'Keep's against two 'Delete's is not exactly overwhelming). While the end result would probably have been the same, this article deserved its five days of deletion discussion, and did not get it. I would suggest relisting it after July 10, as that is when the byelection is scheduled to take place - once it has happened, it will be easier to judge this political campaign on its notability or lack thereof. Terraxos (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The original Afd nomination was indeed a candidate for speedy closure as it was contesting future notability, and recommending a merge, neither of which are valid reasons for deletion. If the DRV nominator here wants to relist the article for the different (first) reason he gives here, namely SOAP, then they should do so as a second separate Afd. Reopening or relisting under the same nomination reason of Afd1 would be misleading given the differing reasons for DRV listing here. However, prior to Afd2, I would point out the merge proposal here, which was started after the closure of Afd1, and has already now substantialy covered concerns about WP:SOAP and duplication, the two reasons given for listing the Drv here, and has demonstrated no clear consensus for a merge and subsequently gone cold, with the article still the same as at the time of Afd1. As for anyone contending that the article can be deleted after the by-election, this would violate the notability standard, which states that anything that is judged notable at one time, cannot then become non-notable and be deleted purely by virtue of time passed. MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|David Horne (composer)}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:David Horne (composer)}} cache]|AfD)

He's notable Atavi (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:the undertow deleted the page. At the time I wasn't active in wikipedia. When I returned, I saw the message on my talk page, but I didn't care enough to go into the process. User:the undertow was subsequently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_undertow&oldid=219763151 blocked and subsequently retired], so I can't contact him. I remembered the issue, because, an article I recently wrote on another composer José Antônio de Almeida Prado was also listed for speedy deletion.

As far as David Horne (composer) I have no recollection of what I had written and if the text established notability. The facts are that he is published by a well established company Boosey and Hawkes ([http://www.boosey.com/pages/cr/composer/composer_main.asp?ComposerID=2832]),has received a Koussevitzky Commission ([http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/1995/95-106.html]) and has been nominated for a British composer award ([http://www.musicomh.com/classical/barbican-composers_1007.htm]). In short, I think he is notable. Also, his biographies, on two of the pages above (boosey and loc) in my opinion establish notability--Atavi (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article, as it was written, didn't really assert the guy's importance. Now, I completely agree with you that he's notable, but in this instance I'm going to have to endorse the deletion itself. Since he's notable, you should feel free to recreate it. I'd be happy to userfy the content for you as a starting point, if you want a starting point. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm, the article basically managed to assert that he a music teacher (at Royal Northern College of Music). Had it described him as a professor, or something else more than "teacher", I'd have seen that as a claim of significance, but the deleted article doesn't. In my opinion, that puts the article text in the no claim, legitimate A7 zone. But by all means, userfy this. GRBerry 13:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Page, as deleted, has no assertion of notability, but of course this isn't a bar to recreating a proper article. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)