Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 5#ConceptDraw MINDMAP

:{{DRV links|Michael_Ruppert|xfd_page=|article=}}

The article on Michael Ruppert was deleted this past March. Now a documentary about him, Collapse has been released which has a Wikipedia page. Ruppert and the film are getting significant media coverage. It would be strange to argue that a biopic documentary is notable while the subject is not.

I personally came to Wikipedia after reading a news article and watching the trailer in order to find out more about this man.

I left a message on MBisanz's talk page, and he referred me here.

Pisomojado (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given that there's an 82-minute interview with him showing in New York theatres, and apparently audiences are paying to watch it, one can't help thinking Michael Ruppert is now considerably over the bar for notability.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• RestoreNow likely notable. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Restore. Events have overtaken us. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, restore. Hopefully MBisanz will short circuit this AfD, although I imagine he's busy at present. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}

• Restore per the film. Obviously. Tim Song (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Restore per above. GlassCobra 17:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|TOTSO|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOTSO|article=}}

I would like a Deletion Review for the article entitled TOTSO. The basis for my request is that :

• The review conducted by user:Juliancolton (who is no longer active in Wikipedia) was erroneous to the extent once all such material was removed, nothing would be left.
• Five articles in Wikipedia reference the article (this was noted by user:ThaddeusB).

Principal findings of the review

The principal findings of the review were:

• The word TOTSO was coined by Chris Marshall.
• This word has not been peer reviewed
• Alternative descriptions exist for road junctions.

My own research

My research started at the website of {{cite web

|url = http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk

|title = SABRE (The Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts)}}. The society is a web-based debating forum that has 1514 members. A search of the website revealed that the word TOTSO is mentioned 1664 times on its discussion forums. The society’s FAQ page is located in Chris Marshall’s own website and is maintained by him (Follow the Road FAQ link on the SABRE page). I therefore deduce that one cannot say for sure that Chris Marshall coined the word TOTSO, only that he catalogued it. Moreover, the fact that SABRE has endorsed Marshall’s website as its FAQ is an implicit peer review for whoever coined it. It should be noted that Marshall’s website is references 160 times within Wikipedia on other topics related to British roads. One must therefore discount the first two findings.

If one looks up TOTSO in the {{cite web

|url=http://www.cbrd.co.uk/reference/dictionary/

|title=CBRD Dictionary }} (Marshall’s website) one will see – A situation where a continuous route number departs from the mainline of the road ahead. Totso is an acronym for 'Turn Off To Stay On', since this is what you have to do at one. For example ... . The through road at the junction does not retain one number. This demonstrates that a TOTSO is a feature of route numbering, not of civil engineering construction. The deletion review article failed to pick this up. As a result, one should discount the third finding of the review.

Conclusions

Given that the review failed to assess the article properly, the speedy deletion was improperly carried out. While there are comments about a TOTSO being a neologism, the fact that it was used five times elsewhere in Wikipedia suggests that this particular view should be open to debate. I therefore ask that the article be reinstated, and its continued presence in Wikipedia be properly debated. Martinvl (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The deletion was carried out properly, and the conclusion of a debate with a strong consensus for deletion. Kevin (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm fairly sure Juliancolton is back after a brief break.

  This was not a speedy, but deleted after a full AfD. The debate was closed 90 minutes early, but it was not prejudicial, as it could not have been closed any other way.

  Even on the merits of the article, nominator has not provided any reason to doubt that the consensus was incorrect. A search of an online forum is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination - it is, if anything, doubly unreliable. Nominator has yet to rebut the principal points of the deletion discussion, that the term is a nonnotable neologism coined by original research. So that would be a double endorse, both the close and the consensus. Tim Song (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominator:

I gave two reasons for reinstatement:

• The restoration of five red links. To my way of thinking, performing an activity without tidying up is wrong, whether it be in Wikipedia, projects at work or any other activity. Would those who advocate the deletion of this article please suggest how to tidy up those articles that are affected (ie how to deal with the red links)?
• In my nomination, I only dwelt on the reason of poor procedure. I did not argue for its retention - I planned to do that later. There is one simple argument for its retention - the Department for Transport has yet to publish a term that describes a TOTSO. At such time as they do so, then by all means replace the article entitled TOTSO with the new term, both as an article and in other articles in Wikipedia where it occurs. I have suggested using the Department for Transport as a reliable point of reference since as all the articles concerned refer to British roads.

This is an argument for common sense over strict legality. Which do you want?Martinvl (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no poor procedure. The deletion process was properly followed. The answer to five redlinks is that we should remove them from the articles, not the other way around. The fact that DOT DfT did not recognize this term is evidence that it is not notable and therefore does not warrant inclusion, not the other way around. I can make up 200 terms that no authority has recognized. Am I entitled to create 200 articles? Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I removed all of the backlinks. Tim Song (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Well, Tim, everyone's entitled to create 200 articles. If you did it on 200 terms no authority has recognized, then you might cause a little bit of drama, though. :)

  I think the nominator here is under a misapprehension about what Wikipedia is.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fine, "200 articles on them". My guess is that I'll probably get blocked for disruptive editing :)Tim Song (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominator (again)

user:Tim Song wrote “The fact that DOT did not recognize this term is evidence that it is not notable”. Tim, you are dealing with the British Government. (BTW it is DfT, not DOT). Until 1984 the British Government refused to acknowledge the existence of MI5 or MI6 even though they were the paymasters and every taxi driver in London knew where their headquarters were. They only acknowledged MI5's and MI6's existence when they passed legislation to prevent a repeat of the Spycatcher affair. IMHO, one of the reasons that the DfT have not published an official term for what "UK road geeks" call a TOTSO is to divert attention away from their policy of "building motorways by stealth" – a highly controversial topic within the United Kingdom (see NIMBY – does that have a place Wikipedia?).

S Marshall suggested that I was not familiar with the object of Wikipedia. My response is that I am working on a number of British road articles and I was planning to use the term in a few places. I was also planning to expand the TOTSO article to show why TOTSOs come into being (route renumbering being one such cause) using Junction 18 of the M60 as a case study (complete with diagram showing a “Before” and “After” situation). Such an article would have the same relevance as NIMBY. Martinvl (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that, and I recognise your good faith desire to write about this subject. The reason I suggested unfamiliarity is that you posted an entire section about your own research concerning TOTSO. Wikipedia is, by definition, not a place for your own research.

  TOTSO would merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia if the concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and if the article was not basically a definition of TOTSO combined with examples of how it has been used (see WP:NOTDIC).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My research has one purpose and one purpose only – to cross-check Julian’s findings. Entering “Chris Marshall TOTSO” into Google and exploring the first site that comes up is hardly “research”, especially when the next step is to follow the link “Where do I start?” Maybe I should have rephrased my statement as “When I was cross-checking Julian’s findings …”.

The expansion of the term was part of my plan, together with identifying which user communities used it and which, (such as DfT) did not see the need for it. Martinvl (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse and strongly recommend speedy closure due to wall-of-text argumentation. It's a neologism with no obvious currency (I had to Google it, I have never even heard it, and I am in Britain). Yes, we know people love to promote their favourite neologisms (anyone here remember the {{la|Exicornt}} fight?) but policy has been followed here and most of the rationale above is simply misplaced. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Clearly process has been followed correctly here, and well done to Tim Song for removing the backlinks. GlassCobra 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The analysis written by {{user|Uncle G}} (which I think the nom has mistakenly attributed to {{user|Juliancolton}} the highly active AfD closer) was, as usual, spot on. I simply don't see the recognition in reliable sources to merit an article at this time. Proper process was followed, and nothing has changed since July. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – proper determination by deleting admin; couldn't have been closed in any other way, nor did anyone else present any other argument at the time (or now for that matter) for retention. MuZemike 06:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nominator - I do not have access to the original article since I had nothing to do with it. Is anybody able to tell me under which categories the original article was indexed? Martinvl (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deleted in July 2009 despite the article having been around for over two years, 19 mainspace incoming links, and I would have thought that stating that it was one of the companies that became Macmillan Publishing was sufficient notability. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::p.s. this is one of the articles I wrote. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please can an admin restore the article for DRV purposes so that we may see for ourselves.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. The entire content (quoted below) is sufficient to indicate the significance of the subject. decltype (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:Collier Books was a publisher established by the Collier family. It later become part of Crowell Collier, and merged with Macmillan Publishing to become Macmillan, Inc.. Author: User:John Vandenberg

• Hmm. Were there no sources at all? If there were none, then I think I would understand the speedy deletion, if not agree with it.

  The no-drama solution seems to be permit creation of a sourced version.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• :Yes (No?), there were no sources. decltype (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• :While it does not shock me, a speedy deletion after 13 minutes is inappropriate. A prod would have been the appropriate course of action. A note on my user talk would have spurred me into action. This page was approaching [http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Collier_Books 300 views] per month before it was nixed (which is exactly the same as [http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Crowell%20Collier Crowell Collier] and [http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Peter_Fenelon_Collier Peter Fenelon Collier] combined), and had [http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/Collier_Books 81 views] last month when it was deleted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I have no problem with recreation of article if A) sources are provided and B) substance can be asserted. As is, it does not assert any significance. Small non-notable publishers are routinely gobbled up by larger ones. Go out find some sources, show that this was more than a mom-n-pop operation and recreate. No need for a DRV, otherwise this should simply be deleted or a redirect.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• :Hi Balloonman; sorry I didnt ask you directly to begin with - your user page says you have retired so I came here. fwiw, [http://books.google.com.au/books?q=%22Collier+Books%22 14,000] Google book hits. [http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22Collier+Books%22 11,000] Google scholar hits. [http://news.google.com.au/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=au&hl=en&q=%22Collier+Books%22 >1000] Google News hits. e.g. [http://news.google.com.au/newspapers?id=HTkLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PFIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4037,1668365&dq=collier-books&hl=en dedicated article from St. Petersburg Times - 2 Feb 1963].
  The article was a stub, and it was quite clear about why it is notable. If you don't believe the assertion of notability, it should be sent to AFD. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• :NP, I have more or less retired, but I do keep an eye out here and there... I don't see a claim to notability/significance in the article itself. Small publishers are routinely gobbled up by larger ones who are in turn gobbled up by still larger ones. The fact that this was swallowed by somebody who eventually was swallowed by McMillian does not make a claim to significance especially when there are no sources. But I have zero problem with recreating it. CSD is there to quickly delete the fluff, but is also easy to recreate. Recreate the article. Give it a source or two and ideally give it more meat, then this DRV is completely moot. DRV's for CSD's are only necessary if you merely want to create the exact same article as is... which I would recommend against. A7 CSD's are also one of the easier to fix as all you have to do is provide a few sources or make the claim to significance stronger. The time we've wasted on this DRV would have better been spent just recreating the article and fortifying it against future CSD's.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• :I went ahead and restored it, just add a source or two. No big deal.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Allerseelen|xfd_page=|article=}}

restore as contested prod. --Ktotam (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|ConceptDraw Office|xfd_page=|article=}}

:{{DRV links|ConceptDraw MINDMAP|xfd_page=|article=}}

This article was deleted earlier but then improved and returned to mainspace by closing admin. I thought that it means that now the article meets all Wiki requirements. It wasn't changed from that time, but now it was deleted again by Hu12, also he blocked my account (because of COI which I didn't try to hide - just look at my nickname!) and all accounts of my colleagues as sock puppets (VPN Internet and single IP for 50 workers). Two days ago the ConceptDraw PROJECT article again (third time) was remained in the mainspace because of its notability and neutrality but today it gets speedy and again from Hu12. So I think that now it's a persecution. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Block nominator for block evasion. This one is a bit more interesting because, unlike the other two, this one was actually kept at AfD last year before it was speedied - twice. Regardless, the deleted version is not unambiguously promotional, despite the clear COI, so overturn and send to AfD. Tim Song (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11 Spam Article. Block nominator for block evasion. NN Article was created by an WP:SPA Sockpuppet account with no other edits other than related to Computer Systems Odessa. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia by Computer Systems Odessa.

:;*See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigation.

:*{{la|ConceptDraw MINDMAP}}

::delete log

::*13:53, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of :http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mmforproject/main.php)

::*00:26, 12 June 2008 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) (view/restore)

::*20:53, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)

:*{{la|ConceptDraw MindMap}}

::delete log

::*12:01, 8 August 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (R1 applies - content was: 'db-redirnone #REDIRECT ConceptDraw MINDMAP')

::*11:00, 25 May 2006 CSOWind (talk | contribs | block) moved ConceptDraw MindMap to ConceptDraw MINDMAP ‎ (It's a correct name for this software)

::*08:36, 24 May 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (content was: 'db-copyvio|url=http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mindmap/overview.php')

:Multiple recreations by gamming both the system and deletion process, in order to avoid scrutiny. Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article--Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• So, your argument for deleting is that current version of the article doesn't meet the requirements of Wiki or the article just has a bad history and was created by author with COI and SPA account? This concerns other ConceptDraw articles too. CSOWind 212.178.30.243 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• suggest merge of all the related software into one article, either ConceptDraw Office or Computer Systems Odessa. I think this product is probably notable , and the article is descriptive not promotional, but it would be better to have one good article--which ones got deleted here seem to have been a combination of chance and manipulation. I think to avoid any possibility of overinvolvement, Hu12 at this point should recuse himself from further admin action on all related articles and users. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|ConceptDraw PRO|xfd_page=|article=}}

The article was in the mainspace quite a long time. It was written in neutral tone without any estimations or epithets and had lots of reliable references from different sources (magazines and blogs). Deleted during campaign against Computer Systems Odessa from Hu12. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Block nominator for block evasion, and meanwhile overturn speedy and send to AfD. Not every article created by a COI author is G11. The cached version does not look unambiguously promotional to me. Tim Song (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11 Spam Article. Block nominator for block evasion. NN Article was created by an WP:SPA Sockpuppet account with no other edits other than related to Computer Systems Odessa. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia by Computer Systems Odessa.

:;*See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigation.

:*{{la|ConceptDraw PRO}}

::delete log

::*05:19, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PRO" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: spam)

:*{{la|ConceptDraw}}

::delete log

::*18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)

::*14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')

:*{{la|ConceptDraw V}}

:*{{la|ConceptDraw 7}}

::delete log

::*06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 7" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)

:*{{la|ConceptDraw 8}}

::delete log

::*10:28, 10 July 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 8" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)

:Multiple recreations by gamming both the system and deletion process, in order to avoid scrutiny. Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article. --Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Combine articles as above--and Hu12 should guard against the possibility over becoming overinvolved. There are 1000 other admins who dislike spam every bit as much as he does. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|ConceptDraw Office|xfd_page=|article=}}

The article was in the mainspace quite a long time. It was written in neutral tone without any estimations or epithets and had lots of reliable references from different sources (magazines and blogs). Deleted during campaign against Computer Systems Odessa from Hu12. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Block nominator for block evasion, and meanwhile overturn speedy and send to AfD. Not every article created by a COI author is G11. The cached version does not look unambiguously promotional to me. Tim Song (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11 Spam Article. Block nominator for block evasion. NN Article was created by an WP:SPA Sockpuppet account with no other edits other than related to Computer Systems Odessa. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia by Computer Systems Odessa.

:;*See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigation.

:*ConceptDraw Office

::delete log

::*05:16, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

::*13:56, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

:Sockpuppet gamming both the system and deletion process, in order to avoid scrutiny. Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore, send to AfD if desired, and merge the other articles into here. Not overly promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Murder of Somer Thompson|xfd_page=|article=}}

Page about a recent murder of a young girl. Several editors contributed to the article, and I do not think it should be deleted without discussion. In fact, I do not see any alternatives to an AfD for this article, as PROD was contested (twice), and CSD specifically prohibits deletion under WP:NOT. I appealed to the deleting admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven&oldid=324042175#Murder_of_Somer_Thompson here] (their reply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Decltype&oldid=324042106#Somer here]). decltype (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AfD. Deletion was plainly out of process. Tim Song (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yup, that looks pretty clear cut. I can see no flaw at all in what Decltype says. Overturn and list at AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now yes, technically this doesn't quite meet the CSD. However, (as I recall) the article breaches WP:NOTNEWS and involves a very recent murder. It seems both unnecessary and cruel to debate this right now. IAR deletions should rarely be used, but in this instance the admin did good. This article does not belong on wikipedia, but if people must have a debate about it, let's have it a little further away from the sad events. Undeleting merely on procedural grounds and forcing an unnecessary debate would be poor form.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• :I think that we would be able to have a dignified discussion about the subject's eligibility for inclusion that would not cause unnecessary harm or distress. Especially if there is unanimous consent to delete. decltype (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::*The main point of DRV is to ascertain whether the deletion process was correctly followed, and if it was not, to impose some kind of remedy. I do not see how we can endorse this. But I do recognise Scott MacDonald's concern. AfD discussions are, all too often, neither dignified nor orderly, and I would certainly not want to make Somer Thompson's family miserable over some user-submitted content on an encyclopaedia.

I think an AfD could take place concerning a fully-protected, courtesy-blanked version of the article, with the history visible underneath. I also think uninvolved admins should be enjoined to observe the AfD closely and see that it is conducted sensitively.

In any case, the deletion followed by this DRV has ensured a seven-day delay that will at least give a little distance.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:::If there is a body of opinion that this article should be kept, then by all means let's have a debate and keep it as dignified as possible. But if, as I suspect, the result is obvious, then overturning on procedural ground and risking the debate would be pedantic and pathetic. Does anyone here actually think this article ought to be retained, and can they make a reasonable case? If they do and can, then by all means undelete and list. If not, then let's move on and be sensible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:::*I don't think it's pedantic and pathetic to believe that a debate should happen in cases where someone wishes to delete and no CSD criterion applies.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for now. Scott's arguments are persuasive. There appears to be nothing unique about this tragedy beyond its general newsworthiness. Powers ^T 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• overturn and send to afd- deleting without discussion in when the article did not meet any speedy criteria (at least none that I've seen mentioned) should not be allowed. The article will likely not survive an AFD, but the community needs to make the decision in a case like this, not one person. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• You agree this should be deleted, but want to force a deletion discussion when not one person is currently arguing the article should be retained, knowing that will both waste wikipedian time, and add an unneccessary and possibly distressing debate to a sensitive subject? You know, sometimes I despair that a community that is supposed to be noble and full of common sense so often descends into rule-mongering and pathetic inflexibility.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't know if it will pass afd. But whether or not it does is not relevant. The decision in cases like this should not be made unilaterally. If the consensus of an AFD is delete, then it should be deleted. But "It would have been deleted anyway" should not be a reason, unless the admin has a crystal ball and can tell for absolute certainty what the outcome would have been. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn, restore. Preemptive speedy deletion under NOTNEWS is clearly out of policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, you are right. But no one is arguing that policy does allow deletion. The is an WP:IAR deletion. The question is it is justifiable. If you think there's a case for keeping the article, then let's relist and discuss that. Do you think there's a case for keeping? Otherwise, why restore poor content?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• The article was deprodded twice, and in the absence of contrary evidence, I'll presume that at least one editor believes in good faith that there's a reasonable case for keeping the article. How strong that case is can and should be discussed at AFD. I do not see a reasonable case for IAR deletion; this isn't by any means the first time an issue of this sort has come up, and the outcome is not unequivocably clear-cut. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• That may indeed be sensible grounds to go to AfD, much better than process wonking. But I do still think it is clear-cut and unnecessary personally.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment re WP:NOTNEWS, I'm relatively new so perhaps not familiar with how it's applied in practice, but reading WP:NOTNEWS it seems to me to be saying that something that's in the news shouldn't automatically have an article, but it's not saying that it definitely shouldn't? Wouldn’t most notable events have been in the news at the time they happened? (I won't mind being corrected if I've misunderstood.) Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I think the point for me is that an event doesn't get an article simply because it has news coverage. It needs more than that. News stories are not excluded, it is just that being a news story and having news sources doesn't automatically qualify. News stories may get a lot of press for a day or two and then be forgotten. To be encyclopedic something needs to have some deeper significance. It needs to be the type of case people will comment on or refer back to after the news cycle is over. Does it have some larger legal social or cultural consequence? If it being discussed beyond the time itself. The problem is that for recent events it is largely too soon to tell, it is usually easier 12 months or more later. WP:RECENTISM is also worth considering.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD. WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria. Period. AFD may delete it in a WP:SNOW but we won't know until we see it. WP:NOT is very subjective and CSD is very specific blatant cases. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD and advise the admin involved about the inadvisability of substituting himself for the community. Given the two deprods mentioned, this was an clearly wrong way to do this. Scott, your view of the articles may seem clear to you, but it is not quite so clear to others. And even if it were, we have no good way of preventing future incorrect deletions except to consistently overturn them. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I can't see deleted edits and had no knowledge of the prods. I've said all along that if anyone wants to make a substantive argument to keep it, then there ought to be an AfD. That's fine. However, if the article has no defended it would be disruptive to restore bad content and force a needless debate just to make some point about admins and rules. This is not a good way of "preventing future incorrect deletions" (whatever that might mean) as a) it patently does not work and b) replacing bad content is detrimental to the encyclopedia and should not be done is some warped attempt to "punish" the deletor for not following the letter of the rules. If an admin is acting in a way you don't like, then dispute resolution is the way to go, not damaging the encyclopedia for punishment. Has it occurred to you that many deleting admins simply move on and ignore such nonsense, rather than feeling chastised.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Out of process deletion. It may very well be a valid topic for an article. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion though technically deleted out of process, this was clearly a news story and not an encyclopedia article. So all in all a good use of IAR by the admin. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have seen several similar articles deleted at AfD, so I think this was an appropriate use of IAR by the deleting admin. I don't think that restoring is an appropriate method of chastising an admin for deleting out of process. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• overturn Out of process deletion. Needs to go through AfD where it can be discussed by the community. Speedy deletion criteria are narrow for a reason. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD where it will be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS and absence of any secondary sources. Or just slap the deleting admin for an out of process deletion. There was no need to rush the deletion of this article, and wherever possible the community needs to be keep involved in content decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:BURO — no one seems to have come up with any reasons why the article should actually be kept, so putting it through the process just for the sake of dotting the I's and crossing the T's would be a waste of time. Also, a case could be made that this deletion falls under WP:A7 as an article that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." *** Crotalus *** 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Do you really want admins just deleting articles because they think it shouldn't be kept? Further, the sources are more than enough to ward it from A7. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Just because the admin did wrong is no reason to go through needless bureaucracy just to confirm that the end result was correct. Powers ^T 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• I think that would lead to admins speeding all sorts of things they shouldn't. Perhaps my normally rosy view of human nature is failing me, but I find that if you let people get away with something they are not supposed to do, they tend to keep doing it. That would create more work in the long run... Hobit (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• I highly doubt it. This is a bit of a special case as it involves a sensitive news event. I think admonishment ought to be more than sufficient to deter any future maleficence. Powers ^T 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Due process is sometimes inconvenient, but it's important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, but sometimes it's also pointless, as in this case. What due process we have must be in the service of improving the encyclopedia. Relisting this will just waste everyone's time. Powers ^T 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Skipping a trial just because you "know" the defendant is guilty wouldn't fly in the legal system, and I see no reason why it should fly here either. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Because we're not a bureaucracy, and articles do not have human rights. The subject of this article, however, did, as does her family, and there is is thus compelling reason not to undelete this article just so we can talk about whether it should be deleted. (Besides, we do sometimes skip trials. Prosecutors often offer plea deals to a defendant to avoid the spectacle of a trial, or to avoid forcing victims to testify. If we must analogize to the legal system, I think that's a much fairer comparison.) Powers ^T 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::Not being an admin, I can't view the article, so I have no idea whether the article would or would not pass an afd. I'd rather see the community as a whole make that decision, a jury trial, in this case, than one admin make an arbitrary decision, which in this case is more like sending someone to jail with no trial, no time in front of a judge, nothing. I assume good faith in the deleting admin. However, as the saying goes "Trust in God, but cut the cards." Umbralcorax (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::The [http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Somer_Thompson cache] version is still available for me. It see it as a clear fail at AfD, but with nothing there to warrant an IAR or BLP speedy deletion. It is just a collection of online news information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion It is pointless to send it to AfD just for bureaucracy then there are no good reason's for article's actual existence.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• endorse deletion - Those of you asking for overturn on procedural grounds seem to be missing the point of Scott's argument, or perhaps you think process wonkery is more important than doing the right thing by the family of a victim. Deleting this article was the right thing to do. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - This is the very reason we have IAR. Why send a useless article to AFD just to get the same result in return? We don't need added bureaucracy when it was a reasonable use of IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• 'Comment IAR requires the action to be such as the community will clearly support, and this does not have the necessary degree of support. I suggest we might do well to further limit it to it's original intent, when there is something not covered by the rules. The purpose of the rules is to to overcomplicate things, but to prevent idiosyncratic action by individuals. With 1000 active admins, each of them going their own way will produce an inconsistent chaos--if we are to produce an actual encyclopedia, instead of randomly selected fragments, which need to agree on what we do. We have a way to find out if an article is supportable, and we should use it. A practice that we delete any BLP to which one admin objects, is about the worst way or doing things possible. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• How can you say that deletion doesn't have the necessary degree of support? Not one person has stepped forward to say that this article should be kept. That tells me the end result is overwhelmingly accepted; it's merely the process that was incorrect. The admin should be admonished, but why overturn a clearly correct result just for the sake of going through a pointless and potentially upsetting process? Powers ^T 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist - We'll just have to agree to disagree. I do think that the article should be properly deleted, but we gain nothing from avoiding proper procedures. Nothing about the article required emergency action, and by deleting it out of process, without even being able to articulate a reason that such action was needed, guarantees far more attention than the AfD would have done. The problem with endorsing this is that the suitability of articles of this ilk is being debated widely on BLP grounds right now. By not following process, we invite observations like the one above. I would much rather have the debate out in the open. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep the article deleted, move on. GlassCobra 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I share the concerns over an article being deleted at the will of one admin bypassing all policies. However we are where we are, restoring the article doesn't turn the clock back and I suggest that using IAR now to prevent an AFD discussion about a sensitive subject, the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion, would be appropriate. There isn't even any substantial content in the article worth salvaging, if in future it does become appropriate to have an article about this a new one can be created. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per WP:BURO. Obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS, so sending this to AfD is just procedural onanism. Eusebeus (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist WP:NOTNEWS has not fared well of late at AfD, and even though I'd go with deleting it I'm not at all sure the community would agree. Ray^Talk 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no barrier to future recreation if circumstances warrant Some articles about disappeared or murdered children like Bobby Franks surpass WP:NOTNEWS by becoming the subject of books, plays, or films or by demonstrating historic importance through societal changes, or even new laws such as the Lindbergh Law, Megan's law or the Amber alert. I would have argued for deletion in AFD, since this one, so far, is a tragic news story and does not show such encyclopedic notability. I do not see such cases as speedyable. I see no prospect at this time for a Keep outcome from an AFD, so it would seem pointless to send this one there, and would create needless drama. After 12 or 24 hours a snowball close as delete would have been the likely outcome. But sometimes child disappearances or murders get kept if the international news coverage is massive, like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so I tend to question the right of 1000 admins to delete any such articles they don't like and arbitrarily delete them, substituting their judgment for that of the community. Edison (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The "do no harm" spirit of BLP and BLP1E apply here, though, sadly, the policy titles themselves don't. This pushes speedy deletion to, and even past, its tightly constrained bounds, but per WP:SNOW that's not enough for an automatic overturn from me given the subject matter. I fully support trouting the admin but I don't see the need to discuss the article for a further seven days when the proper result is as clear as it is here. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)