Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 9#Talk:Tres Personajes

:{{DRV links|Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (3rd nomination)|article=}}

Delete was immediate following rediscovery of AfD 2. The policy for DRV was not in my knowledge at the time, and I can only apologise for this ignorance on my part. I request now, however, that the deletion be reconsidered. Significant third party coverage has been sourced, from publications both local and national. The claim has been made that the film is non-notable based on "small geographic following", but the article from the internationally esteemed Hot Press combined with the length of time between the film's debut and its writing at least warrant a further discussion of the article's notability. As well as this, nationwide network TG4 have featured both the film and its characters in not one, but two programmes. As such, it is proven that this film has far more than a mere localised following, as has been claimed. The film has also received significant coverage in a range of independent reliable sources. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Relist. This film no longer seems to me to be the slam-dunk delete suggested by most contributors to the 2nd AFD. That AFD got off to a bad start with User:Imagi-King (who launched this DRV) arguing for its retention on grounds which are completely irrelevant to wikipedia's notability criteria, and continued in the same vein. I haven't checked which (if any) of the current refs were present for the 2nd AFD, but by the time of the 3rd AFD there were five references which may perhaps be to significant coverage:

:# "Moving hip-hop film set to steal the show", Evening Echo, November 4, 2009.

:# http://www.kerryman.ie/news/hip-hop-spoof-is-a-festival-hit-1932825.html

:# O' Mahony, Don. "Who the hell goes to... Steamin' and Dreamin'", Evening Echo, November 12, 2009.

:# Lucey, Evan "Grandmaster of Ceremonies", Cork News, November 13, 2009.

:# Clark, Stuart, Hot Press, March 10, 2010.

:Unfortunately, only one of those articles is online, and that's behind a paywall, but if even two of these refs to reliable sources are to significant coverage, the GNG is satisfied. The article should be relisted to allow proper examination of the significance of those refs. I suspect that the conclusion may be the same, but when an editor has gone to the trouble of seeking out sources, I think it's important not to be swayed by the complete absence of notability in earlier versions of the articles; instead we should assume good faith and see whether these refs check out. (To help sustain that assumption of good faith it would help considerably if User:Imagi-King were to familiarise himself with WP:NF, and provide some assessment of how significant the coverage is in these sources). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Reply [http://www.hotpress.ie/archive/6300692.html] links the Hot Press article. Unfortunately this is also behind a paywall. At the time of addition, the Kerryman article was available freely. I was not aware it had changed. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• comment none of the available references can be counted as independent and reliable. Therefore we have to rely on unavailable references. Is there any one who can confirm that they are real and have significant coverage? Most are local only. So it seems to have about half of the notability requirement. The current userspace draft still looks identical to the version deleted in November after the second AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Reply The Hot Press article is a new addition, as well as information regarding the TG4 coverage. One of the main reasons for deletion under the 2nd AfD was the "highly localised following" of the film. The references I have since added demonstrate it has developed, if not more, a national following. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

:::The Hot press ref was there at the time of the second AFD. Reference expansion happened between 1st and 2nd AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Actually hot press was added: 22:32, 19 March 2010 , sorry, but I am still of the opinion that this film is not notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Uphold deletion in the strongest means possible. The person requesting this deletion review has tried in every way possible to circumvent the deletion of this article, which is about a film in which he has a personal involvement (though he hid that fact until the original AfD was decided in favor of deletion). He has recreated the article after the AfD decided for deletion, then feigned ignorance of WP policy. He has maintained a copy of the article in user space and cajoled admins into permitting this so that he might "improve" the article, then done little or nothing to do so. This is a short film about a subject of limited local interest, has apparently been shown only in a very limited geographical area (primarily at a film festival in Cork), and its current distribution appears to be limited to selling DVD copies out of someone's car. Independent coverage is limited at best. There is no way that this film meets any criteria of notability for films. Moreover, the author has acted in bad faith is his continued persistence in promoting this non-notable film through the article, despite his obvious conflict of interest. Deletion review should not even be considered, as there is nothing new that has been presented that dissuades me or anyone else that notability has since been proved. It's just another attempt by this disruptive author to spam Wikipedia for his own personal benefit. Not only should the article remain deleted, but also the user-space article should be deleted, the title should be salted, and the author blocked for a significant period of time for being disruptive and acting in bad faith. Be gone already! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

::Reply Realkyhick, you really must stop your assumptions of bad faith. It's highly unproductive, infuriating, and downright rude. Sure, I've added the article a few times. Three, to be precise, each of which has been discussed in an Afd. The only incorrect thing I ever did was to return it to mainspace after the 2nd AfD: this after significant improvements which specifically addressed your concerns. Yes, that defies Wikipedia policy, but as I've said and apologised for more than once, that was due to my own ignorance. I've never feigned ignorance. Despite the length of my Wikipedia membership, I am not by any means an experienced editor, but a quick glance at my edit history will show that I am a faithful and undisruptive editor. In any case, this is nothing to do with the discussion at hand, so can we please get past it and debate what matters? Thank you. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

:::My belief that you are acting in bad faith is well founded, and your reply is condescending and borders on being passive-aggressive. You have attempted every means possible to evade Wikipedia policies and somehow keep the article alive about this non-notable film in which you appear. In all my years at Wikipedia, I have never seen an editor who is so stubborn, and unwilling to accept the will of the rest of the community. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Look, like I said I've done one thing wrong. Assume bad faith if you wish; be uncivil. Your claim of passive-aggression is simply ridiculous. I don't think I've ever written something so mild-mannered. It's your opinion that this film is non-notable, which seems thusfar to be contradictory to the will of the community as put forth in this DRV. And that is what matters: the community consensus. Not my editing, nor your opinion thereof. So I'll reiterate, with all due respect but with equally due firmness. Get past it. My apologies to everybody else for this tangential nonsense, on both our parts. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::You're way out of line, mister. I'll apologize if and when I see fit. Get over yourself, and quit trying to publicize this non-notable film for yourself and your friends. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect the references listed above were added by Imagi-King. Is this the case? And if so, could you please characterize their length and depth, and provide some quotes from them, so that others may assess them? —Korath (Talk) 04:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

::Reply No problem, I can get those in the next day or two for you. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Update [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imagi-King/Steamin'_and_Dreamin':_The_Grandmaster_Cash_Story| this] Userspace draft has a lot of the requested information. If that's not enough and you require any more, just let me know. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy and relist There was no need for a speedy close here. New sources can justify a new discussion. I can't see the article (or the cached copy) but given BHG's comments, I'll assume there is enough to at least discuss. Hobit (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - the userspace draft is at User:Imagi-King/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD – and, as a prerequisite, move this draft to the mainspace. I think this new version deserves a fresh evaluation at AfD, although I urge participants at prior AfDs to tone down any ire relating to bad blood over those AfDs. No ad hominem arguments, please. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: You're all still overlooking the obvious conflict of interest issue, to which the original author now admits. He's promoting a non-notable film in which he appears. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The addition of fives new sources (and I'm taking BHG at her word that there were five new sources as I can't see the article) means the page is not substantially identical and so a G4 speedy is inappropriate. How good the references are is irrelevant as that should be a community decision at AfD not the decision of a single admin when speeding. Similarly a COI should not be a consideration when deciding on a speedy, it's not mentioned in any of the criteria. I have seriously doubts that this article will survive another AfD but it wasn't a speedy candidate and the admin involved erred in deleting it as such. Dpmuk (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Relist per BHG and Dpmuk. It seems to be far better sourced than it was, so it's worth giving it another chance per G4, regardless of the author's COI. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|9/11 Truth Movement|xfd_page=None|article=}}

The following information about Dr. Judy Wood is verifiable and accurate, and belongs on the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page.

Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page:

1. I think that [http://www.drjudywood.com/ Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues] needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research.

2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents section of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth.

3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.

These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy.

Please help.

Thank you,

-Abe

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

• Point of Parliamentary procedure - there is nothing to discuss here. This process is for articles that are deleted, it is not for debating individual bits of content. You have already been warned about spamming all over the place about this matter. The most suitable place for this discussion is the article talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|London Buses route 183|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183|article=}}

This was at best a perverse closure, labelled as "keep" even though the closer found no consensus. If there is no consensus, then the closure should be explicitly labelled as "no consensus"; the effect of "no consensus" is of course to keep the article, but it is misleading to summarise a debate as if the discussion had reached a conclusion. I tried to discuss this with the closer, who did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_183&diff=next&oldid=354399375 add a rationale] to his initial [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_183&diff=354399375&oldid=354350263 one-word closure], but we got nowhere in the discussion.
The rest of the rationale is even more bizarre: the closer says that "The GNG are guidelines, and whilst they may influence and guide those participating, they don't mandate deletion even if the article were thought to fail them". In other words, even if there had been complete unanimity that the article could never come with a million miles of meeting the GNG, the closer regards that as no grounds for deletion. If that was the case, then no article on even the most deeply obscure and non-notable topic would ever be deleted, and GNG should be deleted as irrelevant.
The closer's counting of the "keep" !votes is also perverse: he lists !votes by Dew Kane and Colonel Warden as "solid", but Dew Kane made a rapid-fire series of absolutely identical !votes to "keep" London buses articles at a rate of of over one per minute: see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=201004040430&contribs=user&target=Dew+Kane&namespace=4&limit=24 contribs list]. Each of these "keep" !voters read, in full: *Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable.. That sort of splattergun !vote should be discarded, because it is clearly not based on an assessment of the article under discussion, and even if DewKane is right that the majority of the routes are notable, that does not establish whether this route is notable.
ColWarden's vote is based on references he added, one of which is to a map of all London bus routes, which he insists amounts to "significant coverage" ... and apart from that we have one badly-written local newspaper story whose text doesn't support the claim in the headline. So if we discard just those two votes, there is a clear consensus to delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse The closer correctly followed the guidance of WP:DGFA in that:

::# He determined that there was no consensus to delete

::# He respected the judgement and feelings of the Wikipedia participants

::# He correctly ruled that the lack of consensus meant that he should not delete the article

:We could go over the finer points but this would tend to repeat the discussion to little purpose. I have researched the sources for this and similar articles in detail and have no doubt that they are sufficient to support reasonable articles. The opposing editors do not seem to have researched the topics and appear opposed to them on general principle, "you could have a million sources and it still wouldn't suddenly make it notable". This blind refusal to accept sources when they are presented in good faith is not supported by policy while we have policies which explicitly forbid such censorious attitudes. If BHG and others wish to construct a policy forbidding articles about buses they should please construct a draft guideline and conduct an RfC rather than generating all this procedural noise - multiple threads at ANI, numerous AFDs, and now DRV. The matter is vexatious and so should be done better. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::All this bluster about "censorious attitudes" has been repeated by Col W across countless AFDs. His rants about vexatiousness were rejected at ANI, as was his gratuitous allegation of nationalist bias, and now it is accompanied by pointless hyperbole. Neither I nor any of the delete !voters were looking for "a million sources", or anything like that. We were looking for evidence of significant coverage per WP:GNG, and Col W's addition of a few trivial mentions does not amount to that: the closest he has to that is simply that route is mentioned on a route map. By any reasonable definition, that's trivial.

:::Col W hunted hard for evidence of notability, and hasn't got it. If he had produced it, Col W wouldn't need to waste his time with all this rhetoric; he'd have some solid evidence of notability. Instead, he has sources to verify a few minor points, which is much less that what GNG requires. Talk of possible guidelines is also irrelevant; we have an existing general guideline in the shape of WP:GNG, and it should be applied here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect/merge: notability is indeed a reason to delete, if one of the only reasons to delete an article, at least on the AfD stage. In a AfD, any concerns about notability should be brought front and center, and if an article can be demonstrated to be non-notable, then it should be deleted despite it being verifiable. In this case, the bus route does seem to be non-notable, and thus should've been deleted. However, it's a plausible search term, so a redirect/merge to a list article is acceptable. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• :Oh, and FWIW, system maps don't count for notability as they're usually commissioned by the transport executive, so would most likely be a primary source. The tube map doesn't make the District Line notable, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to anything besides keep. Closer's rational clearly states he was vote counting! Abductive (reasoning) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. If the closer had counted words of argument he would have closed as "delete". Happily he did not and concluded that policy-based views did not form a consensus. I agree with this. Thincat (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Had he had abided by policy and guideline the result would not have been keep. Vote counting is manifestly against policy. Abductive (reasoning) 19:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. Thincat sums it up well above - Having done some local studies and seen places such as local tramway museums which produce stacks of information on transport, and seen lots of books on individual suburbs and municipalities, I don't doubt one could get significant coverage either. This will require some offweb searching as will many bus route and local history material. Anyone who has studied local history should be able to realise this. research does not merely equal what we find on google. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• :So there was no evidence of notability, and there is still no evidence of notability, but all the same the collection-of-unrelated-trivia article should be kept because some day someone may do some research which might turn it up. What happened to WP:BURDEN? It still seems to be policy, but even so we have a few editors demanding that articles be kept because others have failed to prove a negative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• ::(ec) Article quality is not a reason for deletion - there is a difference between researching on google and trotting on down to a local library or local history room somewhere in North London and digging up some more material oneself - it can't be done with the snap of a finger (or even two fingers). I have no idea where Col W is either, but if he isn't in North London it might be tricky for him too (I am on the other side of the globe...) And references 4 and 5 are significant mentions in secondary sources, hence it satisfies the GNG guidelines you quoted in the first place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• :::Please actually look at refs 4 and 5.
• :::[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2535325.stm ref #4] does not address the topic in detail; it doesn't even mention 183 in the body text, and merely lists the 183 in a sidebox on an article whose text is mostly about route 322.
• :::[http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2008/10/27/bus-thieves-target-elderly-116451-22127231/ ref #5] is demonstrably unreliable: the headline "Bus thieves target elderly" and the lead "Vulnerable pensioners are being preyed upon by gangs of thieves on the 183 bus" are not supported by the text of the article, in which the bus company confirms only one incident.
• :::So WP:GNG is not satisfied; nowhere near it. If someone later does some research which establishes evidence of the notability of the route, then the article can of course be re-created ... but right now the case for keeping this article is based solely on the wishful thinking that if and when someone does some appropriate offline research, then some editors hope that new evidence will be found. If and when that happens, the evidence can presented at WP:REFUND, but right now we do not have that evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• ::::I did look at the refs - umm...ref 4, listed as 3rd of 5 worst bus routes. Okay so there are not alot of words, but it is the essence of what the article is about, and ref 5, okay there is alot of tabloid guff, but is still about the bus route. Essentially you want the article deleted (for whatever reason I don't know) and are going to be liberal with your interpretation of 'significant' in order to pursue your aim. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• :::::No. Ref 4 is about another route, and ref 5 is demonstrably unreliable, so neither helps establish notability per GNG.
• :::::Instead of personalising the argument by making bad faith assumptions about motives, please can you stick to discussing the content rather than contributors? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• ::::::I have no idea what your motives are and stated so above. Ref 4 is not just about another route, hence the nice-coloured box at the side, and interpreting ref 5 is subjective - I'd pay less attention to a tabloid discussing, say climatology or psychology, that is true... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Determined by consensus to be notable. The GNG s the usual way of meeting the N guidelines, but not the only way. If the consensus wants to make an exception for certain articles or certain types of articles,it can do so--and do so without needingto invoke IAR, because a guideline by its very nature allows of exceptions, and WP:N goes even further in specifically providing for them. It is just plain false that the GNG is a rule which we must always follow, like we must always follow copyright and BLP. Such a view has been explicitly rejected by the community , for attempts to give it policy status have repeatedly failed. And even if it were policy, polices have exceptions too, they are merely "standards that all editors should normally follow." The word normally is there for a purpose. Only a very few policies must always be followed (BLP and COPYRiGHT--though even here there is room for interpretation, and the actual policies are written to allow for it). And WP:N is not even policy, just "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" . attempt means something which is not expected to be always reached. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Clearly there is no consensus here or at the AfD. What piece of information in the article seems encyclopedic to you? And how do you explain the fact that most of the other bus routes AfD'd at the same time were outright deleted? Consensus? That they were all an abberation and that people have determined them to be exceptions to the guideline? Finally, what is your opinion of vote counting? Abductive (reasoning) 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. No consensus either way. A number of the keep opinions were, in my view, very weak, but there still wasn't enough on the delete side to make a delete close the only close open to be made. Unless there is a fundamental WP:V issue, policy doesn't require deletion. I like to follow the WP:GNG rigorously, but it isn't policy and can validly be departed from if others disagree with me. However, I can't possibly follow DGG's assertion that there was a "consenus to be notable". That strikes me as an extraordinary disregard of the significant arguments presented on the delete side. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to merge/redirect- I think BHG has it exactly right. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• weak endorse I think a no consensus close would have been better here, but keep is within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (& merge) - inexplicable close. Eusebeus (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse closure insofar as the closing admin evaluating the discussion correctly and subsequently added a closing rationale which made a judgement that was within his discretion. However, as a matter of semantics, there was no consensus in this discussion and the close should have read "no consensus" rather than "keep." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn Not a single keep vote was based on policy. Aiken ♫ 00:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The closer had a very good explanation of why this should be kept. Even though deletes slightly outnumbered keep, there were enough that it is not a clear consensus to delete. A good alternative after this would be to merge the article, either boldly or with a discussion on the article's talk page. Sebwite (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Keep !votes were not grounded in policy to a large part. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to at least no consensus, looks like no consensus leaning delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• The closing rationale describes a no consensus close in current practice. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn & delete, the weight of policy based argument was clearly on the side of deletion. Nancy ^talk 06:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. From the closing rationale, I interpret it as a "no consensus", which has the same effect as a keep. In the bygone era when I closed AFDs often, I would often write "keep (no consensus)", and Scott appears to have done something similar here. Since a "delete" result would not accurately reflect consensus, the end result is correct. No need to overturn anything. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. A valid closure in the only fault is the use of the word "Keep". Unless we want to be picky and remove the word "Keep" from the closing statement, I see no reason to change this. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (at least) - even the closing admin in their rationale, confirmed there was no consensus to keep, so why on earth they didn't close it as such, I do not know. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse but calling it "no consensus" would not have been much/any different. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus at the very least, preferably overturn and delete. If AfDs were supposed to be closed as Scott Mac closed this one, we could hand the duties off to a bot. WP:V is not by itself valid reason for inclusion (I can verify that the fourth toe on my right foot exists); the article must also be WP:N. The fact that Scott Mac was swayed by such an argument speaks to the weakness of the close. Badger Drink (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Label no consensus. Calling it "overturn" when the end result is almost the same is a stretch. I guess it's slightly easier to renominate in a couple of months when it's labeled "no consensus", so that's worth doing. --GRuban (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Closer's belated comments - sorry, been away for a week or so. Last time I noticed, we delete things for three reasons 1) they are unverifiable and fail the WP:V policy 2) the article cannot be neutrally written and inherently fails WP:NPOV policy. 3) A consensus determines that it is otherwise unsuitable for inclusion (generally this happens for lack of notability - but there can be other reasons). In this case, the subject is verifiable and neutral - so lacking a consensus to delete (which it evidently does) we keep it. I've redacted the close to "kept because it lacks a consensus to delete" - since the magic formula "no consensus" (which I'd already used in the close) seems only to work for some people if it is put in bold. What on earth is this DRV about? Look like a second bite at an afd. Why not go and find a consensus if you are so right.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps because a relist relatively soon after a "no consensus" is not frowned upon, while a relist soon after a "keep" is in practice strongly discouraged. Similarly, merging or redirecting things for which there was no consensus to keep them in the AfD is less controversial than redirectigng something which was just clearly kept in an AfD. I don't know if these were the reasons for this DRV, but they are potential candidates. And sometimes it's just the ego of the nominator, where having a "no consensus" gives less the impression of being "wrong" than a straightforward "keep". When you nominate something for deletion, you want the article either to be deleted, or to be shown that you were wrong after serious umprovements to the article were made. To just be plain wrong (according to the AfD discussion) in your original nomination is not always easy to swallow, even though it happens regularly to most frequent nominators. Just a few thoughts... Fram (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Talk:Judy Wood|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood|article=}}

User that deleted my attempts to discuss the deletion of the 'Judy Wood' page: Someguy1221

User kept deleting my attempt to appeal and discuss the reasons for the deletion of page 'Judy Wood', so I kept reposting my discussion attempt in hopes of explaining why the reasons given for the page deletion were invalid. Each time I posted my attempt to discuss, it was deleted. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - if there is no article, there is no talkpage. This is the proper forum to discuss a deleted article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Response: No Article? WHAT?! - There WAS an article, but it was deleted, so I created a discussion post on the Talk Page within 15 minutes of it being deleted! There was indeed an article, but it was deleted, so that is why I started discussing my concerns about its deletion! This is UNFAIR! Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk • contribs)

:: Once an article is deleted, the talkpage is deleted. If you want to appeal against that deletion, you come here to do it (as you have done so). You don't recreate the talkpage for the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Response: If that is true, then my mistake on recreating the Talk Page instead of coming here first. How does this process work now that I am here asking for a review? Is the final decision simply overturned by you all who are posting? Or does someone look over this then decide? Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• If an article gets deleted, the talk page gets deleted along with it. If the article then gets restored, the talk page comes back too. There is no need for a seperate DRV. Reyk _YO! 10:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Response: Yes, I understand that now thanks to Cameron Scott. But what I am asking, is how does the review process for the original page I created, entitled 'Judy Wood'. How is the final decision made? Are you all like the jury? Is there a judge that comes here and looks over all of this? How does this work? Thanks for any help and info you can provide. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk • contribs)

:From the page Wikipedia:Deletion review:

:After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

:Please read the information on Wikipedia:Deletion review. It includes a lot of relevant info about what is appropriate in a deletion review discussion. bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Invalid reasons given for deletion. Deleting user: Zscout370 Reasons given for deletion: User said Dr. Judy Wood is not a notable person and that my page had Copyright violations. Reasons I am appealing: Dr. Judy Wood is a notable person, because she is the ONLY 9/11 researcher to file her evidence in a court of law. One of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court! No other 9/11 researcher has accomplished so much in the pursuit of truth and justice, yet many other 9/11 researchers have their own Wikipedia pages. This is not fair. In addition, the material on her website is not only fair use since it is a public website (www.drjudywood.com), but also, I have personally contacted Dr. Judy Wood via email, and she has given me permission to use any and all of the information on her website. She has pledged to email the Wikipedia Permissions staff within 48 hours to inform them that I do indeed have permission to use the information on her webpage. Therefore, the two reasons given for deletion are invalid, and my attempts to discuss this deletion at the Talk:Judy Wood page, were also deleted! This is censorship, and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk • contribs)

• Endorse. Clear and unambiguous copyvio. Nancy ^talk 09:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment there was also an AFD in 2007 Nancy ^talk 09:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - as far as I can, regardless of what is done in the future, it was a copyvio when deleted. Moreover, I see an article on this individual has already been deleted a number of times and also has subject to an AFD. I would salt the article space and tell anyone who wishes to make an article on this individual to do so in a sandbox and then get other people to assess the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Even ignoring the possible copyright problems, the article had no reliable independent sources about Judy Wood, which is a basic requirement (see e.g. WP:BIOfor more info on this). Fram (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Response: Notability: Considering Dr. Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court in October 2009, she is MORE notable than many 9/11 researchers that have their own pages, yet only hers seems to be deleted. When I try to input her name into the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page, someone keeps deleting her name and any links to her research or court cases! This is UNFAIR, and this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Censorship and Unfairness are NOT what Wikipedia is about.'' Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Response: References: In addition, 3 of the 5 references used are from EXTERNAL SOURCES. 1 is from a government website, and 2 are from Academic Universities. The only 2 sources used from her website are links to the legal documents she has scanned in. Please help Wikipedia, people are trying to censor Dr. Wood, and administrators have deleted the Wikipedia page that I created! This is unfair! Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Response: Copyright Violation: I am also NOT in Copyright violation, because her information and photos are FAIR USE and are posted Publicly, but in addition to that, she has also given me permission personally, and will be emailing the Wikipedia Permission email to alert them to this within 48 hours. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::I also have donated to Wikipedia in the past, and plan on donating a lot more, once I get done with medical school (I am broke right now).

::Thanks for your time and help,

::Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez

::M1 Medical Student

::B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

::Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::: Regardless of what happens in the future, the page you want to use says © 2006-2008 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.. Leaving that aside, the individual is simply not notable with the sources you have presented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - text taken from "public websites" is still considered to be copyrighted, fair use does not apply here. The page even has a copyright symbol on it (but note that copyright applies whether that symbol is present on the webpage or not, unless the site clearly states that its text is free for use under applicable policies.) That the copyright holder is going to email Wikipedia does not mean that copyright is invalidated. The permission must be there first. So that reason for deleting the article is valid. Concerning the other reason, notability, the AfD from 2007 ended in a consensus that the individual did not meet WP:PROF at the time, and the article that was deleted today did in fact not include sources that showed that notability is present now. You need sources that meet Wikipedia's standard of reliability. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Response: Notability based on Sources: Here are the sources used, showing that she has accomplished far more than many 9/11 researchers and scientists that have their own Wikipedia pages, since she is the ONLY 9/11 researcher to ever file her evidence in a court of law, and one of her cases made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT:

::1. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06072006-124140/

::2. http://www.registrar.clemson.edu/publicat/catalog/2003/rr03_faculty.html

::3. http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

::4. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html

::5. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

::and I planned on adding more references but the page was deleted within 24 hours, and I am a very busy medical student. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Response: Emailed Permission: Dr. Wood has personally given me permission to use the content of her website via email, and will be emailing the Wikipedia Permission email to alert them to this within 48 hours. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• The three external sources were [http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06072006-124140/] (nothing about her, just a link to her Ph D dissertation), [http://www.registrar.clemson.edu/publicat/catalog/2003/rr03_faculty.html] (a page listing faculty, verifying that she was an assistant professor) and [http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619], which shows that her requests for correction have been denied. These aren't sources about her, but links to things she has done but which have not received any attention. The sources are reliable, but are not independent reports about her. No sources have been provided to show that she has been the focus of significant attention in newspapers, books from reputable publishers, (truly) scientific journals, TV documentaries, ... She has written a dissertation, had a job that no one apart from her employee has remarked on, and has made an unsuccessful "request for correction" which is publicly available but which again has not received any outside attention. Solving the copyright problem will not help you at all, any article about here with those or similar sources will be deleted again and again. Fram (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:: agreed - the sources are worthless in determining notability and leaving the copyright problems aside, the article would be deleted anyway. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Response: NOTABILITY: Other 9/11 researchers have also filed RFC's which were denied, yet they have Wikipedia pages! Heck, David Ray Griffin who is studies THEOLOGY has a Wikipedia page, just because he has gotten some media attention, even though he isn't even qualified to research 9/11! I had not gotten the chance to post more sources because the page was deleted so rapidly!

:::Response: Legal Efforts: More important than the RFC filing is Dr. Wood's Qui-Tam whistleblower case, because it made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT. Of course it has not received mainstream media coverage, we are talking about 9/11 here! Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Response: Media Coverage: Recent media coverage from March 2010 shows that Dr. Wood's research and legal efforts are finally starting to be recognized by the media. I cannot post the link because The Examiner is blacklisted by Wikipedia for some reason. The article is by TheExaminer and is titled 'Scientist: Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into nanoparticles on 9/11'

:::Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Response: More Media Coverage:

::::1. Dr. Wood has given many presentations of her research. In 2007 she gave a presentation at a conference in Madison, WI. Here is a link to that presentation: http://atomicnewsreview.org/2010/03/06/911-the-new-hiroshima-dr-judy-wood/

::::2. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html I planned on posting these things later on, but the page was deleted so rapidly!

::::3. Dr. Wood recently appeared on the Republic Broadcasting Network radio network: http://republicbroadcasting.org/

::::4. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on a very popular radio and TV show known as "Edge Media TV" See the interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU

::::5. Dr. Wood recently was presented her research on 'The Power Hour' radio show hosted by Genesis Communications Network. This is a very large radio show. The interview happened just a few weeks ago.

::::6. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on 'The Veritas Show' with Mel Fabregas. Here is a recording of some of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPXcoqrCBvw

::::7. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research at a huge conference in Seattle that discusses topics such as Free Energy and Military Energy Weapons. You can see the presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf9WQl2m7fQ

::::8. There are lots more, I just haven't had time, because the article was deleted in under 24 hours!

::::Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OVERTURN this please. Dr. Wood should be sending you an email giving me permission to use the content of her website within 24-48 hours. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:it's all worthless as far as reliable sources go - unless you have some sources from mainstream reliable sources, you will never be able to create an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse- no problems here. Reyk _YO! 10:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Response: Mainstream Sources:

::Look up the recent article written by TheExaminer.com. Here is the url: examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m3d23-Scientist--Directed-energy-weapons-turned-World-Trade-Center-into-nanoparticles-on-911

::Also, The radio station is WPFW 89.3 in Washington, D.C is rather mainstream.

::EdgeMediaTV is rather mainstream in the UK. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::The Examiner is not a reliable source. It is not a website with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; if it was it would not have people like Alfred Lambremont Webre writing for it. Glorified blog, basically. Reyk _YO! 10:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Question: What about the other Mainstream sources I mentioned?

::::Question: Why are so many people that have done so much less for our country able to have Wikipedia pages but Dr. Wood isn't? She is the ONLY person to have filed her 9/11 evidence with a court-of-law. She is the only person to create a law suit to bring about truth and justice regarding 9/11. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court! She is fighting for all of us here in America, and she deserves a Wikipedia page, don't you agree? '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The 2007 AfD was perfectly fine. The new article was a clear copyright violation. Even if Mr. Rodriguez can gain rights to the content in the (near) future via whatever proper channels there may be, it's clear that there were sufficient copyright concerns to justify the article's most recent deletions. I think the page has also rightly been protected from recreation...However, I would propose that Mr. Rodriguez be given a chance to make a userspace draft, that doesn't violate copyright and contains sufficient reliable sourcing, to be evaluated at a future DRV. — Scientizzle 12:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - non-notable Truther, no sources but fringe blogs and self-published websites, nothing wrong with closing admins interpretation of our policies on notability. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - If the copyright issues are addressed via OTRS it is likely (from what people have said) that the article will be deleted again anyway. Seeing as there was already an AfD process which showed a clear delete consensus there seems to be no reason to reinstate this until it has been worked on in userspace. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - It appears that User:Pookzta is verging on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I won't feed into it and repeat all the same reasoning above. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - deletion was well within policy, cries of 'censorship' aside. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• My deletion reason was grossly misrepresented by User:Pookzta. I do not care if this woman is notable or not, I deleted the article twice because the article was a complete copy and paste from the website I cited in the deletion summary. This is the second time a copyvio was pasted for this article in a short period of time, so that is why I also locked the article until that permission from OTRS is received. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Talk:Tres Personajes|xfd_page=|article=}}

Unilaterally deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the logged reason "test page" (which DF67 admits on User talk:DragonflySixtyseven was incorrect) The complete content of the page was "Este es ridiculoso. No puedo encontrar nada importante sobre la obra por el internet porque cada sitio de web, en espanol o ingles, tiene el cuento de la obra deseperacido. Tengo que saber sobre los simbolos y el uso de colores y no hay nada provechoso." According to Google translate, this is Spanish for "This is ridiculous. I can not find anything important in the work over the Internet because every website, in Spanish or English, is the story of the work deseperacido. I have to know about the symbols and the use of colors and there is nothing helpful." DF67 says this is obviously a homework question. My point of view is that it is a request (less than ideally phrased) for the article Tres Personajes to include more information about the painting -- at the moment it is largely about the painting's theft. In any case this is clearly not a test page. "Request for help with homework" while discouraged, is not one of the WP:CSD, and it is IMO far from clear that this is what this is. I doubt seriously that an MFD would have deleted this page, which means that it should not have been unilaterally deleted -- speedy deletion is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions only. DES ^(talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Nakon 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Why do you think this deletion is proper? Which of the speedy criteria did it fit? or what other policy or practice supports it? DES ^(talk) 01:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Because it was a test page eligible for deletion under G2. Nakon 01:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::No it wasn't. Not in any way. It was a comment that the article focused more on the the theft of the painting than on the painting itself and thus very much appropriate for the talk page. Reyk _YO! 01:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::A Test page, as i understand it, is a page qwhere an editor is experimenting with the wiki software, seeing what it can do, or where a user makes comments completely irrelevant to the subject or purpose of the page. An honest (see WP:AGF) attempt at commenting on an article, even if not highly useful or knowledgeable about Wikipedia, is not a test page as I understand things. Do you really, seriously contend that the above text was clearly and obviously not intended to comment on the substance of the wikipedia article? DES ^(talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I might add that the deleting admin stated in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven&diff=354841324&oldid=354806449 this edit] "admittedly, 'test page' was not the correct reason". DES ^(talk) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• See my question above to Nakon. DES ^(talk) 01:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn- This was not a test page and the comment was a spot-on (though admittedly rather snarky) criticism of the article's contents. A reader comes to Wikipedia for information (which is what we're here for) and doesn't find it, and leaves a remark to that effect. Rather than being taken on board, this constructive criticism is unilaterally deleted. Shameful. Dragonfly67 needs to stop abusing speedy deletion this way. Reyk _YO! 00:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::Deleted after being ignored for over a month. Nakon 01:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I wasn't aware there was a time limit. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn. I agree with Reyk's interpretation. This is not a test page. There are piles of crap all over talk pages on this project. And yet this was not actually crap. Deletion here served no useful purpose and was out of process.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn. I don't see that this can be interpreted as a test page. Whether to call it a "homework question" or a request for the article to be improved which was perhaps motivated by a homework question is debatable - but we needn't debate it here since neither is a CSD criterion. (Nor is "talk page comment without replies for over a month", for that matter.) Olaf Davis (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree that this doesn't fall under any criterion for speedy deletion. But jeez, don't you guys have bigger battles to fight than to rescue a lone talkpage comment, in Spanish? Yes, CSD was misapplied here, but I don't see any reason to overturn this.--Atlan (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• comment every time speedy deletion is applied incorrectly it harms the project either directly (e.g. by deleting something that adds value) or indirectly (e.g. by driving off a potentially valuable contributor). I consider ensuring CSD is used only correctly is one of the most important things a Wikipedian can do.Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn per Thryduulf. Every time an administrator power is misused, a fairy dies. --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn this could have been a speedy undelete. As restoration is not particularly controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn The speedy deletion criteria are to be applied narrowly. This meets none of them. Furthermore, it is in my opinion an appropriate use of a test page to ask for more information to be provided in the article. It was apparently motivated by someone looking for information to answer a school question, but using WP as a preliminary source in this manner is exactly what an encyclopedia is for--it is one of the core purposes. for good measure, a more detailed analysis of the painting would seem a very good idea for expanding the very scanty article. The user cvame in good faith, using the encyclopedia appropriately, and was met by this. This is a fine way to discourage potential editors, a process which can only lead to the decline of the encyclopedia through the inevitable attrition. The best course for the eleting admin to take at this point would be to revert his deletion. The reason for not doing it as speedy undelete at this point is because the admin refused to undelete. I agree it could have been simply done without consulting him at all, but AGF it was advisable to check whether this might have been an error, and since it was deliberate, sometimes it is necessary to bring out of process admin work to general attention. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn - WP:HOMEWORK is not a speedy deletion criteria. The talk page comment was neither offensive nor irrelevant, and fell within talk page guidelines. An editor raises a concern about an article's content, and instead of addressing it (or even ignoring it), we prefer to have it deleted? Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn per GRuban and the dead fairies. We don't speedy delete pages outside of policy. Hobit (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn per DES Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Good God. This is the inclusionist cabals' punishment for BLPPROD passing? Go around looking for speedy deletion of completely useless pages and drag them to Deletion review? Can someone explain to me when Wikipedia became Yahoo!Answers or Twitter? Talk pages aren't a place to put random commentary and thoughts. They're an area for article collaboration and improvement efforts. And, this is the English Wikipedia. Delete the pages and pray that those voting overturn here leave Wikipedia altogether. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

::When i filed this DRV I didn't even know that BLPPROD had been proposed as a policy. I have been objecting to such things, as I happened to notice them, for years. Has noting to do with BLPPROD. DES ^(talk) 01:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

::::this has nothing to do with the BLPPROD, except that I regard needing to comment here as a nuisance that takes me from the important work of trying to source the ones I can, and make sure the others get deleted--in fact, there are among them a good number with obvious reasons for speedy. But I did feel I needed to comment here, since the only hope of dealing properly with BLP prod or anything else, is people and especially admins following the rules for deletion, whether or not we like them. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

::To me this has nothing to do with inclusionism and everything to do with process. There was no need to delete this, IAR doesn't even make sense as it doesn't help things one bit. Yes, restoring doesn't help so much either, but if the user posting this comes back and wonders what happened to his comment we may lose an editor for exactly no reason at all. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't honestly believe that restoring the history of this page is somehow useful. Ok, it won't do any harm either, but this seems to be taking 'process is important' too far. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn This speedy deletion was out-of-process; the deleting admin admits that WP:CSD#G2 did not actually apply. However, I agree with MZMcBride's point that this one talk page comment – in Spanish, no less – is probably not worth this much discussion. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. I'm okay with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tres_Personajes&action=history DS's recreation of this talk page] with the anonymous user's concerns conveyed in English. Those are my two cents, anyhow. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• As the page has been recreated and the comment essentially restored, the issue appears resolved. Euryalus (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think the matter has been fully aired, and the page restored. I have no objection to it being closed as "overturned and restored by deleting admin", but do't feel teh nomiantor should also be the closer. DES ^(talk) 20:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)