Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 17 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trialsanderrors (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 23 November 2006 (→[]: Relisted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:47, 23 November 2006 by Trialsanderrors (talk | contribs) (→[]: Relisted)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< November 16 November 18 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

17 November 2006

BZPower

BZPower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

BZPower.com is an online reference site and community for fans of Lego's Bionicle line of toys. As an Administrator of the site, I see no reason why the page on Misplaced Pages, which contained information about the history and purpose of BZPower, should have been deleted. It is possible that people were using the page to defame our site, but I can't tell what the previous content of the page is. The last time I looked at it was a while ago, so I have no idea what kind of inappropriate editing might have been done to it. I would appreciate it if the page could be restored. If further information is required, I can be contacted at andrew@bzpower.com. Thank you for your time. -Andrew (Black Six) BZPower News Manager & Forum Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Six (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion. I'm the admin who protected it after 311 edits. With all due respect to Andrew, the article has been nominated for deletion four times. - Lucky 6.9 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Closer's comment: I relinked the nomination to the correct AfD. The previous three nominations actually resulted in first keep, then two no consenses, but with the first, a comment in the 4th AfD that it was "kept as apparently users back then didn't need to present any sort of logical argument" is rather apt; the fourth AfD was much more comprehensive than the previous and demonstrated more clearly the lack of actual, independent, non-trivial coverage of the subject. As my close isn't really being disputed here so far I don't have much else to add at this point. --Sam Blanning 01:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse The closing admin's logic appears sound to me. If an article can't be verified, it shouldn't be kept. Shimeru 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. There are many pages which contain information that are deleted, because there is no way to verify them. Also, without sources, it was probably promotional, too, which fails WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. On an unrelated note, your listing is so... formal. It doesn't really have to be. -Amarkov edits 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I think the last line of the appeal says it all. Chris talk back 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel it would be pertinant to add that I have not been a large contributor to BZPower's entry on Misplaced Pages, and only recently learned of the issues it's been having here. I am merely trying to get the site I work for be fairly represented. I don't see that as a Conflict of Interests at all. -Andrew (Black Six)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.220.144 (talk • contribs)

It's a conflict of interest whenever someone associated with a company discusses their Misplaced Pages article. Note, however, that "Conflict of interest" should not be taken to be the reason for endorsement. It only bolsters the actual reason, namely that there are no verifiable sources. -Amarkov edits 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Per Sam's well reasoned arguments. The AfD is not a vote, and simply saying it is notable does not make it so. The people who chose delete did so based on the logic that no evidence of it's notoriety or verifiability had been presented. The people who chose keep did so becuase they wanted the article to be there. Using personal preference as your only justification on an AfD will likely result in your opinion being given little weight. HighInBC 18:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse This is a pretty clear-cut case. I wouldn't go so far as to call the article defamation exactly, but it was a terrible article (list of admins, petty forum drama, no references, etc.) It certainly didn't make the forum look good, and you should probably be glad it was deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Alldaydrive

Alldaydrive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

In this day and age (with help from the internet) self-released albums are quickly becoming not only more and more common but also more accepted as legitimate releases. Bands can become successful and build tremendous fan base without ever having been signed to a major label. Simply because the band in question has releases albums on their own is no reason to delete. The band in this article not only has a huge following but was signed to a label and is continuing as a successful source of music and inspiration for youth today. I was reminded of this band when I read another WP article about a band that had been signed to the same label years ago, this other article was not deleted so it does not make sense that the alldaydrive article was. I was un-aware that there was a discussion about this article and its proposed deletion; when I first submitted the article I had full intention of finishing my research and updating the article with more links and more current information. Some of the things I found in my research and with talking to a radio station local to the band is that this band is currently making big changes in their community by organizing fund-raising events for local charities and youth organizations. They are donating time and money and talent to their community to make it a better place and give coming generations a positive atmosphere to live in and positive role-models to look up to. I believe that this band has legitimacy and is important. I would say that simply because some admins or editors have not heard of a specific thing (or in this case band) that does not mean that said thing (or band) is not viable. I worked in the music industry for many years and I think we need more bands like this, so support and information about bands like this is extremely important. PillageTHENburn 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. Valid AfD with unanimous consensus, no compelling reason to overturn. I'm sure they're very nice guys, but that doesn't make them notable, which is what we need to have an article on them. --Sam Blanning 23:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. It's very nice that you want to promote the band, they sound like nice people. You still can't use Misplaced Pages for it. -Amarkov edits 02:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - AfD was unanimous, with no valid reason for inclusion presented other than WP:ILIKEIT. Chris talk back 17:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I love it when people basically come in and tell us our policies shouldn't apply to THEIR article. Pfagh. Please try another wiki. --Elaragirl 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - Ok, Sam Blanning, what makes a band "notable"? Is U2 notable? Why? Because they are charitable? Because the are rich? What exactly defines notable? Amarkov, I am not intending to promote, I was intending to be a part of something I believed in (Misplaced Pages), however it certainly appears that if an article doesn't happen to fit into the likes or interests of a small group of elite people then it is "not notable" or not worthy of existence. Personally this situation has deeply marred my outlook on the so called "community" that is Misplaced Pages. Again this issue is about legitimate, real information being "banned" because you want to and for no other reason. Elaragirl, I never tried to tell anyone that "your" policies shouldn't apply. With that comment you are only solidifying the notion that this is not a community site where information is welcome from all people. It is "run" and controlled by few, and the rest of us have no say and it will never matter. If I am wrong then please explain, I am willing to listen. At this point the immature attitudes and comments from these people have frustrated me and created serious doubt as to the "pureness" of this site. I re-read the article that Chris posted WP:ILIKEIT. I found that it only increased my sentiment that this article was unfairly deleted. Please note REAL reasons that I can understand instead of vague childish statements like " I love it when people basically come in and tell us our policies shouldn't apply to THEIR article. Pfagh.". From what I've read that is NOT a valid argument for or against anything. I realize that when I wrote the article I probably screwed up by not citing enough sources and perhaps (although I do not recall off hand) giving personal opinion. This was my first (and perhaps last if I will be crucified like this every time) article and I am learning. I will re-work the article to make it fit the guidelines more precisely. Please give me a chance.PillageTHENburn 23:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You asked for it...
  1. Not a single relable source was in the article. Please read the page at this link: WP:RS and WP:OR to understand what we mean when we are talking about reliable sources.
  2. The criteria we use to determine what gets in or does not get into the encyclopedia is at this link, WP:MUSIC. Your article's subject fails to assert notability and importance in several different areas: the only links given to back up your claims were a mySpace site (where anyone can post anything and claim it's the truth) and a label that is for self-publication. In order for a band (such as your example of U2) to be listed, it has to be fufill at least SOME of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Finally, please understand there is no Cabal/Group of Evil Editors out to destroy you or your article. If your article was deleted before you had a chance to work on it, then I'm sure an admin will copy it to your userspace and you can find the proper sourcing for it (if such exists). I am certainly not a part of any cabals since I've barely been here since June. But the rules are rules. --Elaragirl 01:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


First off, thank you for being human and answering my actual questions instead of simply belittling me and making me feel stupid. As I mentioned I'm new and it really feels like (some) people here talk down to me (and others?); it seems that something that is intended to be open and free and communal should have good personalities behind it as well. I don't know how to go about doing this but I would love it if the article could be copied to my userspace, that way I could look at what I posted and edit/fix/add/change it to me the criteria. Of course if I can not make it fit the criteria then it shall remain dead, and I am fine with that, I'd just like a chance. Thank you all for your time. PillageTHENburn 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

steve.museum

Steve.museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

steve.museum is notable, that a group of editors did not know that, or that the first version of the article did not convey that is moot. we need to get the full article up for deletion review and get some of the editors from arts informatics and social informatics to comment Sils660 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No you don't, you just need to establish notability. If you do that, it can't be speedied. -Amarkov edits 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion the latest attempt to re-create this article is longer (first few were simply external links), but still fails to establish notability per WP:WEB. Also, the sections on "Museums & Folksonomy" and "Criticisms" seem like original research, and seem to fit more in the folksonomy article (ie, as an example of its use in museums) rather than in its own article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What is this madness? The article has a speedy tag, a hangon tag, a drv tag, and it is plainly not an instant delete. I say remove all tags and send to AfD. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It was deleted as both G4 and A7, recreation of deleted content (deleted four times before the most recent one) and no assertion of notability. If it meets a speedy deletion criterion and no one is making an effort to show otherwise (rather than simply objecting), it doesn't matter how many "hang on" tags there are. I deleted it the most recent time, so I suppose you see where my opinion lies. —Cuiviénen 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've fixed the copy-and-post restoration that had been performed with a restoration of what the page looked like at last deletion. —Cuiviénen 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Speedy deletion criteria "G4" does not apply to previously speedy deleted material, and as an administrator you're supposed to already know that. Silensor 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • You're right; I only assumed that at least one of the deletions had gone through AfD. In any case, the article clearly does not assert notability and the author has made no move to make it meet WP:WEB. An AfD is not warranted, and we cannot open an AfD for every article that someone thinks should be on Misplaced Pages. —Cuiviénen 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • But A7 does, and I don't think this article makes a claim for notability. Regardless, given the contention, perhaps this is best going full-term on an AfD. -ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

overturnthe assertion of notability is precisely what articles should not be doing. the article is noteworthy to people in the field, and soon, i expect, to many more people that experience steve.museum at the various museums. that... wikipedia doesn't look up the article in relevant literature is a consistent problem. sure, the article could provide a few more cites, but really it is a solid project and quite well known. i tried to look it up on wikipedia when i first was told.. found nothing. This calso could be part of systematic bias. wikipedia greatly prefers science/history over museums/art, we need to re-educate ourselves on what is the current in musems.--Buridan 01:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research in a field, nor for promoting an organization. If steve.museum becomes notable, then it warrants an article. However, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to promote new concepts. —Cuiviénen 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, all of the newly added references are written by Bruce Wyman and Jennifer Trant, both of whom show up as affiliates of steve.museum here. Papers by a website's owners/affiliates are not assertions of notability. —Cuiviénen 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
consider that anyone can find a source, given the url. --Buridan 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Consider that nobody's willing to put in a source now. We can't go ask our readers to go do google searches and other things to verify the information in the article. It's up to the people who want the article kept to do so. ColourBurst 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Also consider that it obviously is not that easy to find sources, or you could have already, and this wouldn't even be an issue. -Amarkov edits 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages doesn't have any systematic bias. You must be thinking of systemic bias. Small but important difference. Endorse deletion - no need to waste time at AfD. Chris talk back 17:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (negative) What is the problem here? "Jennifer Trant" (the only References are links to her Web pages and PDF essays) is promoting her collaborative project and attempting to add verisimiltude by being in Misplaced Pages. Can anyone not see this? Yes, it's a Very Pretty article, but it does not have a single credible citation from anyplace not directly tied to one of the principals ... and did anyone bother to look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Steve.museum? (Maybe Archives & Museum Informatics, another Bruce Wyman and Jennifer Trant venture, should be put under the WP:COMPANY spotlight as well?) —72.75.93.205 (talk | contribs) 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Jennifer Trant has not contributed to the article or to this discussion at all. I created this article.Sils660 00:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am going to post new references (not written by people involved in the project) on the Talk:Steve.museum page. I am a new user and don't know if they fall within guidelines, so I am posting them on the talk page first. If you would like to take a look please do. --Sils660 17:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Amarkov was concerned about the lack of sources. Now there are sources. --Sils660 23:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No there aren't. There are blogs, which don't count, forums, which don't count, and passing references, which don't count. -Amarkov edits 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: although the speedy seemed quite justified, a full AfD might help resolve the matter for once and for all. After which, we can salt. :) (Note: this is absolutely not a !vote for restore/list-at-AfD, just a comment.) Xtifr tälk 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I use Misplaced Pages everyday at work to look up things far less notable than steve. Calling this promotional or spam is absurd. I found the entry looking for information and I found it. I've been hearing about steve for months now. I am shocked that something of such use and interest to the catalogue, research, library, and museum communities and clients is being treated so dismissively by a supposedly intelligent and open-minded community. One wonders how OCLC and AACR got entries in such a philistine environment.206.28.73.1 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be because inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Chris talk back 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If this information is of such use and interest to the catalogue, research, library, and museum communities and clients, why has no one been able to find third party reliable sources which say so? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject University of Virginia

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject University of Virginia (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (MfD)

Please see the MFD and see the userfied Wikiproject. I have concerns with this closure on several levels. (1) Relocating this project to userspace has left a lot of cleanup. For example, the Wikiproject talk page header, {{WikiProject University of Virginia}}, is on a lot of pages and it is pointing to the former location of the Wikiproject, which is a redirect into userspace. Either the project needs to be moved back into Misplaced Pages space or the redirect needs to be deleted and the templates disposed of. You can't just leave it hanging in limbo. So at best, the closure is incomplete. (2) Purely from a head-counting standpoint, three userfies, two keeps, a delete, and a neutral doesn't really do anything for me as far as a consensus. (3) The decision to remove an active WikiProject is just a bad one. It discourages people from becoming involved. BigDT 16:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn. How in the world would a 3/2 split provide consensus? -Amarkov edits 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse (note: closing admin). I did not count the "neutral" comment since it self-admittedly did not have an opinion. That leaves four people that don't want the project in Wikispace (3x userfy, 1x delete) and two that don't (2x keep). Then, we have the question of how active the project actually is. With its main page the work of a single user, and zero comments on the talk page, that's not very active. Also, it is very narrow in scope for a WikiProject, restricting itself to a single university. Considering these arguments, I therefore find userfying it a reasonable compromise. As suggested in the MFD, a project with a broader scope (e.g. education in the state) would have a better chance of attracting members; and of course we have a main WikiProject on universities, of which this could be made a subpage. There simply doesn't appear to be enough material to stand on its own. (Radiant) 22:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind, with regards to how active it was, that the project had only just been created. Very few Wikiprojects are extremely active within three days of creation. BigDT 02:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and replace in its original location based on existing precedent. Silensor 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Historical accident is not precedent. The whole lot should be either userfied, or merged into a broader project. Chris talk back 16:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? If you find a bunch of people who want to maintain articles about any topic - as long as it isn't just a single article, why discourage them? If we are talking about completely the work of a single individual (basically a blog) or a coffee lounge pretending to be a WikiProject, ok, get rid of it, but exactly what harm is it to have a project for one university? BigDT 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Who said anything about discouragement? What harm is it to merge them upwards or put them into userspace? Chris talk back 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Neutral. One of the main reasons to create a project is to create the various templates which that project requires, including templates for userboxes, banners, etc. None of these are required for this project, with the exception of a userbox, which could be added to either the Virginia or Universities project. The one real "harm" that might result from the proliferation of projects is the sheer number of such projects which would come into existence if this proceeded as it is now going. There are currently around 1,000 separate projects. If the process of specialization increases, soon we shall have even more projects specific to one school, or sports team, or city, or whatever, and find that the larger projects for the entire subject area fall apart. This seems to me to defeat the spirit of cooperation upon which wikipedia is based. This can then also lead to disputes between the "sibling" projects, because their proliferation has effectively killed the "parent" project. One example of a "parent" project with minimal activity is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion, which I have only recently started to revive, because just about everyone interested in contributing to religious articles is really primarily interested in writing articles about their own specific belief system. Some of these child projects are now involved in intractable disputes, because the parent project is no longer large enough to provide a moderating influence. Personally, I think all the purposes could be served just as well, if not better, by the people interested in developing articles on this university created a "task force" or "work group" of either the Virginia or Universities projects. Both of these projects already have a solid structure in place, and the editors wishing to work on the University of Virginia articles could take advantage of this structure, which would allow them to spend more of their time developing the articles, rather than having to spend much of it on maintaining the project infrastructure. I have no objection to the project being allowed to return if that is what the consensus decides, but I do think that wikipedia would be better served if the existing balkanization of projects were to cease. Badbilltucker 17:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • We can't just leave talk page templates around like {{WikiProject University of Virginia}} that point to userspace. Running a formal WikiProject out of userspace just makes no sense whatsoever. It either needs to be put back into project space or done away with completely, but the way it is now makes no sense whatsoever. BigDT 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Why not? General procedure has been that anything inappropriate for wiki-wide consumption gets shunted into userspace, which is precisely what should be done here. That or merge them up into a project with a wider scope than a single institution. Chris talk back 03:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • We can and do have templates that are for userspace, and I don't just mean userboxen. Also, it is possible to transclude pages that aren't templates. (Radiant) 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, but to transclude them in article talk space? It looks sloppy to have official-looking template headers that point to a project in user space. And what if the user hosting the project loses interest? You've got to move every page in the project to someone else's space and change all of the template links. That's just silly. If there were some finite amount of "Misplaced Pages space" available, but an infinite amount of "user space" available, ok, but whether a page is in Misplaced Pages: space or User: space, it's all on the same database server. You don't gain anything by having the page in userspace, but you do lose (1) a look of quality, (2) potential participants who look at it and assume out of hand that it isn't a "real" project, and (3) a naming convention that will never change. BigDT 12:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Projects in userspace are no less real. Anyway, what's your objection to merging them into a less tightly focused project? Chris talk back 12:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
                • It doesn't serve any real purpose. The only real problem with Wikiprojects is that you get to a point where there are 10 project headers. If some guy was a college football player, a pro-football coach, ex-military, from Virginia, lives in Alabama, coached at Texas, etc, then you've got ten different projects claiming him. There really needs to be some kind of limitation somewhere with the talk page headers. But for the project itself, if there are two or more people using the thing actively and they aren't being disruptive, I see no reason not to allow it to continue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) .
Regarding the banner template, a simple deletion of the existing template with a redirect to the Virginia or Universities project template might well be able to fix that problem, if that is how the consensus goes. Either of the above projects could also created a "drop-down" template, as the Military history, Biography, and Australia WikiProjects already have, indicating that this particular article is under the scope of the UVA task force or work group or whatever. Also, alternately, simply replacing one transclusion template with another isn't that monumental a task. Badbilltucker 19:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Note another member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Virginia has indicated they would be happy to take on this project as part of their project on the project's talk page. Badbilltucker 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mayfair High School and deleted images used on deleted article

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayfair High School
Mayfair High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was no discussion whatsoever to delete this article. The person who deleted it says that it had no reliable sources and was unimproved since its creation over a year ago. That is clearly wrong. It had reliable sources and it did not seem to need much, if any, improvement. Renvarian 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and list on AfD, I'm not so sure A7 applies here. It's not a business, person, group of people, band, or website, and the article contained an assertion of notability (awards, however verifiable they are). A7 is only for articles without an assertion of notability. --Coredesat 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list on AfD per Coredesat. The article was a mess but notability was asserted: Mayfair is recognized as a "California Distinguished School" and as a "Blue Ribbon" school—one of the highest awards a high school in the United States can obtain. In 2001, Mayfair received the Golden Bell award from the California School Board Association for their Academy of Animation and Digital Art Program. The minimum for this would be prodding. ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion without prejuddice against creation of a better article. As deleted it was a directory entry, and much of it was the work of JarlaxleArtemis, who is indefinitely banned. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per JZG. Eusebeus 11:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral to (un)deletion, but afaik schools qualify for A7 as companies or corporations. Aecis 15:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, as stated above, A7 is only if there is no assertion of notability. I agree with the above that awards are an assertion of such. However, endorse deletion per Guy, as work of banned user. – Chacor 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per JzG, as the work of a banned user while he was banned (the anon editor is in the same IP range as the other IPs JarlaxleArtemis used). I didn't check the history. --Coredesat 17:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. Notability is asserted with multiple notable alumni and as an award winning school. bbx 18:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn with no prejudice against AFDing. Notability asserted makes A7 unsuitable. User was not banned a year ago when he was creating this, was he? I'm disturbed by comments such as "I didn't check the history" when trying to utilize {{db-g5}}. -- nae'blis 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but you're endorsing the use of G5 when the original nomination indicates this was created and entirely edited long before JA was banned. If you didn't check the article history, where's the basis for your endorsement? -- nae'blis 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Did Jarlaxle create the page? Was he banned when he created it? That may change this, but as an A7 this was improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete as an invalid speedy. Go read the policy, G5 is not retroactive, and A7 clearly does not apply. Silensor 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. As for A7, let's see a line from the article: "Mayfair is recognized as a "California Distinguished School" and as a "Blue Ribbon" school—one of the highest awards a high school in the United States can obtain.". Seems like an assertion to me. Created by JarlAxle in April 2005, he was not banned then, so that argument is without merit as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Send to AfD. The school has multiple claims of notability including being a Blue Ribbon school (I'm not sure at this point that's enough but it is a claim) and two notable alumni. JzG's point that it was mainly created by a banned user isn't relevant because the user was not banned at the time of his edits to the article. JoshuaZ 02:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn without prejudice against an AFD listing, but frankly I do not believe it is necessary - this school appears to be notable. Yamaguchi先生 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, undelete and do not send to AfD. Out-of-process speedy should be immediately restored. A7 not valid and the log comment: no reliable sources, unimproved since its creation over a year ago can not be used to justify a deletion. WP:CSD does not require sources or give a timeframe for article improvement. Certain admins need to contemplate the reason why AfD runs for five days. Finally, admin error or destruction of wikipedia content does not mandate an AFD debate. This DRV would have been avoided if the initial mistake had not been made or had been rapidly corrected. Let's not compound the error with more useless verbiage. --JJay 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse, per User:JzG. We don't want to send this to AfD, because the schoolcrufters would only clutter it up with nonsense hyperbole. It's a stretch as far as CSD goes, but close enough that WP:SNOW happily justifies it for me. WP:NOT a directory, and schools still have to pass WP:V. Remember, we need to verify the information, not the subject, so it is not sufficient to say "the school exists, and we can verify its existence". It's a primary school, for crying out loud. Chris talk back 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The WP:SNOW essay states: If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. Based on the opinions expressed in this DRV, and your own admission regarding the probable outcome of an AFD nomination, the Snow essay hardly seems applicable (although might be cited to justify the immediate closing of this DRV and the restoration of the article because the outcome is foreordained). The next time you want to justify the indefensible, might I suggest you try our "deep and subtle" IAR policy, the all-purpose refuge of those with little consideration for consensus building on article inclusion at wikipedia. --JJay 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    As I suggested, the chance of an unexpected outcome of any prospective AfD is nil. Hence, there is no point subjecting this non-article to it. As for your reference to consensus building, may I point out that the schoolcruft brigade (yourself included) actively blocks any attempts at "consensus building". Chris talk back 22:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I'm on leave from the brigade right now so I'm just trying to block your complete misinterpretation of WP:SNOW from spreading --JJay 22:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    What complete misinterpretation would that be? Is there any doubt of the outcome of an AfD? No. Hence no point in going through one. Good common-sense call. If you so greatly object to the deletion, quit whining and go recreate the article from reliable sources already. Chris talk back 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The Snow essay says that process can be skipped if the outcome is assured. It doesn't say skip the process and apply the opposite of the expected outcome. That is the justification you have provided to endorse the speedy deletion of this article (i.e. "WP:SNOW happily justifies it for me"). Your interpretation is wrong. WP:SNOW further calls for the complete process to be followed for contentious issues. WP:SNOW can not justify an improper CSD for a school article that, based on thousands of AFD debates, is going to be contentious. However, If you are now saying that an AFD following this DRV would be a waste of time per WP:SNOW than I agree (as per my original comment)--JJay 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, my reasoning is that of JzG, which (as you'd know if you read it) is without prejudice to a decent article being created, so if you feel so strongly that this school deserves an article, go create one. Chris talk back 23:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It will be restored following this DRV. Whether this article is "decent" or not is an entirely different issue.--JJay 23:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is discussed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. I speedied the article because it appears to exist for no reason other than to further a campaign against Rachel Marsden, as a POV fork of Rachel Marsden, and because I thought it gave undue weight to the case. As far as I can tell this is not an important test case discussed by the legal reviews and journals, it's just a piece of sensationalist local news. At best I would make it a redirect to Rachel Marsden, but it's not an especially likely search term I believe. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, I think. However, two people have now challenged my deletion, so I am bringing it here. To facilitate debate I have undeleted the history. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • OverturnStrong overturn This case was front page news long before Rachel Marsden became well-known. From the cached version on Google: It was widely reported in several of Canada's most respected national papers (as is obvious from looking at the references). "As a result of the case, SFU radically revised its policies for dealing with harassment. University president John Stubbs, who had endorsed Donnelly's dismissal, first took medical leave and then resigned in the wake of the scandal. SFU also reopened 11 harassment cases and reversed their decision." Several unflattering paragraphs that used to be in Rachel Marsden were moved into this article in a spirit of kindness, in order to minimize their impact on her. I will put a notice at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Vancouver asking for further comment. Kla'quot 08:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn This case is very well-documented here in the Vancouver area, in addition to the rest of Canada. While the POV can certainly be fixed, I do believe it is obviously notable and verifiable. Heck, I heard of the case even before I started using Misplaced Pages, and from what I understand, it severely impacted SFU, a major university and research institute in Western Canada. This case definitely deserves an article. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have absolutely no problem with you working up neutral version to be merged in, but I would remind you of WP:BLP, which supports removing, not debating, biased material about living individuals. Please do make a neutral version. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP requires removing controversial unsourced or poorly sourced material about living individuals. Also, there are several living persons named in the article; if you remove well-sourced information you may actually be violating WP:BLP by making one of the other subjects in the article look bad. Kla'quot 04:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

*Weak support of deletionI agree it was more than a sensational local story - the case raised important questions about sexual harassment and gender assumptions and had significant policy implications at a major public institution, and probably will reverberate for years as a case in point. That said, I don't see why it shouldn't be left to the Rachel Marsden article. I'm guessing that maybe it's a politicized issue there, so maybe expanding that section may prove difficult. I'm also guessing that Misplaced Pages would tend to err on the side of caution with biographies of living persons so as to steer clear of any legal problems. Still, the issue could also be covered in the SFU article, or even raised in the sexual harrassment article. I have to make mine a weak support, however, simply because I didn't see the deleted article. Bobanny 10:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Overturn I'm changing my position after reading the article in question (thanks for providing that, Buchanan-Hermit), as well as WP:POVFORK. I don't think it qualifies as a POV fork, but is a legitimate spin-off article. It doesn't seem to be avoiding a balanced POV, and any such problems with the article are fixable. Other considerations include notability. Before reading the Rachel Marsden, I had no idea that she had acheived notability beyond the scandal itself. But it seems her career is notable in addition to the scandal and 2 articles are not unreasonable. Certainly the scandal is more notable than this, and as a member of Wikiproject Vancouver, there are a lot less notable, but still legitimate, articles there. Personally, I'm interested in the nitty gritty details of this case, but as already noted, the scandal had significant and concrete consequences. It was widely reported at the time, and not only in tabloids, thus making it a legit news story. If I were researching sexual harassment or perhaps gender relations, I would be interested in the topic, and not for its titillation value. Is it scandalmongering, as others have said? A better question is: is it legitimate for Misplaced Pages to have articles on scandals? I don't see why not if this gets an article, or if Category:Scandals is a legitimate category, then this case also merits an article. Not everything on Misplaced Pages is in good taste, and some subjects are notable precisely because they are in bad taste, but that's a reflection on the topic, not on Misplaced Pages's treatment of it. I'm making my vote a strong one, because based on the evidence I've seen, deletion would be a form of censorship in this instance, and shouldn't be used as a tool to avoid holding Misplaced Pages editors to high standards in treating controversial subjects. Bobanny 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion basically I agree with everything User:Buchanan-Hermit said, but completely inverted. This is tedious, local scandalmongering that is largely meretricious salaciousness. The salient details can (and should) be referenced at Marsden's main page and at SFU, should it be required. Don't get me wrong: the woman is clearly self-promoting, unpleasant and unethical (as the case demonstrates), but that does not justify retaining this POV fork. Eusebeus 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between covering an event in a salacious way, and covering a significant event whose facts are salacious. The most reputable national news outlets in Canada have covered this event. From reading Guy's explanation of why he speedied it ("local news," "Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid"), I suspect that he is not familiar with Canadian news media. The sources cited include the Globe and Mail - Canada's national newspaper of record, and Maclean's, Canada's leading weekly news magazine. Also from the Talk page: "The story got press time in at least a hundred news articles over the space of a year, and these were not only in Canada, but many in the USA and some in the international press." There is no way this article can be classified as an attack page. Kla'quot 04:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Buchanan-Hermit. I disagree that it's a POV fork; even so, any POV problems are fixable and do not warrant deletion of the entire article. The case had a serious impact not only on SFU (culminating with the resignation of its president) but also other Canadian universities. Agent 86 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as per Guy and Eusebeus. No evidence that this was an important test case or had substantial impact on Canadian university system. Misplaced Pages is not a police report archive. A few details of the case can be summarized if not already on Marsden, SFU and Stubbs pages as per Eusebeus. I don't see the need for this detailed article (which has some dubious claims too - much media attention around the world? really? Bwithh 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Buchanan-Hermit, nothing warranted the wholesale deletion of the article. Worse case scenario this should have been merged. Silensor 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never, nor will I ever, edit the Rachel Marsden article and I have not paid attention the Arbcomm case either. Perhaps I feared some rather persistant editors. I remember a time, before WP:LIVING, when the subjects of articles would threaten admins (really? it is that easy to evade a block?) over the unflattering content and demand unpaid volunteers to work more diligently to uncover the real truthiness (or does He normally respond to random users requesting a Peer Review?) </cynicism>. With this history of the subject matter in mind, as it exists, the article would cause more buckets of grief than it is worth. I don't know if this was a WP:POVFORK in the letter of the law or not but it certainly is one in practice. How about moving the topic/content to a newly stubbed History of Simon Fraser University article? or, if you must, a Controversies of Simon Fraser University (got to discuss that abnormally high suicide rate somewhere)? Leave a harmless redirect behind. ·maclean 04:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn. This was huge news in Canada at the time; to blank it in order to help a lousy RfAr seems to be a rather extreme case of putting mere process before the good of the encylcopedia, IMHO. However, when restored it should probably be renamed to whatever the official legal title of the case was. --Aaron 22:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just read the RfArb. This whole situation is a mess (although not through the fault of the ArbComm members)! POV-pushing on both sides combined with WP:AUTO concerns. The article is generally well-referenced, though. I have no real opinion on whether it gives too much weight to the case, which will invariably be brought up whenever she says anything that could be construed as socially conservative (for example, when she compared Canada to Sodom and Gomorrah). This case clearly deserves some discussion (and the current article is as good a starting point as any) although whether in her article or in a separate one I cannot say. JChap2007 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)