Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 16

Pat Broeker – Undeleted. Closing early as this appears to be a noncontroversial request. A new AfD remains, of course, a possibility. – Sandstein 21:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted in 2007 as Scientology cruft. However, last summer the book Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion by journalist Janet Reitman was published. I'm currently reading this book and can attest that the book establishes that Pat Broeker was in fact a major figure in the history of Scientology. It makes it clear that he is equally or more important than a number of other figures such as Mary Sue Hubbard and David Gaiman who have Wikipedia articles. Obviously, since the history of Scientology is shrouded in mystery, as more information becomes available, we will have to reevaluate the importance of what were once thought minor figures and reevaluate decisions such as the one to delete this article accordingly. Note: Closing admin is retired. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete per nom, and the weakness and age of the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per nom and per SmokeyJoe. The AFD was indeed weak, and the nom makes a plausible claim that new sources demonstrate notability. Editors may want to test notability again in a further AFD, but the 2007 decision is now outdated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does seem to be a convincing reason to overrule the AfD and undelete.—S Marshall T/C 13:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tyler Brown – Overturn and list at AfD – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was Speedy Deleted under A7, which states “The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.” The article I wrote does make a credible claim of significance or importance, and so it did not meet the standard to be a speedy delete under A7. The given reason for speedy deletion is not true, because the article that I wrote DOES indicate the importance or significance of the subject. After questioning the deleting editor Peridon on his talk page, he now says he deleted the article because it did not meet the standards set in WP:NBASKETBALL - but he should not be the sole judge on that matter. And even if Tyler Brown falls short of WP:NBASKETBALL, he DOES meet the standards set in the general notability guideline. Tourd (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try userspace first. Given the deletion log entries, this looks pretty dubious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this is the first article for this Tyler Brown, so far as I could see. I did check some of them and they weren't this guy. To Tourd, any admin dealing with articles that are in the category of those tagged for speedy deletion has the 'power' to decide the fate of any of those articles. It's one of the things we are here for. If you disagree with that procedure in general, this isn't the place. Try WP:AN or WP:VP to start a discussion on admin 'powers'. As to "he now says", that reply to you on my talkpage was the first thing I did say - there was no 'before'. I checked in NBASKETBALL to be sure - there are so many different criteria over the different categories - and couldn't see this passing. I've nothing against Tyler Brown - if the article is reinstated I won't lose any sleep. I could be wrong on my interpretation - that is why I suggested you bring things to here. The basis of Wikipedia is consensus. Peridon (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post and the Times Republican ("Central Iowa's daily newspaper") both appear to pass WP:RS and were cited in the article. As far as I can see, this short article made a credible claim of notability for Tyler Brown by listing the reliable sources that had actually noted him. I do see that Brown may fail WP:NBASKETBALL, but usual custom and practice at DRV is that WP:N is deemed to prevail over SNGs of any kind. By stare decisis we should find that A7 did not apply and overturn. I do recognise that this isn't a court and we aren't obliged to follow precedent, but I think that in the absence of any other factors it's best if we try to follow our previous decisions. DRV ought to be consistent as well as sober and orderly.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete largely per S Marshall. Though we are not strictly bound by precedent the way common law courts, theoretically, are we should general respect past decisions. While I would give deference to an AfD consensus that an SNG failure trumps coverage that approaches or meets the GNG, A7 does not enshrine those guidelines for the purposes of speedy deletion. Looking at the sources in the article I would say that only the Times Republican link[1] is really useful for notability. The WaPo page[2] is pure statistics in what looks to be a directory of all Division I college players. Nevertheless, while the GNG requires multiple (i.e. two or more) good sources one should be enough to get past A7 with its lower than notability bar. It might still be deleted at AfD but that will give people time to search for better sources and consider them. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold deletion The only suggestion of possible notability - and it's only there if I read it with one eye closed - is the statement "twice named NJCAA Division I All-American", but this type of assertion is not reliably sourced, so must be discarded. The statement about "top scorer" is only an aside, as it's current, not lifetime, so that does not count as a statement of notability, nor do I percieve it to have been one anyway. As such, meets the CSD. Of course, this point is moot in the long run: it would never survive an WP:AFD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need reliable sourcing to overcome an A7 deletion, just an assertion. Sourcing issues are for AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD there's a plausible assertion of what someone could in good faith have considered notability . I would be surprised if the article survived AfD, but in such cases there needs to be a community decision. A7 does not mean "any article not showing enough notability to survive AfD" Such an interpretation, linking A7 to WP:N, has consistently been rejected in discussions--and the very term " notability " is deliberately omitted from the guideline. therefore, it is proper to overturn here every speedy deletion on such grounds, even if it adds slightly to the burden at AfD . Otherwise the guideline means "Delete at will" & I trust neither myself nor any other admin to individually make such decisions--and considering the hundreds of active admins, it would lead to a remarkable inconsistent encyclopedia that would be laughed at, both for what it did and did not include. That we maintain a standard of inclusion is important to our public acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Especially per DGG above. The bar for A7 is a claim of notability and that exists here. A7 does not give administrators carte blanche authority to determine notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per SMarshall and DGG. Patently invalid application of A7. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Primary drug resistance – DRV is not a forum that permits reviews to be used to attack other editors – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

NIAID director Anthony Fauci has some rather strident views about HIV/AIDS which are not accepted by most scientists. This deleted page summarized the scientific consensus on HIV drug resistance. It basically trashes Fauci’s theories.
Both MastCell and Fauci share the same POV on HIV/AIDS.
My criticisms of Fauci bother MastCell.
Both MastCell and Fauci are interested in immunology and allergies.
Please note these comments.
Fauci controls an annual $4.8 billion propaganda budget and has a number of rather unpleasant followers. My requests to have the article restored have been declined and mainstream criticism of Fauci is essentially banned from Wikipedia.
The NIH loves Wikipedia and WMF funding is increasing even though editors and readers are leaving.
I seriously don’t believe that any of the author’s cited in the deleted page would be anything other than pleased that I acknowledged their hard work. However, I would be more than pleased to copy/edit any portion of the restored page upon request. --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close As casting aspersions and making accusations of bias aainst an other editor. Remove your aspersions against Mastcell and I will explain why his deletion is correct according to our copyright rules and what you need to do if you want to recreate the article. Yoenit (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are in error. Stating that Anthony Fauci has killed 24 million people is not “casting aspirations”. It is merely stating a fact. Even if stating facts were to be considered to be “casting aspirations”, it would only be casting aspirations on MastCell if MastCell was Anthony Fauci. In such a case, the page deletion would have been a clear COI. Moreover, you could only know if MastCell and Fauci are the same person if you are one of his co-workers. In which case you would share the COI. I am, of course, making an accusation of bias “aainst” both of you, as per the duck test. --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So now I am his co-worker? I presume you will continue accusing everybody who disagrees with you of bias, so any discussion here is pointless. Yoenit (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the NIH does not view Wikipedia as its own propaganda site, how do you explain this? --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, the nominator doesn't inspire trust that he knows what we do here. Please reveiw WP:COI and declare any real world interests related to your editing interests on your userpage. Explain why Wikipedia:Alternative outlets doesn't apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet, this should be closed per wp:DENY. Yoenit (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.