Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Blacketer (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 1 October 2008 (→‎29 September 2008: Endorse close.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 28 Deletion review archives: 2008 September September 30 >

29 September 2008

Image:Auschappoint.jpg

File:Auschappoint.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

I was looking through old links on my former User page (User:Husnock) and came across this unresolved issue. Rudolf Hoess’s appointment order as Auschwitz commander was deleted about a year ago by an admin User:Butseriouslyfolks as part of a major purge of images uploaded under my previous account. At the time, there was some very bad blood on Wikipedia between myself and a lot of people and an ArbCom had recently been filed regarding a threat made against another user. I was also deployed to the Middle East and under a tremendous amount of stress and was acting like a jerk. Needless to say, I think a lot of this clouded people’s judgment about this particular image and this was fueled even further by a rash of accusations that I had knowingly stolen hundreds of images from the federal government (a page that gave most of this evidence, User:Durin/Husnock images, was later deleted for being an attack page.) Now, for the complete truth about this image: The image is a scan which I made myself when I was doing intern work at the National Archives in College Park around 1997. The scan was from the SS record of Hoess on file with NARA. According to several archivists that I have spoken to, plus my own knowledge as a historian with the National Archives myself, the scan is totally clear for any kind of publication and the only credit that should need to be given is that it was scanned from the microfiche in the SS record cabinets at college park. In fact, I scanned it at the same time as Image:EichmannSSdoc.jpg which has had no problems being on this site. Now, I don’t blame BSF or others for the initial reaction; like I said, there was a lot of bad blood and people were very upset about a lot of things most of which I caused. There were some strong words used including some implications that I was lying about even doing research at the Archives, much less being an employee of that agency. There was also a very bad situation about most of the military badge and medal images I had uploaded to this site being taken from a CD from Randolph Air Force Base which was, itself, comprosed mostly of stolen images. With all that aisde, though, in the past year I’ve cleaned up and obeyed all the rules of this site and have had absolutely no problem with anyone. So I say now that this image was not stolen, it is not a copyright violation, and I ask that we undelete it so it can be placed back into the Hoess article for others to see and study. I will be happy to answer further questions about or respond to an administrator using my nara.gove e-mail account to verify my identidy. Thank you and good night. OberRanks (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just reupload it; the deletion was nearly a year ago. If it's properly licensed and the license is verified, there's no problem. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same. Just reupload it, but do make sure it passes whatever the relevant criteria are (in this case, that it doesn't meet I9 in the short term, possibly the WP:NFCC in the longer term). Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just reupload it and make sure you overcome the CSD I9 reasons for the deletion. -- Suntag ☼ 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area 58

Area 58 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) yes virgina there is an area 58:

"The first SDS satellites were placed into highly elliptical "Molniya" orbits to send images from KH-11 electro-optical reconnaissance satellites back to the DCEETA/Area 58 ground station at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia (38d44m10s N, 77d09m30s W). It is possible that some later SDS satellites were placed in geosynchronous orbits and may serve as relays for other NRO satellites, such as Lacrosse." 1

or the google books The US Intelligence Community: "large windowless two-story building officially know as the Defence Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity DCEETA, and also known as Area 58. While initially Fort Belvoir site was the only downlink.." 2

NYTimes: "Orbiting the earth every 92 minutes at an altitude of between 170 and 320 miles, the satellite's signals are first transmitted to another satellite. The pictures are then retransmitted down to analysts at the Mission Ground Site, a large, windowless, two- story concrete building at Fort Belvoir, near Washington, with the cover name of Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity." http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30D10F73D5F0C708DDDA80894DD484D81 logon required

The book Deep Black also confirm the history about President Carter and operations at DCEETA.

Apparantly the link to Mr Hamre remarks was suppressed September 2008 after being active for 8 years. "www.insidedefense.com/public/award1new.asp" -- could not be found which confirmed the link between DCEETA and Area 58.

therefore, we have 3 independant sources that confirm the existance of Area 58 and its equivalence with DCEETA.

how unoriginal could i get?

As to notability, is Menwith Hill notable? is Area 51 notable? are the means and methods used to transmit Satellite Intelligence to the ground notable? Or is the question really don't spread open source secrets around?

The concept of Area 58 is falsifiable. is there any source that denies the existance of area 58? Is the explanation reasonable? Dogue (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion The afd identified other aspects of the article that needed improvement in addition to its questionable notability. Also, dragging Area 51 into this is not a bright idea: Area 51 is a blackops site with fame, photographs, and a few verifiable truths, not to mention a popular culture rap sheet longer than most Baytoven simphonies. I can not find a good reason to undelete, thus I am of the opinion that the article should stay red. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since it could not go any other way. I think using "Area 58" as the article name is throwing everyone because the location is more widely known as "Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity center" (Defense CEETA). Wikipedia is not the place to make neogolisms popular and any article on the topic should be titled Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity center. There is info on Defense CEETA, so please feel free to develop an article in user space (minus the web site/blog sources) and request that the draft be moved into article space. (On a different note, check out this Area 58) -- Suntag ☼ 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse apparently is primarily original research, notability is far from clear, no issues with the AfD as it stood. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to indicate how the deletion procedure was not properly followed. It is not a venue to ask the other parent in the hope of a more favourable outcome. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok, I was addressing the two main issues: hoax and notability. I take it you agree now it is not a hoax. What is your 'google test'? I googled Area 58 and DCEETA, and got 16 independant references that supported 16 sentences in the article. Do you object to the Government Postion Section? "John Pike, who directs space policy for the Federation of American Scientists, believes the problem affected the ground link for the Lacrosse, not the KH-11. The primary ground link is at "Area 58," an intelligence community designation for the Defense Communication Electronics Evaluation and Test Activity at Fort Belvoir, Va., a few miles down the Potomac from Washington."[[1]] now the Hamre statement is censored, if i scanned the hardcopy of the InsideDefense article, would that be original? what is the Wiki policy for net censored material and references?
    • As far as the name, I didn't pick it, and DCEETA is the 'cover name', how about "The Mission Ground Site". btw, it is a blackops site. The NRO has clasified the location, not the name.(note 15 in the article) [[2]]
    • if area 51 is britney spears, then area 58 is that other spears girl. Does Wiki want a cogent explanation of how and where satellite intelligence is transmitted? because all the KH11, NGA, and NRO articles have a missing link in DCEETA.
    • Suntag, if i were to write a DCEETA article with all the same facts, what assurance is there that it won't get speedily deleted for 'non-notablity'? These military types are following their orders to close Pandora's box, and they will use any euphemism. otoh, the NRO taj mahal is in Wiki. (but i'm sure they'll argue it's not 'mission critical') Dogue (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you were to write a DCEETA article just like the one that was deleted, it would get speedy deleted under CSD G4. I don't care what the article is called, but the name of the Wikipedia article should be the most common name used by the reliable sources and I can tell you that it is not Area 58. There is reliable source info on Defense CEETA, so please feel free to develop a draft article in a user subpage using reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you want the article to stay on Wikipedia, do not use web site/blog sources. Once you are done with your draft article, return to DRV and request that the draft be moved into article space. -- Suntag ☼ 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers

List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AfD 6)

The closing admin noted that "nobody has successfully refuted Scott MacDonald's point that the list is inherently subjective and the poor referencing leads to BLP issues." Actually several folks, including myself, mention that sourcing each entry would address those very concerns. This was the sixth AfD for the article including one that was overturned at DRV. Any OR and BLP concerns are WP:Problems that should be fixed. Also this seems to be a perennial top 100 article on Wikipedia so a well-written article would actually serve our readers better than simply deleting something based on what seems to be cultural bias. WP:BLP should not be a delete hammer to rid ourselves of articles, in this case it should instead be used to move contentious entries to the talkpage until BLP concerns are addressed by better writing and sourcing to address such concerns. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the following. -- Suntag ☼ 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion as a valid interpretation of the debate. Please remember that this is not round 2 of AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse The link above points to an earlier AfD, by the way. There was a lot of crowing about the nomination and about how the article is periodically nominated, but not much substantive argument for keeping it. The line between "fix problems and don't delete" and "these problems make the article innapropriate for wikipedia" is a very fuzzy one. There are articles where clearly no amount of improvement will result in an appropriate entry. there are articles where cleanup is obviously the best solution. But in the middle we can't just argue that cleanup can happen so therefore the article should be kept. A number of people noted that the inclusion criteria and the only real response was that these were solvable problems. That's not a compelling response to me. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself, as stifle said, this isn't AfD2. It was borderline, but it seems like deletion was proper. Protonk (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to relevant AfD added. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Empty promises to add sources for a highly subjective criteria. How comes sources weren't added after all the previous AfDs? Let me quote Geometry guy's position in the RfC on notability: "There is a deadline: it arrives when someone lists the article at AfD." VG ☎ 15:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was mentioned in The Sun (12 Dec 2007) Wikipedia's bust idea ever. -- Suntag ☼ 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good reference for Criticism of Wikipedia rather than the list itself. VG ☎ 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. -- Suntag ☼ 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History undelete please for DRV discussion. Thanks -- Suntag ☼ 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I'm seeing nothing wrong here with the way this deletion progressed, and with the final decision (regardless of which way it went) - Alison ❤ 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I actually attempted to address the nom's points in turn, I was quite surprised to find that "failure to address the nom's points" was the reason given for the closure. Whether they are addressed successfully is surely a subjective decision, not really a closure criteria? Not sure if I'm entitled to have a position here, since I participated in the AfD discussion, but I'd have been a lot happier if the closure had cited apparent consensus (though I doubt there really was any) rather than claiming the nom's position was not challenged. MadScot (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As was stated in the AfD one of the main contributors, who had shown a great willingness to collaborate and address problems was frustrated by the regular efforts to delete content and the article. This AfD was my first introduction to it and I see the list as certainly fixable and stated such in the discussion. The AfD, IMHO, was rather split so was surprised it wasn't called as "no consensus". If the community demands clarity for inclusion and sourcing to address BLP concerns then make that clear and assume good faith that editors will do so, I've done that on a much larger list so I know it's possible. A 3-6 month stay of execution would be reasonable to address concerns. -- Banjeboi 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but feel free to develop a user space article. After AfD#6, promises to fix may receive less weight than after AfD#1. We have Category:Big-bust models and performers, so we're not losing too much material. For list intersections, Wikipedia:Irrelevant Intersections for Lists indicates a need for a reliable source that addresses the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested. I think that a list such as List of adult entertainers having a reputation for large sized breasts could be a viable intersection list if the adult entertainment industry or some reliable source sets out criteria for being a large sized breasts adult entertainer and reliable sources utilize that criteria. As consensus sets out in AfD#6, the present list never came together to meet V and RS. The title of the article did not assist in this at all and the membership criteria "the consensus among many independent web sites is that a DD cup size and larger qualifies as "large" " may have poisoned the well. In response to using Juggs Magazine as a reliable source (yes, please use), Scott MacDonald posted in AfD6, "I've no doubt a well-referenced article can be written on the subject (with attributed examples of popular views)."[3] MadScott additionally pointed out that "There's an AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust"."[4] GlassCobra also adds, "These actresses are indeed famous precisely because of their large busts."[5]. There clearly can be a Wikipedia article on this topic. The fact that this topic is a perennial top 100 article on Wikipedia means we really need to ensure that this article meets Wikipedia article standards. A good way to go about this is to create a user space article and get DRVs thumbs up on it to move it into user space. -- Suntag ☼ 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but I agree with Suntag. There is the potential for a similar, but less subjective article to be created. Epbr123 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, article survived six AFDs by "keep" voters arguing that references could be obtained, yet references still never appeared. fish&karate 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Issues of subjectivity and BLP were clearly handled in the AfD with a large set of various sources listed. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close my nomination listed inherent issues of POV, OR and unverifiability in ANY selection criteria for this. The closer rightly identified that the keep arguments did not answer the policy based reasons for the deletion nomination. DRV is not round 9 of afd.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess my post of 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) was invisible to yourself and the closer then? I'm rather frustrated that having restricted my own comments largely to addressing the issues raised by the nom, they were in effect ignored and apparently the large number of !votes based on "oh how demeaning" apparently swayed the closing. It's extremely frustrating to find an AfD debate closed on such thin grounds when there was no apparent consensus. MadScot (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to be rude, but maybe people are not finding your arguments convincing. You've noted a few times that people have ignored or otherwise marginalized your views on the issue. It may be possible that they considered them and then rejected them for some reason. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's OK, I don't find that rude. In fact I'd rather be told my input is valueless than have it ignored altogether. At least you're acknowledging there was an attempt to address the nom's issue. MadScot (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is valueless. And even if people don't find it persuasive it isn't valueless (people often don't find opposing arguments persuasive, unfortunately). I agree that some mention of your comments should have been made and I understand your frustration. Alternately, someone may have dismissed (fairly or unfairly) your first argument as basically WP:OSE and not noticed your second comment (which was stronger, IMO). Protonk (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion after several years, six(!) AFDs, and considerable editor attention, promises that the article can somehow be fixed are less than convincing. I also note that, as I noted in the AfD, a bulk of the keep votes simply said it should be kept because it's been through AfD before, while apparently ignoring that all but one of the previous debates were "delete" or "no consensus". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A request for a history undeletion was denied due the massive number of revisions involved, so I've created User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/For DRV with the content from the most recent version (less the AfD tag and categories) for the benefit of non-admins. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I was not aware there was any time constraints for anything to be done. This plainly boils down to "I dont like it, so it should go through as many AFD's as it takes to get rid of it" rather than edit to correct the problems. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Inclusion criteria for the list were not well-defined. The proposed solution (sourcing every entry) might be an improvement, but it would create a hodgepodge of links to sources of a more tabloid and sensationalist, rather than reliable, nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems like a pile of bad faith assumptions. This list - like so many others - is in need of tighter definitions that are clear in the lede and reliable sourcing which demonstrates the entry adheres to the list requirements. These are all fixable problems as laid out in the AfD. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been alleged that because sourcing hasn't fully enveloped each entry over the course of each AfD that it won't happen or it's evidence that editors are adverse to this. I find this troubling as we all know that articles, generally, improve over time and the issue doesn't seem to be that sources don't exist but that they're not yet on the article. Each entry is for an existing article which evidently asserts the notability there and a quick look shows that redlinked entries were non-existent. We discourage ownership issues so why hold some "other" editors to adding sources and cleaning up WP:Problems? Even adding a few would help set a good example. Finally I will point out that I had never known the article existed until this AfD - there are likely many willing editors much more interested in teh subject who given some sound structure and good examples to follow would be willing to do the actual clean-up work. Unclear why we wouldn't encourage this. This article is arguably one of the top gateway articles to the rest of the project - instead of pointing at its faults and lamenting generalized concerns - it seems the project would benefit by turning into a good article that treats a contemporary subject encyclopedicly where others could or would not. Exactly what Wikipedia can do best. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might work if this was the first or second AFD to say that the sourcing was poor. This was the sixth. Requests for more time to come up with sources are a bit hollow. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that this is my first AfD with this article and current editors shouldn't be judged by what previous editors failed to accomplish. And the time needed isn't to come up with sources but to come up with consensus on how to fix the criteria and then format the list to address concerns which likely entail ensuring every item is sourced. -- Banjeboi 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How to fix the criteria. (1) Make sure that "adult entertainers" appears in the name of the article. (2) Don't use a website to source the inclusion criteria. (3) Source the inclusion criteria to (a) Juggs Magazine and/or to (b) the AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust". (4) Create a table that has a column for footnotes. -- Suntag ☼ 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, these are actually constructive ways to address fixing the problems. That previous editors walked away from keep or delete AfD discussions and did not fix the article problems is not a reason to delete. This was stressed in the AfD. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If not one cares enough to completely overhaul an article that is currently outside our inclusion guidelines to one inside our inclusion guidelines, then eventually we have to ask whether on not we want to keep it. If after 5 years and 6 AfD's no one has stepped up to the plate, how long to we wait with an article that fails WP:NPOV and WP:SYN? I know the standard responses of AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline but those are rallying cries and not a reasonable way to treat an article which doesn't meet the guidelines. At what point do we take responsibility for this and say: this either gets improved to the point where we can say "revision X meets guidelines and policies" or it gets deleted? And don't say never because we do it all the time. A3 and A7 deletions are basically extreme versions of the statement "there is too much between this and an acceptable article". What happens if we have a set of clear possible criteria (like above) but Suntag doesn't want to order 100 back issues of Juggs to make the list? I certainly don't want to. Right now we have intertia in play. If this article remains, the only thing that will save it is a complete rewrite. The motivation to make that rewrite gets smaller the larger the article gets, because we have a natural inclination to make small adjustments (esp. on a wiki) or append items rather than revamp the basic idea. Maintaining this list makes it more likely that its current format is perpetuated. So do we restore it, stub it and enforce the inclusion criteria? Who is going to do that? Who will stop someone from just reverting to the old version and making and article that doesn't meet our guidelines? I'm not saying that everything which doesn't arouse instant interest should be deleted. Most articles see very little interest. I'm just suggesting that we can't keep saying that some unwieldy list like this will be magically turned into an article that meets community expectations and then call that constructive (versus deletion, which is evidently always destructive). Some time along the line we have to say "If wikipedia should have an article on this, it shouldn't be this one." Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your thoughts are valid - again these are all reasns to clean-up an article - not to delete it. If editors feel their work is continually targeted and vandalized that it's unsurprising that inertia would wane. It's not fixed yet ergo never will be so let's delete it is a terrible policy position. Our standards of what a featured article is have greatly improved even over the past few years yet we work to re-evaluate and improve striving to make articles better. There's no reason this article can't be improved to even a GA level, unless, of course, WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes are now seen as justifiable concerns. OR, NPOV and RS issues are all WP:Problems. We fix problems not give up all hope. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, selection criteria always were subjective and subjectively based on notoriously unreliable sources at that. This article was both listcruft and porncruft and its departure improves the project. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously! Guy, perhaps you had a very sheltered childhood? It is in fact one of the most socially structured forms of autoerotic activity there is.[1] Again, what is the problem with lists pertaining to breast fetishism? This is the entertainment industry, and it takes years to write objective articles. Ottre 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Laumann, Edward O. (1994). "Sexual Networks". The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press. pp. pp. 225-268. ISBN 0-226-46957-3. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Endorse close. The close may have been against the consensus of the deletion debate but it is always legitimate to look behind the votes at the competing arguments. In this case, the nominator and closer both correctly point to the fact that the list was based on subjective and arbitrary admission criteria. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conserve School

Conserve School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Article was deleted under A7, but I remember editing it and adding several news articles to it to assert notability. Whether or not the school is notable is irrelevant as it did not qualify for A7 by asserting its notability IIRC. This should be recreated (version prior to first deletion) and sent to AFD so that a proper discussion on the school's notability can be had. Chris Picone! 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A restore of this would necessitate an undelete of Image:Conservelogoflag.png as well. Chris Picone! 05:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. I've restored and the prior version is now viewable in the page history. A lot of advertising and a bit of copyvio was inserted in this diff. I doubt we'll hear any copyright complaints, since the IP traces back to the school! Despite this, A7 deletion doesn't apply to high schools, about which there's been significant controversy in Wikipedia's history. This high school, though small, has a unique mission and there's at least this news coverage about one of its internal programs. It would stand a decent chance at AFD.--chaser - t 04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for the history undelete. Anyway, I used to attend the school and worked with the staff to remove copyright violations and POV sections when I was there. If the school continues to add POV if restored, I'm sure I can call a teacher who will talk to the staff (they were the ones editing, IIRC). Also worth noting: the user Stefan.Anderson is the school's headmaster. Chris Picone! 04:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above, schools explicitly do not qualify for A7. Overturn on that basis. lifebaka++ 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, schools aren't an A7. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn in view of the deletion history for this article and above assertions of controversial A7 deletion, it may be better to have an AfD discussion on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A7 reads "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." In other words, schools do qualify for A7, but if the particular A7 school deletion is controversial, then list the article at Articles for deletion instead. It doesn't seem reasonable to say that all school articles contain a reasonable indication of why the school might be important or significant. As now worded, A7 does not provide an exception for all schools. If there was consensus that all schools (or, more precisely, primary and secondary schools but not Joe's school of auto repair) should an A7 exception, then that should be explicitly provided in A7. -- Suntag ☼ 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text means that schools, as well as a bunch of other things, do not qualify for speedy deletion under A7. Actual text can be worked on at WT:CSD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Schools do not come under the A7 speedy criteria. The wording of the A7 criteria was geared to say that controversial topics should not be speedied under that criteria, with schools used as an example of a topic that is always controversial. There is a good reason for this in that most high schools get kept at AFD while most primary/elementary schools get merged/redirected. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Schools are not within A7 speedy and that disposes of it under the present rules. They can of course be changed. Even without that rule, this would not conceivably be an A7 lack of notability. It's a secondary boarding school of substantial size and distinctive nature. Through all the fluctuations on schools, it would have probably been kept at AfD. The present Del Rev is an illustration of our wisdom in keeping these out of A7. There's a discussion at WT:CSD, & I think this rule will stay. (but it is fair to note that the version actually deleted was an attack page replaced by a minimal stub--school pages are however frequently subject to such vandalism.) DGG (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as has been said above, schools do not qualify for A7. Whether the school is notable or not is a seperate issue that should be addressed through another deletion process (PROD, AFD). The current version certainly could be cleaned up. Hut 8.5 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_29&oldid=242342461"