Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 10 and Flaming (song): Difference between pages

"Flaming"
"Flaming"
Song
B-side	"The Gnome"

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:19, 10 October 2008

"Flaming" is a song by psychedelic rock band Pink Floyd, and is featured in their debut album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. The song, written by Syd Barrett, is basically a child-like game scenario between two friends, hence "Lazing in the foggy dew". After David Gilmour joined the band, the song remained in the playlist for a short while in 1968.

This was also the third U.S. Pink Floyd single (Tower 378). The single did not chart. The mono US single mix of Flaming is slightly edited from other stereo or mono versions of the recording. This U.S. single was released in place of Apples and Oranges b/w Paint Box which had just recently failed to break into the U.K. charts.

It was the first of two U.S. Pink Floyd singles released on the Tower Records label that were not released on a single in the U.K. The other U.S. single not released in the U.K. was Let There Be More Light/Remember a Day (Tower 440.)

Alternative and Live versions

Post-Barrett live incarnations of the song are often mocked by fans; its happy, surreal lyrics were entirely different from anything in Pink Floyd's setlist that year, and the lead vocals were delivered by David Gilmour in an unenthusiastic manner (video bootlegs of the song in 1968 show Gilmour with a bored expression on his face as he sang it). A David Gilmour version was shown on French TV. The song opened with a very uncharacteristic slide whistle played by Roger Waters.

Personnel

Syd Barrett - Guitar and Vocals
Richard Wright - Keyboards
Roger Waters - Bass and Slide whistle
Nick Mason - Drums and Percussion

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Infobox Single
-{{NOINDEX}}
+| Name = Flaming
-<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
-{| width = "100%"
+| Cover =
+| Artist = [[Pink Floyd]]
-|-
+| from Album = [[The Piper at the Gates of Dawn]]
-! width=20% align=left    | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 October 9|October 9]]
+| B-side = "[[The Gnome]]"
-! width=60% align=center  | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October|2008 October]]
+| Released = [[August 5]], [[1967]]
-! width=20% align=right   | [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 October 11|October 11]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
+| Recorded = March/June 1967
-|}
+| Genre = [[Psychedelic rock]]
-</div></noinclude>
+| Length = 2:46
-===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 10|10 October 2008]]===
+| Writer = [[Syd Barrett]]
-<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
+| Label = [[Tower Records (record label)|Tower]]/[[Capitol Records|Capitol]] <small>(US)</small>
+| Producer = [[Norman Smith (record producer)|Norman Smith]]
+| Last single = "[[Apples and Oranges (song)|Apples and Oranges]]"<br><small>(1967)</small>
+| This single = "'''Flaming'''"<br><small>(1967)</small>
+| Next single = "[[It Would Be So Nice]]"<br><small>(1968)</small>
+| Misc = {{Extra tracklisting
+| Album = [[The Piper at the Gates of Dawn]]
+| Type           = studio
+| prev_track     = "[[Matilda Mother]]"
+| prev_no        = Track 3
+| this_track     = "'''Flaming'''"
+| track_no       = Track 4
+| next_track     = "[[Pow R. Toc H.]]"
+| next_no        = Track 5
+}}
+}}
+"'''Flaming'''" is a song by [[psychedelic rock]] band [[Pink Floyd]], and is featured in their debut album, ''[[The Piper at the Gates of Dawn]]''. The song, written by [[Syd Barrett]], is basically a child-like game scenario between two friends, hence "Lazing in the foggy dew". After [[David Gilmour]] joined the band, the song remained in the playlist for a short while in 1968.
+This was also the third U.S. Pink Floyd single (Tower 378).  The single did not chart.  The mono US single mix of ''Flaming'' is slightly edited from other stereo or mono versions of the recording.  This U.S. single was released in place of ''[[Apples and Oranges (song)|Apples and Oranges]]'' b/w ''[[Paint Box]]'' which had just recently failed to break into the U.K. charts.
-Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGENAME|ns=NAMESPACE of page (optional)|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~      -->
-====[[:Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives]]====
+It was the first of two U.S. Pink Floyd singles released on the [[Tower Records (record label)|Tower Records]] label that were not released on a single in the U.K.  The other U.S. single not released in the U.K. was [[Let There Be More Light]]/[[Remember a Day]] (Tower 440.)
-{{drvlinks|pg=Fictional_obsessive-compulsives|ns=Category}} [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_4#Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives|CfD]]<tt>)</tt>
+== Alternative and Live versions ==
-This is unfortunately just the latest in a series of questionable closes by Kdbank71 and one of several closes of CfDs for which the only explanation was "The result of the discussion was: ''delete''", even where there was opposition to the close that addressed specific justifications for why the category should be retained. Multiple attempts to obtain any explanation for any of these closes was refused. As I explained at the most egregious of these CfDs, there is ample evidence of character's being described -- and defined -- as [[Obsessive-compulsive]] in reliable sources, which addresses the nominator's justification for the deletion, as well as all of the subsequent "per noms". The article [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/12/DD70341.DTL "TV cop fights crime, own tics: Shalhoub is outstanding as obsessive-compulsive S.F. officer"] describes [[Adrian Monk]] by his well-known defining characteristic. [http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040519&slug=tony19 "Actor Tony Randall, 84, 'Odd Couple' neatnik"] describes Randall as achieving his "... most enduring fame on television as Felix Unger, the obsessive-compulsive neat-freak photographer..." ''[[Frasier]]'' character [[Niles Crane]] is "diagnosed" by a professional interviewed by the ''[[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]]'' as having OCD (see [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/173025_frasierside13.html "Local professionals weigh in on 'Frasier'"]). The article [http://www.theage.com.au/news/TV--Radio/Desperate-measures/2005/04/01/1111862548042.html "Desperate measures"], labels ''[[Desperate Housewives]]'' character [[Bree Van de Kamp]] as fitting in this category, noting "Sure, Bree is obsessive-compulsive." These are just a handful of the reliable and verifiable independent sources that I found in a brief search that are defining the characters included in this category as "Obsessive-compulsive". Thousands of other sources are available to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic and to place these articles so listed in this category. It is likely that there's cleanup necessary for specific entries in this category that do not have any sources available to support the claim, but that is never an excuse for deleting an entire category. No [[WP:OR|original research]] is needed to come to the conclusion that this is a defining characteristic that belongs as a category. As the closing admin has ignored a clear argument supporting the retention of this category, has already started deleting the category despite his own request to take this to DRV, and as no policy argument was offered in the close despite multiple requests, this close is out of Wikipedia process and should be overturned. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
+Post-Barrett live incarnations of the song are often mocked by fans; its happy, surreal lyrics were entirely different from anything in Pink Floyd's setlist that year, and the lead vocals were delivered by David Gilmour in an unenthusiastic manner (video bootlegs of the song in 1968 show Gilmour with a bored expression on his face as he sang it). A David Gilmour version was shown on French TV. The song opened with a very uncharacteristic [[slide whistle]] played by [[Roger Waters]].
-*'''Endorse deletion'''.  Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research, which are valid grounds for deleting a category; that Alansohn still disagrees with those arguments does not provide proper DRV grounds for overturning.  Further, the sources he cites above do not prove his position, but instead illustrate the widespread colloquial usage of "obsessive-compulsive" to describe neat-freak personality types rather than to exclusively identify clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorders.  Vague character traits, whose significance really depends upon intra-fiction comparisons (such as between Felix and Oscar in ''[[The Odd Couple]]'') make a poor basis for categorization.  Note also that [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:People_with_obsessive-compulsive_disorder|the same category for real people]] was previously deleted as non-defining; closing as delete the same category for fictional characters could hardly be considered unreasonable.  As a closing note, it's regrettable that Alansohn has made this personal by attacking the closer with hyperbolic rhetoric, rather than just explaining why he thought this CFD should be overturned.  That the closer did not elaborate upon his close is not only [[Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Categories_for_Discussion_page|consistent with applicable deletion policy]], but also unnecessary in a straightforward CFD such as this one.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-:*This is not a "clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorder", this is a defining characteristic of many fictional characters used as a frequent device in print, television and movies. This is not a trait that a real-life person happens to have, it is a characteristic that has been explicitly and deliberately assigned by the fictional work's creator to define the character, and both casual viewers and the media at large have no problem in recognizing this trait and establishing it as defining, as for [[Adrian Monk]], [[Felix Unger]] and other fictional characters. If closing a CfD in which the only justification offered is [[WP:OR]], and multiple reliable, verifiable and independent sources for multiple characters demonstrating that the trait of being described as Obsessive-compulsive is defining and supported for individual characters can be simply ignored with a sniff and a wave of the hand, we have a real problem with the entire CfD system, not just this one out-of-process close. "Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research" ignores the multiple sources offered in rebuttal and seems to be defining consensus as a vote-counting exercise.  [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn deletion'''Excellent category for categorizing fictional characters. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' - Here's what is there now [[:Category:People diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder]] and [[:Category:Compulsive hoarding]]. Would it be that hard to rename the category to something like [[:Category:Fictional people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder]]? -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><font color="#FF8C00">☼</font></big></b>]] 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
+== Personnel ==
-====[[Image:Roll the Dice.jpg]]====
+*[[Syd Barrett]] - Guitar and Vocals
-:{{#ifeq:{{#switch:{{ucfirst:Image}}
+*[[Richard Wright (musician)|Richard Wright]] - Keyboards
-| Article | Talk | Category | Category talk | User | User talk | Template | Template talk | Image | Image talk | Wikipedia | Wikipedia talk | Portal | Portal talk | MediaWiki | MediaWiki talk = 1 | {{ns:0}} = {{ns:0}} | #default = 0}}|0|<big><big><font color="red">Invalid {{para|ns}}, please use one of the following: Article, Talk, Category, Category talk, User, User talk, Template, Template talk, Image, Image talk, Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, Portal, Portal talk, MediaWiki, MediaWiki talk.</font></big></big>|
+*[[Roger Waters]] - Bass and Slide whistle
-:{{l{{#if:{{#switch:{{ucfirst:Image}}| Article | Talk = {{ns:0}} | Image}}|n|a}}{{#ifeq:{{#switch:{{ucfirst:Image}}
+*[[Nick Mason]] - Drums and Percussion
-| Talk | Category talk | User talk | Template talk | Image talk | Wikipedia talk | Portal talk | MediaWiki talk = Talk
-| #default = Image
-}}|Talk|t}}|{{#if:Image|{{#switch:{{ucfirst:Image}}
-| Article | Talk = {{ns:0}}
-| Image talk = Image
-| User talk = User
-| Wikipedia talk = Wikipedia
-| Template talk = Template
-| Category talk = Category
-| Portal talk = Portal
-| MediaWiki talk = MediaWiki
-| Image }}}}|{{#if:{{#switch:{{ucfirst:Image}}|Article|Talk={{ns:0}}|Image}}|2|1}}=Roll the Dice.jpg}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/{{#if:{{#switch:{{ucfirst:Image}}|Article={{ns:0}}|#default=Image}}|Image:}}Roll the Dice.jpg|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:{{#if:{{#switch:{{ucfirst:Image}}|Article={{ns:0}}|#default=Image}}|Image:}}Roll the Dice.jpg}} cache]</span>{{#switch:{{ucfirst:Image}}| Article =<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{ucfirst:Roll the Dice.jpg}}|AfD]]|
- Category | Template | Image = |
- Talk | Portal | Portal talk | Wikipedia | Wikipedia talk | MediaWiki | MediaWiki talk | Image talk | Category talk | Template talk | User | User talk =<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{ucfirst:Image}}:{{ucfirst:Roll the Dice.jpg}}|MfD]]|
- #default =<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{ucfirst:Roll the Dice.jpg}}|AfD]]}}}}
+{{Pink Floyd}}
-The image is a low-res picture of a book cover.  This was used to illustrate an article which discussed the book and its author, which is fair use.  I spent some time explaining this on the talk page when the image was tagged but the deleting admin did not seem to read this as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Rettetast&page=&year=&month=-1 deletion log] indicates that he was deleting several images per minute and didn't skip a beat when he came to this one.  I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rettetast&oldid=244207663#Roll_the_dice contacted him].  His response was perfunctory and he has since been inactive.  The thread has now scrolled off his talk page and so here we are.  [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
+[[Category:1967 singles]]
-====[[Seth Finkelstein]]====
+[[Category:Pink Floyd songs]]
-{{drvlinks|pg=Seth Finkelstein}}<tt>)</tt>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)|AfD2]]) ([[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30|DRV]])
+[[Category:Syd Barrett songs]]
+[[Category:Psychedelic songs]]
+[[ca:Flaming (Pink Floyd)]]
-The article appears as a red link in my article [[Is Google Making Us Stupid?]] and so it just makes sense to resurrect this article (which I read in some log was actually quite well referenced). Finkelstein is somewhat important. Notable enough, I say. [[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
+[[es:Flaming (canción)]]
-*I'm sure some helpful soul will incorporate this prettily into the drvlinks template above, but the previous discussions here are [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)]], and [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30]].  My opinion is '''endorse deletion''' per the latter two, particularly Xoloz's insightful close of the deletion review.  Ignoring his own articles in ''The Guardian'' (and by long consensus one's own articles don't make a journalist notable) and extraneous news hits for another guy with the same name there is no significant coverage since the last DRV, and no reasons to ignore it given by the nominator.  We made the right decision here the first time; let's let this one lie. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
+[[fr:Flaming (chanson)]]
-*:Seems a pity. Could I look at the article, anyhow?[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
+[[hu:Flaming]]
-*::Could it be userified on my talk page or something? I would like to see what was previously written about [[Seth Finkelstein]].[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*:::Better yet, why is Wikipedia being so difficult about this particular article? Just restore it. Clearly it is bugging people that it isn't around. I am feeling quite self-righteous and may have to raise a storm in the form of an indefinite tornado to rampage against all who wish to keep this article down. It must rise up again! Leave behind your former silliness and endorse an overturn! Thank you. Good day.[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-* '''Speedy close''' no process issues raised, no new information presented (substantive of otherwise), just not liking or disagreeing with the outcome is not a DRV matter. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.39.174|82.7.39.174]] ([[User talk:82.7.39.174|talk]]) 06:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-:I don't understand. Didn't I explain that it is a [[red link]] in an article I recently wrote so therefore shouldn't this article be written? Yet I have discovered that it was written... and has had a vigorous AfD and DRV debate. It seems like eventually you have to give in, right? Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information but in this case they seem to be hiding the information behind some kind of deletion server. I would like to read the article (as would many others I'm guessing) so let's restore it, please. Thank you.[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 07:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-:: And do our deletion criteria or processes make special account for red links? (Our inclusion criteria specifically exclude internal links from wikipedia.) Can I create a redlink to anything I want very easily, should we provide an end run around every deletion debate just by creating a redlink to something? The existance of a redlink is irrelevant. As to the rest of your statement that enforces the view that you merely disagree with the deletion outcome, something DRV isn't for. Your  statement that "It seems like eventually you have to give in, right?" is seriously towards [[Wikipedia:POINT#Gaming_the_system|gaming the system]]. "Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information" please see [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]], so no merely being "information" is not sufficient --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.39.174|82.7.39.174]] ([[User talk:82.7.39.174|talk]]) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::I'm sorry, but I believe Finkelstein is notable. He has done a lot of high exposure work, and has received awards for it. Also, these red links are just more proof that he is notable. How many red links does it take for someone to realize, hmm.... it is not that Finkelstein is notable on Wikipedia but in fact notable in real life. Ummm... Wake up.[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::: "I'm sorry, but I believe Finkelstein is notable." - yes we got that, you disagree with the outcome of the debates, as already above, not what DRV is for. "these red links are just more proof that he is notable" well [[John Zebedde]] [[Fred Zebedde]] no idea if they are real people but the prescence of the red links is no proof of notability. "How many red links does it take for someone to realize" read links are irrelevant - read [[WP:N|the notability guidelines]] no where does the amount of red links on wikipedia count for anything. It isn't for wikipedia editors to decide based on creaton of red links (how about [[Bert Zebedde]]) the general notability is defined elsewhere. Again the consensus so far is that he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, and again this is just you disagreeing with that debate (and creating a red link to "prove" something, hey I disagree with the deletion of X, I'll work in a red link somewhere, end run around the deletion debate?). Read what [[WP:DRV]] is actually for it isn't that, if you have some significant new material which overcomes the issues of the deletion debates then present it, and I'll repeat again create as many red links as you like, the inclusion criteria couldn't care less about them. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.39.174|82.7.39.174]] ([[User talk:82.7.39.174|talk]]) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-** There is so much wrong with the above I don't know where to start. It is comments like this that make it so difficult for people like me to defend the rights of IPs to edit. Seth is linked in mainspace, repeatedly. That should be obviously different from you constructing random names and linking them. Moreover, the issue at hand is not whether Seth passes the basic notability criterion since everyone agrees that he does. The issue is whether he is of borderline notability. Since there's no rigorous definition of what constitutes borderline notability (See [[User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP]]) bringing up issues like how often Seth is linked to in mainspace are perfectly reasonable as possible measures of his notability. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*** Err so if I created an account and made the same comments you'd not have an issue? What has editing as an IP got to do with this? Sorry you dislike the creation of random names, the point was simple and still is the consensus wrapped up in the notability guidelines doesn't consider them important, if you want to change that then there are far better places to discuss that and change the guidelines than here. The bottom line still is this review isn't based on any new information other than the creation of more internal links within wikipedia and the requester believing the original outcome to be incorrect. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.39.174|82.7.39.174]] ([[User talk:82.7.39.174|talk]]) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-**** If you had an account I would have likely found another method of expressing my frustration with your remark. The fact that you were an anon is additional frustration precisely because I'm a strong proponent of allowing anons to comment. Now, it appears you didn't address the issue at hand. So let's be clear: Seth is notable. Everyone agrees to that. The question is not how to define notability. The question is how to define "borderline notability." It is perfectly reasonable that valid red links in mainspace are one measure that might could go into the weighing. If you don't see the difference between that are your creation on a talk page of random names then I don't have much to say to you and I doubt almost anyone else will either. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*I've userfied it to [[User:Manhattan Samurai/Seth Finkelstein]]. I think this can be closed now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*:Thanks.[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', restore original to article space, and '''delete everything'''.  The community has previously decided to honor the ''subject's'' request to not have an article, and nominator here has given us no reason to overturn the prior consensus.  More generally, this was '''''not''''' an article that should have been userfied - it should at most have been emailed to the requestor.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Close''' - The last [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30|DRV]] was clear as to what was needed to restore this article. Referring to the 2007 December 30 DRV, the DRV closer wrote: <blockquote>The consensus below simply does not favor restoration of this article. The question of the subject's "borderline notability" is one that may be reopened should additional sources come to light, but there is no agreement below that the sources presented refute the "borderline notability" conclusion reached at AfD. In contrast to some other BLP deletions (where people must make presumptions on the subject's behalf) this DRV is visited by the gentleman himself, forcefully arguing for his own anonymity. It is a good thing for editors to remain vigilant, and concerned with striking a "balance of interests" in applying WP:BLP. The subject does not own the article bearing his name, and never exercises an absolute veto over its existence. Any "courtesy deletion" of a "borderline notable" person should be taken with utmost care and consideration, weighing both the privacy rights of the individual and the encyclopedia's duty to chronicle every notable truth. The consensus below is that, in this case, due consideration was given, and the right result reached.</blockquote>
-:Basically, a DRV requesting to recreate this topic as an article needs to include (1) a list of additional sources not in the deleted article and (2) a statement addressing the "balance of interests" and why that balance favors recreate this topic as an article. Feel free to post a new DRV meeting these requirements. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><font color="#FF8C00">☼</font></big></b>]] 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-::Fine, it just looks a little strange being the only [[red link]] in an article I'm working on. But I see the writer (or whatever he is, because I don't really know, which is why I would've liked to read the article) has actually lobbied to have his article deleted.[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*'''comment''' Not endorsing at all on this article since I still disagree strongly with the original deletion. I will however note that I have been keeping careful track of Seth's appearances in the media since the deletion and none of them are significant enough for me to be able to honestly argue that the situation has changed in that regard. We may wish to reconsider the previous DRV and see if the consensus is that same as it was previously. Simply endorsing deletion due to a previous consensus is less than helpful. I've incidentally taken the liberty of letting Seth know about this discussion. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*:Yes, we should do that. Isn't it crazy that we are not allowed to cover Seth Finkelstein? It is censorship... and really, Finkelstein will just have to get used to the fact that he has a Wikipedia article. We are now in the dark about who Finkelstein is and what he has been doing, yet he continues to write about important issues. I believe Finkelstein is afraid that we may peg his positions on certain issues, but frankly, we have a right to that knowledge. And now he is tangentially involved in a discussion about the magazine article ''[[Is Google Making Us Stupid?]]'' where knowing something about his positions might be useful, but still there is a refusal to create an article about him. Why are we biting this bullet?[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-**:Well, I have to say, this is an outrage! I'm calm but this article is pretty interesting, as is Mr. Finkelstein, and what more, we've been denied continued improvements to his biography. Shouldn't we discuss this again? He's won awards and done some work as an activist. Is he mainly an activist?[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*** Finkelstein has done a variety of things. He first came to wide attention for his work with censorware. He got an EFF Pioneer award for that work. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-****There is a web site <http://stalkedbyseth.com/> that is potentially wrongheaded (I'll assume wrongheaded) but for controversial people like Mr. Finkelstein it makes sense to have a Wikipedia article. That way we can come to a consensus on what is a NPOV on him. I want to be able to read in a Wikipedia context about this "stalked by seth" silliness. We really need this article. I like the fact that most often Wikipedia will sort out this kind of nuttiness for you, either on the talk pages or in the edit summary history. Please, overturn this deletion.[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-***** The presence of a website devoted to attacking Seth has little bearing on his notability. Do you think [http://joshuazelinsky.blogspot.com/2008/06/joshua-zelinsky-latest-in-militant.html this] makes me notable? Seth's disputes with a variety of notable people are nearly internet legends but they have no reliable sources talking about those disputes.  [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-*Sigh... This appears to be another one of those cases in which Wikipedia consensus will fail to see reason on a very reasonable request.[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-****** Sigh... it appears yet another Wiki-conspiracy is ongoing. Yet all I want is to have the [[red link]] turn blue in my article "[[Is Google Making Us Stupid?]].[[User:Manhattan Samurai|Manhattan Samurai]] ([[User talk:Manhattan Samurai|talk]]) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)