Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 23 Deletion review archives: 2008 March March 25 >

24 March 2008[edit]

  • Magillem – Deletion endorsed, since the deletion discussion already took coverage resembling press releases into account, in which case the repost or a future draft needs to make a clearer case that independent references are available. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Magillem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Added references ans external links Andretalierciom (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider it.Thank you

So it will be ok if we have multi-purpose account, how ow do we do it we need to recreate the page and add contributions? Andretalierciom (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "we" that's the problem. See WP:COI (and WP:BAI for that matter). Guy (Help!) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but how does the re-submission work? Thank you Guy Andretalierciom (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist the new version of the article has some references in it while the one that was deleted at AFD was totally unreferenced. The lack of references to establish notability was the main reason for deletion at AFD so the new version deserves to be considered again at AFD to see whether the references are sufficient for notability. I am unsure personally whether the references do establish notability so that is why I suggest relisting. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dave, but how is relist done? Thank you again. Andretalierciom (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen is that this will remain open for five days. (or perhaps earlier if a clear consensus is formed) Then an admin will review this discussion and decide what should be done based on the discussion. If my suggestion for a relist is accepted that article will be restored and then relisted on Articles of deletion to see whether the article meets wikipedia's policies and guidelines in particular in this case WP:CORP. Davewild (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I'm with Dave here; it looks like the new article doesn't match the previously AfD'd one. 'Course, I'm just saying that from what the AfD says and what the creator has said, so I might be wrong. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, a copy of the most recently deleted version was provided to the author on his talk page, per his request. The references shown in that version of the article appear to be press-release about the products, which would be comparable or the same to those found when looking at the original AfD. They do not establish notability via a reliable, independent secondary source - nothing has changed here to justify this DRV. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit reinsertion I think the sources in the present userified article are sufficient to support it, or at least justify another AfD. DGG (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The version on this user's Talk page only has three cites, and all of them are press releases. Without verifiable independent sources, there's no reason to relist on AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Daniel Brandt – Deletion endorsed. The debate below brought up many issues, but many of the arguments to keep the redirect reflect not on the information one gets from this redirect, but rather not to let Brandt 'bully' us into deleting this, or that we shouldn't delete this page since this is an encyclopedia where people might want to learn about Brandt. While I agree that this second argument has some merit (more on this in a moment), we certainly should not be deciding whether to have an article based on the conduct of the person in relation to Wikipedia, as opposed to established guidelines on notability and verifiability. So it is important to look at this situation not in respect to Brandt, but in respect to whether this redirect is worth keeping. While I agree with the users below who bring up that this was not a simple CSD deletion, and likely should have gone through RfD, I believe that WJB was only trying to improve Wikipedia, and though I would not preformed a deletion in this way myself, I can accept a WP:IAR argument for it. Now, returning to the topic of keeping content on a possibly notable person, the main pitfall of this argument is that the page on PIR contains almost no information at all about Brandt, just a single sentence contains information that is actually about Brandt, the other references to him simply being in lieu of the company name. Therefore, I believe any notability type arguments need to be kept to article discussions, not one about a redirect. I find the most compelling arguments, and the best reasoning, to be that those wishing to learn about Brandt will learn nothing about him at the PIR article, and therefore this redirect is quite worthless. If people want to know about him, create and stick to an article, don't create a redirect that will only get Joe Reader lost. While issues with Brandt are of course complex due to his history, I feel that if we ignore the spite that is (perhaps rightfully) aimed at him for his actions, it is quite clear that this is truly a valueless redirect. Thank you all for your input, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. – Prodego talk 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Moved to: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Quan (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was admittedly written rather badly, but the guy is unquestionably notable. He's signed to a notable record label, Atlantic Records, and has appeared on the albums of three separate, notable artists: Nas, Cassidy, and Jeannie Ortega. Additionally, I found some sources that can be used: [1] [2] [3], as well as the ones that were already listed in the article. GlassCobra 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse undeletion and/or relisting. As the closing administrator, I didn't have much to go on, but the consensus appeared to be delete based on the parsity of independent, reliable sourcing that was found by those opining for delete. I have no problem with this being undeleted and renominated (if warranted) to get a stronger consensus. In hindsight, I should have relisted instead of closed based on the discussion and late "developments." Thanks to GlassCobra for visiting my talkpage before coming here, much appreciated! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore as the deleting admin has no objection and in light of the new sources found by GlassCobra. Anyone can list it again on AFD if they want but personally do not see the need as it now appears to meet WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sami Omar Al-Hussayen – Restore history. Per principle #4 of the Badlydrawnjeff case, "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy". Whilst Doc Glasgow acted in accordance with that principle, over the course of this review the negative material in the article has been sourced to bring it into compliance with WP:BLP. As the current text is clearly substantially based on the deleted version of the article, the history needs to be restored for GFDL compliance. – WjBscribe 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sami Omar Al-Hussayen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

An administrator (User:Doc glasgow)randomly deleted several articles he personally felt deserved to be deleted, without proposing AFDs, PRODs or anything similar. This was a fairly balanced article about a fairly notable American legal case that tried to prosecute a man for his online actions (4,260 google hits, specific to him). I see the same administrator has been questioned for his habit of deleting articles in the past, without AFD, PROD or even notifying the page's authors...simply "disappearing" them. He was also listed on the Administrator's Noticeboard for the same actions, and removed criticism of his deletions from his talk page - and I have to echo the same concerns. AfD is the proper route for an article you wish to see deleted (and I'm quite confident that Sami Omar al-Hussayen would've resulted in a strong "Keep" vote at an AfD). The administrator in question deleted eight articles yesterday alone, for anything from "has an unreferenced tag" to "disagreement whether arrested in 2000 or 2001", this is definitely not an acceptable action. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, you see I have this nasty habit of hitting random article and then delete. Maybe I need counselling? Seriously though, if the editor had bothered to speak to me before researching my list of sins, he'd have been told that this was a WP:BLP containing a string of unreferenced criminal allegations about a living person, and had been marked as unreferenced since July 2007. There was no BLP compliant version to revert to. If someone wants to create a properly sourced version, I've no problems with it, and happy to give them the history with which to do it.--Docg 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting articles is not the answer - especially not without creating an AfD or even informing the page authors - quite simply, it's an abuse of admin powers. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy on biographies of living people is reasonably clear that deletion is the answer - "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion" --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD. Sherurcij has a point there. That other course of action indeed seems to be a "nasty habit." <KF> 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We don't need to make a drama about straightforward deletion of unsourced criminal allegations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB if anyone cares about the article rather than using this as a stick to hit me with, I am happy to userfy the history and allow them to fix the sourcing, make it BLP complaint then move it back into article space. Any takers?--Docg 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily grab the text off the Google cache of the page, nobody is trying to "hit you with a stick", I'm trying to determine the validity of your actions in autonomously deleting pages without discussion. Is there any reason why you don't list the pages for AfD instead? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AfD is for debating "do we want an article on this subject?" - that question merits a debate. Whereas my question was "do we want unsourced allegations about this subject?" - there's no need for a debate with that question as policy WP:BLP says unsourced negative allegations MUST be removed. Anyway, I've no general objection to their being an article on this subject providing it is sourced.--Docg 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would do better to leave the article existing, and bring attention to its unreferenced status up on the talk pages of the authors, than simply deleting it - which most of them will never notice. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The unreferenced states was noted LAST JUNE, and the article tagged as such, and the authors had done precisely nothing about it.--Docg 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Negative unsourced bio which has been around since 2004! BLP is quite clear that speedy deletion is the correct course of action in this situation as I cannot find any good version of the article. Allow recreation if anyone writes a properly sourced and BLP compliant article. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. From the cache, it looks pretty fine to me. BLPs gotta' be sourced, whether they're positive or negative. Nothing wrong if anyone wants to recreate a sourced one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- if the article was unreferenced since July 2007, then it was hardly an emergency, requiring the use of emergency powers.
    • If I read the above properly, the admin in question not only deleted the article in question, without getting a second opinion, by tagging it to show his or her concern, but his or her contribution log seems to show that he or she did not take any steps whatsoever to even inform the article creator.
    • It seems to me that part of the role of the wikipedia's administrators is education. Don't bite the newbies. If a wikipedia contributor really did violate WP:BLP shouldn't it have been part of this admin's responsibilities to instruct, not just delete? How are well-meaning newbies going to learn they are violating policy, if the admin's delete articles silently? How are newbies going to learn how to comply with policy if they aren't offered a simple, good-faith explanation as to what they did wrong.
      • I shouldn't need to say this. But even Homer nods. Administrators are human, and are going to make the occasional mistakes. I want every active administrator to be mature enough to bear in mind that they are capable of error. Administrators who don't feel obliged to make their rulings openly, and, for example, offer a heads-up when they delete an article, aren't going to get the feedback necessary to them to wise up, and realize that they are making the occasional mistake they being human are bound to make.
    • Last month I found another administrator had unilaterally deleted eight articles I started, in a single session, and, as with this case, made no attempt to inform the article creator (me). All kinds of people dreamed up all kinds of excuses for that admin's actions, assuming that he or she had deleted those articles after someone else had applied some valid tag to them. But they hadn't. I left what I regarded as civil requests for an explanation on that admins talk page. It is four weeks later, and I am still waiting for a reply.
    • I urge administrators to comply with Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, and reserve their emergency power to perform unilateral deletions for actual emergencies. I urge administrators to use their authority openly and transparently. If the admin thought it was a {{G10}} then nothing stopped the admin from tagging it for speedy deletion, and telling the article creator, and letting another administrator complete the deletion. IMO any administrator who is too tired to be prepared to civilly explain the reasoning behind their exercise of authority, would be better serving the wikipedia to take the rest of the day off, and let other administrators take over.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand a word of this. What's WP:BITE got to do with anything? No, it was not urgent, but the content needed removing and had had years to be sourced. If you've got a problem with it, I'll userfy the article's history and you can source it yourself. If not, what are you saying?--Docg 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't understand?
    1. Only use your powers when you have to, as per Wikipedia:deletion guidelines for administrators.
    2. Don't delete articles without telling the article creator.
    3. The wikipedia community entrusted you with administrator powers on the assumption that you would use them fairly, in an open, transparent, accountable fashion. When you delete articles, without telling anyone, then your decision is not open, transparent, and accountable.
    4. A willingness to userify an article, so interested parties can provide references, is completely meaningless, when an administrator deletes the article silently -- and doesn't tell anyone.
    5. The wikipedia has a deletion log, but it is insufficient to serve as an audit trail. The deletion log contains two kinds of entries.
      • The deletion log contains entries that show an article was deleted following an {{afd}}.
      • And the deletion log contains entries that are marked with the a criteria tag from WP:CSD. When people look at these log entries they assume the deleting administrator was completing a two stage process, where someone presumably applied a valid criteria from WP:CSD. WP:CSD recommends nominators advise the article creator that the article was tagged for speedy deletion. IMO this heads-up should not be discretionary, it should be obligatory.
      • There is no style of deletion log entry that signals that an administrator exercised emergency powers, and deleted an article that had not been previously tagged -- that wasn't looked with two sets of eyes. This is a problem.
I did a google search on "Sami Omar Al-Hussayen". The deleting administrator would have seen, if he or she had spent twenty seconds doing a google search, that lots of good sources that could have been used as references to an article about existed.
Yes, I have seen the closing administrators repeated offers to userify the article in the User spaces of various wikipedians who have voiced their concerns. I am sorry, but it seems to me that those offers to userify give the appearance of irresponsibility. These offers do not get to the root of the problem -- the administrator in question did not tell the article creator, or anyone else, that they deleted the article.
How many articles has this administrator deleted, unilaterally, and then not told anyone? Just this one? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? We have no idea. If this administrator really does make a habit of this he or she probably has no idea.
I am very disturbed that the administrator in question doesn't seem willing, or able, to understand the concerns their actions have raised.
Wikipedia administrators are granted their powers by the wikipedia community. And the rest of the wikipedia community should feel a reasonable expectation that those granted administrator powers should do so responsibly, accountably, in an open and transparent manner.
  • Deleting admin says he or she doesn't understand the WP:BITE concern I raised. I am not an admin. I can't look at the history, to see who worked on the article. For all I know it was a newbie, who created it, in good faith. What is that newbie going to learn from this experience? That the wikipedia is unreliable, because their first efforts disappeared, without any warning or explanation? That the wikipedia has empowered a bunch of big shots who feel entitled to delete articles without warning, possibly just because they don't like them?  ::If the article was deleted because the someone tagged it with a {{prod}} or some form of {{db}}, then, the person who placed the tag should have left a heads-up for the article creator. So, when an administrator exercises their emergency powers, and deletes an article, on-sight, then that administrator is going to have to be with one who tells the article creator they deleted the article. And they are going to have to be the person who tells the creator why they deleted the article. In order to comply with WP:BITE that notice and explanation should not be an opaque reference to A7 or G10. Geo Swan (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per BLP, no prejudice against a properly sourced recreation. Just because no one noticed it for a year doesn't mean that deletion cannot be urgent. Mr.Z-man 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's a source or two (or 1590) that could probably be used for a new, sourced article on the subject. --Conti|✉ 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what's going on here. What's going on? I need more facts before I reach any sort of conclusion as to who's right. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and source based on the sources listed above. Editorofthewiki 09:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Can I move it into your userspace and let you get on with sourcing each negative statement, before we replace it in article space? It really is excellent when someone volunteers to do all that work.--Docg 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I've pointed out somewhere or the other that, in my opinion Doc's gone overboard with the button recently. "...the content needed removing and had had years to be sourced..." - Then stubify, sure. S-protect, sure. But too much deletion isn't helpful. Relata refero (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've recreated it as a stub minus all the unreferenced stuff. Happy?--Docg 12:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a link to this stub the deleting admin created. Deleting admin asked if we were happy. Heck no. The entire contents of the stub the deleting admin created was:
Sami Omar Al-Hussayen is a person.[citation needed]
I think this stub creation sails very close to a violation of WP:POINT and WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground. Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Still a lot of unsourced claims there, which I have tagged, and I'm not sure that discoverthenetworks.org is a reliable source. Corvus cornixtalk 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: -- the deleting admin created a stub, which has since been expanded. I provided additional references to address the concerns of most of the {{cn}} tags.
Note: -- The deleting admin has not restored the previous edit history. When I participate in {{RfA}}s I ask every candidate for administrator whether they are committing themselves to accountable decision-making. I ask them if they are committing themselves to remember that they are human, and fallible, and will be willing to consider they may have been mistaken, whenever someone has questions about one of their decisions, and will be willing to openly acknowledge when they made a mistake. If the wikipedia is going to cultivate a culture of respectful decision-making, based on civil exchange of reasoned discussions this is what is required of administrators. I am sorry to report that IMO the responses of the deleting administrator, in this particular case, fall far short of this standard. Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An attack page? I'm sorry, the article looks virtually the same as it did at deletion, except now the facts have little numbers after them. I'm not sure how you can really justify calling the article an "attack page" - could you perhaps explain? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article isn't about him; it's about the accusations against him. Regardless of whether or not they're sourced, it's a litany of negative accusations with zero biographical content. The page only exists to make him look bad, because we don't have any other information about him. That's the essence of an attack page. -- Kesh (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment When someone encounters a page like this it doesn't hurt to take 5 minutes to google it. And if they feel that they dont have time to do that, they should leave a polite note with a relevant active project that they are deleting an article related to their subject. Deletion of such content makes sense if one can't find any sources. When the sources are easy to locate it doesn't hurt to take a few minutes to add them in. This isn't a call for overturning because at this point I don't see what would be gained by overturning the difs since the matter has now been handled. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polite note? It had a polite note on it for months - fat lot of use that did. I know in an ideal world where there were no real-world consequences to out actions and all we have to worry about was not offending fellow wikipedians, then the onus would be on the challenger to fix it. Well, sorry, no. If I encounter an unsourced negative bio, I will excise the material and move on the the next. If the unsourced negative stuff can't be excised I will delete. (I've deleted about 30 or so in the last 48 hours.) It is absolutely essential we move towards a zero-tolerance approach for unsourced negative material. If someone wants to come and ask for underletion later, with a willingness to sources it, then fine. See User:Doc glasgow/BLP deletion for my willingness to undelete. However, long term we simply need to reduce the number of bios to a level where we can maintain them against the possibility of unverified material.--Docg 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine and dandy, but couldn't you at least take the 20 seconds it takes to do a quick search for sources on a BLP before you delete it? And if you find sources, maybe leave a note at the right Wikiproject that they're free to recreate the article with those sources you found? Or, while we're at it, improve the article yourself, maybe. Wouldn't that be the Wiki thing to do? :) --Conti|✉ 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If more people were patrolling and removing stuff from unreferenced BLPs, then maybe we'd have the luxury of doing stuff to help in recreating lost material. But right now, the pressing need is for removal not worrying too much about collateral damage. I just wish people would be more anxious to help with getting unreferenced allegations off wikipedia than moaning that those who do don't spend more time fixing things for retention. Our inclusionist guns are facing in the wrong direction.--Docg 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn reading the cached article, I don't see how this is an attack article and so doesn't qualify (IMO) under G10. Additionally, the deleting admin's behavior in this has been pointy at best. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Posting on behalf of User:AlexandreJ, who is new and unfamiliar with the DRV process. Article failed AfD and was deleted while author was unavailable to edit or defend the article prior to it's deletion. Article was recreated by author in violation of CSD G4 criteria, but author was unaware that the DRV venue existed. A second AfD is currently in progress, but I have pointed the author here to voice his concerns. My speedy endorsement in the ongoing AfD is for the G4 violation. I am otherwise neutral. DarkAudit (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a book advertisement. Simply repeating the assertion will not make it so. It's an information page about a book relating to a theological issue within the Hare Krsna movement. The external links section includes links to various critical perspectives on the book and on the issues it raises.
I missed the Afd process, and found out today, after the fact, that my page was deleted. On March 19th 2008, user "Syama" had written: "Mild Keep Notable, needs a rewrite. I think that the controversy surrounding this book makes it notable, that so many are stirred to action, article should focus on the NPOV of the controversy not just provide links to forum topics."
I'm willing to re-write the article, or parts of it, if deemed needed. The book is notable. The controversy surrounding the book is relevant to those within the Hare Krishna Movement and to those observing or studying it from outside. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I'm learning about how to present things so that they are acceptable to Wikipedia.
Below are some links to articles and spoken word audio, relating to the book, and the associated controversy, from various perspectives:
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1185/1/Prominent-Issue/
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1207/1/Considering-Things-Fully-and-Rationally/
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1178/1/Genuine-Dialogue-and-Deeper-Realizations-of-Truth/
        o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun11_06.html
        o http://www.iskconirm.com/Dhira_Govinda.htm
        o http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0208/ET15-7499.html
        o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/10/danavir.swami.on.dhira.govinda.das/index.html
        o http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/03/023.html
        o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1177/1/Concerning-the-Satvatove-Experience/
        o http://gbcsaysdontgohere.com/
        o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html
        o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/31/dhira.govinda.on.prominent.link/index.html
        o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent1.mp3
        o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent2.mp3
        o http://www.b-i-f.com/Letter%20from%20Dhira%20Govinda%20Das.htm
        o http://zavestkrisne.org/ritviki_neznanje.htm
        o http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-07/editorials1312.htm
Many of the links above criticize the book and its thesis, from various positions and for various reasons. I had included many of them in the original article. People could access the various links and make up their own minds with regards to issues and controversies related to the book. It is not an advertisement.
If I understand correctly, the article was nominated for deletion on March 16th, and was deleted on March 22nd, 6 days later. User "Ism schism" wrote: "Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources." After reading his comment, I added links to various critical perspectives on the book.
I find myself in a complicated process involving technicalities. I created a page. The page was nominated for deletion. I was not aware of this. I work full-time and don't check the page every day. The page was deleted. I've recreated the page. The process of appeal is not clear to me, and appears needlessly complex. I believe my page is valid and I want to speak my piece about why it should remain. I'm an educated person with two University degrees, and I am nonetheless having difficulty making sense of all of the technicalities at play in this process. If I understand what to do, I will do it. I request that the page remain, at least long enough for me to understand why it was labeled as a "book advertisement" and what changes I need to make so that the article is acceptable to Wikipedia. The book is notable, this was already discussed.
Please understand that I am not as savvy as you are about Wikipedia's hair-splitting rules, and regulations.
User:Ism schism wrote: "The creator of this article has a history of being advised on the article's relevance. Please note a conversation from 2 years ago on the same subject we are discussing here"
The outcome of those previous discussions was to allow the article to remain. I was naturally surprised to see the article once again scheduled for deletion. I'm willing to do the needful and modify the article so that it is more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.--AlexandreJ (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned a nomination from 2 years ago. After that nomination there were discussions. The article was allowed to remain. The book is notable and the article is not an advertisement. More recently (this year) the article was once again scheduled for deletion, and deleted. I'm not sure why it was again scheduled for deletion, if the discussions 2 years ago allowed it to remain. I'm willing to modify the article. I would like to more clearly understand what is required. I did not participate in this year's deletion nomination process and did not know that it was taking place.
You wrote: "Article is an advertisement". No it's not. This was discussed 2 years ago, the article was allowed to remain. You wrote: "for a non notable book". The book is notable. This was discussed two years ago, and the article was allowed to remain. You wrote: "with no reliable third party sources". I added a number of links to articles providing alternate perspectives on the book, the majority of them critical. How is that an advertisement? There was a sampling of articles and audio media from groups and individuals in and around the Hare Krishna movement, providing various alternate perspectives on the book, the issues it raises, and the associated controversies.--AlexandreJ (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do you have a proposed version? I'd like to see what you're proposing we put back in article space before I decide. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response, and for your willingness to hear my perspective. I'd be happy to create an alternate version. I want an article of a high caliber. As it stands I'm not clear on what the article needs in order to be more acceptable to Wikipedia. Two years ago I had some discussions with editors, and the result of those discussions was that the article was allowed to stay. This year, the article was deleted. The reasons for deletion seem vague and unclear to me, and seem to contradict the outcome of the discussions from 2 years ago. It's not clear to me what details of the article were found objectionable this year. My understanding is that the outcome of the discussions from two years ago was that the book was notable and that the article was not an advertisement. If anything, the book has become more notable since then. Yesterday I had added a number of links critical of the book and its premise to the article, thus giving multiple critical points of view on the book. This further cements the article as not being an advertisement. I posted a number of links to critical articles and audio files relating to the book and associated controversies. I added a number of them yesterday, to the recreated version of the article, after having read User:Ism schism comment that the article has "no reliable third party sources."
What specific elements of the article got worse since the discussions from two years ago? As far as I can see, the article's only gotten better. Should I post proposed revisions directly onto this page? Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. I am willing to learn and cooperate. I'd be happy to include footnotes, but am having some difficulty figuring out how to link the footnote number to the particular information source.
The most recent version of the article can be found on my user page. I welcome all constructive feedback on how I can improve the article.--AlexandreJ (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep delete Article has the same name and is defacto a book advertisement. The second discussion resulted in a speedy deletion. Its a clear case of OR and book advertisement (while book itself is controversial)Wikidās 12:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. What is OR? What specifically makes the article a book advertisement? I see this assertion repeated, with no justification and no explanation. There were discussions 2 years ago about the book's notability, and at that time the assertion was made that the article was a book advertisement. The result of the discussions was that the article was allowed to stay. The article has only gotten better since then. The article was not a book advertisement two years ago, and it isn't a book advertisement now. Simply repeating the assertion that it is an advertisement does not make it so. The article was found valid two years ago, it remains valid today.
You wrote: "Article has the same name and is defacto a book advertisement". An article having the same name as the book discussed in the article does not in and of itself make the article a book advertisement. The Wikipedia Lord of the Flies article has the same name as the book, and that does not make the Lord of the Flies article a book advertisement.--AlexandreJ (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello AlexandreJ, recreating the deleted page on this review page is getting to be a bit confusing. May I suggest that you recreate the article using your Userpage instead. That way your new article might be more presentable and the discussion taking place here can be more focused. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will move the recreated article to my user page. --AlexandreJ (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you AlexandreJ, that helps a lot. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:JzG recently deleted the recreated article from my user page. Is there somewhere else that I should re-post it? Should I simply undo his delete? Thanks.--AlexandreJ (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest undo. Please also see WP:OR WP:NPOV. Thanks AlexandreJWikidās ॐ 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion, and for the links to the information about original research and neutral point of view.--AlexandreJ (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, that is my fault. I know there is some way to do it using userpages. I am sorry for pointing you in the wrong direction, I thought it was a normal practice. Ism schism (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Wikidas Are you referring to the speedy which just closed this morning? That was more for process reasons than the merits of the article. See my nominating statement above. DarkAudit (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your note. Please refer for discussion above for more info. Wikidās ॐ 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, correct per process. AlexandreJ has few or no other contributions to the project, so can be forgiven for not understanding how things work, but the deletion is perfectly valid. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, thanks for your comments. May I ask what has changed since the article was originally reviewed 2 years ago? At that time, the article was allowed to continue. This year it was deleted, apparently for reasons that were already discussed/countered/refuted 2 years ago. Since then the book has become more notable. I am willing to modify the article, or parts of it, if deemed needed. I am willing to cooperate with editors, so as to make this article the best that it can be. --AlexandreJ (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CCC. What's changed in this case is probably that now we have over 2 million articles we are trying to be a bit more even in how we apply notability criteria, but that's just a guess. Fact remains, this was a valid deletion by our process. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and allow recreation. It's pretty clear that the AfD was fine in and of itself. But the new version of the article looks notable from where I stand, though articles could always stand a little copyediting. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lifebaka, thank you for voting for allowing recreation.--AlexandreJ (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion which was sensible given the current state of the article and the views expressed during the AFD. AlexandreJ should develop the article in userspace ( User:AlexandreJ/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link) with reliable secondary sources cited inline, instead of listed as external links, before recreating the article in mainspace. If he needs technical help, he can contact me on my talk page or post on WP:HNB. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, thank you very much for your offer of technical assistance, and your suggestion on how I might proceed from here. I appreciate it. Also, you wrote: "sources cited inline, instead of listed as external links". I've included my references as footnotes, is that acceptable? The article is currently on my user page, I've also included a copy of it at the address that you suggest in your message above. My username is not "Alexander", will that cause a problem? Should I move it to a page labeled "( User:AlexandreJ/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link)"? Or is it okay that I put it in the link that you suggested?--AlexandreJ (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading these comments concerning deletion to the page: "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link" and I find it totally amazing that the Wikipedia people can think that the page is simply "advertisement" to the book. The truth is the book is ***The**** most controversial topic in the whole Hare Krishna Movement. For the past 4 years or so, the Hare Krishna Movement has been doing everything in its power to make this book disappear from the face of the Earth. The Governing Body of the Hare Krishna movement prohibits all its members from reading the book. Yet, no matter how much the Hare Krishna has tried to shut the concepts given in the book, Hare Krisha devotees are still fighting about this every single day. All one needs to do is to go to one of the many websites that are visited by the Hare Krishna devotees such as the Sampraday Sun and one can see daily discussions about the topics talked about in the book. The Hare Krishna movement has everything well controlled inside the movement. Yet it is a bit more difficult to control the internet. There is a man name "Gauranga" who happens to be a Hare Krishna, he has some kind of administrative privileges in Wikipedia. He constantly deletes anything that appears negative on the "Hare Krishna" page and the "ISKCON" page. Those two pages are only propaganda pages for the Hare Krishna Movement. The "Hare Krishna" page in Wikipedia mostly talks about ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness). ISKCON is not the only Hare Krishna group! My point is that since 1977, ISKCON has been fighting as to what is the place of Srila Prabhupada in their movement. ISKCON pays lip service to Srila Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON. But they use him only as a figure head to get people to join. They use Srila Prabhupada's teachings to lure people to join their movement. But once they are inside, they tell the newcomers that Srila Prabhupada is not their link to the disciplic succession. The book: "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, says otherwise. That is why the Governing Body wrote papers trying to defeat the book. A group of supporters of the book have gotten together and form a internet discussion group. There are many other ISKCON devotees who favor the book also, but are too afraid to come out and say it. The concepts of the book has been an ongoing war within ISKCON for the past 31 years. ISKCON does not have any other topic that is more controversial than this. Anyone who is a member of the movement knows this. The Wikipedia people don't know this. They do not understand the daily political struggles of Hare Krishna Movement, to be more specific, ISKCON. But I urge members of the Wikipedia team to investigate the most controversial topic in this movement (ISKCON) and they will find that there is nothing more controversial then the topic of what exactly is the rightful place of Srila Prabhupada in HIS movement. The Hare Krisha leaders will want Wikipedia to think that "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link" is just propaganda and it should be removed from Wikipedia. But hundreds and thousands of devotees will say that Srila Prabhupada is the Prominent link to the disciplic succession. If any of the members of Wikipedia read the book, they will see how ISKCON has tried and have been trying to make Srila Prabhupada only a figure head. There has been a tremendous fight all over ISKCON concerning this topic. If you remove this page from Wikipedia, you will be helping the Hare Krishna Movement (ISKCON) censor the opposition to the leadership of ISKCON. You will be doing the dirty work for them. If you remove this page, you in effect are siding with the oppressor who want to censor the devotees. — George3h (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Overturn as per nom. This certainly isn't an advertisement, and it is notable for the amount of controversy it has stirred, though that could be better highlighted in the article. Editorofthewiki 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, carried out per process. No reason to disallow recreation if well-sourced and neutral. Relata refero (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I closed the AfD as delete bases on my reading of consensus that the proffered sources were not enough to establish notability. I have no objection to a recreation that addresses the concerns about sourcing and tone. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your feedback. I think I understand the concerns about sourcing. As far as the concerns about tone, I assume that you're referring to presenting a neutral point of view.--AlexandreJ (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IMPACT-Charlottesville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like a temporary review of the article so that its contents could be moved to another site Community service (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provided that the GFDL allows it, sounds great. But I've got no idea if it still applies to deleted articles. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the GFDL is irreversible. If something is published here under it, anyone has the right to use it if they keep the attributions. That does not mean they can force us to facilitate it, and we wouldn't do so for libel. But even then, if they find it in a mirror, the license remains applicable and the further use is their concern.DGG (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
userfied per user request. DGG (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_24&oldid=1138433447"