Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 March 26

2628:

what degree) their blog, Making Light, could be cited as it pertained to what happened between them and Bauer. (One editor, for reasons of his own, preferred that they and Absolute Write not be mentioned at all.) Similarly, the Writer Beware blog is a direct outgrowth of the Writer Beware section of the SFWA site, is run by two notable writers who are well known and respected for their anti-scam work for SFWA, and should not be deprecated as a source. As for BB's own notability, unfortunately it arises primarily from negative information as reported by SFWA and other sources. If one looks through the old Talk thread, there is considerable discussion of two or three secondary sources that nearly everyone associated with the article considered sufficiently reliable for inclusion. Every attempt was made to limit the article to this, but this limitation ironically has the effect of making the article seem less clear and complete, so that it ends up seeming less well sourced than it actually is. And of course, one of the the main claims that we were trying to properly source, that Bauer has been known to make (poorly founded) legal threats against those who mention her online in a negative light, is now confirmed by the existence of this very docket in Superior Court in NJ. This seems likely to engender the sort of mainstream reporting that was previously so scarce on the ground. Again, I urge that all these sources and the issues surrounding this article be considered in depth; a superficial reading does not do justice to the complexity of the situation regarding the article and its subject. Thanks.

2977:: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." There is no process, approval or editing system involved in a blog. All you have to do is type and submit. That makes them, then, the least-trustworthy and least-credible sources, and for biographies of living persons, there is absolutely no call to use any source which is not absolutely and inarguably credible and reliable. If we simply publish endless piles of blog opinion about a person, what we get is not a biography but a scandal sheet, listing every gripe every person has ever had about said person, no matter how trivial, false or overblown. The only thing we can reliably say about Ms. Bauer is that she's been listed on this "20-worst" list, and that she has a college degree. 4200:. I would like to stress that these users continue their out-of-wiki canvassing right there. I think they have attracted more users now. (2) As I am Russian speaking guy, I would like to notice that Biophys esentially links his article to three sources. First, eye for an eye publication which alleges that users of some forums are FSB employees, no evidence is given. Second source translation of the article by Polyanskaya which repeats the same pattern - asserts that some internet users are from FSB without any evidence. Third source is a fiction (Anastasia) written by some dissident. There are no any conclusive sources. if this is a Knowledge (XXG), I believe we should cite not the yellow press, not the hoax reportes like UFO-nauts, but serious sources. While internet and e-mail spying is implemented in US and EU after September 11th, and everyone knows about that, we don't need to represent such an article about Russian using these dubious sources. If it would be an authoritative newspaper - that would be another case. (3) This article initially was created by Biophys in order to proclaim me (Vlad fedorov) and administrator Alex Bakharev, FSB employees for our position on some edits to the relative articles. If this article would be created, I feel that Biophys would behave uncivil to us and would continue his uncivil personal attacks. 2325:

cite a reliable third-party source that verifies the undocumented claims made by the "Writer Beware" website. What is a reliable third-party source for a Knowledge (XXG) biography? "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." About the original article deletion discussion, the article was saved from speedy deletion by an administrator who called for the article to be cleaned up; relevant comments from the discussion: "Weak keep if attacks are removed", "article is in desperate need of cleanup", "Strong Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not Google", "This is not the place to air dirty laundry and one-sided personal attacks". "if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article" <-- but in this case, the article was created for one purpose, to have Knowledge (XXG) repeat an unverifiable claim by website; this is not why Knowledge (XXG) has biographical encyclopedia articles. --

2249:), however the unreliable website sources were retained. The only reason this page exists is to repeat the claims of an unreliable website source that does not provide evidence for its claims, only a set of conclusions. There is no reason for Knowledge (XXG) to repeat these conclusions other than the desire of a few Knowledge (XXG) editors to use Knowledge (XXG) as a mechanism for amplifying the conclusions of the other website. This is not a basis for building a Knowledge (XXG) article about a living person, even if the claims are true. This has nothing to do with responding to "spurious legal threats". There are thousands of webpages that make unverifiable claims about living people. Knowledge (XXG) is not here as a mechanism for amplifying those claims. In my view, the link to "Writer Beware" at 2355:

and provide the public with a carefully documented report of how many claims for damages have been awarded to customers of a business. Such a source might publish the names of people who have gone to court with claims against a company and print direct quotes from them that reveal the problems they had in trying to do business with the company. Such a source would also have a section in their article where they ask the company for their perspective on the customer complaints against the company. The Writer Beware webpage does not come close to meeting these standards for being a reliable source for a Knowledge (XXG) biography article. Knowledge (XXG) does not exist as a means to amplify unverifiable negative claims about people that are made by websites. --

1056:

to improve it there. Currently, I have no backup of it, and simply can't re-write it as there were several sources and quotes that I found before and can't find them all again. It is better to restore the page, and I will re-write it even more. Note that the original request for deletion came only after the first, preliminary version of the page, whilst by the time the article got deleted, it was in its 2.0 version. To make the story short, if the page gets restored, I will quickly make it conform fully to all Wiki standards, it won't be very hard, since the article had a good collection of quotes and research in it, and will need only minor shortening and adjustment. --

358:

barely". The cartoons are produced by the animation of a single artist, and it takes a lot of time to make a single episode. Because of this, updates are very, very rare. The site has been up for roughly 4 years, and there's only been 20+ cartoons. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Fred, but the last time I checked for a new cartoon was about three months ago. And since web rankings are obviously based on hits, we can guess that FTM will be lower than, say, Newgrounds. This isn't because less people know about it; rather, it is because FTM simply has less hits due to it being a single artist's work, as opposed to several. That does not, however, make it any less notable.

2956:- I agree that this proviso needs reviewing. Surely the intent is to prevent Knowledge (XXG) from saying, "According to Barney Rubble's blog, Dick Dastardly has been seen cheating in races." Rubble has no standing of reliability in such a case. But if Rubble says, "Fred Flintstone tried to get me fired after I pointed out his illegal rock-crushing methods," and Rubble is a known expert in the field of rock crushing, then that is an appropriate source to cite. He is a) speaking within his field of expertise, and b) talking about what happened to himself in relation to the subject. This is the situation with Bauer vis-a-vis the two blogs mentioned here. 2563:- Actually, it says "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used." The Writer Beware blog is not a self-published blog; it is published on behalf of a reputable organization. Making Light may be inappropriate as a source here, and I would suggest the removal of that and the information sourced to it following restoration of the article. It is irrelevant now, anyway, as news of the lawsuit against Knowledge (XXG), Nielsen Hayden, Jenna Glatzer, "Miss Snark" et al is sure to make some non-blog source. 2345:. The purpose of Knowledge (XXG) having biographical articles is to inform people who are researching a particular person about who that person is, and what they have done. I'm well aware of this, and I dispute the suggestion that the reason I created this article was merely to have Knowledge (XXG) repeat the information: I found well sourced information that seemed to me to be notable and interesting, and I created articles on its subjects. It was later decided that of those articles, only this one should remain. 2831:(my vote was already in the previous debate). MCB and Karen have shared the facts on this matter in detail above and it makes little sense for me to rehash them. There is no BLP violation to deal with. The deletion being reviewed concerns BLP, if her notability is questioned, that can be handled on AFD. It is not the place of DRV to judge her notability. An article that already survived an AFD does not lack notability to the point it warrants speedy deletion. - 3406:

of our best articles follow: low quality stub becomes ok quality stub becomes ok quality article becomes good quality article becomes good quality well sourced article becomes excellent quality sourced article. If you auto-delete a certain category of articles half way through the process, claiming that the problem is the process isn't finished yet, then how is the process ever supposed to get finished? If we want to ban all articles on words, then rewrite

2094:

main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopaedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--

4639::Yes and by making Knowledge (XXG) a storage place for the yellow press, X-files, allegations and hearsays, you also give to some crazy people ground to state that this Knowledge (XXG) editor is working for KGB. We would all thank you for this after someone here would be called KGB agent. The author of this article wasn't bothered for very long period after its creation, I never complained that this article was OR, or had unreliable sources. I complained 5183:

vanished civilizations, torsion fields and all similar crap. The main "argument" worth more than $ 0.01 is the supposed discrepancy between the social categories using internet and the views one can see on fora. Trouble is, no one did a serious study on a subject, therefore people like Polyanskaya implicitely suppose that everyone having Internet and commenting on Russian-speaking forums would necessarily be a partisan of liberal views. --

2173:. The BLP policy doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims. 2890:, a large professional organisation that provides advice about finding suitable representation to writers (cited twice -- once from their own page, once from the official blog of "writer beware", one of their projects), a blog produced by an expert in the field of the publishing industry, along with primary documentary evidence of a court case. Despite two of the sources being blogs, they are 4740:

dubious conspiracy theory. So there obviously was a willingness to make it NPOV. Note that the title of the Russian article is also far more neutral,a nd at one time had a interwiki link to "web-brigade" on English wikipedia. We are 1 year later now, the Russian article now has a chapter "Kritika", is still marked Conspiracy Theory, and I have not heard anything in the news all that time. --

2434:- Articles which turn into Interwebs smearfests about living people should be deprecated, demolished and buried. Knowledge (XXG) is not a sounding board for criticism or praise - it is a compendium of what has already been published in reliable sources. The article in question consisted almost entirely of what has been (negatively) said about the person on blogs and message boards. 4114:) stumping for votes in e-mail on ANI, as well as this article being used as a brush with which to smear Knowledge (XXG) users. The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources and the fact that the claims made were not supported by the sources, and these arguments were poorly refuted by keep comments, if refuted at all. Thanks for the laugh, though, Grue. - 3146:; most of the claims of notability in the article pertain to the agency, not to the individual. Those that do relate to her mostly seem to do so in her role as a representative of the agency. It is the agency, not the individual, who has achieved notability, and the focus of the article should be on that. The founder's personal biographical details are not relevant. 2986:"You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be." And you're missing the point too: Publication method (which is what a blog is) is totally orthogonal to editorial process (which is what you're talking about). Some blogs *are* edited in the format you're talking about. 5235:. Knowledge (XXG) has articles on both UFOs and vanished civilizations because they have been written about by notable people, so it shouldn't be a consideration whether the allegations are true or not. This seems to be the case here - even if the allegations are false, they seem to have appeared in notable publications. What is 2232:

Wikipedians to verify the website's claims. This one website source is not the basis for posting rumors about a living person on Knowledge (XXG), even if the claims are true. I do not understand all the "inside" talk (by Knowledge (XXG) editors who know the parties involved in real-world disputes with Barbara Bauer) on the

5168:

rather biased and inadequate, but in more subtle ways - for example, the way it's currently sourced makes it somewhat difficult for the reader to verify much of the FSB section. The "eye for an eye" source, in particular, is given as a source for a whole bunch of statements, but it is extremely long

5079:

is of any use for such hypothetically encyclopedic article. If not, than delete, even if the topic has a potential. Byophys seems interested in the topic. That's his right. He can write a new version under the new title and if he needs something that was in the article for his work on the future one,

5074:

be deleted if it looks like an ax grinding exercise created under deliberately inflammatory unencyclopedic and non-descriptive title. Users who keep repeating like mantra that WP:RM should not be confused with AfD or that the article simply needs an improvement and this is the issue of editing rather

4919:

criteria. They're all allegations, with some people thinking: "there is a discrepancy between people that should be present in the forums and views that people post, then basically these must be FSB agents in disguise). If this was a legal investigations (which it isn't of course), such an "evidence"

4282:

They got a bunch of such reservations there. So, no rule for a decision huh? If you're against my admin POV, I'll invent a rule for you anyway? "Everything for my friends, law for my enemies"? Huh? My opinion: BLOCK THAT "MAN IN BLACK" FOR CENSORSHIP! BTW, I should be reading rules regularly... Maybe

3738:

I think instead of deleting the article, one should add more reliable sources to it such as court decisions. Perhaps, expanding the scope of the article to libel cases of vague origin would help. The article already included a reference to the work of Polyanskaya that mentions a court case of libel

2722:

I don't feel this meets WP:BIO at all. What in that article establishes notability? The fact that her agency appears in the SFWA worst 20 agencies list can't be it all on its own, as not all of the rest of those agencies seem to have articles. The only other references there are several bios which do

2324:

says: "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims." I take this to mean that we need to

2315:

says, "Below, in alphabetical order, is a list of the currently active literary agencies about which Writer Beware has received the largest number of complaints over the years, or which, based on documentation we've collected, we consider to pose the most significant hazard for writers." That website

2110:

If you feel parts of the article are problematic, delete those parts. The article does use reliable sources for a large part of the content; non-contentious claims are sourced from Bauer's own web site (as is permitted by policy) and contentious claims are sourced from Writer Beware and the official

706:

Robin Murphy (born, 1950, Grand Rapids, Michigan) is a Naturopath and homeopath. Dr. Murphy became interested in homeopathy as an undergraduate. He studied homeopathy at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) where he earned an ND in 1980, and directed the homeopathy program there from

5858:

This information does validly cite its sources and there is no false information on this page. All information on wikipedia on Christina McHale can be found elsewhere on the internet so there is no reason to delete it. This is not an invasion of privacy because this information is already out on the

4739:

Creation of the article, proposal for speedy deletion, vote on it, keep decision all happened on the same day. Most of the votes came after the article was marked both as POV and aa a Conspiracy Theory. Crucially: the very creator of the page (Jaro.p) provided a link to a Russian source calling it a

3598:

of a redirect is almost the same as a deletion: it removes the staus of an article, and it removes the material. Potentially controversial redirect have a review process of their own--was this followed? was the ed. in question made aware of it? Finally, does appeal lie from Redirects for discussion

3405:

could too, if anyone bothered to do so. Deleting an entire class of articles, those on words, automatically unless they are already high quality and well-sourced, will prevent us from ever being ABLE to improve them into high quality articles. This violates the basic process that a huge percentage

3080:

closed with a keep result. Nothing has changed, except that Ms Bauer has issued a law suit against Knowledge (XXG), the SFWA (along with two of its officials), the operators of the blog that is cited in the article, the operator and former operator of the "Absolute Write" web site that is mentioned

2813:

nightmares in fact. Logically there have to be 20 worst agencies in any list of 21 or more literary agencies, so being one of them isn't a great achievement. Usually these kinds of articles are built from newspaper reporting, which is bad enough, but this is based on blogs and dead links. As Tbeatty

2727:

that Jimbo already said his piece on. There are no newspaper articles, no other secondary sources of any kind. Even assuming the blogs are reliable sources, from where exactly is her supposed notability coming from? I fully agree with the nominator that this article is completely unfit for inclusion

2518:"When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." 2354:

For a Knowledge (XXG) biography page, a reliable third party source for negative information about the subject might be a reputable newspaper that has trained investigative reporters, editors and fact checkers. Such a source might publish an investigative report in which they examine court documents

2289:

attributed to them in the text. This is true. I see no text in the AfD debate that suggests the result was "keep pending removal of sources." The claims in the article are well-sourced to reliable sources. The only even remotely dubious source (used for "Bauer is also alleged to have made legal

2231:

for the stated purpose of, "I just feel that the information about them provided by the SFWA should be disseminated more widely". The sole basis for these articles (the others have been deleted) was a list on a website that does not provide data to back-up their claims, thus making it impossible for

2115:

a reliable source, IMO). Some claims are sourced with primary sources, which is far from ideal, but does provide us with means of verification that the statements are true. I guess, however, that it is these parts of the article you objected to, so I'd suggest deleting those parts, rather than the

2093:

for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never

4687:

to prevent the creation of articles about notable subjects if those subjects are likely to be vandalised. If we start doing that, the vandals have already won. Courage is needed, dear editor, not fear and appeasement. If the article is recreated, I promise to put it on my watch list (as will many

4395:

Multiple reports of solicits in e-mail, in both the AFD and on ANI, motivated me to ignore the vote count entirely. If you're asking how many noses I counted, the answer is zero. I ignored everyone's "vote" since the vote was clearly tainted and evaluated the arguments. There's no reasonable way to

3452:

ensures that the encyclopaedic topic of grammatical articles is kept, without the dictionary definition. Close is correct: "has potential" and "important subject" are just opinions and have no bearing on whether an article should be kept per policy. And the "in popular culture" section really was

2595:

provided that better sourcing is added. Reliability of the original sourcing was not at all clear. ~This is an instance of where we do have to be careful of BLP. The withdrawal of the Office action was not a license to ignore BLP, but rather a statement that they relied upon us to evaluate with it

1672:

Wait let me get this straight, the page is not being unprotected because I said that it was 'stupid' that it was? I'm sorry but since when has 'stupid' been such an offensive word. I could have said something a lot more offensive but I didn't. Im trying to be as useful as I can here but I just feel

1055:

I believe the page was deleted too soon, despite having undergone major improvements and citing all its sources, including the main source on which it was based. The page should have remained for at least another day to allow for it further improvement, or at least be moved to my personal Talk page

5472:

led me to check whether several prominent weblogs I had heard of had been deleted as a result of such activity. I found at least two blogs that were deleted when, pretty clearly, they shouldn't have been. Note that these undeletions are not being proposed for personal political reasons; one of the

4608:

which has been written about and for being part of Russia's political landscape, but it shouldn't be presented as a fact. My main hobby is creating film articles, so I see no problem with writing an article about potential fiction, or even downright lies. That shouldn't be a consideration - what

3821:

I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Knowledge (XXG) is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian

3734:

I believe that the article was neither an "attack" nor an original research. It summarized the investigations of Russian and Polish journalists and activists. The article's editor attributed all the paragraphs to the respective publications. I cannot find a Knowledge (XXG) policy mentioning the

3124:

This article was clearly created as an sttack piece. It did not seek to provide a balanced view of the person, but rather to detail derogatory information. Since then it has improved somewhat but it is still unbalanced and too depepndent on inappropriates sources. Perhaps a restoration followed by

2627:

A few additional notes: some of the criteria decried as being lacking in the most recent text of the article was missing due to disagreements over proper application of RS. For example: the Nielsen Haydens are certainly notable (each has an article here), but there was disagreement whether (and to

2236:

and related pages, but it is clear that there is a group of editors who have collaborated to keep negative information about Barbara Bauer on Knowledge (XXG), using only blogs and other unreliable internet sources in their citations. These "owners" of the article have been repeatedly challenged by

3392:

does not ban articles on words, it merely says we don't have dictionary definition articles. Removing this article violates long-standing tradition, if not policy, that we don't delete articles which clearly and obviously can be cleaned up and rewritten into high quality articles, simply because

357:

So... This is a bit confusing, but please bear with me. Determining if Flash cartoons and artists are notable is quite difficult: web rankings can often be misleading, and the popularity of certain things is hard to ascertain. Fred the Monkey, I think, fits into the category of "notable, but just

5182:

Yeah, trouble is that if you try to cut the bias, you will get reverted by Biophys and it will be another edit war... Besides, reading Russian, I can tell you that there is not much meat behind those allegations. Basically, it is no different from the yellow press idiotics about flying saucers,

1393:

This article has been deleted a number of times which really is rather stupid. Its also been protected from being recreated. Read the articles talk page to see how badly this deletion needs overturned. It was deleted orginally for unnotability but it cant be categorised under this, not anymore.

5213:

Don't mix things that shouldn't be. Boris Stomakhin is a real guy, sentenced by a real tribunal (rightly or not, that's another question), so everything is "real", so it is not surprising that I tried to settle the dispute between you and Vlad on sources, interpretations and stuff. Here, we're

4473:

I think that you should think about your trying to rig the voting in Knowledge (XXG) twice. Everything is evident about personalities of the individuals attacked from the Adminstrators noticeboard and your now deleted comments. I think that no one here would let you spit on the face of decent

4069:- I believe there was some consensus to delete in the original debate - unless I am missing/miscounted something there were more !votes to delete. That said, there was more than a little confusion going on there and it wouldn't hurt to try and build a more solid consensus one way or another. 680:

I don't have any problem with the rapid response, but "Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. // Bibliography // Homeopathic Medical Repertory, 1993 (1st edition), 2005 (3rd edition), " is a clear and unambiguous assertion of notability. ~

2132:

Based on what was there before (multiple, non-trivial sources establishing notability). If there are POV/neutrality concerns that is now an editing matter. Also the current history link isn't working, an admin must fix that. We cannot see now what was there before. Please restore ASAP. -

5033:"Internet troll squads" gets a whopping 6 Ghits, nuff said. This being said, if someone is able to come up with a good NPOV version of the article (and NOT centered around Russia like the previous one used to be), then fine. But restoring the article as it is is just too risky imho. -- 3499:

Further comment by me: It is possible that I have not fully understood the deletion review process, in terms of the way I wrote the above. As it may be that I am merely supposed to explain how the deletion process was not followed properly: This article does not warrant deletion due to

637:. Also note that the deleting admin could not have given this much careful consideration since he deleted 5 other articles the same minute by his log of user contributions, and clearly did not take the time to confirm that the criteria for speedy deletion had been met before deleting. 5069:

is in principle possible, but whether the article at hand can be used as the basis for a possibly encyclopedic article this is to become. If the acceptable article would have to be written from scratch, the original article can be deleted no matter how encyclopedic the topic is. And it

888:

I placed the speedy on it because I didn't feel notability was clearly asserted, although it is a close call. Also, the article was apparently deleted due to a prod a week earlier as well. I have no problem with the article remaining if the concerns about notability are addressed.

4338:

Typically, vote counts are ignored when it's clear that someone is actively influencing the vote count. If the solicited users had come in with convincing arguments, that'd be fine, but closing admins typically ignore the mass of numbers when it's clear that someone was stumping for

2290:

threats in order to suppress discussion of her business's activities, especially on web sites. Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats.") is (a) a very weakly-phrased claim, (b) is undisputably a reliable

5023:

article - same basic premise. As long the article is NPOV, I see no problems. It will be a target for vandalism - as all such articles are - but as I said previously this should not deter us. We must fight against vandals by doing exactly what they do not wish us to do.

4595:

between you two (in fact, I find its very existence utterly abhorrent), but I would like to mention here what I mentioned on the talk page of that draft. I think the article may have a place on wikipedia if it is mentioned in the introduction that the existence of this is

4039:, and I am working toward improving the article under a different name. More sources are added, primarily about similar "Internet teams" in China. It would be great if Ilgiz (who perhaps knows this subject better than me) and other editors could help to improve the article. 2049:

was closed for what the closing admin believed to be a necessary precaution based on possible office issues. The office has since spoken, and said they won't have a statement on it, so this is just to re-open it. Please see the original review for comments and concerns.

4986:. As for China, everyone can read the source and see what it says: "teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names". Of course, 2438:

specifically prohibits the use of these sites as sources for biographies. "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." Surely there is something which has been published in a

4716:

on whether the article is to be kept or not. It doesn't matter one single bit why the article was originally created - what matters is whether its subject matter could have a place on wikipedia. I'm not qualified to judge this, but I notice that it survived a

4944:

If it's discussed in newspapers, Knowledge (XXG) should have an article about it, even if it is a conspiracy theory. And looking just at the title of the article, I can't say why China is outside of its scope. Are you saying China doesn't have Internet at all?

5543:

both deletions, reasons as given above. Additionally the AfD on the first mentioned article is rather old - perhaps it would be more constructive to re-create the article, properly sourced and written, starting from scratch rather than digging up old graves?

4718: 4243:

of course very uncivil in his argumentation, but anyone who doubts that e-mail is being used by these people to evade blocks, to attack fellow Wikipedians and, (specifically the point Vlad wants to make but getting lost in indignation), to canvas for votes:

5239:

here is not necessarily the allegations, but that the allegations have appeared in important places. As such, it is my view (unless someone presents convincing evidence to the contrary) that it is not against wikipedia policy to have an article about them,

5163:

Since this topic hasn't been closed yet (despite being moved into the archives), I'll add another comment. I must say that the article badly needs attention from someone - and prefferably someone who reads Russian - who will cut the bias out of it. It is

4656:, where he ignited discussion of the peronalities of Knowledge (XXG) editors. And this article was created by Biophys specifically for this purpose. I asked admins to check my IP and IP of Alex Bakharev, to confirm that we are not even from Russia. You, 4159:

There were actually 7 sources, most of them inline. The delete arguments like "WP:NOR" are self-defeating. You made your decision based on some WP:ANI rumor, and closed the debate without even reading it. Just admit it, because we all know it's true.

4057:, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." not to mention the Admin's comments on the page, "I've disregarded the nose count on this one, due to the off-wiki vote stumping." 2394:

standards. The sources are either self-referential, have no actual information, or are blogs, which to me doesn't stand up very well. If someone can come forward with good, reliable sources, then perhaps it's worthy, but right now? I don't see it.

5307: 4436:. The main argument still is that it is an attack page, and what is worse - the canvassing and the reactions of the people being canvassed prove that they not only want to keep it, but they want to keep it that way. WP:BLP and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. -- 5522:, smirking chimp is a favourite of mine, or was at one time anyway, but the article as deleted had only one source: smirking chimp. No prejudice against a rewrite which satisfies notability criteria by reference to reliable secondary sources. 2772:

suggests I'm not alone in this suspicion. The alleged BLP violation looks bogus to me, the article's got plenty of decent sources backing up the various statements (the word "blog" is not radioactive) and I don't see any clear NPOV violations.

5483:) are now banned from Knowledge (XXG). The discussion on AFD should be re-run and kept free of single-purpose or bad faith accounts. The existing discussion can't reasonably be said to reflect an accurate consensus of Knowledge (XXG) users. 2654:

specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. There is no exception for "notable writers who are well known and respected." No blogs, period.

5169:

and made up of various sections. Specific sections should be given as a source, rather than the whole thing. Also, the name "internet brigades" seems like a neologism, so perhaps the name "secret internet police" (which was used in the

1838: 1820: 2862:, and because there was no cause for a speedy deletion in the first place. The article having previously gone through AfD last month ago, the most that should have been done as an initial action by Admin was a further AfD nomination. 5065:. An article on the topic is possible but this one was unrepairable, starting from the title all the way to the content. When the deletion is debated, it is important to keep in mind that the issue is not whether the article about 3383:

Admin chose to Redirect this. First of all, this was redirected without consensus, many more editors were in favor of keeping than deleting, and gave reasons for their position. Secondly, the article was removed for violating

2368:, one of the most important professional associations that exists for genre fiction writers. It is an important and credible source by any standards I've ever seen discussed even remotely in connection with a wikipedia policy. 167:

This article was deleted as a hoax or nonsense piece. It isn't. I work in the motor industry and can confirm this car does exist. It's not in production yet. It's notable, ALL RIGHT!! Okay, can we discuss this now, pleeeease!!!

3817:

talk page "KGB trolls in Knowledge (XXG)?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for

4278:

BUT! Look what I got: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote."

1251:: suggest this be closed, as Javastein didn't present any arguments for undeletion—merely asked what happened to the article. But also suggest that this not be considered to prejudice a possible relisting at Deletion Review 3799:, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Knowledge (XXG)?" 2767:

and if there's still controversy put through AfD again. The notability of this individual looks potentially questionable, though being in a top twenty suggests she may be worth having an article about and surviving the

1874:- perhaps the reason that no one considered the viewpoint was because no one (including this DRV nominator) offered it. The article was correctly deleted, but there is no bar to the nominator or anyone else creating 3223:

per JulesH and MCB, particularly MCB's point that Bauer's legal filings are a matter of public record, and the professionalism and expertise of the website owners providing factual information regarding Ms. Bauer.

5089:

So basically you agree that the topic can support a wiki article, but feel that it should be created under a new name? Wouldn't that be grounds for speedy deletion - the recreation of a previously deleted topic?

2070:

Opinions in the aborted original discussion will be taken as still valid at closing time if the editor offering such opinions has not withdrawn or updated them. Please do not feel obligated to repeat them here.

1682:

I can't say that I see any serious assertion of notability in the deleted versions of the page so I can't disagree with the various deleting editors. But the speedy-deletion is being contested in good faith so

2500:. The SFWA site is not a personal home page, blog, fan site, rumor site, etc; it is the official site of a respected and established professional organization, the equivalent in its field to (for example) the 5469: 5311: 1066:

This was deleted as a copyvio, which seems to be partially true. Do you want me to email you a copy of the text? If you rewrite it, make sure you don't lift passages from other sources without attribution. ~

4669:

First, that is not relevant to this deletion discussion. Second, what you are saying is factually wrong. It was an anonymous user who started that discussion, and I only reacted to his/her accusations. See:

2707:

This certainly qualifies as reliable and sourced. I saw no libelous statements, everything was nice and sourced. WP:BLP doesn't mean we can't have neutral article on people just because they are criticised.

5579:

was speedy deleted per A7 and G11 back in December. Without knowing what the content was it's hard for me to judge but that seems to reinforce the original AfD asserting a lack of notability and sourcing.

5476: 5398: 1948: 4356:

By the way, Ukrained isn't being blocked or anything (at least, not by me and not to my knowledge); the "votes" he stumped up were simply ignored except insofar as the users made convincing arguments. -

3735:

term "attack". The omnipresence of scabrous comments in the Russian online forums is evident. There are known cases of impersonation of Russian opposition figures and distortion of their statements.

5684:

on the basis of new information. Restore and keep for a few days (i.e., do not relist immediately) to allow for article improvement. Relist after a reasonable time if articles still are unsatisfactory.

1785: 1780: 3750:, a murdered Russian ethnograph who testified in court cases against nationalist groups. I am mentioning this article here because it shows the scale and nature of attacks against the civil dialogue. 1789: 5173:) would be best. I'm still not sure how much meat is there behind the allegations, but I would like this to be discussed (and prefferably for some time) because at least some of it is legitimate. 2669:

The deletion rationale hinges on the reliability of the sources. I am convinced of the reliability of SFWA. Surely SWFA has more than enough reliability to at least discuss its worthiness via AfD.

1814: 1772: 4781:: the "teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names" in 3934:, who doesn't know jack about Russian or Polish politics, completely ignoring opinions of people who do. That's what I call "systemic bias", which we're supposed to counter, not encourage more. 707:

1980-1984. He has also taught at Bastyr University. He directs the Hahnemann Academy of North America. Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy.

5003:. This is very important. If you will argue against this article, please base your arguments on wikipedia policy. If you don't like those policies, ask to change them on their talk pages. 2269:

as OFFICE stated on the mail list they are not taking a position, can an admin please restore the history of the last couple versions at least so people can judge/see what was there fairly? -

5200:

Oh, no! So far, I could negotiate changes with any editor except Vlad Fedorov who deletes well referenced texts. By the way, you Grafikm, made a couple of reasonable comments with regard to

3297:

I have reopened this, as this was not a merge, but a redirect, no content was merged, nor did the closing admin mention anything about merging. This may have been closed accidentally. --

471:

Sorry all, I was in a huge rush when I typed this and forgot to check the guidelines. I'll withdraw this nomination for now and open a new one once I can find proper sources and sites. --

1200:

Just wondering what happened to this article. I can't find it on the list of deleted articles and it's not even showing up under my account at all. I can't find any record of it at all.

693:

If that was the entire content, more will obviously be needed to fully establish notability, so I would have added a prod tag, not a speedy, to give it a chance. Dont bite the newbies.

4459: 3725: 4671: 3414:, a featured article, to prove we really mean it. Otherwise, this is an ok quality but not yet well enough sourced article, and we know full well there are reliable sources on this, 4553:

per JzG and others. Unsubstantiated libels against active politicians have no place in Knowledge (XXG). I am very surprized by the attitude of Grue, which I find rather unhealthy. --

1406:

they now have a new member and are widely considered the hottest new band in the whole of the UK by NME. Read the talk page, the people have spoken and they want this article. Now.--

1227: 2527:

This article is a good example of how we can show that Knowledge (XXG) is capable of neutral, professional coverage of controversial matters, even matters in which it is a party.

841:, as the deleted article did enough to make it not a CSD A7. I would be inclined to argue for its deletion on a AfD (as "fully spammy," maybe) but that would be the place for it. 3471:

While I admittedly do not fully understand the deletion review procedure - how does what you said relate to the central issue that, 1. there was no consensus to delete, and 2.

3081:

in the article, a person identified only as "Miss Snark Literary Agent" (!) and others whose names I don't recognise. Suing the SFWA is almost guaranteed to get an article in

5248:

currently (on the FSB accusations) but he's apparently a government employee (?). A rebuttal from a more neutral source, if one could be found, would be a good thing to add.

5849: 3569:

because the article history still exists and the article is not protected. This can be handled by the standard editing process (and dispute resolution if it comes to that).

3195:

agency.com/citizendiumlarrysangerwikipediawaleswoolbarhillelchapmanlibelisrael4877032807.html (delete space; for some reason this URL won't post without it being embedded)

5363: 5358: 3487:

requires deletion of articles which are currently a dicdef(assuming that's what this was, which is not certain either, the editors advocating Keep thought it was more)? --

348: 5367: 5486: 5459: 2294:

for the claim being made. Besides, if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article.

2997:

You're forgetting that this blog is attached to a reliable website. If they'd posted it to their website instead of the blog. We wouldn't be having this discussion. -

2337:- You're misinterpreting the policy. Knowledge (XXG) does not require its sources to provide sources for their information; that would be insane. SFWA Writer Beware 913:

I have to endorse the speedy-deletion based on the evidence available at the time. However, the speedy-deletion has been contested in good faith so an undeletion and

3077: 2769: 2723:

nothing for notability, one link that doesn't work at all, a couple blogs entries, and court information that can't be included without delving into the same area of

2246: 2036: 1490: 1452:

Where are the reliable sources? MySpace, YouTube, their own web site and the web site of their record company do not qualify. They have no entry at allmusic.com.

5392: 5350: 5204:, so I tried to reflect them in the article. So far, I inserted only one word in the changes already made by Esn. Anything consistent with wikipedia rules is fine. 599: 158: 2887: 2365: 2282: 2250: 2046: 48: 34: 3101:- this is becoming a widely-discussed issue, and a wikipedia article on it would be helpful. Bias should be addressed through editing, not outright deletion. -- 3306:

Sorry, should have used the word redirect. Either way, you are not requesting deletion, and no deletion occurred, so there is no need for a deletion review.

1494:

in January with the same arguments/purported sources. Unless new sources are offered this will be speedily closed. "Stupid" is no reason to reconsider this. ~

4496:. It is an attack page, a WP:OR galore and a WP:BLP infringement. We had enough problems with conspiracy pages (*cough* 9/11 *cough*) to not restart them. -- 3501: 3484: 3472: 3407: 3389: 3385: 3912:, the AfD was a trollfest, Grue's amusingly hysterical assertion notwithstanding. But we could relist semiprotected if anyone thinks it's worth the effort. 2791:

specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. So yes, it

2364:

I do not believe that Knowledge (XXG)'s policy is that only newspapers can provide reliable sources for biographies. Writer Beware is a publication of the

1384: 43: 5630:. One AFD result was influenced by sock and meat puppets and the other didn't have a concensus. At the very least they need to be given a fair chance. - 2924:, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. 2551:, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. 1673:

that everyone is always against the 'new guy'. Isnt their a rule on wikipedia 'Don't be a dick' or something. Im pretty sure most of you would fail it.--

1156: 1151: 611:

The stub did indicate why the subject was notable. The article was deleted within 5 minutes of creation; no one gave me a chance to improve the article

2321: 2317: 2238: 1203: 5891:, not that the article is false or uncited (which it must be as well). Also, "other people who know Christina McHale personally" does not constitute a 4777:

by a Russian State official and numerous bloggers ), such teams have been reportedly created by departments of provincial and municipal governments in

3431:

due to lack of consensus. Although, this is simply an editorial decision, so we should just be able to reverse the redirect - the history is there. --

5927: 5616:

I am glad someone checked the list. It became clear that the deletions sponsored by this self-admitted cabal need review with more careful attention.

3690: 3685: 1160: 4660:, is not administrator and as such you cannot guarantee that Biophys and his friends won't start these violations of Knowledge (XXG) policies again. 2683:

MCB makes a very compelling argument for restoration. Statements were all sourced, and not original works of wikipedia. Article should be restored.

899: 812:. This article made a clear assertion of notability, so it's not a speedy candidate. If the notability is in doubt, it should be discussed on AFD. - 3694: 410:

requires independent reliable sources, of which there are exactly zero. And neither forum activity nor google hits make something notable anyway. -

5507: 4624: 3856:

CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD.

3822:

sources in the Knowledge (XXG), but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.

3580: 2184: 1191: 1185: 1143: 666: 4192:. (1) Users Biophys, Ilgiz, Colchicum and CBR prepare new out of Knowledge (XXG) canvassing for this article. Please see the following messages: 3516:

only requires deletion of articles which can never be anything more than a dicdef, and this clearly can be more, then no deletion is required by

4753:

The article should remain deleted. It's clear that whoever was its author had a crucial lack of info on Runet, Russian segment of the Internet.

3076:

if your issue is notability, then that should be discussed at AfD, after an undeletion, in order to get a wider audience for the question. The

5489:

had two keep votes and two delete votes. That is far from a consensus to delete. It's one of the few redlinked blogs on the lists found on our

3719: 3677: 4604:(it seems to fulfill the primary criteria), but those sources, as far as I can see, do not conclusively prove it. It is notable for being an 3374: 2285:, an influential and well-reputed professional association); it is only necessary that we can verify that they published the information that 5479:

appears to have a solid consensus... but it turns out a lot of those voters were actually GNAA members, some of whom (including GNAA founder

4139:"The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources". OK, let's see if it's really the case, or you're making it up on the spot: 3528:

or whatever we're using today, and as there was no consensus to delete, deletion(redirection) was inappropriate and should be overturned. --

5814: 5809: 4411: 4372: 4129: 3813:, that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the 3483:

does not insist on deletion of articles which currently aren't full sourced, without even trying to look for sources, why would you assume

2886:

The sources are all fine: Bauer herself for non-controversial claims, her university for background information on her qualifications, the

2610:

There was no OFFICE action. I remarked on the email list about the office not being open. Please don't make leading comments like this.

4785:. Applicants for the job were drawn mostly from the propaganda and police departments. Successful candidates have been offered classes in 39: 5818: 4773:: . Not only this phenomenon is well known in Russia (hence the article in Russian Knowledge (XXG) and discussions of this subject in 4619: 313: 308: 1427: 5921: 5424: 5419: 4382:

Could you name the users whose opinions you ignored, and provide the proof that they were asked by User:Ukrained to vote as they did?

4036: 2809:

per FCYTravis. Take one unremarkable person, add one or more unremarkable events, and stir in innuendo to taste. The usual recipe for

1776: 317: 4053: 5843: 5801: 5428: 5104:. There was no consensus to delete, and renaming seems like the best way to address the problems caused by the rather unwise name.-- 4221:

TO BE CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP, SPYING AND POLITICAL PROFILING ON WIKIPEDIA! IMHO, HE SHOULD BE PERMABANNED FOR DISRUPTION A.S.A.P.!!!

2474:. (1) No OFFICE action -- if and when there is, it can be dealt with then; (2) Previous AfD closed as "keep"; (3) subject satisfies 2001: 1996: 1423: 1046: 5244:. It would be helpful, for example, if some sources critical of this view were also found - they could then be added in. There's 2508:. The author of the SFWA piece, A. C. Crispin, is an officer of the organization, and a well-known author in her own right. As for 1875: 1846: 1842: 3930:

Are you saying that most of those who voted "keep" are trolls? That's "hysterical assertion" if I saw one. What happened here is

2005: 1891: 1768: 1732: 1506:

Its proponents say Hadouken is the inventor of a genre or something. Ridiculous. How many times do we have to go through this?

564: 559: 342: 300: 123: 118: 5154:. So, can I recreate the article right now under a slightly different name and make it as neutral and encyclopedic as possible? 2443:

which discusses the allegations for/against this person in a neutral manner, if this truly is not a tempest in a teapot, right?

21: 5875: 5453: 5411: 3111: 1215: 568: 127: 4111: 3778:

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here

3056:

and the article was certainly very overbalanced negatively while using completely unacceptable sources for those claims (per

2320:

is to make sure that Knowledge (XXG) does not find itself in the position of repeating claims that are not reliably sourced.

2030: 1988: 4256:

Non-sense! How this new diff is relevant to discussion here? Your Vlad was talking of another editor and another situation!

4866: 4215:

If they are writing each other - should they be punished only for this? Presumption of guilt? ADMINISTRATORS!!! THIS USER

3763: 1532:

valid deletion, "getting popular" is not a reason to change that. Bring sources. Reliable ones, independent of the band.

4927:

As for China, well, it's out of scope for this article. China filters Internet (and Knowledge (XXG)), Russia does not. --

3397:

a featured article, while "The" is essentially deleted? Etymologists have written vast amounts on the word "The", and if

2965: 2637: 1349: 1344: 593: 551: 152: 110: 5354: 2898:. No information is contained that is not backuped up by at least one of these sources. There has been no violation of 4298:. Please see the following discussion between Biophys (author of the article about Internet troll squads) and this user 2501: 2413:(I note that I can't see any sources that may have been added after the Google cache was created, just for the record.) 1353: 1011: 1006: 5980: 5780: 5733: 5329: 5277: 4962:. No any court investigation or "evidence" required for sources in Knowledge (XXG). Not only all these sources satisfy 3656: 3616: 3279: 3239: 1967: 1921: 1837:

the fourth wall - by first looking like breaking it but then not breaking it after all - is much more interesting. The

1751: 1711: 1315: 1275: 1122: 1082: 977: 937: 530: 490: 460:. We do not follow a principle of "notable unless proved otherwise"; if something cannot be proved notable, it is not. 279: 239: 89: 17: 5503: 3576: 2973:

You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be. From

2180: 1015: 662: 5859:

internet and it was cited properly and posted on wikipedia for a biography. Please undelete this article. Thank you.

655:- unless an article is pure vandalism, it shouldn't be deleted so quickly when active improvement is still going on. 5576: 5346: 5298: 5214:

talking about a possible conspiracy that no one managed to prove so far, so it's not the same thing by a league. --

5080:

he can request any admin to restore it in his userspace. But no way that piece under that name could be restored. --

186: 5945: 3764:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys

1378: 1336: 359: 182: 3204:

I believe that "israelnews" is considered an unreliable blog whose writer has been banned from Knowledge (XXG). -

2149:

Seeing the history, restore/undo the deletion. Someone can AfD after if they feel like it, once it's restored. -

1147: 1040: 998: 3681: 5933: 5020: 4407: 4368: 4125: 3779: 2505: 477: 392: 376: 4146: 4017: 3436: 2055: 1443: 3191:

Additional third party source discussing Bauer (albeit briefly and in a manner rather hostile to wikipedia):

5635: 3339: 3334: 3002: 2836: 2818: 1630:

Yeah, and the 25-30 selections you can choose from aren't helping either. Nevermind, that chart is junk. --

1558: 1520: 1139: 1103: 854: 817: 762: 265: 75: 5863: 5232: 4833: 4572: 3814: 3796: 3673: 3637: 5915: 5498: 5496:

At the very least, both these articles should have a real, full discussion on AFD before they're deleted.

4839: 3571: 3343: 3041: 2709: 2281:-- It is not required that Knowledge (XXG) be able to verify the web site (an official publication of the 2211: 2175: 1833:

the fourth wall would be useless, as it would include pretty much all fiction. But a list of fiction that

657: 304: 5415: 4862: 4013: 3520:. As no other reason for deletion was ever given, and as the presence of reliable sources clearly meets 3432: 2051: 1439: 5805: 4559: 4230:

BTW, I speak Russian too. So you should be honest with the naive Westerners, and I'll be watching you :)

3475:

does not require the deletion of articles which currently contain nothing but a dictionary definition?

3209: 3130: 2478:

as a subject, due to controversy covered in multiple sources; and finally, (4) article does not violate

2456: 2233: 2095: 1992: 1419: 169: 5969: 5901: 5769: 5722: 5703: 5689: 5676: 5664: 5637: 5622: 5606: 5570: 5535: 5513: 5318: 5252: 5226: 5208: 5195: 5177: 5170: 5158: 5146: 5118: 5094: 5084: 5045: 5028: 5010: 4994: 4953: 4939: 4908: 4894: 4757: 4744: 4734: 4725: 4692: 4678: 4664: 4631: 4579: 4561: 4545: 4522: 4508: 4478: 4466: 4440: 4416: 4390: 4377: 4306: 4287: 4264: 4251: 4234: 4225: 4204: 4184: 4168: 4134: 4095: 4061: 4043: 4021: 4004: 3988: 3976: 3942: 3925: 3904: 3876: 3872: 3851: 3847: 3826: 3806: 3754: 3645: 3605: 3586: 3561: 3532: 3491: 3466: 3440: 3422: 3310: 3301: 3268: 3228: 3213: 3199: 3183: 3171: 3155: 3134: 3116: 3089: 3064: 3044: 3017: 3004: 2990: 2981: 2968: 2948: 2928: 2906: 2878: 2866: 2850: 2838: 2821: 2799: 2777: 2757: 2743: 2712: 2697: 2673: 2659: 2640: 2625: 2614: 2602: 2585: 2567: 2555: 2535: 2465: 2447: 2422: 2404: 2372: 2359: 2349: 2341:

a reliable third-party source. Because Writer Beware is such a source, the information is clearly not

2329: 2298: 2273: 2257: 2202: 2190: 2153: 2137: 2120: 2098: 2075: 2059: 1956: 1910: 1882: 1865: 1740: 1700: 1677: 1667: 1634: 1625: 1609: 1594: 1560: 1545: 1522: 1510: 1498: 1484: 1465: 1456: 1447: 1410: 1304: 1264: 1243: 1219: 1111: 1071: 1060: 966: 926: 906: 893: 880: 859: 833: 819: 798: 780: 764: 752: 727: 713: 699: 685: 672: 641: 615: 519: 479: 464: 452: 431: 419: 394: 378: 268: 228: 212: 193: 172: 114: 78: 5909:, valid AfD, no new information. Speedy close, review requested by a sockpuppet of currently blocked 5604: 5568: 4688:

others, I don't doubt) and revert any attacks against you or other wikipedia editors that may pop up.

4093: 5222: 5191: 5131: 5041: 4935: 4504: 4302:. It follows that AlexPU was attracted by Biophys to this voting out of Knowledge (XXG) using e-mail. 3862: 3837: 3368: 3326: 2846:

If this article is restored, it should be done without the bad source material (i.e. blog entries).

2582: 2496:

The collateral sources which form the basis of the public controversy in which she is embroiled meet

2462: 1622: 1495: 1394:

They've been interviewed on XFM and performed live, as well as getting play on Radio 1, working with

1068: 963: 710: 682: 296: 260: 222: 5867: 5694:

At AfD, they get five days. I think that should be enough, if there's anything to justify a keep.

5407: 5302: 3180: 1890:. I was thinking of the wrong article. The list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall was in the 1207: 5871: 5763: 4975: 4821: 4571:. User Biophys is going to make a new article on "Internet Troll Squads". Please see his stub here 4397: 4396:

figure out exactly who was solicited and who was not, nor any particularly good reason to do so. -

4358: 4115: 3931: 3893: 3780:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack

3107: 2270: 2242: 2224: 2150: 2134: 1984: 1942: 1211: 472: 387: 371: 206: 190: 5673: 5205: 5155: 5143: 4991: 4905: 4675: 4463: 4462:. But it is not attack page against any specific person, as anyone can see looking at the article. 4040: 2754: 427:- WP:WEB not fulfilled, neither is WP:V, so it was deleted for appropriate reasons despite SPAs. 106: 70: 5631: 5134:(no "trolls"!) if you think this is better. I thought "squads" is better, because "brigade" is a 4971: 4898: 4538: 4105: 3953: 3512:, an article on a word, is a featured article, is the clearest possible evidence of this. Since 2998: 2832: 2815: 2774: 2736: 2418: 2400: 2245:

article was held off under the condition that the article would be built using reliable sources (

2199: 1565:

I have more sources, a particularly interesting ones from Gigwise which prove a number of things

1554: 1516: 1453: 1239: 842: 813: 758: 4754: 3517: 3513: 3505: 1688: 5645:

I'm not at all sure that either will pass an AfD, but they at least deserve a fair discussion.

2316:

does not show us the "complaints" and "documentation" that support their claims. The intent of

1648:

per guy, and the nominator's comment "stupid" makes it pretty tough to assume good faith here.

363: 5910: 5127: 5111: 4731: 4661: 4576: 4475: 4303: 4240: 4201: 3823: 3547: 3449: 3418:

out of a large number which exist, do what we do in every other situation, keep and clean up.

3082: 3061: 3052:- I agree with Docs original assessment. Additionally, I'm not seeing why this subject meets 3038: 2961: 2691: 2633: 1696: 922: 555: 415: 3476: 1602: 1477: 773: 5899: 5797: 5754: 5686: 5139: 4741: 4554: 4437: 4248: 3205: 3126: 1674: 1591: 1462: 1415: 1407: 1057: 428: 5888: 4721:

on the Russian wikipedia back in January 2006, and that the "keep" decision was unanimous.

3415: 3057: 3053: 3030: 2974: 2937: 2921: 2899: 2810: 2788: 2651: 2548: 2479: 2475: 2435: 2391: 2170: 2086: 1687:

where definite evidence will be needed to show that this band meets the generally accepted

1461:

I have a number of scans from NME, Articles from various websites as well if that counts?--

868: 786: 5718: 5699: 5215: 5201: 5184: 5034: 4979: 4928: 4858: 4730:

Russian Knowledge (XXG) is notorious for low quality articles, so don't advertise it here.

4497: 4058: 3857: 3832: 3747: 3529: 3488: 3419: 3298: 3151: 1260: 876: 794: 461: 5892: 4963: 4916: 4768: 3034: 2917: 2895: 2724: 2544: 2513: 2497: 2440: 4851: 4454:. Attack against whom? Original AfD nominator said: "Essentially an attack page against 2874:

multiple non-trival cites for reliable, verifiable and persistent sources. Meets BLP.

1480:, that's all you need to do. Scans aren't necessary, an article cite should be fine. -- 5760: 5646: 5490: 5242:

as long as the article makes it clear that there is some doubt about their truthfulness

4778: 3102: 2978: 2945: 2925: 2863: 2796: 2670: 2656: 2552: 2444: 2356: 2326: 2254: 1649: 1631: 1606: 1481: 1340: 724: 203: 4601: 3525: 3521: 3480: 2490: 2342: 2291: 2166: 407: 5964: 5958: 5530: 5524: 4879: 4838:

by Anna Polyanskaya, Andrei Krivov, and Ivan Lomko, Vestkik online, April 30, 2003 (

4531: 4213:

If users are just requesting each others mails - do they conspire to break Wikirules?

4101: 3920: 3914: 3461: 3455: 3225: 2875: 2847: 2729: 2611: 2414: 2396: 1907: 1879: 1862: 1540: 1534: 1235: 1002: 903: 777: 747: 741: 638: 612: 447: 441: 4613:

to suggest that it is. As such, it should be written about from the perspective of

2198:- even by the most stringent policy interpretations there is no basis for deletion. 622: 5480: 5315: 5107: 4617:

this accusation but of presenting it much as one would present the theories in the

3740: 3642: 3307: 3265: 2957: 2684: 2629: 2237:

other Wikipedians who pointed out that use of unreliable sources is a violation of

2072: 1953: 1946:– deletion overturned, but enough discussion of notability for a second listing at 1737: 1692: 1301: 1108: 918: 890: 547: 516: 511: 411: 5835: 5445: 5384: 4817: 3711: 3360: 3013:

Or is not self-published, which is the case for one of the two blogs in question.

2022: 1806: 1574: 1569: 1370: 1177: 1032: 585: 334: 144: 4641:

after Biophys alleged and wrote section entitled "KGB trolls in Knowledge (XXG)?"

1579: 5896: 5581: 5545: 4818:

Operation "Disinformation" - The Russian Foreign Office vs "Tygodnik Powszechny"

4708:: Any accusations against wikipedia editors, be it Vlad fedorov or anyone else, 4284: 4283:

some of admins that often block me would appear to be rulesbreakers themselves:)

4261: 4231: 4222: 4070: 4001: 3810: 3196: 3086: 3014: 2987: 2903: 2564: 2369: 2346: 2307: 2295: 2228: 2117: 1507: 1231: 5713:

and relist, definitely a troubling case, but AfD seems like the best way out.

4300:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:AlexPU#Could_you_give_me_a_piece_of_advice.3F

5714: 5695: 5081: 4790: 3985: 3751: 3147: 2312: 2227:

article was one of several articles created on Knowledge (XXG) in May 2006 by

2215: 1395: 1256: 872: 790: 769:

What is a "A7"? Here's a link to the way the page looked when it was deleted

5887:. The main thrust of the requests was that the article failed to satisfy the 4771:(the reason for deletion) if it cited the following multiple reliable sources 4276:

I've never received any mail or other messages about the article in question.

3264:

redirects done right don't involve deletion, and deletion is not requested –

1601:

Does the NME chart count as a "national music chart"? If it does, they pass

4946: 4924:

value. "I heard someone saying..." stuff is nothing but conspiracy theories.

4383: 4178:. We obviously did not have a proper discussion of this in the first place. 4161: 3935: 3897: 3164: 1332: 1296: 4142:"Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either" (great argument) 1829:

This article needs to be brought back, but renamed. A list of fiction that

362:

would back this up. Several cartoons have been featured on Newgrounds, the

4516:

The rationale was clear, and some of the above comments make it clearer.

3762:

Please see here official decision on personal attack made by this article

2390:- looking at the Google cache, I honestly don't see how this person meets 5618: 5249: 5174: 5091: 5025: 5007: 4794: 4722: 4689: 4657: 4628: 4518: 4180: 3601: 3508:

does not insist on the deletion of all articles on words. The fact that

3330: 2598: 2532: 1895: 1850: 994: 958: 829: 695: 439:, valid interpretation of the AfD debate. Lack of sources not remedied. 3594:

but the ed. bringing the DRV was not unreasonably confused because the

1617:

Get cracking, the more times you vote, the more influence you'll have...

772:. I don't see how "spammy" applies, and I consider that a violation of 4990:

and I emphasized this at the talk page during the deletion discussion.

4786: 4609:

should be considered is whether this idea is influential. The sources

1399: 4530:

Looks clear enough to me that. I agree with the rationale to delete.--

4037:

User_talk:A_Man_In_Black/Archive20#Deletion_of_Internet_squads_article

1841:

failed to consider this view. This should be undeleted and renamed to

704:

No, that was just the claim to notability. The article was a biostub:

5473:

blogs (Rottweiler) is far-right while the other (Chimp) is far-left.

4983: 4798: 4000:

users' opinion. The discussion was NOWHERE NEAR a "delete" consensus.

3892:

obvious consensus to keep on AfD, and another outrageous deletion by

827:; I think a speedy close here would be justified as everyone agrees. 4895:

China's secret internet police target critics with web of propaganda

4672:

Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Infiltration

2493:

of which is incontrovertable by reference to public records sources.

1583:

4th on the NME chart show ahead of the new My Chemical Romance video

1515:

So delete that. The band can still be notable without that claim. -

620:

More info: A message was left on my talk page that the article was

366:

article still exists (albeit due to being featured on IGN), and the

4299: 1553:. I've asked NME for verification of the claimed magazine scans. - 4802: 4801:, a Chinese student who was arrested for posting her comments in 4774: 4455: 1616: 1584: 1472:

Got more sources? List them. Otherwise, I'm going to have to say

962:– Copyvio, text emailed to editor to create non-copyvio version – 367: 4154:"OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition." (aka TLA alphabet soup) 3479:

does not insist on deletion of articles which are currently POV,

2489:

The main source of her notoriety is her filing of a lawsuit, the

1578:

Fantastic one here showing the effect theyre having at the minute

1568:

They were one of the headlining bands on a Myspace new music tour

4782: 4592: 3509: 3411: 3398: 3394: 2520:

Teresa Nielsen Hayden unquestionably meets those qualifications.

4280: 3984:

for the reasons I've presented above in this undelete request.

3805:, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - 2253:

should be enough coverage of this issue for Knowledge (XXG). --

1621:

does not instill confidence. Looks like poll stuffing to me. ~

1402:, currently on a headline tour, their debut single sold out on 1255:

reasons, if anyone wants to try, and has reasons to offer us.

220:. Valid closure and no new sources provided to review here. -- 4051:

as stated already, this is from the AFD page, section titled,

3402: 3388:, while it is not at all certain that it does. Specifically, 3322: 3260: 2942:

simply because of the format in which that source is published

2322:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources

898:

What needs to be asserted is "importance", not "notability":

3125:

another AfD would be the best way of resolving the matter. -

5758:– Speedy close, nomination by sockpuppet of blocked user – 5075:

than of the deletion need first to see whether the article

4460:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Internet_troll_squads

4211:

Hey Vlad, just what the heck do you mean by those diffs???

2753:

No content worth salvaging. Complete BLP violation. --

5138:

military detachment, and I thought "troll" is related to

5005:

This is not the place for asking to change wiki policies.

4797:. "They are actually hiring staff to curse online," said 4765:. I think last part of this discussion misses the point. 3746:

On my part, I have translated from Russian a bio stub of

1894:, but removed without explanation. I have added it back. 900:

Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria

4882:

by Alexander Usupovsky, Russian Journal, 25 April, 2003

3795:

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled

3401:

can be good enough to be a featured article, undeniably

3192: 2624:- for the reasons I previously stated in the closed DRV. 5951: 5939: 5831: 5827: 5823: 5441: 5437: 5433: 5380: 5376: 5372: 4653: 4245: 4197: 4193: 3802: 3783: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3356: 3352: 3348: 2512:, while it is a blog, it clearly fits the exception in 2018: 2014: 2010: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1028: 1024: 1020: 770: 629: 581: 577: 573: 330: 326: 322: 140: 136: 132: 4869: 2516:

to the general prohibition on self-published sources,

1438:

and list. This band certainly meets our standards. --

5477:

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler's deletion discussion

5019:. I fail to see how this is any different than the 4835:

Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer.

3502: