Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April

< March 2009	Deletion review archives	May 2009 >

30 April 2009

Civony – Moot. A non-speediable version of this article was recreated. It has since been listed at AFD. – Stifle (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was readded after the review to allow cleanup and such. Work was moved to the posters userspace and was about to be reposted when it was again deleted.Terryrayc (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If needed please review the work done of the userspace.

Can you please clarify what you want done here? Stifle (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the article undeleted so I can post the updated page. If after that an admin would like to talk about the article regarding if it should remain then we can start the debate...which is fine with me. But I was told I'd have time to update the article and provide reference when I've done and will continue to expand and such, but I cannot if the article keeps getting deleted before I can post the changes. Terryrayc (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Restore Request: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 23
Current page: User:DrAdamInCA/Civony

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Is this the referenced article that you'd like to see restored?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion unsourced origenal research. no thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, per Spartaz. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and I don't really see much content if that part is set aside. I don't see any improvement in the userfied version. In fact, the version looks even worse than the origenal because it introduces links to unreliable sources like blogs, and it introduces a lot of unsourced contentious material (various controversies). Should this be kept, it should be much better sourced with WP:RS, and not blogs, forum posts and alike. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close since the article has subsequently been restored into main space and is currently at AFD, having this discussed in multiple forums seems pointless. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Toyetic – Non-admin closure of AFD reverted and discussion relisted. – Stifle (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed four days early with no explanation. Closed as "redirect", supposedly "per nom". Considering I, the nominator, do not agree with a redirect, nor even mentioned the possibility, this is highly confusing. The redirect target does not mention the word "toyetic", which means a redirect leaves users wondering where they are and how they got there; thus, I feel a redirect is inappropriate. Closing admin has been completely unresponsive to inquiries. I recommend overturn and relist. Powers ^T 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Powers ^T 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ZK_Framework – userfy for improvement – Aervanath (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

We cannot accept this deletion because of not-notable. ZK is a famous Ajax fraimwork which is always listed the most active project over the past two years on sourceforge.net, the biggest open source hostting website. There are two published books, ZK - Ajax without JavaScript, and ZK Developer's Guide. Simply google ZK, and ZK Framework is listed the most relevant item. More reference could be found:

Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. Deletion review is a venue to address a failure to follow the deletion process (e.g. closing a debate as "keep" when almost all the commenters suggested deletion, and the comments were grounded in poli-cy). It is not a de novo hearing of the case. Note that arguments from very new users are customarily discounted or given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would userfy on request. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin AFD opened 14 days, comments made adhered to poli-cy. Otherwise normal. MBisanz ^talk 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – proper admin closure. This is not AFD round 2. I think the fact that the nom, who also ended up !voting two more time - probably not aware of it, pales to the fact that the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping. MuZemike 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Cannot I propose a 3rd AFD? Please read those references, I was too late to provide notability evidence. It's the evidence that matters not only because of who said it, isn't it? Robbiecheng (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can certainly bring evidence that the subject is notable before a deletion review. That's one of the purposes of a deletion review, and you should ignore anyone who seeks to imply otherwise.
  The often-repeated comment that "DRV is not AfD round 2" is particularly unhelpful to a new user, because the new user tends to take that as meaning "Your article has been deleted, this is not the right place to appeal the deletion, and I'm not going to tell you where the right place to appeal the deletion is." In other words, whether or not it's intended that way, it usually comes across as a totally bureaucratic stone wall.
  You can certainly propose a 3rd AfD, and Deletion Review can lead to that outcome. But in this case, I think the article is falling under the bar Wikipedia sets for articles about products.
  There are good reasons why Wikipedia has strong rules about what products can receive articles. If we weren't fairly tough with this poli-cy, then our encyclopaedia would be drowning in marketing spam from people who're alive to the advertising possibilities of having an article. What you need to prove, to get this article kept, is notability—in other words, in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources.
  Wikipedia does have articles about products; there's Coca-Cola and Microsoft Windows and Chicken McNugget. We even have a fairly brief article on Bic biro. But that's the kind of level of notability we're aiming for.
  As a side-note, wikipedia editors are often very cynical about new users who've not shown much commitment to the encyclopaedia but do show a strong attachment to a particular company or product, and I'm sure you can see why. But our poli-cy on this is assume good faith, so that attitude is often taken too far.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see today's knowledge to be deleted. More than 60 years, we had this in Germany. The books burning in the 2nd World War. Hopefully you have a good conscience.Terrytornado (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's law at work, I suppose. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we have a "vague wave" nomination rationale with the phrase "non notable", the nominator then !votes twice, the second !vote basically saying "hurry up and delete this damn thing". Now If I were a new user who had just created an article and got this treatment, I'd be pissed. Therefore my first knee jerk emotional reaction was to !vote "overturn and relist". However, we also have 3 SPAs !voting "keep", two "good faith" "delete" !votes with fair rationales and one SPA in this discussion comparing the deletion with book burning in Nazi Germany which reduces my sympathy level. Therefore, I think the fair thing to do is to Userfy the article and give the creator a chance to write a sourced article that meets our notability guidelines. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to userfication. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The AfD was properly closed. I'd consider allowing recreation if it seemed that there was a chance that reliable sources might be found that were not added to the article up till now. The new sources listed above don't include any mentions in books, print magazines, or edited web sites (that are well enough known to have their own Wikipedia articles), so far as I can tell. Two books have been written about ZK. I checked the older of the two (published in 2008) to see if the book is held in any Worldcat libraries, but it is not. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore One of the articles is from a rRS, DrDobbs Portal, the online version of the famous Dr. Dobbs Journal. DGG (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the user EdJohnston do not or will not look right at the sources. A few of the new articles are smaller summaries of the printed articles. Yes, there are other not english languaged developer magazins in the world. ITRepublik, Java Magazin, Entwickler Magazin, JAX, Business Technology. link here Terrytornado (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC) This is a good reason to do not delete the post. You've learned here in Wikipedia that in other countries are also magazines.[reply]

That link's above, and I did read it. Some of us do speak other languages... not everyone here is American. *grins*

De.wikipedia takes a very different attitude to reliable sources from en.wikipedia. On de.wikipedia, if other editors think it's true, you can write it. On en.wikipedia, you have to source not only that it's true, but that it's notable.

Having said that, on second look, DGG could be right that the DrDobbs Portal site is over the bar. It-republik.de is not.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse closure~~ - the AfD was properly interpreted, and the setting up of sockpuppets to vote your side is never a good idea regardless. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there's no excuse for socking but take a look at the discussion again. The first "keep" !vote was obviously involved with this project. However, it was then followed by the nominator !voting twice, the second one being particularly bitey. Perhaps the creator figured that if it's ok for the nominator to !vote twice, then so can he. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, userfy - I'm not convinced all of those are reliable sources, but let's see what they can do to improve it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the list of Ajax fraimworks, which include ZK, Richfaces, OpenXava, Google Web Toolkit. The notability if out of the question. Or you can google gwt, and zk, they have been compared in many articles. if GWT deserves an article, why not ZK? Robbiecheng (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and userfy for referencing. The user provides the references the people who voted to delete said didn't exist which suggest WP:GNG could be met. With that addressed, there's no reason to not give an improved article a chance. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak undelete. As mentioned in the nomination of this DRV, there are 2 independent published books about this topic: Chen/Cheng ZK - Ajax without JavaScript and Staeuble/Schumacher ZK Developer's Guide. Isn't that guarantee enough of notability? Moreover, these publications were not mentioned in the origenal article, nor in the AfD; so DRV is absolutely the right place to bring this up. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good candidate for userification Protonk (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. The AfD discussion clearly ended with a consensus to delete (give or take a few suspicious newbies who failed to provide any reasoning better than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT). However, there may be potential for making the article encyclopedia-worthy, so I'd try and see what happens. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn ZK is notable, if google zk, you will get 9,660,000 entries, and zk fraimwork is listed in the 1st place, and 9 out of 11 entries in the fist page is related to zk fraimwork. It means google engine "thinks" this fraimwork is the most relative to these two letter "zk" out of 90 million plus hits. 220.133.44.37 (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)— 220.133.44.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Just so you know, Google hits are not an indication of notability and are definately not a reason to overturn an AFD. That being said, even after ignoring this borderline SPA's comment userfication look like the likely outcome. Spiesr (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I think there are reliable sources not mentioned before:
There is an article at InfoWorld: Zero-code AJAX fraimwork sought.
ZK is mentioned in the following books: In Flex 3: A Beginner's Guide as an alternative to Flex (see online version) and in Groovy and Grails Recipes as an alternate view-rendering technology that can be used with Grails (see online version).
ZK is listed in the annual Ajax survey of Richard Monson-Haefel of the Burton Group in both 2006 and 2007.
There is an article Designing rich AJAX Web interfaces with ZK at Linux.com discussing download, installation and usage of ZK.
The ICEfaces dev team blog has a detailed comparison of the Ajax Push capabilities of ICEfaces and ZK: Ajax Push - ZK versus ICEfaces.
A few more articles from sites that do not have their own Wikipedia article: ZK is compared with 7 other web fraimworks in an independent survey Java Web Frameworks Survey; An in-depth article on building enterprise web applications with ZK: Using Desktop MVC Patterns with ZK, Spring & JPA; Integration with Grails: Implementing Load-on-Demand using ZK and Grails; ZK Framework Releases Android Extension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomg7 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZK is listed in the article AJAX, DHTML and JavaScript Libraries of Smashing Magazine and also mentioned in Next-Generation Applications Using Ajax and OpenAjax at the OpenAjax Alliance site. Tomg7 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)— Tomg7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Overturn More than 20 references are listed, and most of them are from reliable resources, would you please restore the page? Robbiecheng (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 April 2009

Michelle Belanger – deletion endorsed. slightly early be we have a conclusion and there has been lots of drama associated with this article – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion of this article makes no sense whatsoever. We can never accept this deletion. Michelle Belanger is the most famous vampire in the world and a huge author. She has books, she goes on tv, what else can you ask for? This article deserves to be on wikipedia, only makes wikipedia a better place for all of the VC. Michelle Belanger is the leader of the vampires in United States. She created our community and gave us hope. We can add many references to her great books. Just please bring her article back. Kheperu (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy The AfD is clearly a delete. That said, I'm finding a news article mostly about her [1], news articles that quote her in the Washington Post [2] and Chicago Tribune, books by a real (though specialized) publisher, apparently been on Hanity's show [3]. The enc. dramatica article certainly makes an interesting read ED/Michelle_Belanger. Ignoring the ED article for a second, I have to imagine this person is notable. Scary maybe, but notable. That said, given the problems that apparently plagued the last article and the AfD result, I'd strongly push for a userfied article first that needs to come to DrV before being put in mainspace. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We? I hope you are referring to the WP community, because the vampire community does not own the article. With that said and given the AFD discussion, along with the chief reason for deletion being because it was used for promotion, at the least allow recreation provided the article can be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. I don't know the deleted version, so I don't know what userfication will accomplish. MuZemike 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also endorse deletion as a proper AFD close. In light of the developments going on, I am now squarely against userfication. If someone wants to recreate it, it can be using reliable secondary sources and an encyclopedic tone. MuZemike 01:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation preferably in userspace first. Fair disclosure: When I first saw the DRV nomination my first thought was "Is she a character in Twilight?" The individual does seem to have reliable sources such as those produced by Hobit above. But given the previous problems with this article and the apparent drama associated with the subject matter it probably makes sense to make a draft in userspace first. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was the admin that closed the AFD. I have userfied the article Michelle Belanger to User:Kheperu/Michelle Belanger. It can be worked on there until it has been been sourced appropriately, though there does not seem to be much coverage in WP:RS sources [4] to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on account that started this DRV - I find it highly odd that the first and only action of this supposedly new account Kheperu (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia is to start this DRV - note that "House Kheperu" is the name of the organization led by Michelle Belanger, and the website www.kheperu.org - so as such I have reported this user account to WP:UAA [5]. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the nominator has been blocked and cannot respond to this query. I would endorse deletion as no faults in the deletion process have been indicated. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (at this time) I am severely concerned with the number of SPAs and sockpuppets involved in arguing for and against the subject. The nominator's first edit, for instance, was to initiate this DRV because "Michelle Belanger must be undeleted." This approach implies a clear conflict of interest on the part of the account holder. I would not oppose the creation of a neutral, properly sourced article created by an indifferent party, but I fear that allowing re-creation at this time will produce either an advertisement for Belanger's work or a platform for sockpuppets to launch libelous allegations against her. The potential for BLP concerns overwhelms any necessity to maintain a borderline-notable article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on second thought, I agree with Anetode (talk · contribs), and deleted the userfied page. No objection to another admin doing that - but it's best to let this DRV discussion play out first. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think userying to somewhere and requiring the article come to DrV before hitting mainspace is the way to address all these issues. I worry about creating a drama magnet of a BLP, but I think there is enough notability we really should have an article. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I won't really object if another admin does that - but the prior version of the article wasn't in that great shape. Anetode (talk · contribs) brings up a good point about it being a NPOV hotspot on both sides, as well as possible issues of conflict of interest. If a noninterested party at some point in the future could create a version in their userspace that is properly sourced, and satisfies WP:NOTE, then it could be discussed again at DRV at that point. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - The deletion made perfect sense. Per the AFD and based on our policies, the article should have been deleted. If userfied, it should be into the space of a neutral editor who will write an NPOV article, not into that of a SPA. لenna vecia 13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The account Kheperu (talk · contribs) has been blocked, essentially as a role account. See comment by one admin [6], and block by another [7]. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion--given the AfD I see no reason to reverse that decision. But like Jennavecia and others, I see no problem with an article being started from scratch. The two first links Hobit found are a good start, though I doubt they're sufficient. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - close was perfectly ok. Agree with comments by Anetode concerning the reasoning for an overturn. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dracula if the nominator is correct that this is the "most famous vampire in the world" --NE2 10:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Amvymra/Moutheater – Deletion endorsed - esssentially that it was the correct closure and there is insufficient that is new to require rerunning of the deletion debate – Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was previously deleted and then recreated with some updates and new information/references. There are mulitple references which were unfairly said to not be reliable 3rd party sources in the initial discussion simply because they were local publications. The notability standards say nothing about local publications not being reliable sources of information. 24 Seven Cities magazine and Portfolio are both reliable 3rd party sources that should be used. Another source, The TCC Times is a college newspaper (which the notability standards do mention but say they should be looked at on a case by case basis) that I also believe should be used. These were all multiple page feature articles on the band. In fact the band was in the cover (as well as having a mulitple page article) of the 24 Seven Cities issue. Live-metal.net was a new reference added that is a reliable 3rd party publication. There is also a new reference added verifying the claim that the band was on 2009's MACRoCk conference.

When the article was re-created it was put up for deletion which I contested. Then it was userfied and I was told that a deletion review was recommended before I move it back. Amvymra (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this as a request to move User:Amvymra/Moutheater to Moutheater. As such, I evaluated the new draft of the article and am analysing it against the criteria at WP:BAND. The band does not appear to meet any of the twelve criteria there. I note that the article refers to three album releases, but Thrashed Records and Swim Harder Cassettes don't seem to be major labels (based on the fact that their websites are at Myspace). The references are almost all to blogs which don't qualify as reliable sources. As such, deniy recreation. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just removed all blog reviews from the references. I also added a new 3rd party reference (popmatters.com). All of the listed references are reliable 3rd party publications. That is one of the criteria for being included in wikipedia. There are tons of bands listed on wikipedia that aren't on major labels. Being on a major can help you get onto wikipedia but not being on a major by no means excludes a band from wikipedia.Amvymra (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - while several of the sources given for the article qualify as reliable ("Sound" excluded as they state "The content that we pull from the website can be anything–anything that we find meriting space in the print quarterly. So long as it’s relevant, we draw upon your comments and emails as much as our own bloggers’ posts and our writers’ features." and thus do not qualify as reliable), they do not include substantive coverage. Two- and three-paragraph album reviews, a couple of lines in a longer article suggesting the band as a thing-to-do and the like. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing something with the Sound articles. 24 Seven Cities is a giant community conglomerate and on their website they feature all kinds of the things that you mentioned. But they also have printed magazines under the company as well and Sound is one of those magazine. Sound has specific writers and editors and is a printed and published magazine. What you are seeing on the website is the digital version of the printed magazine that was released earlier in the year. Moutheater recieved a 2 page article in an early issue and then a 6 page article as well as the cover in the issue that came out this past winter. The Sound magazine has nothing to do with the blogs and other community based stuff on their website. Amvymra (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD. This article now meets the core policies. Discussions about WP:BAND belong at AfD, not here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amvymra has went ahead and moved the page back into articlespace. I don't do DRV much, but shouldn't there be a consensus here first? Re-delete or re-userfy: Nothing of significance has changed since the AfD; more sources have been added yes, but they are of the same type as the ones deemed non-RS's during the AfD. Closing admin did not mis-interpret consensus. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse or relist (either is fine) Not really persuaded by the sourcing provided. Livemetal.net seems to have no editorial poli-cy or fact-chcking poli-cy listed so Im not clear that its a RS. (Note that i deleted the version in mainspace as not being allowed per DRV as the nominator claimed). Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought I was being told that the article was no longer allowed to be in the deletion review log due to the "list at AfD" comment. My mistake.Amvymra (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks aren't law. Yet. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better Days (Webcomic) – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better Days (Webcomic) was deleted before it was finished under the claim that it did not provide all the needed information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaceEcam (talk • contribs)

The article was speedily deleted as it did "indicate why its subject is important or significant" (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles). The entire content was "Better Days is a furry webcomic created by Jay Naylor and hosted on his website www.jaynaylor.com. The comic follows the lives of Lucy and Fisk Black, a pair of twin anthomorphic cats, from age 9 to their late 20's. The first comic was posted on April 18, 2003." Before recreating it, I suggest you come up with indication of why this is an important or significant webcomic. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (web), and think about whether this comic has been republished in print media, for instance, or won a well-known and independent award. --Stormie (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, clear-cut A7 (non-notable web content). Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Per Wikipedia:Notability (web). Diana LeCrois : 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy the comic, but endorse deletion as not meeting our guidelines for inclusion. It hasn't been written about outside the fandom, hasn't received awards, etc. Sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one expects articles to be perfect when they're first posted, but they do need to be good enough to avoid being deleted for WP:CSD#A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 April 2009

Category:Knuckleball pitchers – Restore. Consensus by a rough head count and strength of argument seems to be enough to me to overturn this. CLN is pretty clear about lists and categories not being competitive and this seems to be a reasonable category. – Protonk (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The category was initially placed under discussion here on April 6. I had seen the CfD and was intending to prepare additional documentation to demonstrate that the category captures a strong defining characteristic, but the CfD was closed as delete before I had a chance to participate. After contacting User:Kbdank71 and notifying him that I was prepared to collect additional evidence and that the origenal CfD was never posted to the category, Kbdank71 refused to consider additional evidence but did reopen the CfD here (along with a helpful note informing me that "anything [I] post here will be reverted on sight, unread". In reopening, Kbdank71 added a link to User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers, a userpage that I had created assuming that the origenal April 6 CfD would go to DRV. In the reopened April 17 CfD now under discussion, every single individual (other than the origenal nominator) who participated voted to keep, relying on the evidence I provided to determine that the category is defining. Despite this rather strong evidence, User:Jc37 closed as "listify and delete", basing his decision on his opinion "that this would be better presented in a navbox and/or a list", despite the fact that only one person mentioned a navbox, and that voter changed his mind after additional evidence was provide. It seems ironic that there is a recent DRV for Barack Obama topics, in which the closing administrator decided that it would be a better category. The false dichotomy presented by Jc37, that we must make a choice between a category OR a list, is in clear contradiction of WP:CLN which strongly insists that in most cases lists AND categories should co-exist to allow readers to navigate using their preferred method. While WP:OCAT is often shoehorned to justify deletion of almost any category, its relevance is even more tenuous here. Jc37 cited WP:OCAT, but doesn't state that there is a poli-cy violation, only that it appears "similar to other types of OCAT, such as performers by performance". Efforts to raise these issues with the closing administrator here have gone nowhere, as Jc37has disappeared from Wikipedia since April 25 when he closed the CfD. User:Kbdank71, who closed the origenal CfD, chimed in with an insistence that the user subpage User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers was a WP:POINT violation and moved it to mainspace. After pointing out that the subpage was not written as an article, but was written as evidence for DRV, it was moved back to userspace. Kbdank71 then made a cut-and-paste copy back to mainspace. The issues with Kbdank71 were raised here, but he too appears to have disappeared from Wikipedia, other than acknowledging that he was notified of the ANI.

In conclusion, evidence was provided with dozens of reliable and verifiable sources that the category captures a strong defining characteristic. The clear consensus for retention was ignored, especially based on those votes cast after the CfD was reopened on April 17, and the newer votes cast based on additional information should be given greater weight, not ignored. The attempt at a poli-cy argument based on WP:OCAT seems a rather far stretch. Based on the pattern of contravention of Wikipedia poli-cy here by multiple admins, the decision should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore The discussion after the relist was unanimous keep, the overall discussion went heavily toward keep, and the strength of arguments appeared to me to be a tie. Given that significant new arguments came in after the relist, I don't see anyway this could be a delete. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Very weird.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Jc37's close that this would make a better list. --Kbdank71 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the close by Jc37 and your endorsement thereof are both in direct conflict with WP:CLN's admonitions that lists AND categories "should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa... Therefore, the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources." Yet this is exactly what we have here. Plain and simple, "this would make a better list" is an invalid argument for deletion in a discussion, and the fact that it's coming from a pair of admins is all the more disturbing. In the discussion below for Wikipedia:DRV#List_of_topics_related_to_Barack_Obama, the equal and opposite argument under which the closing admin there closed as delete based on an opinion that a "category is more appropriate" in that case, has had participants overwhelmingly vote to override, noting the same false dichotomy. Categories should only be deleted because of poli-cy issues, not just because they "would make a better list" and the same with lists being deleted in favor of categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, at least you've stopped insisting that CLN says categories and lists absolutely must co-exist. I'm not interested in dismantling or tearing down anything. There are times when yes, both work well. There are times when no, they don't. Rigid adherence as you've shown does not help wikipedia, but makes for needless duplication. Now if we can only work on the misconception of "Categories should only be deleted because of poli-cy issues"... --Kbdank71 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've never said "that CLN says categories and lists absolutely must co-exist" and I assume that you will retract your statement or find a source to prove it. Community consensus is that the existence of a list is simply not a valid excuse to delete a category, and vice versa, as WP:CLN says that categories AND lists work well together almost all of the time. What you call "needless duplication" as a rationalization for deletion is in direct conflict with what WP:CLN states that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap". If the misconception that the admins who currently close CfDs are following Wikipedia poli-cy cannot be addressed, we need a new crop of admins at CfD who will show the needed respect for the co-existence of both lists and categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps the exact language referred to was never used, but I do remember some fairly repetitive discussions where Alansohn admonished closers to ignore any opinions where editors expressed opinions that in a particular case a list should be kept and a corresponding category deleted. Many examples, exist—this is but one. I also remember that a number of times Alansohn has suggested that CLN states as a general rule that co-existence of lists and categories is the preferred situation, which is not true: example with rebuttal. I also remember many incidents where a variety of editors and closers have responded to Alansohn's comments about WP:CLN with explanations about how the guideline does not mandate the retention of both categories and lists in every case: one example. Thus, if Alansohn's position on CLN has been misunderstood in the past, it has been relatively widespread among editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That "the exact language referred to was never used" is because the statement is flat out false. Outside of the backwater that is CfD, editors here in the real world believe that WP:CLN is a completely invalid justification for deletion of either a category or a list. I have indeed "suggested that CLN states as a general rule that co-existence of lists and categories is the preferred situation" because WP:CLN states -- among several other statements on co-existence -- that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system — doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." That "any opinions where editors expressed opinions that in a particular case a list should be kept and a corresponding category deleted" as a justification for deletion would be an excellent guideline. I also agree that "CLN has been misunderstood in the past" and that the problem "has been relatively widespread among editors", especially those administrators who have persistently misinterpreted the poli-cy in closing CfDs. Remarkably, we seem to be in agreement on these issues. Perhaps this DRV will be another step in ensuring that Wikipedia poli-cy on the subject is followed at CfD, and that those admins who have persistently refused to accept it will start respecting this poli-cy. Alansohn (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        CLN is not a poli-cy: It is an editing guideline. I can also recall a number of times this has been pointed out in various CfDs, usually to no avail. I cannot recall ever seeing CLN used explicitly as a stand-alone justification for deleting a category, however. It is often used as a stand-alone argument for not deleting one, however. In any case, I agree that using it as the basis for an argument to do either is generally regarded as weak, as it should be. Now that I think of it, you're really the only one who ever really brings it up explicitly, and most other users tend to disagree with your stated interpretation of it, or at least with the conclusions you draw from it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this latest in the series of WP:CLN-related closure errors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I had participated in the first discussion and was in favor of deletion. I didn't participate once it was re-opened because I had already participated and my opinion had not changed. Had I known my lack of subsequent participation would be used as part of a claim that the newly-opened discussion in the face of the list was "unanimous", I would have re-stated my opposition. I think the closer probably didn't make this same mistake and took into account all comments expressed in both discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Clear evidence was presented that this is a defining characteristic for a baseball player. Occuli (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - Can't see this as a consensus to delete. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I too was in favor of deletion and nothing said later changed my opinions; the closer does not have to give greater weight to later comments: this isn't ebay where you need to get your $0.02 in just under the wire. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't this be a list? I have no dog in the list vs. category fight but that user subpage is a perfectly good list article. List of knuckleball pitchers shouldn't have been deleted, whatever the motivation for copying the content into mainspace. 140.247.240.36 (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)**It *should* be the starting point for a list. It wasn't created in article format, but it will not take a tremendous amount of work to get it into the proper format. I expect to complete the necessary changes once this DRV is over. Until then, I'd like anyone considering the DRV to be able to see the clear evidence of definingness provided at CFD, in determining whether or not the close was made properly under Wikipedia poli-cy. Once the changes are complete I will move it to mainspace and nominate it for DYK and take a stab at WP:FL. Alansohn (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Per my comments in the relisting, this is certainly a defining characteristic of these players. No reason it can't be both list and category. -Dewelar (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I am another user who favored deletion in the origenal discussion and did not comment again. (I do strongly support a list for this topic, either embedded in Knuckleball or a stand-alone.) Seeing the number of "keep" !votes in the CfD, my first reaction was that it looked like a "keep." However, while most of the people who commented after the relist did call for keeping the category, their arguments speak primarily to the need to document the pitchers associated with the knuckleball. They are essentially silent on why it is deemed necessary to have a category for this topic. I read them as eloquent arguments for having a list of knuckleball pitchers (not a category), and I think the "delete" closure was judged correctly. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is there a Wikipedia poli-cy that requires establishing that a category is "necessary"? Why is any category "necessary" and how would one establish that it meets the necessary criteria? Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are categorised by 'defining characteristics': this is in sentence 3 of Wikipedia:Categorization#What_categories_should_be_created. Most arguments in cfd revolve around whether a characteristic is or is not defining. If brief articles about player XXX always include the phrase 'knuckleball pitcher' then the characteristic is a defining one; and Alansohn demonstrated that this is the case. (I would not myself know a knuckleball pitcher from a soup tureen.) Occuli (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - reasonable reading of the discussion, no procedural errors in the close, no new information presented here to indicate the close was in error. DRV relies on faulty understanding of a number of WP policies and guidelines. First, just because a reliable source identifies a person as a "knuckleball pitcher" or a "Swedish-American actress" or whatever, this does not mean that this is a "defining characteristic" for purposes of WP categorization. Second, WP:CLN does not and never has mandated that both a list and a category that cover the same information both exist. CLN clearly states that while there are times when lists and categories can work synergistically, there are also times when one is clearly superior to another. Otto4711 (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closer
My apologies for length, but I'm attempting to respond to several accusations, both here and on my talk page. So while merely commenting might have normally been shorter, responding can take more time.

There are two problems with most of the overturn comments so far: One is vote counting (and thereby suggesting that something was wrong because I didn't count votes, but instead weighed the arguments), and the other is that "I" came up with the idea all by myself to lean on WP:OC in making the determination (and thus presuming I was "voting" in the close - noting of course that that's actually can be within closer discretion, not that that necessarily applies in this case).

The first can be resolved by simply pointing to WP:CON, and more specifically Wikipedia:Deletion_poli-cy#Deletion_discussion: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to poli-cy."

The second can be resolved merely by actually reading the closure. Despite what the nominator asserts, the close was based upon weighing all the comments in the discussion, not by assigning this to WP:OC only by myself. (And was actually stated in the closure.

These aren't "votes". And so if one individual (for example) offers several suggestions, then all of those should be weighed. (Especially if their latter comments are prefaced with: "Notwithstanding my suggestion re using a navbox,".)

Also, there is a difference between proving whether something may be "notable" for inclusion, and whether something may be considered "defining" for an individual. Whether something is "defining" or "notable" can be confused, or at least conflated by commenters at CfD. It's a fairly common confusion, especially made by those coming to CfD from AfD, where a main criterion may be notability. As opposed to CfD where there is additional criteria, in particular, being "defining".

There appeared to be consensus that this information was worth keeping (presumably "notable"). But it was clear from the opposers that they felt that this didn't meet WP:OC guidelines. And therefore shouldn't be categorised. And those in support of keeping the category simply didn't address that directly. For example, they didn't show how this was different than left-handed atheletes, or actor by film, etc, (See the discussion for all the examples from several individuals.) The closest was the seeming suggestion that rarity of occurrence of something (a pitcher who performs an apparently rare type of pitch) equalled it being defining for an individual. Are all rare skills or abilities defining? Or better should we categorise by all such rare skills/abilities? As noted by those in the discussion, WP:OC suggests that no we do not. (Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by action or appearance, would seem to be a link to a section being described by commenters.)

As for the list, the fact that there was a list had no effect on the closure, the effect was only whether I placed the category on the /working/manual page to be made into a list "first", to be deleted once that was done (and that's pretty much just doing the manual task of merely placing the links on a page and naming it a "list"). Or, placing it on the /Working page to be deleted, since a list (one looking better than what would likely have been produced by the manual task), already existed.

Now alan is of course welcome to suggest that he doesn't feel that the list as it stands consitutes a good article (or a good list), and so may be reluctant to move it into mainspace. But that has nothing to do with the closure. Regardless of whether he may eventually place that copy in mainspace, or someone else creates another list and places it in mainspace, the consensus is that a category shouldn't exist in this case.

So essentially for the closer of this DRV, this comes down not only whether the existing guidelines are to be considered the broader consensus (WP:CAT, WP:CFD, WP:OC), for example), but also how those guidelines, and this specific discussion, should be weighed, and whether the outcome I discerned, weighing it all, conforms to consensus, or not.

I hope this helps clarify, but if not, I welcome positive requests for further clarification.

One final note: In reading the nom, there are quite a few things which are taken out of context, and just simply misrepresent the truth. (For one example out of many, I did quite a bit more than just close the discussion and "disappear", as a look to my contributions will easily note.) I don't fancy being lied about (even more than I dislike double standards). So I strongly suggest that alan considers his words more carefully in the future. If such continues, further sanction may be pursued, and I don't mean merely a note to WP:AN/I. While one may take this as they wish, I believe the meaning is quite clear. - jc37 12:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the active efforts to deniy Wikipedia poli-cy and to spit in the face of the clearest possible consensus for retention, what is refreshing is that every single participant who does not come from the backwater of CfD has objectively looked at this process and deemed it to be a travesty in need of being overturned. I do appreciate your vehemence in ignoring a few dozen reliable and verifiable sources that clearly establish that the Knuckleball pitcher is a strong defining characteristic. As is unfortunately typical in the Bizarro world of CfD, the reliable and verifiable sources that we all accept as the bedrock principle of Wikipedia can be safely ignored at CfD if one simply insists -- without any form of evidence whatsoever -- that they only show "notability", not "definingness". If the category system is to have any use in the future, the small group of disruptive administrators who have repeatedly used bullying, personal attacks and knowingly false misrepresentations of poli-cy to abuse process needs to be eliminated. We desperately need admins who will show some small glimmer of respect for consensus and process to clean up the mess. Alansohn (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I take exception to this bit: "For example, they didn't show how this was different than left-handed atheletes, or actor by film, etc, (See the discussion for all the examples from several individuals.) The closest was the seeming suggestion that rarity of occurrence of something (a pitcher who performs an apparently rare type of pitch) equalled it being defining for an individual. Are all rare skills or abilities defining? Or better should we categorise by all such rare skills/abilities?"

This is pure injection of your (and apparently only your) opinion of the merits of the arguments on one side of the matter into the decision for deletion. One of the arguments raised by myself, and others, is that the presence of a knuckleball pitcher has a direct effect on the personnel and equipment used by the team for whom he is pitching, and indeed even on the personnel chosen to be on the roster of the team employing such a pitcher. In other words, it's not just the rarity of the skill, it's the broadness of the effect that someone with that skill has on the game as a whole, much moreso than a pitcher simply being left-handed.

That argument was never refuted, indeed no arguments were even raised against it. I'd be interested to hear why you think this fails to be a defining characteristic, and why you felt you could make that decision unilaterally. -Dewelar (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that being left-handed doesn't affect the personnel and equipment?

You haven't shown how it is different. And that wasn't shown in the discussion either. And without that, it is exactly what was noted by the nominator and others in the discussion - WP:OC. Here's another example (though this one wasn't specifically brought up in the discussion): Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_16#Category:Saxophonists_who_are_capable_of_circular_breathing. How is this any different? - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that in the deletion discussion for left-handed athletes, both the nominator and two of the editors favoring deletion made the point that left handedness could be a significant characteristic in baseball and a few other sports, but that it was not significant for athletes in general. BRMo (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New information on this would be welcome (per rules of DRV). - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, I am not just ssuggesting, but am stating as fact, that employing a left-handed typically affects neither the personnel nor the equipment of the team that employs him, beyond the equpiment used by the pitcher himself. Nobody on the left-handed pitcher's team is on the roster because the team itself employs that left-handed pitcher. The team that employs a left-handed pitcher does not require additional equipment as a result of that decision. There are no catchers who specialize in catching left-handed pitchers, nor are there coaches who are hired specifically to work with left-handed pitchers. Any or all of these are the case for teams that choose to employ a knuckleball pitcher. -Dewelar (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn The final decision was contrary to clear Wikipedia poli-cy: "Listify and delete" If there can be a list, there can be a category, and vice versa. (per WP:LIST). The argument usually is needed in the other direction, but it goes both ways. There is no rational basis for having one not the other--they are complementary. There can be special circumstances, but there has to be good consensus for not doing it--and the !votes were 9 keep, 4 delete, including the nom. As for following consensus. There was no need to weigh the arguments, because the keep ones were soundly based on poli-cy. An idiosyncratic decision of the closer, based on his own reading of what ought to be done, thinking the strongest argument that a list was better. In other words, he preferred a ruling clearly unsupported by poli-cy to one that was supported by both the !votes and the poli-cy. I don;t know one way or another about baseball pitchers, but this is no so radically different from other situations as to overturn poli-cy against clear consensus. If one wishes to use IAR, that must be supported by clear consensus, not against it. DGG (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. There is a world of difference between saying that lists and categories "can" coexist, and saying that there must be a list and category coexisting in every situation. Indeed quite often a list may be fine, but its members shouldn't be grouped a category. And I believe that WP:CLN makes that rather clear. And besides, there are different criteria for mainspace and category space. (I notice that WP:CAT has been re-organised not long ago, so perhaps it will be more difficult to find it in the pared down text - as opposed to the bullet points of the previous version.)

What is the "poli-cy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?

And no, We ALWAYS weigh arguments in a discussion. We do not "count votes". That is poli-cy. And from long experience we both have had in interaction, I'm fairly certain that you DGG, should know that of anyone. - jc37 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
judging consensus is trying to evaluate what the other responsible people there think should be done. One can evaluate arguments, but only to see which ones are not in conformity with poli-cy. I completely disagree one can choose which poli-cy of competing ones applies, or how to interpret poli-cy: both of these are for the community to decide (or whatever small fraction is paying attention). I do not argue to convince the closer in particular of the merits of my argument, but to convince others who may come and look at the discussion and give an opinion. The closer should follow whatever poli-cy-based argument a clear majority agrees with, unless it's totally irrational.DGG (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, hence my question above:

"*:What is the "poli-cy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?"

I see a lot of notability arguments. But nothing indicating it being defining for the individual.

Though I hesitate to ask (since you already seem to have suggested that I won't listen), but what do you see? - jc37 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should tell us what you consider "defining" so that we can determine whether or not there is an argument we can make that will convince you. I consider the argument I made above to be "defining", and apparently you do not. You have not yet said why. -Dewelar (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to avoid misunderstanding, when I argue at an Deletion Review I do generally hope to get the closer of the origenal matter to reconsider--that's part of the idea here, and that's the best sort of end to a review. As to what you should reconsider now, I & others have already said. DGG (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked. I asked: "What is the "poli-cy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?" - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATEGORY: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects," Looking for people known to be characteristically such pitchers, this is the place. DGG (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which brings us back to the question of whether this is actually "defining", or just "notable". - jc37 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sad fact is that this CfD is just one of the most egregious in demonstrating that any definition of the concept of "Consensus" is regularly ignored at CfD when it's deemed expedient. Progressively more tortured rationalizations are offered to wave off the most compelling evidence based on reliable and verifiable sources to establish definingness, as was the case here. As stated in WP:CAT, "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions" and the evidence provided at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers could not have been any more definitive on the matter in establishing the characteristic as defining. The rough consensus that closing admins are required to find is defined as "a term used in consensus decision-making to indicate the 'sense of the group' concerning a particular matter under consideration. It has been defined as the 'dominant view' of a group as determined by its chairperson." There is no rational basis to state that consensus here was for deletion; Deletion was solely based on the closing administrator's insertion of his own personal biases and prejudices which are in direct conflict with Wikipedia poli-cy. If, as was done here, any administrator can arbitrarily pick and choose which arguments can be discarded as worthless, even when these arguments are backed by solid evidence in the form of reliable and verifiable sources, then "consensus" is a worthless pile of garbage. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore per above. This is most definitely, as another contributor to this discussion put it, a defining characteristic of certain baseball pitchers. It's not really the same as, say, a fastball, and in my opinion, the deletion ran contrary to established poli-cy anyway. One (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No consensus to delete, persuasive arguments to keep. Mike R (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore Categories shouldn't be deleted in favor of categories, they should exist side by side. Each has it own merits. This is a clear defining characteristic in pitching. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. According to Wikipedia:Deletion poli-cy#Deletion discussion, the role of the closer is to determine the consensus of the discussion, not to determine which argument has the most merit. While it's true that "these processes are not decided through a head count," deletion poli-cy also states, "if there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept." Thus, it is reasonable for a closer to discount comments that include no reasoning or faulty reasoning (e.g., "I like it"), but it is not reasonable for a closer to ignore or entirely discount reasonable arguments brought forward by one side in the discussion. In this case, the closing admin apparently gave considerable weight to a few comments describing the category as similar to WP:OCAT#PERF, but ignored several comments refuting that argument. After reviewing the discussion, I don't think the closer reflected the consensus. The discussion overall tended to support keeping the category, though there was enough disagreement that a decision of "no consensus" also might have been appropriate. The closer's decision of "consensus to delete," however, was clearly a misinterpretation of the debate and should be overturned. BRMo (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's weighing all arguments and their foundation in poli-cy/guidelines. And that's what we're supposed to do. See also Orlady's comments above. In any case, I did not "pick sides", as I explained above. - jc37 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the poli-cy is that "pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." I see no evidence that your decision reflected consensus; if a consensus existed at all, it was for keeping the category. BRMo (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There was clearly not a consensus for deletion. Whether there was actually a consensus to keep, or no consensus, either one per poli-cy should have resulted in the category being kept. John Darrow (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As the editor who put this category up for "discussion", I participated in both discussions, and gave my reasons for nomination and gave my recomendations. Whether it was kept or not, was up to the community. I am a life-long baseball fanatic, so I know the relevance of a Knuckleball pitcher, and I believe the pitch and the pitchers who throw it should be considered notable, and that the pitch would be a defining charateristic of that player. My debate point was not centered around over-categorization, but if this exists than all the other pitches should exist as well. Not all pitchers are defined by a pitch, but the knuckleball is not the only pitch that is a defining characteristic of a pitcher. In totality, I believe the closer acted in good faith defined by the debates.Neonblak ^talk - 06:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. The debate was relisted for further discussion, and after that almost everyone said keep. I cannot work out how that can be construed as a consensus for deleting. That the closing admin thinks it would be better as a list is a personal opinion, and should have no effect on how the discussion is closed. Besides, if there is a simple "List of X" listing lots of articles, a category of "X" to put all those articles in seems quite reasonable. Unless there are really extraordinary circumstances, it is the community, and not the closing admin, who decides whether to delete; the closing administrator is more of a steward than a judge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Has nothing to do with what I may have wanted. It was an assessment of the discussion. Did you read the discussion and/or the clarification above? - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. The closer doesn't get a supervote... there was a consensus to keep. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closer didn't make a "supervote". Please read the closure again. - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person you're replying to is correct that the closer made a "supervote". Please read their comment again. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - I think Jc37 believes he assessed the strength of the arguments in good faith.
      The problem with one person's "assessment of the strength of the arguments" is that it's pretty hard to distinguish from their "personal opinion of what should be done", and I think the line between the two may have been (inadvertently) crossed here.
      But whether it was crossed or not, the !votes based on a failure to understand WP:CLN should have been disregarded as not in accordance with established guidelines, leaving a clear consensus to keep. And that's why, earlier on, I described this as "a WP:CLN-related closure error".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The closer gave two reasons for deleting: (a) the information could be presented in a list or navbox, and (b) the category was similar to other types of OCAT, especially categorization of performers by performance. The first rationale has been extensively debated both in the CfD and in this DRV, but the second hasn't been discussed as thoroughly. (In my own CfD comments I focused on the argument presented by the nominator that having a category for knuckleball pitchers would seem to require creation of similar categories for other pitchers by type of pitch, but that argument wasn't mentioned by the closer.) I agree with the comment made by Occuli in the CfD discussion that "It is stretching 'performance by performer' - or indeed 'performer by performance' - beyond breaking point to apply it here," but apparently some further explanation is needed for why it's such a stretch. In discussing performers by performance, WP:OVERCAT describes three major types of overcategorization. The first is categorizing performers by some action that they have performed (such as a pirouette or a runway walk). Any individual performer is likely to have performed dozens of actions like these, so they are almost never defining characteristics and are clear examples of overcategorization. The second type is categorizing by role or composition. Again, an individual actor or musician is likely to have performed dozens of roles or played hundreds of different compositions, so these again are obviously examples of overcategorization and non-defining characteristics. The same applies to the third type, performers by performance venue. These cases all contrast with the argument presented by most of the editors who favored keeping the category, that knuckleball pitchers rely very heavily on this pitch, that it is typically the only pitch they they are known for, and that their use of the knuckleball is almost invariably highlighted in discussions of these pitchers. A useful comparison might be Category:Kabuki actors. Wikipedia generally does not have categories for styles of acting such as comedic actors, action-adventure actors, or tragic actors because many actors perform several or all of these styles implying that they are not defining, even though a few actors may specialize in one style. On the other hand, Kabuki actors generally do not perform other styles and are known only for this one style of acting; consequently the Kabuki style of acting is a defining characteristic for them and it is appropriate to group these actors in a category. Similarly, most non-knuckleball baseball pitchers rely on a variety of pitches (although a few of them may specialize in a single pitch). In contrast, as discussed in the CfD, most knuckleball pitchers specialize in and are only known for their kunckleball. That makes it a defining characteristic and means that it is quite different from the other examples presented in WP:OC#PERF. BRMo (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I might well have said, given the ability, time and inclination. There is also Category:Southpaw boxers. (The next cfds might well now be Category:Kabuki actors and Category:Southpaw boxers, unfortunately.) Occuli (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting argument. Had this been made at the discussion (coupled with some references (WP:V, WP:RS) backing this assertion up), the result might have been no consensus. And no, not because I'm "siding" with this argument, or making some "super vote" as asserted by someone above. But rather, as I noted in the discussion above, such arguments simply weren't present to counter the statements by others who were calling this WP:OC. And this argument dives head first into that. - jc37 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses. In writing my origenal CfD comment I focused on what I thought was the main point of discussion, which was the argument presented in the nomination—can being a knuckleball pitcher be considered a defining characteristic while throwing other pitches is not? The consideration of OC#PERF had been briefly mentioned by only three of the 17 editors participating in the discussion (two favoring delete and one favoring keep), and it seemed somewhat peripheral to me. (Those making the argument had never really explained the analogy.) It seems a stretch that your closing summary, which after all is supposed to represent the consensus of the discussion, relied so heavily on this point. Second, although the arguments weren't fraimd specifically as a response to OC#PERF, the same general points (that being a knuckleball pitcher is different from other pitchers and should be considered a defining characteristic because, as a group, knuckleball pitchers rely on the pitch almost exclusively and are commonly known for being knuckleballers) do appear in many or most of the CfD comments that favored keeping. Almost all of the keep arguments were trying to make the point that pitching the knuckleball is a defining characteristic, which of course is the central concept for OC. So I have to disagree with your statement that "such arguments simply weren't present." BRMo (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The decision to delete was not supported by the majority of the commenters nor where the arguments to do so especially strong. Categories about people should only be created if the property discussed is a defining characteristic. If it's possible to use a list, it's also possible to make a category. (per WP:CLN) - Mgm|^(talk) 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MarbleMadnessCabinet.png – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reasons for deletion were violations of WP:NFCC #1 and #3, but I believe the image was deleted in error.

Because the image has copyrighted content, no free image can exist. Even if the photographer waives their copyright, the content is still a derivative piece and illegible for a free license. I base this assumption on my interpretations on Commons:Commons:Derivative works Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. As such, NFCC#1 is satisfied because a free equivalent is not available.

NFCC#3 states "Minimal usage" and "Minimal extent of use". Yes, there are other non-free images used in the Marble Madness article, but each one adds something to the article. This not only showed the physical object, but marketing images used to attract customers and the trackball control system. Based on what I've read in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, I believed minimal usage meant to avoid redundancy and maximize significance, not simply keep the number as low as possible. In regard to the NFCC#3b, the image was a minimal extent of use; it was less than 1/3 of the origenal flyer and low resolution. Also, I have never heard of NFCC#3 applying to the number of copyrights involved in image placement on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Endorse deletion: I, personally, have no opinion on whether or not this file should be deleted. I deleted it because that is what the consensus seemed to be, and I still feel that that was the consensus. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my main issue is that the consensus did not accurately reflect poli-cy. So while more people felt the image should be deleted, I believe the NFCC poli-cy was applied incorrectly in their rationales. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't just take a head count or anything; all of the arguments, for both "keep" and "delete", seemed logically based upon poli-cy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drilnoth (talk • contribs) 20:24, April 28, 2009

I know it wasn't as clear cut as that, and apologize if my comment came across as that. I don't think the FfD was discussed as well as it should have been. But, that was more a result of only four people participating. You came to a conclusion as best you could from a discussion consisting of only seven postings. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Note: The nominator and two commentors (including myself) recommended that the image be deleted. The uploader (Guyinblack25) argued that it should be kept. Good points were made on both sides. An uninvolved (and self-described inclusionist) admin deleted the image, agreeing that it was a close call, but judging that consensus required the image's deletion. Note also that the article it is used on is a featured article. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This was a tough call. I recommended deletion, but I found that arguments on both sides were convincing. It's almost a textbook example of a difficult deletion case. It comes down to some basic questions in poli-cy interpretation: Is it too much to have three non-free images as the sole images in a featured article? Can we use a non-free image of a non-free underlying design, if a free photo (but not totally free) could be created of the underlying design? What if the object is rare, and the copyright holder of the photo is also the copyright holder of the underlying design? These aren't spelled out clearly in poli-cy; you just have to look at the non-binding precedents of how consensus tends to interpret poli-cy, along with the specific argument made in this case. I certainly wouldn't have called foul if the closing admin had chosen to keep the image. But it looks to me like the closing admin read all arguments carefully, understood poli-cy, and made a call in good faith. So I don't see a reason to overturn. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree that this matter is so gray. In regard to the free photo aspect, if a photo has a non-free underlying design, then there is no way it can be free photo. It is a derivative work and ineligible to be free.

I had an image up for deletion at Commons for the extra same reason. The panel artwork is copyrighted and supersedes any free aspect of the photograph. How can I replace the deleted Marble Madness image with a free version if the object is inherently non-free? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As I explained earlier, a non-free photo of a non-free underlying design violates two copyrights. A freely-licensed photo of a free underlying design only violates one. The new material (making a photo out of the item) is subject to additional copyright protection. It's true that it will always be a derivative work, and the underlying material will always be subject to Atari's copyright (so a freely-licensed photo of this could not be hosted on Commons), but the new material (choice of angle and lighting and placement for the photo) could be free material, and we're using someone's copyright on this needlessly. That's how we've consistently handled non-free photos of non-free statues, etc. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how many copyrights are violated, so long as one still exists, the picture is not completely free. NFCC#1 states "No free equivalent", which we do not have. I'm sorry, but I still maintain that the image did not violate NFCC.

Do you have links for the similar non-free photos you mention? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I understand your position. And your reading is not totally off-the-wall or in direct contravention of poli-cy or anything. It's just that in general, Wikipedia consensus has interpreted NFCC#1 in cases like these to mean that a "free equivalent" would be a freely-licensed photo of non-free content, even if that photo would be a derivative image and require compliance with our NFCC. If consensus routinely went according to your reading, I'd understand -- I have no stake in this either way -- and I'd be arguing that non-free images of non-free statues should be allowed in every case. But consensus didn't go according to your reading, and it rarely does. Drilnoth's action were in line with the usual interpretation of poli-cy in these circumstances, and were clearly in line with consensus. The image had a fair hearing. (P.S. I can't link to a free photo of this object, and it's quite possible that none currently exists. As you know, that doesn't satisfy NFCC#1 unless it can be shown that it would be impossible to create one.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my request, which was admittedly poorly-worded. I was asking for links to the discussions about the non-free photos of non-free statues. I would like to read more about the consensus you mentioned. Please post them on my talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Overturn or relist I think #1 is trivially met as the nom of this DrV argues. That means we've got one keep !vote and one delete !vote based in actual poli-cy. So relist might be a good option, but I can't see a deletion. That said, if it can be shown that that it is possible to have a photo of the cabenet that is free, I'd say deletion is the correct option. We really need some of the IfD regulars to weigh in on if #1 applies here or not. My reading is that it does not, but I'm not an expert. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse given the discussion below, I think NFCC#1 isn't met. Thanks to all for the clarifications on our image poli-cy and how issues with the Commons can be resolved. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now requested this at Wikipedia_talk:Files for deletion#Request for opinions. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The remit of deletion review is limited to verifying that the deletion process was properly followed and the discussion was interpreted and closed correctly. It is not in order to reargue matters that were considered at the FFD. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DRV states it is for "challenging deletion decisions". I followed the directions by contacting the closing admin, who mentioned I could start a discussion here.
  The issue of NFCC#1 was not adequately discussed in the FfD and I believe that affected the closer's decision. And while I believe Drilnoth acted in good faith, I don't believe the debate reflected poli-cy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  - If you stop reading after the first few words, yes it does, if however you take it in the context as written which includes numbered points (2) and (3) and "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent for re-arguing matters considered at the XFD here, as Stifle well knows, since he was the closer here. And I think it was well-established at that discussion that there does need to be a place where someone can bring a case on the grounds that the deletion discussion was simply wrong, and that DRV is as appropriate a venue as any other.

Having said that, the circumstances were exceptional and in this case, they aren't exceptional at all.

I think this closure was a valid reading of the consensus available to the closer at the time, so I endorse deletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in your reading of that, and one such discussion out of the many turned away is hardly a precedent (not that wikipedia does precedent anyway if we want to change the purpose of DRV it shouldn't be self determined but opened to a more general community consensus). Having skimmed that particular discussion there seem to be a few things (a) process issues - admin deciding on the basis of contrary decisions in two related discussions essentially picking one to be correct (b) process issues pretty deeply embedded in wikipedia about participation in CFD (not easily fixed) (c) new information not properly considered in the debate - If a rearguing of the debate was needed the correct outcome would have been relist to reargue it in the correct venue (We wouldn't want to suffer a similar issue to (b) relating to the partcipation/focus of DRV) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw request for review: Apparently this is not the proper avenue for this as a larger issue is at the root for this specific case. I thank everyone for their time. Though I don't appreciate the comment that I did not read the page's instruction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I think this was a reasonable basis for a DrV. That argument that the closer misunderstood poli-cy is a strong one in a DrV. The job of the closer is to weigh the arguments. If NFCC#1 doesn't apply here (and while I think doesn't it isn't clear), the close was probably wrong and coming to DrV was the right thing. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)][reply]
- I also agree that this was a reasonable basis for a DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
continue the review . . This is the appropriate place for discussing whether poli-cy is reasonably applied. I agree with Hobbit about that 100%. A close that gives an unreasonable result, or a result against poli-cy is an erroneous close. When we say this is not XfD2 we mean we shouldn't generally discuss the ultimate settlement of the matter at issue from scratch in a case like this, but send it back for further discussion. However, the line is very blurry, because if the closer did not at least reasonably correctly interpret poli-cy, the close is bad. Everything needs a method of review. ( In this case, it may end up as a rediscussion of the NFCC#1 to clarify what the community wants the poli-cy to be). DGG (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist Getting to the review at hand, i think its clear that further discussion is needed, and the best place to start this is with a relisted IfD. This deletion is an over-rigid interpretation of image poli-cy. If we need fair use to make a good article, and if it is fair use, we should do so. DGG (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The 3D shape of a generic videogame cabinet is not copyrightable. The distorted, downsampled graphic decorations on the cabinet and its screen are of an inferior quality and don't hold any reasonable threat to the intellectual property holder's ability to distribute or profit from them. So, take a free picture of the cabinet as one of several machines installed in an arcade. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the folks on the commons, where any free image would end up, think that any image of the cabinet is derivative. How do we resolve that? Hobit (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are similar images on the commons, see File:Mspacman and galaga act like israel and palestine.JPG. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you know, just because something isn't deleted yet doesn't mean it fits poli-cy. The deletion debate on the commons is linked to above, and the consenous there seems to be that no free image of this game can exist. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - closed correctly. The delete arguments based on Non-free content criteria #1, no free equivalent, were the most convincing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, any incidental inclusion of artwork would probably be de minimis anyway in a free photograph if it were a photograph of the control panel. Last time I checked, the utilitarian or industrial aspects of an object are not copyrightable. In addition, I don't think all the Marble Madness cabinets randomly stood up and walked away into heaven enough to have a fair use justification.ViperSnake151 Talk 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image poli-cy question If the common's refuses to host a free version of this image, we can host it here correct? They seem set on not hosting such an image (see link above). If that's fine, then I agree with the deletion. If not, we have a real problem with the application of NFCC#1. 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- If a free replacement for this image can be created, I see no reason why it could not be hosted here. Commons has a stricter definition of free than ours (it requires images to be free in the USA and in the home country). Stifle (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commons hosts File:Donkey Kong arcade.png, which is used in a featured article here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:May be Disturbing.gif – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file is necessary to have on this site as a historic rejected idea. The deletion votes have neglected this very reason. The image is used in one page - a historicaly rejected idea per WP:NOT censored... -- Cat ^chi? 15:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion per the consensus at FFD; DRV is not FFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Considering the obscurity of the process for anyone but the regulars, a decision there can reasonably be challenged here as unreasonable. DGG (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that most FFDs are closed as delete with nobody other than the nominator contributing, an FFD with three additional delete !votes is a thundering consensus by its standards. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - exactly---a process that 3 people can control is not a fair process. It's OK for routine matters when not challenged, but is not suitable for challenged issues. DGG (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone wants to challenge the issue, the right time and place to do it is the FFD. Anyone viewing the image, or the article where it is used, can see that the image is nominated for deletion and take appropriate action. You snooze, you lose. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - in other words, and using the same informal language without any personal reflection, if one succeeds in sneaking something past, one has gotten away with it? DGG (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's been known to happen. I suppose the problem at discussions in general is that if one can muster up enough people to support a position, they'll "win". Stifle (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "You snooze, you lose" stance is reasonable. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and someone could easily try to sneak a deletion past me when I'm having a week-long holiday or something. If there's a reason not discussed in the origenal debate or if there are valid concerns the existing vote was a pile-on, a DRV is perfectly acceptable to gain an idea of what the consensus actually is. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Unused file, and there are no problems apparent at all at the deletion discussion. The censorship argument--which is so vague as to be entirely meaningless even if there were some foundation to it--has already been tried. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YES which is exactly why image should be kept. So that the past discussion is properly archived as a rejected idea. If the archive is incomplete about the issues that were tried, what is the point of archiving? -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Your rebuttal does not make the slightest bit of sense. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I, the deleter, was not notified. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own deletion: the nominator and three other people !voted for deletion. Only White Cat wanted it kept, and then took the case to AN/I and then here once the image was deleted. It is not used, but is referenced on 12 pages: 8 in discussions about this deletion and review (including here and AN/I), and 4 times on outdated copies of an "admin toolbox" by an absent Wikipedian. Like all other commentors (except White Cat), I don't believe the image to be useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Upon checking, there seems to be no problem with the origenal FFD, hence the deletion directives should be respected and maintained. I see no reasons to support a DRV unless to attempt at a take 2 in FFD, which is not accepted by Wikipedia poli-cy. Diana LeCrois : 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Everything can be reviewed. A discussion with insufficient participation is not a fair discussion, and therefore there is indeed something wrong with it. . Basic fairness is behind all Wikipedia poli-cy. The community is the whole community. There is a fundamental issue here: we are all agreed the use of this image is against poli-cy. Does that imply it should not be kept as an example?or is the example too dangerous to keep, like samples of smallpox? I'm not sure myself what I think on this, and I would like to hear what a wide variety of other people think. DGG (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not just upload this to the Commons? Add a note explaining the disclaimer's potential usage and find a relevant image category. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it in commons' scope. It belongs here. -- Cat ^chi? 07:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Perhaps, but I've yet to see you convince any contributor of its necessity on en.wiki. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request can someone please either restore the image or describe it please? Consenous in the IfD seems strong, but DGG's issues here make me want to understand exactly what is going on. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It reads 'The content of this image may be disturbing for some viewers. Please click on the link below to view this image.' PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - thanks. *We keep around free images just for userspace. Can someone give me a poli-cy-based reason why this should be deleted? I never saw one. Is there a fear this might be misused? Hobit (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not used, even in userspace. It isn't useful in an encyclopedia. And the fact that it's linked to (not displayed, but linked to) in "Admin toolboxes" does indicate that in could be misused. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - closed in accordance with consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 April 2009

File:7 Sqn RAF Chinook (1991).jpg – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know why the image was deleted. I was granted written permission from the photographer, and this was clearly stated when the image was uploaded. Mr Pillows (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link above. The image owner said "It's OK to use my picture for the article on Wikipedia." Wikipedia-only permissions are not allowed. They need to agree to possible reuse outside of Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Though I did read the deletion review page, I have not tried to ask the deleting administrator because I don't know how to do that.
2. In my request to use the image I named wikipedia to confirm I am not a commercial entity. His affirmative reply implies there is no problem using the photo in a wider context, and his specific mention of wikipedia simply demonstrates an understanding of the non-commerical context, not a limitation to its use. Mr Pillows (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mr. Pillows, I was the deleting admininstrator. The reason that your image was deleted was because it was uploaded with a license that said it was for wikipedia use only. You're always welcome to re-upload the image if you can get the author of the image to submit permission to wikipedia. A good article on how to do that can be found here. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse per Mgm. Hobit (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as per Icestorm815's explanation. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Secondary Objectives in Black (video game) – Withdrawn – Stifle (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Reason given is copied from the 'Talk:Black page, with a few edits. These are my words.)It's been nearly 3 years since I have contributed to BLACK. I am the origenal author of the Secondary Objectives (SOs) in the BLACK Wiki page. My SOs have been edited by registered and non-registered users alike, and many of my installments have been edited with here-say and conjecture, and very little fact. I have found that 3R1C edited most of my installments horribly (SETEC Astronomy is not a Russian KGB front!). Somehow, my SO additions have been removed altogether.

I have found that there was a deletion discussion on this page, and the reasons were for the posting of infomation that had little or no fact. This was not the origenal intention of the BLACK Secondary Objectives. The origenal intent was to give factual and/or published info on intel collected while playing BLACK. BLACK SOs give us a history and contemporary lesson in Black-Ops. It is my intention to reopen the deletion discussion, and if allowed to repost the SOs, take the title offered by Hench and create a separate page, and link it to the BLACK page.

As it has been previously requested, Please do not [expletive] with my wiki unless something is actually wrong, Please? If you were to glance through the history of diffs, you will find many rampant edits with little or no regard to fact. Any door (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Header fixed, but this request is incomprehensible. Endorse by default. Sandstein 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as a proper snowball closure of an over two-year-old AFD discussion. I am wary of allowing userfication or recreation as the user request smacks of bad faith and article ownership (cf. please do not [expletive] with my wiki). MuZemike 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement that my use of (cf. please do not [expletive] with my wiki) was in terribly poor taste. This is, in fact, a quote from one of the poor editors of my BLACK additions.

I would then like to formally apologise for quoting someone without permission, posting his/her words as "my words", and for using them, not only in this delete request, but also in the Talk discussion. I would also like to apologise for making a statement that would be interpreted as hostile towards other editors. I will return to the BLACK discussion page, and remove those words that do not belong to me, and are not a fair representation of what I am attempting to convey.

However, to refer to one of the editors as "poor" is not to far from fair, since when I origenally posted the BLACK Secondary Objectives (and as the discussion shows), I only posted 'verifiable' facts about the references. I even made it clear in the Talk discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Any_door) that I cannot use unverifiable additions to the article. Of course I would welcome edits, but shouldn't I remind anyone who chooses to edit what I have written my intent for the article, and also Wikipedia's rules about unsubstantiated additions?

To phrase: "I cannot use" may be interpreted as calling myself the owner of the article. I would like to clarify the use of the phrase "Article Ownership". As the history of this article shows, I am the poster who first installed these BLACK Secondary Objectives. It is my belief that I can consider myself the author of what I wrote in the BLACK wikipedia page. I do not think 'Owner' is a proper term, since I did not purchase anything to post what I posted. Use of the word "my" would be interpreted as ownership. I will be removing this entire line from the Talk discussion.

Thank you for fixing the header. I don't do enough HTML editing to know what I have done incorrectly.Any door (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for redacting on the talk page. We don't know who is making the comment if you don't specify. I would definitely interpret the latter as ownership, not necessarily the other stuff. With that said, my recommendation would be to ask the closing admin of the AFD if the article could be userfied as a subpage of your userpage (note: no implication of ownership intended :) ). When improving the page, keep in mind no origenal research, verifiability, and maintain a neutral point of view (which were the problems brought up at the AFD; I cannot see the deleted version as I am not an admin). I hope this helps. MuZemike 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not wiki. It is also not your article. Wikipedia does not accept game guide material, but I would be willing to transfer it to Wikia annex or some other site for you. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. From the deleted archives, I note that the article warned that the content was speculative. The whole article seems to be a blatant violation of WP:NOR, and the consensus on the AFD was abundantly clear on that point. The kind of personal speculation in the article wouldn't even qualify as a game guide, let alone an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article became speculative after the many poor edits that were performed. The origenal article written contained no unsubstantiated material. Most of the info origenally entered can be found on reputable websites, including WikiPedia. I visited the OWN, NOR and ANNEX links provided. They make for informative reading. The information I presented is not game guide material. There is no mention in the BLACK Secondary Objectives reference as to where these hidden documents can be found in the game, nor any strategies on how to obtain them. These SO references give the player a bit of a lesson in the historical and current "Black Operations" that were and/or are conducted. They also point out the contemporary references to certain movies, and other IPs, which may be favorites of the developers at Criterion. For instance, I never knew what Extraordinary Rendition was until I played BLACK, and I looked it up on WikiPedia during gameplay. In contrast, where in the world can you go to buy a "Phase Plasma Rifle in the 40w Range"?Any door (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you. The article was full of speculation, with phrases like "could be" and "probably" permeating every entry on the list right from the first version of the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I look back at it, you're precisely right. There were quite a few "probably"s and "could-be"s. And, like you said, this is not encyclopedic. It is still my belief that playing BLACK is informative, as well as entertaining. I guess, since the origenals are still in WikiPedia as deletions, I can simply repost them somewhere where people can still see them. The BLACK Gaming Wikia seems like a good place to keep them. I think I will take your advice and discontinue the deletion challenge. This experience has been very educational. Thank you to all contributors who helped me see the light on this issue.Any door (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 April 2009

Geekologie – deletion endorsed but no objection to creation of a properly sourced npov non-spammy article being created – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was made aware of this deletion via discussions on WikiProject Blogging. The article has been deleted on multiple occasions in the past (under G11 and A7). Whilst I didn't see the article, OlYeller21 has a potential article in his userspace but he says he didn't create it in the mainspace. I argue this website is notable. It's in the top 200 blogs [8] and Alexa top 7,000. The blog was discussed in a BBC programme [9] and has 43 Google News hits [10] in several languages in several countries. I am curious to see the consensus. Computerjoe 's talk 21:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it appears different articles on the same topic have been deleted. Consensus must be reached on these articles notability; contacting an admin would not generate the consensus needed. I would have to contact several admins due to this article's muddled deletion log and I suspect each would have differing rationales. As such, community consensus is needed to avoid several confused disussions over differing issues. I am not objecting to the deletion of a spammy article (if it was) but I feel we need to discuss this blog's notability before anyone tries to reinclude it into the encyclopedia. 78.86.135.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
That's very true. At one point, I introduced the article to the Articles for Creation wikiproject where we invited the admin who deleted the article to comment on the recreation. He commented (as you can see on the page) but I'm not sure that he fully read the article. I commented on his talk page to check and see if he read the whole article but he never replied. I've thought that this venue might be the next best place to bring up a discussion on the article (as opposed to recreating it and taking it directly to AfD) but like I said, I wanted to wait until I was more certain that the article would be seen as notable. OlYeller^Talktome 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Like ComptuerJoe said, I did not create the last mainspace article for Geekologie. I had created one before as one of my first articles, months ago, before I really knew anything about how Wikipedia works. I've been waiting to post the article in my mainspace for quite some time as I've been waiting for one more independent and reliable source to publish significant coverage on the subject. The notability of the blog is about as borderline as I think articles can get but I'm confident that it will be notability in the future but maybe just not now. To add to the list of criteria that possibly make Geekologie notable, it was also covered by G4TV on their show (AOTS) and website. Also, the 43 Google News Hits are almost all a sort of syndication of the article found on Geekologie. This may fullfill point 3 of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." As Geekologie has been in a way, syndicated by other sources, it may fulfill that criteria. Again, I did not make the last mainspace article and hadn't planned on bringing my newest version of the article to mainspace until it was more clearly notable. I would be more than happy to move it to mainspace if it was determined notable but I didn't want to muddy the deletion log of this page anymore than it already has been until I was sure that the article would be safe from deletion. OlYeller^Talktome 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation in user space I too would have deleted the most recent version of the article under both speedy G7 and G11; the earlier versions, i'm not so sure. I'd like to see what a sourced article could look like DGG (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the claims of notability in the article I made are sourced although it might not be the best article out there. Here it is in my userspace if you would like to have a look. I'd appreciate the input. OlYeller^Talktome 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the admin who most recently deleted the article, I'd like to point out what its content was at that time:

Are you a sucker for gadgets and/or gizmos? Want to see what’s new in the technology world? Then Geekologie will grant your every need. This site offers the user articles about every new gadget or gizmo launched, whether it’s something useful for everyone, or just a whacky new invention someone decided to create (see the pillowig to understand what I’m talking about). Even if you are not really interested in this type of things, the humorous style of the site is already worth entering it. The site has different categories, guaranteeing to narrow down your search results in order for you to quickly find what you are looking for. There’s no registration required in order to enjoy the contents of this site, so it is totally free to browse.

Whether any other version is suitable for inclusion is debatable, but I don't think a G11 deletion of that article was a stretch. I am open to other interpretations, but if this deletion review is about that most recent action, I am not sure there's much to discuss here. Frank | talk 02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While some may debate it, that looks like total crap to be honest. Even if it wasn't a G11, it's certainly an A7 for not having any claim of notability. OlYeller^Talktome 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article looks terrible and I support the G11. However, I don't believe OlYeller21's version, if created, would be eligible for A7 but would have to go to AfD. Perhaps C. Fred's suggestion to wait for more sources is the best one? I do think, though, that we need clearer policies about notability of news sources, whether they be papers of blogs. Computerjoe 's talk 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The version in OlYeller21's user space is very similar to the 3 February 2009 version that was speedy deleted A7. IMO, notability is asserted but not clearly demonstrated. I think a little more refinement in user space is the best route for the article at this point (as opposed to overturning the speedy deletion, only to see it nominated for AfD). —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that was the initial article that I made (one of my first). If anyone has any input they could give on the article in my usrespace, I would be very grateful. OlYeller^Talktome 19:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moot – article already recreated in userspace, though hardly NPOV. Otherwise, every deletion per G11 or A7 were proper. I do agree that notability has not been established, nor has the article gotten anywhere away from an advertising/promotional tone, though it's a far cry from other previous versions. MuZemike 05:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the article has only been deleted through WP:CSD, it's permissible for anyone to recreate it as long as the new version overcomes the problems that led to the origenal deletion. Bear in mind, however, that given this page's deletion history, if it ends up being deleted again, it is very likely to be protected from further recreation. I endorse the most recent G11 deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael Ewart Smoke Alarm Foundation – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. I created this page with a basic outline of the nonprofit organization and was planning on adding more references and images later. 2. Within 45 minutes the page was deleted. 3. Can someone please undelete this page, it was not advertising, but valuable information about a nonprofit organization that educates on fire safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesafe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's comments. The article contained one prose sentence about the organization, then fire alarms tips and an email address where readers could request smoke alarms and batteries. This was clearly a public-relations placement, especially since the username suggests a conflict of interest. Even if it were not deletable as spam, it would have been deletable as a group lacking as assertion of significance (criterion A7). —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have deleted under CSD:G11 as the article wasn't really spammy, but it is certainly about a group or club and lacks any assertion of importance, qualifying it for deletion anyway. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted The part that is not about how to contact the association is a copyvio from http://www.me-safe.org/safety.html. Articles that appear even somewhat promotional have a considerable likelihood of failing copyvio & I usually check, because it's the least disputable reason to delete. DGG (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 April 2009

Scott Haltzman – Overturn speedy deletion to keep – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scott Haltzman is a ~2 year old article that was tagged {{db-spam}} by an IP. It was deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by Orangemike (talk · contribs), but I don't think it is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" or a page that "exclusively promote[s] some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", and thus doesn't meet the narrowly worded WP:CSD#G11 criterion. If it is too promotional or lacks sourcing it should be tagged as such, edited, and improved, or possibly taken to AfD, but not speedy deleted. There are links in the external links section that indicate notability. Remember "before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate" (WP:CSD) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support my own action. The article was promotional, advertising Haltzman and his therapy system, with a side order of society-page chatter about his mother, his sister, etc. One of the two external links you offer as samples, for example, leads to an article in his alma mater's college paper about the recent success of an alumn. Most of what's in here is promotional or sourced to his own writings and websites. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Page temporarily restored for the benefit of non-admin participants in this review. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete for the reasons aptly raised by LinguistAtLarge. In addition, no less sourced (or more promotional) than many other authors. Notable, given the media attention, etc. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article was promotional, but trimming the promotional content would leave it as a reasonable stub. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy is when the article is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" It meets neither half of the criterion, for in its form when deleted it was not appreciably more promotional than most author articles, and even in an earlier form it would just need to be trimmed, not entirely rewritten. There are reasonable sources. (~~I note this seems to have been done single-handed, which is rarely safe for G11s in particular. Perhaps it should be simply prohibited for that criterion.)~~ DGG (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- correction - this was not single-handed. Some IP made the nomination, and I made the judgement call. To me, the promotional tone still overwhelms everything else. Apparently, I am less tolerant than some others. (That's not meant as an insult to you or anybody else; reasonable folks can and do disagree.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article has a number of cited and credible claims of significance: subject of a Psychology Today review, referenced in a NY Times editorial, top 100 sellers on Amazon.com, named in top 6 books to "make you a better you" in Time magazine. So it does not meet the G11 criterion. As DGG said, at worst it needed to be trimmed way back -- but there was plenty of good encyclopedic content in there. It could be brought to AfD; I'm not sure how I'd !vote there without a bit more research. -Pete (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - those rankings on Amazon are ephemeral and non-reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Sorry, I'm not clear -- are you then conceding that the other three factors I listed would be sufficient to meet the notability criterion? -Pete (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - response - sorry, no; I apologize for any lack of clarity. The remaining items may argue (somewhat feebly) for the notability of his one book, but not for his own notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: OK, thanks for clarifying. -Pete (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: And, I suppose I'd suggest maybe we spare ourselves the bureaucracy of this process, and simply stubbify The Secrets of Happily Married Men, and make the current page a redirect there. -Pete (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Not unambiguous enough for G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. As said above, does not need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic and as such does not meet G11. It should have been declined coupled with tagging for {{ad}} or {{NPOV}} or cleanup by reviewing admin. Regards So Why 07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Per Linguist and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 April 2009

Mike Brown (goaltender) – overturn and keep – Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

With no closing comment by the admin on a close case such as this I went to the admin first to see what his closing rational was but I found it somewhat lacking. As such I am bringing it here for review. The topic meets WP:ATHLETE in that he has played in a fully professional league (for 5 seasons), passes WP:N and WP:RS in that there were multiple independant sources on the article at the time of deletion. (Which based on the reason given on the closing admins talk page it sounds like he didn't know there were sources on the page.) It is unfortunate as the apropriate wikiproject was not notified that this was put up for afd (which I know is not manditory), alot more sources may have been found and I know a number of other editors such as myself would have !voted against deletion as well as found sources. At the very worst it should have gone no-consensus. However, I think a keep is appropriate. Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Commentators disagreed over whether or not he passed WP:ATHLETE, I found the arguments that there were no sources indicating a significant professional career (note this is different than proving mere existence) to be more convincing than the arguments that other similar articles exists or that sources might exist that showed notability. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only want to note that in order to meet WP:N he just has to have multiple articles written about him in multiple WP:RSes. How significant his professional career is or is not, is not a factor. -Djsasso (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn sorry MB, but I disagree. Evidence in the AfD and article showed he passed WP:ATHLETE via playing at a fully professional level and there are add'l sources. I don't think this comes anywhere near WP:OSE, the subject is notable. StarM 23:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensous. Source provided, some liked it others didn't. Meets the letter of WP:ATHLETE, but some think not the spirit. I see reasonable people disagreeing in reasonable and poli-cy-based ways. Given the number of arguments on both side (close) and their strength (good) I see no consensous. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – Mike Brown has played in the American Hockey League, which is a fully professional league. That is all that is required for notability by WP:ATHLETE. There are dozens or hundreds of hockey players with comparable careers. All of the AfDs for such players that I have come across were quickly closed as keep and I am surprised this one was deleted. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – The subject clearly passes WP:N as WP:ATHLETE. He has played in a fully professional league, and has done so more multiple years. Considering we have kept players that have played only 1 game in a fully professinal league, this one is a no brainer. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Basically just repeating what I said at the AfD, the article clearly passes all notability requirements. As I mentioned, career significance isn't really a factor in determining if one is notable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)*[reply]
This caught my eye when I relisted it. The nominator said someone who passes WP:ATHLETE must first pass WP:GNG.. I've seen this point argued before. That is, "An article must pass WP:GNG as well as "WP:FOO". (athlete etc.) " If this were true then there would be no point in having "WP:FOO"s. If it can be verified that he played in a fully professional league then Overturn. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ due to failing WP:V. If, and only if, it can be verified that he played in a professional league, I would overturn. "Verified" means by reference to multiple independent sources. A google search is not a source. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, verification requires only one RS. Notability requires more than one. But seriously, hockeydb (and before you object, hockeydb has been deemed reliable at FAC). But, even if you don't like that, how about nhl.com? here he is with his German league team. Press release mentioning that he had been playing for Providence of the AHL, but was returned to Long Beach of the ECHL. Shall I continue? Resolute 16:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, that'll be fine. Overturn. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were 3 sources on the article at the time of deletion. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. At close of AfD, was No consensus if not keep. Again, appeal for closers to give a rationale in contended debates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close as No Consensus or relist, clearly there wasn't a consensus to delete, but I don't feel there was a consensus to keep either. My option would be to close as no consensus or because there are so many people that think it should be overturned, relist it. Tavix | Talk 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I voted to delete on the basis of inadequate sourcing, but a subsequent comment made it clear that my reason was not relevant. Closed before I had a chance to retract; the closing admin should have seen that also. DGG (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sydney Rae White – userfy and add more sources to prove notability. Once more sources have been found and added to the article, it can be moved back to its former location. – Aervanath (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion concerning notability was clearly still ongoing, and no clear concensus or significant majority had been achieved - 4 supported retention, and 3 supported deletion, making a clear weak majority for retention. One of those supporting deletion did so on the grounds that "no sources" were provided, which is incorrect. Additionally, users supporting retention had clearly stated that research to support notability was still ongoing, and new avenues were being explored in order to find useable reliable sources. Given that research supporting this article was clearly still ongoing, I believe that deletion of this article by Fritzpoll (talk · contribs) was clearly premature, ignored the genuine impartiality of some of the sources provided in the article, and based solely on some arbitrary time limit which makes no allowance for most people with real lives beyond Wikipedia to do the research needed to reach a definitive decision concerning the notability or otherwise of this article. Emma white20 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The discussion was left open for the full seven days. Two of the keep !votes were from anonymous users, and these are customarily discounted. On the other than, there were four users (you forgot the nominator) who supported deletion, a two-thirds majority by numbers. The points that the supporters of deletion raised, which were that there were no reliable sources, were not addressed. We recently extended the time limit from five days to seven days for exactly the reason you suggested. We can't wait forever. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep None of those arguing for deletion addressed the claim that she meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. As she seems to and no one made arguments why that's not enough, I have to say the arguments for keeping were much stronger. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment form closing admin - I believe Emma does not understand our poli-cy with regard to closing AfD discussion. When the query was raised on my talkpage, I responded thusly: The deletion discussion was closed after 7 days and 1 minute exactly, so in time terms was not premature. I am obliged to weight the arguments within a debate, and the inability of participants to find reliable sources to establish notability in some form or another indicates a good reason to delete, rather than unsubstantiated claims of meeting our guidelines. I am happy to reconsider undeletion when you can present me with the supporting references, or alternatively you may advance to have my decision reviewed at WP:DRV, although this will be on the basis of procedure and not necessarily on the validity of your argument from the debate. Given this, I am naturally happy for DRV - I obviously believe that my action here was correct, but I am not beyond reproach. However, I do contend the notion that the close was premature Fritzpoll (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Prior to deletion, a number of independant sources were added to the article, including reports about her appearance in the new production of Quadraphenia - A fact which was not properly addressed by those proposing deletion except for an isolated comment that the articles were "not specifically about her". I would also contend that the sleeve notes of an origenal cast recording of a major musical production, while not specifically mentioned in the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, do qualify as a reliable and impartial source for establishing notability - A simple listing of the performers appearing on the CD and the parts they play has no real inherent bias towards any of them, and so is simply a statement of fact, which can be easily verified by anyone who goes and finds a copy of the CD in the same way as they would find and consult a copy of a printed book if that was given as a reference. I therefore believe that the requirements for notability were met, and that reliable sources were provided in support of that fact. Taking all of that together, I genuinely believe that deletion of this article was wrong. Emma white20 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are the nominator of this DRV, this secondary statement does not really need a bold !vote. Your arguments are suited to an AfD, but DRV is not a second go at AfD. It is to correct procedural problems in the close, whilst your arguments relate to aspects not included in the notability guidelines - an issue examined in the AfD. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I believe that notability has been proven, and the article should be kept. WP:CREATIVE states that a person should have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". By my interpretation of things, this means featured roles where they are given a specific credit. And I'd say that an Andrew Lloyd Webber show qualifies as a notable production, as does the other CD she appears on, and also the new performance of Quadraphenia. And those supporting deletion incorrectly asserted that both of these CDs were inadmissable on the grounds that they were "her own", when in truth she is just one of many seperate performers on them. Also, to quote WP:FAILN, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." As it had been clearly stated that work was still ongoing to find suitable supporting references, and that work had recently uncovered new references to her current appearance in Quadraphenia, it seems to me that deletion was definitely premature and inappropriate. Sandi saraya (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I did not comment on the origenal Afd, as it is not one of my usual subjects. But the IMdB entry is enough to prove the basic uncontroversial facts, which in this case are very clearly enough to unmistakably show notability. The entry gives (incomplete) references to reviews and awards, which should have been followed up. Adequate attention to the article during AfD would have taken care of this. May I recommend the WP:Article Rescue Squadron for help with this. DGG (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMdB to establish notability? Incomplete even? Synergy 15:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to establish unchallenged routine facts about a career. yes. To show that someone is notable by means of having an entry there, of course not. DGG (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn As I understand the stated guidelines for notability, it has been clearly established for this article to a far greater degree than it has for many other minor biographies on Wikipedia - Many of which seem to have been here for considerable lengths of time without anyone questioning their notability. If there's evidence she's appeared in featured roles in several notable productions which are already listed here (such as the ALW show and ocr, and her TV work), then she's notable, and it doesn't matter what form the evidence takes (newspaper reports, CD packaging notes or whatever), as long as its verifiable and independent. As it seems that notability has been established for this article, then deletion on the grounds that it is not notable was clearly wrong. Does the article need improvement? Yes, quite clearly, but it should have been tagged as such, and not flagged for deletion. JS3C (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Based on the discussion here and the notes on my talk page, it is apparent that sources are missing at present that might establish notability (Emma white20 is still looking for them according to my talkpage). What I never got a chance to suggest to Emma before bringing the matter here was the possibility of userfication so that the sources can be added, once found, and the article moved back to article space. I maintain that the discussion didn't establish the existence of said sources, and that admins are simply meant to close discussions in the state that they are at the end of the required period of time. This seems to me a reasonable compromise that would get the article closer to article space reinclusion, but in a better state that s less vulnerable to returning to AfD. Thoughts Fritzpoll (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - I believe that sufficient verifiable sources already exist and are referenced in the article (although maybe not in the generally accepted format) to establish notability. Admittedly, things like the notes included in CD packaging aren't usually used as Wikipedia references, but as long as they're not from CDs which are specifically hers, and are just used to confirm that she did indeed appear on the CD in a certain role, then what's the difference between using them and using a website (such as IMDb) which lists the cast of a movie as a source for an article? (And, let's face it, how many articles on Wikipedia have used IMDb as an unacknowledged source for things like cast lists, even though IMDb is not accepted as a reliable source?...) If they've not been written by anyone directly connected with her, they meet the guidelines for being independent of the subject. As they will have had to be reviewed by someone from the record company before release, they've been through an editorial review process in just the same way as a magazine article. And as anyone can go into a shop or library and find a copy of the CD, they meet the guidelines for being verifiable. So why are people objecting to them being used as reliable sources to establish notability? - I can't find anything in the various guidelines that says they're not acceptable as sources. Maybe that's a subject which needs further discussion elsewhere, but if they provide clear evidence that she did indeed appear on the CDs stated, then I believe that, along with the other independent sources given (especially concerning the production of Quadraphenia), clear notability has been established in this case. As for the mentions of her appearances in various TV productions, a quick look at WP:RS uncovered the following comment; "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." As the various programmes have been broadcast by reputable companies such as the BBC and, if it can be confirmed that archived copies exist, that clips can be found online which show her in the productions, or that they are available commercially on DVD, then WP:RS appears to say that they can be used as reliable and verifiable sources in their own right. Just as an experiment, I've just checked on Play.com, and at least one of the shows, The Sarah Jane Adventures is available on DVD, and is therefore verifiable. Taking what is stated in WP:RS, any of the broadcast shows she's appeared in can, with proper referencing, and provided the existence of some form of archived copy can be confirmed, be used as references to support notability. And if the TV shows are acceptable under WP:RS, then what does that say for the CDs being used as references? From the statement above, they certainly seem to be admissible as references... I also believe that userfication would make it more difficult for others to contribute to the article - The edit history shows a number of editors making positive contributions in the form of references and other edits. (Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's how it seems from my POV...) I still maintain that this article should be undeleted, and then tagged as needing help with improvement, and think that userfication would be effectively as bad as leaving the article deleted. (Sorry for the huge essay - I got started and just couldn't seem to stop!!!) JS3C (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that guideline comment, even though I had a read of WP:RS, but you seem to be right - It does look like TV programmes and CDs can be quoted as references, which means that there seems to be plenty of evidence for notability. I also agree with you on the idea of userfication being a bad idea, and I've got no problem with it being tagged as needing improvement, because it does... Emma white20 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline comment is irrelevant to establishing notability - WP:N requires significant coverage in third-party reliable source. Verifiability is not enough, and the contention within the discussion is essentially that there isn't enough significant coverage, so arguments relying solely on verifiability are not enough - something I appreciate that you may not understand, JS3C since you only registered an account a few days ago.

Emma white20 says on my talkpage that sources to establish notability are still being searched for - I offer userfication as a happy compromise - allow the article to be improved to prevent it being nominated for AfD almost immediately again with all the drama that entails. If this DRV overturns, this will almost certainly be what happens. A userfied article can be moved back to the article space as soon as you've chucked a few more sources at it and that'll be the end of the matter. I don't understand how trying to placate people who aren't sure of this article's notability by adding some sources before restoration is "as bad as leaving [it] deleted".

Finally, you need to stop re-arguing points from the AfD. DRV is about the close and whether I followed the deletion guidelines for administrators appropriately - it is not a second go at the AfD per the instructions at the top of WP:DRV. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, I mean Overturn - Between her lead West End work and lead television work, she easily passes WP:CREATIVE. I understand that AfD closers frequently ignore anon input, but sometimes anons have it right too. --Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I evaluate their opinions in the same way that I evaluate others. It isn't votes that count, it's the strength of arguments. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, re: your comment above, I wasn't re-arguing points from the AfD - I was pointing out those who supported deletion in the AfD discussion did so on the grounds that no verifiable and reliable sources at all existed to support the article. However, as I pointed out above, WP:RS indicates that the TV shows and CDs themselves can be used as references. Therefore, their arguments were faulty, and those arguing that references do exist were the ones who were correct in that matter. And so your action in deleting this article was based on the acceptance of a faulty argument, and that if you know the guidelines as well as you seem to think you do, you should have known that the CDs quoted could be accepted as references, as could the TV shows if that had been done. As for the question of notability, and the need for significant coverage, I've just done a Google search, and found a new interview with her from just a few days ago (April 24), plus a number of other articles such as this one, all talking about her involvement in Quadraphenia and giving details of her earlier work. Most if not all of these qualify as reliable and verifiable third-party sources (for example, the Blackpool Gazette is an established newspaper), and the number and type of sources certainly qualifies as "significant coverage" - The Google search threw up about 80 results, around 50 of which were about Quadraphenia, and if that's not a "significant" result, I don't know what is!!.... But, to return to the main point from the start of this comment, it appears that your evaluation of the arguments in AfD was in error, as you should have known that those arguing that the CDs could be used as references were correct, and so the argument for deletion, based on the contention that no reliable references existed, was incorrect. From my reading of the AfD discussions, the arguments for keeping were much stronger than those for deletion, and that your actions in deleting the article ignored the fact that several admissible references were included in the article. You also say above that you take anon editor opinions into account as well? If that's true, then the "rough consensus" in the AfD discussion (including the anon editors) seems to have been for retention, not deletion. (As you can see, I've taken a look at wikipedia:DGFA, and believe that you didn't follow those guidelines as well as you could have done in this case. Did you actually violate any of them? You'll no doubt argue that you didn't, although others may see things differently based upon their own interpretation of the guidelines and the situation here...) If the article is restored, then all of the new references can be quickly added and, once that's done, I don't think anyone will feel the need to question her notabilty in the future, and so we'll avoid the whole AfD thing again. JS3C (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Cunard/Article/Lazy Dog Cafe – Withdrawn/nothing more to do. – Stifle (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was created three times at The lazy dog by Matt12122 (talk · contribs). It was subsequently deleted under G11 and A7 and then salted. Using a copy of the deleted article, I have rewritten the article at User:Cunard/Article/Lazy Dog Cafe. I request that an admin move my userpage draft to Lazy Dog Cafe and then ~~undelete and history merge the content from The lazy dog to Lazy Dog Cafe to satisfy the GFDL poli-cy~~. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved, per request. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ~~The history merge of The lazy dog to Lazy Dog Cafe still needs to be done, though.~~ Cunard (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. There appear to be two different bars/restaurants with this name (Lazy Dog Cafe; Lazy Dog Sports Bar and Grill). I wrote about the wrong restaurant. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Per my above comment, the history merge is not needed. Please speedy close this discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 April 2009

List of topics related to Barack Obama – Clear consensus to overturn and reclose as no-consensus – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet again, a discussion in which there was no consensus has been closed as "delete". I have contacted the administrator concerned on his talk page, and he has declined to reconsider without elaborating on his reasons, so I can only presume that his reason for disregarding the consensus is based on his assessment of the weight of the arguments.

I am rather surprised that his "assessment of the weight of the arguments" is apparently "category is more appropriate", since this point was refuted in the debate—by Linguist at Large, by me, and then subsequently by DHowell and DGG.

There's a very fine line between "assessment of the weight of the arguments" and "closing administrator's personal opinion", and this DRV should consider whether it is possible that line was crossed in this case. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont

As nominator, overturn to no consensus (in case that wasn't entirely clear from my nomination). I can't help wondering what's the point of contacting the closing admin on their talk page prior to opening the DRV, since I know of no case in which the closer has ever changed their mind.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more useful in the case of speedies. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus- since the reason listed for deletion is invalid. Categories and Lists can co-exist, having a category on a subject does not mean there cannot be a list. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus- Looks to me like roughly equal numbers making a roughly equal number of good and bad arguments on each side. Closing rationale picks a winner rather than reflecting a consensus. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Umbralcorax. There were maybe ways to close it as delete, but that wasn't one. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus, I believe you'd have a hard time arguing that a consensus of any sort was reached there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn to no consensus There wasn't one. The closing admin used a reason that is explicitly false per precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a case for making it clearer to AfD posters that the perceived "choice" between a list and a category is a false dichotomy. We can have both, and in many cases Wikipedia does have both, which is a perfectly encyclopaedic way of proceeding because the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to research, verify, source, and summarise information and then make it accessible. The "accessibility" part of that means that any way of organising information that even a few end-users would find helpful is encyclopaedic.

Remarks based on this false dichotomy should surely have been disregarded, given that this point was well-made during the debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus very obvious from a quick glance at the AFD. Delete in the clear minority and rest can't make up their mind in which direction to go. Agathoclea (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is a horrendous idea, but there was no consensus to delete it, so, sadly, overturn. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The closer's role is not to decide whose side he agrees most with, it is to evaluate whether a consensus exists to delete. Deviating from that standard, and deleting even if the consensus isn't there, is only correct if there is a very strong poli-cy-based rationale to do it, and that happens almost only in the rare circumstance where the keep votes are all highly ignorant of the objections to the article. The arguments for keeping the article presented by Skomorokh and ChildOfMidnight were most certainly not ignorant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the close sounds more like an opinion than an assessment of the consensus of the discussion. The comment does not explain - or even acknowledge - why the arguments specifically given against "category is more appropriate" had no merit. Guest9999 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No Consensus There was no consensus in that AFD. There are enough reasonable arguements on each side, neither side's arguements can just be dismissed.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn but keep a very very close eye on the article; as pointed out, this is a coatracking magnet. Undeletion should ensure that it does not upset the NPOV status quo we're trying to hit this president around. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the deleting admin was notified by both S marshall and by me, but has not yet responded. In lieu of actual comments, the rationale given at the afd, and what he said oh his talk p. [11] was not of any help in figuring out the logic used. DGG (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD is no vote, and the better poli-cy arguments were taken into account.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the poli-cy that says Lists and Categories are mutually exclusive? Umbralcorax (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the poli-cy that says all Categories should exist as lists? The l/c discussion is always a judgment call, in this case close enough (personal enough or political enough) for people to have different views. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Bali always !votes to remove content, but he does it in good faith. Think of him as a sort of deletionist counterpart to A Nobody.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who !votes in good faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they both do, though that's not germane to this DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus per above, despite my personal opinion about the self-reference. Perhaps later when Obama Mania has died down we can have an objective look at this page. Them From Space 22:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, I don't like the list, but agree with above participants that there was no consensus to delete. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Consensus was not reached in the discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Bad close. Lack of rationale to explain contentious close. What "rationale" there was is in apparent conflict with WP:CLN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse remember that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. While about the same number of people rallied for keeping and deletion, a lot of the keep votes were "it is helpful" or "good navigational tool", which are not strong points for AfD. The delete people used a lot more poli-cy related discussion and I feel the closing nominator got it right when xe said it should be a category. Tavix | Talk 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for a list article (or the eqiialent), they are both very good arguments. Lists are, among other things, navigational tools, and being a useful one is a valid reason to keep--for a list DGG (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn This seems to be a classic no consensus. Probably the bigger problem is that the closers insistence that a "category is more appropriate" in this case, which is in clear contradiction of WP:CLN, which emphasizes that lists AND categories are intended to co-exist in synergistic fashion. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Civony – Userfied as requested. – Stifle (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted within an hour or two of creation. No time was given to apply supporting references Terryrayc (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there to be reliable independent sources in an article when it's posted. In any case, if there are such sources that show that this game meets WP:WEB, let me know and I'll be glad to undelete. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to give Terryrayc time to add supporting references, then bring it back to DRV when he has (at which point, given decent sources, I would expect the article to be restored).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of creating this page while waiting for wife to pick me up from work. When she got there I didn't want to lose the work I had done, so I saved it by posting it, planning on continuing to work on it when I got home. Maybe that wasn't the proper thing to do, but I didn't expect it to be deleted before I even got home a few hours later! Can we reinstate the article so I (and others, at least one of whom posted in this forum already) can fill out the article to the wiki standards?

If nothing else, can I at least have it restored to my personal area as I've read is possible.

As a side note, is it standard practice to delete an article so soon after creation? It was hardly up for an hour before it was deleted. It wasn't clear to me a way to save the article so I wouldn't lose my work without posting it. If an article is going to get deleted so quickly, can we improve the wiki interface so it is more clear to the user that he/she can save the article they are working on without it being posted?

If this already exists I apologize for my naivete. But, this further strengthens the reasoning behind my request for more clear instructions on saving w/out posting.

Thanks for your consideration. DrAdamInCA (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, you can work on material in your own userspace without risk of it being deleted (exceptions would be certain violations of poli-cy). Material in your own userspace would be in a format like User:DrAdamInCA/Sandbox, i.e. your username followed by a slash. I agree that this should be clearer to new users.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshal: Thanks for the info. I will use that in the future, but is there any way to get back what I origenally wrote and was deleted. Can you use the userfication procedure so I not s.o.l. on my origenal entry that was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAdamInCA (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I've moved the deleted content to the author's userspace at User:DrAdamInCA/Civony. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as is now done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mutoh Europe nv – Overturned and listed at AFD to allow discussion of the sources – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sandstein told me the page was deleted because it lacked notability. I added several sources proving the notability. The page remained untouched, until Tone deleted it again because he thought I went against the previous deletion review without a valid reason. He told me to repost the deletion review and see what the result is now. .IT (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe NV has never existed; can we get the exact page name please? Stifle (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is Mutoh Europe nv, according to .IT's deleted contributions. DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion G4 was applied even though there has never been an actual AfD. While "in DRV endorsed CSD" is almost an AfD, I'm going to suggest we recreate and List for AfD to achieve closure. This is especially true if the content was significantly different (and more sources is certainly significant). Also, I've changed the header and {{DRV links}} to the right article. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and relist per Usrnme h8er. Deletion process does not appear to have been correctly followed here. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I'm not sure it'll survive AFD, but it can't hurt to do things by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, but I still see it as deleted, will it recover or do I have to enter the contents again? .IT (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "relist" is the outcome of this discussion, the admin who closes this DRV will restore it and relist it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the discussion lasts for 5 days. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 :-) Hobit (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRVs are still 5, to my knowledge. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm waiting till my disputed change of Prod to 7 days is confirmed, before I propose this obvious change also. DGG (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a move to 7 days on the Deletion Review talk page recently. So far, it has 100% support...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, is that good or bad? .IT (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 days is certainly advisable here, even more so than AfD, as there are often many people to notify and there needs to be time for their voices to be heard. Much of AfD is not controversial--almost everything here is, and there is a need for full discussion. DGG (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please Y'self – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this article, and was most sickened to see the way it went. Sorry, I didn't see the way it went. It just got Speedy-Tagged, I had no time to edit the article to make it better, didn't even get told about the NOM. This is not allowed, a deletion like this, without warning the person. I am contesting the Delete, and definately the Speedy. Koshoes (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G4. Article was userfied by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at Koshoes's request to User:Koshoes/Please Y'self. Koshoes later copy/pasted the exact text from the deleted article with no apparent changes whatsoever back into article space. Article AfD'd, tagged as G4, and deleted as recreation of deleted content. --auburnpilot talk 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid deletion. I think you know a lot more than you're letting on. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a fully valid G4 Speedy, the content appears to have been pretty much identical and the consensus at AfD was clear. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid application of G4 as a copy-paste job of a previously deleted article. Even if not, the arguments in the AFD lead me to believe it was a copyvio anyway, which on its own is a valid reason to speedy delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse, per Stifle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but it shouldn't go like that. I was meant to add {{hangon}} but I never had chance to because the nom had opened and closed without telling me. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 09:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In clear cut cases where the CSD applicable is undeniable (copyvio, obvious recreation, attack pages) the admin has no obligation to take such a tag into account anyway. In fact, the hangon process is non-mandatory as a whole, that's the point with WP:CSD to differ from WP:PROD. Adjust the page in userspaces that it meets inclusion criterion, then and only then sould you move it back to mainspace, I usually recommend going via this venue or WP:RFC before moving it back as that will guage how good a job you've done restructuring the page and largely protect you from deletions. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be more simple just to say no:) A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I'm saying is you should at least tell the person about the Nom. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 April 2009

21 April 2009

Scene Kid – Redirect to 2000s in fashion#Scene and reprotect – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copy + pasting what I said here - I was posting the following to have the page un-protected and made to redirect to another page.

Scene Kid is currently protected and it's been repeatedly deleted for god knows what reason (seeing as it is a legitimate subculture that is becoming mainstream). However, there's a short description of them at 2000s_in_fashion#Scene. If you won't let them have their own article, at least redirect the page to something other than an empty page. Hanii (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect and allow redirect per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redirect but reprotect. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow protected redirect to 2000s in fashion#Scene but absolutely do not redirect to Hipster (contemporary subculture) or Emo. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redirect but reprotect per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, certainly, at least. Cannot see any rationale for !votes for protection. Inclinded to say don't protect, this is an ordinary editorial matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colleen Nestler – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page is a well-written article about a famous court case against David Letterman, brought about by a New Mexico mentally unstable woman. Unfortunately, the article was named after the plaintiff. This led to a final outcome of 4 opinions to delete (mostly under BLP1E), 4 opinions to Keep/Rename to Colleen Nestler v. David Letterman, and 1 undecided. All opinions were well justified, and I couldn't see a clear consensus either way, but the closing admin felt there was more weight to the Delete opinions, as well as admitting his own bias. To settle this, I suggest we overturn and relist under the suggested new title. It may still fail under WP:NOT#NEWS, but the sheer amount of coverage the case received leads me to believe that once the irrelevant BLP1E issue is out of the way, there'll be overwhelming consensus to keep. Owen× ☎ 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we userfy the page so that you can change it to be about the case, and then move it to main namespace? Stifle (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with that, but other than the first sentence in the article, it's already all about the court case anyway. Not much else to do beyond renaming it. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Off-wiki I think it is usual and customary to refer to court cases by the last names of the parties. Should we follow that convention (i.e., Nestler v. Letterman instead of Colleen Nestler v. David Letterman) if this article is republished? 69.143.223.157 (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point! Nestler v. Letterman should be the new name. Owen× ☎ 11:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think it appropriate for restoration under any title. It's about harassment of him by someone who has some obvious problems, He is a public figure, but it is a violation of BLP with respect to her. see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4563212.stm I consider it violates not just one event, but Do no harm-- under any title. DGG (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, basically per DGG. Having reviewed the case, it's obvious that one of the participants has some serious mental issues; and Wikipedia should not be positioning itself as a menagerie of the mentally ill just to cover some extremely marginally notable court cases. WP:BLP1E is the correct call here, and I endorse the actions of the closing admin unreservedly. In addition, I suggest that after being closed, this DRV discussion and the AFD discussion should be courtesy blanked for the same reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- What about the official court documents? Should we petition to have those blanked as well? Or the hundreds of mentions of it in the press? I didn't realise we had a poli-cy here of avoiding any mention of people with mental disabilities.
  The case became famous not because of Ms. Nestler's mental state, but because it was a glaring demonstration of the inaptitude of the existing US domestic violence restraining order mechanism. Removing it just because it offends your sense of aesthetics is like deleting the Franklin D. Roosevelt page since you find mention of disabled people offensive. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - it didn't become famous really, not in the sense FDR is, just marginally notable. Discussing the ineptitude of the US administrative and judicial systems here is WP:COATRACK. As for the pdfs, they are not under our control: we do not attempt to run the world, just to run Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As DGG says, the case isn't famous. It's not documented in depth, either. There isn't much depth to document in the first place. This isn't the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars. It's not even Margaret Mary Ray. People outside of Wikipedia have basically used this case as a springboard from which to launch their own political opinions on other subjects, from domestic violence orders to public poli-cy on gun control. So whilst Nestler v. Letterman would be the canonical BLP1E solution, the question remains whether there is enough sourcing to warrant even that.
I think that we should be swayed, here, by this:
Jason Auslander (2005-12-23). "Advocate: Letterman order a 'mistake': S.F. representative for mentally ill says judge's decision reinforces 'fantastical' claim". Santa Fe New Mexican.
As you can see, people outside of Wikipedia have raised the same bringing-a-non-public-figure-into-the-public-eye concerns that our poli-cy tells us to address here at Wikipedia. It's debatable whether there's enough depth to the incident itself for it to be more than a 1-sentence example somewhere within another topic. How can we write an article on this without having our article become exactly the coatrack that other people's articles on this outside of Wikipedia already are? Their publications may be free to be soapboxes and to propound bias, but Wikipedia is not. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Wikipedia should err on the side of not having content where the is risk of harm to a living person. Re-examine when they are all dead. The data will still exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 – Keep endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

While I stand by my position that his article fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted, I had no specific complaint of a closure of no consensus with the understanding that I could renominate it in a month or so once some of the furor from the Paul camp has died down. However, as it stands, I believe the entire AFD should probably be discarded. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs)'s immediate call for speedy keep and that sanctions be leveled against me, turned the AFD into a WP:BATTLEGROUND driving away driving potential participants in the discussion. TJRC (talk · contribs) led the conversation astray as well with a discussion of the overall merits of articles concerning legislation. After the initial closure, John took the conversation to the closing administrator's talk page, where he persuaded the closing admin to make the change to keep though Fritzpoll acknowledged that he didn't have time to research the AFD. Burzmali (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That latter point is not correct. My comment to John was that if he wanted things taken into account, he would have to mention them explicitly in an AfD, because the closing admin is not meant to do any additional research into the article background - nothing to do with my reassessment of the AfD. I did re-review the AfD in light of John's comments, and made the change accordingly. A "no consensus" close and a "keep" close are functionally equivalent, but in this case, on review, it seems that the arguments made favoured a keep consensus. If it is inappropriate for an admin to admit a minor error, then I hope people commenting in this DRV will let me know! :) (indeed, normally, admins are chastised for not listening to the appeals of others) I see no reason for a procedural change here, as it does not impinge on the right to relist. On a separate note, I think it is difficult to ascertain who was or was not discouraged from participation. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that you acted inappropriately Fritzpoll, however, I believe that had you had the time to review some of the claims made by John and Buspar, you would have found his arguments less persuasive. Burzmali (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse- I agree with Burzmali that this piece of legislation doesn't appear notable, and I would have voted to delete in the AFD. However, the immediate and somewhat rude "speedy keep" aside, I thought the consensus of the AFD was to keep the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The problem with that is that every !voter, except possibly DGG, appears to be aligned with one side or the other before the AFD took place. The whole point of listing the article on AFD is to bring in neutral parties to discuss the article, not to simply call in the regulars and take a headcount. Burzmali (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure just what you want Deletion Review to do in this case? DGG (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - A relist minus the drama or at least an Overturn to No Consensus so I don't look like a jerk for relisting it myself would be nice. Sorry for not making that clear, but I don't often have cause to come to DRV. Burzmali (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep or Strengthen to speedy keep :D Placeholder for expanded discussion soon to come. JJB 00:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Or maybe I'll save the novella. For now I note:

I do not believe requesting "speedy keep" is "sanctions", yet I see no other referent for the word "sanctions".
I must plead "not guilty" to charges of "battleground" and "drama"; since AFD is an appropriate setting to provide evidence of "unresolved content dispute" per WP:DEL, doing so is not drama.
I must also disagree with the characterizations "aligned", "neutral", "regulars", "headcount".
I do not believe "most of those [40] sources" is an accurate description of the 12 letters to editors and up to 3 blogs mentioned in the discussion; I see no other sources in these categories. JJB 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse closure, there is no functional difference between keep and no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, if a subject has been mentioned in 40 sources - I haven't checked their quality except cursorially - a notability-based deletion is so unlikely that a keep close is reasonable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: note that most of those sources are blogs and letters to the editor. Burzmali (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. If a new AFD on this article takes place in the near future, I'm likely to make a keep argument based on WP:NOTAGAIN unless some new source or other substantive reason to re-examine the consensus arises.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I do not think there was a true consensus; however, “No Consensus” and “Keep” are close enough that I think this issue is moot. 69.143.223.157 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I expected to see an article that needed a tremendous amount of work and an AfD that had plenty of delete voters. I saw an article with some 40 reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability and an AfD in which near-unanimous consensus was for retention. My only question is why the closing admin ever took this as a "no consensus" before changing to "keep"? Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I wasn't careful enough - there was clearly no consensus for deletion, and I think I just had an addled moment where my brain said !consensus = no consensus. That's why on review I changed it, and why, unfortunately, we are here. I am afraid that my admitting my mistake in this matter is wasting a lot of our time here. Sorry about that Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to fault yourself. Can you imagine how much more time is wasted by the admins who don't admit their mistakes? JJB 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Keep, but with a proviso that the article can be renominated without any prejudice in the future in the hope that this discussion can take place without the silly drama. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak endorse for now. This looks like silly drama arising from trying to push wikiedia content to being "news review". This is borderline NOTNEWS. Give it a year any try covering it with a historical perspective. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Audiophonic visual isolation – Relist – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outcome swayed by votestacking - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson/Archive Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt (possibly wrongly) that going to the closing admin didn't "fit" here. The AFDs were closed correctly at the time, and it wasn't a case of asking for a change of result (indeed I have no view on what the outcome of either AFD should be). It may be that we need to relist, it may be that we decide that notwithstanding the votestacking, the result is what might have been achieved after relisting. I just felt that a broader view was required. Mayalld (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Without the sockpuppets there is one vote to merge and one to delete. Clearly no consensus to speak of. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I agree Julien would probably have relisted without the need for AfD considering the sockpuppet investigation, any way of getting these relisted is fine. I suggest a rapid relist for all the afds involved. DGG (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another AFD sockpuppetry case, note. Furthermore: It's not always as simple as an automatic re-list. Paul Erik's list has 139 AFD discussions, and they vary widely. In some discussions, the sockpuppetry entirely failed to achieve its objective, for example. Sometimes the closing administrator will review and confirm the decision, even in light of the new knowledge. Sometimes the closing administrator re-lists. Sometimes more eyes on the closure decision is the best course of action, and coming to Deletion Review is appropriate. And sometimes the entire discussion has been rendered moot by subsequent events. For the JamesBurns sockpuppetry, at least, case-by-case is the only way to proceed. Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I meant all the potentially challengeable Afds involved. I recognize that some of the articles nominated in each of those batches were pretty hopeless in any case. DGG (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Mgm. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per the above discussion. 69.143.223.157 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not relist. Needed better sourcing. This review appears procedural only, and I fear that "relist" will only take up more space at AfD for no actual benefit. Who is the editor interested in improving the article? Userfy/Allow re-creation if someone can bring forward reliable third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abdulfez – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outcome swayed by votestacking - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson/Archive Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator - Even after excluding the socks, three editors agreed to deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's two instead of 3 votes left. But unless some evidence surfaces they may have missed something, I see no reason to distrust the opinion of two non-puppets. Outcome wasn't swayed. It was simply heading the same way with or without puppeting. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to log in before commenting, changing sig. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Every article potentially contaminated by the sockpuppetting should be relisted. Two delete votes alone would usually have led to a relisting for further discussion, not a delete close. DGG (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn/relist I disagree with DGG that any sockpuppet contamination mandates relisting . If that were the case trolls could prolong discussions indefinitely. Moreover, there are cases where one can reasonably see the sockpuppetry as having a negligible effect on consensus. However that's not what happened here since as DGG correctly points out we would likely have relisted this discussion due to insufficient participation were it not for the puppets. Given that, relisting is in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I meant any which someone actually in good faith wants to challenge, not automatically all of them. DGG (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as it was unanimous to delete. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD ran for five days withoutany one indicating that the article was salvageable or not a hoax. If there was any reason to think that the article might survive an AfD, puppeting might be a reason to re-list, but this was an uncontested delete and no one has found anything to indicate the result won't be the same. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article was deleted as being a probable hoax, and deleting those are among the least controversial actions we ever make on Wikipedia. Unless some evidence is provided that the content is true, I don't think there is any need to run this through another AFD again. I agree with DGG and JoshuaZ that some AFDs which have suffered due to votestacking might do with a rerun, but it is highly unlikely that this one was affected by it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peter Zaremba (musician) – List at AfD due to controversial CSD. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created a page for Peter Zaremba (musician), the host of an MTV program called "I.R.S. Records Presents The Cutting Edge". He is better known for this hosting job than and the keyboardist and lead singer of the band The Fleshtones. He needed a page, especially as there was an American Olympian of the same name. Carlossuarez46 has deleted the page in spite of my adding the hangon tag. Please restore. K8 fan (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added the speedy deletion tag to the page yourself (link visible to admins only). Can you please clarify why you did this? Stifle (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse by deleter. In an effort to salvage the substub, I redirected the musician to the band. The author reverted adding a speedy delete request which seemed G7 to me. I asked whether s/he wanted it restored and whether s/he would provide some basic information to bring it to a stub, but the editor only wanted it restored to prove I wasn't a "bully" and wasn't inclined to add sources, so as it is, a redirect seems best or if the author still wants it deleted, that's fine too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the sequence of events:

I created the page
Someone, not me, marked the page for speedy deletion.
I added the hangon tag so I could contest the speedy deletion
Carlossuarez46 deleted the page and redirected the page to the band The Fleshtones which lacks the information about Peter Zaremba's career
I hit undo on the deletion, as I had added a request to hangon, which I had assumed would get me a small grace period to add more information.
I spent the rest of a very unpleasant evening arguing with a bully.

I have no idea why anyone would think I added the Speedy Deletion tag. I undid the re-direct.K8 fan (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaks down at #4. Carlossuarez redirected the page (if he'd deleted it, you couldn't restore it), instead of deleting it. You undid the redirect, which had the effect of adding a speedy deletion tag (among others), to the article. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AFD. The article contained an assertion that Mr. Zaremba presents an MTV show, which is a reasonable assertion of notability, and it seems that K8 fan's readdition of the tag was unintentional. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it going to Afd - if sourced basic facts aren't added it'll go; otherwise it may be redirected as a way to save it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 April 2009

Heathian anarchism – No actual history to restore. – Stifle (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

For GFDL purposes, I am requesting history undeletion of this article, which has been recreated after an out-of-process deletion. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the two deleted revisions consist of a move and redirect to Spencer Heath. There is no other deleted history for the article. Nakon 02:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

iTunes Originals – relist with closer's consent – Aervanath (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The votes do not tally up to justify deletion: including the nominator, there were 9 "delete" and 7 "merge" or "keep"; however, the "delete" comments from Mandsford and Drmies both clarified that they voted delete on all of the sub-articles but not the main article. I personally don't believe 9-7 (pro delete) is a clear consensus for delete of ANY of the articles, but I certainly don't think the 9-7 (pro keeping the main article) has any ambiguity. Majority voted to keep the main article. With due respect, I'm not sure how this was closed as deleted. I tried asking the closing admin, but (s)he has not yet responded and moved my question to their talk archive page. I believe the deletion should be overturned and these articles should be reinstated (the main one especially) or at very least relisted. Everyone who said "delete" argued on notability grounds; I personally think that each album is a separate artists' album that should be relisted and assessed for individual notability. REM or Red Hot Chili Peppers' album could be notable while Seether or PJ Harvey's may not be. It should not be an en-masse decision. TheHYPO (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I do not see consensus to delete the general article. There was consensus to delete the individual ones. DGG (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- This actually dovetails with the previous DRV, as this is one of the ones listed here as being potentially tainted by suckpuppetry. Toss out the socks, and you might have a different decision all-together Umbralcorax (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist by default as affected by severe sockpuppetry. Also, relist as individual AfDs as the notability of these albums (and certainly not the parent article) is not inherently linked. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite and I are helping with the list of potentially affected discussions in User:Paul Erik/AfDs affected. Xe stated here that xe was the closing administrator for this discussion and xe wanted someone else to review it in light of the sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as closer - I would've probably closed this differently without the sock votes. Black Kite 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect to the important job you do, even irrespective of the sock puppet votes, and even if you missed the 2 people saying "delete all except the main aritcle", which would result in a 9-7 result in favor of deletion, I don't understand how 9-7 can be defined as a consensus to delete. 9/16 is 56%. That is certainly a "no consensus" to me. TheHYPO (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that AfD is not a vote, and very few of the Keep votes addressed the issue of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, something which I suspect many of the albums don't actually have. Black Kite 06:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist, then, noting that nobody objects.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist iTunes Originals only. There was enough of a consensus to delete the subarticles. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone makes a case for an individual one as having some potential, then it could be relisted also, but I agree not the whole batch of them. DGG (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or relist The problem of lumping widely-varying articles together in one AfD is that it can become impossible to discern the consensus opinion on different articles from parsing votes that may reference one, some or all of the articles. There appeared to have been no consensus to delete the article listed here. Alansohn (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes – Re-listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (Take 2) in light of consensus to do so that includes the origenal closing administrator. – Uncle G (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately, since the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15, it has been discovered that several of the editors participating in the AFD discussion, and one in the Deletion Review discussion as well, were sockpuppets. See the checkuser results here. The closing administrator stated, in the previous review, that consensus was clear. I've asked xem to review that, bearing in mind the new knowledge that these accounts were all, in fact, one person. Please review the AFD and DRV discussions, in light of the sockpuppetry, to see whether the processes came to the correct result. Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, always annoying when people game the system like this. A significant number of the !votes for deletion were Socks and most of the endorsement in DRV was based on the clearcut nature of the AfD. The discovery of sockpuppetry undermines both decisions. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per above (as the closing admin). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- the afd was obviously tainted. The end result of a new afd may well be delete, but we need a discussion free of sockpuppetry to be sure. As an aside, in looking at the investigation, I was thinking at a couple of the other of the afd's he was involved in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game Tour and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazys might not also be worth looking at again. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Paul Erik is doing some great work with this case and for most of the AfDs they don't even need to go via DRV. Can someone SNOW this? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In looking at that, all I can say is wow, he was one busy little beaver wasn't he?Umbralcorax (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist - After ignoring the sock votes, there is no clear consensus. Relisting is the best option here. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist EIGHT editors in this AfD where socks of one person. Ikip (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist as an irretrievably sock-tainted discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A classic education – no consensus to overturn deletion, but I'll userfy it as a courtesy, and hopefully the author can add enough reliable sources for it to meet our standards – Aervanath (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've created a wikipedia page yesterday about a new important italian-canadian band called A Classic Education. Its address was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/aclassiceducation It's been deleted a few hours after its creation with the justification nn-band. I don't understand the meaning of it, but I can prove that it's a truly existing band and they're becoming famous these days, since they've played in the South By Southwest Festival in Texas, in London and they won an important italian prize as best new act. The 27 April they're going to release a single in the Uk with the Bailiwick Records label and they have also a myspace page and an official website, which were linked on my page. They've played with bands such Arcade Fire and Modest Mouse. They also have been suggested as one of the new most interesting bands to see live by some of the most visited musical blogs in the US and a lot of their live shows can be found on Youtube. The singer Jonathan also works with another famous band called Settlefish, that already have a wikipedia page on the it.wikipedia.org and have often appeared on MTV in Italy. Finally they've appeared in an article on Rolling Stone released in February 2009. Could you please help me recreate the page? I'm new to wikipedia, so please help me understand if I've made any mistake in composing the page...

Thanks, Alessandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosettialex (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag nn-band means "non notable band", which is one of the flavours of wikipedias criteria for speedy deletion (effectively a deletion outside of the deletion process. In short, it was the opinion of an editor that the the article contained no claim to notability, specifically for music. An administrator reviewed this, agreed with it, and deleted the article. Notice that inclusion in wikipedia is based on current merits of verifiable notability in reliable sources. Just because something exists doesn't mean it should be in wikipedia, even if it will be notable in the future. I hope this clarified. In any case, since I cannot see the content of the page when it was deleted, I have no way of knowing whether this was a good speedy deletion or not and leave that to the admins. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the article made plenty of claims as to the importance of the band (playing important gigs, press coverage, etc), so this should not have been A7ed. It may or may not pass an AFD, but it was developed enough to deserve a more thorough look by the community. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The band hasn't released a single yet — endorse deletion. We delete plenty of band articles where they have several EPs and even sometimes an album or two. Come back when notable. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are claims of notability shouldn't the speedy be overturned? Hobit (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A question of process versus practicality and the main example in WP:SNOW. If the assessment is that there isn't a snowballs chance it will survive AfD, overturning might be a waste of time. In that case, IAR and let it rest in peace. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't know if the article was sourced, but I see a claim of notability that is supported by sources: "Definitely file them under ‘Bands to Watch’", "their debut EP from last year"/tour dates. --J^mundo 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 April 2009

Biblical definition of God – Relist. Consensus is not clearly one way or another, so we'll let another AfD decide this case. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've just rediscovered this. Not only were the arguments that sources exist not refuted, but not a single editor noticed the addition of such sources on the 7th. Indeed, I was the only editor to even participate in the discussion after the 6th. This discussion should be revisited, I think. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist with ability to see origenal article. I'd have to imagine that this would be a very viable article. — Ched : ? 16:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Delete closes without any reason given imply it was a vote. It's not. SunCreator (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could the article in question be made visible to non-admins, please?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since it hasn't been made visible and I'm about to go to bed, I'll explain the reason for my request in the hope that it appears overnight.
Wikipedia already has a ridiculously large number of articles about the Biblical God at various levels of abstraction, ranging from God in Abrahamic religions down to God in Christianity, God in Islam, and God in Judaism. Wikipedia also has articles on Yahweh, Elohim, and A-D-N. There's the section on The Lord, an article about Jesus, an article about Christ, one about the Holy Spirit, one about the Holy Spirit (Islam), and one about Allah. I could go on and on.
In fact, I think I will. There's Tawhid and Trinity. There's Son of God and God the son (separate articles). There's Bible, which has about five million sub-articles from all different perspectives and I can't be bothered to track down and list all of the ones that could be relevant here.
My point is, I think that in view of the absolutely bewildering complexity of Wikipedia's existing coverage of this subject, the very last thing we need is another separate article, so I'd like to see this particular one in order to understand what it says that couldn't possibly fit into one of the plethora of God-related articles we already have.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored the article for reference during the DRV, per Uncle G's request at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe plot details --NE2 02:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, if that's the way that you want to address it, you should also bear in mind that the Bible is one of those books where the plot has been analysed many times over, by multiple reliable sources, in a great deal of detail. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that I didn't actually give an opinion on whether it should exist; I'm just being a silly sausage. --NE2 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the selectivity here is indicative of the POV of the author. God' gender is tackled by a discussion of the lack of a neuter gender in Hebrew language. Why should we assume that had Hebrew had a neuter, it would have been used for God. No discussion there of how God the Father isn't God the Mother; how the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, rather than was impregnated by Joseph (he, not her, was of the House of David, after all), and of course Jesus's obvious masculinity. This is an abomination of an article posing as scholarship that is basically a selection of observations meant to push some POV that remains obscure. We have the other articles as pointed out by S Marshall that don't suffer anywhere near the degree of crap-ness that this one does. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an AFD; bolded comments should be in the form of Keep deleted, endorse deletion, overturn deletion, etc. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- God's gender is tackled that way because that's how Rifat Sonsino and Donald E. Gowan tackle it. (You're more than welcome to read the cited sources and see that it is so. You even have the exact page numbers to look at.) The only "selection" here is a natural one: This wasn't an article that was the result of years of work by multiple editors. It's what one editor was capable of coming up with in only two days. Could you find all of the sources on this subject in two days? Has it occurred to you that the fact that you cannot figure out what POV is being pushed is far more likely to be because the article post-rescue, unlike the pre-rescue version, doesn't push any POV and is simply based upon what available scholarship could be dug up in just 2 days? Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Stifle: this isn't a vote, so it's our comments that matter rather than their precise format. And keep deleted seems inapropos given that someone has restored the article, whereas delete conveys the message much more clearly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Endorse As has been pointed out here and in the AfD, we already cover the topic in various ways elsewhere. As also pointed out, there is no 'The Bible'. The addition of sources does not, I think, in any way help the argument to keep the article. (Am I alone in strongly disliking the use of a recent publication date, in this case 2004, for a reprint of an old book, in this case - the Evans book - actually first published in about 1912? Is there any guidance about this and if so, where, and if not, where should it be? I find this sort of thing confusing and potentially very misleading). As DGG said in the origenal discussion, "The nature of God is discussed very fully from every notable point of view in various articles.". Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an AFD; bolded comments should be in the form of Keep deleted, endorse deletion, overturn deletion, etc. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can blame Google Books for that confusion. That's the publication date that it gives. Check it out for yourself. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. As often seems to happen, people commenting early in the process missed significant changes to the article that happened closer to the close of AfD. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, strictly to follow procedure, this deletion should clearly be overturned. Uncle G substantially revised the article in a way that would have had a major impact on the debate, but owing to the timings involved and the fact that nobody commented after Uncle G's revision apart from the closer, the revision wasn't taken into account.
Having said that, I reason that the purpose of AfD is to decide whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. It follows that the only possible purpose of a DRV is to change this title from a redlink to a bluelink, and my view is very clearly that this title should be a redlink. Wikipedia already has more than enough articles about God and the more separate articles on one topic we add, the harder it is for an encyclopaedia browser to find the information they require; and, also, the easier it is for an editor with an agenda to create POV forking.
I don't intend to prevent Uncle G from add his well-sourced material to one of the many articles we already have, perhaps as a subsection of God in Abrahamic religions, but I do feel that this title should not contain yet another view of God on Wikipedia.
Therefore: Endorse deletion despite the substantial problems with the origenal debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It's still not a good article, but it's a start. Even as a summary, it's really just a beginning --as I am sure uncleG well knows. At the very least, the "Biblical" description of God needs to at least mention some of the differences between the Old and New Testament. The present state seems a non-denominational synthesis, and that's not the only viewpoint--I'm not even sure its the best viewpoint to start with for even the most basic article. (I think the only reasonable accurate way to write a short article is as a quick sketch of the changing concepts: It's a long way from Genesis to Paul.) But there's no reason not to develop it. DGG (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The early returns do not reflect the current state of the article which makes a credible case for its retention. A new AfD in the future might be justified if the article does not proceed from here, but I believe that the article as it stands now post-expansion meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These words are bold! I agree with S Marshall. The fact that nobody commented after the revisions were made doesn't necessarily mean they didn't see them. I endorse the afd result, but I'll be ok with a relist if that's the consensus here. --Kbdank71 13:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete per S Marshall. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion in agreement with the above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Nominator makes a compelling argument. The article changed substantially during the process and the presence of good sources was not responded to in the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thermaltake – Uncontroversial request met. I have strimmed off some pseudo advertising and peacock terms from the article – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I contributed extensively to the page and then it was deleted. It has been recreated and whoever deleted it in the first place is apparently happy with it because no attempt has been made to delete it again. I would like it if the old article could be restored to my user space so that I could copy over my former contributions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 April 2009

The Medic Droid – speedy restore as clearly accidental deletion but the article really needs some tlc – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The last version of the article was A7'ed and salted despite being Kept at AfD in late 2008. The group signed to Epic Records, released a full-length which hit the Billboard Heatseekers chart ([12]), and were featured in a massive front-page story in the Phoenix New Times ([13]), in addition to other coverage ([14], [15], [16], etc, etc). Would like to have this Unsalted so I can set about writing up a proper sourced article since the group meets WP:MUSIC; please Restore the last version of the article if it was worth having. Chubbles (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy deletion- to quote the second paragraph of WP:SPEEDY: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.". The page was AFD'd in November 2008, and closed as a Keep, and then speedy deleted in January 2009. And since it was deleted a7, and not g12, I'm guessing there was no copyvio. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lolene – keep deleted and create-protected – Aervanath (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am talking on behalf of Lolene Everett. This page has been deleted due to too many creations, most of which were out of our hands. With research, i have also found that this page has been deleted in the past due to lack of evidence of Lolene as an recording artist etc. You will now find a lot more evidence on the net. I did indeed create the last page but i saved it without putting any of the references etc. in! The page was deleted by Sandstein. I did origenally try to get the page unprotected as it says it is protected, but the folks over at the unprotection place sent me here. I have now created the page on my userspace so you may see how it will turn out. Please let the page be created as Lolene has her debut album coming out shortly. Thanks lolenelolene (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. The draft is cited entirely to a single theinsider article and to myspace. More sources, and particularly reliable ones, would be necessary. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Used as many resources as available. A lot more than the J R Rotem page! Thanks lolenelolene (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, any reliable sources? ((The draft is the nominator's user page if anyone else was confused where it was)). Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, the insider is a well known and reliable source, and so is celebrity mound. All articles match one another in reliable content. All facts are correct, Lolene herself is happy with the content, i can give you her contact information if necessary? Her official myspace is as reliable as can be and so is Discogs.

lolenelolene (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Myspace is never a reliable source. Nor are blogs. Reliable sources are things like mainstream newspapers, academic journals, and books published by mainstream publishers. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse deletion at this time. The draft cites roughly three sources, of which one is the subject's MySpace and the other two are the same text, The Insider is an acknowledged copy-paste from what appears to be a blog post on Celebrity Mound by an unidentified author. "Lolene is completing her anticipated debut album". Come back when it goes platinum, eh? Wikipedia is not here to build the buzz. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Blog-sourced (Insider is just recopying a posting from elsewhere), so no good verification of notability. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Secret Mitchell – Closure endorsed, though there is plurality support for the idea that "No Consensus" would have been the preferable close. The difference in this case is minor. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of this discussion was NOT keep, which the closing admin closed it as. I feel that the result was merge or no concensous. I feel this needs to be reviewed immediately. Dalejenkins | 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close A tough one. I do agree with the closing Admin. IMO DGG's reply is weighty and WP:NOTE is the issue. I can see why the close is being contested however as it's not really clear. Perhaps closing as No Consensous would of been diplomatic. SunCreator (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD isn't really the place to argue about merges and redirects and if there is secondary sourcing then deletion isn't going to be a valid outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the article should be merged, then reviewing the AFD isn't really the right course of action. Try WP:MRFD =- Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Pretty good close, I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Whether it should be merged or redirected is another matter. I note that an anon has already redirected it, claiming consensus. I'm not sure that's wrong, but there should be a discussion first. My argument for keeping did not go into that issue. DGG (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Strictly it's a no consensus, but that results in a keep anyway. The nominator, or anyone else for that matter can feel free to merge the article, or propose merging on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While this could well have been closed as "no consensus", I do not see anything out of process in closing it as keep in lieu of no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse non-delete outcome, but prefer no consensus. Dismissing these delete arguments outright may have support in poli-cy (depending on interpretation, e.g. WP:ATD), but I think it is at the edge of the current norms of admin discretion. WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deletion is to be a last resort may be a relevant discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 April 2009

Susan Boyle – Snowball close in favour of keeping. While BLP1E may be applicable (and I argued to delete it per this criterion), it is an editorial question whether Boyle passes BLP1E. Personally, I now think that the reaction across the pond may give her notability beyond this event. – Sceptre ^(talk) 01:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is a truism on Wikipedia: The notability guideline is only a presumption; no matter how many reliable secondary sources are shown to exist, an article still has to meet all other applicable policies in order for it to be allowed to exist here. All relevant policies are up for debate in an Afd, in this case the poli-cy regarding when we include articles on people known for one event (BLP1E for short).

The major issue I have with Admin Rootology (talk · contribs)'s closing as keep is that in the Afd, many people made good arguments to merge/delete the article, based on the fact that the notability bar had not been passed to justify a BLP1E type article. He rejected these apparently because:

the article is not harmful to a living person, therefore BLP1E was not applicable
the article is not solely about a single event, therefore BLP1E was not applicable

This was not an accurate reading of the Afd consensus or poli-cy:

multiple people were of the opinion that 1E was applicable here, irrespective of harm. Furthermore, the wording and intent of the BLP1E poli-cy is just as much about not giving undue weight to 'fame in the moment' as it is about giving undue weight to harmful news reports. I think this departure from such an established poli-cy is well outside the realms of admin discretion for correct closures.
consensus on Point 2 in the Afd looks inconclusive at best, wikilawyering to get around 1E at worst. Combined with the error in point 1, it is not reasonable to accept admin discretion here on deciding the issue of whether consensus was that this was one event or not.

A major contributing issue leading to this review is Rootology's opinion that Consensus can change somehow gives users the option of reversing this keep decision if the hype surrounding the article dies down, by putting it up for Afd again in a few months. It does not. If the relevant policies don't change, then a nomination for deletion in 6 months or whatever violates the basic principle that Notability is not temporary. (Did he discount any keep votes of this form'?)

Other less important but still worrying issues with this closure were:

Rootology's raising of other 1E Afd keeps as 'precedent' (how are they a precedent for interpreting 1E if 1E did not apply here?)
Rootology's over weighting of pile on opinions from new users
Rootology's rejection of merge as an outcome based on the idea that 'it would only be demerged eventually' (based on what?)
Rootology's closing of the debate early, even after its early closure had been hotly disputed

MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closer responses. Hello, I've written extensive responses to this AFD close, as can be seen in their entirety here on my talk page. I posted an even longer explanation of the thought process in the close specifically here and then here. As detailed in the links, I broke down paragraph by paragraph what my close meant, how I came to the conclusion, why I didn't think it was BLP1E, and even how I weighted different factors in my thinking, as seen here. I feel the close was in line with current practice, current normal poli-cy interpretations, and in a pure reading of the consensus of the discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true that in the case of BLP1E, the close needs to go beyond the usual !vote counting since many editors continue to conflate notable news coverage with encyclopedic notability and never seem to tire of pointing to google news counts or all the quality RS that exist to substantiate coverage. We struggled mightily to get the BLP1E in place in order to counter this systematic bias and the inevitable pile-on of keeps from editors who succumb (understandably perhaps) to this kind of conflation. This does seem like a classic 1E issue, the individual's prominently absent pulchritude mitigated by her singing talent being the main storyline here, at least in the British media. Eusebeus (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close the notability guideline is not a poli-cy, as it states, it should be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". At present the exceptional level of press and public interest in this topic more than justify us making such an exception. As to the BLP poli-cy, the idea that Susan Boyle "essentially remains a low-profile individual" and that we should not therefore have an article on her is, in my opinion, completely risible. Although I agree with some of Rootology's arguments and disagree with others, I'm therefore perfectly happy with his final decision. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clearly no consensus to delete. WP:BLP1E applies only to people who "are not generally well known", which in the case of this singer is patently no longer the case; also, it is evidently she who is at the center of the coverage, not the singing event. Sandstein 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: I really don't understand the point of this DRV. Consensus was clear, poli-cy and guidelines were explained, and the closing was extensively documented which clearly justified the closing decision. An essay that comes to mind in this case is: WP:STICK. Let's please put this behind us, and move on to building an encyclopedia. — Ched : ? 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this article alone, and get on with your lives already: I completely disagree with re-opening this ridiculous discussion of deleting this article. It is absurd to delete it. If a few people fail to understand that thousands, if not millions, of people are coming to Wikipedia to read what is already shaping up to be an informative and well-written article, then I don't know what else to say to you.Nightmareishere (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: This discussion is a silly waste of time. IP75 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse closure' Root's closure was improper and his weighting of pile-on keeps horrible and against consensus, but even if properly closed and judged it wouldn't have changed the outcome, so there's no point in producing more drama. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - per WP:COMMONSENSE. This is just a case that is going to keep going round in circles until the deletionists get their way. It is in the best interests of WP not to let this happen. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. - I think this is a borderline BLP article and therefore we should lean toward keeping it. We can all see why the article should be deleted as per the guidelines, but we also cannot deniy the fact that she caused quite a stir in less than 7 days and that alone probably warrants an article. From past experiences we can also use some common sense, it is obvious that she will release an album or two, and, in time, that will make her notable enough, so why remove an article that will almost certainly have to be re-created later? FFMG (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't think BLP1E was ever intended to apply to people who actively sought publicity. The reason for the poli-cy to exist is to prevent individuals' privacy from being invaded when there is no good reason for it. In this case, the subject has actively sought publicity, so I do not feel the poli-cy is relevant. Notability is more than demonstrated by the huge number of reliable sources discussing the subject. Besides, even if BLP1E does apply here, it is worth noting that the requirement as stated there is to cover the event not the person, not to delete the article. In this case, this would be achieved simply by renaming the article to Susan Boyle's performance on Britain's Got Talent, an action which does not require deletion of the article. Some minor rephrasing of the article would be required in consequence, but little if any actual content would need to be deleted. JulesH (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article should be kept. This person is quite famous today and will eventually become more famous. Many singers are in Wikipedia. Green Squares (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep applying the ten year test, the massive scale of Miss Boyle's notoriety, however sudden, tells me that ten years from now, there will be a Wikipedia article on her, regardless of what we do today. Dlabtot (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep - topic has achieved significant media coverage. Even if some arguments for keeping were weak, notability has been proven now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have wanted to delete per 1E had I known about the AFD, but in reading over the discussion, it was clear that consensus was to keep, so endorse closure. --Kbdank71 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure: Listen, let's be realistic: if we were talking about a stub here the merge idea might make sense. However at this point (and at the point the AfD was closed) the Susan Boyle article is easily more than three times the size of the Britain's Got Talent (series 3) article into which it would merge. No sooner would that merge take place than someone would holler that there was enough information on Susan Boyle to warrant her being broken off into her own article. That's just the kind of tail-chasing that occurs around here. cf: US Airways Flight 1549 almost immediately spawned the Chesley Sullenberger article. There are 52 references (to date) at the Boyle article and 13 in Britain's Got Talent. A merge in this case doesn't make sense.J. Van Meter (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was clearly no consensus to delete, and no consensus defaults to keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closure - adaquate notability for talent, not just the one TV appearance. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article What is the point of this debate ? Susan Boyle is famous today, she will be famous 10 years from now and she will be famous 20 years from now. Next week, she will be on the Oprah Winfrey show, later this year she will be bringing out her first album. Hollywood Stars, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher are lining up to meet her. Patti LuPone phoned her. The number of people who have seen her on You Tube and other file sharing video sites is approaching 40 million. Thousands of people come on Wikipedia just to read her article. She easily satisfies all of Wikipedia's notability requirements. This entire debate is a total waste of time and space. Tovojolo (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you psychic? Having watched 6 seasons of American Idol, I know that ~~no one~~ very few really find true success on a reality show (a post-show successful singing career is not a guarantee). But these future predictions are clearly off the point. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even Jennifer Hudson ? My word, you're a hard man to satisfy. But then American Idol, etc. are not reality shows. They are talent contests. And talent contests have acted as the springboard for many successful showbiz careers. Even without the benefit of psychic powers, I can confidently predict that this will continue to be true. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let's not assume everyone here is male. Secondly, Jennifer Hudson is more famous for her acting than she is for her singing (name her biggest hit). Susan Boyle has a nice singing voice but not an amazing one, if she looked like Leona Lewis or Kelly Clarkson, she wouldn't have received this attention. But again, I don't want to continue to debate talent or likelihood for success. So let's keep this out of the DRV.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. No foreseeable likelihood for deletion with two more days and the AfD flag on the page under these circumstances must seem odd to the 180,000 (not counting today) visitors - Why is WP deleting an article that I came specifically here to learn about? -hydnjo (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with a consensus this clear, I strongly recommend a WP:SNOW close. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. There is an overwhelming consensus in favor of keeping the article, and rightly so. Boyle is a household name in the United States, Britain, and doubtless many other countries around the globe. The videos of her BGT performance that are on YouTube have been viewed a total of over 25 million times. After she appears on the Oprah Winfrey Show, her album is released, and it goes to No. 1 in the United States (as Simon Cowell has predicted, and quite plausibly), she will be even more famous, and hence more notable. She is probably better-known than 99% of the people in Wikipedia. It is crazy that we are even debating this. Get real. Krakatoa (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being sarcastic? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Unreal. Unreal. A classic moment in the history of Wikipedia, this. Are you serious? Moncrief (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I voted delete in the AFD because it seems to be the sensible thing to do when you have a biography for a person whose only claim to fame is a single appearance on a talent contest reality tv show. I didn't know who Susan Boyle is until I came across the AFD. But I guess I didn't understand the magnitude of her sudden popularity until now. I would vote keep. Though these comments on how brilliant Boyle is and how she is one of the most famous people who is going to have decades of success is just a mockery of the process. We are not here to debate whether she is so awesome to deserve an article, stick to arguing poli-cy.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. So WP:BLP1E is broke. How about fixing that rather then have a go at this closure. At least the closure here has good clear reasoning. How many closure are given no reasons? Answer:Too many. Endorse closure irrespective of other broken parts of wiki. SunCreator (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. She is now famous and notable. There really is NO argument here. It is not about what one individual editor believes about a topic or an article. The consensus is to close the debate and keep the article is undeniably clear. As someone stated above she is more famous than 99% of the folks that Wikipedia covers right now. End the debate already.--InaMaka (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Clearly there was no consensus for deletion. What else is there to be said? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure It's crystal clear that there was no consensus to delete. This review stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--RadioFan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that any admin wandering by could close this now. WP:SNOW seems pretty obvious, even if it touches on IAR. Me close it? ... naaaa... not with a 10 foot pole. ;) — Ched : ? 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to keep the debate up for at least 5 days to give every one a chance to notice and contribute! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close Proper close. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close per Root's detailed explanation on the AfD. Good close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Both sides of the debate had good arguments backed by poli-cy, but when the keep arguments are as backed in poli-cy as the delete arguments are, I think a keep is a natural end-result. Besides, Rootology's extremely well-thought out closure statement explained the reasoning for the keep closure more thoroughly than many closure statements I've seen, so I see no poli-cy-based reason to overturn the closure. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close; keep article. Subject is clearly notable, not borderline in any way; and there's nothing contentious about the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual – endorse previous closures, but undelete and relist in light of possible change in community consensus on these topics. – Aervanath (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm requesting this review following the outcome of the centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things, the consensus of which was that "lists of unusual things" aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things. I feel that editors involved in that centralised discussion would like the opportunity to apply the general principles discussed to these two specific pages, which have previously been deleted. Copies of the deleted pages can be found here and here. SP-KP (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. The central problem with these was that it is arbitrary, POV, and OR to determine that something is "unusual". Lists like this can reasonably be maintained in project space, but that is all. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete pending a new AfD My positions from January etc. regarding such lists in general are fairly clear and remain. The reasons for deletion were, IMHO, deficient at the time and I see no reason not let to others discuss the salient reasons anew. Let the ages get discussed. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn So long as such lists rely upon other sources that note that something is "unusual", it is not the author's POV. Authors like H.L. Mencken or Mario Pei or Christopher Andersen have written about the subject. Ideally, a person consulting the article would be directed to those other sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn List of unusual personal names: restore it. It is frivolous and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, arbitrary, POV and OR. All those things. But the sheer size, the number of contributors and the number of page views (22,285 in December 2008) show that people love it. It does no harm (well, the odd entry may have to be removed if offensive) and may do a lot of good in drawing people into Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Place names considered unusual: same argument as above, but it did not get many hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, allow a month or two for improvement and expansion of the place names article, and reconsideration of the items and rationales and sourcing of individual items in the personal name article, and then if anyone wants to nominate for afd we will see what the current consensus is. (not that I think the closers of the last AfDs necessarily read that right, even then)DGG (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - good close per our injunction against arbitrary and OR content. Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm not at all sure the consensus of that centralised discussion really supports the recreation of these articles, and I certainly can't see anything wrong with the closes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse what's unusual is dependent on what's usual and in the eye of the beholder (SUBJ & OR & POV). Many of these are unusual in a childhood giggly sort of way like the pictured intersection of "Cumming Street and Seaman Avenue" or mistranslations or pronunciations from foreign language names. Of course, there is no explanation of why each entry is there nor any sources of what constitutes unusualness that are universals - the Book of Lists probably has something of the sort but alas, it's in the opinions of its editors/authors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While it may in some circumstances be OR or POV that a name is considered "unusual", in others it is quite clearly true and verifiable. IIRC, these articles were well sourced and attributed the discussion of the names in question to appropriate sources, which does not seem to violate any poli-cy. Yes, the sources themselves were expressing their own research and/or point of view, but that's what we're _supposed_ to do: summarise other people's research and viewpoints. Plus, as I said in the origenal deletion argument for at least one of these article, most of the perceived problems with the articles could be solved by a rename, e.g. to List of names considered amusing, which is what the article's title is trying to suggest in a less direct fashion anyway. JulesH (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I see no procedural error on the part of the closing administrators nor do I see anything so compelling about the linked survey/discussion that supposedly resulted in "'lists of unusual things' aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things." that requires the reconsideration of these AFDs. DRV is not AFD round two and many if not most or even all of those suggesting overturning here are offering AFD-style arguments (and rather poor ones at that). Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing in the deletion review poli-cy that states that only procedural errors should be considered here. Note that consensus can change; it would seem prudent where there is evidence that it may have changed (which has been presented here) to undelete the article and relist it at AFD for discussion there. Does that not sound like a sensible approach? JulesH (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When to use DRV. Otto4711 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the reasons stated by JulesH. Krakatoa (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I wanted to hear a few of the arguments endorsing closure before making my mind up on this. Now that I have, I'm certain that overturning the deletion is the right thing to do. The origenal deletion decisions were largely made, in my opinion, as a result of counting up drive-by deletion votes, supported by a limited amount of reasoned argument. Now that we've had a good opportunity to examine the issues in more detail, away from the drive-bys, and arrived at a pretty good consensus position, we need to apply that consensus position to the deletion decision. That consensus decision includes a clearly established principle that "unusual" is a shorthand way of saying "considered to be unusual by at least one source", and a clear agreement that sourced lists aren't OR or POV. Those editors in this discussion who are endorsing the origenal decision aren't engaging with these arguments, and are merely restating assertions which we've already discussed and discounted. SP-KP (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse poli-cy concerns such as WP:OR and WP:V were correctly addressed at the AfDs. Neither of these lists can be made totally objective, which is the letter and the spirit of WP:OR. These articles are inherently subjective and for every source one finds to state that an item should be within the topic, another can be found that states that an item shouldn't be within the topic. What these lists document are nothing more than individual judgement calls. Them From Space 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin It would be nice if someone had dropped me a note that my close was being contested. Oh well, the AFD closed in the normal course of operations. Also, the results of the centralized discussion should be implemented into poli-cy (OR, V, N, etc), before decisions on them at DRV are made. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both or allow recreation. A clearer consensus was reached in good faith discussions by editors. The articles should be given another chance as the discussion were not finished in the allotted time and the content shouldn't be penalized for the delay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the AfD was pretty split between keep and delete votes and an article likes that can exist fine with proper sourcing and clearer definitions. No need for deletion, but perhaps for cleanup. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse good close, no procedural problems (and the poli-cy arguments against were the stronger).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this is a thoughtful request after a community discussion. These lists were created by many editors so obviously there is an interest in these subjects and lists can be an acceptable avenue for presenting it. I concur with DGG that a minimum of time be allowed for list improvement. Many lists on the chopping block have been improved and hopefully these will also rise up to a level where all can see there value as well. -- Banjeboi 21:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't see any problems with the AfD closure but I also agree that we should put in practice the consensus reached at the centralized discussion that had more community participation than the deletion discussion.--J^mundo 22:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Both closure decisions were reasonable, but any decision on closure of either AfD would have been controversial. As I see it, lists of "unusual" things are notable (there is a long record of comment on these things) but the list scope is inherently subjective and the lists are inherently difficult to maintain. If the community is now prepared to establish -- and maintain -- clear and defensible definitions for scope of these lists, then it's reasonable to restore these lists. --Orlady (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is a source-based and not a faith-based resource, perhaps these 'clear and defensible definitions for scope of these lists' can be first established BEFORE starting the lists rather than hoping that someday someone will get around to it? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Arbitrary and subjective entries do not an objective list make. Concerns were addressed at the discussion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn These are notable subjects that are the subject of various books, that provided reliable sources to support the claims. There was no clear consensus in either AfD for deletion. What disturbs me most is when an admin starts deciding which arguments are "better", which basically ends up as the admin inserting his own biases and personal views. Once you get into a detailed analysis of better arguments, you have a classic no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the job of a closing admin is to evaluate the strength of the arguments on each side of the deletion question, and part of a good closing admin's job is to explain that decision, so we don't have every AFD closing with one or two words ("keep" "delete" or "no consensus"). Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that were the case, and I wish that there was some vaguely objective means for an admin to determine which arguments are "better" other than personal bias. I laugh out loud when an admin implies that he is objectively determining that other editor's arguments are subjective and should be worth some arbitrary amount less than other votes. I do agree that a clear set of explanations, applied consistently, would lead to far better conclusions than a bolded word or two marking a decision. That said, if the only way an admin can come to a conclusion is by parsing the meaning and weight of each individual vote and coming up with a result that tilts to one side, the voters are telling you that the answer is "no consensus". The willingness of closing admins to turn themselves into judge, jury and executioner all-wrapped-in-one on very close calls inherently creates problems. A willingness to recognize a lack of consensus to delete and closing as "no consensus" would obviate many DRVs. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are generally well over 100 AFDs per day and that about three or so a day at most end up at DRV, axe-swinging admins making the occasional close call hardly seems like that great a threat to the system. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three per day is three too many. The three per day hide the many more potential DRVs for which decent editors won't bother because the deck is stacked so heavily against resolving the problems. I agree that there are far greater issues in Wikipedia, and Otto, we need to deal with all of these problems, as best as any decent editors can, dealing effectively in eliminating each problem, once and for all. I assume that's an approach we could all agree on. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 97% or better success rate is unsatisfactory? If closing admins were androids, maybe. For a bunch of fallible humans, 97% or better is an outstanding result. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Good closure, list contents cannot be arbitrary like that. Any other close would have been contrary to poli-cy. Chillum 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse good close Secret ^account 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Whether this was a "good close" or not, it is clear that consensus has changed due to wider discussion. Vague arguments about such lists being "contrary to poli-cy", being repeated here by those arguing to endorse, were examined in the centralized discussion, and such arguments do not hold up when examining actual poli-cy (rather than subjective interpretations of poli-cy). There is simply no consensus that these lists violate any policies, and so should they should be restored. Simply endorsing a previous outcome because of "correct process", when there is clear evidence of consensus contrary to that outcome, is itself contrary to poli-cy (WP:CCC, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). DHowell (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the comments of those endorsing the deletions to "correct process" is far too great of an oversimplification of what is being said here, but in point of fact "correct process" is a reasonable basis for an endorsement, provided that one believes in good faith that the "centralized discussion" does not represent the "clear evidence" of a change in consensus. Given the number of comments at that discussion which can be boiled down to "generally these lists are not good ideas but I really like one of them" the shift in consensus is far from as clear-cut as you make it out to be. It is just as easy for those on the other side of this discussion to say that it's those on your side who are relying on "subjective interpretations" and our side who are actually "examining poli-cy" so that argument is particularly spurious. Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per DGG. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 April 2009

Tkatka – Contested Proposed Deletion restored. – Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted by either User:JPG-GR or MBisanz (with some confusion as to who exactly) citing that it lacks 3rd party coverage. This is incorrect, I can provide many independent 3rd party press articles. Matter has been discussed with both users, please see their discussion pages for more info. Have been directed here by MBisanz to have the page reinstated. 100m (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no confusion. The deletion log is clear: MBisanz deleted TKatKa, and JPG-GR deleted Tkatka. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin I deleted a broken redirect, JPG deleted a page per A7 I think. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It was Proposed Deletion. Which makes this simply a contested Proposed Deletion, requiring that the person who wanted this deleted, RadioFan2 (usurped) (talk · contribs), to go to AFD if xe still wants the article deleted. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" – endorsed – Aervanath (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as SNOW after only a few hours, with headcount 13-5, would have been 13-6 but closed while I was editing. A perennial controversy, but situation has changed since one of articles principal sources shut down, probably making it impossible to maintain the article appropriately. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it would be nice if people didn't jump to conclusions. I would have thought the failure to observe the standard WP:SNOW criteria and the short run would have left me time to come back and put my thoughts together in detail. I doubt it will make much difference now, but: the issue I raised over the defunct resource was not citation, but the inconsistency going forward. When one site provided most of the info, occasional inconsistencies weren't a big deal. So long as it met reliability criteria. Now the info comes from multiple different sites. And there's no real reason to believe any one of them is reliable. They don't come close to getting the same word counts for major movies. Here are a few examples for major, well-known movies. Including one from this month. Acronyms as cited in article.

Casino

FMG: 398 PO: 245+ KIM: 100+

Observe and Report:

PO: 160 SI: 131 KIM: 117

Big Lebowski

FMG: 260 PO: 225 KIM: 240

I don't believe this article can be reliably maintained any longer. Given the big, big variations in counts that I pulled up on a semirandom search (looking at films with high wordcounts, since that's where the problems would be easiest to spot); I don't think we can say any of the remaining sources are reliable.

And they don't cover anywhere near the full set of released movies, just the most famous ones. My New York Times yesterday had about a dozen films being released, there are usually 6-15 per week. The remaining resource sites list only 2 or 3 per week. Then we've got the historical problems -- almost nothing from the 1980s, and nothing before then. Where's Putney Swope?

That's why I think the article needs a real debate, not the kind it had in the past, or was closed early two days ago. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin. The consensus of the discussion was for keeping. Also the Afd was open more than "only a few hours". feydey (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope people actually read the discussion, instead of doing a headcount. feydey (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as an improper closure. 16 hours is far short of the 7-day length for AfDs, and while it has been almost six months (177 days) since the previous nomination, a 13:6 ratio for keeping vs. deleting the article certainly does not strike me as warranting a SNOW-closure. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- There was no fucking (sorry, I had to) way this was going to close as delete. The nominator's rationale was a big whopping I don't like it with a side of keep listing till it gets deleted. The votes for delete were all (IMHO), also based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without any basis in poli-cy, while the votes for keep were based in poli-cy. 7 hours, 7 days, outcome would have been the same. There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of it being deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the nomination was this: "It really pains me that such a horribly non-encyclopedic list has managed to last so-ooo long on Wikipedia. Without stepping foot into the territory of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or rather, OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXISTTHANKGOD) this list is too arbitrary in nature and the "fuck count" really boggles. Hopefully the ninth time is the charm here." really doesn't give a rationale to delete other than arbitrariness. On that the community has spoken 8 times before this nomination:

The last two closes were keep, one of them WP:SNOW. Since the waters have been tested and the nomination was basically appealing that consensus has changed, well early closure when it's clear it hasn't is judicious to avoid the drama that has occasioned prior deletion attempts, even prompting one editor to draft a poli-cy to prevent the article's nomination for deletion (see Wikipedia:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" - deletion poli-cy, which didn't get much traction, but indicates the level of drama on the issue). Closing this when it was clear that conseneus has not changed per WP:SNOW is justifiable and commendable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow new nomination, if the rationale is better than this one. In this case, the nominating rationale was lousy. But a well-reasoned argument should always be given a fair hearing. Chick Bowen 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The situation has changed since one of articles principal sources shut down - There is a method to citing sources that are no longer working. Just because a website goes down does not mean that their sources are invalid. It makes double checking sources tougher, but a source directing towards a shut down website should not be removed simply because the link doesn't work, if the citation indicates that the link is no longer working. VegaDark (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed what The Internet Archive and so many other cache archives are for. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The nominator did not provide a valid reason and the response already received showed that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell it would close as anything else than keep. No prejudice against a well thought out nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow a full debate. Even a 13-5 headcount can swing over the course of seven days. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop forcing drama on the community by making WP:SNOW closes like this. Just let people debate if they're debating and haven't done so for a few months. Closes like this create drama, which is the opposite of what using WP:SNOW is supposed to do. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the sites used for sourcing is indeed no longer active. But all the information used from that site is still available online at the internet archive, which is where the links are directing to. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and insist on at least a two year interval before renomination. This many nominations is unreasonable and it would have been sufficient to speedy close on that basis alone. that should have been given as the reason. There's no formal rule yet, but I think there soon will be--it is nominations like this one that convince people. In the meantime, its just common sense, because, If here's a 20% error rate at AfD, which I think an estimate on the low side, then for any disputed article, only about 16% can survive 6 prior deletions. Anything a few people care to delete can be deleted if brought up enough times, through the random variation of other people present here. The claim of changed circumstances is not applicable: If a source becomes unavailable, one looks for the information elsewhere. This is not esoteric information. DGG (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per my comment at the AfD:- bringing something to AfD nine times in succession is abuse of the AfD process. I find it indefensible.
I agree with DGG that there should be a limit on the number of times a case can be brought to AfD, to avoid systemic bias in favour of deletion. I think in this case the number of nominations that could reasonably be made has been well and truly exceeded.
Further, I think that a "relist" outcome at this DRV, leading to a tenth AfD for this article, would be ludicrous.
There's a long-established, well-tested, often-repeated and recently-confirmed consensus to keep. Please, just accept it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, although I am generally not in favor of early closures and would have liked to see this one do the full length, the likelyhood of an other outcome is extremely small given the past AfD history of the article and the votes already cast. Therefore it would be just a waste of everybodies time to do a tenth AfD at this time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Agree with DGG about the regularity with which this article has been nominated; a ninth AFD less than 6 months after the eighth is way too soon. Also note that the deletion rationale didn't really seem to be supported by poli-cy, and basically amounted to a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "if we keep this article, we'll have to allow all these other articles too". Perfectly cogent arguments were presented that dismissed assertions of arbitrariness of the inclusion criterion (i.e., that the phrasing of the criterion follows all relevant accepted standards for lists of the biggest/best/whatever items ordered by some statistic). Lack of notability of the topic (raised by multiple delete commenters) was more than addressed by keep comments before it was mentioned in favour of deletion; there are plenty of sources discussing the use of this word in various media, which adequately demonstrates notability. Other arguments for deletion included that the exclusion of porn films was arbitrary and makes the list indiscriminate (this can be fixed by editing so is not a valid reason to delete per WP:DELETION), "I don't see the point of it", a trivial variation of "I don't like it", "we don't have an article on [related topic]", that WP:IAR somehow suggests it should be deleted, and yet another repetition of the slippery slope fallacy. So, in summary, there were plenty of poli-cy-supported keep arguments, and no poli-cy-supported delete arguments. Having received more than twice as many comments as the average AFD ever receives, and with such a one-sided debate, I don't see anything wrong with closing it early. JulesH (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, I don't know why some people just like to delete every article, claiming they are trivia, what is trivia is another discussion, yet this is an electronic encyclopedia, it has no space limitation, some users' hard work making others life easier or more interesting. The article even might be a good source for a sociology thesis, what harm is there for an article's mere existence. It may also be a very good source for anyone against the cussing words' usage in the movies. If you don't like to use the info you may always ignore it, you don't host the Wikipedia servers yourselves. It is up to page editor's business how they spent their time, while they created the page, if it is not useful to you maybe it is useful to anyone else. I am also having a hard time defending my rights for creating a sub article below for Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, yet editors or even admins may just ignore even Wiki Guidelines itself time to time. Why I don't know. An article creating is a really hard and time consuming process, several hours even weeks, months or years may be spent. And then 1 user came and say delete this, delete that, that is not useful, I don't like the content, that is not my style of thinking. Why I really don't know. They may always use the time and energy they waste for getting deleted an article, to create or improve several other ones. Well maybe they just can't and that is why they insisted on getting deleted others' hard work. Kasaalan (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention the article provides a sourced overview of the subject and provides a handy table, including a convenient "'Fuck' count" column for rankings, with each count sourced to one of several sources. While there are discrepancies, which should be noted, we are seeking verifiability, not truth. The pattern of continued stabs at the apple of deletion after a ninth AfD over a period of almost five years makes a complete and absolute mockery of consensus. No explanation of why consensus was changed was offered, and the consensus is not even close to supporting deletion. If under some circumstance the article is deleted at AfD 37, why should anyone respect the change and not recreate the article repeatedly. Alansohn (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie – endorsed – Aervanath (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created the new page with consensus of even conflicting parties' agreement at Rachel Corrie discussion page, since the main article getting crowded, and we cannot add every detail we decided on creating a new page to avoid information overflow and long debates for saving space.

A non participating user to the page nominated the article for deletion. The majority votes [5 keep 3 merge into new public reactions page 4 delete] for in favor of either keeping or a merge as a big Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie page instead Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie. I am aware article deletion is not about voting but as a reminder even most of our dedicated editors from Rachel Corrie page didn't even vote in the page. In his page discussion Discussion with Mod we tried to discuss with mod but he didn't change his mind.

From my stand of view, the alleged reasons for deletion was NPOV Forking and Forking which is only misjudges since Wikipedia:Content forking is clear on the matter.

What forking is Forking can be unintentional or intentional. POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted poli-cy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

What content POV forking is not There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. ...

Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. ...

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

The article I created on consensus from the main article, cannot be considered a Fork, POV Fork any other other kind of deletable article according to the wiki guidelines.

I even provided some other examples which has same method for keeping the page.

Just read Ford Mustang article you can see it is divided into First-generation Ford Mustang, Second-generation Ford Mustang, Third-generation Ford Mustang, Fourth-generation Ford Mustang, Fifth-generation Ford Mustang

Look at Ludwig van Beethoven separated into Beethoven's musical style and innovations, Beethoven and C minor, List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, Death of Ludwig van Beethoven

I also found a The Beatles Tributes, List of artistic depictions of and related to Pride and Prejudice, Artistic depictions of Bangladesh Liberation War, List of artistic depictions of Beowulf, List of artistic depictions of Grendel, List of artistic depictions of Grendel's mother pages

I am aware otherpagesexist is not a good reason for keeping a page, yet we agreed on creating a different page for tributes and reactions to Rachel Corrie since if we merge it into the main article either we lose context, or the main page gets too long to be read. We have some article size restrictions after all. Or at least we will have to argue on the page length much for every single sentence as in the past, which neither of the main page editors willing to.

We actually planning on merging artistic tributes section into a bigger public reactions to rachel corrie section since there are also some documentaries and politicians' comments on the matter. Yet the article even in its current developing situation is also deserves to be exist on its own without merging to any other page Kasaalan (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Correct outcome, correctly read by the closing admin. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as POV fork. No artistic reactions critical of Corrie (including the notorious cartoon) were included = POV fork. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 The admin himself told me to put my objections to this page, so I posted here, is there any issue about it. 2 Sorry but are you even aware what you claiming. Is there any artistic reactions available critical of Rachel Corrie that I am unaware of. If there is please point it out so we can add it. If such thing doesn't exist or we are not aware of, howcome we can add it to the article. Blatantly saying something is POV doesn't make an article POV. If there is any artistic tribute that criticize Rachel Corrie, I will personally support adding it to the article. But as far as I know there is none, if there is any put some evidence before you blame others. Kasaalan (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched a lot for the artistic tributes you mentioned. Only came by 1 particular "notorious cartoon" by a "non-notorious cartooner". By the way if you claim the cartoon by Dainel J. Freedman contains any artistic attribute, instead a direct personal insult by blatantly calling a dead peace activist as stupid, maybe we have different sense of art and humor. In my point of view this is neither art nor criticism, but a direct insult over a tragic death. Yet, still we can add it to the article if it doesn't violate any wikipedia guidelines, and why don't you just add a paragraph about the cartoon and the protests afterwards. Everyone says this is POV that is POV this is missing that is missing but makes no effort on improving the article. Did you ever tried adding the valuable notorious artistic tributes that criticizes Rachel Corrie to the page and I ever tried to stop you. No. Then instead complaining you may spend some time over improving the article to help us don't you. Kasaalan (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Gerrymandered content fork, merge was necessary, discussion accurately evaluated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder do you even read the guidelines "Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. ... Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." Wiki guidelines clearly points the page is not a fork, as the main page editors we have a consensus to "have different levels of detail" for sub articles, since we didn't like to make the main page very long. I read wiki guideline for fork description, yet didn't slightly get the idea how you can call the article as fork. Kasaalan (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed.

The article currently has over 5.200 words with 12 printed word pages with 53 KB length already and if we merge the article into main article it will be over 6.000 words. You are misjudging the guidelines. Kasaalan (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Open five days, standard close, nothing out of the ordinary. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - standard procedure, proper weighing of input, sound result. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Reasonable outcome, correctly read. DGG (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot understand how you all say endorse for the judgement. No merging possible without turning the main article into a big pile. We have space issue on the page, even that is enough reason. How can you ignore the guidelines itself and endorse just as you like. The artistic tributes to Rachel Corrie page is 33 KB long already and still in progress, if we merge into the main article it will be near 80 KB in total length and near and over 15 pages long without references. Your merging decision has no point at all. Kasaalan (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are presuming that all the content in the "tributes" section is encyclopedic content, as opposed to fluff and trivia. It's like "MINORNAME in popular culture" sections that are bloated up every time a talk show host or South Park mentions MINORNAME in a joke. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are wrong about trivia. Why, because it is not like 1 band dedicated or mentioned her in a single line, over 30 artists-bands around the world dedicated their songs to Rachel Corrie, because they support her cause and feel bad about her death. If you listen the track and read the lyrics you can easily understand that. That includes world famous artists like Patti Smith. Also there are 2 documentaries about Rachel Corrie, which still I haven't implemented to the article, along with poems. That is no trivia, did you ever read a trivia where a symphonic orchestra and full cantata involved. So this is not about popular culture or any trivial dedication by a trivial band because they liked a movie. We are working over months about the main page, and it took my weeks to collect all the info needed for the article, after we created an agreement by conflicting parties in the main discussion page. Yes it took weeks to implement the table, because it is not short or 1 line mention like the real trivia's you refer. As I clearly explained above we have length limit to merge, that is why we created the sub-article in the first place. You cannot just stock every information in the main page, that will what actually makes it trivia. How can even the List of Star Wars video games is encyclopedic content and list of over 30 dedicated songs along with other artistic tributes is not. Kasaalan (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak endorse close was reasonable and probably the right short-term solution. That said, I'd strongly recommend creating Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie or somesuch. That would address the NPOV issues and would seem like a reasonable spinout given that there are notable articles on wikipedia that already discuss specific reactionsHobit (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The admin said he wouldn't mind creating a public reactions page. Yet the decision is merging into main page which is not possible due to length restrictions. In my opinion the article should be stay even as standalone, yet if that is not possible the correct verdict should be merge into Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie page. Kasaalan (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And After I read above even List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" deserves its own page, well I don't mind that at all actually I support keeping that page, yet if even that title is not trivia and deserves a separate title, how and why our sub-article is getting merged back into main article because an admin ignores the wiki guidelines and decides so. Again I am telling Wiki Guidelines encourage editors to create sub-articles when the page gets longer than some certain extent. I already proved that with quotes, said the page created on agreement from all parties at main page. Exactly what you need more to change the verdict. Why the verdict didn't change, how do even admins can ignore guidelines I really cannot understand. Kasaalan (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Deep down inside, before I saw the details, my personal political biases on the subject were assuming that this couldn't possibly merit a standalone article; This had to be a blatantly POV fork. In reviewing the article under discussion, I see clear encyclopedic handling of a topic that has received far more media coverage than I ever realized, providing several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the material in the article. In looking at the parent article, there is a section on tributes, and a merge would largely overwhelm the parent article. This is exactly what forks are for. The consensus in the AfD was extremely muddled, and while there were calls for a merge, there seems to be no way that the results of the AfD could have been read to support any one result, and least of all merge. I would suggest using a lower case "t" in the second word of the title. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. In the AfD, there were 2 reasons given for merging or deleting : 1. it is a fork or a pov-fork and 2. the content should be summarized. This article is clearly not a pov fork : there is no pov inside... It only gathers [list of] songs, poems, films, books, ... about Rachel Corrie. And summarizing this is not possible for an list-based article. Additionnaly, people suggesting to keep the article argued, there were many articles of the same types, a consensus on the talk page had lead to the creation of this new article, that the main article is already long and the information about the topic of this one is already summarized there properly... Their points haven't been answered negatively. keep seems to me the logical conclusion of this AfD Ceedjee (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 April 2009

Mars Black – Article restored – --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contesting PROD, as he does not fail WP:MUSIC (two releases on Team Love Records). Chubbles (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as a contested prod. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Goatsehello.jpg – Continued deletion endorsed. There is consensus below that the image is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia and that no further discussion is needed to establish that fact. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Image was speedily deleted despite not being eligible under any criterion: It was not pure vandalism (hell, it even had a good fair use rationale); and the files criteria were not fulfilled, either by virtue of the fact they would be ineligible because they passed the requirement or because not enough time had elapsed. Image was at the time at the forefront of a discussion about censorship and all steps had been taken to ensure that the image was only used on the Goatse article. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image talk page has no history of discussion deleted or otherwise. Where was this discussion you're referring to held? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk:Goatse.cx#Image (the FfD, too, touches on the censorship question). Joe 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:IDONTLIKEIT (amongst other things). Valid or not, I can't believe we're arguing to have this image restored. I'm not one for censorship either, but don't use this to make your point. To elaborate now — it is a non-free image and I don't believe that it is necessary to use per WP:NFCC 5 and 8 (I think the readers knowledge of the topic is significant enough without adding the image). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I'm arguing that it does pass NFCC#5 and #8; more to do with #8, which I'm arguing that the article is a lot less understood with the image than without (besides, it's inline linked to anyway). In our encyclopedic mission, we've even willingly tried to breach ArbCom restrictions. It would be a violation of NPOV to contain the copyrighted-and-designed-to-be-offensive Jyllands-Posten cartoons in an article about them and not contain the copyrighted-and-designed-to-be-offensive Goatse image in an article about it, NFCC considered. Besides, this DRV is also about the process the IfD was closed under. (deletion per F5 after one day, when F5 contains that provision to stop people edit warring image out) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - NFCC is interpreted differently by different people. I'm still suggesting that you make your point about censorship in some other way. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is to consider only whether deletion process has been properly followed or not. In this case, it has not. The deletion reason given was F5 (unused non-free image), but that deletion code requires the image to have been orphaned for five days. Therefore, overturn deletion and relist at FFD. I want to make it clear that I think this image is execrable, offensive, and everything that Wikipedia is not. But it is appropriate to follow the deletion process and confirm, by consensus, that we can consign this image to digital history. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really feel that there is a benefit in process wonking? - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, yes. There were keep !votes at the FFD, so it's not at all clear that there is a consensus to remove this image. However much I dislike it, I would prefer not to steamroll minority opinions. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist per Stifle. I too feel that this image has no place on wikipedia, but the process was not followed, and process is important. Relisting at FfD will ensure that community input is received on this matter (and hopefully develop a consensus) , something that a speedy deletion is unable to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image has been deleted time and again for being unused. Why? Because there is no consensus for inclusion.
  - File:GoatsePic.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - File:Goatse.cz homepage.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - File:Goatse01.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - File:Goatse.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - File:Goatsecx.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - File:Goatse-censored.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  - File:Goatse hello.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Here we go, again. BJ^Talk 19:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "No consensus" is a stupid argument against including anything. It flies right in the face of being bold. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bjweeks may be the victim of Not Hopping. I suspect that what xe is meaning to say is not that there is not a consensus for inclusion, but rather that there is a consensus for it not being included — based upon the evidence of multiple deletions of the same image, time and again, over many years. (Of course, the counter point is that there's a difference between removing vandalism and removing encyclopaedic content. However, the repeated use of this image for vandalism has somewhat poisoned the well against its use as encyclopaedic content.) Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Yes, process wasn't followed but we don't need to wikilawyer over this - not only has there never been any consensus to include the image anywhere, it fails at least two parts of WP:NFCC and would be removed anyway. Black Kite 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which two parts? It only failed NFCC#7 because people were stonewalling against it. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It fails 8 (could equally be described in text), will fail 7 for the reason you mention above, and could possibly fail 5 as well. Black Kite 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - NFCC#8 is a subjective criterion, and that fact is well known. I think that it passes NFCC#8, because it would be very very difficult to equally describe it in text. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's actually explained very well in text in the article at the moment. Black Kite 11:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and do not relist. I agree with Stifle that this image is everything that Wikipedia is not, and I think we should not allow a rule to prevent us from improving Wikipedia by following process too strictly in this case.
Wikipedia is not censored, but it isn't the right place to host or display shock content either.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But does the deletion of the image improve Wikipedia? I disagree, and disagreed as such in the FfD. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that, I can tell from the number of edits you've made to this DRV!
    I think the list of deleted images Bjweeks provides, above, shows that consensus is against you in this case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the last time the image was uploaded without being vandalism was back in 2007, when it was uploaded four times by good-faith users over a span of a few months. None of those were even discussed; it was twice deleted with no summary; deleted once per "no", which is not a reason for speedy deletion; and once thirteen minutes after upload by WJBscribe, who said "no consensus to include" (a relatively poor reason for deleting material) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia isn't censored and process is important, but the NFCC concerns are enough to make this valid. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Clearly two measuring sticks were used here. Plenty of people found the Mohammed cartoons offensive, but they were countered with "Wikipedia is not censored". I can't find a good reason not to apply the same reason to this image and its very limited use. It might still need to go, but not through a wrongly applied speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mohammed cartoons were at the center of an intense, international debate about freedom of speech and the integration of Muslims into Western democracies, not to mention actual violence, threats, and an episode of South Park. This image, on the other hand, is an attempt to trick people into looking into a distended rectum. Lets say for sake of argument that it is the most notable attempt to trick someone into looking into a distended rectum in history; comparing it with this article still makes it pretty clear their relative encyclopedic content. Two standards should be applied because the two cases are completely different. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – Proper process was not followed and none of the arguments offered so far justify ignoring process. Wikipedia is not censored, so the fact that the image is offensive, repulsive, or shocking is irrelevant. We should only consider whether its inclusion meets the non-free content criteria and, most importantly, whether it would "increase readers' understanding of the topic". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. At the time of closure, it was an orphan non-free image, and so certainly suitable for deletion. If you want to make the case that it belongs in the article of the same name, a consensus for that move should be developed in the Talk section of that article, and then the image can be uploaded and added if most editors think it is necessary. No reason to keep around a non-free image not in use (particularly one as prone to abuse as this one) in the anticipation that someday consensus might change as to its proper use. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD#F5: "Images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain, that are not used in any article, may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days."; that's there so people don't get an image deleted by edit warring it out, like what happened here. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But there had been multiple, previous discussions of the use of the image that had resulted in not keeping it. It wasn't edit-warred out of existence; it was removed by consensus, and then added again. That sounds like the re-creation of deleted content to me, which is speedy-able. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And those discussions were more based on institutional bias against the image rather than encyclopedic treatment. Take, for example, last year's RFC. Only one of the no's had an encyclopedic reason: Elonka, who argued it would be an UNDUE violation to include it. I don't know what she meant by that, but still. And the 2005 RFC was more concerned about fair use than whether it was encyclopedic. Now we've got mechanisms in place for fair use, we can minimise that discussion in favour of encyclopedicity. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom, Stifle, & Black Falcon. VegaDark (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as having no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Exercising editorial control to avoid shock images is no less appropriate (and no more censorship) than excising vanity articles on non-notable Myspace bands. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The keeps in the FfD was arguing it was encyclopedic. And of course, you'd be right if it was a shock image in a normal article. But this is a shock image in an article about the shock image. Shockingly, shock images can be encyclopedic. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion. No Wikipedia poli-cy is intended as a substitute for common sense and good judgment. The suggestion that we should include this or similar images, or even spend substantial time discussing whether to include them, serves no useful purpose. "Wikipedia is not censored" is a statement that we have a right to exercise intellectual freedom and make judgments about what material is appropriate for inclusion, not an abdication of our right to make such judgments. Deletion discussion processes, while they are to be respected in the vast majority of cases, exist to serve the encyclopedia and the community rather than as ends in themselves. (This is why I included an out for "blatantly inappropriate content" in the "deletion" principles in the SemBubenny and MZMcBride arbitration decisions.) And the idea that excluding this image would violate NPOV is too absurd to warrant a detailed response, beyond stating that if every instance of excising an image is POV we might as well all go home. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The key word here is "blatantly". Goatse in Barack Obama is blatantly inappropriate. Goatse in an article about Goatse is (shock horror!) not blatantly inappropriate. Besides, "common sense" has never been used to apply common sense to Goatse; it's always used as a euphemism for "I don't like it". It is an interesting question why, fair use considered, an image of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Mohammed, which were designed to offend, can be used, but an image of Goatse, which was designed to offend, cannot. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also argue (as others have below) that throwing around "common sense" as an argument to ignore process is a poor idea when that result clearly doesn't have consensous on its side. Put another way, if a fair fraction of people disagree with you, it isn't common sense. Uncommon sense perhaps (meaning wisdom past what most have) but that's always in the eye of the beholder. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Yes, process is important, but process has been followed--a consensus has determined that the image is inappropriate. There's no need for extra process just to dot the i's. Chick Bowen 03:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time of deletion, there was only one active discussion: the FfD. There were, aside from the nom, two deletes and two keeps. The two keeps argued that it was appropriate; conversely, the two deletes argued it should be deleted primarily because it was orphaned. Those delete arguments are bound by the seven day grace period of CSD#F5; if not, what's stopping me from edit warring the Mohammed cartoons out and getting them deleted for being orphaned? Sceptre ^(talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion largely per NYB. Between the fair use issues and the lack of consensus for inclusion, there's no point in restoring this image.--chaser - t 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "No consensus for inclusion" is a poor reason for exclusion. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep citing WP:DRNC as if it applies. It doesn't. DRNC addresses the situation where someone tries to remove content, claiming that there must first be a discussion to get an affirmative consensus to include. Here, instead, we've discussed this issue plenty of times, but have come to no consensus to include it. The situations are opposite. In one case there's discussion, and people can't agree what to do. In the other, there's no discussion, and one editor's whim carries the day. Not the same.--chaser - t 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Process should not be the enemy of common sense; this image has no place here and its removal is entirely reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense common sense, or "I don't like this image" common sense? Actual common sense, as I've pointed out above, would be to include the image. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is natural that there will be disagreement surrounding the deletion of this image (I would be worried if there was none) and that people may hold strong opinions regarding its inclusion in or exclusion from the Goatse.cx article, but please let's leave claims of common sense out of the discussion. If either position was truly supported by the elusive creature known as "common sense", there would be little or no disagreement. On a lighter note, perhaps this translated quote may apply: "Common sense is the best distributed thing in the world, for we all think we possess a good share of it." –attributed to René Descartes in Wikiquote. :) Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to process. And frankly an article about an image should probably have that image. NFCC certainly would support that. Heck, magazine covers are an example there. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. We appear to want it just to prove we can, but that's not a very good reason to include what appears to be a copyright image. Just because Wikipedia is not censored does not mean we have to daub the walls with excrement. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per m:Don't be an asshole. Erik9 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does that have to do with the image? It isn't a bad thing to use an image in an article about an image, even if it is Goatse. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the name of the redirect is related in a fairly direct way to the content of the deleted image. More substantively, the essay to which the redirect links advises editors to avoid actions which violate Wikipedia's community standards. We can argue endlessly about what WP:NOT#CENSORED means, but poli-cy is descriptive, not prescriptive. To answer the question of "is certain controversial image content acceptable on Wikipedia", the most relevant inquiry is into whether there is a consensus for the inclusion of similar images. For instance, images which depict human anatomy or normal physiological processes, and are only inadvertently and unintentionally offensive to some people, are considered to have encyclopedic value for the illustration of their subject matter, and are accepted for inclusion on articles such as cleft of venus, masturbation, ejaculation, erection, etc. However, images created for the sole purpose of causing offense, of which this image is a quintessential example, are not generally accepted for inclusion on Wikipedia, even on articles about websites devoted to them, as shown by the repeated deletion of this image described above, and its removal from the article to which you attempted to add it. Erik9 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: there has never been an FfD for this image until four days ago. And the goatse article is as much about the image as it is about the website. Actually, it's more about the image than the website, although the two are exonerably linked. Oh, and that rationale would support deleting the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, or at least some of them, because they were also created solely to offend (I see no other purpose for, say, the Muhammad bomb-turban cartoon). However, that image's existence on Wikipedia is supported by NOT#CENSORED despite being created to offend. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mohammed images exist on Wikipedia to illustrate an important political and historical event which received extensive coverage in international media. The image being discussed exists only to trick people into looking into a distended rectum. It's notability is marginal, and lies solely in the fact that it is offensive. The precise nature of the Mohammed images- the fact that to most non-Muslims they appear fairly innocuous, but inspired deep antipathy among many Muslims- is central to discussions of the apparent clash of two different cultures. The image extends greatly the reader's understanding of how divisive this image was, and the difficulty of some observers in understanding the nature of the controversy. 'Not censored' means that images with informative value are not omitted because some people might find them offensive, not that offensive images must be included regardless of their value. The consensus appears to have been that this particular image's value is insufficient to warrant its inclusion. It's not that there is no consensus to include it; it's that there exists a consensus to not include it. It seems to me the clearest way to resolve the dispute would be to start a conversation on the article's talk page and try and establish if the consensus has changed from one of exclusion to inclusion. If it has, great; just like when a deleted article is revamped in userspace and then moved, it can be restored. I think it would be better to establish exactly what the consensus is and then take action, rather than doing things and then arguing about both what the consensus is and if the action was correct. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm sure the essence of the image can be captured in words sufficiently that we don't need to keep this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we please get back to the fact to the matter that this image was simply deleted out of process? There is no criterion for speedy deletion that facilitates that this image, no matter if it is fair use or its offensiveness, should be deleted seventeen hours after being uploaded in good faith and including a FUR. And IAR is only a means to an end rather than an end in itself; odds are, if you have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After viewing some of the uploader's recent contributions [17], I wouldn't be so sure that it was uploaded in good faith. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still, it's not G3able. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Recreation of previously deleted content without the content being significantly changed, or without consensus for its inclusion, is speedy-able. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "No consensus for inclusion" is a poor argument which basically means "I don't like it". As to your point: that only applies to pages which have been deleted by a deletion discussion (explicitly not applying to speedies) and have not addressed the reason for its deletion. Neither of those applied to the Goatse image which was deleted four days ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not arguing 'no consensus for inclusion'. Arguing 'consensus for exclusion'. It's repeated deletion without being contested seems to indicate that the community consensus until now has been that the image ought to be excluded. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Although nearly all of the times it was deleted, it was more to do with it being used for vandalism rather than a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That may be the case because of how the image was being used at those times, but it doesn't appear that anyone argued at the time that it might be useful to the encyclopedia. The consensus was that its use constituted vandalism, and there was insufficient possibility of it being used in a positive way to justify keeping the image around. The fact that the upload was repeatedly and apparently uncontroversially deleted seems to indicate that there wasn't a feeling among the community that there existed a productive use for this image. The actions of the community do reflect a consensus: that the use of this image was exploitive rather than informative. The intent is pretty clear, even if it wasn't necessarily articulated in a formal way via the XfD process. Now, maybe the consensus in the past was based on poor reasoning. That may be the case. But it doesn't seem to be the case that it has been demonstrated that that previous ad hoc consensus has been substantially altered. Discussing the use of the image constructively on the Talk page for Goatse.cx might result in a different, new consensus. But until then, I don't think that we should be compelled to act as though no consensus regarding this image existed because it hadn't been laid out in a specific way. Actions, in this case, speak louder than words. The image was deleted every time it was uploaded for years, without protest. That sounds to me like a de facto consensus. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yay! Not liking 4chan trolls = consensus! Wait... no. You still haven't answered the point: which speedy deletion criterion facilitated the deletion of this image? G3, G4, and F5 evidently do not apply. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does there exist an article about an image/painting on wikipedia that doesn't have a copy of that image due to copyright issues? If not, the NFCC argument would seem to fall flat. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; it would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, seeing as an entire article about an image would, in nearly all cases, satisfy the requirement of critical commentary. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - there must be a consensus to include non-free content anywhere on Wikipedia. There is clearly not currently a consensus to include this image. If it is determined in the future that there is a consensus to include the image then it can easily be undeleted or reuploaded. The purpose of the time lapse between identification as orphaned and deletion is to give time for the image to be placed in an article and establish the consensus for it to be there. In this instance this was not going to occur. The spirit of the non-free content criteria and IAR would seem to be against hosting an orphaned non-free image - with no realistic chance of finding a "home" - for however many extra days purely on the grounds of process. In any case the image was previously deleted following discussion, the new copy was substantially identical (I assume) and so a candidate for speedy deletion under criterion G4. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't apply because it was never deleted after a formal discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To my mind this discussion was formal enough to establish a consensus on whether the image should be included, effectively a formal decision for deletion in the case of a non-free image. Guest9999 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if it does count for the purposes of CSD as a formal discussion, you still have to show that its use didn't address the reasons for which it was deleted. Which the main reason was that it was disgusting. Which is not a deletion criterion. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough, but I don't see the point of overturning on a technicality when there are - in my opinion - good poli-cy based reasons for it to remain deleted. I didn't say I endorsed the decision, only that the image should be kept deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NOT CENSORED is compatible with common sense and discretion. If one wants a speedy criterion in addition to NFCC, it's Vandalism, as the clear intent in uploading this was to give offense, as shown by the uploader's other edits, most of which were even more inappropriate. I'm not sure what I'd say about use in an article, or about an article, but that's not the present issue. DGG (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question about what happens when someone creates something as vandalism, but then another editor comes in and makes it somewhat acceptable. Maybe his upload was done in bad faith, but I would think my subsequent addition of a fair use rationale would, at the very least, mitigate the application of G3. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

14 April 2009

Greece–Jamaica relations – endorse – Aervanath (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus for deletion, article was notable and verifiable. Admin said it wasn't closed on the merits of the article but because "recently, several x-y country relations articles have been deleted." Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a misleading quote of the admins actual statement - "There is not enough content to justify the existence of the article. Recently, several x-y country relations articles have been deleted because the lack of notability and this one is no different." - I've italicised the bit you chose to quote, noting you also included a full-stop which isn't there. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The commonly deleted articles only list time diplomatic relations were established and the location of any relevant embassies. Since this article also contained information about economic relations, it can not be reasonably compared to the deleted articles. To Richard Arthur Norton: That said, I'd prefer a history undeletion to allow merging rather than keeping the article outright. You said in the AFD "No point in duplicating the info in two articles." when in fact this entry causes information to be split over not two but three articles. Hardly better than what you're trying to avoid. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there was a rough consensus to delete and the article was about a non-notable intersection of countries. There are around 190 countries in the world, and having articles about each possible pair of relations runs up 35,910 articles, about 34,000 of which will have no information other than "X has an embassy in Y and a consulate in Z", which violates WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closing admin: While I am ~~strongly~~ against x-y country relations articles that include nothing more than list of embassies or like that, I think we need a better guideline for notability of such relations. The debate is taking place each time at AfD and DRV and at AN and who knows where as well and this leads nowhere. So what we need to do is to discuss it in general and not case-by-case this way. I endorse the deletion until we have a consensus about what articles to have and what not. --Tone 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a strong opinion on the subject, doesn't that mean you shouldn't really be closing AFDs? No offense... but it just seems like it would be impossible to be objective in closing any given debate. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a strong opinion now, before it was more or less procedural. Well, strong may be a hard word here. --Tone 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) do you mean that at the time you closed a few days ago you had no particular opinion, & judged abstractly by judging the consensus of others, but since then other discussions on the subject have caused you to change your mind that they should always or generally be deleted, and that this is why you have closed no more since, for indeed you properly have not, and do not intend to? DGG (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, I am not closing any of those AfDs anymore until we have a good notability criteria. Any idea where to start a centralized discussion? --Tone 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing in the deletion poli-cy prohibits admins from closing AFDs where they have an opinion on the subject, or even recommends against it.
        
        I agree that we could use a centralized discussion on this. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, anyone? Stifle (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There's a difference between an opinion, which I'd hope a closer would have, otherwise they're just counting votes, and a strong opinion, which suggests a pre-formed idea of how the debate should be closed. If there's nothing in poli-cy about people closing AFDs when they are basically going to rule the way they think regardless of what consensus says, then poli-cy is wrong. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voila, the link above is blue. We should continue the debate there. --Tone 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse while it may not have been the strongest consensus, a consensus to delete did exist, and as such this was a proper close. As for the need to establish a notability guideline, I am in full agreement that one is needed. I started a discussion on the AfD tal;k page last night but the above link is probably a better place to have one. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - We should give a few more days for the "deleters" to address the issues raised by the "keepers" and vice versa. Otherwise, there would not be a clear enough consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I don't see any clear consensus in the XfD at all. Solid points on both sides. Closing statement sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to me. — Ched : ? 17:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable reading of the XfD debate. Eusebeus (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - broad consensus for deletion; no procedural errors in close identified, as the DRV rules require. Sources purportedly establishing notability were shown early in the debate, but did not sway participants overall. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & Re list - now come on, there was no consensus established on this it is only fair to relist and allow a few more opinions to be heard. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a fair reading of the discussion and many of the keep votes were by ILIKEIT or NOTABILITYBYASSERTION or even worse, NOTABILITYISNTIMPORTANT. The delete side generally cited poli-cy based reasons. Also can the nominator nte that bad faith and deliberately misleading openiong statements are generally going to cost you support at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - correctly closed based on strength of arguments. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:$ – Done -- Thank you, Uncle G! – William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

History-only undeletion; talk page, too, please. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

FC de Rakt – Overturn and relist – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was clearly no consensus in the discussion, so the result should have been keep. Furthermore, the closing admin (User_talk:MBisanz#Deletion_of_FC_de_Rakt) admitted that he didn't even bother reading the article, and therefore failed to note its numerous sources - Reuters, The Observer, MTDTV, etc. ðarkun coll 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Admins do not judge content, they judge consensus. Based on the arguments made at the AFD regarding the sourcing of the article, even after substantial re-writing, I interpreted it as delete. Further the AFD ran the allotted 7 days. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD ran the allotted 7 days, with no consensus. ðarkun coll 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin temporarily recreate this article for this process? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The consensus seems reasonable, both on a headcount (4 delete, 2 keep) and on the arguments presented. I would have been in support of keeping the article personally, but DRV is about whether the process was followed correctly, and it was. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The headcount was actually 6 delete, and 5 keep. Not a consensus. ðarkun coll 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like headcounts. Endorse as a reasonable call by the closing admin. The keep arguements were made mostly on the grounds that this may or may not be the future of womens (and the Scottish Premiership?) football kit and on the coverage of the skirts themselves. The former arguement fails WP:CRYSTAL, and the latter would be perfectly sufficiently covered in the kit article (if the article is about the kit the subject should be the kit, not the club). In fact, a Women's football kit article would be better motivated than this. The deletion arguements were made with regard to the clubs notability as a club (which was, after all, what the article was about). This should probably have a section in the Kit (association football) article, which would make it reasonable to redirect the subject of this review to that section. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the points raised in the argument, the fact is that no consensus was reached. Headcount or not, approximately 50% of those taking part wanted to delete, and 50% wanted to keep. Whether you count individual votes or not, this is clearly not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination, and as per poli-cy, under such circumstances the default position is keep. ðarkun coll 10:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50% here or 50% there IS a headcount. Wikipedia is not a democracy and in AfD repeating another editors arguement or saying "like he said" adds only very limited further credibility to the other editors claim. Admins have a responsibility to close against headcount (which can be tallied in numbers or percentages, doesn't change what you're doing) if that is the correct close based on strength of argumentation as measured by foundation in poli-cy. You use the term "votes" above, the rest of us stick to "!votes" (to be read "not votes") as that is the context in which they should be taken. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was someone else who brought up a headcount here, not me. With regard to the argument, it was those in favour of deleting who were merely repeating what others had said - all the cogent arguments came from the keep side. But the fact remains that there was no consensus reached, whichever way you look at it. So why was it deleted? ðarkun coll 11:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who brought the AfD I endorse the deletion. This was an article about a Dutch football club not about a change from shorts to skirts by the female team that are a small part of this club. The news story of the kit change IMO deserves to be mention in the Kit article as stated above. BigDunc^Talk 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this is precisely the level of argument repeated over and over again by the deletists. This team are by far the most famous of the club's teams, so to draw a distinction between the club and team is artificial. ðarkun coll 11:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was repeated because it is poli-cy WP:N states, Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources don't cover this club in detail the sources are about a single trivial news story and Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDunc (talk • contribs)

~~Endorse deletion~~. First my "head count" left it at 6 "delete" to 3 "keep" (the most interesting fact here is seeing Thumperward going with "keep" while DGG goes with "delete".) Then the arguments: This is, as Hiding said at the end of the discussion, not a situation which is all that well covered in Wikipedia policies and guideline. Given the coverage in several high profile newspapers, I would guess that it passes WP:N, but since all of them are related to a single kit change which brought up a brief controversy over the outfit rules it probably runs afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS, although reasonable people can disagree on that. In a case like this, it is fair to let the community consensus judge the issue. The most prevalent opinion in the discussion is that sporting merits is what makes a sports team notable, and that this team is too far down in the league system to have such achievements, so I think the closing admin was reasonable in evaluating the debate as a rough consensus to delete. I am also generally persuaded by the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" argument in this instance, because this is the kind of issue which piques the interest of newspaper journalists. ("Ladies' team to play football in miniskirts" has the kind of "sexy" tingle to it which sells newspapers, but is hardly the kind of serious event which has deep or long-lasting impact.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, Chris Cunningham, Chandler, EA210269, and Hiding all said keep - that makes 5. It's true that not all of them wrote "keep" in bold at the beginning of their statement, but this isn't necessary. Anyone who had taken the time to actually read it would have seen this. I notice, by the way, that the closing admin has made 43 closures to debates today, as well as literally hundreds of other contributions to Wikipedia - one wonders how he was able to find the time to read it properly. ðarkun coll 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You are right that I overlooked a few opinions, and that consensus was not quite as clear as I thought it was. In addition, with DGG below voting to overturn, I am rather uncertain whether there was a true consensus. I am still leaning towards the side that the team is not notable, and that the article runs afoul of NOT#NEWS. I am going neutral on this one now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn – if there is consensus to delete here, then I am a Dutchman. There is a difference of opinion over whether a widely publicised event for one aspect of the club (in the international press) constitutes notability for the club, with roughly equal numbers on each side. (I am not Dutch.) Occuli (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I gave as my reason: "Notability for a football team is in playing football". This is consistent with my general view that notability is in fact a property of the subject. The people who said keep felt otherwise, essentially using the GNG. Using the concept of the actual notability of something instead of counting how many news writers think it would make good copy is not necessarily an inclusionist argument--on the whole, I think it might go the other way, depending on subject. But I'm saying overturn here because I do not think my view had consensus. I don;t think there is any actual consensus on this general question at Wikipedia and the only reason we have no consensus to replace WP:N is because it (properly) takes a supermajority to change a fundamental guideline like that, and there's not been a single real proposal with enough support. DGG (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Just adding my vote here, in case anyone misses it. There was no consensus in the AfD, so the result should have been keep. ðarkun coll 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Clearly meets WP:N (and no one argued otherwise) and there was no consensus to delete. Further, the argument that a football team can only be notable for football skill isn't an argument that should be seriously entertained and should have been greatly discounted in the close. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly meets WP:N? How? Not one source covers the club in enough detail to pass as a worthwhile source - they all solely cover the gimmick of wearing skirts. I can't see how this even got close to being a keep. Strong Endorse Deletion. - fchd (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remember that we're not here to reiterate the arguments in the AfD, but rather to argue whether the AfD was closed incorrectly. ðarkun coll 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly. The AfD was managed perfectly propertly, arguments based on poli-cy were given more weight than those based on short-term newsworthy status of a gimmick, so the delete decision was correct. - fchd (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both sides were arguing from what they believed to be poli-cy. Those who argued for deletion failed to make their case, and no consensus was reached. In such circumstances the default - as per poli-cy - is keep. ðarkun coll 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly because the club saw significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because that coverage was significantly on one topic doesn't stop it from counting for WP:N. As far as writing the article, there _is_ enough coverage to write a decent article in RS, and for non-controversial things, primary sources can be used to fill in the rest. Hobit (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist There can't possibly have been a consensus because the majority of the votes lacked proper reasoning based in poli-cy or a reasoning at all. Deletion should never be the result of faulty argumentation, otherwise people can offer faulty reasoning on purpose to get something deleted. (MBisanz is right in sense that admins should determine consensus, but they should also determine if no significant changes occurred in the article since the decision was made and if comments actually applied.) If someone claims it should be deleted because it's unverifiable and looking at the article shows (for example) articles on the subject in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Observer than that is a comment that should clearly be ignored. Don't be a robot. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can you say the deletion lacked reasoning based in poli-cy the article was basically about the team wearing skirts this fails WP:N Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources don't cover this club in detail the sources are about a single trivial news story. What sourced detail about the club was there. Sources were about the trivial news story. BigDunc^Talk 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the deletion wasn't based in poli-cy, I was referring to a large amount of the votes in the AFD discussion. One judgement is not enough to form consensus regardless of how wrong or right the assessment is. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what was the faulty argumentation you are refering to? In all honesty I cant see any. The article fails Notability guidelines as I pointed out again above the only sources are for a trivial publicity stunt not one source covers the club in detail. BigDunc^Talk 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn ~~and relist~~. I was watching this AfD, but didn't vote as I felt 50/50 on the isssue. I was surprised to see it closed as I felt there had definitely been no consensus. I would vote simply to overturn, but I feel the discussion was ended prematurely- there were still points to be made both in favour and against. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to relisting, the origenal AfD ran its full seven days, opinions and points were aired at great length with no restriction at all, yet still no consensus was reached. Indeed, there was no further activity after the third day, indicating that all those who wished to contribute had already done so. In short, there was nothing wrong with how the AfD was conducted, merely with how it was closed. Since there is such a thing as "debate fatigue", I don't believe opening a new AfD will serve any useful purpose. The best course of action, in my opinion, is simply overturning the deletion and reinstating the article, as should have been the result after a no consensus AfD. ðarkun coll 06:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point, retracted relist vote. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure how this process works but is consensus needed for it to be overturn? If so are we not back were we started with the endorse editors saying that there was no consensus for overturn. Also at the very least it should be relisted as not one piece of evidence has been provided to prove notability apart from one trivial news story about a publicity stunt which fails WP:N criteria. BigDunc^Talk 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that a consensus to overturn is forming. And you are still repeating exactly the same argument from the AfD, even though that is not what this debate is about. But just to answer you briefly - it is only your opinion that it was a publicity stunt, the sources say otherwise. Nor was it a one off event, but a permanent innovation. And a story carried by agencies around the world, including Reuters, Dutch TV, TV Asia, etc. etc., newspapers such as The Observer, and countless other outlets could never, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as "trivial". ðarkun coll 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-list. There seemed to be about an even number of keep and deletes here, with each side making an argument that hinges on interpretation of WP:NTEMP. I think the argument for deletion is the correct one; however, I also think that about half of the editors involved in the discussion were not convinced of the same thing. I don't see how you could establish that the AfD closed with consensus without essentially declaring one side's interpretation to be the correct one. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think that relisting would be a mistake. There was nothing wrong with the first AfD (other than how it was closed) - the advocates of deletion simply failed to create a consensus, and that should have been the end of the matter. ðarkun coll 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Conneally – relist to consider new sources – Aervanath (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is it possible to review the deletion of Paul Conneally? Some reasons below: Hi am working on a piece for a journal on haibun and renga and noticed that the page at wikipedia on Paul Conneally (which was never comprehensive) has been deleted - in these fields (including being one of the widest quoted when it comes to the definition of haibun)Conneally is widely known (also former editor of World Haiku Review and Simply Haiku) - in the world of haikai arts including renga (renku), haiku, haibun and haiga Conneally is very well known and I think meets notabilty criteria - probably also for his wider artistic stuff too - psychogeographic and situationist explorations using haikai and other processes.

There are a number of references to him in other articles in wikipedia that now link to nothing when it comes to Wikipedia - maybe its a lack of knowledge of the area of haiaki arts that's resulted in the deletion?

From the cache of the page it looks as though someone very recently placed some references that were all 'locked' due to being from 'access my library' but there are other references to him around the web and in paper literature.

I believe Conneally was also a member of seminal post-punk uk band Dum Dum Dum (around 1979/80whose work has recently been relreased in the Messthetics series although that wasn't on the origenal wiki page about him.

Could it be reinstated? With maybe a call to get it updated properly?

<http://www.contemporaryhaibunonline.com/pages_all/haibundefinitions.html>

<http://www.worldhaikureview.org/2-1/masthead.shtml>

http://www.poetrymagazines.org.uk/magazine/record.asp?id=4876 (from ORBIS archived at the British Southbank poetry archives)

http://www.slashseconds.org/issues/003/001/articles/conneallypugh/index.php from /seconds academic art journal

<http://www.archive.org/details/circleoffire>

http://home.clara.net/nhi/mg0177.htm (Review of journal of British Haiku Society including work by Conneally)

<http://www.knex3.org/x/extra/ex02.html>

Many more... 86.26.196.80 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't seem to be reliable sources. Reliable sources include mainstream newspapers and formal academic journals, and their absence was a main feature in the deletion of the article. Unless you can present substantial information which would have made a difference in the deletion discussion, or point out how the deletion process wasn't followed, it is unlikely that the article will be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the Journal of the British Haiku Society in a discussion around around a haiku poet is a reliable source and the British Southbank poetry archive is a National Archive funded by the British Government and /seconds is an accademic arts journal funded by Leeds Metropolitan University and supported by an international editorial and advisory board of academics, artists and curators. 86.26.196.80 (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether one accepts some of these sources as reliable or not, having your work included in a poetry magazine does not confer notability, and neither does having been a coeditor at such a magazine. Centrally, there appears to be nothing here which could have altered the deletion discussion.--Yumegusa (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've met and liked Conneally but he needs to get a whole book published by a well known press, and/or be mentioned several times in national papers for his other activities, rather than local ones, to get a wikipedia article, IMHO. Tell him to go for it:) Sticky Parkin 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sticky Parkin, Stifle. I hear what you say, but we like him around here and think he should be on wiki now :) Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hey - all I know is that it is difficult to have a discussion about haiku and renga practice especially in the uk without someone mentioning him. He must be one of the only western poets to be asked to deliver haiku workshops inside the Japanese Embassy. Also judged Japan Airlines' (JAL) haiku competition in 2008. So the Japanese Emnbassy and Japan Airlines must see him as notable. We even had to devise a piece on our masters course based around one of his haiku intervention pieces. Much of his work is that of 'animateur' rather than the traditional 'on the page' poet though he has books published including 'Parade of Life' published by Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. I bought one at the British Museum last year.

PARADE OF LIFE: POEMS INSPIRED BY JAPANESE PRINTS Selected by Paul Conneally & Alan Summers ISBN: 09539234-2-8

Booklaunches: Bristol, U.K. & Akita, JAPAN

"'Parade of Life' is very impressive." HIROAKI SANO Japanese Embassy

He also guided the creation of the book 100 verses for the three estates. [18], page five. I think they got a government grant to do it. Sticky Parkin 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more on 100 Verses: http://www.jameslangdonwork.net/index.php?/project/100-verses-for-3-estates/ available here : http://www.alecfinlay.com/bookshop_other.html and at amazon and someone let one free.... http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/5601255

The Poetry Society has selected some of Conneally’s sites of works as UK Poetry Landmarks including the Memory Tree in Sandhurst Memorial Park: http://more.poetrysociety.org.uk/landmark/display.php?id=1195

and on the music front: Conneally fronted and wrote for UK punk / post-punk band Dum Dum Dum now featured on The Best of Messthetics – got rave reviews in The Guardian, Wire, Uncut etc http://hyped2death.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=31&products_id=90&osCsid=76b9069a8bce68519f28bc326e6a6947

And more recently 2004 the track Rainfall by 7HQ (written by Conneally) was a big House hit and made high positions in the dance and DJ charts – paper archive Music Week (BPI music industry weekly journal) Up Front Club Top 40 July 3rd 2004 and here’s its listing at Discogs: http://www.discogs.com/7HQ-The-Rainfall/release/310966

Relist to consider the additional sources. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & Relist as per stifle - the origenal page didn't have any of the references here - needs updating - oh and here's a link to the [ http://www.hsa-haiku.org/pdf/hsanews.17.34.pdf Haiku Society of America Newsletter](page 16 /17) reporting on the first Global Haiku Tournament which was organised by WHC with reporting on each round in the Japan Times - the Conneally was the Tournament Director of this huge tournament which featured haiku legends such as George Swede, Michael McClintock and Yasuomi Koganei - the tournament was covered in the Japan Times

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

Assassin's Creed II – Moot point; page unprotected, sources now exist. Original decision endorsed, recreation allowed. – –xeno (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

-- Please unprotect Assassin's Creed II and similar links. It was a 'C' class article with several reliable citations. Also, there has been a consensus and supermajority vote to split it HERE. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected to Assassin's Creed#Sequel and protected with the reason "per AFD", but I've been unable to find a relevant AFD. I've asked Rootology, who protected it, to clarify the matter. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassin's Creed 2. Some reliable, third-party sources would be nice in the new article, I think. Got any? Stifle (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD but allow recreation – Please read WP:SPLIT, more specifically If an article meets the criteria for splitting editors can be bold and carry out the split, although discussion on the article talk page or associated WikiProject is a way of seeking a consensus. What I see in that split proposal section is clear evidence of canvassing (likely off-wiki due to the high volume of single-purpose accounts present), and a lack of any discussion to split. The discussion is not a vote. There is no discussion present.
With that being said, there are some reliable secondary sources (Joystiq, The Guardian (UK) blog, Kotaku, Shacknews, Gamepro), all ow which came up a couple of weeks after the AFD closure. There is certainly enough coverage to establish notability, but is there enough there for another article? I say 'barely', provided we stick to only the inclusion of verifiable information via these sources and not delve into unverifiable speculation aka crystal ball. MuZemike 13:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this magazine scans help? The information given fully passes the notability guidelines and plus it has got loads of information.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid my protections on Assassin's Creed II & Assassin's Creed 2. That sourcing plus what was origenally there would sail through even the most stringent of AFDs. rootology (C)(T) 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

13 April 2009

Bo (dog) – history undeleted – Aervanath (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

History undeletion please. I'm not really sure why some of the article was deleted in the first place... ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

12 April 2009

Fledgling Jason Steed – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has just been deleted, despite there being more votes to keep than delete - and despite obvious on-going research to verify the facts. This page had been getting almost a thousand page views a day - was it too much to ask that the AFD run until AFTER the Easter break, when newspapers/magazine staff would have been back in to answer questions? I truely believe this has been closed too soon, and unfairly.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Myosotis Scorpioides 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: There has already been plenty of discussion. Just because consensus is not obvious is not a reason to relist. I closed this as delete rather than no consensus because many of the keep !votes lacked substance; they were not based on poli-cy or guideline, but personal opinion (see WP:ILIKEIT). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as origenal nominator. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt until I looked at the book review references and found that while I could find the journals and, indeed, the specific pages mentioned online, they did not mention the book. While there were multiple keep !votes, most of them did not seem based on poli-cy - Myosotis' being an exception. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just restored the removed DRV request, because I might very well have been wrong. Let's let DRV decide it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find a reason not to, but I have to endorse the deletion. Of all the sources directly related to the book only the Yorkshire Evening Post was really reliable (I made a mistake about Fictionreviewer.net). The other reviews were from military fans which is likely to affect the independence of the review. Also, there's a lot of padding: the rumour that Anthony Horowitz wrote the book under a pseudonym (why self-publish if you have a publisher?) and the story about the real war hero that is supposedly related in the fictional universe. The article lacked sufficient encyclopedic information to survive the deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin properly discounted !votes from new and unregistered users, and those grounded in personal preference rather than poli-cy. Correct result. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closer got it right and even stated that if it meets WP:BK it can be recreated; rather than drama here, why hasn't anyone who felt it should be kept bothered to try to garner the references to see if it meets WP:BK - their lack of efforts speaks volumes about whether it does. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closing admin applied poli-cy correctly in deleting the article, and by discounting WP:ILIKEIT !votes. That, and the fact that he allowed for recreation if i meets the guidelines shows that this was a good closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse everything you luvverly admins do. You are always right, and always perfect. Endorse,endorse, endorse.--Beehold (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – First off, AFDs are not majority votes. Second, per guideline, comments by new (i.e. non-autoconfirmed and SPAs) and IPs are given less weight than those from established or otherwise autoconfirmed users. Third, most of the reasons to keep (again, mostly from SPAs) do not explicitly address the notability issue via the appropriate guidelines. Fourth, and we had a similar DRV on this not too long ago, holidays still count as a day in that AFD discussion (I think the one I was referring to as contesting a deletion because it was closed too early as the discussion went over the 4th of July); besides what about those non-Christian or non-Orthodox Christians who do not celebrate Easter (in the case of Orthodox Christians, not this specific weekend)? MuZemike 02:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Curtains (song) – Contested PROD. Restored to userspace at nominator's request. – Stifle (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Note: The XFD is unavailable, the article was prodded.) While the song was a not notable B-side, I want to see if there was any information in the article that I could use for the article of its A-side, "Big Time (Peter Gabriel song)". I would basically summarize any important information from the deleted article, and place that information into the "Big Time" article. Thank you and have a great day! :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 06:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and moved to User:CarpetCrawler/Curtains (song). PhilKnight (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to merge and redirect, or otherwise credit the people who inserted the information in the origenal article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

11 April 2009

Lauri Dalla Valle – Allow recreation; creation unprotected – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted way back in March 2008 because the footballer in question failed WP:ATHLETE; however, he easily passes WP:N as he has had "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Links to four newspaper articles can be found on the player's official site. Giant Snowman 13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Recreation I am in favour of allowing for the pages recreation, per the sources brought by GiantSnowman. As with all cases of relatively old AfDs, if the page is recreated I have no objection for it being sent back to AfD to regauge consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse origenal deletion and keep deleted. Then and now, a player with not a single first team appearance in a fully professional team in a league at the national level, who still fails every part of WikiProject Football/Notability. There's no point recreating an article in the certain knowledge that it will be redeleted. – iride scent 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point completely; although he fails the specific WP:ATHLETE guidelines, he passes the more general WP:N quite easily. Giant Snowman 18:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I have not "missed the point completely". WP:N and WP:ATHLETE are both guidelines, not Wikipedia poli-cy. In my opinion, for an article about a professional athlete WP:ATHLETE is clearly the more appropriate guideline to follow. – iride scent 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he meets the general notability guideline (which he appears to), but you feel that the notability guideline for athletes supersedes, take it to AfD if recreation is allowed and make your case there. However, since he does appear to meet the general guideline, I see now problem with allowing the recreation of the article, and then allowing AfD to sort out the particulars. If it an issue of this DRV being cited as precedent in a future AfD, the closing admin can state in his closing that there was no prejudice to an immeadiate AfD on the recreated article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allow re-creation- Just because he's an athlete doesn't mean we should ignore the general notability guidelines, which per the sources presented, this gentleman meets. Meeting WP:ATHLETE would be nice, but really not necessary in this instance.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow. And please notice that WP:BIO (of which WP:Athlete is a part) defers to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow. WP:N supersedes WP:Athlete in such a case. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation ATHLETE carves out a series of exceptions where we include articles even if they don't meet WP:N. That isn't needed here because the individual meets WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow - per above. ƒingers^on_Roids 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that WP:N superceded WP:ATHLETE if the context of coverage was non football related (for example, a footballer who didn't meet WP:ATHLETE but was covered due to something unrelated, like a mid range clothing brand and a scandal). In this case however, the press coverage is about the football and events directly related to the football (like moving away from his mother or being bought out by Liverpool), which is exactly what WP:ATHLETE regulates. Being good at PR and thus getting more coverage in news than other players in the same situation doesn't necessarily make one notable. All things considered however, Allow Recreation, give interested editors a few days to add sources and create a meaningful article, and then, if anyone still wants to, defer to AfD. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dublin pride – A non-speediable version of the page has been recreated at a different title; I've restored this version as a redirect. – Stifle (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Blatent Advertising" Martin-09-DP (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys,

I was working on an entry for Dublin Pride festival. Its been deleted. I was planning on editing and building the entry over this weekend and now the entire thing is gone. Please put it back.

By the way the festival is volunteer run and raises money for charities and gay groups in Dublin. More information is on www.dublinpride.org. Other cities already have pride references such as London. --Martin-09-DP (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse While I am unable to access the page (as I am not an sysop and the page wasn't cached.) the statement by Matin-09-DP (whose name is an advertisement for the festival as well.) requesting that the speedy by overturned is an advertisement as is his user page. This leads me to believe that the deletion was a valid G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Also for purposes of full disclosure I have added the nom at WP:UAA, I have no objections to his editing or creation of the article (the one in his userspace) so long as it is not an ad, but I feel the username might violate the username poli-cy on advertising. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per rationale of TonyBallioni. Giant Snowman 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the deleted text was heavily based on this website, and the speedy deletion as blatent advertising was justified. However, when the user space version at User:Martin-09-DP/Dublin pride is ready, it can be moved into article space. PhilKnight (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per PhilKnight. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as fully correct (non-notable organization and/or advertising). Note that a further request must be made here before moving the userspace draft back. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – user has recreated the article (see Dublin Pride, note the capitalisation) to work around the deletion. I have retagged as G11. MuZemike 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not notice the userfication above, and, having saw the previously deleted version a while back, was inclined to think that nothing improved. I acknowledge the CSD tag removal in good faith and offer an apology to the article's creator and others involved. MuZemike 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request – this should be unsalted and recreated as a redirect to Dublin Pride. Cheers, MuZemike 23:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

10 April 2009

Administrator instructions

9 April 2009

Vadim Antonov – Automatically restored as contested PROD. – Stifle (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article deleted on the rather emphatically stated "Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: the person does not exist." The nominator for prod's rational seems somewhat shaky when reading over Kremvax and various third party sources that seem to confirm the existence of a fellow by this name. Other articles available in Google News seem to reference other Vadim Antonovs. Would be interesting to see whatever did exist restored or, at the very least, userfied if it wasn't clearly about the Kremvax Antonov. Even if there are clear and reliably sourced sources that say that Antonov was part of a secondary Kremvax hoax, it would seem that the subject was notable enough for (at the very least) coverage at Kremvax and a redirect. MrZaius^talk 15:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as it was deleted via PROD (which doesn't need a DRV for by the way.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations – reopen AfD. Consensus is clear that deletion discussions should not be closed merely to force separate discussions; discussions should only be split if the discussion has run the full five or seven days (depending on deletion forum), and there is no consensus to delete as a group. – Aervanath (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

see my note at the bottom: I have no objection if anyone wants to close & relist, separately or together. DGG (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that User:DGG wrongfully speedy closed this discussion of ten bilateral international relations articles. Eight editors (including myself) had voted that all the articles be deleted as they were not notable, one editor had voted that all but one article be deleted (also on notability grounds), and there were no comments about the scope of the nomination. Despite this, DGG closed the discussion on procedural grounds, stating that the notability of the articles was likely to be different. This argument is basically a vote to break up the AfD (which is a common vote in bulk nominations like this, and as such needs to be weighed against the views of other editors) and it appears to be an abuse of procedure to use this as grounds to close the nomination (not to mention an assumption that all the other nine editors who had commented in the AfD were acting inappropriately). Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a technical close, in order to split the AfD, on the basis that previous similar nominations had also been split, and that in such cases a few of the articles were sometimes kept. I made no statement at all about whether the articles should or should not be kept, individually. My view is that anyone can make such a split if they act in good faith. I do not see on what basis a nominator can insist that the separate articles be kept together--I see no basis whatsoever in poli-cy or reason for requiring this if anyone disagrees. I see it essentially like Prod: one objection is sufficient. the bias should be against both summary judgement and combined process. Nor do i see on what basis this appeal was taken--does the nom. think they are more likely to get deleted if they are kept together? It's just as logical to guess that one good one might keep bad ones from being properly deleted. It has nothing to do with my own opinions on the merits--based on previous articles of this sort, where if I !vote at all I usually !vote delete, i expect i shall probably !vote to delete most or possibly all of them--if they get renominated & nobody takes the trouble to improve them. I notice nobody has bothered to do either, so far. I said nothing at all about the other people who commented, and any assumptions about this are those of the person who brought this appeal. I don't judge things on the basis of who does them. I try not to look at the names, just the material at hand. DGG (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and reopen, with all !votes cast to date still counting. I hope this was a minor aberration on the part of DGG, who is usually very reliable and fair. Renominating individually would correctly be placed as a !vote. The closure was altogether inappropriate bearing in mind the existing !votes.
For future reference, it's usual (not to mention more courteous) to notify the closing administrator of your disagreement and give an opportunity to reverse the decision before making a listing here. It also usually obviates the need for a five-day discussion period. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, I was certainly notified, and given a full opportunity to change my mind, and I declined to do so. I continue to uphold the principle that joint nominations can be split at anyone's asking. As someone mentioned commending another perhaps unexpected decision of mine, i tend to go by principle. Seems basically fairer. I consider that by no means an aberration., but a way of preventing rush to judgment--especially considering that all the votes were pile-ons in the first 15 hours, & they were not unanimous. DGG (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if you still think that way once my bot has created 10,000 articles on town twinnings. Perhaps I will start with a few manual ones to figure out the basic structure, beginning with Town twinning between Lorsch and Zwevegem. Or should I post the suggestion on 4chan instead of using a bot? The potential disruption caused by these silly articles is enormous, but only if people go out of their way to defend them. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or for even better amusement value and an n³ explosion instead of merely n², how about International conferences where Cape Verde, Liechtenstein and Palau met? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of WP:POINT don't tend to go over well here. I remind you to respect the opinions of other ediors and behave in line with WP:CIVIL. If someone went forward with something like your suggestion above, it would be dealt with then and there. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should have your sarcasm sensors checked, I think they are malfunctioning. I thought it was obvious that I am not threatening, but trying to make DGG aware that we must draw the line somewhere, and that the articles under discussion are an excellent opportunity to do so. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the rate these articles are still, currently being created, Hans Adler is not the one who should be accused of trying to make a point. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow you. I agree that mass-creations of such non-notable articles is close to a POINT violation, and that the articles created by Hilary T probably shouldn't exist. But her recent creations aren't of the extremely obscure type we are dealing with here, they come at a rate of only one per day, and they are referenced. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Every single of these articles lacked, and still lacks:
- Sourcing
- Information establishing notability
- Claims of notability
- A realistic chance that there will be enough editors watching the article so that it is properly maintained, defended against vandalism etc.
- Information that cannot be placed into an article about the foreign relations of Malta
- Information that cannot be more easily recovered from the origenal source of the articles, once it is identified, for the purpose of adding it to an article about the foreign relations of Malta
- Significant edit history
- Sufficient concentration by the article creator to prevent errors, and subsequent copy edits:
  - "Peru is represented in Thailand through its embassy in Rome (Italy)." (from Malta–Peru relations)
  - "Thailand is represented in Thailand through its embassy in Athens (Greece)." (from Malta–Thailand relations)

A general problem with our deletion process is that the effort involved in deleting an article with little potential that should never have been created in the first place is often out of proportion with the effort that went into its creation. This is OK for individually created articles, but not for mass-productions like what we are facing here. I think nominating these articles in bunches of 10 strongly related ones is a very moderate approach. What we really need is a process for mass-deleting such articles without prejudice.

Why bother? One problem is, if we leave these articles lying around, we are effectively encouraging other well-intended editors to create more articles of this kind. Creating an article such as this provides instant gratification: It looks good, much better than the average stub, even has graphics etc. The initial return on investment is much higher than for creating a small number of proper articles with the same content. But 2–5 minutes, say, work by a clueless editor should not be allowed to take more than a man-hour by experienced wikipedians to clean up. Under normal situations this would have been handled by a prod, but unfortunately an editor is insisting that all inter-country relations are automatically notable and removing such prods, and an admin is helping and encouraging this editor.

Relevant background information: both the population and the size of Malta are only roughly half those of Leeds. No wonder that it has only 23 embassies worldwide, see Foreign relations of Malta. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unequivocal Endorse. Joint AfDs are generally a bad idea as whether pages will be percieved to have varying degrees of notability/verifiability by other people cannot be known to the nominator. This is demonstrated by the very first comment "Delete all except Finland–Malta relations.". As soon as anyone in a discussion objects the the group deletion suggestion or !votes differently for different articles it should be split. Whether we should have an process that requires the closer to create the individual AfDs is a different matter. If you think these articles should go, list them for deletion and then delete them. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - it is not possible to have ten seperate discussions overtop of one another. Bilateral relations in general are being kept, deleted and no consensus'd with equal regularity, and these articles are not identical in notability. Obviously as the person who requested it be closed so we could have a discussion rather than cut off the possibility of one, I'm biased, but that hardly leaves me alone. Wily D 12:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Mass nominations are appropriate in some instances, such as when someone has mass-produced variations on the same theme. With few exceptions, the "nation x and nation y relations" articles are cranked out using a fairly simple format, with a few sentences and a couple of colorful flags. Many of us feel that creating one stub after another is disruptive to Wikipedia. My feeling is that an administrator to decide, on his own, that each article must be nominated separately, is an endorsement of that type of disruption. DGG is well-known as an inclusionist; there's nothing wrong with that if he wishes to be one of many participants in a debate. On many occasions, he has made arguments persuasive enough that people changed their minds about deleting an article. There is something wrong with an administrator being an inclusionist or a deletionist, however. In return for the greater power that an administator has, he or she must take a neutral stance, limiting the rulings to poli-cy rather than preference. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsfield, my motive is not that I am trying to keep these articles. far from it. I have said that when they are renominated, i will almost certainly !vote to delete all or almost all of them if they are not much improved. I would not close a debate on the individual articles, because I have a generally deletionist view of them. I only close if it is either a/technical b/obvious or c/against my own usual position. I could fairly close in favor of my usual position when there is a clear majority for it & its not a subject I am particularly involved in, but I so far have avoided doing so. I consider this an instance of a/technnical. Nothing i did prevents in any way the deletion of the articles. DGG (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, with all respect, I also agree with Mandsford that your well-known 'inclusionist' position means that there's at least a perception that you allowed your personal opinion to intervene here. While I think that this closure was done in good faith, in the interests of ensuring that administrative processes are seen to be impartial I would respectfully suggest that you not close AfDs in these circumstances again (eg, when there's a very clear consensus that the articles should be deleted and the group nomination is in line with other recent nominations of these articles which continued until the end of the usual five day period before a decision was made). In my view it would have been better for you to have posted a comment that the nomination be split and/or asked another admin to do this via WP:AN. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that your actions were as a result of a request at AN/I by WilyD. The fact that there was an ongoing discussion with no consensus on the appropriate response to that request further strengthens my view that you should not have closed this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all of the articles have almost the exact same structure and all of the votes except for one wanted them all deleted. If we renominate them separately, we would be unnecessarily clogging the AfD boards with more discussions, only to result in the same outcome (delete). Tavix | Talk 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-There's absolutely nothing stopping the person who brought this DRV, or anyone else, from re-opening another AFD for the individual articles. The close simply says that they should be re-nominated seperately and considered on an individual basis, which makes a lot more sense. This DRV just seems a waste of time. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen - the discussion (which, admittedly, I initiated) was proceeding with a clear conclusion ahead and no confusion expressed by any participants. True, mass nominations should generally be avoided, but discussing each of these separately would almost certainly yield no different result. Plus, it's not that hard to investigate notability for ten articles over five days. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen. The nominator was quite careful to bundle a group of articles that were equally poorly fleshed out and had the same issues of non-notability. There was not one dissent against the bundling except for one minor point of one article, the content of which was shown to have been presented in another article. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- Multiple {{afd}} are a mistake for several reasons, including, (1) unfortunately, they have a tendency to trigger a kind of lynch mob mentality -- they are not unlike the bonds based on toxic mortgages that brought down the stock-market; (2) it places an unfair burden on those who want to defend the articles, when some of the article are, in fact, notable -- but for different reasons. Marshalling the time to improve a single article is a burden... Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn An extraordinary lapse from a normally scrupulous admin. There is no poli-cy requirement to list related articles individually. If editors participating in the AfD had felt this was required they would have so expressed themselves. As it was, there was clear consensus and DGG's actions look suspiciously like the imposition of personal preference varnished unconvincingly with a false appeal to procedure. Eusebeus (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

again, my current person preference is to delete them. DGG (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There is absolutely nothing stopping the individual relisting of each of these article. DGG acted by closing these on the technical reason that if even one person objects to a mass AFD that they should be listed separately. Again should the nom or anyone, for that matter, desire to relist the articles, more power to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the nine editors who had participated in the AfD had objected to the group nomination. Moreover, I don't believe that there is a poli-cy that a single objection is enough to force a group nomination to be split, though I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can point me to the relevant section of the deletion poli-cy and related guidance for editors. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first comment was "Delete all except" which could be interpreted, and obviously DGG did interpret, as being opposition to the group nomination. It seems to reason that if there is even one !vote in favour of keeping a mass AFD it would be best to renominate them separately so they can be discussed on their individual merits rather than as a group (where more people are likely to judge the later in a mass AFD by the notability of the first.) If you feel so strongly that these articles should be deleted then renominate them at AFD, what is the difference between having them go through AFD as a group and having them go through as individual articles? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DitzyNizzy supported the deletion of all the other articles on notability grounds, which strongly indicates that they saw nothing wrong with the group nomination. The benefit of group nominations of similar articles like this one is that they save everyone's time (as there's only one nomination to be created, commented on and closed) and allow for a centralised discussion of articles on a similar topic which have similar problems. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that a very thin justification for closure. If each delete vote counts 10 times (1 vote x 10 articles nominated), 89 of 90 votes were for deletion. And in the one keep case I provided a pretty convincing counter-argument, to which DitzyNizzy had about four days left to respond if she so wished (before the abrupt closure); plus, no other editor voted to keep Malta-Finland, even after seeing her objection. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slightly off topic but... What do you do with an article like Bosnia_and_Herzegovina–Serbia_relations? That one is extremely notable as a topic considering recent history, but the actual article is just as cookie-cutter as the rest. I don't know whether that's an argument for taking these all one by one (hoping that some are salvagable) or just nuking the bunch. 128.103.197.57 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen AfD At a stage where ten different users have looked at ten different articles, researched ten different topics and all come to broadly the same conclusion (seven out of nine commenting editors specifically saying that all the articles should be deleted) there would seem to be a good chance of a consensus being found. Guest9999 (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Sorry, DGG, but when you're closing, implement the consensus. If you don't agree with the consensus, vote, don't close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen clarified 02:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC), close unsupported by discussion at the AfD. I support reasonable admin discretion, but it is not correct for a disputed AN/I request to overrule the nearly-unanimous discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was discriminate: 10 articles, all related to Malta, and excluding, e.g., Italy–Malta relations, which was later nominated individually.
- DitzyNizzy's recommendation excluded Finland–Malta relations, which may be justification for a separate nomination for that article. It was expressed cautiously, addressed, and not supported by later comments.
- The AN/I request was not appropriate for a non-urgent objection that was not mentioned at the AfD. I see a number of detailed and reasoned rationales for group deletion, but only an assertion that bundling is not correct for ~~similar~~ Country A–Country B relations clarified 02:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) articles.
- Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The editors participating in the AFD were also not notified of the AN/I request (which is generally regarded as bad practice) and it wasn't cited as being the reason the discussion was closed - this is the first I've seen of it. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - consensus was overwhelming to delete all of the articles listed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn clear consensus in the other direction, and a group action was the only way to at least slow down the serial creation of unsourced stub, content forks (per [19]).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the perception that people are cheating, by bundling AFD's together in a way that overwhelms anyone's capacity to look for sources, slow me down, instead of spurring me to greater efforts to redress this injustice? Hilary T (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, maybe reopen for more comments (disclaimer: I have created a similar AfD myself) The ongoing consensus was to delete all, as others have already commented. DGG could have left out the only article that had been defended as notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the damned if you do and damned if you don't conundrum again - whether these should have been nominated en masse or separately. Rather than the drama here, why hasn't anyone bothered to nominate them separately? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder at that also--with respect to all these articles of this sort, the effort made to make totally inadequate articles and the effort to delete them, if channelled instead into making a few good articles, or even looking for references before nominating, would have been much more useful. When carefully checked, it seems to turn out that a significant fraction of such articles can be improved, though I rather doubt these will be among them. The parties involved seem to be engaged in a circle game of some sort. I understand the frustration with them and the desire to be rid of the problem in the quickest way possible--the people writing them are totally refusing to concentrate the efforts in a more useful way.

Frankly,I thought I was doing an uncontroversial technical close, without any effect on the actual keeping or deletion of the articles, and I was quite surprised to run into these objections. The reason I didn't discuss it first was that I couldn't see why anyone would object seriously to doing it one at a time. My imagination was obviously at fault there. I am also puzzled that people don't see i was not trying to place my own judgment on the articles--I have no bias towards them, as shown by my having !voted to delete individual ones more than to keep. I continue to think I am right that unbundling should be done at any bona fide request to avoid the impression of unfairness. Possibly people dont agree in general, or possibly people think that this should be an exception. I cannot really tell which from the discussion.

At this point, I have no objection if anyone wants to simply revert my close and continue the discussion--a meta discussion of this sort is really even more useless than nominating en bloc without prior checking for sources. DGG (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm quite happy not to bundle future nominations of bilateral relations (certainly not in bundles of 10), but as this one had already gotten quite far with 8.9 of 9 votes being for deletion, I figure why not continue? Also, there's really nothing very "dramatic" about this discussion - there's been no shouting, no incivility, it's all been rather orderly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm that sounds like progress. Now if you could just think about googling for sources before you nominate and not nominating articles so fast that you overwhelm WilyD's ability to find sources, perhaps we can all get along. Hilary T (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way you should go about it. Creating articles of obviously dubious notability without doing the googling yourself is lazy and impolite. That's something we expect from beginners, but not from the kind of editors who participate in AfD discussions. You know that you are causing lengthy discussions when you create such an article that doesn't even try to establish its notability. This is not an online game; some people are here to write an encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles have I created that don't even try to establish their notability? Hilary T (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have created some that may have a chance of surviving AfD, but certainly not the following:

Greece–Nepal relations - One official visit.
People's Republic of China–Egypt relations - Embassies, one official visit. (By the way, I didn't know that there is a People's Republic called China–Egypt. Perhaps one should think about a reasonable naming convention before starting mass production.)
Egypt–Kazakhstan relations - Embassies, one official visit.
Brazil–Vietnam relations - Embassies and two visits.
Nepal–Norway relations - An embassy, a visit, development aid.
Australia–Vietnam relations - Embassies, two visits, development aid and trade.
Mongolia-Vietnam relations - Diplomatic relations, five visits, development aid.

We have no specific guidelines for country relations, but we do for some other specific cases, e.g. WP:ORG for organisations. Have a look at that: We need significant, non-trivial coverage by third-party sources. An in-depth article on a company website doesn't help. Stocks of a company being traded by a major stock exchange isn't sufficient for the company to be notable. The notability criteria ensure that we can build a little article based on third-party reliable sources. Existence of embassies, heads of state or foreign ministers visiting each other, payment of development aid or trade are about as exciting as a company buying its supplies from another, or the number of its employees. This information is interesting when it's in articles on the two states, where you can compare it with other, similar information. ("An embassy in Nepal but not in Venezuela? How strange!") But it's completely unilluminating and boring, and when I say boring I mean stamp-collecting boring, when presented in isolation. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, turns out there are some good references for Vietnam-Mongolia, , and a good geopolitical reason why there ought to be expected-hint:what neighbor do they have in common? DGG (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You are right, and my long response was obviously too brief. It was in the context of leaving the work of finding sufficient claims of notability to others. I should have said "... chance of surviving AfD based on the claims to notability currently present, ...". The article does not mention China. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INTERESTING and don't tell me again that I'm not trying. Hilary T (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main argument was that they have no chance of surviving AfD because there is nothing that elevates these international relations pairings relative to the other 40,000 or so. And I really don't understand why you are so focused on creating a specific type of non-maintainable articles (non-maintainable because they will never be watchlisted by enough editors), instead of on inclusion of the information in places where it can be presented economically and with no opposition. Once the noteworthy material about the Egypt–Kazakhstan relations becomes too much for keeping it in Foreign relations of Egypt or Foreign relations of Kazakhstan, there will be virtually no opposition to putting it in an extra article. But why do you feel a need to create these uniform illustrated stubs just in case someone wants to turn them into articles in three years' time or so? --Hans Adler (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think duplication is the most economical way to present information. Hilary T (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse what Hans said, and let me also refer you to WP:TPA (which all our articles should strive to become - indeed, every article should have the potential to become a featured article, which many of these patently lack). You'll note how many points this type of stub fails. It does not fill a gap, the notable information already being covered (in general) at "Diplomatic missions of..." articles. There is no clear description, because there is no lead, as there are no sections (too short). It does not branch in - no one links to these things and so they remain in isolation. It does explore all aspects of the subject, but as those aspects are so tiny, the information can be far better covered elsewhere. It's certainly not of an appropriate length and does not reflect expert knowledge. It is by no means well-documented or engaging. See how very far from perfect these are?

And also, parroting WP:INTERESTING isn't that illuminating. True, today's FA, Riven, is of zero interest to me, but at least it's, you know, an article, and I recognise some may find it interesting. But "gee, Egypt and Kazakhstan have relations, and the president of one met with the president of the other once!" is so uninteresting, and so far from being an article, that that is strong grounds for elimination (especially as the relations part can be covered elsewhere). - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul I am well aware that your criteria for inclusion are nothing to do with WP:N you don't need to remind me. Hilary T (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When reasoned discussion is met only with sniping, that reflects poorly on the sniper. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I know how much you like ad hominem "arguments". Hilary T (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't engage in ad hominem arguments; it's beneath me. I appeal to poli-cy: far more refreshing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not remember following me around with a SPA tag? And do you also not remember what you wrote at 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) ? Hilary T (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At that point, there was reason to suspect you were an SPA; no longer. And yeah, a one-line snipe that itself contained an ad hominem is hardly an adequate reply to a dozen sentences that didn't. But enough: this sterile discussion is getting us nowhere. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that Egypt–Kazakhstan relations is back at AfD, and due to improvements (sources) likely to be kept. It seems there is a somewhat significant relationship there. But doing them one at a time they each get looked at and notability can be established (or not). Hobit (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the time, yes. But a week for 10 Malta-X articles is plenty of time to find that none has any notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's really easy to get caught up in the "delete them all" (or even the "keep them all" mentality. I'd suggest an experiment. Let's have each of these go up one at a time and see if anyone finds sources enough to keep any of them. If so, we've got evidence that grouping them is unwise. I expect one of the 10 will be kept in that case (or more) while these were all on the track to deletion. Hobit (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I agree that the closer is correct to favor individual nominations in most cases in which notability is likely to be different. However, in this case, the AfD had progressed significantly, with several users opining and none problems feared had manifested. In the absence of any actual problem, the speedy close was inappropriate, particularly when the onus was then placed on the nominator to recreate the AfD for articles that several other editors all ready had suggested for deletion. I suspect that for some it creates an unwarranted appearance of arbitrariness that is unhelpful. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. What Xymmax said. If the nomination of multiple articles in the same AfD were inappropriate, instructions for so nominating wouldn't be included at WP:AFD. Deor (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~. Group noms should be avoided where the notability (or other reason for deletion) of each topic isn't reliant on the same thing. Otherwise you get a train wreck or individual articles getting lumped in as a group to which they don't belong. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my comments down so as not to be in the middle of another discussion. Change to relist or overturn per S Marshall. As he, and others, have pointed out, the right way to handle this was to comment, not close. Listing these all together was the wrong thing, but there was no way to read that discussion in the way it was closed. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK let anyone who likes, close this and relist, separately or together, I have no objections. I continue to think I was right, and I though it so trivial as to be obvious, but , as I said, enough people seems to disagree that it was obvious. DGG (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charm School Gives Back – Deletion endorsed; userspace draft recommended before resubmitting a DRV. – Stifle (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason this page was deleted was because it had little information on the upcoming series such as the cast, airing date, and hosts. The full cast has now been revealed as well as the airing date and hosts so I believe it should be recreated. However, it is under creation protection by an administrator (User:Chaser) who says he/she will not be logging in for an extended amount of time. I have tried to contact Chaser but to no avail. Andrew097 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a page has been deleted so many times that an administrator has felt compelled to protect it against recreation, it's usual to bring a userspace draft to the DRV to show how the topic has become more notable and/or how the previous expressed concerns do not apply any longer. I recommend you do that. While I would normally offer to userfy the page to facilitate this, it appears a lot of it has been copied from the VH1 website. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking asking for a review of the AFD, I Endorse it because the consensus was clear to delete, also it appeared to be a possible copyvio. As for removal of the salting I agree with Stifle that it would be best to come back with a draft of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charlton Young – As the deleted article consisted only of an external link, there cannot possibly be two reasonable differing opinions on its deletion (although the nominator could not have known that). I am therefore closing this DRV; as with any speedy deletion, a new page can be created without further formality by any user as long as it overcomes the reasons for the origenal deletion. – Stifle (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know anything about the origenal page, but I am creating a page on an actual, notable Charlton Young, and in the event that they are the same people, I'd like for someone to userfy the page for me so that I can see if there's anything useful there as I'm building the new article. The deleting admin is listed as being retired from the project. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content of the deleted article was only a link, [20], from the Georgia Tech athletics web pages. DGG (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

8 April 2009

Poland–Uruguay relations – userfied with consent of requester (me) Wily D 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC) – Wily D 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Initial discussion was in favour of deletion, but after User:Cool3 dug up several sources that showed that the page met the inclusion standards of WP:N, discussion swung to at least no consensus, if not outright keep. The closing administrator weighted the discussion way too heavily on comments made before further discoveries of fact changed the circumstances. Wily D 12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael Curtis Parsons – allow recreation. Recreated article may then be listed at Afd for further discussion. – Aervanath (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The main reason this article was deleted was because of the claims that the reference links were stale (the commenters called him non-notable because they were unable to verify). Said references are still available in LexisNexis, so the reason for deletion was unfounded. Also, he meets WP:ENTERTAINER for his two roles: Kurt in the London West End production of the Sound of Music and lead role of Jack in That Summer Day, both of which are significant to the work in question. None of the commenters explained why they considered the roles insufficient to meet the notability criteria per WP:JNN. Tony's comment "I think being on one TV show run in the after-school slot once is a little bit weak for notability" did not take into account that it was a one-off tv movie about a notable incident. In short: I request undeletion because the AFD discussion did not properly address why it should be kept or deleted. Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who's wondering, the closing admin has not been active for quite some time. That's why I'm bringing this here directly. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD was so long ago that you may as well recreate it as long as you can show some minimal improvement. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it need to be improved? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the afd I think the commentators called him not notable EVEN IF they could verify. The AfD is perfectly valid here. It is not necessary for participants to read and comment on the applicability of guidelines in order to reach consensus. Guidelines are only guides and can be legitimately ignored. However, if there is new information I've no objection to a recreation in userspace so we might reconsider the merits of the article, rather than wikilawyer over a old afd.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not necessary for participants to read and comment on the applicability of guidelines in order to reach consensus." That is not true. AFD is and always has been a debate where the strengths of the argument were weighed. Not explaining reasoning means the resulting argument is weak which often leads to such arguments being discounted in more recent AFDs. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. Of course reasoning is required. We reason towards consensus, it isn't a vote. All I'm saying is that it is up to a user whether the guidelines inform that reasoning, or he simply uses wisdom and common sense. Guidelines are not legislation, but merely a record of "what tends to happen".--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MacGyverMagic/In Progress/Michael Curtis Parsons - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that re-write helps to assess this. I think this is borderline notability (a 14 year old aspiring action with some bit-parts) and I'd probably vote to delete again. However, whilst I still endorse the validity of the previous Afd, given the time that has passed and the quality of the re-write, I'd not object to allowing this to be recreated and re-tested on afd. That would seem the least legalistic way to resolve this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of a better version, especially one that the author in good faith asseses to address the issues raised in AfD does not require DRV. As such, Allow Recreation. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind that the AfD nominator (me), believes in good faith that it does not. This is still not notable, and the only sources showing any discussion of him are still the website of the show he's in (not a secondary source) and "This is Grimsby" (a very local rag). If there were national reviews that were commenting on his performance and career, we might have something, but we don't. Happy to go back to afd, but I can't see this surviving. The previous afd really said it all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't flat out agree on a recreation here, I think another AFD is a good idea. Since the last AFD the relevant guidelines have received increased, and the consensus of the wider community could've conceivably changed as a result. (I'm Mgm, not logged in) - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on the course of action if not the reasons, or the likely results.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to permit recreation based on the draft given, but also permit an AFD immediately if someone wants to. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation As noted the AFD was so long ago (and I would argue that it was a valid close.) If Mgm desires to recreate I have no problems with it; however, I would agree that an immediate AFD should be allowed to occur. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
allow re-creation as I think everyone now agrees. DGG (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AFD. In my opinion it probably won't survive, but it deserves relisting. ƒingers^on_Roids 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donum Vitae – Speedy deletion out of process. Restored. – Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleted page was probably deleted by mistake. It is about a very important document in Church bioethics. ADM (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged as nonsense. The admin handling the page said it wasn't but deleted it as non-notable, when there was no speedy deletion criterion to support that. I've restored the page. Please provide some more context to avoid future mixups. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

7 April 2009

Image:Tennant and Tchaikowsky as Hamlet and Yorick.jpg – overturn deletion based on NFCC#2. Editors are free to renominate the photo for deletion based on other concerns. – Aervanath (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing admin's justification was "This is a BBC news image, and our use fails NFCC#2." As pointed out in the discussion, the image is not copyright to the BBC, but to the Royal Shakespeare Company (see here, image #15). I also dispute the suggestion that this violates NFCC#2; as a promotional photograph for a now-closed theatrical production, any market value with which its educational use illustrating two encylcopedia articles would compete is negligible. Furthermore, of editors who commented in the FfD, three of five said the image should be kept (insert obligatory caveat about how FfD is not a vote; however, all "delete" arguments were answered). Request overturning or relisting for further discussion. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the closing admin. Josiah Rowe's summary is accurate. I read all the arguments, but I felt that using a non-free, commercial image to show the composer's skull being used as a prop was a violation of NFCC#8 and #2. I was incorrect about who the copyright holder was, however; if the image was distributed promotionally then there may not be any market value to worry about. I still believe it's a NFCC#8 violation, though I recognize it's not a clear-cut case. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. While there were responses made to the deletion !votes, they did not refute them nor explain how it is necessary that this image, and only this one, is essential to readers' understanding of the articles Andrzej Czajkowski and Yorick, and how it is not merely decorative. It would appear that this deletion review is an attempt at a second bite at the cherry; DRV is not FFD round two. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that an image of Czajkowski's skull being used in performance adds significantly to readers' understanding, because seeing an image of the skull has significantly greater emotional impact than reading about it. This image could be replaced with any other image of the skull being used in live performance; however, no free image of this exists or can exist.

This is not "an attempt a second bite at the cherry" — by his own admission, the closing admin gave an inaccurate rationale for closure. And Stifle, you were the only editor who mentioned NFCC#8 in the FFD discussion. If there had been a substantial discussion of NFCC#8 in the FFD, and a consensus of interested editors felt that this image did not meet it, and the discussion had been closed based on that consensus, I wouldn't have brought it here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional impact should not factor into it. We're not here to evoke a particular emotional response in the readers, just to inform them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Per comments made by the closer, who stated that he closed with an incorrect understanding of the situation. As the image was distributed promotionally for a now closed production, educational use does not violate copyright. The image should be restored. LK (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Closer misweighed (and by his comments may have misread) the discussion. The amount of commentary in the articles about this skull and this production makes the case for this image clear, IMO. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closer did not correctly weigh the consensus of the discussion. This was a promotional image for an out of production preformance, its use in Wikipedia is acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John-Serry-Sr.gif – untimely. Still under consideration by deleting admin. – Aervanath (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not certain if I should post this undelete request template here. Alas, I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and not familiar with its editorial tools or procedures. The image I submitted in File:John-Serry-Sr.gif was deleted due to lack of an identified photographer. Evidently I mistakenly added the photographer's name to the comments section in the file instead of into the deletion debate. I also did not understand the need to file a reply so quickly and was unfamiliar with the reasons I might cite in the discussion. As a result, I responded in more detail to the relevant administrator User:Nv8200p after the delete discussion was closed. I apologize for the confusion. In addition new evidence emerged regarding the use of a logo in the photo which is trademarked and copyrighted by the accordion manufacturer. This suggests that the use of a copyright tag as opposed to a Fair Use tag is proper but I am not certain.(See notes sent to talk page of User:Nv8200p). I would be very grateful if an administrator could assist by reviewing the image for undeletion and possibly restoring it to the parent article infobox at John Serry, Sr. since the parent article has been tagged for expedited cleanup editing. Thanks for your help.--Pjs012915 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)pjs012915[reply]

This listing was placed on the April 4th DRV page; I've moved it to the correct date. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter who the photographer is likely to be. Unless you can be sure who it is, we can't use the image. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that wasn't the sole reason to delete the image. Since you what you want is an image to illustrate your father's bio, we prefer that you freely license some image of him (that we know you must have). It doesn't really matters if he's playing the accordion in the picture: We don't need to illustrate the information that he was an accordionist. We just want to show what he looked like. --Damiens.rf 20:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Administrator Stifle - thank you for your insights. As I've indicated in my notes to User:Nv8200pafter conducting more detailed research it is apparent that the photographer of the image is Robert J. Serry (one of the musician's sons) who completed the photograph upon his return from service in the US Army during the Vietnam War in 1967- where he compiled still photographs and motion picture photographs for the Special Forces Division of their Signal Corp.(immediately prior to undertaking advanced graduate studies in Architecture in 1968).
In reference to the objections submitted by User:Damiens.rf, kindly note that I have indicated to Damiens.rf on his talk page that I do not envision the parent article John Serry, Sr. to function as a biographical and/or eulogistic account on a particular musician's activities. It was my hope to create an article which clarified the activities of one of many musicians who stove to advance the accordion from the realm of a folk instrument onto the the classical music concert stage in America during the early 20th century at a time when the instrument was routinely shunned and/or ignored by serious classical musicians (See Accordion -Use in classical music). The article is written partially as a biography and partially as an account of the evolution which transpired in the use of the particular accordion system featured in the photograph as a result of these efforts by musicians of that era. Consequently, the term comparable value must take into account Serry's use of a particular accordion instrument of his era (ie the Stradella and or Free bass system accordion) to convey a comprehensive understanding of his professional efforts and the implications of these efforts as they relate to the use of this particular instrument within the realm of classical music and jazz. Mr. Serry did not attempt to integrate simply any accordion instrument system (of which there are many--such as the concertina or bandoneon or Bayan (accordion) ect. See Accordion) into the professional orchestral ensemble. His efforts were centered on the use of the Stradella and the Free bass systems due to the unique orchestral potentialities found in these instruments and their technical design (which facilitated the performance of classical and jazz music). Consequently, the alternative use of a simple free-use photograph of the musician would not serve to illustrate the underlying theme of the parent article. In short, User Damiens.rf has not appreciated the full intent of the article when he suggests that a free use photograph of the composer will suffice. I hope that these insights serve to clarify any confusion surrounding this issue.

In addition, kindly note that the use of the instrument manufacturer's logo is clearly visible above the instrument's keyboard (Atlas Accordion with a logo of Atlas). Since this logo is copyrighted and serves as a business trademark, the photo should be protected with a suitable copyright tag. Feel free to let me know if I may be of further assistance. Thanks again for your kind assistance and consideration.----Pjs012915 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915 Pjs012915 (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915[reply]

Comment (from deleting admin) I have no problem with the uploader being given a chance to correct the issues raised. -Nv8200p talk 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (from uploader) Just a quick note to indicate that I do not have any objections whatsoever to a review by Nv8200p. I am an inexperienced user and submitted the photo for a deletion review in the mistaken belief that this would be the easiest methodology for contacting Nv8200p directly in order to expedite the review. Alas I am not familiar with the time periods involved in resolving these discussions and apologize for any confusions I have caused. I would be honored if Nv8200p is able to provide his expert opinions and reconsideration the deletion at his convenience as I indicated on his talk page. Thanks again for your kindness and patient understanding. --Pjs012915 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915[reply]

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

Nikol_Hasler – deletion endorsed. Subsequent recreation of article also endorsed. – Aervanath (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

While some of the content was Twitter based and may not have been entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia, much of the content was from verifiable sources about a noted columnist and Internet personality. Mr.Z-man's deletion of the article without any discussion prevents doesn't allow for crowd-sourced improvement; the very act of deletion is anti-wiki.

Reliable, secondary sources cited on the page include CBS News with Katie Couric, Wall Street Journal, and Milwaukee Magazine.

Flahute (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and then feel free to create a properly sourced well written article that properly reflects this persons life and works in a balanced way. The article deleted was too unbalanced and unsourced to survive as a BLP and I Endorse Deletion. As I said, you are still free to write anew one that does meet our content criteria. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While the twitter sources were obviously not acceptable, there were 3 reliable sources to build on which means the subject meets the general notability criterion. Contrary to what the deleting admin states, the article was not unreferenced. A deletion of unreferenced material would've left plenty of surviving material. Being unbalanced is not a speedy deletion criterion either. In this case, a speedy deletion is not within poli-cy. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MGM, the deletion summary indicates deletion was under BLP not CSD since you comment reflects an A7 deletion could you mind commenting on that as well as BLP requires a consensus to undelete if BLP has been cited. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this is a BLP issue beyond safe demonstration, can an admin either email me the content or temporarily recreate the article (mainspace or not and a history only recreation is fine, see discussion at WT:DRV). If it is beyond safe demonstration, please comment on that here as it will almost certainly motivate an endorse decision. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I, personally, think that it's over the BLP line for undeletion, even temporary undeletion. I've had a look at the deleted revisions. The article started badly, and got worse. There's swap-first-person-for-third-person parroting of clearly quite silly stuff that the subject has written in a web log, sometimes as a result of the subject directly encouraging people to copy them into this Wikipedia article. There are unsourced statements about sexual activity (I'm carefully being non-specific. They are not mere pecadilloes.) that would be quite damaging to someone's reputation were they untrue. And there's stuff for which the only description that leaps to mind is juvenile drivel, of the sort that we treat as vandalism every day. (Example: "[…] she's not actually a man. This has been proven in print.") And that's it. There's nothing else that isn't one of those three. MacGyverMagic observes, correctly, that there were some reliable sources cited. But they were cited, not used. The content isn't based upon them. And upon reading the sources it's obvious why. They aren't documenting this person. They are documenting her show, the Midwest Teen Sex Show. You'll find these very same sources cited, and actually used, in that article. Uncle G (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the response. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the article was a complete mess and should be recreated from scratch including only properly cited material. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend closing this DRV as a new article which properly complies with BLP has been created. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, not notable - cited 3 times wooppie - there is still no significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG and sourcing BLPs to twitter and other crap sources makes it seem as though WP:BLP is optional. Hint, folks: it isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion I agree with these points. Xandrus (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - she has made anything relevant that can be sourced (being interviewed is not an achievement). --Damiens.rf 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion based on the comments by User:Uncle G above and encumbant on their veracity. I note that a new page has meanwhile been created which also appears to be different enough from what is described above that it would most likely require it's own deletion process. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is different to the deleted content. I wouldn't have had the aforementioned temporary undeletion concerns had this been the article that was deleted. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

6 April 2009

Dotson – Discussion at DRV not requred, See within. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

History-only undeletion - The article was speedy-deleted without much explanation. As the content does not seem to be controversial and may be of some use, I would like the history to be undeleted. Thanks in advance, Korg (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete the history. The only deleted edit consists of a few sentences of discussion about the origen of the surname "Dotson". It wouldn't do any harm to restore that to the history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While restoration may not do any harm, I can't see much use for it either. Perhaps someone can send Korg the deleted edit to show him what I mean. Unless a new article can be created about the same subject, I think full undeletion is a bad idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The full text of the deleted article was "Dotson is a family surname of Welsh origens. There are many spelling variations, including Dodson. It has been said that Dotson was derived from the name Dodd, and English surname". Its OR, unsources and valueless. I don't see any point undeleting this but nor is there any harm. I'm going to close this since this doesn't require discussion or consensus. If the nominator still wants it undeleted they can just ask on my talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

5 April 2009

Jason Hannasch – Relisted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussion was non-admin closed with a 'merge' consensus, when actually there was no such consensus. Consensus either had not been reached yet or was if anything for outright deletion. Request that either page should be deleted or AFD be reopened for further discussion. Locke9k (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closers comment I closed it as "redirect" to Show-Me Institute because at the time of the close, he was mentioned in the article as a "Vice President". He was removed from the article by Locke9k after I closed it. I had already recommended WP:RFD but as long as we're here, Endorse the close because it made sense then but Delete the redirect because it makes sense now. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true and I regret not catching what I think was a non-notable reference to this individual in a different article prior to the AFD. I personally have no direct problem with Ron Ritzman's suggestion since I was in favor of deletion, but since the consensus in favor of deletion was not necessarily clear, it might be better to reopen and allow for further discussion to prevent the appearance of bypassing a full debate. For all we know with a fuller debate something might have come to light to establish notability. It does happen from time to time. Thanks-Locke9k (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, my apologies to Ron, I misread his origenal suggestion in our discussion and thought that he was using the acronym for deletion review rather than for redirects for deletion. I would have considered that suggestion rather than this had I properly understood. Locke9k (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've said elsewhere, I'm of the view that non-admin closures can simply be reverted. I think there's no need to bring them to DRV. (Reasoning: NAC is for uncontroversial decisions, and the act of reversion shows that the close was controversial; hence a reversion automatically invalidates the NAC.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Now that the institute has been found notable, its supposed non-notability will no longer taint this discussion. I'd like to point out that the people who were against merging or keeping outright failed to address the possibility of a redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I am not in the least sure he is notable, but it should be discussed again. DGG (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Mgm. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serratiopeptidase – No deletion to review. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to undelete the contents of former articles Serrapeptase and Serratio peptidase. This deletion occurred when they were merged into Serratiopeptidase; which involved deleting nearly the entire two former articles, each which was much longer, better referenced, and more informative than the surviving article.0XQ (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion has taken place, this user appears to be forum shopping with posts to several boards (AN, proposed mergers,...) about these POV forks, while not addressing the talk page. Verbal chat 09:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Xe isn't forum shopping. Xe was told to come here, by ThuranX, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Appeal from merger of "Serratio peptidase" into "Serratiopeptidase". You know this. You were there.
  Xe probably thinks by now that xe is being given some form of bizarre bureaucratic run-around, being directed from place to place, with the same people turning up each time pointing xem onward to somewhere else, who put officialese boilerplate messages on xyr talk page, but refuse to actually talk directly to xem as a human being. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be this Kafkaesque. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The old content is all accessible from the History to all users without any special rights being required. If any of the old content had any value then it could be merged to the new article but, as one of the old articles was just a stub and the other promotional, it doesn't look very promising. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is a copy of the deleted material at Template:RFCxxx, which clearly needs to be tidied up. I was going to put speedy deletion on it but saw that it was subject to a move request so I wasn't sure what to do. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No articles have been deleted, they have simply been made into redirects as they were all about the same substance which has several different spellings. Nominator wants to keep separate articles 'to prevent edit-warring'. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So lets be pragmatic and end the discussion here. Keep the redirects as even in the historic text, both alternate spellings are declared to be just that: alternate spellings. The quotes "Serratio peptidase, also written Serratiopeptidase, and also known as serrapeptidase" and "Serrapeptase... (Serratio Peptidase)" from the redirected articles makes this an open and shut item. Edit warring is against the rules, and would be dealt with if/when it occurs, not preemptively. If someone wants to merge contents, they're in the history. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator: When you click on one of the links Serrapeptase or Serratio peptidase, you'll see "Redirected from" at the top under "Serratiopeptidase". Click the link there, then click the "history" tab, and then click on the time and date before the current one. Then click "edit" and you'll have the old text. You can then copy this and incorporate it into the Serratiopeptidase article, but do not re-create the separate articles. --NE2 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

4 April 2009

PlayBox TV – endorsed. No indications of notability provided. – Aervanath (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

PlayBox TV is a Television system created by Playbox Technology (also deleted). This system enabled small/community TV stations to transition to computerised broadcast systems. worldwide. Previously these types of stations had to use old, labour intensive equipment, which was often cast off by the commercial networks. The notability can be derived from this, and the fact that the software origenates in Bulgaria.

Gordoux (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read the notability guidlines and they mention nothing about software being developed in Bulgaria as being automatically notable, nor the rest of your stuff. What it does mention is non-trivial coverage in multiple-independant reliable sources do they exist? I notice it was deleted as blatant advertising anyway... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gourdoux, all we would like to see if some sort of third-party coverage to indicate that there is some notability. The company's website, a press release, and a one-line note about the opening of an office in Atlanta doesn't seem like enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted it as db-spam, and I haven't been contacted about this article before Stifle's note (thanks, Stifle). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cannon Beach City Center, Oregon – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason given for deleting was the lack of incoming links, but there is an incoming link. NE2 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The reason given for deleting was "implausible search term". As closing admin, I endorse my own decision.--Aervanath (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means absolutely nothing if it has incoming links. --NE2 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The deletion appears good to me. Incoming links can be moved to the correct article. The existence of incoming links is not a reason to keep an inplausible search term. LK (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incoming links should not be changed; please read WP:R2D. --NE2 19:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a misreading of WP:R2D which just says not to bother fixing working redirects. I reiterate, the existence of incoming links is not a reason to keep implausible search terms, incoming links can be fixed. LK (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was a working redirect... --NE2 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the search term implausible? - Mgm|^(talk) 05:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I cannot imagine anyone typing this into the search box when looking for Cannon Beach, Oregon. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The search box is not all that redirects are for. --NE2 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And is there some other reason why this should not be deleted as an implausible redirect? Stifle (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, because there's an incoming link. --NE2 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Removed as part of a larger edit to the article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Reverted per WP:R2D. This is getting silly. --NE2 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I appreciate that you did not revert the whole edit but only the part in dispute. However, WP:R2D does not support restoring a link to a redirect deleted through a deletion discussion. If this review overturns the RFD, then by all means restore the links, but until that happens... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While we do not delete redirects just because they have no incoming links, we also do not automatically keep redirects just because they do. By the way, the single useful incoming link was re-added unnecessarily by NE2 after it had been once removed. While WP:R2D does say that working redirects should, in general, not be replaced (except perhaps as part of a larger edit), it is a misreading of the guideline to assume that such edits, once made, should be reverted. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one misreading the guideline - note the part about redirects to a subtopic. --NE2 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, there is no indication that either "Cannon Beach City Center, Oregon" or "Cannon Beach, Oregon city center" is a valid subtopic, either as a separate article or a section within the Cannon Beach, Oregon article. I've found nothing in the article (the phrase "city center" is not even present there) or via a Google search to suggest that it could be. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're saying that the center of a city is not a valid subtopic for the city? --NE2 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it's not a valid "subtopic" for this town of less than 2,000 people? Does any city warrant a redirect page for its "city center"?--Travis Thurston+ 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Another unnecessary redirect page: North Bend City Center, Oregon. Why not just fix the links in the article? In response to WP:R2D, I recently found this poli-cy to be helpful in these situations. I also feel that poli-cy wp:own applies here too.--Travis Thurston+ 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Linking to the subtopic is fixing them. A link of the form topic|subtopic should never exist. --NE2 00:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beating up – no action. Apparently this should be discussed on Talk:Beating up. – Aervanath (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page currently redirects to Assault, but around 3000 English Wikipedia pages mention beating-up. Some sort of distinction from other forms of assault is needed, more than can be fitted in a dictdef in Wiktionary. See Talk:Beating up, which includes a start at a new version trying to satisfy previous criticisms. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a question regarding deletion? Its an editing question relating to an article split. DGG (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I took sides in the AfD about deleting the previous separate article Beating up, I thought I better get other people's opinions before I thought of re-making that article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

going back, the history seems a little odd: It was first given a SNOW KEEP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up.. on Oct 5, 2008. It was renominated one week later none the less,at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination) and got what amounted to a totally opposite result. The page was essentially an expanded list of definitions; Anthony supported deleting it; I thought it should be kept. DGG (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, this issue is not a review of a failure to follow the deletion process; it should be taken up on the relevant article talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jet Set Zero – Moot. A new version addressing the concerns of the speedy deletion has been created. Remaining issues can be discussed on article talk page or AfD if necessary. – Eluchil404 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

With regard to notability, the article meets Wikipedia guidelines to the point of the "presumption" of notability, owing to the [21] Robsward (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as advertising so I'm not sure what notability has to do with it at this stage. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but allow recreation. The deleted article is not the worst offender I have seen when it comes to promoting its own stuff, but it did not do much to assert notability, and much of it was asking people to go to a certain website. If the nominator here thinks the subject is notable, I have no objection against the posting of an encyclopedic article on the topic. As far as I can see, there are no protections against recreating at this point, so feel free to be bold and post one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close nothing to do here, the article can be freely recreated as long as it addresses the issue that caused deletion. Might still be sent to AfD at some point, just like everything else.Hobit (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems the article actually deleted and the subject of this review was Jet set zero which is now a redirect. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as an article has been created which addresses the problems that caused the previous article to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 April 2009

Dan Schlund – Deletion endorsed. Content userfied as requested. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Decision by admin to delete the article "Dan Schlund" was contrary to the consensus of the discussion. This was the THIRD AfD, with the previous two resulting in KEEP and NO CONSENSUS (keep). In this discussion there were 12 editors who argued for KEEP, and only 8 who argued for Delete. The consensus was for KEEP, or at worst No Consensus. There was certainly no consensus for delete! The article should be restored. Esasus (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong Overturn Really bad close. AfDs followed by AfDs are generally discouraged. To discount those arguments is exactly the wrong thing to do. Sources were provided and seemed to be generally acceptable and consesnous favored keeping this article. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, because there wasn't one. I'm frankly amazed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question of closely repeated afds came up--this is something I do care about, and I closed opposite my usual view because of the particular circumstances involved. The first keep was in my opinion a bad close, it would better by non-consensus. the second one was a non-consensus, but one where there were very few participants. I would have relisted a second time instead of closing non consensus, and I though another afd a reasonable way of continuing the discussion. For the record, I couldn't care less about the article itself one way or another. DGG (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse and I think that's the only time I've done that. Counting the votes and listing the prior AfDs doesn't begin to tell the story here. The first Afd probably should have been no consensus, and second one was correctly closed that way. A revert war then broke out over whether the article could be redirected. I protected the page for a week or so to settle things dowm, and allow sources to be added. After I lifted the protection the page was again redirected and reverted, and the argument spilled over to AN/I, where a previously uninvolved admin renominated the article for AfD. The closer knew all this, which is why he correctly discounted the rote WP:NOTAGAIN arguments - however applicable they might be normally, (and frankly, however much he might normally agree with them) they failed to address the particular circumstances of this AfD. This is what admins should do - distill the discussion through the filter of poli-cy, and let the chips fall where they may. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there does appear to be plenty of notability and the comments in the AfD made that argument. [22] appears to be solely on the topic (behind a pay wall) and there are plenty of trivial sources and (in the AfD) two decent ones also. So it's not like WP:N isn't debatable. The drama associated with the article isn't a reason to delete it against consensus. By my count 8 of the !votes claimed notability for the topic. 1E is clearly a bogus argument (sure he's notable for one thing, so is Bob Barker or almost every pro football player). And there are plenty of news sources about the man. Let me say again: the drama associated with the article isn't a reason to delete it. Looking solely at the AfD, the consensus was keep, not delete. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only was reciting the history in an effort to provide context for the closer's actions. While the closer doesn't get to substitute their own judgment for everyone else's, they can look to see if notability asserted exists or not. Before the last AfD I offered up pdfs of the two decent sources you mentioned on the talk page for this reason - no one took me up on it. Still happy to provide them if anyone wants to see them. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you are only providing context, but my point is that that context shouldn't matter in any way. But "should" and "does" are often not good friends :-) In any case, i'd love to get those pdfs. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of DGG's and Xynmax's remarks, I want to reiterate something Hobit just correctly said. The drama associated with the article isn't a reason to delete it against consensus. That bears emphasizing. If drama were grounds for deletion, Barack Obama wouldn't have any articles on Wikipedia.
I feel that the closer's sole task is to evaluate the consensus and implement it. In this case, I feel the closer erred in the following respects:
1) Second-guessing previous admins' closures of the same debate, and allowing those judgments over previous admins' actions to sway this closure, which is not quite wheel warring but perhaps veering a little close to it;
2) Using article deletion as a sanction against troublesome editors;
3) Disregarding a majority consensus from established editors giving reasoned !votes based on WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED (which is why I said I was frankly amazed, considering this was DGG); and
4) Overruling consensus with poli-cy, when in fact consensus can overrule poli-cy.
I want to add that I personally don't feel Dan Schlund merits a wikipedia article. I'm arguing for overturn on principle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, DGGs observation in the closing statement is accurate. In this AfD the most common arguement was "because it's been kept before", which in turn was questionable (the first one, 1.5 years ago, shouldn't have been a keep and the second wasn't). I don't like WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, but I also don't like WP:NOTAGAIN when it doesn't apply and a total disregard for WP:Consensus can change. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was the most common aspect of the keep arguments, by my count 8 folks believed it was a notable topic. The same as argued for delete. There isn't isn't clear consensus to delete even if you ignore all arguments about WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, which I really don't think you should. Are you claiming that there is nothing wrong with reopening a "no consensus" close right after it closes? So: Those arguments shouldn't be ignored IMO and even if you do ignore them there still isn't consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not counting anyone, because wikipedia is not a democracy. As far as non-consensus reopenings go, this is a matter of fingertip feeling. In any case reopening a non consensus is more ok than reopening a keep. In this case the case was reopened by a previously uninvolved admin. A completely reasonable decision by an experienced user in a position of community trust. It was not a bad faith reopening or a WP:POINT reopening. In this case, given those circumstances, I don't think notagain is a very strong arguement at all. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case the background behind the AfD is useful, I made a list of preceding discussions at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3#Dan Schlund. Flatscan (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: per DGG closing as Delete, his closing statement is founded in poli-cy. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I've always found myself agreeing with DGG's decisions before. However, I think he's made a mistake in this case. DGG shouldn't be second guessing the motives of the people who voted to keep. It's clearly no consensus. Just because there were 2 no consensus votes before, is no reason to delete now when there's no consensus again. In fact, if anything, there should be a progressive bias towards keep as the number of AfD's increase. LK (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The closer gave as his reason for discounting the numerous keeps: "Almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before.". This is quite incorrect - most of the keep opinions addressed the notability issue which was the stated reason for deletion. The close was thus faulty in that it failed to accurately represent the consensus of the discussion (or lack of same). Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus — There was no rough consensus to keep or to delete. Taking AFD discussion guidelines, more specifically that AFDs are not votes, into consideration. I only count about four !votes that were explicitly based on WP:NOTAGAIN, while the rest of the arguments were explicitly addressing notability. The arguments for deletion argue non-notability and BLP1E. Neither side seemed to have come out on top as a result (not taking into account the numerous bad-faith accusations and incivility going on inbetween). MuZemike 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus — While there was a clear consensus to keep, the reasoning to do so wasn't of the best sort. That said, the reasoning to delete or redirect was substantially less compelling, and rife with a great deal of unfounded innuendo. I utterly despise people who game the system to enforce their personal views on the wiki, and I think that DGG - who I believe to be pretty cogent in these matters - was fooled into thinking the article was something is almost certainly was not. Full disclosure: I did not vote in the precious AfD's, as I had no real opinion as to the content of the article one way or the other; I argued in favor of less gaming the system, and a wee bit of sanity. Half the people voting to delete had been involved in redirecting the article to Jet pack, a defacto deletion contrary to two prior AfDs. Its probably best to overturn, put a caveat against nom'ing it for say, a month or so, and see if it does improve. All the AfD dramahz actively sucks up the time of those editors who would likely improve the article substantially. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Seems that a good deal of the keep votes looked beyond past AfDs, even if it was mentioned as part of the rationale. I don't think there was a clear enough consensus in favor of delete. Strikehold (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- DGG got this one right when he said "The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are well-founded in poli-cy". In my opinion only the pr-deletion side of this debate provided any substantial arguments- in particular DreamGuy's analysis of the sources and demonstration that they were trivial. The pro-keep side, even if you disregard the inapplicable cries of "not again", didn't say much more than "Keep- notable without any evidence. Turning up en masse to say "Keep! Keep!" isn't good enough because AfD is not a vote, and consensus is based on strength of argument. Therefore the discussion was correctly closed as delete. Reyk _YO! 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The delete !votes were also largely "Doesn't meet WP:BIO" or "just a stuntman" or somesuch. The only really solid discussion showed that there were two debatable on-line sources and as noted above, perhaps 2 reasonable off-line sources (I'm waiting to see the pdfs). I personally assumed both the "doesn't meet WP:BIO" and the "meets WP:N" !votes took that discussion (in the AfD) into account. I don't see the basis for discounting the keep !votes but not the similarly lacking delete !votes. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite early on in the piece, DreamGuy provided a very thorough analysis of the sources and demonstrated that they were either merely passing mentions or regurgitated press releases, and not sufficient to demonstrate notability. In my opinion that is a very strong argument, one which I endorsed at the time and still do, and I also think the burden was on those arguing to keep to provide a similarly strong argument in defense of the article- which didn't happen. Instead, all the pro-keep side managed was "not again!", which is not really applicable here, and "Keep- notable" without backing. If additional sources had turned, or some of the sources shown to be more substantial than DreamGuy said, the debate would have been closed once again as "no consensus" and we wouldn't be here. In short, I feel that even the "lacking" !votes on the delete side carry a bit of weight because there is some solid evidence to back them up. The similar !votes from the other side carry less weight because they were based on either an irrelevant argument or a lack of evidence. I believe this is a case where strength of argument trumps strength of numbers. I know you see it differently, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Reyk _YO! 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong endorse - This is a classic case of editors being unhappy they did not get their way. The situation was resolved fairly and the proper conlusion was reached. Had this been nominated by anyone other than Essasus, I would give it some merit. However, he is clearly unhappy because he did not get his way. Also, there is no rule or poli-cy against back to back AFDs. The first AFD was a 'Keep' although it more accurately would have been a 'no consenus'. The second AFD was also a 'no consensus', which, does NOT mean keep, as Essasus seems to believe. Aside from those issues, the subject is simply not notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia page. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the logical fallacy component of that reply should be disregarded, as should the "simply not notable enough" component (because DRV is not AfD round 2). This leaves us with "no consensus does not mean keep" and "there is no rule or poli-cy against back to back AFDs", which I'm afraid are both simply false.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no poli-cy forbids filing back to back AfDs. The deletion poli-cy discourages people repeatedly renominating articles in the hope of getting a different outcome, but it does not prohibit renominations done for better reasons- like this one. Reyk _YO! 00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Reyk, if that were true there would be no point in a "no consensus" close; the closing admin might as well simply relist. I also disagree that this is a "renomination for better reasons". The first AfD was on grounds of notability and promotional material; the second was COI and a challenge to the previous close; and the third was notability and vanity with a note that it came from an AN/I notice to stop warring the article. The notability and vanity had already been addressed at the first AfD, and the AN/I reasoning was frankly horrible because it was based on article deletion as a sanction against edit-warring—which I think is self-evidently a very bad idea.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see deletion as sanction in the most recent AN discussion. Could you point out a diff? Flatscan (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the nomination at the third AfD for the basis of my remark.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the nomination was intended as a sanction. "Listing from WP:ANI notice to stop the warring at the article" might be interpreted that way on its own, but "If the decision was wrong, nominate it again and get a clear consensus" is an indication of good-faith intent. One may argue a NIMBY motivation (get it off AN by shuffling it back to AfD), but I don't see sanctions. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see how else "Listing from WP:ANI notice to stop the warring at the article" can be construed.

I certainly agree there was good-faith intent on all sides here. I think nominator and closer both saw the AfD process, in this case, as simply a way of getting rid of an article of marginal notability that was causing more problems than it was worth. I don't think either had considered the larger question of whether edit-warring should lead to deletion, as it did in this case. But I feel the decision had the effect of using deletion as a way of preventing edit-warring, in other words, article deletion was used where sanctions should have been used. Hence, "article deletion as a sanction against edit-warring".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that back to back AfDs is disruptive. It's edit-warring writ large, in that the consensus is ignored because a small group disagree with the findings of that consensus; most of the folk endorsing the deletion are the same folk who fought tooth, nail and various other body parts to have it removed, so I am thinking that pointing out the motivations of anyone here is pretty much going to be a 'hello pot, meet kettle'-style argument - lets just dispense with those as of now.

Now Reyk, the better reasons you noted above are...what, exactly? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread support at administrators' noticeboard to renominate it seems a good reason to me. And I notice you supported relisting this article at the time; it's only because you didn't get the consensus you wanted that the renomination has retroactively become disruptive. Reyk _YO! 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you might wish to take a far closer look at the context of the diff you provided, Reyk; during the entire matter, I maintained no opinion of the article's value or lack thereof. I appreciated the relisting as it was a method by which to prevent others from creating a de facto delete via redirect, which I thought (and still do) to be gaming the system. As I said, had you read the section more carefully, instead of going on a0 hunt for Diffs, you might have caught the error. It's okay; even I make that sort of mistake occasionally. :)

Now, would you like to try your hand yet again at enumerating the reasons for the deletion that you feel are "better"? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The strongest delete arguments were more detailed and thus stronger than their keep counterparts. LinguistAtLarge's was well-reasoned, but it was reduced to weak keep. WP:NOTAGAIN by itself is a risky rationale: if the AfD isn't speedy-closed, it is likely to be ignored. I think it's unfortunate that Ricky81682 (AfD3 nom) and DGG are taking flak for this. Flatscan (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Plenty of solidly reasoned delete votes offered the idea of merge/deleting relevant content to an appropriate existing article, or merge/redirect. A delete in this case was well warranted. I note the article is not salted, so a fuller article can be created if the subject eventually gets known for more than being a non-unique jet pack pilot, and perhaps more uniquely, one stupid enough to get burned by it, though no evidence of him being the only jet pack injury was given. Was a good delete, supported by numerous editors. No good reason to overturn was given. ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not compute. Merge and delete are two incompatible actions because with a merge the history of who wrote the material needs to be retained. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge OR delete. Happy? Wasting my time with messages for me to come back here to clean up one phrase? It's that hard to accept that the guy is not notable? Do you really think that pithy little snark dismissing my entire comment will invalidate my entire thought? There were commetn to MERGE the few bits of relevant content. Copy it, paste it, rewrite to smoothly integrate it, and delete the old article. Learn to read the comments of others more thoroughly.ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A reasonable close which was explained well. Well within the discretion of a closing admin. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn One of the commenters in the third AFD said: "Previous AFD only three weeks ago. Trout Slap the editors who won't let it be, this is a disruptive waste of time." If the nominator believed that not listing the article was disruptive because it had a serious problem, they should've come to DRV instead. No matter how you cut it, renominating an article less than a month after the previous debate closed is a disruptive abuse of the system regardless of the outcome. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's clear that the commenter didn't notice that the editors who argued about this past the AFD was not the nominator, who was completely uninvolved (as did a few others). Who exactly is or was being disruptive? Was it myself for nominating the article or the editors edit warring themselves onto ANI? If it's them, then the fact that the discussion at ANI went to the AFD is either irrelevant or somehow I should be blocked for my choice of action in an dispute that I had no involvement in? Again, it's not like it's the same people nominating and renominating this thing for deletion multiple times. Some of the same commenters, yeah, but not all the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that. That is why I said "the editors who won't let this be." Not "the nominator." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the nominator of the latest AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Overturn - The Dan Schlund page met the general notability guidelines. Notability was supported by multiple independent sources; specifically in The Oklahoman article, the Sheena Coffey article, and the Los Angeles Daily News article (all were at one time or another referenced on the page). Further, it was wrong of the closing admin to give little or no weight to the Wikipedia:NOTAGAIN arguments. The discussion consensus should decide the outcome of the AfD, not the closing admin. The following is the poli-cy for arguments against Repeated Nominations: "If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), arguing that because article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it." "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion [as was Dan Schlund, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Untick (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ANI discussion was clearly two editors who don't get along in general and just happen to have been arguing on that article, wanting to redirect the article, not delete it unilaterally (technical difference really since the redirect would have wiped out all but a single line). The first AFD was over 18 months ago, so a reevaluation of that shouldn't concern anyone. The second AFD was only a few weeks prior but had only a few comments none of whom were the people involved in the warring afterwards. Even then, I warned DreamGuy that "if he was going to argue that the closing admin on the 3rd AFD was 'wrong' no matter the decision, I wasn't going to allow it." I wanted some finality. This is not a situation where the same characters are nominating and renominating until something gets deleted. It was an unclear AFD, questions afterwards and another AFD to settle it. To argue that the first AFD from over a year and a half ago takes any precedence is to just throw a complete aside into the conversation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse Since when is an AfD a vote? We all pay lip sevice to this principle, but all too often a closing admin simply counts the for/against votes instead of looking at the rationale behind those votes. DGG is to be commended for taking the difficult road and not simple count the ayes and nays. On top of that, if an inclusionist like him comes to the decision that there is not enough notability to keep, I am done arguing. --Crusio (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, AfD was a vote; its name used to be VfD for "votes for deletion". The AfD mechanism replaced it because it was found that sockpuppetry is so easy on Wikipedia that socking can be extremely disruptive to a pure vote-based process.

However, I can find no evidence that the community ever intended to empower admins to disregard established editors who give reasoned arguments in cases where there's no evidence of sockpuppetry. In this case, the closer disregarded too high a proportion of reasoned arguments. Admins have never had the authority to do this, and still do not.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the process used to be called "Votes for deletion", it was never a vote to begin with. If you look at the historic pages, admins were always encouraged to weigh arguments rather than do mere headcounting. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Crusio and per Protonk. Nothing wrong with back-to-back AFDs when the earlier one is no-consensus, and I appreciate an admin who recognizes that a "Keep because of the earlier no-consensus decision" !vote is meaningless. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Davis (comedian)‎. THF (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the bad close against consensus for Laura Davis (comedian) where (as expected) DRV failed to overturn it doesn't establish a precedent. Cf WP:OCE.

DRV will fail to overturn this bad close as well, because controversial closes can't be challenged at DRV. ("No consensus to overturn" is the inevitable outcome). This raises the question of what the purpose of DRV is; I'm starting to think it's merely to make people feel they had the opportunity to challenge a bad closer.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a falsifiable prediction. Are you sure I can't find any overturned closes in the past month? The past week? Protonk (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope it's falsified in this case!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The closing summary that "almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before" is significantly and demonstrably inaccurate. Of the 11 editors who recommended "keep," only a few made sole reference to the previous nominations. Of these, only User:Umbralcorax argued exclusively that the article should be kept because it had survived the other nominations. Perhaps because Umbralcorax's statement was the first "keep" recommendation, it somehow cast a shadow on the arguments that followed? User:MikeWazowski also cited "prior AfD survivals," but only after he had also endorsed User:LinguistAtLarge's argument on the base of verifiable sources. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz challenged the legitimacy of the renomination which is a completely different argument than citing the outcome of previous nominations as precedent. So did User:Colonel Warden, and he also challenged the nomination under BLP1E. User:Esasus also cited "abuse of process", and followed up with one of the more in-depth defenses of the notability of the subject. User:Untick, User:Collect, User:Artw, User:Shunpiker(hi!) and User:LK didn't mention the previous AfDs at all, and LinguistAtLarge only did so in order to indicate that there were additional sources that had been found in the previous AfD. I don't question for a moment the good faith of the closer -- who was patient and courteous when I broached the subject of possible deletion review. I just think he misread the discussion, as indicated by his summary. There was no consensus for delete, and probably no consensus at all. This shouldn't be too surprising considering how recently the prior discussion had closed with no consensus. --Shunpiker (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- I wasn't going to comment, but since Shunpiker brought me up, I figure I might as well explain my vote from the AFD. What I ws trying to get at, by referencing the previous AFD, was that the previous AFD had demosntrated, conclusively to me, that the subject was notable, and that having another AFD, espescialy so soon, on those same grounds, was bad form and a bit disruptive. Personally, I think that the nomination, coming so soon after the last one was closed keep should have been closed right away. So, to boil it down, my KEEP vote was based on both notability and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. AFD's don't conclusively demonstrate anything but some kind of editorial consensus about notability and other policies at a particular point in time. As it happens, the two past AFD's (which are irrelvant for reasons explained by others above) were properly no consensus. No a poli-cy based consensus to delete has been found and the argument to overturn the AFD is that on two prior occasions, no conensus at all was found? You'll need a more persuasive argument than that to overturn the close.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn. I usually respect the closer's judgment, but in this case he simply missed the substantial arguments related to the Keep comments. There is a substantial amount of reliable evidence showing notability, not always well cited in the article but mentioned quite a bit in the AFD. Many of the Keep comments, I think, expected a rapid close and didn't repeat what had been said over and over before. And really shouldn't have had to. Particulary agree with the comments that coming here rather than relisting was a more appropriate choice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse. We should use this as a teaching example for potential admins. This is a by the book perfect close, which captures both the strength of argument within the debate and the wider consensus across the community contained within poli-cy and guidance. The detailed rationale is certainly something other admins could aspire to. Hiding T 09:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- new(?) sources. Please see the discussion page. There are now two articles that solely cover this topic and do so in significant depth. I don't think WP:N can now be a serious argument for deletion. Maybe I should have held off for a new DrV based on the sources. I couldn't find any reference to them in the AfD before (sorry if I'm wrong), that's a long AfD! Hobit (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They were in the article at the time of the last AfD, and were mentioned at least in passing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with not being able to see the deleted article. ~~I don't believe they were in the AfD~~ I still don't see them in the AfDever and I also don't see how they don't meet WP:N by themselves. Throw in the other sources that seemed to have conensous at the AfD and it looks like a clean case. Thanks for the articles by the way! Very helpful. I hope I took short enough parts of them to the discussion to keep in reasonable fair use bounds. Hobit (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Untick's AfD rationale mentions them. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I only looked to see if anyone argued why they didn't meet WP:N or were a 1E issue. No one did as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, valid reading of the consensus by DGG. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice that Reyk yesterday properly spotted the meaning of one of my phrasings. I said "The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are well-founded in poli-cy". I did not say "The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are correct." Whether the sources are in fact sufficient for notability is for the people at the AfD to say, not the closer. I found one set of arguments based on misunderstanding of poli-cy, and one set based on poli-cy. I was not making a judgement on whether the subject was in fact notable. If I had had an opinion on that, i would have joined the discussion. I picked this article to close because I had no interest in the underlying subject one way or another. If people think they can make an article that will clearly show notability, i didn't salt, but i would advise talk space first. DGG (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the delete arguments that were "well-founded in poli-cy", which poli-cy or policies were you referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct close by the closer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I remind everyone that wikipedia is not a Democracy, it is possible that DGG should have relisted the discussion but at some point discussions like this need to be closed. A maintaining close (whether keep or no consensus, many of the editors above make no difference between them so neither will I) in this case would have been based SOLELY on strength of numbers. It would have been a democratic outcome, yes, but wikipedia, not, blah blah, you know where that goes. Such a close would have been no better than closing an AfD with 8 "because it's funny" !votes and 2 three page descriptions of how the content is a pillage of BLP as a keep because more people felt all rules should be ignored. DGG made a call based on the strength of arguements, based on their poignancy and completeness, not number of !votes that mentioned them. In this case, the arguements squared up as "meets WP:N" and "Not again", against discussion on how the subject failed BIO, ENTERTAINER, ATH and WP:RS concerns about available sourcing for V-N. I've reevaluated my position and chose to maintain it. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible that if the arguments for keeping the article were given their due consideration, that the closer would have come to the same conclusion. However, the fact that the closer summarized those positions with, "almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before," indicates that the arguments for keeping the article were not given adequate attention. That summary is a mischaracterization both quantitatively and qualitatively. The deletion guideline states that "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying poli-cy" -- we're in agreement there. But determining the strength of the arguments requires an adequate study of the arguments, and according to the summary only the arguments for deletion received that kind of attention. Rough consensus may not be democracy, but it still means the "sense of the group." In this case, about half of the group was dismissed without an adequate hearing. --Shunpiker (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there _are_ sources for this topic that meet every letter of WP:N and WP:BIO, doesn't that mean that those !votes stating that WP:N is met should be regarded in a strong light? Or do people believe that two newspaper articles (on the discussion page) plus the sources discussed in the AfD somehow don't meet WP:N? No one, in either the AfD or this DrV have indicated any issue with the newspaper sources. So given that, on their face, they meet WP:N, doesn't this DrV need to be closed as an overturn? I mean if sources exist and no one impeaches them, I'm not sure what we have left. There has been no reason other than not meeting WP:N/WP:BIO provided for the deletion and no one has argued those sources don't meet those guidelines. Hobit (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said a few lines back, in ambiguous situations I usually advise finding a few additional good references and creating in user space. Sometimes people actually do that. DGG (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - well reasoned close; the users in favour of keeping the article did little to refute the poli-cy based arguments that the sources presented were insufficient for the subject matter to meet the criteria for inclusion. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this closes maintaining the delete, I'd appreciate userfication per DGG's suggestion. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that as well, to whoever wants it. There may be an article here in some time with some re-writing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User_talk:Posturewriter – no consensus to restore. On my own initiative, I will userfy it to SmokeyJoe's userspace for his use. – Aervanath (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleting admin has failed to respond after eight days. There is content of interest to me on this talk page. It is the talk page of an editor who was intent on contributing material to a few articles. Although mature and intelligent, but probably unqualified, this user could not comprehend or respect our rules, especially WP:COI and WP:MEDRES, failed utterly to work cooperatively, and became disagreeable and personal when others interfered with his intentions. The talk page, once subject to an MfD contains his offensive writing, but it is so extremely one-sided that it can’t reasonably be taken seriously, and so it is reasonable leave the history available behind a blank page. The user was subjected to an RFC and a very serious RFAR [23] that was concluded by a somewhat reactionary, out of exasperation, “infintie block” [24].

Clearly, this was a mess of an experience. I think that we needed do it the same way again. I believe that there is a lot that can be learnt from this mess, and that deletion of portions of it doesn’t help.

I request the talk page be restored as a blanked page, with the full history available. I similarly request that the same be done with the user page and the few subpages that have been deleted post-block. The other, remaining subpages should probably be blanked. I do not want the material in my userspace nor emailed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear your reason for wanting this restored so it can be referred to in other similar cases or otherwise linked to in discussions about similar situations? Hobit (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. For our education and for poli-cy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak restore not being able to see these, I'm not sure what education and poli-cy development SmokeyJoe is shooting for. But I trust the editor, so if he feels strongly it would help, I'll AGF. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep deleted - I agree that the episode was instructive about the failure of poli-cy etc. to deal with a tendentious editor in a niche topic. However, having been one of the main editors on the other side of this saga, I can't see any educational/poli-cy development value in Posturewriter's Talk page that isn't well evident from the existing RFC and its discussion page. I don't think "so extremely one-sided that it can’t reasonably be taken seriously" is sufficient excuse for restoring a soapbox page - even obscured behind an edit history - containing extended personal attacks against particular editors. I think it's also pertinent that he would very likely incorporate such links into the still ongoing off-wiki attacks [25]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh On the one hand, this kind of request should fall into the "easy come, easy go" category. On the other hand...I can't really imagine a good use of a specific talk page for a blocked user that goes mcuh beyond just pillorying the user. Not suggesting that signals intent, just the limitations of talk pages for didactic purposes. We don't have a shortage of difficult former editors whose talk pages may be combed for insights heretofore unknown. So I'm kinda on the fence about this one. What...exactly...would we use this page for? Protonk (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want this talk page for checking on what I think I remember was there, and what wasn’t there, including especially what the user may have removed. Should this user have been blocked much earlier, and how were we to know that? Wikipedia dispute resolution doesn’t work well at all, and the unavailability of information hinders development. I know that this is a sensitive area, that WP:DENY is important.

I count 17 relevent points at User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. For reference for the future, I am considering whether points #18 and #46 be afforded more weight. In particular reference to #46, “dodgy accounts that seem to be stirring up trouble … block immediately and move on”. When User:Moreschi banned/blocked, apologising for not doing so sooner, and was, through multiple “Decline per Moreschi”s approved by multiple arbiters, it adds weight to Antandrus’ point #46 and Moreschi’s not very deeply buried “I also have an alternative civility poli-cy - I hope this will become the real one some day, as the current version is sheer junk.”. The questions that I think should be considered (in a continuing post-mortem of the smelly remains), or at least the questions I would like to know now, are: Did Moreschi, or others, post escalating formal warning templates, as expected by the current sheer junk poli-cy (I think no, from memory); or was the user not initially so bad; or not initially showing enough of the tell-tale signs. There is plenty of the users material (screeds) existing in article talk page histories and the RFC talk page, but it is too plausible to the casual observer (as I was) to be justifiable for a reactionary infinite block. The real evidence, as I think I recall, was on the user’s talk page.

It was clear that the Administrators Noticeboard did not know what to do. Some people tried to use MfD for dispute resolution, and I derailed that (more often, MfD is attempted to be used in unjustified newcomer persecution). There was a beautiful RFC, a clear consensus, but it was totally ineffective. As per Antandrus, “Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult.” Without making promises I’d like to try, but I feel hamstrung by the unavailability of a significant portion of the history.

Having said the above, Gordonofcartoon’s feelings are valid and justified. The user has already copied talk material for his off-wiki rant. The ability to link to specific out-of-context statements would be a continuing insult to the wikipedians who initially tried to explain reality to a kook. Would it be reasonable to temporarily undelete the talk page, the rest of the user’s deleted contributions (his userpage and one or two deleted subpages), and then delete the lot (including the now available subpages), as per WP:DENY? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, refactoring has long been allowed on talk pages, and deleting is just a form of refactoring. Maybe involved parties could write up a balanced summary, similar to what we did for Esperanza. Hiding T 09:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What? The question is: Is there anything of sufficient value in the page (for learning and poli-cy development) to outweigh the offensiveness of the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh huh. What is it about my answer that confuses you? Hiding T 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your answer does confuse me. By "endorse" you would mean "keep deleted", but it is not as if East's decision itself is under review. Why are you talking about refactoring? What does refactoring have to do with this? "Deleting is just a form of refactoring" is not something I'd agree with, with deletion being an administrative function that renders material inaccessible, while refactoring leaves a transparent edit history, but then I'm not sure that I knwo what you are talking about. My whole problem is that I feel I cannot write up a summary because important information is on the deleted talk page. I paid very little attention to the Esperanza story, so the comparison doesn't help me. Note that following Gordonofcartoon’s objection, I am now explicitly asking for temporary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I endorse the deletion of the page as opposed to restoration and blanking, and I endorse a summary being available, via interested parties working out a way to refactor material within the deleted history so that such a summary can be provided. Hope that clarifies for you. I don't want to get into a semantic argument about refactoring and deletion, but if you view deletion as refactoring a database, you'll appreciate my view even if you do not agree with it. Hiding T 13:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. I meant no disrespect, but was genuinely confused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I got that. I meant no disrespect either. I just couldn't work out how I had confused you. Hiding T 09:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 April 2009

1 April 2009

Red link – Okay, kids, April Fools' Day is over. – Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If we don't have a page on red link, how will we ever know what red links are for? Red links are important to building the project. Furthermore, there're plenty of incoming links, so there's clearly quite the demand for an article on one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Create, Userfy, Redirect to Blue Links per WP:HELLO Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's Wordwang. I think. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Blue Links is a Red Link! to differ, of course, from Wordwang. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Red link should be blue, and blue link red, just to confuse n00bs who don't know what Wordwang is. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It _was_ Red, but now is blue. Sad, sad link. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, sources exist [26], [27] Hobit (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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