Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2009 Deletion review archives August 2009 >

31 July 2009

[edit]
  • Orly Taitz – Relist. This was quite a long debate, so I'll summarize the arguments. Endorse: WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:ATA keep !votes, may become notable in the future but not now. Overturn: Not BLP1E, plenty of media coverage, endorse !voters are treating this as 2nd AfD. The "endorse" arguments are slightly more in number; the "overturn" arguments as a whole are slightly stronger, but not enough to provide a clear consensus. Rd232 brought up an excellent point at the end that no one seemed to notice: that the debate had run for only 4 days. WP:SNOW should not be invoked in general on AfDs, much less in controversial situations like these. Either because there is no consensus in this DRV or because the AfD was not allowed the normal 7 days, relisting is the best option here. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Orly Taitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The following is the reason the closing Admin gave:

The result was delete and redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In the five days since this debate opened, the article essentially remained a stub, and there wasn't enough biographical information added to prove she is notable beyond the "birther" debate. Granted, there was a fairly large majority of "Keeps," but articles like this are, to my mind, a textbook example of why AFD is not a vote. Blueboy96 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why the subject of the article needs to be notable beyond the birther movement in order to have its own article. The birther movement is notable (it has its own article) which to me clearly indicates that notable people within the movement are also notable. The fact that the article remained a stub does not mean that it should be deleted. As time goes on and more information comes out, the article will grow accordingly. Dems on the move (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - "Dems on the move" has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP1E, since yes, a person has to have notability beyond a single issue, i.e. birthers. This is evident by the edit warring on the 1E section, and then the universal rejection of his edits on the talk page. As for the closing admin's rationale, IMO he was correct to discount a portion of the "keep" votes, as there were a lot of WP:SPAs and flawed "Taitz was on TV last night!" types of WP:ILIKEIT entries. A tough call to make, but should be allowed to stand. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that although the SPA notice was placed on the top of the page, there was only one instance noted on the page of an SPA. When I saw that noticed placed on the page I almost removed it since I knew it would have an impact on the decision to close the discussion, one way or the other. So no, there were not "a lot of SPAs". IncidentalPoint (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side-tangent of the semantics of an argument
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also want to add that the discussion should stay on topic, and not slide to the personal level the way that Tarc is attempting to turn this into a discussion about me. As can be seen, I'm not the only one who supports overturning the decision to delete. Dems on the move (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is nothing personal against you, and if you take it that way that's really not my problem. What I have done is picked apart your argument, as you are not applying BLP policy correctly, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not "picked apart [my] arguments". What you are doing is using ad hominem arguments. Dems on the move (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Argumentum ad hominem would be someone attacking you personally to defeat your position, rather than arguing against the position you take. What I have done is attack your interpretation (i.e. position) of BLP policy, which is fundamentally flawed. So please, don't toss out the fancy Latin when you don't know what it actually means, ok? Ok. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making my point by repeating your use of ad hominem arguments. Dems on the move (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing of the sort here, so thank you for yet more baseless claims to detract from your crumbling argument. Nothing else to say on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but after reading this I felt I had to chime in, since the communication doesn't seem to be working. The statements that could seem ad hominem are things like "Dems on the move" has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP1E and don't toss out the fancy Latin when you don't know what it actually means, ok?... Luminifer (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from closing admin I admit, this was a tough call to make. The woman has gotten coverage out the wazoo--but virtually all of it relates to her role in the birther cause. The article was basically a stub, with little biographical information to speak of. If there had been more biographical information, or she'd done something that would confer inherent notability, it would have been enough to save the article. Blueboy96 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Mine was one of the many keep comments on this AfD, but AfD is not a vote and the close was well within the normal discretion of a closing admin. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- I think the BLP1E arguments were pretty well refuted in the afd, with the point being made that this woman has made every effort to stay in the public spotlight, appearing on Colbert, Stewart, NPR and the like, which shows that she's not trying to remain low profile, which the policy states as a guide to who deserves an article and who doesn't. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to hold the opinion that the policy, which refers to "event" throughout, should be amended to cover "event or issue". I was going by what it actually says now. I don't see this as at all a hair-splitting distinction. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was one event. Abolitionism was an issue. Similarly, there are some lawyers who gain public notice because of their involvement in a single highly publicized case. Taitz isn't in that category. JamesMLane t c 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing needs to be amended; it already reads that way. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, in WP:BLP1E, the word "event" occurs in the section heading and six more times in the text. The word "issue" has zero occurrences. So, no, it does not already read the way you want it to read. JamesMLane t c 05:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're essentially pulling a Clinton and quibbling over what the difference of is is here. I didn't say that the word "issue" appears on the page. What I did say is that the meaning of "one event" is broad enough already to address individuals whose only notability stems from single-issue advocacy. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would suggest that Taitz is involved in a single issue (the bither movement) but multiple events (many media appearances, I'm not sure how many lawsuits, continuing coverage - and her many actions which she performs with respect to the movement, each of which can be considered an "event"). Luminifer (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - there is a massive amount of media coverage of this woman - and there is no indication that this is going to cease. Much of this, I imagine, will eventually be placed in the article once proper references are found. It would not make sense to list her media appearances under the "birther" movement, as they are somewhat related but there is not an absolutely correlation - unless we want to list all media appearances of all people involved in the birther movement. This woman is notable for (a) being involved in the birther movement, and (b) being so incredibly visible regarding her involvement in it. I believe that these actually count as separate things. Luminifer (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. The overwhelming majority of !voters supported keeping the article. A clear majority of the !voters who discussed policy in some detail supported keeping the article. Relevant language in WP:BLP1E can easily and reasonably be read as supporting keeping the article: If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. To the extent this standard was addressed in the deletion discussion, the consensus clearly supported keeping the article under this policy provision. BLP1E also indicates that one important factor in determining whether a separate article is justified is "how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." When the closing administrator, by his/her own admission, discounted the substantial "coverage out the wazoo" the article subject has received in the news media, he/she failed to properly apply the provisions of BLP1E. When an AFD discussion turns on the interpretation of Wikipedia policy, as it did here, the closing administrator should determine whether a consensus was reached through reasonable discussion of the policy involved. Here, no one disputes that both sides held reasonable positions on interpreting the policy. In a situation like this, the closing administrator has no business substituting his/her own interpretation of policy for the expressed consensus interpretation, so long as that interpretation is reasonable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, textbook case of BLP1E, the efforts to try to pad the article into an actual bio support this conclusion. --Stormie (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as supported by BLP1E. — Kralizec! (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion (restore revision history), but uphold redirection. The closer has conflated two separate questions: "Does the subject currently warrant a dedicated article?" and "Should said article be deleted?"
    He has stated that his decision stems from the failure to expand the article beyond a stub before the discussion's closure. Since when do we delete articles because they're too short? That can be a valid reason to merge any useful content into another article and redirect the title there, and Blueboy96's closure calls for such a redirect. I don't object to that portion, but why was the deletion warranted? Blueboy96 has acknowledged above that "this was a tough call," so why not leave the revision history in place (thereby allowing editors to expand the former article's content if/when this becomes feasible)?
    Blueboy96 is quite correct that an AfD debate is not a majority vote, but the burden lies on those advocating deletion. There might not be consensus to retain a dedicated article for Orly Taitz at this juncture, but there clearly wasn't consensus to delete it outright (thereby preventing editors from addressing the issues said to justify the redirection).
    Therefore, my position is that the redirect should remain in place for the time being, but the article's revision history should be restored along with its talk page (an appropriate venue for any future discussion on whether to revive the dedicated article). —David Levy 11:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Taitz has gained and kept attention only because of her lawsuit on Birther issues. Beyond that, she hasn't done anything notable. The main reason for the attention, I think, is she presented a somewhat novel arguement, that Obama couldn't order soldier's deployed if he wasn't the President. Somewhat new, different from the other (failed lawsuits), so the Birthers lept on her train. Everything notable she's done is related to this issue, making the redirect the correct action here. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:BIO : Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.. You said "beyond that", she hasn't done anything notable, but WP:BIO doesn't state that you have to have done two notable things. If she is notable enough to be interviewed so much on television, she is likely notable enough to have a WP:BIO this is particularly relevant as people will see her on TV, look her up, and want to read about her on wikipedia. Luminifer (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it helps to keep reading the rest of a policy page...which is where one would encounter the "People notable only for one event" section...rather than just citing the lead. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that the lead should tell someone everything they need to know, excepting clarifications. In this case, then, I would suggest that someone (you?) amend the lead to be clearer. Luminifer (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is true, however this particular confusion is why most of the endorse folks have referred to the specific WP:BLP1E rather than the general WP:BIO as being the primary guiding policy. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point, although even there, Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. -- this person has NOT maintained a low-profile individual. (I stand by my point that she has two form of notability - (a) association with the movement and (b) how she is capitalizing on it) Luminifer (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The real arbiter of 1E policy is a simple question; absent Taitz's involvement with the Birther brigade, would she be worthy of a Wikipedia article? Tarc (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's an oversimplification of 1E. (Note the John Hinckley, Jr. example.)
It is explicitly stated that a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile." Are you suggesting that Ms. Taitz has remained low-profile?
I also object to the use of the term "event" to mean "issue." The two are not the same. —David Levy 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't an oversimplification. Even the "simple test" can have the occasional exception. The Hinckley case is one of these, as the event (assassination) it itself such a critial, noteworthy issue. Birthergate does not rise to that standard, though. As far as Taitz and low-profile go though, yes, she is. In terms of reliably sourced media, Taitz is no higher or lower on the totem pole as Berg or any of the others. In unreliable fringe media, sure, she is some kinda of twisted folk hero. But non-RS is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Hinckley isn't an "exception." He's an example of a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event. Whether Taitz is low-profile is debatable (and we'll have to agree to disagree), but regardless, it's incorrect to state that the "single event" criterion is the sole determining factor.
And again, Taitz is known primarily for her involvement in a single issue, not a single event.
However, note that I don't seek to undo the redirection. I merely contest the revision history's deletion. (See my comments above.) —David Levy 03:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event", yes. In most cases like that the person fails 1E, but since an assassination attempt is in itself so thoroughly notable, an article on the assassin can be seen as notable. That is as plain a definition of the word "exception" as one can have. And as I have explained above, I don't see the definition of "event" being as restrictive as you make it out to be. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing it - can you re-quote or point out where you explain what you interpret "event" to mean? Luminifer (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, "a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event" does not fail 1E, which explicitly includes only low-profile persons. Something cannot be an exception to a rule that doesn't apply in the first place.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation of 1E's scope. It exists to protect the privacy of a low-profile individual involved in one event. It was never intended to be applied to a person who actively seeks publicity by participating in many prominent events.
For example, when dealing with an event such as the Columbine High School massacre, we don't create individual articles for the victims (whose backgrounds are irrelevant to the incident, and whose involvement was involuntary). But we do create articles for the perpetrators, who clearly did not maintain low profiles.
Not only is Orly Taitz not a low-profile individual (or even someone who seeks to maintain a low profile), but her notability stems from her numerous (and ongoing) attempts to advance a cause, not from a single event. Your argument that "single-issue advocacy" can be deemed tantamount to a "single event" stems from an apparent misunderstanding of 1E's purpose (which is to protect the privacy of persons caught up in one-off occurrences, not to weed out persons who are simply non-notable, which requires no special rule). —David Levy 05:13/05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I;m not going to reinvent the wheel every time you don't get what I have said, and try again from a different angle. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone expresses disagreement with you, it means that they "don't get" what you've said? Wow. —David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see a reason to delete and redirect instead of simply redirecting?
Also, given Blueboy96's acknowledgment that "this was a tough call," why was it appropriate to close the debate after less than four days (which he incorrectly referred to as "five days") instead of the usual duration of "at least seven days"? —David Levy 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it says "Certification of Live Birth" instead of "Birth Certificate". Nitpicks all. I might have preferred to keep the article history (i.e. simple redirect rather than delete+redirect), but there may have been a concern that a loon magnet issue like this would be prone to nuisance re-creation. I don't feel strongly about the 5/7 day wait, and overturning the AfD closure over this seems WP:BURO. This closure is valid, even if I would have done it differently. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I was addressing your statement that "there was nothing wrong with this closure." It's fine to endorse it, but it's hardly nitpicking to point out that it occurred more than three days sooner than usual (particularly given the closer's acknowledgment that it was "a tough call").
Secondly, if the revision history were retained, the redirect could be protected to prevent reviving the article without consensus.
Thirdly, as you've compared my position with that of the birthers, I'd like to state for the record that I personally regard the latter as absurd. This, of course, has absolutely no bearing on Orly Taitz's notability (or lack thereof). —David Levy 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that the article has already been recreated, and reverted in about an hour. Dems on the move (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the current setup includes no technical means of preventing that (and the revision history's deletion increases the likelihood of unsourced material being introduced). —David Levy 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I don't like the direction this stretches BLP1E in. Since Taitz has made no attempt to maintain a low profile, and there's plenty of reliable sources mentioning her, this should be a keep, or at worst, no-consensus-defaulting-to-keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. Here is BLP1E: I have bolded the parts that do NOT apply: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. It even goes on to say something that explicitly does apply: If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. I'm not sure how anyone can interpret BLP1E as stating that this article should not be here. Luminifer (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I didn't participate in this AfD, and I think there were valid policy arguments for both positions, which were well-expressed on both sides. But the consensus, if any, tended toward keep. Thus, even though I personally think there's a good argument that Taitz may, in fact, be covered by BLP1E, I think that Hullaballoo is right when xe says that the closure should not substitute the administrator's judgment for the expressed and reasonable consensus interpretation.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse closure per BLP1E, but, as I said in the AfD debate, I have no prejudice against recreation if she stays in the news for an extended period of time (note that for the reason of possible recreation, I would have preferred redirection without deletion, but that is neither here nor there). youngamerican (wtf?) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now - I'm not overly opposed to reconsidering it in the future, but searching g-news for Orly Taitz, excluding "Obama" returns basically nothing, so I'm not overly inclined to believe there is anything to be said apart from the birther article. --B (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what if you search for "John Hinckley" and exclude "Reagan"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a gracious plenty news about him subsequent to Reagan assassination attempt. Granted, if not for the attempt, he would probably not be notable, but if nobody cared about him subsequent to the attempt, I would argue that he didn't need an article either. If, after the Obama conspiracy theories have gone the way of the budget surplus, people still care about Orly Taitz, then, and only then, would an article be appropriate. Until then, there is nothing to say not covered by the main article. --B (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but I would bet every appearance of his name at least mentions, in passing, the Reagan shooting. Likewise, even if Taitz is being mentioned in some other context, the name "Obama" is very likely to turn up somewhere in the text. Luminifer (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn - I'm very concerned that people are ignoring the plain language of WP:BLP1E, which has been quoted in full here more than once. I would also add that BLP1E is a subhead under "Presumption in favor of privacy." It primarily exists to protect low profile individuals, which the subject clearly isn't. That said, there may be a case against the article based on WP:N which says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event." I'd like to see the article reconsidered on WP:N ground alone. --agr (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note from closing admin I've given it some thought, and since she isn't that far off in my opinion from having an article of her own, I have no objection to David Levy's proposal. Blueboy96 19:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly advise against that. I'm looking at the last version of the article prior to deletion and it's pretty bad from a BLP standpoint. If this is ever recreated, I think rebooting it from scratch would be a good idea. --B (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or at the very least go with David Levy's proposal. The whole thing is getting silly: the name is all over the news and I'm sure there are thousands of people searching for her name on Wikipedia and expecting a basic article. They end up with a page from which it's difficult to gather information about her. There are decent sources available for an article (say [1] for an account of her career and many many many sources for her current role in the birther delirium). I feel as though the deletion is a knee-jerk reaction to Mrs. Taitz' craving for attention. True, she is irritating and I'm baffled by the amount of publicity she's able to generate for herself but the current redirect is akin to redirecting Joe the Plumber to McCain's presidential campaign. An article is warranted here. It has to be monitored of course and it has to be kept short until extended details of her career are examined by various reliable outlets. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just reread the discussion and looked at the deleted article and I'm thoroughly convinced that recreating the article is the right thing to do and wanted to address a few of the arguments for endorsing the deletion. First off, David Eppstein's reasoning that it should be endorsed because it was in the "discretion range" is somewhat twisted. Yeah, yeah, DRV is not a second AfD and everything but come on: one admin made a call and we should be supportive no matter how it turned out? Surely we can revisit this in greater depth than by just backing whichever admin happened to make the call. As for the many references to BLP1E, I stand firmly with JamesMLane and David Levy about the distinction between "one event" and "one issue". This is not hair splitting. Activists are typically known almost solely in the context of the issue they defend. Part of the idea of the "one event" criterion is that any relevant info can be inserted in the article in an easy, natural way. In Taitz' case the issue in question has dragged on over a lengthy period of time and it is convenient and informative to present the chronology of her involvement in a separate article instead of peppering it through the one about the issue. I'm having a real hard time with Stifle's claim that this is textbook BLP1E. Low-profile individual? nope. One event? nope. Cindy Sheehan seems a pretty good comparable. Of course, Sheehan is not insane and defends what many feel is a just cause but that shouldn't matter. Contempt for Mrs Taitz, her motives, her media strategy and the issue she defends shouldn't factor into the decision. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the fact that this is not a second AfD debate, also note that some of the endorsers are treating it as precisely that; instead of addressing the issue of whether the closure reflected the consensus reached at AfD, they're casting the equivalent of "delete" votes.
Conversely, the question of whether 1E applies is entirely germane to the deletion review, as the closer's rationale is based upon the assumption that it obviously does (and the vast majority of respondents therefore are wrong and have been overruled). I fully agree that responses based on a clearly false premise should be discounted, but it's been demonstrated that it's the 1E premise that's false in this case.
While I assume that Blueboy96 acted in good faith, he essentially substituted his opinion for those of the respondents. Also note that he has apparently ignored several requests for an explanation of why he closed the debate after less than four days (and falsely claimed that five days had elapsed) instead of allowing the debate (which he has acknowledged was close) to continue for the standard duration of at least seven days. —David Levy 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Still, I think it's worth pointing out the limits of "not a second AfD". In cases where the outcome of the AfD depends so obviously on which admin pulls the trigger first, DRV is and should be an extension of the AfD. Or to put it differently: if anything, this AfD should have been extended, not closed early. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Excepting snowball closures, an AfD discussion is supposed to last at least seven days (and possibly longer if consensus is unclear). Given Blueboy96's acknowledgment that this was "a tough call," his decision to end the debate after less than four days seems rather peculiar and ill-advised. I'm troubled by his apparent refusal to explain his reasoning. —David Levy 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse as being within the grounds for an admin to interpret consensus. The close was backed up by policy and many of the keep votes were very weak. No prejudice against recreation when it is demonstrable that her notability isn't fleeting. ThemFromSpace 03:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Orly Taitz may be craving attention at the moment, but she has been verifiably in the news for months, popping up in news sources as far back as December. She has become famous in her own right and facts about her own person are well known, beyond her involvement in the "birther" movement. A redirect cannot possibly cover all verifiable facts about her, because they would be inappropriate for the article. —siroχo 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I accidently recreated the article (didn't check AfD beforehand) because I have been seeing her in the news a lot and wanted to know more about her. When I saw there was no article I created it. I think she does pass the notability test and 1E doesn't apply as she doesn't maintain a low profile. I also am curious as to who she is, her biography, etc. Based on this, I respectfully suggest overturning. Basket of Puppies 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Admin's decision ignores consensus reached on second AfD. --Tocino 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in this context, the first AfD may as well be ignored as it occurred in January, long before Taitz reached what could be the height of her "popularity". Back then the decision to delete was correct, but this time I do not believe that it is.IncidentalPoint (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I already !voted above): On August 3, after the close and while this DRV was pending, MSNBC devoted almost seven minutes to an interview with Taitz. This was one example of the coverage she received in connection with her latest court filing in Keyes v. Obama. If the deletion is upheld, it would not be bad faith or WP:POINT for someone to begin a new article about Taitz immediately. She's more notable now than she was on July 31. JamesMLane t c 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree, there has even been meta-news coverage of this msnbc interview. this qualifies as a new event and deletion should be overturned. Or at least redirect and preserve the history. That is the least you could do riffic (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we're presented with in the interview is simply more of the same; absent Birther-gate, a subject who would be completely unknown. Readers who may search for taitz are redirected to the relevant Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, which notes her involvement. There are exceptions to the BLP1E policy, i.e. Hinckley, but this doesn't quite rise to that. And whether or not the history of the article is retained seems like a pointless side tangent to all of this. I have no opinion on whether that stays deleted or is restored. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is pointless riffic (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Hinckley is not an exception. If a person isn't low-profile, 1E does not come into play in the first place.
Orly Taitz has received an extraordinary amount of media coverage, which she actively seeks. This does not automatically mean that she should have a dedicated article (and I'm not sure that she should), but it does mean that 1E isn't applicable (even if we broadly interpret "event" to cover "issue," which I strongly disagree with).
Again, 1E is intended to protect the privacy of persons caught up in one-off occurrences, not to weed out persons who are simply not notable enough to have dedicated articles. We need no special rule for the latter.
Why don't you address these points instead of claiming that your opponents "don't get what [you] have said" (a rather insulting remark). —David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hinckley's exeption, that is what the policy is all about; "i.e. "this is what 1E policy normally covers, but even a person connected to one event can be notable enough for an article if the event itself is signifiant." If you need help interpreting BLP policy, Dave, then head over to their talk pages and ask for assitance. I have answered you several times over now, and your recent responses boil down to a Python-esque "yes it is! no it isn't! Is! Isn't". I don't have the time or inclination to address your tangents any further. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Hinckley is cited as an example of the type of individual that 1E does not normally cover. This is because 1E applies strictly to low-profile persons. Referring to "a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event," you stated above that "in most cases like that the person fails 1E," and this is verifiably false. 1E explicitly and and unambiguously applies to an individual who "otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile." And of course, it falls under the heading "Presumption in favor of privacy." Has Orly Taitz sought such privacy?
The remainder of your reply (in which you once again assume that anyone who disagrees with you obviously doesn't understand) is rude and condescending.
I'm here for the same reason that you are: to discuss this matter in good faith (and hopefully do what's best for the encyclopedia). As strongly as I've disagreed with you, I haven't once spoken down to you as though you were a child, and I would appreciate being treated with the same level of courtesy. —David Levy 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the closer has consented to the revision history's restoration. —David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the history is not pointless. It would facilitate the re-creation of a standalone article, if this deletion is upheld but another editor chooses to create a new article as Taitz's notability increases. JamesMLane t c 21:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(arbitrary unindent) I don't understand how Tarc can say with a straight face: "absent Birther-gate, [she] would be completely unknown". That's true of course and it's unlikely that we'll hear her thoughts on gardening or nuclear fission any time soon. But activists are always covered within the context of their cause. Flip Benham would be unknown absent the pro-life movement, Jody Williams would be unknown absent the movement to ban land mines. Taitz has de facto become the poster child for a fringe group which has nevertheless managed to create a huge stir. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you've read the above discussions and since quite a few have taken the time to dismantle the argument that BLP1E is at all relevant, it would be nice if you can give your thoughts on this rather than some abstract one-liner. It's patently obvious that she's not low-profile (which is half of the 1E definition) and it's not clear that she should be considered as known for a single event. I'm ready to listen to good arguments involving WP:BIO but the 1E invocations have been thoroughly discredited above. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I tend to think she's probably notable enough to have an article, but that seems besides the point. There was clearly no consensus to delete. More than any question of whether this article should be deleted, Blueboy's deletion was a perversion of wikipedia process, in that there was clearly no consensus in the deletion discussion that the article should be deleted, and the only exception given to that is in a case where a "little known" individual requests removal, which, so far as I can tell, did not occur here. Maybe the article should be deleted, but Blueboy had no right to delete it given the facts as they appeared at the time. As such, the deletion should be overturned - perhaps it should be relisted, if people want to do that - there seem to be a lot more people here in favor of deletion than there were at the original AFD. (Basically - overturn and remand to the lower court). john k (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:BLP1E's reference to an "event" can be construed broadly or narrowly. A broad understanding better fits the policy's underlying purpose and helps limit the growth of extraneous articles. Taitz's notability rests entirely on her involvement in litigating the President's citizenship; that can and should be deemed one event. Suppose that someone was claimed to be notable for their involvement in a lawsuit. That would certainly fail WP:BLP1E. Now suppose that the defendant in that lawsuit removed the case to federal court, but the judge bifurcated the case and sent some of the claims back to the state court. Suddenly we have two lawsuits, technically -- but does that help the litigant beat WP:BLP1E? Surely not. Similarly, Taitz's litigation. The fact that it has involved multiple lawsuits is like saying that anyone who ever played darts should be deemed notable on the theory that each time they throw something at the target and hope it sticks, that's one event. It's the game that is the event, not the plays, and Taitz's can be covered adequately at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost tempted to see the above as a sarcastic attempt to caricature the 1E apologists. I don't know where you get the idea that all litigants "certainly fall" under BLP1E. Is Norma McCorvey of no interest? Ernesto Miranda? Robert Latimer? Sue Rodriguez? All their cases followed tortuous legal paths. The darts analogy is even weirder. Hey, all these articles about baseball players? Get rid of them, they're just known for that one event of playing baseball. Nevermind the fact that we also have a few hundred articles on dart players. Why should we have an article on Chris Moneymaker? All these poker hands at the 2003 WSOP, they were just one event. And I know I'm repeating myself but "low-profile" is an integral part of BLP1E. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some misunderstandings in your reply, Pascal. I didn't say that "all litigants 'certainly fall' under BLP1E," I said that being a litigant in a lawsuit doesn't by itself convey notability. Of course that doesn't mean that a person can't be notable for something else, or that having established notability, their litigation should be excluded from their article. Some editors would point out that WP:OTHERSTUFF forecloses your argument about other litigants for whom we have articles, but having been critical of that essay myself, I will merely point out that your example of Ernesto Miranda illustrates my point. He may be notable for some reason besides Miranda v. Arizona, but he isn't notable enough for a standalone article simply because he was the petitioner in that case. Since the article makes no attempt to show notability independent of the case, I would delete and redirect; now that you have brought the article to my attention, I will likely propose a merge or nominate the article for deletion. Thanks for the heads-up.
As for your baseball analogy, I don't mind changing sports, but let's get the analogy right. A career in baseball does not count as a single event for purposes of BLP1E. Throwing multiple pitches in a single game, however, is one event for purposes of BLP1E. If your sole claim to notability is that you played one game for the Cardinals, you are not notable. That's one event per BLP1E, and it doesn't change no matter how many pitches you throw during the course of one game. Tatiz is famous for playing one game: litigating Obama's citizenship. She's thrown a few different balls against a few different batters, but it's still the same game, and it'll still be the same game no matter how many balls (complaints) she pitches (files) at (in) different batters (courts). This is one event, just as Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was one comet and gets one article, notwithstanding that it arrived in 21 bite-size fragments. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Baseball, one single game? Let's see... Charles Matthews (baseball), John Roach (baseball), Bob Daughters, Joe Cobb (baseball), Heinie Odom, Steamboat Struss, Twink Twining, Ron Wright (baseball) and of course everyone's favorite: Larry Yount, a pitcher who played in one game and did not throw a single pitch. Good luck getting these guys through AfD... (And I wouldn't put too much money on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Miranda either) But ok, let's assume for a moment that you've managed to sway me about your one-event theories. How do you factor in the "low-profile" half of BLP1E? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that dogs your main argument--Miranda, Yount, and the others are all just examples of the same argument--is that the premise is wrong. If these other similarly-situated people are included, you argue, why not Taitz? Stipulating that those people are similarly-situated, however, your argument only works if I reject WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I do, and if I agree that those other people should be included. I don't. I have no idea why we have an article on Larry Yount, for instance, and if I gave a hoot about sports, I'd throw that into AFD, too.
As to the "low profile" language in WP:BLP1E, I take it your theory is that the language in the third sentence limits the language in the second sentence. I don't think so, but let's suppose you're correct: it's a moot point. WP:SINGLEEVENT, whence WP:BLP1E is a specialization, also applies to any article on Taitz, and it does not include language similarly limiting its scope. The maximum bite of your argument, then, is to reach the same result via a different policy, a position analogous to demanding the article be hanged from a nylon rather than polypropylene rope.
Finally, even assuming that you are correct about Taitz vis-à-vis BLP1E or SINGLEEVENT, the articles on Miranda and Gideon are unsound. Whereas you can at least bolster your case for a Taitz article by considering each of her various anti-Obama activities as a single event, Miranda and Gideon are inarguably notable for only a single case each. Whatever SINGLEEVENT arguments apply to Taitz, they apply a fortiori to the two articles I nominated. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed something key: WP:SINGLEEVENT does not apply a blanket rule of non-notability. You're right that it doesn't contain the "low profile" language of WP:BLP1E. (And that's important for your argument, because I don't see any way you can get around the multiple uses of the phrase "low profile" in BLP1E, or any way to claim that Taitz is "low profile.") But it also doesn't apply the rigid "single event = non-notable" rule that you seem to propose.
Instead, SINGLEEVENT takes an entirely flexible approach, noting that when someone is part of a single event it may be appropriate to have an article about the "individual, the event, or both." Which of those options to choose depends on the situation. So here, we have a high-profile person involved in a running political controversy (not...actually a single event, by the way), and actively receiving significant face-time in reliable sources. Under SINGLEEVENT, that seems like a straightforwardly notable person independent of the event, and the "both" option seems appropriate. --TheOtherBob 04:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. All of the above editors have made clear points regarding the inapplicability of WP:BLP1E to someone who is famous beyond the thing that made them famous, but I'll add to them. Let's start with an example. Mick Jagger might have become famous because he was the lead singer of the Rolling Stones. But he is now, nonetheless, independently notable. Why? Because reliable sources report on him independently. Because people know his name. Because people come here searching for him, and want information about him outside of his participation in the group. Redirecting to the Rolling Stones would be absurd. Here, Taitz is (unfortunately...) famous to at least some degree -- it seems like most people now know who she is. Her fame began with, and largely relates to, her participation in the Birther movement, true. But reliable sources report on her -- not the Birther movement generally, but specifically her. (Jon Stewart, for example, reported on her "interesting" mix of professions.) Her name is well-enough known that Salon.com used her (along with HFCS) as an example of a bogeyman in a recent movie review. People come here looking for information about her, independent of the larger movement -- or at least I did (and it sounds like I'm far from alone). These things strongly suggest that BLP1E is inapplicable -- that Taitz is not a low-profile member of a larger movement, but rather a fairly famous face who, yes, did become famous because of her participation in something else -- but now has been reported on independently by reliable sources and is independently well-known. These things strongly suggest notability. One final thought, since I've mentioned fame here several times (and will therefore merit someone responding with "fame is not the same as notability.") It's true that notability does not require fame -- random highways in Texas can be notable. However, fame is an extraordinarily strong indicator of notability. If someone is famous enough to be talked about on the Daily Show, and we judge them non-notable, we need remarkably strong reasons for doing so -- because people will rightly wonder what sort of digital encyclopedia lacks information about someone famous. I don't see any reason -- much less any remarkably strong reason -- to believe that someone as (unfortunately) famous as Taitz is non-notable. So I'd overturn this deletion. --TheOtherBob 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn Is one event now one issue? If so, let's remove all the baseball players too. Come on, she's a very well known and when I started researching the birther movement last week, she was listed as a leader all over the place. Leader of a movement that has a massive number of articles is notable. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment/oppose strong overtur - what do you mean massive number of artilces? we only have one article about the birther movements Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. this is one article because it's is one issue, obviously Smith Jones 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Hobit was referring to media articles in general, not Wikipedia articles. —David Levy 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ahh that makes more sense i think I understand Smith Jones 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you David, that's what I was trying to say (however poorly!). Hobit (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The AFD was closed in only 4 days, not the now standard 7, and if not against consensus then certainly with a debatable one. Especially given the way things are fluid regarding the subject, the most appropriate outcome here would seem to be Relist, not Overturn or Endorse. Rd232 talk 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support that. Your argument is very reasonable. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • its also impostant to point out that this is the second AFD that this article has had, and the first one resulted in delete. this culd be an example of WP:SNOW, especially since the keep votes were somewhat repetitive and specious and Wikipedia is not a voting democrat. Relisting may be appropriate, but it wil csontintute the unusual step of granting the same minor and relatively unimportant article three separate AFDs (or FOUR if you count Deletion Review), which is unusual and perhaps a little bit unnecesary since it will almost certainly be closed and deleted again by the same admin. Smith Jones 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think WP:SNOW really applies. For one thing, Taitz is getting more and more notable each time. I'm sure each creation is the result of considerable surprise that there isn't already an entry on here for her. I think you could even go so far as say the it makes as much sense to applyWP:SNOW to the creators of the article as it does to apply WP:SNOW to the deletors (especially if it were to be as you described it - the same admin deleting it again and again). Luminifer (talk) 04:55, 8 August 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ambar Siar.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The image was deleted for reasons best known to the administrator. I had also put a license tag which stated that the picture was more than 100 years old and qualifies to be posted on wikipedia. I hail from the very same place which Malik Ambar, whose image I posted, erected during 16th century AD. I therefore request the editors to qualify this image and let me post the picture. Nefirious (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For background, it was deleted as a copy of File:Malik Ambar.jpg, which was deleted here in June as a derivative work of File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the question DRV is asked normally to consider is whether deletion process was properly followed, it does appear that this image is a copy of an image which is PD due to age. I therefore recommend it be restored without any negative inference towards the previous deletions. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, the image was painted by an unknown artist more than 100 years before. I believe that the image will not affect anyone nor does anyone hold any copyright of the image. Please comment everyone. Thanks for recommending it to be restored. Nefirious (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Google doesn't have reference to it, doesn't mean that book does not exist. I believe there are thousands such books written in regional language that have no reference on Google. Like before, I had also attached a snapshot of the newspaper in which the picture was printed. So I suggest my fellow colleagues to reinstate the image that serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject in the article and is by all means authentic. Nefirious (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just came across this book which has the reference of Sheikh Chand's book. [Malik Ambar]. Please have a look at the link and you will find a mention of Sheikh Chand's book that was published in the year 1921 and then republished in 1931. Nefirious (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the problem with the copyright is that, as you yourself have stated..."The photo was originally in black and white. It has been colored in a photo studio"[2]. That means, it is then no longer a Black and white photograph, It is an Artists interpretation done to an Unknown degree, at an Unknown time, then printed in a Newspaper that does not say where the Original Image or Altered Image was acquired from or what it is we are actually being shown. (We cant really tell if its not the Art Department's sketch made a week before the Newspaper Article was written or wholly now the work of the Artists that interpreted it.) Add to that, the fact that "There are no multiple sources that describe Malik Ambar as the same in every picture."[3] means that we have to be sure of the picture, or have none, for this historical figure. Myself and others have been attempting to explain this viewpoint for sometime now. Taking the picture from a newspaper then adding a Cite from a book would not adhere to WP:V as they did not come from the same source. If we could find a unaltered photograph with a reliable Citable source with with it, there would be no problem, but this Image's copyright has been meddled with by to many people already, for it to be Reliable. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are just complicating matters my dear friend. The picture was colored in a photo studio by people in the city who adore him and see him as a hero that included myself. The photo has only been colored and is no artists interpretation and imagination. Sheikh Chand is the only author to have written a book exclusively on Malik Ambar and is considered by all researchers as a very authentic book. What you say is your own interpretation about changes in the image. If we start looking at these things so minutely then no image will ever be posted on wikipedia. And yes there are other pictures of Malik Ambar that descirbe him as darker, but that does not mean that the picture in Shaikh Chand's book or the Article with Malik Ambar's picture in TOI is fake. Times of India is a national newspaper and no one can challenge its authenticity. And by the way, the newspaper snapshot was just added for reference. I have the original copy of the image as well as the colored photographs with me. The TOI team was in search of an appropriate picture and came across this picture and published the same in the newspaper. And it has not been meddled by too many people, you are just exagerrating. The bottom line is that the image is more than 100 years old and qualifies to be posted on wikipedia. The sources have been cited and authenticity maintained. 05:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC) And if by any chance the image does not qualify under pd old then it can qualify under public domain, since the picture has been drawn by an unknown artist and has been manually colored by an artist. Nefirious (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we share the same privileges on Wikipedia, I will do so if the council demands. I aint answerable to one individual. Sorry if you think this is rude but I would need to scan the picture and for doing so I would need to go out somewhere since I dont have a scanner. If the council members insist on doing so, I'll do so. But I dont think there is an urgent need for me to produce the outlined picture of Malik Ambar, don't think any editor ever had to produce any evidence apart from citations and references. Nefirious (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be allright to me. I too recommend that the pic be restored. 59.95.2.133 (talk) 06:27, 9 August 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wall of text collapsed
Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

[edit] Triumph of Truth Hi NawlinWiki this in Penright here, I really do not understand why you deleted my article Triumph of Truth (Who's Watching The Watchers?) on the basis that it is an add trying to sell something, This does not make any sense when the subject matter of the article is about a series of books that were written in the 1980's and early 1990's and have been destroyed by the state library and the state police. This is a history article about a series of books that do not exist any more, but a story that has to go on public record in the public interest, it is not selling anything, please explain what you think the article is trying to sell. I do expect a proper detailed reason and explanation for you decision to instantly delete this article without even a general discussion on the talk page as to why you think it should not be allowed to exist on Wikipedia. I have had of experience in courts over the years where one has to explain the reason why certain actions are taken, even a high court judge has to do this when he makes a judgement, so you are acting as judge, jury and executioner for this article Triumph of Truth (Who's Watching The Watchers?) and you have tried the case overseen the hearing as the judge, found the article guilty acting as the jury and then instantly executed al the life out of the article with a final death sentence, no appeals, no discussions, and no detailed reason as to why you think this article is guilty of trying to sell something, when the subject matter is clearly history and not talking about any good, service product that is available for sale today, as the Western Australian State Library destroyed their copies of these books and the Queensland Police have stolen the original manuscripts and refuse to hand them back. NawlinWiki, I look forward to your detailed answer. Kindest regards PenrightPenright (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[edit] Pain Hertz Hi - I noticed you speedy deleted this article without even tagging it for speedy deletion first. I was in the midst of adding some more information to it when you did this - it hasn't even been 10 minutes since I created it. How did you even delete it without tagging it first? Please reinstate it so we can see if anyone else agrees that it should not be speedy deleted. As per Wikipedia:New pages patrol, Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author..Also In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete using A7 for not being notable (in your opinion): an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, it only has give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable (whether it actually is notable is a subject for an AfD discussion, not a speedy deletion). Consider using a Notability tag instead of a speedy delete tag. Also, an article should not be tagged for speedy deletion if it's possible that it might be improved into an article which should be kept. Pay attention to the guideline "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." It is not a rule of Wikipedia that an article has to be perfect the instant it's first posted; that's why we have edits.Please reinstate the page so that this can be discussed. Luminifer (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC) In summary, articles that are not suited for wikipedia are not to be speedy deleted, but are to be tagged with AfD. Unsuitable pages. Pages about individuals, places, or things which generally don't merit an encyclopedia entry should be tagged with PROD or, if someone could reasonably defend its existence (or if a prod has been added and removed already), listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. What exactly qualifies as encyclopedic is debatable, though, so it's best to err on the side of caution and not delete or nominate for deletion too hastily. Luminifer (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Hi - I don't believe I have to establish notability to not have it speedily deleted, according to all of the policies I have read. You can tag is with AfD if you like, but it should not have been speedy deleted. Wikipedia policy clearly states that a page should not be speedy deleted just because it is not up to par - some pages require the cumulative efforts of many wikipedians to establish significant notability. Can you show me where in the speedy deletion policy it says that possibly unnotability is a valid sole criterion for speedy deletion? Also, can you explain why it was never even first tagged for speedy deletion? Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Specifically, you cited A7 as the reason for deletion, but A7 explicitly states it is weaker than notablity: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The article I created did do that. Luminifer (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also, please follow the suggestion at the top of my talk page and respond here rather than on my talk page.. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Per speedy delete category a7, an article can be speedily deleted if it doesn't *assert* notability. As I said, I don't see how your article asserted notability per WP:MUSIC. "6 albums" doesn't assert notability, because lots of nonnotable bands have 6 self-produced albums. Finally, administrators are not required to tag articles for speedy deletion if they believe that the article meets the speedy-delete criteria -- they can just go ahead and delete. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers that are Watching new Wiki Edits and articles? Copy to of letter to Editor of the News York TimesDear Sir, I still have not had a reply yet from NawlinWiki an administrator on Wikipedia to my question. I am surprised that there is no rely, when he or she was so quick to remove the article, like the Kitten was sitting there watching minute my minute "Daily Kitten is watching"ready to pounce on the Triumph of Truth, because the series of books Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) are apparently:(1)not allowed to be a book in a public Library, even though they were purchased with public money for the Western Australian JS Battye Library, by a very senior experienced Western Australian library historian, that felt that as he said to me, when he decided to order a number of copies of the seven volumes of Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) when I asked him why is he originally ordered them he said, "it was in the public interests of the people of Western Australia to have the alternative view of the legal, political, public trustee, police, courts, prosecution, business world on public record", (2) not allowed to even he stored in garage of a private home, so when the police come to the house at 6 Earl Court looking for documents that relate to real estate transactions in Tallai, Queensland, and they find the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)the police immediately decide that these books are illegal books and no one should have them in their house as they may corrupt the minds of those that read them, and thus have to be removed immediately and destroyed, before anyone else reads the mind corrupting information that is written in these books (3) Not allowed to be mentioned in any normal mainstream newspaper, encyclopaedia etc, so the author has to go to his grave without anyone ever knowing about these books, so that when he dies the world will never know that these books ever existed, as the world is not allowed to know that these books have ever existed, just like the JS Battye Library had to completely destroy these books and even take all copies of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), purchased by the JS Battye LibraryLink title, off the library computer of them , and the police had to remove and destroy the original manuscripts of the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) when they were discovered by the police stored in the garage of a private home , this all being done without any official court order and/or official authority an/or official rule of any law in Australia that these people were using to remove and destroy the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), so that, other that the author who sold them to the Library, and a few close associates, no one would ever know that they ever existed in the JS Battye Library and in fact in the world. It seems that The Triumph of TruthLink title that Sir Edgar Bertram Mackennal, the great grand father of the author of the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) , Stephen Carew-Reid, tried to create in the 1980's is still having a hard time existing, however in the laws of the universe, The Truth Will Always Triumph, one way or another. Kindest regards, M Moore (code name Penright)Penright (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Triumph of Truth Not For Sale This is the short reply from NawinWiki 10 minutes after the first reply was sent requesting a full explanation as to why the article on the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?) was tagged for speedy deletion and to explain the speedy deletion in the light of "Wikipedia policy which clearly states that a page should not be speedy deleted, just because it is not up to par - some pages require the cumulative efforts of many wikipedians to establish significant notability. Can you show me where in the speedy deletion policy it says that possibly unnotability is a valid sole criterion for speedy deletion?" (See: Pain Hertz's similar complaint above regarding the speedy deletion of his article) NawinWiki's short reply:"You're trying to publicize your own books. Moreover, those books don't appear to have any independent notability per WP:N and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)". Please respond in much more detailed and sensible argument and valid reasons to the two detailed replies to you, as to why you, with such hast and vigour, tagged for speedy deletion the article of the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?). Please be kind enough to also provide your reply on your own talk page (This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki&action=edit) and please also explain why, when I was editing the original article in the SandBox section, the drafts that I worked hard on, started, after a few hours of working on the page, to disappear every 12 seconds, and the Wikipedia Policy on top of the SandBox page states that the edits on the SandBox pages will be removed every 12 hours, not every 12 seconds. Then I go back to the Sandbox page to have another try, to create the article again, and there is a message typed by yourself, being the admin editor on duty at the time checking new edits and new articles being drafted, in the edit section, that "the edits on this page will be removed every 12 seconds". The meaning behind this message was clear. No matter what I was to write in the SandBox edit page and/or in an actual article on a main Wikipedia page, you and those who you are fronting for have already decided to speadily delete the edit and/or article. The message is clear that the subject matter that involves the now destroyed the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?), that are not for sale, as they simply do not exist anymore, but their original existence can be easily verified by speaking to the main political historian that was in charge of the ordering of the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?) at the JS Battye Library, also by search in all the references and links that have been provided suporting the article, as well as reading the article on the Old Boys Melbourne High Schol page that has been on the internet for over 12 year, (Please See: Google search on Stephen Carew-Reid MHSOBA 1907-2009 :: Luncheon Club - 8 July Stephen Carew-Reid - arguing with the Judiciary ... Instead his father John Hastings Carew-Reid talked him into comming back to Perth WA and taking over the. www.mhsoba.asn.au/default.asp?pg=luncheon&spg... - Cached - Similar - )at http://www.mhsoba.asn.au/default.asp?pg=luncheon&spg=display&articleid=2266 " Stephen Carew-Reid - arguing with the Judiciary -Stephen went to Christ Church Grammer School until 1962 when his family moved to Melbourne. There he attended Brighton Grammer School from 1963 to 1969. In 1970 he attended Melbourne High School and received a Commonwealth Scholarship to attend Melbourne University to complete a Law Degree. Instead his father John Hastings Carew-Reid talked him into comming back to Perth WA and taking over the family stone business and completing a Bachelor of Commerce Degree during the years 1971-75. Stephen received 75% of the family company worth about $8,000 in compensation to his other two brothers and one sister receiving about $20,000 to start their adult life with. Stephen built this company up with wise real estate investments from $8,000 in value to over $500,000 by the end of the 1970's. Stephen wanted to develop these properties himself and make a further $1 million development profit by building town houses and offices on the land. During his university days he rented all the rooms out in the houses to pay for the mortgages, had two children and was one of the 8 selected out of over 2,000 entries to fly to Melbourne to be part of the Johny Young Song Festival. His father took control of the company back from Stephen by issuing an extra 5,000 shares now it was very valuable and stopped Stephen from developing the house himself and in fact sold the house to a property developer who made $1 million profit. His father died in 1986 and left the WA Public Trustee as executor of this will. Stephen ended up sueing the Public Trustee for mishandling the etate and ended up representing himself for over a decade in the WA Courts against the Public Trustee who used their power of City Hall against him. Stephen has ended up having his practical expereince in the courts before he did any formal training and has now written a series of books about the fight he has had with the WA Public Trustee and the WA Government called, The Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching the Watchers). The books have been named after his late Great Grand Father, Sir Edgar Bertram McKennal who was well known bronze sculpter in the earty 1900's in Melbourne who went on to becoming quite famous in Europe. Before he left Melbourne to further his art in Europe, he won a competition sponcered by well knbwon business men to produce a life size sculpter to be placed outside the Art Gallery. He called his entry "The Triumph of Truth". He only ever did a small clay version for the entry because the prise money never came forward form the businessmen to finance him to complete the life size sculpter.His Great Grand Father was searching for the Truth in his art and now Stephen is searching for the truth in his books to carry on his Great Grand Father's work in a different form." as clearly explained in the article, so you you to tag the article on the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?) for speedy deletion, on the basis of your false and wrongful claim that I am promoting my own books, in the Wikipedia article, makes no sense at all, when they are not my books and in any event as the article says they have been destroyed, first by the JS Battye on instructions of the Western Australian Crown Law Department without any court order and/or rule of law authority, and then the original manuscripts have been taken and destroyed by the Queensland police in Australia, again without any court order and/or Australian Rule Of Law to support such actions. This article could never be accused of being about myslef and/or anyone else using Wikipedia to promote the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), because, as set out in the article, they simply do not exist any more. The article is just a history article about the history of events that took place in Western Australia in the late 1980's and early 1990's, being over 15 years ago, and it is clearly in the public interest that this piece of important Western Australian History go on permanent public record in Wikipedia, for the world to read for generations to come, so that the truth is there to be read, not hidden from everyone for ever. That is the main purpose, Jimmy Wales, who has been historically cited as being the co-founder of Wikipedia, had for the founding of Wikipedia, for the truth about all subjects to be on public record for ever. Kindest Regards M.Moore (Code Penright)Penright (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Best regards M.Moore (Code Penright)Penright (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC) You wrote "it is clearly in the public interest that this piece of important Western Australian History go on permanent public record in Wikipedia, for the world to read for generations to come, so that the truth is there to be read, not hidden from everyone for ever." That's your opinion. We don't go by an article author's opinion -- we go by reliable independent sources. If you don't have any, post your information on your own website, not here. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Hi NawlinWiki, great to hear your personal opinion of he subject matter of the article about the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) and that you have agreed with me finally that the article is not attempting to sell anything, as the article is just a history article about some of the interesting history of Western Australia, just like you must have some interesting history in New Orleans, USA where you were born and still live. I may not think that the history that you may chose to write about about events, people, places etc that relate to New Orleans, USA in Wikipedia are interesting and noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, however that would be only my personal opinion, not necessary the opinion of the hundreds and thousands of other editors that contribute to Wikipedia around the world. In this case you have now come out of the cupboard and admitted the real real reason why you have made it your personal mission place a tag for speedy deletion to the article about the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), is that you do not like the subject matter and may consider that the subject matter isn't noteworthy enough, and you have chose to attack the 30 references and sources I quoted in the article which include the following: References: 1. James Battye Library, Western Australia Editions of the Australian Weekend News, on microfilm at the James Battye Library 2. Editions of the Australian Weekend News, compliments of the Australian Weekend News Publishing Group and International News Limited 3. Seven volumes of books knows as Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers? written by Stephen Carew-Reid and published by the Australian Weekend News 4. Website:www.INLNews.com Website: www.USAWeeklyNews.com 5. Website: www.whois watchingthewatchers.com 6. Australian Weekend News websites: www,awn.bz, www.australianweekendnews.com, www.newscorp.net 7. Interviews with Stephen Carew-Reid and other staff at the Australian Weekend News, USA Weekly News and INL News Limited and International News Limited 8. Historical records of the old Daily-Weekend News published in Perth, Western Australia 9. Historical records of the West Australian Newspaper, published in Perth Western Australia and held on micro Film at the James Battye Library in Perth Western Australia. 10. Interviews with staff at the James Battye Library in Perth Western Australia 11. Interviews with the residents and owner of 6 Earl Court Tallai, 12. Queensland Queensland Police records held in Queensland, Australia 13. Statements from Queensland Senior Detectives Gregory Stormont and Barry Zerner Letters 14. Records, receipts and correspodence from the Queensland Police Service in Australia 15. Local Court of Western Australia records 16. Magistrate Court of Western Australia records 17. District Court of Western Australia records 18. Supreme Court of Western Australia records 19. Federal court of Australia records 20. High Court of Australia records 21. Public Trustee of Western Australia records 22. Director of Public Prosecution records 23. Western Australian Titles Office at Midland records 24. Western Australian Police Service records 25. Mosman Park Shire council records 26. Interviews with Lloyd Carew-Reid 27. Interview with Wayne Carew-Reid 28. Interviews with Pippen Drysdale 29. Interviews with Paul Rigby 30. Historical records of the Sunday Times Newspaper published in Perth Western Australia. I do challenge you over your claim that the article is not note worthy enough non of these sources and reference are not reliable enough to make this article be be included in Wikipedia and I ask you you discuss this with say 10,000 other Wikipedian editors in the Wikipedian community, and take a vote on it and get a conscientious of opinion from them all. If you can not get a general agreement from these 10,000 editors in the Wikipedian community, then take a vote and I suppose the majority vote wins the day, one way or another. I hereby did attached a copy of the article to show the 10,000 other wikipedian editors you are going toi approach to take a vote on the Wikipedean future or non future of the subject matter that is is the article entitled Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), that you have tagged for speedy deletion by yourself that was indeed very speedily deleted in a few seconds: Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) however that section of my edit on this page was tagged for speedy deletion, and speedily delected within the usuaol 12 second time frame that is allowed for any that I put up on wikipedia under the tile suject matter Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?). Kindest regards M.Moore ( Wikipedia Code Penright)Penright (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Penright (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm struggling to make the least bit of sense of this huge, unformatted wall of text, but from a combination of this and a perusal of NawlinWiki's talk page, I'm tentatively of the view that this content should be userfied to Penright in order to give him time to work on the article and make it ready for publication on Wikipedia.

    Before it is actually moved to the mainspace, I think Penright should bring the finished article in its verifiable, reliably-sourced state back to DRV, where we can examine it and make sure it's appropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is Penright here, I think I undertsand yiu you are saying that I can have some time to work on the article under a pace called userfied an dthen when I feel the article is ready for going into the main space, i will be allowed ot bring the article back to DVR where yu can examine it in detail to make sure it's appropriate and/or provide me guidelines and/or suggestions where and how I have to improve the article for being appropriate for being moved into the main space. Many Thanks Penright.Penright (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Scott Doe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a multi layed issue so bare with me.

  • A. I nominated the Scott Doe article, a soccer player that has never played a professional soccer match and their fails WP:ATHLETE
  • B. The AfD was "speedy kept" citing "This article is currently a Good Article, which wouldn't be posisble if he didn't pass basic notability guidelines".
  • C. I recognised the "closer" as an editor that has been invloved in an ongoing dispute with me and other with regards the notability of soccer players (mainly in Ireland and the UK).
  • D. I then 8reverted the closure and opened a discussion on the closers talk page.
  • E. Edit warring ensured and the AfD was locked. The closer then stated that the AfD was closed because "it has recently passed it's good article nomination, that AfD was applicable for a Speedy Keep close under clause 2.1 ("obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured articles)")." - I disagreed with this stating the AfD was policy based and then felt I was being fobbed out by a biased closer as an attempt to silence.
  • F. I then opened a second AfD - more of the same. I then opened a discussion on ANI and subsequently got blocked for 3RR and disruption.
  • So now we are here. My issue is threefold.
  • 1. The logic of the closure - Closer stated that "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations" - the article nominated was for a footballer that never played a game of professional football in all his days and I outlined that in the nomination. It wasnt a "featured article" and the GA review it had had no mention of notability. Others agreed with this - here and a.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=305087918&oldid=305087072 here. Some editors did state it was frivilous but when challenged as to why they did not reply.
  • 2. The bias of the closer - Bettia has very recently been involved in a number of arguments/discussions/disagreements with me and others over this issue and should not have been the one to close the AfD due to his "emotional invlovement". Examples here, here, here and here,
  • 3. Meetpuppetry of the "FOOTY Project cabal" - In the above AfD's this cabal - consisting primarily of Bettia, GiantSnowman, Jimbo online, Angelo.romano, Dweller, ClubOranje and Number 57 - to a much lesser extent ChrisTheDude, Dweller, Jmorrison230582, have mostly been recently involved when we had a pretty similar issue where a potentially biased admin from the FOOTY Project closed an AfD when they have been invovled disputes in that area. This was at the Davey O'Connor's review, infact Bettia should remember it because he also endorsed the deletion - thankfully the community stepped in to overturn it. Which is what I hope happens here. Vintagekits (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just in case you don't know what meatpuppetry is: WP:MEAT. I don't see any evidence of any of the mentioned users making any "recruitment of (typically, new) editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another editor, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion". Also, as I said on WP:AN/I, I have always thought all footballers with a Wikipedia article should meet both WP:ATHLETE and WP:N, not only one of them, which is a position quite different than several of the other users you mentioned. Please think twice before writing your words. --Angelo (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would say that this is pretty indicative of the carry on over there. And the reaction of the "canvasser" who didnt even seem to think there was anything wrong with it is very very telling.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now...why don't we just deal with the article at hand? --Smashvilletalk 21:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. It is not meatpuppetry, according to the Wikipedia definition itself; 2. It is not even inappropriate canvassing, a user asks for more input from other users with valid knowledge of the subject, also because several of these AfDs went almost desert, with no comment at all, and some of them being even extended for one more week because of that; 3. WP:CANVAS is a nice reading, look at it; canvassing is not negative by definition, but can also be helpful in some cases; "Inappropriate canvassing" is the real issue instead, which is not the case here. --Angelo (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. There was absolutely no reason for an editor involved in the Wikiproject to speedy close this debate - especially with this reasoning. Being a listed as a good article generally does not preclude an article from being deleted...especially when one notes - as VK brings up - that WP:ATHLETE was not even mentioned in the brief GA review. --Smashvilletalk 21:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article would have had to have been checked for quick fail criteria, which doesn't have to be noted. Nothing at WP:RGA says about how in depth the review has to be, as the reviewer obviously thought it was decent enough. Clearly not meatpuppetry either, just established Wiki members who share the same view, which happened to be different of Vintagekits who seemed to get upset and take things personally. --Jimbo[online] 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the speedy closure of the AfD as speedy keep, primarily because of the logic associated with being listed as a Good Article. From my reading of the first paragraph of the article, I question that designation, but it was perhaps different when the GA status was achieved, and that's beside the point of an AfD. If the article is a GA, it's a GA. Let's discuss that designation (elsewhere, please) before having any discussion about deleting it. Second, it is not within policy to presume that failure to meet WP:ATHLETE means a subject fails to meet notability. WP:ATHLETE and its brethren, such as WP:MUSIC, WP:ACADEMIC, etc., exist for the purpose of providing additional criteria that are discipline-specific to aid in defining additional ways in which a subject might be recognized as notable for our purposes. They are not meant as failing criteria but rather as additional passing criteria. This is described at the top of the page: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included (and yes, meeting them isn't automatically enough to say they should be included). I note also that 16 other players on his team have articles here and the team is listed as international - this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point, but it does seem that there is consensus that most members of this level of team are notable, so it's not without precedent. If the purpose of the AfD was to question whether or not all players at that level meet notability guidelines, they should all have been nominated concurrently as a policy discussion rather than this one particular article, and on that basis, I'd also endorse the close because of wrong venue. I am not saying discussion can't or shouldn't be had, but if there is a wider discussion to be had, let's make it the right one instead of hanging everything on this one AfD.  Frank  |  talk  21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. This is unpleasant; from the combination of the above nomination, with negative descriptions of named editors, on the one side and edit summaries like this on the other, we're dealing with a clash of personalities as well as a content dispute.

    The article in question does not appear to be a GA to me, and even if it were, that would not prevent it being discussed at AfD.

    The point the "keep" side should have made more clearly is that Scott Doe has non-trivial coverage from the BBC here and here. This means the notability argument for deletion is only going to succeed if Vintagekits can show that the BBC is not a reliable source, and frankly, I don't foresee that line of argument cutting much ice at AfD.

    But, having said all that, I do think it was unfortunate that Bettia was the one to close the AfD. Vintagekits does have a point in this respect: Bettia isn't an uninvolved admin. So this comes back to R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, which I've cited before at DRV, and I think is important. The principle is that while I have no doubt that Bettia is perfectly capable of setting aside their personal feelings when judging a consensus, "justice must be done, and must be seen to be done". Even the appearance of bias is enough to justify setting aside the previous discussions and requiring a good-faith debate on notability to take place.

    So despite the fact that I think Vintagekits' argument is going to get absolutely slaughtered, I'm going to go with procedural relist.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, all i would say about the links that you provided - would you consider the coverage of Doe in those articles to be indepth significant coverage which would be enough to pass WP:N?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia definition's of "significant coverage" is provided in the WP:GNG. I'm quite certain that those pass.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if there was no chance of it being deleted why not allow the discussion then? You also havent touchedon the issue of the closers bias. Would it surprise you that Scott Doe plays in the same league as this player. Note the identity of the people casting the delete !votes. The same one that are voting to !keep here - yet these are playing in the same level and the same sources are available for both. Another example - Vid Belec - well sourced article with better sources than this article has and its up for AfD - note the !voters and their reasoning. --Vintagekits (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for several reasons:1) Meeting notability criteria is not one of the Good Article criteria, failing notability criteria is a reason given to delete something under deletion policy. 2) Purposefully not looking at this particular example, the good article review process is often only administered by one individual and so is not infallible and does not always reflect community consensus - in general no process is infallible. 3) According to the Featured Article director "FA status should not be used as the basis for arguing whether or not an article should be notable enough to keep." (January 2008) 4) Having the discussion - and determining community consensus - will be the easiest way to put the issue to bed in this particular case. Guest9999 (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure if that's a good article, we're scraping bottom here. But the people who decide which articles are "good" no doubt would have raised notability issues and assuming good faith if those folks didn't have a problem, why is it at AFD? If it's time for a reassessment, so be it; knock out it's "good"ness and then nominate it. Remember consensus isn't just who shows up to the AFD, but the whole community and the community (or its representatives) have spoken that the article is "good". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as new AfD, overly broad interpretation of SK criterion 2. Considering "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", my reading of example 1 is more like vandalizing the current Main Page Featured Article by nominating it at AfD. Even if that narrow interpretation is expanded to shield all current FAs, I don't see how it transfers to GA. A recent promotion to or affirmation of GA status may be a reasonable AfD argument – especially if the review and the nomination overlap – but it is insufficient for SK. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It only takes a single reviewer to promote an article to GA status, so I don't think the nomination was out of line. I also think the speedy keep was out of line, particularly given the contentious relationship between nom and closer. I agree entirely with S. Marshall's thinking above. RayTalk 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist How on earth is that a good article? the prose in the lead is awful.... yea, its fails athlete, that doesnt matter if the article meets the GNG anyway but we need a proper discussion about whether the sources properly discuss the subject in non-trivial terms. If it does, it doesn't matter whether its fails Athlete as GNG trumps local notability guidelines. But this needs a proper discussion so relist. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Having GA status doesn't assert notability. He clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, so notability is going to have to be asserted elsewhere. All the references are either or statistical apart from a couple of pieces in the Dorset Echo, but even then the depth of coverage is lacking and let's face it - we could assert a lot of non-notable people's notability by using local papers. A proper discussion is needed. Black Kite 08:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse as closing admin, as I feel that my actions were entirely policy-based. I should point out that I don't object to anyone questioning my interpretation of policy, but I certainly object to people questioning my integrity, in particular the personal accusations made against me by the nominator.
Disagreeing with someone over interpretation of policy is not the same as bias - if I think the nominator is correct about something, I will quite happily take his side. Indeed, this happened just yesterday in an AfD which nominator conveniently didn't link to - despite our difference of opinions, I supported his AfD nomination. If I truly was biased against him, would I have done that?
The idea that I was "emotionally involved" is also baseless. If anyone reading the AfDs linked to by the nominator (or in any of my edits) can find any negative emotion on my part, I'd be very impressed - I guarantee, you certainly won't find anything like the vulgar tirade left on my talk page.
Thirdly, the accusation of meatpuppetry on the part of me and the others named is also baseless and offensive as it questions the integrity of me and an entire WikiProject. Such a serious accusation needs solid proof.
If the nominator cannot provide any proof to back up these claims, I would respectfully ask him to make good use of the strikethrough tag and withdraw those accusations. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I'll be strikin through feck all I can assure you! You and your "buddies" on the FOOTY Project are a cabal that vote in lock step and are completely hypocritical. You pick an choose when you consider WP:ATH, WP:N or WP:GNG is the policy that suits your POV - usually when its an English player and then delete the rest - the lot of ye make me sick to be honest. The DRV for David O'Connor just says it all afaik. If you had any dignity or respect for yourself you would had you adminship back in.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats it run! Lets look at this statistically. On the Davey O'Connor review we have 17 !votes. 12 for overturn and 5 to endorse the deletion. If we look at the votes and split it between "cabal members" and the general community it looks a little diffeent. "Cabal members" - 1 to overturn and 5 to endorse - General community - 11 to overturn and 0 to endorse. Actions speak louder than words and those stats speak volumes.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question for you, Bettia: do you consider that this article satisfies the WP:ATHLETE notability criteria? Or rather that it satisfies the general notability criteria of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? (or both?) --Stormie (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. This is worth a full AfD debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist (the first AfD) - I'm sure there was no impropriety involved but similar to S Marshall's arguement it's the 'appearance of possible impropriety' that is the problem, in this case possible bias. In my opinion no admin should close an AfD on a subject which they have a keen interest and being a member of a relevant project certainly suggests such a keen interest, as it suggests they may be biased. I'm sure in 99.99% of cases they would show no bias but there's no way to prove that they haven't so it's better they don't close an AfD on a subject they're close to so that not only are we fair but we're seen to be fair. I'm sure it's pretty much uneccessary to say this but the second AfD close was good as it's not the right way to object to an AfD closuure. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per nom and Black kite. BigDunc 11:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - despite being accused of being a member of this shadowy WP:FOOTY cult, I actually agree with Vintagekits that the discussion should have been allowed to remain open. As it is a Good Article, it is almost 100% going to be kept; but we should still allow positive, meaningful discussion. So let Vintagekits make his pro-deletion points, and see what other editors have to say. However, I want to make it known that my decision to support the relisting is in no means a criticism of the way that Bettia closed the AfD; Vintagekits' recent AfD nominations have been verging on the ridiculous lately, and this is the straw that broke the admin's back. GiantSnowman 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as Keep Aren't the requirements to become a Good Article far higher than simply being kept? It has been proven to meet all the requirements, so there is no need to bother with this. Dream Focus 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I think this article is a great example of why Good Article status should not be considered an automatic keep in an AfD, and moreover it's a bit of an embarrassment to the Good Article process: it's short, lacking in substantive detail, filled with minutiae about individual game plays in the absence of anything more substantive to say about the subject, and not compellingly written. None of these qualities makes for a convincing deletion rationale, but they don't provide a speedy keep rationale either. The AfD should have proceeded normally. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else of this opinion. The GA criteria do not require one to consider notability, and in any event such articles are promoted on based on one editor's opinion. FA's by comparison, are peer reviewed, and have a better claim to immunity from AfD. Even so, there is precedent for FAs being nominated for deletion. I expect the nomination will fail, but it was properly raised, and discussion should not have been cut off by interested parties. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – I would personally question why that's a GA in the first place. I doubt, however, a consensus for deletion will occur, but you never know... MuZemike 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Being a GA is not a free ticket to notability. There is nothing in the GA criteria, or even the FA criteria that demands notbility; the only reason so few make it to GA is because the reviewer is not attentive enough to send it to AfD. Not only that, the closing admin was certainly not impartial, and this close was not a good idea. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist notability is seriously questionable as is the GA status, which it currently fails. There are no images at all on the article nor was there even a discussion during the review of this issue. I also don't believe it is well written. To give a few examples: "although he is yet to play for the team", "He was refused to join Dagenham on a permanent basis by The Football Association", "however the the Football League refused" etc. There's nothing on his personal background and particularly glaring is the omission of his birthplace. The article needs to be put up for GA review. Valenciano (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, GA does not disqualify an article from AfD. Even if it survives AfD the GA status is highly questionable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to Overturn and Relist. Having had a couple of days to cool off and reflect, I've come to the same conclusion as many of the people here - although my intentions were honest, my actions were hasty and incorrect. Although I don't agree with Vintagekits' accusations against me and the member of WP:FOOTY, I do owe him an apology as my actions caused him to get angry and temporarily blocked. As User:S Marshall has stated above, "justice must be done and must be seen to be done". Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 07:56, 2 August 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:PeterPan1.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I raised this with the closing admin Steve Smith (talk · contribs) and, though we both agreed the image should probably be deleted, we disagreed about the role of a closing administrator- I felt that the majority of arguments in favour of retention were extremely weak, and that the initial concern (that the physical appearance of the actress in role is of no importance) was not addressed. The retention of this image seems to be contrary to wider consensus, and, though more people voted to keep, (and though I'm not accusing Steve of this) IfD debates most certainly should not be a straight head count. I feel that this closure was inaccurate, as it failed to address the wider concerns about the use of this image, and the strong consensus in support of our NFCC generally. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation from closing admin: J Milburn gets the explanation about right above, but I wanted to more thoroughly explain my closure. As J Milburn said, I don't think that this image clears NFCC #8. However, site-wide consensus on how this criterion is applied (which means, among other things, that photos of album covers are always considered to clear it in articles about the album, that purely decorative photos non-living people for whom no free equivalent exists are always acceptable, etc.) the threshold for what constitutes an argument that NFCC #8 is met are quite low. I felt that a number of the arguments from the keep side, which was clearly in the majority, were at least defensible as being consistent with this prevailing site-wide consensus (for example, "A photo of how this woman appeared when she played the part of a young boy - which is not at all obvious just from closing one's eyes and imagining - adds considerably to one's understanding of that role."). As to the role of the closing administrator, if WP:CONSENSUS is to have any meaning the closing admin's role must extent beyond merely deciding who's right, to also measure whose arguments are better supported by participants in the discussion. All of that said, I'm not married to this closure and will cry approximately zero tears of it's overturned. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflicted comment:)The notable effect of a woman playing the role of a boy can't be expressed in words nearly as well as it can with an image. This effect adds significant value to the articles where it's used, although it is not central to them; this argument puts it on the 'KEEP' side of significance.--Elvey (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could argue about that, but that's not what deletion review is meant to achieve. That's what the IfD debate was for. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then could you please explain to those of us new to this bureaucratic maneuver what the purpose of it is? I mean, it looks like jury shopping, but I take it I'm mistaken about that. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of DRV is not to determine whether the file should be deleted, but merely rather my close of the debate was correct. The distinction can be illustrated by the fact that I think that the file should probably be deleted (and therefore would !vote delete at an FFD debate for it) but I think my closure was correct, which means I do not support overturning it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to respond to Steve's comments above, I do not think that IfD debates should merely be the combined opinion of those who turned up, but rather should reflect our wider policies directly. For a demonstration of this in a different way, see this image. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; if the "keep" arguments had all been "This image is pretty", I would have completely ignored them. But I believe that the keep arguments did address NFCC #8 as it's applied around this site, even if its application is flawed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting renominating because you think there's a significant chance that either the criteria under which a non-free image is deleted or the broad consensus of the community will change in the next two months or because you do not think the local consensus of this discussion reflected the broader consensus of the community? Guest9999 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one person argued to IAR doesn't mean that the arguments against deletion were all based on it. The image was alleged to violate NFCC#8 because an editor "fail[ed] to see" the explanatory value of it. But arguments were made that it does not violate that rule, with explanations about the value of images over mere descriptions. One doesn't need to regard NFCC as negotiable to keep the image. I suppose one might dispute that conclusion if it isn't validated by one's way of learning, but it seems to have been reached in good faith based on the actual discussion. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on actual discussion? I was as good as told to shut up by an editor who wasn't happy that I was commenting with regards to votes by others. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Local consensus is what interprets the policy in actual situations. DGG (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and I like PhilKnight's way of putting it. I have all the sympathy in the world to SI here - the discussion did indeed tend towards keep. However, I think that nonfree content policy read as a whole, with its aim of reducing nonfree content on the project weighs against keeping this image. When a policy specificially states that it is intentionally being drawn narrowly, we should construe it narrowly, event to the point of going against the local consensus within that IFD. The real problem, as that discussion and others like it showed, is that the NFCC policy doesn't enjoy the widespread consensus that its status as a policy would imply. However, it has come to us from the Foundation, and we need to follow it as best we can. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn considering both the non-free content criteria and the deletion discussion I do not think there is a consensus to include the image in Wikipedia. The arguments for keeping the image almost universally referred to the importance of the role to the actress rather than how inclusion of the image increases the readers understanding of the topic, as required by NFCC criterion 8. Consensus should be required to include a non-free image on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the importance of the photograph is not the importance of the role to the actor--but the the importance of the actor in the role. DGG (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going argue to as to the semantics but I still think the relevant argument would be to do with the importance of the image in the article - which I don't think was adequately addressed. Guest9999 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. In addition to the arguments above that this use clearly fails NFCC#8, I think the closing admin misunderstands the site-wide consensus that seemingly weakens the application of NFCC#8. As far as I am aware the “weak” standard applies only to images used for “identification” of the subject of the article. The consensus is that this “identification” significantly increases reader understanding. Thus an album cover is accepted to identify an article on the album, and a non-replaceable portrait of a person is accepted to identify a biography of the person. But these seeming exceptions do not apply to this photo: There is already a free portrait to identify Mary Martin, and the image does not identify the other articles by any stretch of the imagination. —teb728 t c
Identification is only one of the possible valid uses. DGG (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but it is the only one that doesn't require a stronger justification than has been provided for this image. And (most significantly for this DR) it is one that accounts for the closing admin's examples of generous application of NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closer's logical and carefully explained decision. However, the image should be removed from the list article, where it serves neither to identify nor to increase understanding. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse meets NFCC#8 as it adds significantly to the article to be able to see the actress dressed in the role in this case (cross dressing is pretty hard to imagine for me at least). Finally, the closer's arguments are, frankly, outstanding. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closer's rationale, as explained above. There was consensus at the FfD that it meets NFCC#8, which the closer interpreted correctly. — PyTom (talk) 20:43, 7 August 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
What If (Coldplay song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedural nomination (I think). The song's article was redirected to X&Y per the above XfD link, though it has been restored in good faith several times previously. See here for the article's latest non-redirected revision. Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 16:50, 30 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Laruso (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Notability established, wondering if a history undelete is possible for the most recent deleted version (not the copyright violation, just the A7). Admin declined nebulously. Gendralman (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but reviewing the A7'd version, it looks like there are still some bits that were copyvios, so I'm afraid I can't. Cheers, though. lifebaka++ 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gendralman (talk) 22:49, 30 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Amy Juergens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Unprotection - I'd like to create the page Amy Juergens, but it is currently protected. I can't figure out why it was protected. I plan on cleaning up and starting other articles for The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Nk3play2 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • it was being persistently recreated in a really careless manner, and before the show actually appeared. But that was a year ago, and there's no reason not to unprotect. Be aware that even for main characters like her, there is likely to be some opposition unless you have references to substantial specific discussions of her from good sources. I'd suggest going slowly and very carefully on the others--try for some articles so good they won;t be even challenged. DGG (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems there is an article at Amy Jurgens - deliberately misspelled to get around the protection? Anyway there are a few paragraphs there and a couple of references, I'd say it should be moved into the correct spelling, and any further consideration really isn't within the scope of DRV. Several other characters from List of characters in The Secret Life of the American Teenager currently have standalone articles. --Stormie (talk) 01:27, 30 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Order of the Acropolis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted and eventually salted as a hoax. However, a new user (clearly a sockpuppet, but a well-meaning one) posted a link on my talk page which at least establishes the existence of the group. Notability is still up in the air, so I thought I'd bring the issue here. The link may be found here: [4] PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:38, 29 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wokai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see this article was recently handled here, but Euwyn has now written a version on his user page that has been fixed up to comply with the criticism at the AfD, which included notability concerns, reliable sourcing, and promotional writing. I don't know what condition the article was in when it was AfD'd but I think we should at least consider reintroducing it to the mainspace. ThemFromSpace 08:22, 29 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alexis Grace (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion violated Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines (regardless of alleged "consensus" which was nonexistent), and it has since been used to justify 36 other inappropriate Idol-related deletions. RBBrittain (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correction: It was 38 other deletions, though 3 of them have already been rejected; I commented "speedy close" on the other 35 because they (like this one) violate the established guideline for AI contestants. --RBBrittain (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold deletion. The thing is, I didn't think the article should've been deleted. But the admin's decision was reasoned and honestly not incorrect. So I'm not sure it can be overturned. "I disagree with the deletion!" isn't a reason to overturn it IMO. Probably my pro-admin bias but there we are. :) And Dalejenkins actions are not the fault of the admin here. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming off a small break to comment: I won't comment further, given that I've gone over this many times before, but here are my points: 1) This has already been before deletion review once (can someone find the link) - what new information does the nominator have? 2) Violating arbitrary, non-community driven guidelines is irrelevant 3) I think the mass nominations you refer to are wildly inappropriate for a variety of reasons, and I am particularly annoyed by mass AfDs of any type. The nominator there is using this example to justify his actions, but that is not a deletion reason (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Similarly "being used to justify deleting" is not a procedural fault in the AfD, which is what DRV is about. Go and use the other stuff exists argument on the AfDs by all means, and tell Dale that he needs a more substantive argument, but this second DRV is a waste of our energies. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. In my opinion the the main reason given for overturning is not a valid reason. Unless a wikiproject guideline has been widely accepted by the community then it should carry little or no weight in a AfD arguement - as appears to be the reasoning at the first DRV. Taking what, to the the nominator is a more minor issue, but which is a valid DRV arguement, that the closure was against consensus I feel that this AfD could plausiably have gone either way and was within the closing admins discretion to close what way they felt fit - personally I think delete was the correct outcome. With that in mind I can't see how there was any procedural errors so I have to endorse the closure as correct. Dpmuk (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikiproject guidelines do not overarch general notability guidelines and polices. If it fails the GNG then its fails the inclusion criteria and wikiprojects do not have the right to establish walled gardens of their own where general guidelines do not apply. Get a specific notability guideline accepted if you like but wikiprojects don't trump project wide policy. Therefore endorse simply because no valid reason to overturn the AFD/DRV have been presented. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, WikiProjects don't get to set lower notability criteria for articles in their purview. Deletion process has been followed. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, wikiprojects certainly can set different guidelines & even lower ones-- if their guidelines are accepted by the wider community. The practical test of whether they're accepted is AfD. (I have no opinion on the particular article) DGG (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Feel free to read in "unilaterally" before "set", unless you don't like split infinitives. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I don't see any versions in the deleted history that ever contained any more content than the coverage currently at American Idol (season 8) - just a paragraph of biography and details of her performance in that show. If she has any other claim to notability, and if that can be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources, work up an article in userspace and bring it to DRV. p.s. if the Idol WikiProject would like to work on coverage of Idol contestants which goes beyond Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, there is an Idol wiki at idol.wikia.com which is, excuse the pun, somewhat idle. --Stormie (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – the GNG takes precedence over the sub-guidelines like BIO, CORP, ATHLETE, etc. This is no different. The sub-guidelines are meant as a more common-sense aid and idiot's guide (let's face it, not everyone here has a master's degree) in gauging notability for recurring cases in which such articles would not be likely to meet the notability standard (as opposed to will not meet the notability standard). If there is a minimal amount of coverage in a few independent reliable sources, then it passes, regardless whether or not that article meets that particular sub-guideline. MuZemike 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no new arguments presented, and the AfDs started by Dalejenkins are a separate issue. I'm not particularly happy with them either, but the articles' supporters will not find relief here. Another discussion link: the first AfD had a DRV closed as relist and was relisted as a separate second AfD. Flatscan (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure As a practical matter, the test for any notability guideline is AfD. This article failed that test, and closing admin accurately assessed consensus there. RayTalk 07:09, 31 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Melissa Palmer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please be so kind to review decision for deletion. I do not think that new information added after first 2 votes was adequately reviewed. Person is notable for unique combination of former top competitive bodybuilder http://musclememory.com/show.php?c=Northeastern+States+-+NPC&y=1991&g=f, author of a liver book that consistently ranks among the top 2 http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/282829/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_, and top doctor with multiple peer-reviewed publications- http://www.med.nyu.edu/pubs/palmer04.html. This was all demonstrated by secondary sources of reference. Don't think there is anyone else with this combination of achievements and individual is referenced all of wikipedia and google all in secondary sources? Augie58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm unsure if the competition is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the ability to write an article that doesn't have the same issues as the AfD'd version. Would you like the content userfied so you can work on it some more? lifebaka++ 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Thanks Augie58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 28 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Faith Hope and Charity (UK band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason why I suggest undelete is from many nominations I been through, many of these AfD have been resulted in kept even if that said artist have charted below the 40 mark, which was why this article wass deleted. Therefore I find this deletion rather odd. Donnie Park (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse In this AfD, however, consensus was to delete. Previous results can be irrelevant to do the potential for consensus to change. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough call. I brought up the #53 charting single right at the start of the discussion and 6 delete opinions (and one keep) followed. To be honest, given that the band existed for a brief moment 19 years ago, it would probably be better to just flesh out the brief mentions in Dani Behr and Sally Ann Marsh into a couple of sentences each. I just don't see that the article is ever likely to stand on its own two feet, even if it can be argued that the band does technically meet WP:MUSIC crtierion #2. --Stormie (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. Consensus was clearly to delete so no procedural issues. The fact that articles have been kept in the past is largely irrelevant as we allow consensus to change. Dpmuk (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to raise issues where the deletion process has not been followed properly. It is not a venue to re-argue matters which were (or should have been) raised at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 31 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chelsea Korka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted because of the lack of notability of the Paradiso Girls and the Cassandra Whitehead precedent. However The Paradiso Girls article has been recreated since and Korka meets the criteria for notability since A) she is part of the group and B) Falling Down, a song where she is featured has been used on Disney's G-Force making her meet criterium 10 of WP:Music. She might meet n.9 because she placed in Pussycat Dolls Present and 6. as she has perform for both The Paradiso Girls and The Pussycat Dolls (Vegas lounge and at the Viper Room), as well as with Girlesque at Fashion Cares 2007.--Whadaheck (talk) 21:34, 27 July 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) 20:21, 31 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
King Mondo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was nominated on the basis of no reliable sources, but was kept. None of the arguments for keeping addressed the reason for nomination. Was closed as a non-admin keep. Article has ZERO reliable and verifiable secondary sources. Out of the 21 references, 18 are to the TV show - a primary source, 1 to a comic - a primary source, 1 to IMDB - a user submitted resource and not reliable and 1 linking to an interview with an artist that doesn't even appear to mention the character in question. There are NO reliable secondary sources at all. Article should've been deleted. Exxolon (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ron certainly closed in accordance with the consensus; arguments about sources are a matter for AfD, not for DRV.

    In view of the amount of input and its one-sided nature, I would see that as a perfectly appropriate non-admin closure and the outcome was correct.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree. None of the keep votes addressed the AFD reasoning and closing an AFD should be on the quality of the arguments not about counting heads. Exxolon (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you see the "delete" arguments as high-quality. I understand that, and you're entitled to your opinion, but in fact closing an AfD is about the rough consensus. The rough consensus was clear and I don't see anything raised in that discussion that would trump it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. As mentioned in the AFD, the article has plenty of reliable sources; they're primary sources, but that doesn't make them unreliable. Articles about fictional characters are by necessity going to be based on the fiction. You The AFD nominator tried to argue that wasn't good enough in the AFD, but failed to convince people. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did no such thing. I did not nominate the article for deletion nor did I participate in the AFD either. Please don't accuse me of doing things I have not done. As for sources, primary sources are not the best choice for sourcing an article. We need reliable secondary sources here. Exxolon (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite; sorry. Make that "you" the AFD nominator. The rest still stands; the clear AFD consensus was that in this case primary sources sufficed as the primary sourcing, given that sufficient secondary sourcing existed to proved notability. --GRuban (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This isn't AfD round 2. If it were, I would !vote we delete the article due to the lack of reliable, independent sources. As it stands, the close is well within the purview of a non-admin. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again I disagree. I feel the closer failed to evaluate the reasoning of the keep votes versus the reason for the original AFD correctly. Exxolon (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know that it is within the closer's responsibilities to insert their opinion about an article against every single vote in a discussion. If a situation arises where I disagreed strongly with every poster I would make a comment in the debate, not close it (Some rare exceptions exist, obviously). If the debate were split between keeps/deletes with the keep votes being vacuous and the delete votes being grounded in policy, then we can talk about interpreting a consensus as grounded in policy. We can't do so when we face almost every single vote in the debate as "keep". Protonk (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep - the AfD claimed lack of sources; there were sources found and listed in the AfD. The closure is correct in that it properly reflects the consensus of the discussion, and it is furthermore correct on the basis of policy. What the article needs is to have the provided sources integrated into it, not deletion.  Frank  |  talk  22:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were?? All I could find were links to results from Google News - no indication that any of the results actually met our standards of reliable sourcing and/or had significant coverage - both required to satisfy WP:RS. Exxolon (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a long discussion on Mythdon's talk page about it, including four sources specifically picked from the list; check out the conversation here. Only two of the are fully and freely available by clicking on that page, but sources don't have to be online to be valid, independent, and reliable.  Frank  |  talk  22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The AFD went through enough time and the deletion rationales were not sufficient to convince the community that the article should be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteOverturn. The deletion rationales were convincing (no reliable sourcing); the keep !votes were not (no real reliable multiple independent sources were adduced; google [or "google news"] counting is not an argument.) "Plenty of sources on the article" said somebody -- where are they then? In the current version I can't see "plenty", I can't see many, I can't see any -- I can't see a single independent source. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is deletion review, not an AfD. We are discussing whether or not the closure of the discussion accurately reflected the consensus of the discussion. It should not even be necessary to look at the article; it's already been pointed out it is poorly sourced, but that doesn't change the consensus that was reflected in the discussion.  Frank  |  talk  23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was indeed my argument: that the deletion !votes were convincing, and according to policy, while the keep !votes were not. (On the sideline, I must say that I disagree somewhat with your assertion that "it should not even be necessary to look at the article"; how else can one decide whether the arguments presented at XfD are valid or not? If some !voters say "keep, sourced", and some say "delete, unsourced", shouldn't one look at the article itself to see which one is correct? If 10 SPAs come along to an AfD and comment "Keep, well referenced in perfectly good sources", isn't it one's duty to actually examine the article and those "sources", to see whether they comply with policies?) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick comment on closer's responsibility: I appreciate closers who review claims, but I oppose requiring it. Maybe take this to the talk page? Flatscan (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't vote Delete as this is not an AFD, you can only vote to Endorse or Overturn the result. I'd like to clarify a point here though - mere consensus is insufficient if the article fails to meet our criteria. All the Keep votes under the sun are irrelevant if the article fails a fundamental policy. I believe the Keep votes in the AFD failed to address the reason for AFD which was zero sourcing and they should've been discounted and policy applied to delete the unsourced article. AFD's are not just headcounts, the quality of the arguments and reference to our policies are much more important. I don't believe the AFD closer took this into account, hence this DRV. Exxolon (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, in my opinion the arguments made by most of the contributors of the discussion are pretty weak but (again in my opinion) User:Sarilox's reasoning seems to be sound: the article contains material that should be preserved in some form and the consensus of the discussion reflects that. Guest9999 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer. While it's true that AFD is not a ballot or a mere head count and that a closer should weigh the strength of the arguments, it's not reasonable to expect that an AFD can be closed "delete" when nobody but the nominator is advocating deletion. (I would say the one exception would be if there are BLP issues but the subject of this article is a fictional character) Besides the nominator, the only comment that came close to a delete !vote was Sarilox's comment and he was arguing for a redirect. The only thing different that possibly could have happened barring sockpuppetry was that an an administrator using "admin's discretion" could have closed it "no consensus" or perhaps "redirect". Endorse my own closure. Further note to Exxolon. I'm curious as to why you didn't !vote in this AFD. If you were to make the same argument there as you are making here, others might have followed and the outcome may have been different. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question I didn't vote in the original AFD as I wasn't aware of it. I found the article through a WP:ANI report about Mythdon and wondered how the hell it'd survived an AFD based on "no sources" when it had no sources and decided to initiate a DRV. I have no personal interest in the article but I couldn't reconcile the AFD result. Exxolon (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus to keep was clear, AFD was a WP:POINT nomination. jgpTC 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, clear consensus. I find the arguments to be fairly weak and the sources probably insufficient (lacking direct relevance, I skimmed the sources discussion), but that's not enough to discount the keep recommendations entirely. Flatscan (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect. Many editors here are endorsing the original keep as it was derived through consensus. However, I believe that that consensus was a simplified redefinition as "majority rule". As we all know, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The relatively small consensus achieved in any AfD must not be allowed to contradict the much larger consensus that has resulted in current Wikipedia policy. At least not without a very good reason that establishes a particular article as special. King Mondo does not suggest that it should in any way be treated as an exception to the rule. As stated in one of Exxolon's reasons for bringing this article to deletion review: "I couldn't reconcile the AFD result." That seems to me a clear reflection of the small AfD consensus in direct opposition to the large policy consensus. Even though this situation occurs regularly, we can at least minimize it with greater vigilance, more thoughful discussion, and a better understanding of the larger consensus. It is unfortunate that some editors here and in the AfD have resorted to an ad hominem attack of Mythdon; a logical fallacy. Whatever the personal failings are of Mythdon is irrelevant as the AfD nomination was indeed legitimate. It is also unfortunate that some editors have argued through equivocation, another logical fallacy, by mostly trying to redefine reliable sources and consensus. These tactics are all too often effective, despite being inappropriate. Finally I would like to address Guest9999's apparent assertion that my !vote to redirect was based on the idea that "the article contains material that should be preserved in some form." This is not true, and I do not believe that my comments suggest this. In fact, I believe that this article should not exist and does not need to be preserved for all the reasons stated in the AfD. I !voted redirect because I concluded that "King Mondo" is a reasonable search term, otherwise I would have !voted for deletion. I am content with that redirect being achieved either by a simple edit to the current article or by deleting the article and recreating it as a redirect. Sarilox (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is unfortunate that some editors here and in the AfD have resorted to an ad hominem attack of Mythdon" - What do you mean by that? Please explain. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sarilox, it's perfectly possible for a local (talk-page or AfD) consensus to decide to suspend a broad-brush, global consensus in the case of one particular article. And that's as it should be; flexibility in individual cases is one of the biggest strengths of the Wiki model. We need to be careful not to place policy on so firm a pedestal that it can't be disregarded when the situation demands.

        I do agree that there are cases (such as copyvios or BLP matters) where it would take a local consensus of such enormous magnitude to overrule a policy that I don't foresee it ever happening, but this isn't one of those.

        I also want to say that a redirect is technically a "keep" outcome, rather than a variant of "delete".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse It is idle to pretend there is any real consistency in individual AfD determinations, especially in this area, but the general trend is the major characters in major well-known fiction are likely to be worth separate articles. I would just as willingly combine all but the most important, for it makes very little difference as long as full information is kept. Consensus ultimately is majority rule, because the interpretation of the policies and guidelines is in the hands of the community, as are the guideline themselves. Who else can interpret them authoritatively? Sometimes, indeed , there is a temporary majority in apparent clear contradiction to a guideline, and then it is the responsibility of the administrator to decide whether the majority should be disregarded. But this is a matter of interpretation, and for interpretation we can either go with the expressed consensus or go with the opinion of whoever of the 900 active administrators happens to close the discussion. There is of course another principle: for each of us to argue that it always should go the way we individually want, and if the close is against that, it must be wrong. DGG (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on afd discussion. It was open a week and no one other then the nom commented delete. Admins are supposed to weigh arguements, but also judge consensus. That discussion clearly shows that consensus to delete was not achieved.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. Clear consensus to keep was established. MuZemike 15:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; nobody could possibly have closed the discussion any other way. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Determination of consensus was properly made. Issue of sourcing is for AfD, not DRV. Endorse per DGG. — Becksguy (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Until recently, this set of AfD's hasn't been getting attention outside the fan community, and lower standards than those used elsewhere in Wikipedia have been applied. The content here could be merged into Machine Empire, which covers much of the same material. --John Nagle (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a secondary AFD. While the article could very well be merged, there is nothing in the AFD that says it should be deleted (other than the nom and one !voter), and the subject of the article and the WikiProject whose scope it is in should never be taken as a factor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:39, 30 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Richard William Aguirre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article on Richard William Aguirre meets all WP requirements for "notability". There are far more news stories and worthy articles about Richard William Aguirre, his campaign and his other endeavors than there are on several of the other candidates or politicians, Like this article from todays "Diario San Diego" [5]. The Richard William Article is notable to all Californians, and even crosses the language and culture spectrum of the entire state. The deletion of this article was an injustice to WP and also to the people who use the site. That Richard William Aguirre is notable enough to have national articles written about him and his campaign, yet not notable for WP only discredits WP and your pursuit of true factual information. Please review this article and remove it from deletion. As you can see there will be many more source references coming in the immediate future, as both he and his campaign are now attracting news stories on a daily basis. Please advise on how to undo deletion if you don't have the authority to make this correction. To not undo this deletion would be an injustice to your site. Thank you. (Sdpolitics (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oh, DRV has all the authority it needs, no need to worry about that.

    The deletion discussion there resulted in a consensus to delete, and Juliancolton made no procedural errors that would justify overturning the decision.

    When the "many more source references" come "in the immediate future", it will be no chore to recreate the article; and so as to make that easier, I would support userfication of the article to Sdpolitics. He can then present a reliably-sourced, verifiable version of the article to DRV, and when that's been supplied it will be uncontroversial to undelete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as it reflected consensus and policy; support userfication if the user wishes it (and will provide said copy myself if requested).  Frank  |  talk  22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfication Request I am requesting userfication so that I can continue to build the Richard William Aguirre article and present a reliably sourced verifiable version of the article to DRV so that it will be uncontroversial to undelete the article.(Sdpolitics (talk) 20:49, 30 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Summit School (Queens, New York) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I felt the previous AfD was judged based on the number of “keep”. It did not express the views of people who said “delete”. Once again, schools are notable only if secondary sources are available. I did research on google but I found no secondary sources. The only one I found was the school's website which is a primary source. First see WP:CRYSTAL which rejects claims that it will be important in the future as a reason to keep the article. Second, are there any schools which are not "notable in the school community?????" My point is not all schools in the school community meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines to have an article. Hagadol (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The AfD pages are here and here.

    Hagadol, when there's a consensus for something, it's normally best to accept it. There were no procedural errors in either of those two closures, so I don't see that there's any matter of substance for DRV to consider here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you wait a month or two, then renominate for AfD if nothing has changed. Endorse both closures as correct. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – it has been agreed elsewhere that high schools in Fooville are notable and will be covered in the press of Fooville (held in the archives of Fooville Library and not necessarily visible to Google). Occuli (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both keeps. They reflected consensus and in general we do give the benefit of the doubt to high schools in the United States, for better or for worse. But disagreeing with a policy is not a reason for deleting an article.  Frank  |  talk  22:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is a settled consensus here, even though the opposition of a few people have kept it from becoming a formal guideline. The interpretation of WP:N bering a guideline is that the community decides when the GNG is appropriate, and when it is not. Here, the community has decided that it is better to simply keep them all rather than debate them all to remove a possibly non-notable 10%. Myself, I was reluctant to accept this either, as i tend to be skeptical of the encyclopedic notability of local institutions, but I decided it was better than the endless fighting. DGG (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No consensus to delete in the first AFD. Also although not binding, original closure followed general precedent for similar articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It is generally accepted that high schools are assumed to be notable, referring to DGG and others above. For example, in NYC, high schools are named, while lower schools are numbered (e.g. - Stuyvesant High School, but PS 170 and IS 54). I see consensus to keep in the first AfD, and the second was a pointy nomination after only 12 days. Even a few months would be pointy in my view, A year between nominations would be much more appropriate. Multiple nominations can raise the question of forum shopping until the desired results obtain. Neither AfD was closed with procedural errors and I therefor endorse both. — Becksguy (talk) 14:58, 30 July 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 July 2009

[edit]

25 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Johnny Herbert (Musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was deleted before it could be improved and expanded Dudewheresmymac (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

Question: what do you want doing with the page? Do you want to work on it in userspace, or appeal the speedy? If you want to appeal the speedy, you need to make some indication of the importance or significance of the subject. Notes: the article seems to have consisted mostly of a MySpace link, and the related recording, Johnny Herbert Destroys The Moon, has been tagged as an A9. 07:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Restore. I think that a new user should have been given time to work on the article before it was deleted, and should be restored to give him the opportunity to work on it. Rapid deletion tagging for speedy deletion is unnecessary, except for copyvios, attack pages, and vandalism, and it's very discouraging to new users. Let him have a few days. There's enough longstanding garbage that needs cleaning up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:52, 27 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:AEE (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel that this discussion should have been closed as delete or deprecate. On a strict "vote-count", there were 24 delete, 17 keep, 5 userfy, and 2 mark-historical, giving 31 against the page existing in Wikipedia namespace against 17 in support. Several of the keep "votes" were tentative or only awaiting the result of an RFC (which may not end for months), and on an argument basis, the deletion arguments seemed to me to be stronger. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is to be open to everyone, and the point that this organization is not so open has not been refuted by those seeking to keep the page. I recommend the decision be overturned and the page deleted in accordance with the consensus at the discussion. Contributors are reminded that this is not MFD round 2.

In accordance with the deletion review instructions, I have consulted with the closing admin before opening this request. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I concur with Stifle. The closing admin stated that MfD was not the correct place for discussion of the organization, but a majority of editors participating must have disagreed as they not only actively participated but they agreed with the proposal to delete the group. As with many other pages at XfD, userfication is also an option to consider if anybody wants to keep this as a working idea. ThemFromSpace 08:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was clear enough majority to delete the article and if there had been any issues for the deletion request being in the wrong place. There was over seven days for anyone to come in and say something, but no one did. I struck me kind of odd for an admin to quickly come in and claim no consensus when there was a clear majority that voted to delete the article. Brothejr (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For what it's worth, I have gone ahead and marked the page as historical. Wherever the page is (or isn't), per the page history, the proposed group is clearly not active. Dekimasuよ! 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn clear consensus. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 11:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, calling no consensus within closer's discretion. I gave my analysis of the state of the MfD and reasonable close options at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AEE#Thoughts on closing, and this close, and one close to Stifle's preference, were among them. Two points: I think that mark-historical should count toward keep in closing, since it can be applied as a normal edit, and I don't think the deletists made better arguments than the keepists: I sensed an undercurrent of tribalism out of keeping with how WP is meant to achieve consensus, (like, but not as bad as, the Great Userbox Debacle), and the appeals made to policy were weak. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was not deleted, can you please clarify what you are endorsing? Stifle (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh! Must be ingrained into my finger muscles. Changed from 'endorse deletion', to 'endorse close'. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: would those who think it should be deleted be happy with userfying the page? Or would the idea that a user would have the page in their space on a presumable permanent basis count as a run-around of the MfD? If the latter, what would you make of the earlier MfD of this content (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Peter Damian/Established Editors) when it was in user space? — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't we just userfy it? While I'd say there isn't really a consensus to keep it from the MfD, deletion should always be treated as a last resort, and User:TallNapoleon volunteered to have it userfied to his userspace in the MfD. I have queried him as to whether he's still amenable to the idea. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close: I am still willing to have this sent to my user space. I would appreciate it if people stopped trying to delete the damned thing in its infancy. We have no idea at this point what it's going to be and whether it will be active, because instead of attempting to develop the idea all our efforts have been spent battling accusations of bad faith and attempting to argue against the incessant nominations for deletion. Why don't you guys userfy it to my space, let us develop the idea further, and then, if you don't like it, tag it as historical. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oy vey. Just userfy the bloody thing and let it be a drama generator in someone's personal space instead of project space. Keep the historical tag, though, because the consensus is pretty obvious that in its current condition it will not fly. Tony Fox (arf!)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of franchises established on Nintendo consoles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Decision was to merge page to List of video games published by Nintendo, however, the article does not solely contain video games that were published by Nintendo and a merge would be unnecessary, seeing as the list is basically duplicated. The article should be deleted, per the other opinions in the discussion.. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse MBisanz's accurate reading of the consensus. (You needed to convince the AfD, not us; this isn't AfD round 2.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as a simple list with no creative element there is no real copyright concern here, once the merge is complete (and it's agreed it's complete) surely the source page could be deleted as normal housekeeping, if a redirect isn't desirable (it would seem an unlikely search). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the request here is. If the destination page is basically a duplicate of the destination of the merge then a merge will have no effect and the source will be turned into a redirect. If the source contains content not pertinent to the destination page then the decision of the AfD was to delete that content. If the concern of the nom that the redirect is inappropriate and if so, what information has been added that was not available during the AfD? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern is that the redirect would be inappropriate because the AfD judged that it should be merged into an article with a smaller scope. If I redirected this and tried to delete the redirect, it would just lead to a dispute.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection I shouldn't have closed this. Its open again. Spartaz Humbug! 07:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, I'm ambivalent on both the AfD and its close. The close decision correctly reflects the clear consensus against a standalone article and falls within admin discretion. The merge recommendations did not specify what content to merge; comments at the AfD indicate that the list entries are redundant (published by Nintendo) or outside the merge target's scope (third-party publisher), thus there is nothing to merge. My reading is that there was consensus to delete, but it's not strong enough to overturn. I have asked MBisanz to comment. Flatscan (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin It could have gone as delete or merge, being conservative I felt that merge would be the best option since after the merger the article would no longer exist and if the person doing the merge saw there was little or no content worth including, they could make the editorial decision to do so. MBisanz talk 03:14, 27 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Baku Today (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion vote was to delete Baku Today → Moldova what was deleted was the already corrected redirect Baku Today → Baku where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure as delete. It appears that almost all of the arguments to delete this redirect did not rely on the fact that it redirected to the wrong article. Instead, the rough consensus was that redirects to the geographic location of a publication are less helpful than having a redlink that might encourage creation of the article. I don't necessarily agree with that consensus, but I see no problem with this closure. — Satori Son 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When there is only a few sentences of information it should go to the point in Wikipedia where those few sentences are. If a full article can be made, and here it can't, it can be made into a full article. If there was enough info, I would have made it into one. As it stands the vote was to delete the redirect to the city, that was changed to a better redirect to where the information is on that media outlet. The person who closed erred and deleted the new direct. And when the three errors were pointed out, chose to not revert the deletions. If you want to delete the new redirect, have a new vote. Or make a full article if you think you can. Not every topic is notable enough for a full Wikipedia article. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to delete the redirect, and I don't want to write a new article on the subject. I don't want anything at all in this case. I'm only here to express my very humble opinion as to whether the closer correctly evaluated the consensus of that particular debate. — Satori Son 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the votes to delete, but one, were cast before the redirect was shifted to a better target. How is that consensus? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 24 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Paradiso Girls (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page deleted because the group was seen as not notable at the time. Now however they are featured on KIIS FM's page, on rotation on several radio networks, are featured the Complex blog, The DList Magazine, have shot for Maxim and YRB magazine, have been featured on songs by notable artists such as Will I Am, Space Cowboy and LMFAO, are currently touring in the US with multiple dates at known places, have their own page at Interscope Records and their official page, a Top 40 single and a strong internet following (see Facebook page, Twitters, Youtube, Myspace...). I think all of this makes them notable and I'd like the page to be recreated.

See also here and here--Whadaheck (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DList KIIS FM's Top 9 Complex Feature page Introduction video and Myspace featurette Interscope page with Tour dates Official page Facebook page Videos with Space cowboy and Will I Am Coca Cola commercial with their Song--Whadaheck (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concerns of the AfD were that the sources were youtube, myspace and their own pages and that the band was, two months ago, purely hype rather than substance (and as such afoul of WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL). The sources provided above fall into the categories listed with the addition of blogs and lists (the top 9 at 9 being that they are available as an option for a listing, hardly a notable award or recognition). Can the nom please provide a more extensive explanation of how the band now meets WP:MUSIC? Until the issues discussed in the consensus AfD are better resolved I have to tend towards Endorse. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may meet 3 of the criteria IMO, the first one (DList, Complex, Popmusicscene and a lot of other websites that you can find on Google), if KIIS FM is considered major then they meet 11, and if you consider the NowNewNext Awards notable, then they meet 10. Also Ptron Tequila has been charted (it didn't peak that high but still) so it may meet 2 as well--Whadaheck (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since they've now charted and the article has been unsalted and created the whole excersize becomes a bit academic. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:33, 28 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sport tractor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The following is a verbatim copy of the "request for reinstatement" posted to the AfD talk page:

== Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal - request for reinstate page ==
No reason for deletion except for generation of a new term, which is supported
====[[:Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal]]==== :::{{DRV links|Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png|article=Foo}}
Deletion was entirely unreasonable. Based on generation of a new term. Sanderrl (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs:
The article for “Sport Tractor” is to show a new design in trucks that has not been seen in the Light Duty Truck arena. This is a non-commercial truck and is used similar to a sports car.
If new designs cannot be shown as explicit on your site this needs to be known to me.
Based on the following:
"Delete The original author of the article added this comment on the talk page "By the way, this is a new idea, my research has found that the term "Sport Tractor" will have originated here in Wikipedia". He admits it is OR and a neologism. There is no evidence of the term in this context in a Google search. The truck in the article appears to be some sort of home made modification. 1. Malcolma (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)"
1st: The above is a true statement. Unless Wiki refuses to support creation of new terms, (which I haven’t seen, and if so, show me the rules/guideline) I will comply. I am willing to generate this on a new URL webpage, but I thought that Wiki was a better source for defining new terms, designs and innovation in existing technologies. Again, If I am wrong in this, I will not contest this deletion and will move forward in a separate venue.
The term is new, noone, except myself generated this new term “Sport Tractor” a new classification for those who enjoy light duty trucks that are non-commercial use, similar to sport cars that are not used for racing. A term exists for “Sport Trucks” namely the personal trucks manufactured by the major automobile companies and are less than 11,999 lbs GVWR. There is a term for “Sport Cars”, there was no term that my research found that used “Sport Tractor” in the same light. There are terms mentioning the word in context of tractor pulls, but the term is meant for farm tractors that are not licensable vehicles.
2nd. The statement is not a home made modification, the Isuzu is a commercial light duty truck that is continuing to be sold throughout the world. The body is design by Ralph Sanders, but the body manufacturer is by Frontier Truck Body of Santa Ana, Ca. Therefore, this is not a home made design. The definition of “homemade” is not defined in Wikipedia. Hence, should not apply to support deletion. This statement is also subjective in this context.
Therefore, since the deletion is based on a new term or as malcolma states “neologism” I request that the “Sport Tractor” page be reinstated.
Excuse my noviceness,(wasn’t sure where to file rebuttal request), therefore this was also sent/edited to:
User talk:Vossanova,
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sport tractor,
User talk:Cirt (new section),
User talk:Malcolma,
Please excuse the tone by which I state the above since this is an emotional event to me. Sanderrl (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a procedural nomination for deletion review, I do not currently have an opinion either way. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion: If I understand correctly, the appeal for reinstantement is based on the idea that neologisms are appropriate in articles. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, they are not, and per that page In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. I see no grounds for overturning the close. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the assertion that wikipedia refuses to contain new terms is correct. Please see WP:N, WP:V. A term cannot be verifiably notable until it is established and it is not the purpose or role of wikipedia to support in the establishment of a new term (WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT). If the term catches on as a generally used phrase (such as Sports utility vehicle) that will be a different matter. The deletion process has been followed correctly with a clear outcome. Novices are always welcome and we try not to bite the newcomers, even if deletion process and deletion review can seem quite a hostile place sometimes. I hope you don't become too upset by this and guarantee you that no one involved has any bad intentions (or at least we all assume so, see WP:AGF). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deletion process properly followed. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse this consensus-based decision.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Proper AfD closure based on clear consensus and policy. — Satori Son 16:38, 23 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Basa Press (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The vote was to delete Basapress news agency → Moldova what was deleted was the already corrected redirect to Telecommunications in Moldova where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence of two in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:12, 23 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dublin Penny Journal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The vote was to delete Dublin Penny Journal → Dublin, what was deleted was the already corrected Dublin Penny Journal → List of newspapers in Ireland where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence of two in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:12, 23 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alasdair Tait (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not an actual copyright infringement.The page took the material from Wikipedia.Notified first the admin Pascal Tesson, but he hasn't made an edit since June and I don't want be following this up for months. Some more details: the page says it took the material from WP at its bottom. I had not logged in for more roughly six months before and six months after the deletion in Feb 2009 Atavi (talk) 00:37, 23 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kideos.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deletion of the page "Kideos.com" is unwarranted by the fact that the administrator misinterpreted the article as a G:11 violation, "unambiguous advertising or promotion." While the article does have an external link to the website, that is as far as the article goes towards advertising the website. The article used only reliable published sources to create an article that sought to be encyclopedic and neutral.

The text within the article does not support nor attack the website. It stays within a neutral zone as advised by Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Therefore, I request that Wikipedia "Overturn" the speedy deletion made by NawlinWiki on the grounds that the article respects all the rules Wikipedia has placed towards its articles. I list the following arguments to support this request:

I would also like to note that there was previous contact between NawlinWiki and I after he/she deleted the article the first time. After posting a comment on his page containing similar arguments to the upcoming arguments, there was no response from the administrator and thus I re-posted the article. The second time I posted the article, I did receive a warning and in response I placed a hangon, but the article was instantly deleted thereafter.

On to the arguments:

First, the article does not hold any bias. The fact that the article did not quote directly from the website should show how untampered the facts were. While there were quotes from what one might see as biased references, none of the quotes taken from the references were one-sided. Each quote taken was a fact, not an opinion. Had there been a quote drawing people towards the site on the article, NawlinWiki's deletion could be understandable, however that each quote on the site was a fact and not an opinion. The decision made to delete the article leaves me concerned. Furthermore, should the administrator point out where he or she perceives bias, I will gladly change that section.

Second, the article is no different than any of the other articles within its genre. Three website articles that are most similar to Kideos.com are Fact Monster, Kidzui and FunBrain. These sites have the same type of information as the Kideos.com article contains and I even used those sites as a model when posting my article. If those sites are published by Wikipedia's administrators, there should be no reason that Kideos.com should be the exception.

Finally, I would like to restate that Kideos.com did not violate any of Wikipedia's pillars. Just like the FunBrain, Kizdui, Fact Monster, or any other article, the Kideos.com article met Wikipedia's criteria. The article helped provide information, not advertisements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke81 (talk • contribs) 23:49, July 22, 2009

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I've created a new version of the page on User talk:Euwyn. A little confused as to the process now, as I worked hard to ensure that the article meets notability and reference guidelines. Please advise as to the next steps as the article is currently edit-protected. Euwyn (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wokai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Organization now meets notability guidelines, in national and international press (CNBC, SF Chronicle, Google Tech Talks)

This article had been previously flagged for "speedy deletion" after being marked for "delete" in a "Articles for deletion". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai.

I would kindly request that this be reconsidered. Since the time of the September '08 discussion, Wokai has garnered significant coverage from reputable media sources (CNBC, AsianWeek, SF Chronicle, per below) and has raised significant funds, built a 100+ member volunteer base and is well on its way to its mission of raising funds from international sources for microentrepreneurs in rural China. It's a noteworthy 501(c)3 nonprofit deserving of its own mention.

Links:

Wokai's Co-Founder & Ceo spoke at Google's Tech Talks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqhZoCp0UCg CNBC's Nick Mackey did a recent piece featuring Wokai's China operations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai AsianWeek covered Wokai's SF launch - http://www.asianweek.com/2009/07/13/bay-area-microfinance-reaches-rural-chinese/ San Francisco Chronicle Coverage - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/13/BACB16VUFE.DTL

Cheers, and thanks for your time.

Euwyn (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I'm not seeing it clearly. I'd suggest you try writing a version at User:Euwyn/Sandbox first. I'd be happy to userfy the previous content there as a starting point, if you'd like. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and eventually allow recreation of article as it looks like some minimal notability can now be established. MuZemike 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this looks a prime candidate for userfication and submitting a draft to DRV. Euwyn, if yu are amenable please say here and someone will do it for you straight away so you can get to work without waiting for the DRV to run its course. Feel free to elave a note on my talk page if its not done by this evening and I'll do it when I get home. Spartaz Humbug! 06:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just created a version of the Wokai page at User:Euwyn/Sandbox —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Consequence of Sound (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To whom it may concern,

I sincerely believe that the recent deletion of the Consequence of Sound Wikipedia page was unwarranted for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, this has been an on going issue for several months, with the most recent conclusion coming in June when, after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain.

However, recently, actually rather instantaneously, the delete debate was reopened... and before someone could argue otherwise, the page was deleted.

The reasonings given were the following:

1. "Not enough to get over notability guidelines." - One hammer) 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. " Totally non-notable, no reliable third-party sources, not owned by a notable company, doesn't have writers who have been published elsewhere reliable, doesn't even have a submissions guideline page." - Rafablu88 06:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would now like to take a moment to respond to each of these charges.

As it relates to the issue of notability, the online publication in question has been referenced by the following publications: New York Magazine, MTV.com, USA Today, Filter Magazine, Chicago-Sun Times, The Huffington Post, Time Out Chicago, Austin360.com, Glide Magazine, Comedy Central Insider, BBC.co.uk. Before the article was deleted, several of these mentions were included in references.

Furthermore, the online publication in question was deemed "best music blog" by WNEW of CBS RADIO. It also served as the official "bloggers" of the Lollapalooza 2008.

Now, on to the issue of not being owned by a notable company. Well, if that's the basis for deletion, then you have numerous other pages you better start deleting.

The editor writers that the online publication in question "doesn't have writers who have been published elsewhere reliable." That is simply, 100% inaccurate and if the editor who wrote those comments actually took the time to do the research, he/she would know that. Staff members who write for the online publication in question have also seen their work published in Entertainment Weekly, CBS.com, Time Out New York, and the Toronto Star among others.

Finally, as it relates to the online publication in question not having submissions guidelines, may I point you here, here and here.

I hope you strongly reconsider the deletion because from my estimation, I have answered all of your questions. 71.178.191.137 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To help explain "First and foremost, this has been an on going issue for several months, with the most recent conclusion coming in June when, after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain." to non-admins here is a timeline of the article:
  • I can no find any evidence for "after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain", the deleted talk page of the article had a short discussion with the AfD nominator who obviously didn't agree the article is notable. BJTalk 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. As a rule, blogs are not reliable, and Wikipedia doesn't want them. Here, you are attempting to assert that this blog is notable. You provide one, non-blog, almost good, supporting reference http://www.wnew.com/2008/07/best-music-bl-1.html. What is extremely unfortunate for your case is that that reference, which would normally be judged independent, doesn't contain enough independent commentary on the subject. All it contains as independent commentary is "Best Music Blogs: Consequence of Sound [(title)], [is one of] the best music blogs on the Internet." By having all of the rest of the article be a compilation of quotation from the creators, wnew.com have rendered the article clearly "non-independent" and of no value towards meeting our notability criteria WP:N or WP:WEB. wnew.com did not, in the end, review the website. To demonstrate sufficient notability to our threshold, you have to include reliable (not blog) sourced commentary about the website. Someone, not the creators, or employees, has to have said something about the site. Critical commentary is best. Fannish adoration is unimpressive. Promotional commentary, sounding like a paid infomercial, will count against it. Support Userfying to a subpage of an editor with a track record of productive contributions. Such sources as required probably exist if it is true that this is one of the Best Music Blogs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 21 July 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, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was this. Which I chose not to respond to. BJTalk 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a forum to establish whether deletion process has been properly followed. It is not a location for discussions properly made at an AFD discussion to be rehashed and reopened. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Can the talk page of the article be restored for this DRV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. BJTalk 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I don't see any indication that the deletion process was not followed or that data has been provided which was not available to the participating editors. The talk page makes mention of Chicago Sun-Times, OC Weekly and CBS Radio references but I'm unable to locate these resources. If links to these could be provided and proved to be substantive and independent of subject I would consider revising this opinion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist: I think the information available to us now casts the subject of the article in a better light than was immediately available to the delete !voters in the AfD. We now have a well-sourced case that the weblog is influential amongst opinion leaders in the music industry, and adequate sourcing to flesh out an article; WP:WEB#1 should be reevaluted in the light that the weblog is engaging in music-industry journalism. SmokeyJoe's suggestion of userfying to a turn-around master would be even better, in terms of likelihood of getting the article into acceptable shape, if we could only find such a person... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalst (talk • contribs)
  • Weak endorse – looks like procedure was followed with some sort of rough consensus (after one full relist, of course). The IP claims that coverage is everywhere but does not show that. Perhaps someone can take the article off the user's hands here and see what can be done in the userspace (after all I did contest the prod on the notion that the sources given may have established some notability there). MuZemike 02:32, 23 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Deletion log (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Full list of log pages

Old log deleted by since retired admin who intended to restore them, but failed to. Would like permission to restore the deletion logs, removing the libelous deletion summaries. Failing that I would like permission to undelete and blank the logs. MBisanz talk 23:46, 20 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Lithuanian surnames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Necessary category redirect to the newly created category Category:Lithuanian-language surnames, to assist editors creating new articles in locating the proper category, by redirecting from the "common sense" category title formerly used at WP. This is similar to the category redirect Category:People_from_Minneapolis, which redirects to the proper category, serving a prosaic yet essential function of informing editors of the correct location of the category. Badagnani (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've notified the closing admin of the debate in question of this discussion. The decision to create the linguistics based categories instead of the nationality based ones seems to have been the decision of the closing admin and I'm not 100% sure whether his close precluded redirects where a linguistic root is inherently tied to a national root (for example swedish language surnames, greek language surnames or, for that matter, lithuanian language surnames). The main problem with the old cats system seems to have been indiscrim and inherent verifiablility issues, but a redir along the lines of Category:Italian surnames seems fairly harmless. That said, this isn't really a question of overturning so much as a request for permission to create a redirect... Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto most of the above. While there's nothing wrong with the closure, there's also nothing wrong with allowing a category redirect at that title. Were it not for the history of this particular category I would have created the redirect myself. So, unsalt and redirect as nom suggests. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest asking for wider discussion of the general topic by the community as an RfC. There was very dubious consensus for the general change and it a a far-reaching one. The close was essentially a proposal of the closing admin, and , though in my opinion probably the best solution, did not represent the view of anyone other than himself. The question as I understand it is the ambiguity of the term: whether it ought to mean Lithuanian language surnames, Surnames used in Lithuania, or Surnames used by people of Lithuanian citizenship or extraction. Good arguments were raised for each of these. The decision was to go by language, and leave other possibilities open. Not a bad decision, but it needs further discussion. DGG 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and I thought then,as I think still, that this should be a community decision with wider attention. I'm not really able to get as involved as I'd like to be on this one, but I think an RfC is the next step. DGG (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above comments ignore the fact that a category redirect is needed, because "Lithuanian surnames" in the commonest understanding does in fact mean "Lithuanian-language surnames," and our users need to know where the correct category is in the same way that Category:People_from_Minneapolis leads to the correct category. The term "Lithuanian-language surnames" is nowhere to be found in the literature on this subject, while the term "Lithuanian surnames" is a well-understood term, in fact the term most new editors would input as their category, find that category has been deleted, but without a redirect explaining where the proper category is. Kindly address comments to this important issue rather than simply saying "endorse close, it was a good close" which doesn't address this real-life issue at all. Badagnani (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does it matter that an admin closed the discussion and DRV found no consensus to overturn? One category got recreated per this DRV so are you planning on relisting each one by one? It may be a scattershot approach. And you can been saying for quite a few weeks that this is all "needed" without much proof beyond your assertion that it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposed to this one by one attack on the original decision, that itself was based on precedent. When we nominate related categories one by one, the nomination is attacked as "Salami slicing". When we nominate them as a group (it took more than 12 hours for me to complete the nomination), we are attacked as too broad. That July 6th review was the second review, and there was considerable canvassing. It was improperly handled.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (closer). Just to give my views as a background to this: the close did not explicitly state that these categories could not be changed to redirects. A few weeks ago, I was speedily G4 deleting these as I thought it was perhaps too early to conclude that the "by-language" scheme was going to be the only successor scheme, since the close had mentioned the possibility of other schemes (such as by-culture ones, presumably), in which case a straight redirect could perhaps be inappropriately pre-empting this possibility. However, there were two editors in particular who were quite vigorously pushing for the old category names to become redirects. At the end of the day, I don't care that much about whether a category redirect exists or not, so I let the issue pass and stopped deleting them. Obviously other editors have continued to G4 them. Substantively, I don't really have an opinion, though I do think that giving the development of the new scheme(s) some breathing room before we decide what to do with the old categories would not necessarily be a bad thing. But good luck trying to convince the converted about this issue—I tried but found that those pushing for these had already decided what they wanted and weren't interested in considering other positions or compromising in any way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure, Deletion, and Speedy Deletion -- no indication given as to how the deletion process was not properly followed. Moreover, these repeated Badagnani category redirects have become a serious problem.
    1. As articles are reverted, or the category is blindly added, the category redirect moves a "by country" article into a "by language" category. This makes it difficult for our users to understand the reason the category is then removed....
    2. Always keeping our users in mind, it's better that the category is red-linked, so that they don't think it is a correct category at all!
    3. Always keeping our users in mind, an attempt to recreate the category will give them a nice list of deletion log entries, with a link to the original CfD decision.
    4. Always keeping our users in mind, they will know to check the {{surname}} template usage documentation, and read the category descriptions, and check the references, and carefully put the article into the correctly named category.
    5. In this particular case, the recreation was deleted 8 times by 3 different administrators. (See logs above.)
    6. In this case, there are currently 43 entries in Category:Lithuanian-language surnames:
      • 1 is a Talk page, for goodness sakes!
      • None have references. I repeat: NONE.
      • Therefore, all should be removed from the category.
      • A category redirect would exacerbate the problem.
    7. Many/most of the other Badagnani category redirects have been deleted and salted (and frequently follow an outright recreation of the original category, because Badagnani has not been cooperative in the CfD process and its result). The only remaining ones from this June 6 CfD are:
      1. Category:Italian surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      2. Category:Polish surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- created just yesterday
      3. Category:Icelandic surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    8. As with the June 25 review, there is no consensus to reinstate this individual category in its current form.
  • This is a repeated abuse of the review process.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Yet another in a string of isolated DRVs for categories in the Fooian surname structure. No indication that anything has changed regarding this specific category within that structure. Suggest that if Badagnani continues with his present pattern of bad-faith recreations and bad-faith accusations against fellow editors here and elsewhere, he be sanctioned. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nothing wrong with the close and concensus hasn't changed since. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nothing to indicate a change in overall consensus. Editors should work on discussing it at Category talk:Surnames rather than trying to brute force their view in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - DRV is not CfD Round 2, which some of the usual suspects should know by now. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 24 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Red Sox-Rays rivalry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

12.185.48.89 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per Rklear and his four sources, which are actually good sources for supporting notability, being independent, discussing the subject (the rivalry), and not failing the NOTNEWS catch, with dates: June 5, 2008; Oct. 9, 2008; October 9, 2008; October 19, 2008. Mstuczynski drew attention to this, and while several participants (including commenters) had criticism, they did not argue that outright deletion was required, with Magnetic Rag promising to make improvements. I guess that the closer was unduly. though understandably, influenced by the weakness of the other two keep !votes and the fact that among so many participants, only one made a good keep !vote. MBisanz explanation above, in failing to refer to Rklear, suggests to me that the most important !vote was lost in the noise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – while I very well would have !voted keep in the AFD, I must respect the rough consensus for deletion here. If someone wants to do a cleanup job and merge any remaining information to other pages, then I won't object to any userfication in that respect. MuZemike 18:42, 22 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Kimble (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A fictional character in a notable movie (Kindergarten Cop) and John B. Kimble, has an article which has sustained 2 years since 2007 when this was originally deleted. See Talk:John Kimble. Tyciol (talk) 02:54, 18 July 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 July 2009

[edit]

16 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Children of Michael Jackson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted per WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. Here are two sources for the NOTE issue.[6][7] As you can imagine, there are thousands of news sources that discuss them to greater and lesser degrees over the past 10 or so years (the article had about 25 by the time it was deleted). It didn't violate BLP, and that would have been a reason to fix it and not delete it, anyways. Basically people had a gut feeling about the article, and didn't really care if it conflicts with our guidelines and policies. I think if we base our decision on our rules, it should not be deleted. Also, there were a lot of merge !votes as well as deletes. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin: This was generally a case of a large mass of coverage that pretty much solely covered the children in the context of their father and his death; which many felt resulted in the article merely reflecting inherited notability. Neither side any kind of monopoly on poorly-reasoned arguments; in the end I felt the overall consensus leaned distinctly towards removing this content and in the case of particularly sensitive BLPs of children I felt my close was also the prudent option. ~ mazca talk 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage has spanned over ten years. People in the AfD said NOTINHERITED, and basically ignored the duration of coverage. I think a lot of them thought NOTINHERITED is meant in a family sense, which it isn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - we base our deletions on consensus, and the consensus was to delete in this case. Since DRV is to argue the procedure and not reargue the AfD, the consensus is what matters here. For disclosure, I was the nominating editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There were no procedural problems with the close, and the WP:BLP concerns were very real. Unitanode 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - consensus was clear. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be pointless to ask, but can an endorser address how the sources do not meet notability, now the duration of coverage does not meet NOTINHERITED, and how BLP says this should be deleted? This is the same thing that happened at the AfD. People cite policies, but have never shown how those policies actually apply. It's probably in your best interests to just pile on a never speak of how policies apply, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PF, please stop rehashing the AFD issues. You think one thing. A whole LOT of people feel differently than you. Procedurally, this close was on the money. Please focus on areas of how this was procedurally done, or simply withdraw the DRV, as you've raised no questions about the procedure followed during this close. My arguments were made at the AFD, and I won't make them again here. Unitanode 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a no. As the below commenter mentions, as well as at least one of the deletes in the AfD, they are notable. I guess we'll just call every delete an WP:IAR delete. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PF, I'm basing my judgment on the AFD discussion only. DRV is not the place to argue about sources. My endorsement of the closure doesn't necessarily represent my (or anyone else's viewpoint) on whether the conensus was correct or not, but rather on what the outcome of the concensus was. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This ridiculously large discussion had two substantial rationales for deletion - lack of independent notability, and BLP. While I agree with PF's reading of notability here, the guideline certainly is amorphous enough to support the argument that there is only derivative notability here. I'm more sympathetic to the BLP concerns, although I agree that they are more prospective in nature than the result of any demonstrated problem. Still, the discussion here was quite thorough, and I don't think that this is situation where one side is working so outside of policy that its position can be given substantially less weight. The closer here accurately discerned that on balance, the consensus was to delete. Would that all our discussions benefit from many pairs of eyes. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting one. The consensus was delete, but I agree with Xymmax that WP:N doesn't actually support that outcome. I don't think BLP does, either; BLP concerns might be a reason to fix the article, or even edit-protect it, but I don't see that they lead to a need to delete it.

    Still. Where consensus collides with the rules, consensus should prevail, so I endorse this accurate close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as a reasonable admin closure. From my perspective, the arguments for deletion seem to outweigh the reasons for keeping; even though it's not a strong consensus, I'm afraid the BLP concerns raised bring it over the top. MuZemike 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close. There were good explanations in the delete rationales for why BLP applied so I'm slightly concerned the nominator doesn't understand how BLP applied. I understand they might not agree but the reasoning was provided and was clearly compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Thoroughly debated at AfD. Even if WP:BLP isn't written clearly enough, deciding to delete and keep deleted this subject is the right thing to do and we should not be embarrassed to make decisions reflecting morality. No information will be lost to humanity if we don't cover these people now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what is the part of BLP that applies? There's the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section, which sounds like it might support deletion, but nothing in it really does. It has lots of advice about how the article should be written, and that advice was heeded. WP:BLP1E sounds kinda close (forgetting the years of coverage), but it recommends a merge. Maybe I'm missing something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if I have the answer you're looking for, but there is much more potential for harm to living persons wrt articles like this, especially when content-forked as it what it looked like happened. Information on BLPs are to be taken much more seriously and consequently with much more care. While the mantra when in doubt, don't delete is a useful watch-word wrt deletion/XFDs, that does not necessarily apply to biographies of living persons, where said persons are entitled to protection from harmful, unsourced/unverifiable information. We cannot sit back on a BLP and say, 'this will eventually get cleaned up, so don't delete it', it's got to be done right. Hence, the extra care needed. Many users I think have this in mind during this DRV. That's my take. MuZemike 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Peregrine,s question should be: How can WP:BLP be revised to better explain what was done here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's answers my question. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - a perfectly valid weighing of strength of arguments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree fully with the argument that notability is not inherited. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, consensus looks fine to me. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a good close based on the arguments put forward, with no apparent procedural errors (and none raised by the editor who initiated this discussion). Hut 8.5 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and hoping Michael Jackson's health and appearance‎ and Records and achievements of Michael Jackson‎ are the next MJ related articles to meet similar fate. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (from author) due to lack of time to refute WP:BLP concerns. I had thought a due process would be to wait (at least) 2 days to see if anyone had time to refute the final 5 fears about BLP hacking. Those issues went completely unopposed in the final minutes before deletion. Perhaps others (seeing my "recap subsections") thought I had time (everyday) to refute the next set of debate points; however, I spent my time expanding the article (not the debate) to explain Grace Rwaramba was the 12-year nanny from Uganda (college in U.S.) helping MJ+children (and I wanted to add they called her "Mum", him "Daddy" but couldn't find 2nd source). So, meanwhile as I'm expanding the article with double-sourced facts, the AfD is seen as unrefuted and closed.
    Again, I say "Overturn" due to a lack of time (such as 2 days) to refute final arguments. However, I also fear the BLP hacking and think "un-deletion" should discuss pre-protecting article immediately before restoring to public view: someone had already quipped "custody will go to Octomom(!)" and another moved/renamed the article to title "Children of Debbie Rowe" thinking they "aren't really" MJ children, despite birth-certificates signed by MJ. This situation is a policy loophole in Wikipedia: why doesn't a large article get split into subarticles with automatically the same protection: instead, each attempt to expand in subarticles is exposed to endless vandalism seen by "65,000" pageviews per day until embarrassing vandalism is proven to offend readers/children in mourning. When delaying typical article protection, no wonder there were so many BLP concerns. So, please discuss protection before un-deleting, per lack of time to refute ending arguments. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close I'm not sure I would have favored deletion if I had seen this discussion while it occurred, but the consensus for deletion is pretty clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the only reasonable option. Accurate and well-informed closure. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This whole thing was a flurry of WP:RECENTISM and the BLP concerns outweighed that. Always error to the side of caution with BLP, especially with minors. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn #2 (from author) due to closure outside scope of AfD. When readers were asked to consider the AfD, the scope involved 2 issues: notability of article's topic, and WP:ONEEVENT. However, once those issues were refuted, rather than stop the AfD, the debate became (surprise!) WP:BLP, without amending the top reasons for deletion. Once deleted, the reasoning stated "particularly sensitive BLPs of children" which had not been fairly indicated, at the top of AfD, as a major issue to discuss or refute. That's changing the rules of the game in mid-stream, and hence, people were left unprepared for what spurious argument to debate next. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn #3 (from author) due to new user(s) saying "Delete". When a new user (with red-linked name) "tilts the consensus" to deletion, as the main contributions of a 4-edit user, then that's highly questionable. If at trial, a police officer were found to have falsified evidence, then I think a cloud of suspicion would be cast on all evidence; a recess (delay) would be in order, to re-examine the events: there is a difference between consensus and canvassing. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn #4 (from author) due to arguing from false premises. The AfD was initiated by claiming: notability of an article's topic is NEVER inherited, and a WP:ONEEVENT would NEVER support a separate article. However, when considering the topic of the White Star Line, there were 2 sister ships (nearly identical) which were the new babies of the famous shipping line: S.S. Olympic (1910) & S.S. Titanic (1912). Well, notability (of the shipping line) is not inherited, so forget those babies, they don't count, no matter how rare. The Olympic sailed a while and had a minor wreck, but was repaired. Then the R.M.S. Titanic sank, but that was just a WP:ONEEVENT. Case closed: not even notable enough for "Sister ships of White Star". In reality, because they had been sister-ships, the S.S. Olympic was later used to demonstrate turning tests of how the Titanic could have been steered to avoid an iceberg (conclusion: don't put engines in reverse when steering forward). Anyway, it is well-known in sentential logic, that if the premises of an argument are false, then anything can be proven, like "white is not white" or "black is white" or "this article should be deleted". Hence, it is completely unacceptable to claim such a debate, based on false premises, which are guaranteed to support the unavoidable deletion. The AfD must be rejected due to those false premises which created a systemic bias, highly likely to result in deletion. Next time, note: a WP:ONEEVENT must be like a worldwide event, like some big ship dies (or similar) to support notability of those involved, such as a group of survivors or those who diagnosed the dangers (Frederick Fleet, crewman who sighted the iceberg). Hence, notability can be derived from a single event. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn #5 (from author) due to new DRA-profiling of the evidence. The article had been convicted of the "crime" of BLP-childrisk and sentenced to deletion. However, other culprits can be revealed once the evidence is re-examined, using DRA-profiling, for dangerous risk activities (DRA), in use at the time. Specifically, the debated problem of BLP-childrisk (for minors) can be traced to other suspects:
  • the practice of not protecting the article against IP edits increases the likelihood of risky text (nearly 90% of hacked edits can be traced to IP-address users).
  • the practice of not posting warnings (of risk) could be seen as neglect in not alerting others to child-protection issues.
  • the practice of not posting a typical legal notice could be seen as contributing to dangers in child-protection issues.
Once the evidence is re-examined, then the article can be proven to be not guilty of BLP-childrisk, since small children are also described in other articles, such as in "Brad Pitt#Children" and "Tom Cruise". -Wikid77 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My responses above were not "AFD2" nor "textwalling" but, rather, 5 separate, detailed motions to overturn the ruling of the AfD. In reality, legal debates require a lot of written text (not "textwalling"), and for that reason, the practice has been known (for many decades) as the "paper chase". So, be prepared to see a lot more text, in the future, when resolving these motions to overturn, or when debating an original AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are truly doing yourself no favors with your attitude towards -- and apparent misunderstanding of -- the processes involved in Wikipedia. I won't be responding to your textwalling ("paper chase", whatever) any further. Unitanode 20:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only problem with that is that the Afd closure isn't a ruling by a judge, it's a reading of consensus by an admin. DRV isn't a legal venue for "motions", it's a place to highlight issues with the deletion process. If you want to play at being a lawyer, that's fine, but this isn't a legal process and so treating it as one isn't going to benefit you in anyway. Volume of argument isn't important, quality is. The volume of argument can of course obscure the quality. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it most certainly is a ruling by a judge, who happens to be an admin judging the AfD. And it certainly is a venue for "motions" which define causes to overturn the ruling, based on problems of procedure. Plus, using a similar analogy to a legal court, has revealed to me the problems of viewing canvassing or sockpuppets as a form of "consensus" where Truth is defined by a popularity contest. So, it is of enormous benefit to me that no one thinks that's a problem: I think I can see why 98% of users quit Wikipedia within 1 month. So much is just a waste of time. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an accusation of sockpuppetry, make it in the appropriate venue, not here. If you don't, then you should strike your accusations straightaway. Unitanode 04:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: In fact, contrary to the closing summary, I think the weight of the AfD did indicate notability, but it also raise serious BLP issues, and it was quite correct to close to delete on that basis. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a court of law. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure I might well have voted to keep, and I can't understand why the option of merge was not considered, but consensus needs to be respected. There is no evidence that there is anything out of process here. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I see nothing out of process about this AfD. DRV is not AfD 2.0 and all that, the simple fact is that being of the opinion that the AfD result was "wrong" is not grounds for AfD. The discussion of whether an in-process AfD can actually be wrong is left for another time. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:04, 22 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Competition 10 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't quite agree that this was closed properly. It's true that very few people cared to comment over a very long period (two weeks). But two users did vote "delete", and the one "merge" voter did comment that there was "insufficient notability for independent article". I understand that in cases of no consensus, we default to keep. But with two participants supporting deletion and one at least leaning in that direction, it does seem, based on the limited sample size, that deletion was the preferred outcome. Plus, the strength of argument clearly lay with the "delete" side, I would contend. Biruitorul Talk 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On reviewing the debate, I agree that Dragos muresan's keep argument was successfully refuted. However, ChildofMidnight's merge argument was not, and it should stand with full weight. The nominator's delete argument should also receive full weight. Cybercobra's contribution did not really add anything, being basically a "per nom" combined with a statement of the blindingly obvious.

    It's important to remember that "merge" is a "keep" outcome. Contrary to the nominator, ChildofMidnight's words do not support deletion.

    Overall, I think the debate did not reach rough consensus, so I endorse User:Nja247#s accurate close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak endorse. There wasn't really a consensus to delete, although it could have been closed otherwise. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the no consensus close. The default position is keep, as you've noted, and I'm not seeing a rough consensus here to remove this article. I suspect that I would have closed this AfD the same way, although truthfully, I probably would have simply !voted delete instead of closing. Still, in a case like this there is nothing unreasonable in wanting a stronger showing of consensus before whipping out the eraser. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus for deletion has been established. MuZemike 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. This one had a special claim to notability, no serious allegation of spam, so give it 12 months before considering relisting at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus to delete. It looks like a very weak consensus to merge (counting the deletes as "no standalone article"), but no consensus is fine. Note that normal editing is not precluded by this closure, but it would be polite to discuss first. Flatscan (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable close. There was simply insufficient participation to get a solid consensus either way; and it had been relisted quite enough times. No consensus leaves it open to renominate in future and hopefully get a meaningful consensus to do something with the article. Simply merging it is also not precluded. ~ mazca talk 09:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid close. Mazca hit the proverbial nail on the head. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: per S Marshall, the merge case was not refuted. Be WP:BOLD and merge it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever, go ahead and merge it. I think Nja's close was odd, I'm not saying a "delete" was motivated but a mention of the possibility of a merge would not have gone amiss. Many AfDs are closed with this amount of participation and we simply can't aribitrarily decide that we need to have five editors participating as it would cripple AfD (not to speak of CfD, RfD and TfD). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:13, 22 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

AFD = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Franco_%22El_Gorila%22

Hello everybody,

I just wanted to say that I've rewritten the article about this artist. User Wknight94 who deleted the former article advised me, to create the new one in the user space first and then request in here if the old one could be replaced by the one I've written. This is the link to the user page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:79.206.212.76/Franco_%22El_Gorila%22

--Descará (talk) 16:56, 16 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Francine Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Hello, why was Francine Dee deleted?

I am the webmaster at her site, and do not understand why this was taken down....

It got plenty of traffic, ( do a search on Google.com, she still has one of the most popular names in the Asian modeling community. )

She is a Icon in Asian modeling scene and Queen of the Import car scene, With the longest running and active website of it's type with over 10 years of updates!

I will maintain the page, if allowed, It was not updated in a Very long time, due to I was told I was not a relyable source of Info for her ( kind of strange ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorphiousDG (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It was deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Dee. It was determined that she was not yet notable enough to be on Wikipedia. See WP:N for info on notability. (X! · talk) · @958 · 21:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Yes I read that. But Did you not read my rebuttals to that above? What about models like Luana Lani ( not even a pic ), Christine Mendoza, Masuimi Max, all with 1/100th the amount of work and popularity of Francine? All of these and MANY other models are in this industry because of the work of Francine......

So I would Really like to get this page back up, or you might as well go and delete all the other models out there as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.146.249 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the results from Google - Results 1 - 10 of about 787,000 for "Francine Dee". Is this enough pages to be worthy of Wikipedia? ( compare this to some of the other names as well as some of the other people in here.... ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.146.249 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2009

The above is copied from X!'s user talk page. To address the concerns above, please understand that notability is not Google results. You'll need to demonstrate that there are reliable sources written about Mrs. Dee. As far as the AfD goes, endorse as the only possible closure. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://francinedee.com/tear_sheet.php is this a good start? There are more in the last 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.146.249 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really Weak system, so two people can say to delete something and that constitutes a "consensus"? Sounds like two people just did not want this type of content on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.100.77 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, four. Besides, can you think of anything better? MuZemike 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five including the nominator, six given the Admin chose to delete rather than voice an opinion. It's one of these self limiting systems. Plenty of people will have seen the AfD with the delete comments and chosen not to comment. When unambiguous discussions come up they generally pull relatively little participation while more controversial discussions attract more. While this looks at first glance like it would be exploitable by such techniques as ballot stuffing, we have checks and limitations. I feel the system works relatively well and like MuZemike said, what would work better? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admins are supposed to read consensus, close AFDs, and delete according to what said consensus states. They are not supposed to !vote in their closes. MuZemike 18:46, 22 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Andre Merritt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

AFD = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Merritt Speedy Deletion 75.27.151.59 (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete. He has written, Disturbia for Rihanna. Forever for Chris Brown. Entourage for Omarion. Helped produced SEVERAL albums. Is signed as a songwriter to Universal Music Group. Look it up on their website! Also there is www.andremerritt.com HE IS ALSO involved in a songwriting crew called the GRAFFITI ARTISTZ which contains him, Chris Brown, and Robert Allen. He has MADE IT BIG.

  • Close - There is no need for a DRV for a speedy deletion. If he has "made it big" then there should be no end of independent reliable sources that attest to it. If you wish, you may write an article that relies on those sources. Note that neither Universal Music Group's website nor Merritt's personal website constitute reliable sources, which must be independent of the article's subject. Otto4711 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed with 7 keeps and 12 deletes. But AfD is not a vote. There were strong arguments in both directions, so there was a consensus neither to keep nor delete. Therefore, this should be overturned to keep. Tatterfly (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case a reasonable solution would be to overturn and clean-up to serve our readers' best interest. Categories, lists, disambiguation pages and templates should compliment one another. If someone is looking for the advocacy group or the documentary, etc. they shouldn't have to dig through an article to find it, Likewise the template should not be compelled to list every article related. A disambiguation page serves this purpose. -- Banjeboi 20:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those (with the possible exception of Walmarting) would be appropriate on a dismabig page. Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating articles with the same titles, not pages that share keywords in the title. ÷seresin 20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that technicality but we aren't here to serve our rules as much as helping our readers find what they are looking for. WP:SETINDEX is a form of disambiguation that would seem to apply here. At the top of the main article a link to "other articles about Wal-Mart" would be placed and the index briefs on the other articles that exist. -- Banjeboi 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Endorse This is not the place to refight the AfD, but rather examine whether the debate was closed properly. "Consensus" does not require unanimity, but it does (typically, assuming there aren't many egregiously bad !votes) more than a simple majority. In this case, the ratio of !D and !K is just high enough and the merits of the arguments are just good enough to push the result from "no consensus" to "consensus to delete". IMHO. Yilloslime TC 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - a consensus to delete anything should be an extremely clear, near unanymous agreement to do so by the community as a whole, or else it may just amount to dislike, which is not a valid reason for deletion. If several people have one or more good enough arguments in favor of keeping, it should be kept. The main mission of a Wikipedia editor should be to improve, not destroy. Even if ⅔ of the population dislike hot peppers, this will not result in their removal from society. Same with Wikipedia content. Sebwite (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is why I said that dabs for deletion might need to be separated from articles for deletion. The dab here is needed for:
and none of the others (that might have a place in a set index article, or nowhere at all). But Walmart leads to one article and is ambiguous with the Walmart (neologism) and Walmart (golf tournament) articles (redirects) -- there is no !vote needed; this is just a restatement of the current state of Wikipedia. As long as that ambiguity exists, Wikipedia needs a navigational aid (disambiguation page) for it. (If the redirects are incorrect, then they should be deleted through the RfD process, and the documentary can be disambiguated by a hatnote on Wal-Mart. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poorly-sourced neologism should probably be merged with the main article. The golf tournament name is only a redirect, and Walmart may not remain its sponsor. Nobody searching for the documentary is going to just type "Wal-mart". They are far more likely to type "Walmart documentary" or some such similar. I reject the notion that there is any sort of ambiguity problem here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the changes you propose were implemented (merging the neologism and deleting the redirect), then I'd agree with you. I (and the disambiguation guidelines) reject the notion that a Wikipedia entry that is "only a redirect" is not ambiguous with other Wikipedia entries that shares its name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: In fact I don't think there is anything wrong with taking this back to DRV, since the last DRV didn't give the closer unambiguous guidance in interpreting the AfD, and argumentative 7-12 AfD closes are just the sort of thing that DRV is for. It is clear that the AfD was about WP:DAB and that the deletists most effectively argued that issue. Having said that, the AfD did not really work out the issues well: S Marshall's argument for a redirect to a list (which is what I would have !voted, has I remembered to), simply bypasses the not-a-DAB case, and Sebwite argued well for the utility of dab pages in such cases. But for a closer to have seized on either of these opinions and claim that is where the weight of the argument lay would not have been defensible. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some users here have not only given good arguments in favor of keeping, but have also listed exactly which articles can be listed on this page. Please note that I have started a separate discussion on the inclusion of partial matches on DAB pages. I feel that there are many cases in which they should be included, and this is a major example of that. Even if this discussion here does not reverse the outcome, it may be reversed later depending on that one. Tatterfly (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Chalst. Very few of the topics in the dab actually were what is meant to be listed in a dab, and the consensus seemed to be pushing that way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well-reasoned close. No reason to overturn or even relist. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I voted keep, then changed to delete because the arguments for delete were airtight, and the arguments for keep, mine included, could have holes poked in them. The closer has to take the validity of the arguments in mind, as WP:NOTAVOTE notes, hence why delete made sense for the closure. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 22:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus is weak, but it's still a consensus. Besides, I closed the last DRV as relist; we are not going through that again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The arguments most given in favor of deleting this page are 1.) that the listings on the DAB page relate to the main subject, and 2.) they can be better listed in a see also section in the main Wal-Mart article. But Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include does not say anywhere that articles that are directly (or indirectly) related to the subject should not be included. The page also does not state that disambiguations should not be created if they are redundant to any lists or templates. Considering this, there is no guideline that would exclude a WM DAB page, and therefore, no matter how many "deletes/endorses" there are, this page should be restored per guidelines. Tatterfly (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But consensus does not mean majority. It appears very misleading here that the majority have said "endorse/delete," when plenty of people haven't. This is not a vote. This is a matter of showing which guidelines favor inclusion or exclusion, and there are plenty of guidelines favoring inclusion. Tatterfly (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sales 2.0 – no consensus to move into mainspace - suggest the author continue working on this one in userspace and try again after the issues mentioned below have been addressed. I realize this close is a few hours early but there has been no recent discussion nor recent edits to the userfied article, thus no real reason to prolong this – Shereth 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sales 2.0 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I deleted this article after closing the Afd, and userfied it here per a request at my talk page. The editor has made improvements, and would like to return it to main space. I have declined to do so unilaterally, but have created this entry to assist the editor in getting a wider audience to consider the matter. He/she is welcome to replace this statement with a nomination of their choosing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:12, 15 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Roman Catholic jurists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:Jewish jurists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:Hindu jurists (perhaps this one as well)

Currently, there is a discussion going on about the possible deletion of Category:Jurists by faith. Part of the discussion revolves around the deltion of these three categories. I'd like to see them restored. There seems to be no problem with the category Category:Muslim jurists. I don't see why the three above aren't given the same consideration.

There are the categories of Category:Roman_Catholics_by_occupation Category:Jews_by_occupation and Category:Muslims by occupation, why can't there be a jurist sub-category?

As an example of their relevance, in the U.S., the Supreme Court now has six Catholics, the faith of a judge does seem relevant. It fits within our category schemes and isn't over-categorization. Philly jawn (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Muslim jurists" are all to at least a large degree "Jurists of Islamic law" (modern systems are often mixed), but I have suggested at the other debate that the category (not currently nominated) should be renamed to this. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Roman Catholic jurists and Category:Hindu jurists weren't deleted, they were just renamed in this CfD, a decision I endorse. I haven't looked into Category:Jewish jurists yet. lifebaka++ 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the various deletions - no indication that any of the various CFDs for these categories were closed in error, no new information presented indicating that the consensus expressed by those CFDs has changed. DRV is not CFD round two. That there "seems to be no problem" regarding the Muslim jurists category is not relevant to this discussion. First, the existence of one category does not mandate or even suggest that another similar category should exist. Second, as has been noted both in at least one of the original CFDs and in the current discussion, there is some "problem" with the notion of a category specifically for jurists who are Muslim and a suggestion has been made to rename and repurpose the Muslim jurists category to make it specifically about jurists of Islamic law systems.
  • Additionally, I note that although Philly jawn was explicitly advised here, after re-creating some of these categories out of process, that before opening a DRV he should discuss his concerns with the closing admin(s), as advised in the instructions found on this page. I see no indication that he has done so. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse prior decisions, from April 2007 and May 2009 (I fixed your link, it was to Supreme Court Justices by religion). Agreeing with Otto about lack of indication these were closed in error. Why are these old and older decisions brought to Review? These are now long-standing and repeatedly confirmed decisions.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (closer of some of the discussions). Per above comments; my understanding of the consensus is that this form of categorization would be fine for judges of ecclesiastical courts of various religions, but not for judges of state courts who just happen to be of a particular religion, which is why these were deleted in the past. Incidentally, the nominator didn't ask me about any of this prior to nomination; I would have been willing to explain things a bit further. I think this is the 5th consecutive DRV for a category discussion that I closed that no one has asked me about prior to nomination. Perhaps the suggestion in the DRV instructions that recommends speaking with the closer beforehand and to use DRV as a last resort only should be strengthened, or bolded or something. (Oh, I see now it already is bolded. Never mind.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Perfectly appropriate categorization, supported by sources in the individual articles; deletion is typical of the fringe minority at WP who seem to have as their primary reason for editing the undermining of our categorization system as regards ethnic groups, religions, and other cultural groups (particularly the Jewish one). Badagnani (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you haven't read the CfDs in question, only one was actually deleted. The other two were renamed, and still exist under their new names. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they had been renamed, there would be category redirects for both--there are not, so effectively they haven't been renamed, if no one is able to figure out where they are from the "common sense" names. Badagnani (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming categories does not result in category redirects. That's not how it works. Bad-faith accusations against fellow editors carry no weight and are meaningless. Otto4711 (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brandon Evans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There is no reason to request deletion. He is clearly listed as an BMI songwriter. Brandonn12345 (talk) 05:32, 14 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Programmer13/Vandalism Patrol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

One, this was humor/fun in a userpage, two I'd like to improve and subsequently reintroduce the concept. Drew Smith What I've done 04:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, two things here. Firstly, endorse as a perfectly valid U1 deletion. Secondly, if there's anything major you'd like to salvage from the page, I'd suggest asking Programmer13 first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I don't think a DRV is appropriate here because the MFD was speedily closed as WP:CSD#U1 per [10] [11] (the latter is admin only, is user requesting deletion). I can move the content to your userspace, give you a few days to clean it up, and then re-open (or rather, bring a new) MFD nomination if you like. –xenotalk 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Baltic reptiles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Blatant anti-reptilianism Meconion (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - 'nuff said. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:47, 13 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Triple J Hottest 100, 2009 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Copyright violation. It doesn't matter how many people vote keep against policy, policy requires that these pages be deleted. Included are all of the other pages listed on the AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse original close as keep. User:Stifle's summary of the OTRS ticket received from the organisation the nominator believes holds copyright on the list appears to indicate that they neither believe the list is copyrighted by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and would grant permission if it is required. Most respondents on the original AFD believe that the list was not under copyright as it was the results of a public vote much like any political election or voted awards such as the Oscars. Perhaps it would be clearer if we knew the exact wording of Triple J's correspondence on the matter – there does not seem to be any indication that permission was granted for publication on Wikipedia only which I gather is the main objection here, so it would certainly be prudent to ensure that Triple J were aware of Wikipedia's licence terms being that text is permitted to be copied for profit. That said, the widespread publishing of the full list on all major Australian newspapers' websites today would indicate that Triple J and the ABC are not protective of the list as copyrighted information. --Canley (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Owl City (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requesting Unsalting and Restoring of the prior article (which I believe was reasonably well fleshed out) because, since the last AfD, the band charted in the United States twice. Further sourcing is readily available. Chubbles (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Wikipedia:Long usernames – Overturn to delete. Nearly everyone who expressed an opinion here — even those endorsing the decision — stated that the consensus in the MfD in question was to delete the page. Thus, consensus was interpreted incorrectly by the closing administrator; therefore, the decision is overturned to delete. – — Aitias // discussion 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Long usernames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel consensus was completely ignored by the closing admin Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I've tried to resolve this here, but it did not work, so I'm bringing this to DRV. Aditya α ß 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I confess this is my first time at DRV as an admin - I suppose everyone starts somewhere. I kept the page because some felt that it constituted a part of Wikipedia's early history. The page had not been edited since 2004, and only once in 2009 by Graham87 so as to link it to a very, very old village pump discussion (Dec 03). My determination was that there were two parties in the MfD: those who wanted it deleted per WP:DENY, and those who wanted it kept for the sake of history. I figured that the latter had a larger stake in the matter compared to the former, the latter being long term editors. So I weighed the arguments but figured that, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether this page stays or goes. I went with the option that didn't deny folks their history.Xavexgoem (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, it's best to avoid deletion whenever possible, so I can see why Xavexgoem went with tagging as historical. I also don't feel like WP:DENY has too terribly much to do with this, though certainly a case could be made. A good compromise would likely be to blank the page and maybe write something there instead (an essay on why/why not to have long usernames, a humor bit on some particular long usernames, et cetera). Alternatively, if Xavexgoem doesn't mind, he could go back and delete it, since I agree that the end result doesn't matter much. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What worried me though wasn't the end result, it was that Xavex ignored the clear consensus to delete the page, in favor of what he thought was right. While it's true that "some felt that it constituted a part of Wikipedia's early history", it's also true that most people felt it should be deleted. Aditya α ß 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasoning is fine. For a !vote. But I believe his interpretation of consensus was incorrect as he was influenced by his own personal feelings on the subject. Aditya α ß 06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, my personal feelings really had nothing to do with my decision. I did not and do not consider it a blind maneuver on my part; I did weigh the arguments as an administrator. That said, I do not always just count the for and against votes if the deletion discussion is in any way nuanced. The largest failure, in my opinion, was not describing my rationale for the decision, and I'm sure this discussion wouldn't have happened had I did so. Or, at any rate, my judgment on the matter wouldn't have been reduced to my personal opinion. If you want to know my personal opinion, it's that it should've been deleted a long time ago per WP:DENY (denying recognition has a long history outside Wikipedia).
  • I'm happy to discuss this matter at this DRV about WP:DENY and {{historical}}, and why I don't always reach decision based solely on number of votes. But I repeat: this wasn't personal on my part. I'm not a longtime editor, and I generally agree that we should deny recognition. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Lastly, if that article is used for recognition despite the historical tag (and I'd argue that anything that hasn't been edited since 2004 is historical by default), then the WP:DENY argument certainly trumps the historical argument. [reply]
  • Endorse - No reason to overturn, it wasn't a overwhelming consensus to delete, I would blank it though. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete because that was the rough consensus. If the closer was tempted to overrule the consensus, he should've !voted instead of closing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Last I checked WP:DENY wasn't policy, marking the page historical is what we do with pages that are inactive. Good close by admin. Whispering 07:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WP:DENY is an essay, enjoys limited support and certainly does not have consensus as a deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per rough consensus — WP:DENY is a perfectly reasonable explanation for an opinion at AfD. The keep !voters failed to argue any merit to the page, while the deleters did argue harm: I see no case to close against the numbers. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I give more leeway towards Admin discression in MfD discussions than I do in AfD, especially when it's between historic and deleted. If this had been an admin keeping an article where the consensus was delete (like for example, if the other DRV today had been kept) I would probably have said overturn. In the end though, this is just a WP page which does no damage. In terms of DENY, I don't think this will have any measurable effect on Trolling. Replacing the page, while maintaining the history, with a redirect to the username policy seems like a fair compromise though. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable close. I suspect I'd have closed this as 'delete' were I the admin responsible; but it is on the line and a decent argument could be made for closing it either way. ~ mazca talk 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. That was a reasonble close. The delete rationale was sound. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it was closed as keep your comment seems confusing.--76.69.166.93 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank content, keeping the tag, and the content in history. The majority of !voters went for "delete", although many wrongly (arguably) cited WP:DENY as mandating or justifying "delete", as blanking is arguably a preferable way to deal with such things (blanking denies recognition more effectively than staging community MfD & DRV debates). I guess that the closing admin saw this, or another weakness to the delete rationales, or recognised the vary valid point that we do and should try to avoid deleing our history. If the consensus were not for a full delete, it was certainly for a blank and mark historical, as per my & Ned's !votes, and consistent with Graham87's comments. The only other keep !votes by Stifle, and comment from Graeme Bartlett, did not specify whether the offensive content should or should not be removed from the continuing tagged page. Blanking the long usernames seems a pretty easy solution to most, and middle ground mostly satisfying everyone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I was a bit surprised by the decision, but it's certainly well within admin discretion. It's not worth making a fuss over. Another solution would be to actually *update* the page. Graham87 09:01, 17 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gamma_Alpha_Lambda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This sorority is a national organization with 4 current chapters in various universities. These chapters each have met the requirements set forth by their universities for a sorority. The organization is still young (6 years) which accounts for their relatively low notoriety amongst other areas of the country. However, much of their logo, sorority necklace, name, etc have been copyrighted with the U.S. government since their establishment and as they are now Gamma Alpha Lambda, Inc., they are no longer a "non-notable sorority" A full website is available to confirm information. This sorority is definitely notable and worthy of being on Wikipedia, especially as more chapters are added in the coming years. Gal3130 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Make It Home (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • I'm protesting the deletion of the Dan Seals album Make It Home. Why is it a problem to create an article on an album that's "not notable"? I think that that's just ridiculous. I'm not only protesting the deletion of this album, but similiar albums from other artists as well. Why aren't we meant to be an encyclopedia of indiscriminate collection of information? Aren't we supposed to be creating info on many things as we can (Please note: I'm not saying that we should be allowed to create articles about ourselves and our lives, or articles about our relatives, etc., but just articles on things or people with at least some small notability, or at least articles on people or things that are at least known around a town or a city or a metropolitan area). Anyway, Make It Home was released, which means that it deserves an article. Why can't we create articles on albums just because they were self-released, released on small labels, released no singles, or that they weren't notable enough? Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't sound like a DRV issue. DRV is about review of the process followed for deletion, not merely disagreeing with the outcome and wishing to reargue, nor for challenging the underlying policies. If you want to attempt to change Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information or notability (the guidelines which implement the NOT policy) then starting on the talk pages of those or the village pump is your best bet. I doubt you'll gain much traction, by virtue of being an encylopedia which implies more than just raw facts, which as I understand it was the problem with the article in question. To be more than just some raw facts (a track listing) other sources would be required and they would need to meet WP:V which is realistically non-negotiable. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's like telling soldiers to become whimps by backing down and giving up in a war. If Wikipedia is what it is, then we should be allowed to create articles on albums like Make It Home. What if other people found us less useful because of rules like this, and they quit using Wikipedia. Think about that. Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the answer to "If wikipedia is what it is..." is to point to what wikipedia is not which is what you want to change. You are free to ignore the advice given here and try and bring this up on the appropriate forum, but no one here has the mandate to overturn long established policy which has gained community consensus. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if someone who was looking at stuff on Wikipedia was like "hey there's no articles on some of these albums. I thought that Wikipedia was useful, but since they don't have an article on this here album, i'm going to a different website, maybe they'll have an article on this album". That would mean that Wikipedia needs to become interested in non-notable albums, shouldn't it? Yeah, Wikipedia needs to be interested in non-notable albums. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Why would it be a problem if people look for information elsewhere? --bonadea contributions talk 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 July 2009

[edit]

10 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rand Kannenberg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Strong keep. I object. This biography of a living person (BLP) Rand Kannenberg should NOT be deleted for the following reasons (all according to Wikipedia Deletion and BLP guidelines as cited below):
  1. According to Wikipedia deletion policy, " Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again..."[1] Rand Kannenberg was already proposed for deletion and there was an objection (see: 13:44, 19 April 2007 Darksun (talk | contribs) m (390 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD a3). using TW). Again, this proposed deletion is not allowed.
  2. The subject of this article "...is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."[2] Rand Kannenberg has 72 references listed ("published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources").[3] Only eight of the references (item numbers 9, 10, 11, 25, 40, 41, 43, and 65) may not meet this criteria. 64 references, however, are without doubt reliable. All of the 72 references are "... attributable to a reliable, published source").[4]
  3. The subject of this article, like any other person "...is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards:... [1] has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them;... [2] has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field;... [3] is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; and ... [4] has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.[5] Rand Kannenberg has an abundant supply of evidence that the subject meets four of the four criteria above for "any biography," "academics," and "creative professionals."
  4. Rand Kannenberg is written with a "Neutral point of view... representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."[6] The article includes "...all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."[7] "Criticism and praise of the subject ...relevant to the subject's notability...sourced to reliable secondary sources...that does not... appear to take sides...needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"[8] and is in this article. "Praise" material (e.g., "Awards" and "Community Involvement") includes two paragraphs of text. "Criticism" material (e.g., "Controversies" and "Personal and Family") ("Personal and Family" in this article has information about the subject's addiction to drugs and alcoholism, and estrangement from his family of origin) also includes two paragraphs. All views about the subject are presented.
  5. "Verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added...has already been published by a reliable source..."[9], applies to every quotation and other material in Rand Kannenberg.
  6. Rand Kannenberg does not include any "original research or original thought...unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position....to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."[10]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
  6. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  7. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  8. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
  9. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
  10. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

--CommCorr (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if the nominator might have accidentally misunderstood the purpose of deletion review? The AfD is still in progress.

    The primary purpose of this page is to challenge a deletion decision, but in this case no decision has yet been made.

    I move that this is speedy closed for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:34, 10 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Never mind the consistency issues with Marcelo Lucero (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#Marcelo_Lucero), where there is also an undeniable abundance of sources during the course of over a year and BLP#1E not applying to dead people, this should not have been deleted per our notability policies. Should, at the very least, have been moved to Murder of Luis Ramirez or some equivalent title. (I attempted to discuss this with the deleting administrator before coming here but he is no longer responding on his talk page.) TAway (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Discussion was properly closed, this is not a place to re-fight the AfD. RayTalk 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Ray was the original deletion nominator. This isn't an AfD re-hash, it's a matter of whether the administrator should have closed as a move per the available discussion and our policies. No one is denying that the murder's coverage well surpasses our notability guidelines, and instead of deleting on a technicality (that Ramirez didn't warrant his own biography under his name) it should have simply been moved to an article on the murder itself. TAway (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this reasonable close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, nothing wrong with the decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I would also have closed this as delete. Those advocating delete made a good argument, and those advocating a keep... did not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse Close, Support Recreation While my personal opinion would have been different, the consensus at AfD does appear to have been for deletion. If there are requisite sources and there has been coverage above and beyond the single event of the murder itself, recreating the article as Murder of Luis Ramirez would appear appropriate. It's a shame that this was not considered at AfD, but of the keep or delete options discussed, delete prevailed. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, standard one-event case. Wikipedia not the news. Sad, but will anyone remember this case in a year's time? Stifle (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the classic response of someone who shows up to vote without investigating any context. Given it's already received over a year's worth of coverage, the answer would appear to be "yes." TAway (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or endorse per the consensus at the AFD if you prefer; take your pick. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 13 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Republic of Mountainous Armenia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as no consensus. However, a check for the existence or not of sources shows that the "no sources" side is telling the truth. I got essentially no hits looking for web sources (other than those for copies of the Wikipedia article), no hits at all in Google Scholar, and as someone commented in the discussion, the book sources seem to all be from Armenian authors. There just don't seem to be adequate sources to support the article. I think it would have been better to take at least a cursory check of the claims rather than just count votes, particularly in such a perennially contentious subject area. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse this accurate close. This is not AfD round 2, and that debate did not reach a consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Mangoe. The topic has no reliable sources whatsoever, and according to WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Grandmaster 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- There was no consensus with that discussion, and, as its been pointed out, this isn't AFD round two. If you don't like the close, you're welcome to re-nominate in a couple months if the article has not been improved. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision – Definitely does not look like a consensus for deletion has been established. Of course, that doesn't preclude another AFD down the road provided those who favored retention fail to provide anything reliable. MuZemike 22:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Umbralcorax. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close. "...the book sources seem to all be from Armenian authors" is not a valid objection to the source material. The requirement is that the sources be reliable, not that they are English. There was no consensus in the AFD, and no sound policy basis to ignore that and delete anyway has been presented. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. In this case, claiming the so called "Republic of Mountainous Armenia" based on solely Armenian sources (if any), over the territory of disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region explicitly serves to advance an [Armenian] position in the dispute, thus unfit for the encyclopedia. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, no consensus — And no prejudice against relisting at AfD once a better case for deletion is put together. The delete case seemed to rest on the belief that histories of Armenia published by reputable presses are WP:OR if the author has Armenian background, which is false, but the keep case fell short of convincing me that the claim to existence of the state was soundly made; hence the closure reflected the failure of the AfD to get to grips with the issue at hand. I note that Richard G. Hovannisian (2004, The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times) talks about the 1918 activities of Andranik Toros Ozanian, according to the article the failed state's founder, in Karabakh and Zangezur without mentioning his founding of any state there. But the sources cited in the AfD have Garegin Njdeh as the founder. The first place to work is to figure out what the article actually should say, and ruthlessly delete anything that can't be properly sourced. Then it should be clear whether the article can be saved or should be deleted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 15 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hermy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Obviously, move and edit-protect this, but "Hagger" has a link to Rubeus Hagrid. This should redirect to Hermione Granger. My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation might be the best idea, like Hagger is. Other possibles are Addie and Hermy and The Adventures of Nilson Groundthumper and Hermy (yes , they're just partial title matches, best I can find on short notice). Additionally, I note that Hermy Granger already exists as a redirect to Hermione Granger. lifebaka++ 14:44, 10 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Consensus was to keep. Category is for people who were accused of spying, and neither confessed or were convicted. The alternative is to list people in category of spies, which is not legally correct. The argument for deletion was libel, but no more libelous than an other category anyone can find offensive. That is why we depend on reliable sources. Almost all the people in the category were deceased and libel doesn't apply to the dead. The most sound solution would have been to remove the two living people if there charges were vacated, not delete the category with 20 dead people in it. And certainly adding them to the spy category is not the solution. Once investigated or tried and found innocent we have Category:Wrongly accused spies for those like Wen Ho Lee. Deletion leaves a gap in the categories, so we end up losing them as spies for people looking for them by categories. The libel canard can be used equally well by any ethnic category or religious category that a person can be put in if it was incorrect and deemed offensive by a living person, even describing someone as the wrong political party could be potentially libelous, that is why networks apologize when they make that mistake. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to keep. The closing admin erred. RayTalk 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion CFD is not a vote, as the closer noted, this is an "accusations" category, and accusations by whom? of whom? If I publicly denounce my cat at a Soviet spy, do she get an article so we can populate the category? Seriously, this is little different that people acquitted of something or other, which are routinely deleted as being libelous, and some people would equate being accused of spying for the USSR with child molestation and other types of accusations categories we cannot maintain with BLP because nothing, repeat NOTHING, in the title of the category limits this to dead people, people accused in some formal proceeding, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep per Consensus We're not refighting the CfD, we're looking at a close. The arguments were made that the category is defining and that for many of the individuals included the official accusations of spying for the former Soviet Union is their primary defining characteristic. We have to end the process of granting closing admins a supervote that allows consensus to be disregarded and one admin's biases to be substituted. If an argument that "I closed it contrary to consensus because I decided it's wrong" is to ever be accepted, it needs to be accompanied by a rather detailed justification rather than a blanket statement that "Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak" which merely arrogates a right to overturn any consensus whatsoever. Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Seriously? Yet another CfD close from Good Ol' being challenged on DRV? This smells of a witch-hunt.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Witch-hunt or no (I suspect not; maybe I just suck), I continue to think it could be useful if those wanting to challenge these closes actually say something to me prior to starting a DRV. Isn't DRV kind of supposed to be a "last resort"? This is the 3rd consecutive DRV that has been started about one of my closes where the nominator has not said anything to me prior to the DRV. For the ones that go to DRV, no one asks for a clarification, a reconsideration—nothing. There's a chance users might be able to save themselves and the community some time as well as some fairly aggro discussions. I won't bite, honest. Unless you're hunting witches. In which case, by all means carry on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if it's not a witch-hunt, then there's a different problem: the community seems to disagree with your CfD closes. It's not at all usual that one single administrator is brought so often to DRV, and it's a bit worrying that each time, at DRV there's been significant support for overturn. But I wonder whether that's just because you close so many CfDs and this is, in fact, a representative sample?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone is free to investigate my history of CfD closes and come to a conclusion. Every time there seems to be any ripples at all, things seem to end up here, without anyone even approaching me beforehand. It seems to be either "all" (DRV) or "none" (not a peep), so I would say if there's any "problem", it's nothing that probably couldn't be well on its way to resolution with better communication from concerned editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • A close that states "Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak" is a generic excuse to grant yourself the power to close any CfD any way you want it to, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. If you are generally concerned about a lack of communication, the problem starts with the tendency to override consensus, cast a supervote for your preferred option, and then offer a vague story about why any vote that matches your personal choice is the height of perfection and any vote to the contrary is by definition so utterly worthless as to be unworthy of consideration. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that this has occurred and DRVs have been opened by several different editors independently raising these issues. If you truly feel that you have not received adequate respect for your closes, why not try to take the first steps yourself by trying to exhibit a significantly greater sense of neutrality and distance when closing CfDs -- putting your rather clear personal biases to the side -- and provide far better explanations for why you are disregarding consensus when you do so, offering a modicum of respect for community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've never said anything about a lack of respect for "my" closes. I'm unsure how focusing on what you see as my shortcomings is productive here. I'm suggesting things would go a lot smoother if there was increased communication prior to a DRV being started. But in the end, I don't really care if users do it or not—they can discuss to their heart's content without approaching me first, but then they have little standing to argue that my behaviour or the close was inappropriate, since they didn't even approach me to seek further details about it. Usually I find that editors who don't approach the closer first prefer to frame the DRV as "CfD #2". And no, I'm not going to pre-empt the questions by writing a dissertation for every close. You have to ask to get the dissertation. I note that you, Alansohn, are one of the only editors who has ever asked about a close prior to coming to DRV, and you did so after I had mentioned at another DRV that doing so is helpful. The only other ones (I believe) have been jc37 and Otto4711. But in the end, users can (and do) suit themselves. I'm just throwing out a suggestion that could possibly help things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well, then. Overturn to no consensus, because there was none.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as the BLP/ethical argument was not sufficiently countered to convince me that the CfD shouldn't have ended in delete. Consider, for example, if it was instead "Americans accused of child abuse"; the mere mention alone creates neutrality and ethical problems if it is not a proven/generally accepted fact. Sceptre (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- This is a belated review from a discussion that began May 14th (almost 2 months ago), and closed May 24th (over 6 weeks ago), after an extended discussion. Its parent and siblings have been deleted. That is, this closure has been repeatedly confirmed; closures by different administrators. Evaluation of strong versus weak arguments is necessary and proper. Moreover, keeping would be against existing policy and guidelines, and closures shall never be against policy – no matter how many voices natter about how "defining" it is to be falsely accused. Smells like a witch-hunt to me, too!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – I agree with the above remarks of William Allen Simpson. 'Accused of' is too vague. Occuli (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Alanshon. What's the point of AfD if a closing administrator is going to ignore consensus (or arrogantly dismiss keep arguments as "weak")? We need to strictly enforce that deletion can only be achieved if there is consensus.SPNic (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good judgment call. I specifically remember this cat being used as vehicle for retroactive Commie witch-hunting. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Was no consensus. I don't see any compelling BLP problem since the category makes clear that it is for individuals who were accused but not convicted. As long as we have good sourcing for the statement there's no issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might just as well argued that it's neither a floor wax or dessert topping for the relevance your rebuttal has to do with the arguments -- including mine -- I'm reading. Rigid adherence to a standard without reference to its intent (or, in this case, to other reasons for not having this vehicle for retroactive commie-hunting) isn't on. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the endorsers make much of the claimed BLP issue, the subject was raised and consensus was clear that there was no problem here. As always, we need to rely on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, and there are hundreds of sources that use the term to describe and define individuals as accused Soviet spies. The New York Times titled the 1990 obituary "Martha Dodd Stern Is Dead at 82; Author and an Accused Soviet Spy" (see here). The Wikipedia article for Alger Hiss describes him as having been "accused of being a Soviet spy" in the lead paragraph, and this book review discusses "evidence that the accused Soviet spy, Alger Hiss . . . had lied." This article from the Chicago Tribune discusses a deal for "accused Soviet spy Gennady Zakharov". this article from the Los Angeles Times discusses how "Former FBI agent Richard W. Miller testified Wednesday that he went to the beach in Malibu with accused Soviet spy Svetlana Ogorodnikova". There are legitimate concerns about BLP, but the ultimate solution is to rely on reliable and verifiable sources. It couldn't be any clearer that the hundreds of reliable sources from media nationwide in the US and around the world use the term to describe individuals, living and dead, who had been accused of spying for the former Soviet Union by government officials, were never tried or convicted, and for whom their status as accused spies is a defining -- if not their most defining -- characteristic as an individual. To lump then either as spies (which implies that there was a conviction) or to leave them uncategorized on this basis, serves no purpose other than to disrupt navigation across clearly similar articles using the category system. BLP was raised and addressed at CfD and consensus was that there was no issue. There is no place for a closing admin deliberately disregarding consensus by arbitrarily deeming his preferred position "particularly compelling" to ram through his personal preference on the discussion at hand. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that giving retroactive Commie witch hunters a loophole to exploit makes even less sense. You're free to ignore the BLP concerns, but that doesn't change why it's a bad idea. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raising issues of BLP does not create a magic bullet for deleting content. It appears that the "witch hunt" was raised about possible BLP issues and rejected. The question here is if the close was based on consensus, or the arbitrary supervote of the closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - admin clearly looked at both sides of the argument and correctly determined that the arguments against the category, including BLP concerns and the general disfavoring of categorizing by allegation, were stronger than the arguments in favor of keeping. This consensus was confirmed in additional CFDs found here and here. No new information has been offered here to indicate that anything has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the circular logic. The close is correct because the closing admin decided correctly, consensus be damned. Naturally, the alternative that the admin ignored consensus and abused policy by imposing his own supervote, which most accurately fits the case here, has been ignored. Do the reliable and verifiable sources that support this as a defining characteristic count for anything here, or is it still against policy to make use of such sources to establish definingness? Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing something correctly, footstamping by WP:ILIKEIT voters aside, is pretty much the opposite of "circular logic", it seems to me. Though it's certainly less than clear whether the "circularity" you're seeing actually exists. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per Alansohn; I do not see that this might have been closed as "delete" but by the closer's substituting his judgment for that of the community. Joe (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two other CfDs, here and here, are related. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — There do seem to be a lot of editors who will turn up and defend the j'accuse categories, regardless of the merits. I think the category has too fungible a criteria for membership, unlike, say, Category:Americans in the Venona papers (though see the doubts raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Venona papers), and it is the right course of action to delete it per WP:NPOV, but that the outcome of the debate was clearly no consensus: observe that many keep !voting participants in the AfD did note the problems with the category and suggested workarounds. Would an RfC aimed at establishing policy with respect to which spying lists and cats be a workable solution? The hope is that with such a policy, the AfDs will behave better in the future. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As I noted in this original CFD, the problems raised with this subcategory were not particular to it but rather common to the entire "Accused spies" parent category structure, and should have been discussed as a whole. Because that parent category structure has since been deleted, however, the deletion of this particular subcategory is moot and should not be separately discussed. This subcategory has no independent basis for existence from Category:Accused spies, and so its recreation should only be discussed through a comprehensive review of that broader deletion. On the merits of whether any "accused spies" categories should exist, policy and guidelines, including general categorization guidelines as well as more serious BLP and NPOV concerns, weigh against any categorization of mere accusations. Obviously the fact that such an accusation was made can be reliably sourced, and may be significant enough to be described within an article. But a category obviously cannot set forth who did the accusing, whether the accusations were repeated by others and/or sustained over time, or whether there was any basis for the accusation. As a category, this and all other "accused spies" categories, therefore, suffer from a ridiculously low inclusion threshold and are meaninglessly vague. They were properly deleted and should stay deleted. Postdlf (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have cast a wonderful vote, which might have been considered if it had been posted as a vote -- not a comment -- at CfD. The issue of possible BLP concerns was raised by you and others at CfD and clear consensus was that this was not an issue. The question of the propriety of ignoring actual consensus at the actual CfD, our job here at DRV, has been ignored. Neither you nor any closing admin are entitled to a supervote that disregards consensus and turns it into a mockery based on the arbitrary biases of any one admin. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm rather perplexed by your response for a number of reasons, partly because I didn't raise BLP concerns in this CFD. Regardless, I don't see the "clear consensus" in the CFD that you do regarding whether BLP was an issue, as only two people expressly discussed it. One person said that BLP probably wasn't an issue only because most of the included subjects were probably dead, which even if true would not affect its application to however few were still living. The other actually wanted the category substantially changed to omit "accused" so as to avoid libel concerns, presumably to focus on actual spies (however determined). Postdlf (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm all the more perplexed that BLP issues were raised and deemed not relevant, yet consensus was ignored. You obliquely raised issues regarding the word "accused", but you yourself appear to have neither indicated that there was a BLP policy violation requiring its deletion, nor did you actually vote, despite ample opportunity to do so. I know that admins want the opportunity to be judge, jury and executioner in other CfDs, but that hardly seems to be a valid justification to disregard the "clear consensus" you seem unable to see. User:Mazca, an uninterested party who would have voted to delete had he participated, aptly describes below how he "can't see a consensus to [delete] here no matter how hard I squint" yet you and fellow admin and CfD regular User:Good Olfactory have no such problem seeing a consensus to delete that just ain't there. If only this clear discrepancy between community consensus and the judgment of closing administrators were not so perplexing. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm not very interested in your assessment of Good Olfactory's close or this specific CFD, because (as I thought my comments above made quite clear) I find it far more interesting and relevant that this entire "accused spies" category structure was subsequently deleted. See comments above of William Allen Simpson for links to those CFDs (one of which was unanimous, and the other of which was 5-1, for what it's worth). I don't think this CFD should have occurred in the first place without considering those parent and sibling categories as well (as my only comment at this CFD observed). But that doesn't matter because that consideration then did occur, and those near unanimous, system wide deletions of the "accused spies" categories helped to retroactively validated the result of this one, assuming arguendo that it was in need of validation. WP:DRV is fundamentally about whether deleted content should be recreated or discussed again, and I do not see any basis for recreating only this category as long as the system-wide deletions stand (which, as I said above, I believe they should because categorizing accusations is untenable under relevant policies and guidelines), regardless of whether Good Olfactory's close at that time of this one subcategory was a proper reading of consensus or policy. Postdlf (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - on a personal opinion note, I completely agree with the outcome of the CfD, in that I absolutely feel consensus should have been to delete it. But I really can't see a consensus to do so here no matter how hard I squint - there was a distinct majority arguing to keep it, and as far as I can see, the keep arguments were generally fairly cogent and founded in reason, even though I disagree with them. I really think there was no consensus to delete here. ~ mazca talk 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on further review I retract my argument to overturn. I maintain that this close was not a very good reading of consensus; but this CfD in particular did effectively validate the close, and ended in a unanimous consensus to delete the entire system of "accused spies" categories. Consensus apparently did change; so overturning this deletion does not appear to be appropriate. ~ mazca talk 08:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (closer). Per above comments and original close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure obviously, AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Questions about closures should be directed to the closer, not immediately brought to review. Good decision on part of closing admin. Drawn Some (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, despite misgivings about the way it was closed — Per my comment before, and per the CfD Mazca cited, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_11#Accused_spies. I note that that CfD did not receive as much participation as this one. An RfC at Category talk:Spies might be useful here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The category actually had vagueness in the criteria and there is the BLP concerns mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as there is nothing improper about weighing the strength of arguments vs. the number of arguments. A gaggle of users calling for "consensus" does not override BLP policy, which does not mesh well with "accused of..." categorization. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (keep). Arguments for deleting (No uniform standard...; Category has been [mis-]used ...; ...are disfavored...; ...we generally do not ...) were not compelling. Reasonable keep rationales by experienced wikipedians were not well answered. CfD is run by a groupthinking clique that doesn't recognise the opaqueness of their reasoning as a problem. The opaqueness keeps newcomers out, stabilising the status quo, and in the meantime wikipedia does not have a categorisation system that works well. Suggest the usual CfD closers take a break and see of other admins keep it working the same way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfounded accusations about CFD participants constitute an abject failure to assume good faith and could be interpreted as personal attacks against regular CFD participants. Wild-eyed conspiracy theories do not constitute evidence that the closing admin misinterpreted the CFD, nor do they constitute new information that compels a re-examination of consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubt that the questionable closes were done with the sincere belief that the closes were the right decision. Some questionable closes even were the right decision, but to my eyes, fit the description of clique behaviour, where there is little regard to explaining to outsiders/newcomers. I allege no conspiracy. Groupthink and clique behaviour can arise without the intent of any of the participant. It isn’t lightly that I say “overturn (keep)” where others are saying “endorse”. Clearly, there is a problem. This has been mentioned in previous DRVs, but to no effect, which I find extremely worrying. If you seriously think that the close of this CfD is unproblematic, then we have a problem. If you think that the close represents good practice of WP:Consensus, then I say that you have a problem with your perspective. I have a theory for the cause of the problem, and a validation test for the theory. If you find this personally insulting, then I am sorry, but I stand by what I see. There are some CfD regulars who are working hard to maintain a difficult system, but they have run themselves into a rut, and are now disconnected with the inexpert community. As I said, in direct contradiction to the closer, the deletion arguments were weak, and the keep arguments had valid points. Closing the debate like that, with keep arguments not answered, but labelled “particularly weak” is extremely insulting, even ostracising, to the non-mainstream participants. The radical close doesn’t even explain itself – it contains no useful information. It is not useful to know that the closer found arguments for deleting “particularly compelling”. It would have been nice to read why he found them compelling. Similarly, “most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak” insults and dismisses, but reveals nothing about why they are weak. My general CfD ruling-clique observations are not specific to particular admins, and the foundations of what I have said are not the point. The point is: Am I right, or wrong? If the current regular closers took a break, would other administrators continue to close discussions in the same way? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been nice to read why [the closer] found them compelling. Maybe someone should have asked me. No one did. That's what I've pointed out above—users are keen to jump into DRVs, but not so willing to do the background work of actually figuring out why things were closed the way they were. Closers don't (and shouldn't) write a dissertation for each close. You have to ask to get the dissertation. But once we arrive at DRV, since the nominator has seemed to assume that my reasons are immaterial, why should I exert the effrot to explain myself? Now that we're here, I generally let the community decide it. (Not to worry—I'm not insulted by your comments or observations, just mildly amused. I suggest if anyone believes there is a broad "problem" at CfD, then raise it somewhere relevant where it can be dealt with, like Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Bringing it up in a specific DRV does little good and distracts from the overall point of this discussion. I've suggested this numerous times to certain users who like expressing themselves in specific CfDs and DRVs using sweeping generalities about the various processes, but not surprisingly nothing ever comes of it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 17 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Diana Vickers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Diana Vickers has become more independantly notable since the page's deletion Sumeet 92 (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Vickers has just been given the lead role in the West End play 'The Rise And Fall Of Little Voice' and I think it is fair to say that this makes her notable enough for this page to be restored.

Diana has now separated herself from the X Factor and has become a notable individual; it seems pointless in denying her a wikipedia page.

Sources:

Long list of sources collapsed for usability reasons.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://broadwayworld.com/article/X_Factors_Diana_Vickers_to_Star_in_WestEnd_Revival_of_Jim_Cartwrights_THE_RISE_AND_FALL_OF_LITTLE_VOICE_20090709

http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/09072009/19/diana-vickers-wins-west-end-role.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/a164394/diana-vickers-lands-role-in-west-end-musical.html

http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/tv/news/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=148461486

http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/diana-vickers-lands-west-end-role-the-rise-and-fall-of-little-voice/

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090709/ten-diana-vickers-wins-west-end-role-5a7c575_1.html

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4484963.East_Lancashire_star_Diana_Vickers_lands_West_End_role/

http://programmes.stv.tv/news-gossip/107919-diana-vickers-lands-lead-role-in-west-end-musical/

http://channelhopping.onthebox.com/2009/07/09/diana-vickers-to-make-west-end-debut/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/2524787/X-Factor-star-Diana-Vickers-to-star-in-Little-Voice.html

http://entertainment.aol.co.uk/tv/diana-vickers-little-voice/article/20090709073846282462897

http://www.myparkmag.co.uk/articles/television/x-factor/diana-vickers-little-voice-.html

http://www.malextra.com/tv/Diana+Vicker-55017.html

http://www.bollyfirst.com/tv/Diana+Vicker-55017.html

http://www.londontheatre.co.uk/londontheatre/news/jl09/riseandfalloflittlevoice333139.htm

http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.php?pg=207&story=E8831247163001&title=X+Factor%92s+Vickers+Stars+in+Little+Voice+Revival&ref=D

http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities-news-in-pics/09-07-2009/51915/

http://news.uk.msn.com/entertainment/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148461293&imageindex=6

  • Permit recreation. That's certainly more than enough coverage for a separate article, and I see that it includes national newspapers. (Although I shudder to think that The Sun is a reliable source, it probably does count for this).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as not requesting anything within the purview of this process. It's not salted...so, why are we here? If it gets recreated and it's sufficiently different from the last go-round, it won't get WP:CSD#G4'ed and if someone wants it gone - it'll go to WP:AFD again on its new merits - the DRV was closed properly, which is what this process is for,,,. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Sumeet already tried to do that one month ago, and it turned into an edit war. Consensus then was to keep it redirected. If it were to be reversed again without a discussion it would probably not go unchallenged. decltype (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sumeet's first port of call was to edit-war, in direct disobedience of the instruction on the redirect page. -- Smjg (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first port of call was not to edit war purposefully; I was new to Wikipedia and was genuinely oblivious to the guidelines in place and I apologise for the disruption I caused. However, I think it is clear that the recreation of this article will do no harm to Wikipedia as it is only increasing the level of information available to users and Diana Vickers is certainly a person who, with the recent west-end play news, will be searched for.

--Sumeet 92 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Allow recreation I'd have no objection to the article being recreated without this DRV, but you never know when we'll see another kneejerk deletion of recreated content. The question has been appropriately raised here and the sources establish independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation I strongly supported deletion when she was notable only for the X Factor appearences, but she now has coverage in reliable sources which look beyond that. I agree with the wisdom of bringing here; recreation without doing so would have been against recently confirmed consensus and IMO would almost certainly have been challenged. I42 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No notification was posted at Talk:Diana_Vickers about this Deletion Review. I have now done this, but this is 2.5 days after the start. I suggest that this be borne in mind when closing, and that the close date be adjusted if needed. I42 (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit Recreation, given the volume of sources presented, it appears this person has crossed the line into notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm still not convinced. This same user has been pressing for it again and again. And trying to find more and more sources in the hope that it'll convince us she's notable now. A lot of the articles cited seem to be accounts of the exact same story. How many people are in the cast of a typical West End production? Why should this girl be deemed any more notable than the others on this basis? Which notability criterion, exactly, is being claimed???? -- Smjg (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original Material Leaked. On the 10th July 2009 a studio recorded single of Diana's was leaked and is now circulating around the internet which is evidence of original material which further separates Diana from the X Factor and establishes her as an individual artist.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIkgexHIgQI --Sumeet 92 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Computer tan hoax (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was completely unreasonable. The final count was four to keep, three to delete. Four is greater than three, so how the hell did the closer get delete from that? The article was obviously notable enough to be featured on the Main Page, and Cazort effectively refuted the delete votes, but no explanation was given for the final vote. It was obviously made in bad faith and the closer needs to be trout slapped.SPNic (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


9 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
David O'Connor (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing admin wasn't a disinterested party. While they didn't participate in the debate, the deletion was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#FAI Premier Division - professional or not!?! where the closing admin contributed extensively with posts such as [12] [13] [14] [15]. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to "no consensus". The debate was generally "It fails WP:ATHLETE!" vs. "It passes WP:ATHLETE!" While the delete !votes were reasonable, none of them provided evidence in the AfD that the FAI premier division wasn't a professional league, whereasthere was evidence posted that it was. Also, looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, it's quite clear there was no consensus on this matter at the WikiProject when the AfD was closed, either. Therefore, I would have closed the AfD as "no consensus" if I had been the closer. Also, I agree with the nominator that it was clearly improper for User:Number 57 to close the AfD after being involved in a debate about one of the key points of the AfD. The closer should have taken part in the AfD, not closed it.--Aervanath (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion we're talking about facts, not opinions. Fact is the League of Ireland is not fully professional, since several of its teams are semi-pro indeed (and this was proved with reliable sources). And facts don't need any sort of consensus, as we do not need to reach a consensus to establish if Elvis Presley has died or is still alive somewhere in the world. --Angelo (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it wasnt about facts at all it was about POV - the closing admins POV! Were there sources provided to indicate that the league was professional as well as sources to say it wasnt? The closing admin was agruing elsewhere about this subject - do you not consider that that may give rise to a potential conflict of interest. I think it was very ill advised for Number 57 to do this - admins should not only be fair and neutral but be seen to be fair and neutral - in this case he was neither.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin hasn't participated in the AfD discussion, so I don't really see your point. If you ask for an overturn (as you did in your edit below), then it means you are actually contesting the rationale, which is actually correct and strengthened by reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You dont really see my point or you are choosing not to see my point in order that you can back a fellow member of the FOOTY project up that backs you up on pretty much every issue that you engage in? If there is one thing that has become starkly clear to me over the past two weeks is the ownership issue that the members of the footy project have over "their articles".
  • There are two issues with this AfD which scream out at an outsider looking at this issue. 1. Number 57 was participating in a discussion that was running parallel to the AfD on the same subject and he arguing that players in the FAI Premier Division should not be considered notable - I think any right minded person that would consider that a conflict of interest.
  • And 2. Multiple sources were provided that outline that the league is professional by two editors - no evidence was submitted by any other editor to say it wasn't. And two very recent closures of AfD's here and here which were closed by neutral admins seemed to set a precident that they were notable. Infact Number 57 argued that the closure of the Seamus Coleman AfD should be overturned on the basis that he wasnt notable - hello - conflict of interest. Number 57 ignored all evidence provided which was contrary to his POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the closer of the original debate. As Angelo notes, this is not an issue of opinion - it is a clear fact that the FAI Premier Division is not fully professional as noted and evidenced in the closing summary. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I am ashamed that Angelo and Number 57 have the absolute gall to endorse this closure. The closing admin was in a dispute over this issue at the exact time that he closed the AfD. He provided a source which stated that Shamrock Rovers are part time this season however, this player played in the top division for a number of seasons - and sources where provided to state that the league was then professional - and there were two recently closed AfD's of footballers in the FAI Premier Divison for players of a lesser natural that were kept. Anywhere the merits or demerits of this case are immaterial. The closing AfD had a conflict of interest and should have left the decision up to a neutral admin not someone involved in a dispute at the time. Overturn the AfD, admonish the admin for acting like this and warn him about future conduct and if necessary put the article up for AfD again. More details on this can be found here. Number 57 you are an absolute disgrace to your adminship and use your admin powers in a selfish and ill advised manner. --Vintagekits (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you show us where this source that states the league was professional in past seasons? The only one you provided to date that explicitly says it is a fully professional league is one from the BBC dated June 2009, which is clearly contradicted by other, more reliable sources (i.e. clubs' own websites). If there is a reliable source that clearly states it was fully professional in 2007 (when UCD were in the league) or 2008 (in which Cobh were in the league) then I will happily restore the article. But without any clear evidence, there is justification to do so. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I provided it in the AfD - you ignored it then and I have no reason to believe that you wouldnt ignore it now! Do you consider that others may have percieved that you had a conflict of interest over this issue? Do you think it was best practice that an admin involved in a debate elsewhere over the very issue of this players notability should be the one to close the AfD?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn. By numbers alone, a "delete" closure seems reasonable, but the arguments "fails WP:ATHLETE" were not very well backed up, and Vintagekits had a sensible argument which should not be ignored. The closer's job is to evaluate consensus and the debate, and if he or she has a strong opinion on the matter, the proper course of action is to participate in the AFD, not close it. Given Number 57's previous history of nominating several athlete articles for deletion (which, I should add, has been conducted in a proper manner, though I haven't always agreed with him), it would have been better to let another admin close this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on belief that the article was correctly deleted on basis of failure of WP:ATHLETE, which subject does fail under stated criteria, and regardless of any other discussions closing admin may have been involved in, one must assume good faith that the admin considered the AfD on its merits. Evidence that LOI is not fully pro outweighs the odd bit of random lazy press that implies it may be. --ClubOranjeT 10:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Aervanath. The behaviour of Number 57 IMO was wrong on this issue. BigDuncTalk 11:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It was shown that the subject failed the relevant guidelines and the keep arguments seemed to be based largely on factually incorrect news articles which (as was pointed out in this discussion and elsewhere) contradict other sources (one of which is a primary source which actually listed the club's players' occupations). In my opinion, the closing admin's participation in a discussion elsewhere is irrelevant to the closure of this AfD and accusations of a conflict of interest are unfounded and bordering on uncivil. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural overturn and list at AfD.

    There are two entirely separate points to consider here. The first is where consensus lay, and I agree with Angelo that a closure as "delete" was within admin discretion in this case. But the second is the nominator's point about the appearance that the closer was not entirely disinterested, and that is valid. R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy: The closer was probably capable of separating his personal opinion from the consensus at the AfD, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone should be able to see that the closer was disinterested, and we cannot.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. The league of Ireland is indeed partially professional, but it would constitute systemic bias to give coverage to players of teams 4 or 5 levels from the top of the British football league system when players in the top level of the Irish system do not get articles. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist. The consensus about where the dividing line is for such athletes is unclear, and the apparent feeling of the community seems to vary from month to month. The closing admin shouldn't have closed if he has his own view on the subject and the close is not essentially unanimous, as it was here, unless he closes against his general view. It's time all of us admins got that thoroughly into our heads. It's already part of the rules, and a RfA candidate who had strong views on a subject and did not clarify that he would not close in accordance with them would not be confirmed. Every such closing should be brought here, and either overturned or relisted. . DGG (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's explicitly codified or part of any rules, but it would probably do no harm to have something on it. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per Stifle and DGG. They both hit it right on the nose. We have a combination of systemic bias on one part, lack of a consensus for deletion on another part, and a shaky closure, and the disagreement in this AFD on the role of WP:ATHLETE in this context. MuZemike 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist — Vintagekits points about closing admin COI are very serious, and as S Marshall says, we cannot tolerate this. Closing contested AfDs is tricky enough without the closer having a hidden agenda. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per a number of comments above (from users who do not appear to be regulars at football deletion discussions) regarding possible conflicts. Players competing at notable, professional leagues such as Ireland should be kept. Eldumpo (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, the decision to delete was reasonable, as the player concerned does not meet WP:ATHLETE and no sources were provided to satisfy WP:N, but the decision to delete perhaps should have been left to another admin. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion was valid as player fails WP:ATHLETE, as proved by reliable sources. GiantSnowman 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The closing admin's decison appears to have been based on the fact that the league is not fully-professional something that they were debating at the same time on another page. Although I feel the AfD to have been closed with the correct decision I feel it is more important that we are seen to follow our own rules and be seen to be doing things fairly. I have no dount that there was no inproprietry involved but the mere appearance of it means that this should be overturn and relisted. Dpmuk (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete football player still fails multiple criteria as WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, whilst lacking verification. --Jimbo[online] 22:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closing rationale was valid notwithstanding that the closer took part in a discussion on the LOI elsewhere. (As an aside, I note that the article was entirely unsourced and the subject appears to not meet the primary inclusion criterion.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I have to agree with S Marshall on this one. Even though the closer did not participate in the AFD, it's apparent from this thread that he's an interested party and should have !voted in the AFD, not closed it. We need to see that the closer was disinterested and we cannot. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist – From the process perspective: Closers do need to be disinterested parties, which clearly was not the case here. I don't doubt that the closing admin here was acting in a way that he felt was correct and in line with notability guidelines, but he did not sufficiently take into account how this might appear to others. He ought to have participated in the discussion rather than closing it. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Three days is not enough for a full discussion, and closer completely ignored the fact that some users clearly understood the issues better and should have been afforded more weight accordingly. Rickywatcher (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Chris Parmelee – technically the outcome of the discussion is endorsed, but this really isn't the venue to contest a merger. AfD closures as "merge" are not entirely binding and subject to being superceded by discussion at the article's talk page, which is really where this discussion should have taken place – Shereth 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chris Parmelee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I think that Chris Parmelee's article deletion deserves some review. If you look at the article's history, apparently some sort of concensus was reached back in March or something like that before the season even started. It was, however, never followed through on.

A new banner was added by Giants27 just before the All Star game, then immediately removed. It was my impression at that point that the nomination for deletion was reconsidered. Instead, the deletion concensus from 3 months earlier was finally being enforced. That makes no sense.

Even if the original concensus was correct, the season has since started, he was named a FSL league All Star. Add that to the fact that he was a #1 pick, and he's since become notable if he wasn't before. He was also the All star game's home run derby winner and the FSL's player of the week the week following the All star game. That's pretty natable to me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:52, 8 July 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) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What outcome are you looking for here, please, Johnny Spasm? This is deletion review, and that article hasn't been deleted, so I'd normally presume you're asking us to change the result to "delete"... is that right?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge outcome at AfD is merely a flavor of keep, and holds no more weight than any other merge discussion. If things've changed regarding the article, feel free to just undo the merge. So, as stated above, unless you want the AfD changed to actually be delete, you can just withdraw this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with that advice. "Merge" is not merely a flavor of keep. Merge preserves the info from an article that doesn't merit a stand alone article. I'm not sure if you bothered to read the AfD, but merge and redirect was clearly the consensus. That was because the editors (including myself) did not believe that the subject was notable enough for a stand alone article. You can't just run around undoing merges that were done as a result of an AFD. Winning a home run contest and being named player of the week don't really change that. Nor do I believe that being an all-star in a minor league, especially when it is only the third tier of minor league ball, does it either. I'd also point out that a number of other players from the team were similarly merged and redirected as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Niteshift36 that BOLDly undoing consensus decisions should be avoided. On the other hand, there is support for the view that merely occurring at AfD does not confer extra weight to non-delete outcomes. However, a well-attended AfD is likely have better (diversity and numbers) participation and admin-evaluated closure, and thus a stronger consensus. Incidentally, there's a November 2008 discussion where Lifebaka and I agree on this exact point, and subsequent discussions have not rejected it. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm horrified at the suggestion that a "merge" at AfD might be enforceable over a local talk-page consensus to "keep", or vice versa. AfD discussions take place under time pressure and often include weakly-rationalised !votes, while local talk-page consensus is likely to evolve only from editors with a genuine interest in the article. I would certainly view the local talk-page consensus as the one that should prevail.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • But there has been no local discussion. The complaining editor just took it upon himself to revert the merge and redirect with the explaination that it didn't make sense to him. This AfD did not have some unusual result. Nearly all the information was merged into a logical place (the article about Twins minor league players) and if someone searched by name, they'd still find him. You're acting as if the info was just deleted and he was given a mention in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, only 6 editors !voted on the AfD, but 2 said delete and 4 thought the merge was the way to go (some wanted it without the redirect). But I think the group was reasonably diverse and experienced editors. Two were admins (including the nominator), 2 were members of the WP Baseball project, 1 that regularly edits sports articles. Nobody voted to keep. I was mistaken in that I did not !vote in that AfD, but did choose merge and re-direct in several other AfD's involving players from that team. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the idea that a consensus at AfD trumps a local consensus meant to work? Suppose a local editor puts up an AfD, and three other local editors vote keep on the page. They convince the nominator of the merits of keeping two separate pages, but meanwhile 10 AfD regulars weigh in, all arguing for merge, citing precendents here, there and everywhere, and not responding to arguments by the local editors that the resmblance is superficial. Do the four local editors really have the task of policing the merge outcome? What's going to happen if they WP:IAR and unmerge? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are really misrepresenting the result. As I said above, the info was well merged into a reasonable article about minor league players in the Twins organization. The major info was left intact. It wasn't merged into some one or two line entry. Please don't lecture me about AGF when I say this, but the "regulars" in the article might have a somewhat partisan view of what is "notable". The admin who nominated the article probably had good reason for doing it. The ones who regularly edit other baseball articles are probably well aware of what the norms in the baseball projects are. Instead of dealing with hypotheticlas, let's deal with the reality. This merge was undone by an editor who simply didn't like the result. He did it with no attempt at discussion. The AfD went full term and the onformation was preserved, just simply moved to a related article and the search term was redirected. What was actually lost here? A stand alone article about someone of questionable notability, that was nominated for deletion was placed into an article that has no chance of being deleted. Other stand alones were given the same treatment. The info is still there and is as "safe" as it gets around here. Why are we acting like this is a bad thing? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what does that mean in practice? That we at DRV vote endorse and whoever closes this DRV then executes that outcome by remerging? It seems to me that doing things through the usual ways, that don't involve deletion policy, is best: for example, through WP:DR. What benefits are we supposed to derive through using what looks to me like the wrong process? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no remerging needed. It IS merged and redirected. He wants to undo it. Without sounding like I'm using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, there is precendent for the merge and redirect that is in place. Every player from that team got the same treatment at some point (and no, not all the same people voted it in the AfD's, nor was it a mass AfD). My question remains unanswered: What was actually lost in the merge and redirect? Why is putting the info in a "safe" article, where it will remain available and not run the isk of getting zapped in an AfD a bad thing? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appropriate place for this discussion is Talk:Chris Parmelee; it's unfortunate that you were told otherwise. Since your undoing the redirect was contested, please make your case there and establish an updated consensus. DRV would be appropriate if merge was an incorrect evaluation of consensus and the AfD was recent. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am the one who gave him the advice. He disagreed with the consensus opinion and wanted to debate it. As far as I could see, this would be the better place to do it. I'm not sure how you would discuss it at Talk:Chris Parmelee since the article and it's talk page redirect. Or did you mean on the redirected talk page? It is worth pointing out that there are a number of DRV requests on here at the moment that appeal the results of an AfD that did not result in deletion, so I'm not sure why this wouldn't fit here. I was a little concerned with the age of the AfD, but I wasn't sure if there was an actual deadline on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article redirects, but its Talk page has a couple templates on it, including {{oldafdfull}}. Maybe Talk:Minnesota Twins minor league players would be better, but the way I read Johnny Spasm's nomination, he makes the case that Parmelee earned individual recognitions after the AfD that make him notable. I browsed the active and recent DRVs looking for bluelinks, and all the ones I saw were non-delete AfDs appealing for deletion and one delete and redirect. I expect that this DRV will close endorse without significant discussion of the content details, possibly with referral elsewhere. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I don't know where in my original statement anyone would get the idea that I was in favor of deleting. I strongly believe that Chris Parmelee deserves his own entry.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This item shouldn't have been nominated, since the nominator hasn't really asserted that the AfD closing was inappropriate. But he hasn't withdrawn the nomination, so I'll endorse the decision as a correct reflection of Wikipedia guidelines and the consensus of the discussion. BRMo (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — There's nothing here that can't be sorted out without admin privileges. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Lifebaka and Charles Stewart are correct.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merge and redirect results in AFDs are editing recommendations and are not binding. That said, if the outcome reflects a clear consensus from a decent number of editors then arguably the merge shouldn't be undone without first obtaining a clear consensus on the article talk page that includes a good cross section of editors involved in the deletion discussion. In your shoes I'd open a talk page discussion on the article talk and invite the participants in the AFD to comment. The consensus from that discussion should be binding. Spartaz Humbug! 08:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of terms for gay in different languages (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Closed as no consensus, but consensus to delete seems very clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my own closure. As the admin who closed it as "no consensus", I thought it was very clear that there was none. Although there were more people saying "delete" than "keep", AFD isn't a vote, and the "keep"-ers made valid points in the discussion that were not countered by the "delete"-ers. +Angr 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete because that was the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you figure that? I don't see any consensus in that discussion. +Angr 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two aspects to consider: the weight of argument and the strength of numbers. On the weight of the argument, Wikipedia isn't a foreign-language dictionary: a point well made at the AfD, and though Squidfryerchef attempted to refute it, I do not think he succeeded. On the weight of numbers, I don't see any !votes that should be disregarded as resulting from sockpuppetry or bad faith.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Numbers carry no weight at all in a consensus discussion, only the arguments. As I have said, the minority arguments were not refuted, resulting in the lack of a consensus. +Angr 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Consensus" is the name we give to a collective decision-making process. The closer isn't like the monarch of a country, listening to various advisers and deciding which to disregard; they're more like the clerk at a meeting, implementing the meeting's decisions.

            Also, there comes a point when there are so many !votes in one direction that the closer's "assessment of the strength of the arguments" becomes hard for other people to separate from the closer's "personal opinion". (I'm not accusing you of deliberate bad faith here, even though I disagree with your close. I'm saying closers need to be aware of the perception of bad faith. A good closing statement helps dispel that perception, as well as taking the bite out of a close.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • Consensus does actually mean something; it's not a Wikipedia-internal neologism that we can define as we please. And if a group has agreed to make its decisions by consensus, and not by majority rule or even supermajority rule, then the clerk in charge of implementing decisions needs to know when a decision has been made by consensus and when it was not possible to come to agreement. In this discussion, it was not possible to come to agreement. As for my personal opinion, I don't care whether the article is deleted or kept; but I do care when Wikipedia actions that require consensus (whether it's XFD, REQMOVE, FAC or anything else) are made despite the absence of a clear consensus for them, merely because one side got a majority of the votes. (And when that happens, they really are votes, not "!votes".) +Angr 15:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - AfD isn't a vote...but 10-2? I can think of virtually no instance where closing such a debate as no consensus would be appropriate where no canvassing is present and all participation was in good faith. Perhaps if there was some new particularly important information regarding the subject of the deletion debate that was revealed towards the end of the debate I could see relisting, but that doesn't appear to be the case here (I don't consider the revealing that a 2005 VfD ended up in keep to be very important- consensus can change). VegaDark (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or in this case, consensus to keep can change to no consensus to delete. But consensus to delete? Not in this AFD. +Angr 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10-2 is irrelevant; even if it were 100-2 there would be no consensus if the 2 dissenters have valid arguments. A correctly conducted AFD has nothing to fear from canvassing or sockpuppetry, because judging consensus does not involve counting the number of people who wrote "keep" and the number of people who wrote "delete". The whole point of making decisions on the basis of consensus rather than majority rule is to ensure that valid minority opinions are not stampeded over by more popular opinions. +Angr 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • even if it were 100-2 there would be no consensus if the 2 dissenters have valid arguments - Yes there would, if the 100 also have valid arguments, which in this case the 10 do. You seem to be advocating the position that if an extreme minority of participants can indeed come up with a valid reason for keeping, while the large majority of participants can come up with equally valid reasons for deleting (we shall assume arguments are equally valid for purposes of this hypo), then the debate should automatically end in no consensus. If this is so, we disagree here. Consensus is necessarily derived from looking at the votes, including the number of users who support deletion vs. keeping. While we can all agree it is not a straight vote, the numbers are still a factor that the closing admin should take into account when closing. In this case I would assign great weight to the difference in numbers since it was so large and the users supporting keeping had no more persuasive of an argument than those supporting deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete this should probably be transwiki'ed to Wiktionary - filled with unsourced morsels of possible knowledge and deleted. Just beyond closer's discretion here, as WP:NOT#DICT seems to favor deletion and there was no strong rebuttal of why that shouldn't apply. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwikiing to Wiktionary isn't feasible. They already have an entry for gay which has foreign-language translations. +Angr 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I noticed that the bot wasn't able to "transwiki" to Wikionary" as well (due to number of revisions issue). Does anyone know of an admin here that would also be an admin there that might be able to help resolve the matter? Perhaps if we could get the referenced items over to a "derogatory gay terms" (rather than the existing gay). I don't for a second question the good faith closure, but feel that the arguments supporting delete were equally as strong as the couple arguments to keep (or more to the point - port to Wikt). Perhaps if we could resolve the issue of porting the info - we could resolve the keep/delete issue here. — Ched :  ?  03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at this time, perhaps a relisting would be the best solution. (see below) — Ched :  ?  03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete A list of unreferenced, dictionary definitions with no notability on the encyclopaedic value of why such a list of terms is relevant. Consensus was very clear. --Stephen 05:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, clear consensus. Optionally transwiki to Wiktionary, although they may not want it. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I was not aware that this discussion had resumed. Following the deletion discussion, I removed all the derivatives of 'gay' and 'homo' (as per comments and discussion) and did the same for derivatives of 'lesbian'. I then tagged the derogatory material that was not referenced or referenced unreliably, and the following day removed that material. The items marked as neutral are now tagged, and after 24 hours they will be deleted as well. The whole article was tagged as needing citations a considerable time ago, and nobody has added anything that would verify the accuracy of these statements about terms used to describe gay people. This will effectively leave only the English words - which would involve the article needing renaming to something like 'English words used to call gay people names'. Best just delete it - the opportunity was given to relocate the material, but that was lost with the decision to keep. Mish (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion didn't resume; this is a different discussion. The issue here is not whether or not the article should be deleted; the issue here is whether or not consensus to delete was reached in the AFD. I say it was not, despite the fact that 10 people !voted "delete" and only 2 people !voted "keep", because per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not in numbers", "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available", and "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." When I read through the discussion, it seemed to me that the objections of the minority who disagreed with deletion were not refuted and therefore consensus was not reached. +Angr 11:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most points were responded to, all that wasn't was the format... Does having a special format justify any material that is not otherwise normally within Wikipedia?
  • The wiktionary article has much less information than this and is not in a tablulated format... Move the info across, and if Wiktionary does not support the format that is not our concern.
  • WP may not be a dictionary but it is not uncommon for an encyclopedia to contain short specialized glossaries within articles... Yes, but this is a large glossary without any article.
  • If moved to wiktionary the advantage of the format (directly comparing terminology tween languages) is lost... Not our problem - Wiktionary problem. The content could still be re-located there.
  • The WP version contains literal, and often very colorful, translations, as well as the degree of whether it's a derogatory remark... This was already addressed when it was suggested it be moved.
  • On the other hand, the absence of verifiable sources to allow checking, the most obvious and consistent objection, despite the article tagged for this three months ago. In articles that involve terms in a multitude of languages, accuracy cannot be ignored. I could put anything there as a term for gay, say 'Mickey Mouse' or the name of a national politician, but without a citation to verify this, how can anybody know what is put there is genuine? Wiktionary will have its own policies and methods of fact-checking, so the material would have been better there where specialists could have maintained and checked it. We cannot allow potentially defamatory material here, because most English-speakers will have no idea what over 90% of the words actually mean. If a national politician's name was included, and we were ignorant of that, that would not be a defense, and where non-English words are inserted into an English article in a way that their meaning cannot be checked, they should be dealt with as being a potential BLP violation. This would need to be overseen by specialists in a range of languages, yet there is no template to show it is incorporated in any such linguistic project. Mish (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an administrator at both projects, and someone who has been transwikifying for years, and my resolution of the transwikification matter, raised above, is as follows: Transwikification is unnecessary. Wiktionary already has all of the trustable content, and the content that it doesn't have is either suspect or outright wrong. (As ever, and as already pointed out here, Wiktionary does a far better job of being a dictionary than Wikipedia does.)

    I've manually checked this list against the translations in the Wiktionary article for "gay", and against the Wikisaurus entries for "gay" and "male homosexual". The only sourced entry that Wiktionary does not have is "teapot", which turns out not to be supported by the source cited, and appears erroneous. Wiktionary not only has many of the unsourced entries, it has a lot of information that is not here and never was here, such as "bum chum" for example.

    The arguments about format are, quite simply, wrong. As can be seen, Wiktionary has a far more expansive format, that also presents information in more than one way (note the existence of both a dictionary entry and a thesaurus entry for "gay", for example). Every word and idiom not only gets a list entry, but is permitted its own fully-fledged article. So, for example, whilst this poor attempt at a slang dictionary here gives "pillow-biter" short shrift, Wiktionary not only gives it its own article, "pillow-biter", it includes in that article quotations showing the idiom in use and an etymology explaining where it came from. Moreover, you'll see that Wikisaurus' entry for "male homosexual" labels the pejorative entries. By the very nature of that entry being "male homosexual", the "used for men" information is already there too, note.

    In addition, whilst they have been removed here, Wiktionary has no qualms about including non-slang words that are just translations of "homosexual" (which also has a translations section, note). So, as you can see, it is happy to include in its lists the Bulgarian "хомосексуален", the Czech "homosexuální", the German and Swedish "homosexuell", the Dutch "homoseksueel", and the Esperanto "samseksema".

    On the point of Wiktionary doing a far better job of being a dictionary than Wikipedia does, I point to the English Wiktionary's entry for "bicha" and the Portuguese Wiktionary's entry for "veado" (interwiki linked from the 'bot-created English Wiktionary entry, by the way). Notice that they go into detail about which meanings are Brazilian Portuguese — something that this poor slang dictionary here doesn't even appear to think about. Similarly, this poor slang dictionary doesn't think about archaisms and obsolescences, but Wiktionary does. See "invert", for example. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete - The deleters have indeed addressed the concerns of the keepers in the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 8 .July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The closing did not reflect the consensus, and thus failed to follow WP:DGFA. BRMo (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Uncle G, thanks for a very informative response. "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides." WP:NOTDIC
  • Overturn and delete: struck my original "relist" after Uncle Gs excellent work, explanations, and assistance here. I appreciate Angrs efforts to determine consensus without regard to pure numbers, but I believe that the arguments used by the majority outweigh the arguments used by the minority. At this point, I believe the article fails "keep" per: WP:NOT at NOTDICT and item 3 of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Ched :  ?  02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus on this page is clearly that the lack of consensus at the AFD is irrelevant, I've gone ahead and deleted the article. +Angr 06:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 July 2009

[edit]
  • Category:Jewish surnames – overturn and restore - as the category has been provisionally restored for this discussion I will simply remove the tag to that effect. I do have serious issues with this DRV. It probably should have been closed at the beginning in light of a previous DRV that took place only very recently, but since it was not there has been significant discussion on the topic that ought not be ignored. Closing this discussion with no action taken for procedure's sake alone would not be productive. There is also a disappointing level of character sniping that has gone on at this DRV that borders on shameful, and this entire process would have been a lot easier on everybody if the debate would focus on the topic of the discussion and not the people involved. Finally, a lot of folks seem to have mistaken this discussion for CfD2, and were rather intent on discussing the category rather than the original closure. That said, even after wading through the unecessary commentary that has plagued this discussion, the comments that did remain on topic have resulted in a consensus that the original closure of the CfD was improper and is therefore overturned. – Shereth 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Jewish surnames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was clearly no consensus to delete this important category, the loss of which would hamper our users' navigation regarding this well-documented topic (see the long list of reputable sources in the deletion discussion); historic bias on the part of some editors and admins toward deletion of Jewish-related content at Wikipedia. Numerous surnames are verifiably Jewish in origin and historical association, and our encyclopedia should thus, as we always have, provide a category by which to locate such names. The closing admin often rules against consensus in support of his/her extremist position in favor of the huge deletion of valid, well-established and sourced ethnic group-related categories (even placing 14 thousand surnames in a single "Surnames" category last week following the hasty and poorly thought out elimination, against consensus, of dozens of valid subcategories), and is thus damaging our encyclopedia for our users and editors, as well as undermining the impartiality we expect of our admins. The "consensus" to delete this category was clearly only to be found in the imagination, hope, and wish of the closing admin--very improper for our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn The closing was not correct. If there was consensus, it was for keep. GO should not have closed; he has a known prior position about this type of category, as shown in a previous CfD. it is like my doing a keep closing of an AfD of a fictional character. We may in each case be right, but it shouldn't be us who's doing it. In this case, I think he was wrong in both instances, wrong about consensus in both, and wRrong about policy. I regret the issue of Jewish-related ethnic prejudice was raised, at the discussion and then here. The prejudice is not against material or categories on Jews--it is against all ethnic material or categories about whatever ethnic group. That we shouldn't use such categories is not policy. This may need wider attention. DGG (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You've been at WP long enough to know that I am not imagining a bias, on the part of some editors, consistently and actively over a period of years, to edit WP primarily in an effort to remove Jewish-related content, including categories. Whether or not this closing admin is one of those editors has not been verified, yet his/her actions do seem indicative of such a bias, which is disturbing and destructive to our encyclopedia, and our users' effective navigation of such. Badagnani (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the place to accuse other editors of antisemitism. DRV deals with content; antisemitism would be a conduct matter, and so would belong at WP:DR.

    Having said that, I do not even remotely see a consensus to delete in that CfD, and so my recommendation is overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am not accusing anyone of anything, including anti-semitism. In fact, it seems that some of the editors mentioned above have attempted, as they have vigorously over a period of years, to delete Jewish-related content (including categories) for the opposite reason: that they do not wish people to be identified as Jewish for fear or some possible repercussions that might result from such exposure. Whether or not that idea has merit is a personal matter, not something that should be allowed to damage our encyclopedia, or its navigation and functionality for our users, who must always be foremost in our minds with every edit we make. Badagnani (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, that was a highly improper close, less than one hour after the review was initiated. As per our policy, this review must be given five full days for comment and evaluation. Please check the history again. Badagnani (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The close was highly improper. We must be able to trust our admins, yet again and again we have hasty and improper closes, often completely against consensus. In this case, CfD participants offered detailed policy-based arguments for keeping the categories, yet this was ignored, likely by one admin covering for another's improper behavior. We must insist on the impartial behavior on the part of our administrators, following our own community's rules. Badagnani (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that DRV has already run and been closed. This is a duplicate DRV, filed presumably because you didn't like the outcome of the first. But since that isn't getting through to anyone, Endorse deletion and speedy close as duplicate DRV. --Kbdank71 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the original CFD was long and detailed and this out-of-process "wah wah I want the category so I'll keep making it over and over again until I get my way" constant re-creation should be shut down now. There was nothing wrong with the original deletion and this continued "I want it, give it back" re-creation strategy should be recognized for what it is. Accusations of anti-Semitism on the part of those wanting the category are both unfounded and an abject failure to assume good faith. Appeals to bigotry should not be rewarded and the actions of editors who make such appeals should be considered highly questionable. Otto4711 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Recreate The CfD provided a dozen reliable and verifiable books on the subject demonstrating that this is beyond any doubt a defining characteristic and no argument has been offered to explain why they have been ignored this time. The only rationalization offered by the closing admin is that it had something to do with Category:Surnames by country, and "Jewish" is still not a country. It is truly disturbing that the same disruptive element at CfD that has no problem whatsoever with seeing categories nominated over and over and over for deletion until the only acceptable result of deletion is achieved, can possibly insist that any attempt to recreate -- or to deal with clear administrative misconduct in this case -- is somehow "out-of-process". The increasingly contrived efforts to concoct excuses for deletion have gone beyond any point of reasonableness. Admins who are pushing a personal agenda rather than objectively evaluating consensus have no place closing CfDs where they confuse closing discussions with casting a supervote in which any consensus or source can be ignored. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accusing admins of acting improperly by casting so-called "supervotes" is quite serious. Accusations that admins are engaged in "misconduct" are even more serious. Do you have evidence that admins are casting such "supervotes"? Do you have evidence other than your personal opinion that admins are engaged in "misconduct"? Please present that evidence, either here or at an appropriate venue for discussing admin conduct. Please either present a foundation for your accusations or refrain from making them. Otto4711 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Res ipsa loquitor. Read the CfD under discussion. Look at the votes. Look at the dozen book-length sources provided. Justify the close. I spent months working on the Otto problem. The problem was raised and ignored by many of the same admins with problems closing CfDs. Evidence was gathered, presented and a lengthy block was imposed. This CfD under discussion is but one unfortunate additional piece of evidence in dealing with a far more disruptive problem than mere chronic incivility. In due time the evidence will be presented. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for confirming the obsession that led you to spend months stalking me. And yet, for all those months of bizarre focus, you seem unable to present any evidence that the admin who closed this discussion acted improperly or that any admin has engaged in misconduct. I'm used to your obsessive conduct directed toward me, but your personal obsessions do not constitute evidence that this CFD was closed improperly or that any admin has engaged in misconduct. Either put up the evidence to support your wild accusations or stop making them. Otto4711 (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from strange personal attacks and keep to the issue: was the close of the discussion regarding the deletion of this category proper or improper, and exactly why (sticking to the various details brought up in the deletion discussion as much as possible)? Badagnani (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling a self-admitted stalker a stalker is not a personal attack. Please present actual evidence that the deletion was in error, rather than simply opening and re-opening DRVs in the hope that you'll get some admin to ignore history and agree with your "gimme gimme gimme the category" demands. Otto4711 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kindly read all the discussion here (not just skimming it), as well as examining the original discussion and close before posting such questions here, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The closing was highly improper, as you well know, as you have improperly closed several categories in quite similar manner in recent weeks. Such closing as admin "supervote" against consensus, always in a WP:POINTy effort, apparently made according to a misguided personal opinion that ethnicity "should not" matter in the real world, to damage and water down our categorization system as regards well-documented ethnicities, hampering our users' navigation of this largest, and in many ways best encyclopedia in the world, must not be allowed to continue. And "Jewish" is still not a country. Further, our damaged "Surnames" categorization system remains damaged as the editors insisting on the lumping of 14 thousand surname articles in a single "Surnames" category with no substitute system developed in advance have moved on to tasks they apparently find more enjoyable or less tedious, leading the unacceptable situation that the Korean-language surnames category contains a total of two surnames. This situation embarrasses all of us as editors and tarnishes and undermines our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The evidence for an improper close may be found in the discussion and close itself, where the vast majority of comments supported the eminently reasonable idea of keeping the "Jewish surnames" category, based on a long list of reputable published sources, none of which was mentioned by the closer, or by the editor above who is attempting to harass editors voting to overturn this highly improper close. Reasonableness and community consensus must be respected by all editors, including the rank-and-file productive contributor, admins, and even Jimbo Wales. The unwillingness to acknowldge an improper close in light of clear evidence of such is extremely damaging to the trust we must have in one another as honest and up-front members of the WP community. The only explanation must be a fixation on deleting Jewish-related (and ethnic-related in general) categories, as over 100 have been deleted in recent months, always by the same three or four highly vocal editors, some of whom possess admin tools and back one another up when members of the rank and file raise objections based on grounds of reasonableness. Badagnani (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More accusations of anti-Semitism without a shred of evidence to back them up. More accusations of bad-faith behaviour by admins without a shred of evidence to back them up. We all get that you want this category. Falsely accusing editors and admins isn't the way to get it. Screaming "prejudice" when no prejudice exists serves nothing other than making actual prejudice harder to address and combat. Shame on you for crying wolf and belittling real bigotry. Otto4711 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kindly read the above comments before responding. I don't know if it was anti- or pro-semitism that led to the vigorous campaign and abuse that has led to the damage to our project's navigation (in this case related to the insistent, vocal, and sustained campaign to eliminate the ability of our users to search for Jewish surnames via an entirely reasonable "Jewish surnames" category. What is the case here is that a close was made strongly against consensus, with the many well-reasoned comments and reliable sources ignored in favor of an admin "supervote" close quite against the consensus to "keep," by an admin who should not have closed due to his/her well-known biases in regard to ethnicity, and Jewish identity in particular. This trend must not continue-and Jewish is still not a country. Badagnani (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what my "well-known biases in regard to ethnicity" are and how you know they are well-known. Since I'm completely unaware of what they are, I'm interested in finding out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More unfounded accusations, this time of "abuse" coupled with the completely unsupportable notion of an admin "supervote". Still no evidence to show that anyone did anything improper in the course of the CFD. Bring us something new or stop bringing anything. Otto4711 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would appreciate it if Badagnani would stop implying (or outright suggesting) that my actions were done in bad faith or to make a "point". Rather than jumping to what he calls "the only explanation", he should perhaps try to imagine that it is possible that other editors can take good-faith actions in WP that he does not agree with. Comments like this and this are inappropriate, in my opinion. (Although it is amusing to hear that my "extreme, fringe positions on ethnic groups are well known". I'd be interested to know what they are, since I didn't know I had any!) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Honestly, I don't know what kind of faith (good, bad, indifferent, none, or some mixture thereof) the closer engaged in, but what is clear from an examination of the close is that it was highly improper. Let's stick to facts (such as the multiple reliable, published book sources, mention of which has been studiously avoided by the pro-deletion editors). Finally, I will reiterate the the adherence to our own project's policies is fundamental and essential to preserving our community's spirit. Closing in such a manner, then failing to acknowledge such a terrible mistake, when admitting one's error in judgement would be so much more magnanimous makes this intolerable situation become worse and worse. Badagnani (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the previous DRV, I clarified the meaning of my close and stated that re-creation of this category was permissible if agreed to at Category talk:Surnames. I'm not sure what the further issue is to discuss here. I've said the category can be re-created, it has been re-created, and I'm happy about the situation. If you want to keep up a complaint about the other CfD on Surnames in general, that's your choice, but we've had a CfD and a DRV, and I don't think complaining about it further is going to be productive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please do not continue to attempt to change the subject. Your close was entirely impermissible, against consensus, and conducted by an admin who should not have been allowed to conduct it due to clearly stated fringe beliefs as regards ethnicity, and Jewish identity in general. In regard to the damage done to our surnames navigation, our millions of users around the world for over one week have been forced to deal with all 14 thousand surnames being placed in a single Surnames category, before and without any substitute system being devised nor implemented. This damage, and the failure to repair it on behalf of the editors insisting on it, is unacceptable and must be rectified immediately. However, that is not the issue here; the issue is your highly improper close. And Jewish is still not a country. Badagnani (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a change of topic; it's directly on point. Let me state it again: In the previous DRV, I clarified the meaning of my close and stated that re-creation of this category was permissible if agreed to at Category talk:Surnames. I'm not sure what the further issue is to discuss here. I've said the category can be re-created, it has been re-created, and I'm happy about the situation. Let me know what you may not understand about what I have said. (I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here or not.) By the way, I have no "clearly stated fringe beliefs as regards ethnicity, and Jewish identity in general." If you think I do, then you've either misunderstood something I have said or believed someone else who is misinformed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed in the previous DRV, the category has been re-created, as permitted by the close, so I'm not sure what else about the "close" you would like changed. It's already re-created. This is also not about the June 6 CfD, which you keep bringing up and which has had a DRV about it. To me, it sounds like you are trying to make this about me, rather than the category. This is not a process whereby you try to get the closer disciplined for having done something you disagree with. This is DRV, not DR. (I see someone else has mentioned this above, so maybe the message isn't registering here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are essentially maintaining that you are not bound to abide by our project's policies, rules, and community norms, which places a high value on not abusing one's admin powers by "going over the head" of community consensus and following one's wishes and hopes instead in closing a discussion, ignoring evidence (and, in your case, substituting a little joke for the actual careful consideration of the consensus and evidence). Behaving in such a manner seriously undermines the ethos of our project. Requesting that an admin abide by our community's standards and policies is entirely reasonable and the above argument sounds like "protesting too much." Let's keep this discussion to the facts, as requested several times previously. And Jewish is still not a country. Badagnani (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Obviously not registering .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure against consensus — Would the world be a happier place if Wikipedia didn't have any surname categories at all? If it must do, the AfD convinces me that this is as policeable a surname category as any. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would editors please take accusations of bad faith, bias, prejudice etc. to dispute resolution? DRV can't address those issues and they shouldn't be raised here, distracting attention as they do from the content.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The issue here is an improper close. As such, poor behavior on the part of the closer (closing according to his/her wish rather than actual consensus, in tandem with a failure to consider the arguments and many reputable book sources presented) is most certainly at issue in this case. Badagnani (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (re: two comments immediately above). So I see it's not just me who's not getting through here. Comforting in a way for me personally, but a little troubling b/c it's a genuine failure to understand or give any heed to others' explanations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is troubling that your own highly improper close (the sole reason for this deletion review) failed to take into account the actual consensus, as well as the well-reasoned comments and multiple reliable, published book sources. It also failed to take into account the fact that "Jewish" is not a country. Your most recent endeavor was to WP:CANVASS in an apparent attempt to put a halt to this very review, which among all your other behaviors is perhaps most illustrative of your character. Keep in mind, however, that it is your close of the deletion of this category that is under consideration here, and please refrain from attempting to change the subject. Badagnani (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My edit was not a canvass. It was a note to the admin who closed the previous DRV to have an initial look at this one, since I think that it is apparent that there are some misunderstandings about what DRV is for and whether it is appropriate to have one for a category that just had one. You don't seem to want to listen to any advice on the matter from anyone here, so it's not going to hurt to get another neutral user here to have a look. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Moot" and redirecting the discussion to some non-binding discussion page is an improper close. All WP editors (including admins) must adhere to our community's policies and standards, and that includes not cutting off discussion after 1 day by editors with well known biases regarding ethnic groups. Badagnani (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
on the one hand there has to be a way to bring up issues again to examine possible mistakes, and changes of consensus (but on the other there does have to be a way of getting things settled decisively and avoid vexatious appeals.)
  • Comment - "Moot" is not a proper discussion close. Jewish is not a country and thus this is the proper place for discussion. We (even admins) must adhere to our community's policies and standards, and closing a discussion after 1 day is highly improper. Badagnani (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, In the absence of a snow closing here, they shiould run for 7 days. No admin has the right to pre-empt a good-faith discussion DGG (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close Agree with Stifle. You cannot DRV a DRV. Eusebeus (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is extremely difficult, well nigh impossible, to conceive of a reason for deleting this category unless we assume a broad and deep ignorance of history among those who propose and support deletion. All naming conventions are fundamentally ethnic (i.e. with roots in history, language, traditions, and religion specific to particular human cultural groups). Even in cases such as modern Turkey, where surnames were introduced by fiat in the 1930's, the names chosen where deeply rooted in the cultural ideas Ataturk was reifying. Jewish surnames form a coherent group, with historical sub sections. see, for a parallel , Italian name. Italy is a baby of a nation, patched together less than 200 years ago by people who spoke distinct and mutually-unintelligible languages and had distinct ethnic and historical heritages. In the south, long Byzantine governance, the ascendance of the Greek language, and a subsequent long period of Arab rule created a language and culture that retains significant differences form the culture of other regions to this day. This makes the south like all of Italy's other regions, each with a unique ethnic history. Because Italy is like all the nations in being in denial of its historical diversity, the Italian names article gives only short shrift to these differences in the sub-category Suffixes. And yet, because of Garibaldi, we can certainly sustain an article on Italian names, albeit it would be nice to have one that reflected the actually historical complexity of the origins of the modern nation-state and its ethnicity. The Jews are not different. Jewish surnames have distinctly Jewish origins that reflect the history of the worlds sundry Jewish communities. Unlike, say, the Lombards and the Sicilians (now all grouped under Italian) Jews verifiably always retained a Jewish identity in addition to local identities and languages. Lombards and Sicilians have very different ancestry, spoke mutually unintelligible languages, were governed as entirely separate kingdoms, and regarded one another as in no manner connected except by Christianity - and not even that during the long periods of Muslim rule that saw large-scale conversion to Islam. A history more or less as complex as this can be written for almost every group that has an article on names or surnames. How odd of Wikipedia to choose the Jews to exclude.Historicist (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readded some comments that were removed in this edit. I'm not going to reclose, but I'll restate that this DRV can accomplish nothing but slapping Good Olfactory on the wrist, and it's a really Bad IdeaTM to start a precedent that allows DRV to do that. lifebaka++ 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate category, preclude further speedy deletes. There was never any consensus to delete this category, but at this point I agree with Lifebaka that wrist-slapping should not be the point. I understand Good Ol’factory to be saying that the category can be recreated and repopulated, that it has been, and that he's "happy about the situation". While this may not have been an ideal solution, it could be a basis for moving forward and leaving this particular clash behind. However, actual efforts to recreate the category are being met by adamant oppositon by a few editors who continue to tag the category for speedy deletion. One editor has even called for "salting" the category.[16]. Other admins, apparently unaware that recreation has been approved, have then gone ahead and speedy-deleted the category, and that's why we're back at DRV. Is this what was intended? If we want to move forward in a way consistent with the stated basis for the original close, we need to stop this cycle and allow the repopulation of the category.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's felt that a further discussion will resolve the problems, then I can see why this DRV might be thought to be a good thing. However, it does seem to me that there are a number of other possible solutions to the problem that could have been attempted, and if they had worked it would have been much easier for everyone. Some editors seems very keen to jump to DRV without ever discussing the matter with the closer of the CfD (or the other DRV) beforehand—this is the second consecutive DRV for this category that was started by an editor (different each time) who didn't even bother to say two words to me about their concerns prior to jumping into the DRV. Because of this, it becomes difficult not to view the DRVs as an attempted wrist-slapping exercise. This concern becomes all the more relevant when you consider some of the nominator's comments about me above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. from last DRV: Delete - names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense. As soon as one Fooian person is given or adopts a name it becomes a "Fooian name". Otto4711 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes they can.When jewish peoples arrived in other countries, they're names were also 'assimilated' e.g anglicized, germanified etc.Similar to, for example how John Mortons name was initially Marttinen, but was anglicized to Morton after arrival in the USA. We have arabic names, while there is no such country as Arabia either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfus (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete these pages are basically disambiguation pages, not articles on Jewish surnames. What little refers to the Jewish-ness of the surname tends to be unreferenced and probably false. Take for example, the surname Cohen: it says (sans sources) that people of this surname are descended from temple priests. I guess that adoption is prohibited? Basically, similarly we can say that people of the surname Caeser are descended from Roman Emperors with the same level of sourcing. Another eye popper, again sans sources, people with the surname Cohen may not marry a divorced woman. How extraordinary - so were we to find someone with that surname who had done so, he must have been living under an assumed name? These coatracks to try to attribute some ancient aspect of the name to modern bearers of it is just part and parcel of this ludicrous categorization scheme. Oh, and I guess there are no Gentiles with these Jewish surnames? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A world in which we can't say Cohen is a Jewish surname is like a world where we can't say apple is a fruit (Oh, I guess no-one's ever used 'apple' to refer to something not a fruit? How ridiculous, just yesterday I heard this word applied to a computer. And the French call potatoes apples of the earth and potatoes are VEGETABLES which is PROOF that categorizing apple as a fruit is just part and parcel of a ludicrous categorization scheme, in fact nothing but a coattrack to hang unreferenced and spurious fruitist assertions on.) What's with the nihilism, guys? Cohen is the quintessential Jewish surname, of course our categorization should reflect that. Such a categorization doesn't have any of these ad absurdum absolutist implications you're attributing to it. Haukur (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [citation needed] Stifle (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Haukurth: all what you can cite and say about Cohen can be in the article, we don't put Apple Inc. in the category fruit which is not nihilism but common sense, and Jewish surnames is quite the opposite as you so easily demonstrate with your rant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems at best unreasonable and at worst pointless to keep this DRV open. It was already speedy-closed with meritorious reasons, and since the page has been restored, what's the purpose of continuing here? Stifle (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This whole debate has been an object-lesson on the wisdom of WP:RS and WP:NOR, and the nonsensical results which arise when these policies are ignored. User:Wassermann gave a long, though partial, list of reliable sources about Jewish surnames. Such sources establish that there is such a thing as a "Jewish surname" and give adequate criteria for deciding what it is. Unfortunately many editors have preferred their own amateur research, based on the fact that they know someone who is Jewish and has a surname (I wish I was exaggerating). The original debate clearly did not arrive at a consensus. Its close should recognised that. Furthermore a competent closing admin should have recognised the WP:OR problem, and given corresponding advice. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because this is surnames not per country but per culture or ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 12 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Charlie the Unicorn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This afd never reached consensus, as opinions were nearly split (disregarding those which appear not to have been constructive or thought out). The main problem is that the afd completely ignored the notability criteria which specifically apply to web content. Web-specific content is notable if it meets "any one" of the criteria including "he 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;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight." The afd provided sources, such as salon.com, which are good sources and don't allow random uploading (such as youtube, which would not be a good site). Objections included that the watchable videos on the linked, notable site, were too trivial, and basically needed entire articles about the subject in order to meet notability. However, the web content guidelines clearly state that distribution alone meets notability. See also comments in the afd regarding memes. In addition a major clothing retailer, Hot Topic, devoted an entire line of clothing to the subject of the article. The only source for this is the Hot Topic website itself, which still sells the clothing (major news outlets don't typically cover memes' inclusion in clothing lines, but it's no less notable that a major clothing chain sells an entire line of clothing based on Charlie the Unicorn). One particular editor continuously removed the link to hot topic, first claiming it was "advertising" and then that it was not notable, without allowing afd participants to judge that for themselves.

In sum, arguments against were not properly based on web-specific notability guidelines, and the topic, which has been in a music video of a major band, and has a clothing line at a major retail outlet, and is distributed by major web magazines, is notable.  superβεεcat  21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, I did contact the closing admin, who concluded that my arguments may have merit, but decided (I believe erroneously) that there was, in fact, consensus, but supported me going to review. - superβεεcat  21:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, all those deletion discussions took a long time to read and evaluate, and after going through it, all I could really see was a godawful mess. Part of me sees merit in the "keep" arguments because, mindful though I am of WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:GOOGLEHITS, I think there's so much coverage that this is actually quite a likely search term. But that's a matter for AfD, not for DRV; our main role here is to decide whether the closer evaluated the consensus correctly.

    I find that "no consensus" would have been the preferable close, but "delete" was within admin discretion. So I'll default to endorse on this one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:33, 6 July 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) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The AfD shows no clear consensus. That--regardless of my own opinion about the article--is what we're here to discuss. Arguments always sound more convincing if you are already predisposed to taking that side. The ubiquitous WP:NOTVOTE claim should be used with great caution. Owen× ☎ 14:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the keep 'votes' amount to little more than "It's notable", whereas the delete 'votes' actually explain why it's non notable, and why it should be deleted. AfD is not a majority vote. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the keep votes aren't addressing web-content specific guidelines at all. -24.130.51.254 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (superbeecat)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - "Charlie the Unicorn" is obviously a pet peeve for some people, but I feel that the latest AfD was carried out properly - as JulianColton says, the delete votes were much more detailed in their reasonings, while the keep votes seemed to be, more often than not, variations on WP:ILIKEIT. Superbeecat's claim that a blog post on Salon.com equals distribution is misinformed - had Salon actually hosted the short itself on Salon's servers, that might be a point. But all they did was link to a YouTube clip - that's not actual distribution, anymore than linking to the clip from Wikipedia could be considered distribution. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that you're mistaken change your mind? It's hosted on Salon's server: Salon actually hosted the short itself on Salon's servers: http://salonmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/media/video_dog/2006/may/charlie.mov - superβεεcat  20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said it might be a point. They're certainly not hosting the clip anymore, as the link is dead. However, the more important point is that I still endorse the deletion - everything was carried out by the book. I'm sorry you disagree, but that's my opinion. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But notability isn't temporary. It was distributed for years, it's down at the moment. We don't remove articles when links break. I can't seem to get anyone to acknowledge the web-specific criteria which states that if it's distributed, it's notable. I've shown distribution (not just on the salon article). That alone meets the criteria, everything else is a red herring- the arguments against were "longer" but universally didn't address web-specific content guidelines. Not one. - superβεεcat  21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist in 3 months There's really no point in doing it against now, it will remain a disputed close no matter how it is closed; perhaps there will be more sources available after a while. (I know this wouldn't be a standard way to close a Del Rev, but I think it meets the situations)
  • Endorse deletion Closer got it right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There have been numerous attempts to get this non-notable (by Wikipedia standards) cartoon on the site. I believe that the closing decision was correct. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT This is exactly what happened on the afd. Nobody is taking the time to read the web specific criteria for notability, which merely is distribution on notable websites, which I've shown. Nobody is addressing this, it's irksome that the endorsements, and the delete votes in the original afd aren't addressing the appropriate criteria in the decision making process, or providing a detailed response as to how, specifically, it is deficient. "closer got it right" "numerous prior attempts"? This isn't thoughtful analysis. Prior attempts are completely irrelevant, and have no bearing on the current attempt, as it is a completely different article, with completely different references. -24.130.51.254 (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (superbeecat)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closer ccorrectly closed and deleted based on the arguments and not simply on number of votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — There were two kinds of delete arguments: not notable & unverifiable. The closing summary did not say which the closer thought applied. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD — This was a slightly dubious close: there was no consensus about the applicability of WP:WEB. But equally, no new grounds for the content were put forward, which I think favours a delete outcome in AfDs, so the close is defensible. Personally, I think the sources justify notability, but they are not sufficient to support nontrivial encyclopediac coverage. Given time, I think that will emerge, since the video has clearly been identified as a significant instance of user-generated content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:32, 13 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

{{{reason}}} I wish to write a wikipedia article on the PBBG game "Battledawn" - and I have not been able to due to restrictions placed on the page due to previous edits and creations (Which I was neither aware of nor responsible for) with the reason of "Repeated Creation" - I understand the need to stop pages being created that have been repeatedly made badly and against the rules, but I wish to write about the history and development of one of the only, as well as the longest standing, graphically based Strategy PBBGs. I will be verifying any appropriate information with the creator, as I have established communications with him and hope to make this a informative and interesting page on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Chrs181818 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Chrs181818. You should write the article in your userspace, here: User:Chrs181818/Sandbox and present a draft to DRV so that we can verify that it complies with the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N are likely to be highly relevant). When you've done that, bring it back to DRV and, assuming the policies and guidelines are indeed met, it's likely that your draft will be moved into the mainspace.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:06, 6 July 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) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wowie this is an old AFD close of mine. I'd second Marshall's advice of creating a draft in userspace. The prior AFD was pretty clear on the topic and being able to evaluate the sources you have in mind would help things alot I think for other users. MBisanz talk 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @S. Marshall - Thanks alot, I'm currently in the process of drafting the page out. @Stifle - Apologies, The instructions on the page say: "If you feel this page should be created, please raise the matter at deletion review," - so I popped over here and notified MBisanz of it as per the instructions, I hope. @MBisanz - My sources will be official pages (Such as the "About" page) as well as the game guide, forum posts (If allowable) as well as some information from the head developer - Michael- Which I'll try to make logs of public somehow to make it verifiable. Thanks alot, all! Chrs181818 (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I move that this is closed for the time being, and that Chrs181818 is requested to return with a complete draft in his own time.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:38, 8 July 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 Cairney – no action taken. The deletion really isn't being contested here (WP:RFPP would probably have been a better venue for this request) and there is no evidence that this invidual yet qualifies for inclusion under guidelines. In the event that he does meet crieria before the natural expiration of the page protection (15:20 on August 05) then a request should be made there – Shereth 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Paul Cairney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This football player, who has played 87 league matches for Queen's Park F.C., 33 of which have occurred having been loaned back out by a full-time professional football team, Partick Thistle, has returned to PTFC. Since it is very likely that he will feature in the first team at Partick Thistle this season (he has already appeared in a behind closed doors friendly against Cowdenbeath) he will almost certainly fulfil the WP:ATHLETE criteria. For convenience over anything else, it would make sense to unprotect the creation of this article, so that as soon as he does participate in a competitive fixture for a fully professional Club, his article can be recreated.

Many thanks in advance, Partickfan (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current protection expires in early August. When do the regular season games start? lifebaka++ 16:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just over a month's time. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't it already expire at about the right time on its own? If so, I don't think we need to do anything here. lifebaka++ 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with that. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first competitive fixture is on the 25th July.Partickfan (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15th of August from what I can find. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just plainly incorrect. The first competitive fixture is in the Scottish Challenge Cup on the 25th July, and the first league fixture takes place on the 8th August. If you don't believe me, just read these links: here and herePartickfan (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paola Di Maio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Biography in relation to published work, projects and events systematically deleted (vandalized) by wikipedia editor since 1995. Suspected hate campaing, /ad since the biography and links to support the notoriety principles have been edited/added by various users and systematicaly deleted by the editors who obviously did not verify the supporting links, even when 'hold on' was placed on the page. Claim to notoriety met. Similar articles not deleted, nor questioned nor discussed, despite lesser links (see Nick Denton}, Patrick Barkham and many many living others whose profile is never deleted). All backlinks to related sources in other wikipedia pages also systematically wiped. Please restore and do not allow editors to delete this page, or please delete all the other pages that carry biographies of living people who are journalists/writers/researchers.

  • Before I reply to this, please could an uninvolved admin confirm that the various G4 deletions here really were substantially identical to (i.e., near-carbon copies of) the original content from 2006?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were not. The recent recreated versions were all similar to each other, consisting of one sentence about Ms. Di Maio, several requests not to redelete, and assorted references. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should think we'll need some trouts, then.

        Procedural overturn as a bad G4, and list at AfD so the community can judge their merits per the correct procedure. Addendum: Before anyone challenges me on this, I should probably add that the references constitute a claim of notability so they invalidate the A7.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I agree that the recent recreations weren't substantially identical - in fact they were substantially worse than the version that was deleted at AfD. They were composed pretty much of a little paragraph about how Wikipedia keeps deleting the article, one sentence about the subject, two links to blogs with vague mentions, and a copy-paste of some information from one of the blogs. Two of the three recent deletions have been valid A7 speedies, and the third one pretty much could have been. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you work on a draft of the article in userspace and bring it here - none of the recent recreations have been in any way convincing of notability, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Creating an article with virtually no content beyond an angry statement about how it keeps getting deleted is not likely to solve the problem. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; userfy for a draft if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify I think the intention of the latest group of articles was to add what was missing in the original: references. . there might or might not be a viable article combining the original version and the reverences. Sending the latest version to AfD would not help get an article, since it would almost certainly be deleted. Trying to write a new one might possibly do it, and to give a chance,it should be worked on in user space first. This will meet the intent of the request, which was to try to have an article if possible. DGG (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted unanimous AFD and three re-creations later, 'nuff said. No objection to userfication, but it comes here before being recreated a 4th time, as we aren't buying a pig in a poke. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I'm really concerned that this could result in us endorsing a bad speedy. I think that if this is closed as "keep deleted", the closer should use those words, and specifically not use the word "endorse". In a perfect world, every single bad speedy that comes here would be overturned and sent straight to AfD, because I think it's an overriding consideration that CSD deletions need to be absolutely valid and unambiguous.

    I'd also invite the closer of this DRV to comment on the appropriateness of the speedy, please.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:32, 7 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Verna (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Substantial improvement was made during the course of the discussion and was ongoing at the time the discussion was closed. A courtesy notification, while not required, should have been made to the article creator (User:Faridzenger) and the relevant WikiProject (WP:PW). I question the motivation of three of the "delete" voters, as they had expressed displeasure at me for disagreeing with them in a previous deletion discussion and then all showed up to vote "delete" with no interest in weighing the merits of the additions to the article. While the discussion was ongoing, two of the "delete" voters removed sourced information that helped establish the subject's notability for reasons that, at ANI, were said by two administrators to be against Wikipedia policy. I was unable to restore this information without dancing around 3RR, but the article was deleted several hours later (while the ANI was still open). Due to the ongoing improvements up to the time of deletion and procedural irregularities during the discussion, I am asking that the article be restored or, at the very least, that a second, untainted AfD be opened. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm somewhat inclined to agree with a relist on the numbers, but I find your other remarks very concerning and I wonder if we're looking at a conduct dispute rather than a content one. Please could you provide diffs to illustrate what you say?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see the removal of sourced content and the disapproval at ANI, please. My concern is that DRV can help with a content dispute but if there are conduct issues, other places may be appropriate venues as well.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. Because the article has been deleted, I do not have access to the diffs for removal of sourced content. The removal is mentioned directly, however, at ANI here by an uninvolved third party as "de facto vandalism". This was supported by two administrators: [17] and [18]. The second "delete" voter removed the content in response to the first one recruiting him to help get around 3RR here. My concern is not to seek action against the editor (in fact, the first editor to remove the content has since left Wikipedia because the ANI at which he reported me did not go in his favor [19]). I would much rather see the article restored than have punitive action taken against anyone, but I believe that these diffs at least help to indicate procedual irregularity. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, those diffs show an enormous amount of totally unnecessary drama, and I think they put your case that the AfD was tainted by disruptive editors beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Relist as a defective debate, and thank you to GaryColemanFan.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted; I'm satisfied with the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per S Marshall. If the comments made at the AfD were all that was happening, I'd call it a reasonable close, though verging towards no consensus. Given the fairly convincing evidence that there was some rather unsavoury behaviour going on at the same time, though, I think this needs to be restored and reviewed again at AfD to come to an untainted consensus on it. ~ mazca talk 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the claim that new stuff was added doesn't wash, the later deletes had benefit of such stuff and specifically rebutted the asserted importance of them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note that the final "delete" came after the content was removed. It is also important to remember that the removal of content potentially had a larger impact. Editors who may have been leaning toward keeping it if they saw the extra information may have been less willing to comment after the content was removed (ie. more on the fence). While I admit this is speculative, it is certainly possible. Relisting the AfD would help answer such questions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:15, 12 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Oakbrook Mall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Decision was to delete and recreate as a redirect. I feel the page should simply have been redirected (edit history retained). While it was unclear if the subject the page now redirects to is the same as the one the creator had in mind, the rationale for the deletion was that it was a hoax. But given the creator's history, it seems more like a good-faith creation in which a poor job was done at specifying the correct details. More time is needed to check this out. Sebwite (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin: This was a very unambiguous close, with the DRV filer being the only person not in favour of deleting this article. Thryduulf (talk · contribs) 's responses to your two comments at the AfD were particularly useful - there's simply no evidence that this mall exists, whatsoever, resulting in a gratuitous failure of WP:V. If the article was created in good faith, the details are so unsalvageably incorrect as to not be any use. While I salute your desire to rescue articles, I really think that time could be better spent than rescuing an article on a mall that all available evidence suggests does not exist. ~ mazca talk 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, there's no problem with being the only one with a certain view - all good-faith viewpoints really are valuable in an AfD. However, they have to be closed in line with consensus, and your viewpoint unfortunately did not coincide with that. ~ mazca talk 23:11, 5 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tansuit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Decision was to merge and redirect to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters, however new information came to light during the merging process. It turns out that an entry on this page for "Tansit" or "Tansut" already exists, and that "Tansuit" is an improbable misspelling of this character's name. Had I known this during the time of the AfD, I would have recommended Delete because I think it's improper for Wikipedia to maintain Tansuit as a redirect as it is an improbable misspelling. —  X  S  G  05:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close. I don't see in what way this is an implausible misspelling - evidently whoever created the article made that mistake. I would simply redirect this as the AfD mandated, merging any further useful information that isn't already included under "Tansit", and leave it at that - the redirect isn't doing any harm. You can always take it to WP:RfD later if you really think it's implausible - I think the AfD close remains correct here even given the changed circumstances. ~ mazca talk 09:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also add that as the AfD nominator you are already assumed to be recommending "delete" - if you wanted a merge in the first place, articles for deletion was not the place to bring it. ~ mazca talk 09:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say "Tansuit" is quite a plausible mis-spelling. (Look at the arrangement of keys on your keyboard).

    I endorse this close as an accurate reading of the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse nothing misread about this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Articles in this category have the distinct defining quality of being ranked as a top-selling album on the weekly published Billboard 200 albums chart from a highly-respected trade publication in the music industry (see Billboard (magazine)). Wolfer68 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer. This category was previously deleted as a recreation of deleted material. So in this case, there needs to be a consensus to override the previous decisions to delete. That case simply was not made in the discussion. I'll add that there is a side issue in that the consensus for albums in this area may differ from the consensus for singles. I'll also restate from my close, that this is much better handled as a list since only the album name is contained in the category. As a list, much more information of note is included. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not CFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist A close not based on policy is an incorrect close, and this can require reviewing the arguments to see whether the closer properly took account of policy. In this particular case, I see no argument in the discussion that any policy was violated, and the arguments amounted to IDONTLIKEIT. The closer closed on the explicit basis that it had been deleted before, which is not a reason based in policy. Once re-creation had been allowed, it needed to be discussed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
    • CSD G4 is still policy last time I checked. Quite reasonably not being a bureaucracy and given it's age, it was allowed to go to a discussion to see if it could overcome the original reason for deletion (which would then exempt if from G4) as far as I can tell it didn't. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be some way of seeing whether consensus has changed. DGG (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well my own view is that a bare "consensus can change" argument is pretty weak, we don't want to be repeatedly looking at things, just in case (That of course goes both ways, we expect relists for deletion after a keep outcome to be based on more than a consensus can change line). It's far stronger when backed up with some indication that consensus has indeed changed, e.g. similar stuff recently where the outcome is consistently different. That however is an aside, in this instance as noted there was a path given, the article was not speedy deleted instead a consensus gathering exercise was commenced, and as far as I can read there was no consensus that the category should/could be recreated, which seems a good indication that consensus hadn't changed. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - arguments for keeping were along the lines of "all categories should exist" and "it's useful", which don't come anywhere close to addressing the reasons for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm confused by the process. It should remain deleted because it has been G4'd before or because being a #1-ranked album is not a defining characteristic? If only the former, then can I recreate the category, put a "hangon" after someone almost assuredly will put the "speedy" tag back, resulting in a new CFD? I can then be more diligent by notifying the WikiProject Albums talk page for responses from wikipedians knowledgeable on the topic. However, if it is the latter, then the argument for keeping the number-one songs categories is invalid. Thanks for any clarification on the matter. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist As usual, arguments for retention are given a microscopic scrutiny that is not given to infinitely more problematic arguments for deletion. Of the two votes for deletion, User:Occuli's argument for deletion involves a rather rambling statement that the carefully researched and thoroughly sourced article for Bleeding Love contains what he deems to be "pure clutter" in the article itself with the rather unintelligible justification for deletion of the category under discussion based on the sad story of a rodent with category clutter that is so far off the topic that I must quote: "There was some animal like a mouse that was in a category for every country in which it was found - fauna of XXX perhaps. The poor thing was completely overwhelmed by categories." The other delete vote carries some deep and insightful words of wisdom to rationalize deletion from User:Good Olfactory, which in their entirety consist of "Delete per Occuli", representing the policy interpretations of an admin who devotes almost his entire Wikipedia time at CfD but could not come up with anypolicy justification of his own. While I would certainly have worded an argument for retention with a bit more reference to Wikipedia policy, the keep arguments amount to stating that it is defining and the delete vote with any content does not rebut that but talk vaguely about category clutter. The close should have been no consensus and relisting will allow to better gauge community consensus without the unfortunately persistent bias to deletion, discounting and discarding votes for retention, exhibited by too many closing admins at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was not a consensus to override the previous deletion decision. --Kbdank71 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The rationale for closure looks appropriate, and was not out of line. Wizardman 20:13, 11 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of male performers in gay porn films (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Extremely valid BLP issues. Majority of the bluelinks are unsourced, and some are totally irrelevant leading to additional BLP issues. The AfD was closed by Bwilkins (talk · contribs), who is not an admin. Aditya α ß 13:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by closing non-admin I non-admin closed the AfD as "no consensus to delete". In my closing comments, I noted portions of the discussion related to ensuring WP:BLP was not violated, and to validate and clean-up as needed (as per Schmidt's comment "Remove bluelinks that do not lead to articles for male porn stars"). The discussion at the time included almost an equal split of Keep and Delete !votes, with stronger arguments on the Keep side. This article was obviously not going to have support to delete. The editor who has brought this to DRV has stated "If it survives AfD, I'll clean up the article by removing the unsourced material". There was no other possible valid manner of closing this AfD. Based on discussion, and because of the split !vote, "no consensus" was a 100% non-controversial close (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true. I looked through a lot of the bluelinks though, and many are unsourced, while some are totally unrelated. BLP issues abound. And note, I said "if the discussion survives AfD". I don't think it should survive it, but if DRV endorses your decision then I'll have no option other than to go through that list and every article linked and brutally stub the unsourced statements. (I randomly clicked on two links on that list, one of them isn't even a gay performer, while the other is unsourced) Aditya α ß 14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and delete; though I can see the merit in a no-consensus close here - it was indeed fairly evenly divided. I have to say though, were I closing this myself I may well have leant towards deletion - there is a lack of any convincing argument as to why this is better than a category, combined with extreme BLP risks due to its unsourced and contentious nature. While I don't object on principle to non-admin closes of no-consensus discussions, I would definitely disagree with BWilkins that this is a non-controversial one. ~ mazca talk 14:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - mainly per Mazca, but I am also not sure whether this closure by a non-admin was a good idea. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Give me a break. BLP is a valid concern and should be addressed on BLP articles themselves as we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This really is a case of logic that we are certainly going to have these articles and a list article is perfectly acceptable. In fact many of those poorly sourced or unsourced porn bios should be ... wait for it ... merged to the list article. In this way the onus is on the fans to justify a separate article bolstered by reliable sources - which likely do exist just are not on the article. If nothing else the movies they starred in are primary sources - many porn movies, even the bad ones, are also reviewed. And many of those actors won awards for their work. Does this make them superstars - no; but neither does it mean we pillage through and delete a list when likely every article can be sourced to merit inclusion on the list. Sorry but BLP is a guidance for us to avoid legal problems as well as perceived moral conflicts of "slandering" someone as being a pornstar. The cultural shift as well is that porn actors and porn are rather mainstream including the corporate mergers causing the top mainstream media companies - like Disney - to also profit from adult entertainment of all types. We should not stand in the way of content but find ways to better manage it. This is one list that simply needs clean-up. Per AfD that is regular editing and deletion is unneeded. BLP happens on the individual articles. Encourage sourcing and clean-up as always - I rather doubt calling a porn star a porn star violates BLP anyway although I'm sure that could be argued on. -- Banjeboi 15:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, per WP:BLP. Non-admins simply should never be making no-consensus closures, because they are by default not unambiguous. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That a named person is notable for being a pornographic actor and the evidence is sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article, makes all BLP considerations ones applying to the original articles, not this one. There may need to be some discussions there, but the 10 that I sampled from the ones not specifically cited in the list itself were all defensible with respect to BLP, though not necessarily notability, and at least half extremely solid in both respects, with relevant awards or the like. DGG (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Per WP:BLP. The BLP issues of this are very serious and performers need citations (beyond IMDB which is hardly a reliable source) in order to be included. Userfication would be a suitable way to work on this article, but it should absolutly not be presented in the mainspace unless there is a shred of sourced credibility to it. Also the NAC was highly inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 01:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - whether or not a non-admin should close no consensus, the AFD clearly had no consensus for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Themfromspace and Stifle. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist because DRV clearly can't decide.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as No consensus, as the Afd nominator for which this came from. I personally would like to see it deleted for the reasons I stated in my Afd deletion nom but Deletion review isn't supposed to be a second Afd and as the Afd was clearly no consensus, I'll accept that. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, ASE, I think the "delete" side might arguably have won that (on strength of argument rather than weight of numbers, obviously). I'd be looking for something a bit more decisive from DRV than the result we're looking at here (which at the moment seems to be "no consensus to overturn the non-admin closure as no consensus", a horribly weak conclusion and hard to defend in the face of BLP concerns). I think "relist" is the stronger response.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dire BLP warning was addressed both in the AfD and here. I see some effort to delete as many of these articles is now underway so perhaps nothing will be left to list after all. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe that it is clear in WP:NAC and WP:RELIST that non-admins should never close something as "no consensus", but we had the same arguments at the DRV for Nuvola here. Perhaps the wording needs to be more explicit? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. After some surprising comments on my talk (including one from an editor who I actually have respected in the past) lambasting my NAC, I re-read NAC, and still do not see how closing "no consensus" is at all contentious ...in fact, it's the least contentious form of closure. There are, after all, some of us non-admins with brains and experience. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well what is no consensus? It is when there is too much disagreement, too much contention to close it the other way. No consensus isn't the answer to satisfy both sides, it is the simply the action taken when no-one agrees. By that nature, it is likely that the close is going to get scrutiny, and such closures need an admin if nothing else but to feel like the AfD has been closed appropriately. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn inappropriate NAC. BWilkins's explanation is reasonable, but after consideration, I think that it relies on a loophole in the NAC recommendations. Sourcing every entry should be considered – I believe that this has been insisted on for contentious lists in the past. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is hardly a contentious list. Someone is either a porn star in a gay porno film or they're not. The only contentious part is that some of the BLPs may have had the content removed or never added in the first place. That is not contention - just a matter of regular editing. -- Banjeboi 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree Benjiboi - I have no knowledge as to who is or who isn't a gay porn star. Just because some teenager added their teacher's name to the list because they got a "C" on an essay is not the fault of the list. Someone needs to clean it up ASAP, then keep an eye on it quite closely to avoid BLP issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the closure is reasonable. I wouldn't mind relisting to get an admin closure, but really, what this article needs is more cleanup and not more AFDs and more DRVs. Kusma (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Mazca. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I sense an unspoken undertone of "we should not have the list because this is an inherently shameful thing to do, and no reasonable person would want to be listed on it." But the list should contain only those whose activities were open and public knowledge & made a living from it & generally wanted as much publicity as they could get--& by and large it does. The argument for keeping the list, ultimately, is NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I often agree with DGG, but not this time. It's wrong that featuring on that list could be harmful to some people, in some careers or in some countries. But wrong though it is, it's also true: there are homophobic and fundamentalist countries, or parts of countries, where being mentioned on that list could result in measurable harm to a living person.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was some concern that appearing in gay porn might be damaging to some performer in some country somewhere then that performer should have kept his dick in his pants. WP is not responsible for the consequences of decisions made by individuals of their own free will and the notion that factual and verifiable information should be removed because people regret having participated in the documented activity is unsupportable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about people who have not ever performed in such films? People could get added and there could be very serious implications for such people if their boss or family believed the article. With such important BLP issues, I'm surprised one could say a NAC is permissible. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, just to keep track of this jump down the rabbit hole ... we should be duly concerned about someone falsely added to the list because even though they were never in a gay porn film ... their boss or family was, of course, reviewing a list of actors in gay porn and believed it to be them with no confriming evidence? That too would seem to be a reason to source each entry - not delete the entire list. I went through a similar exercise with List of animals displaying homosexual behavior, of the hundreds of entries - many of which were presumed likely hoaxes and vandalism - only one had to be removed as likely vandalism. And vandals continue to try to add their friends names there as well as other nonsense. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banjeboi, I respect your opinion (though I don't agree with it) but I must insist you stop badgering people who have opinions differing from yours, like you did in the article's AfD. You've made your point, now back away and let the DRV take its course. Your constant nagging is becoming really tiring. Aditya α ß 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, Banjeboi's very welcome to answer me. I find his remark in the spirit of open discussion, which Wikipedia should encourage. And that was a reasonable point to make, though I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by it, because right now I'm considering this article and not that one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aditya, I'm sorry you feel my comments are badgering in any way - they are not intended as such at all. I've made three follow-up comments here; regarding what I feel is the misdirected BLP concern, answering that the list itself is hardly contentious and now this thread on what seems to be a novel extension of BLP interpretation. WP:POINT is about not disrupting so I must say now I'm a bit offended by these characterizations. Like many AfDs, the time and effort spent debating the merits of the article at AfD and now DrV if spent on adding sourcing to the list would have rendered the entire discussion unneeded per WP:Before. Likely every item there is sourceable and BLP, IMHO, is being applied poorly. I support enforcing BLP but it needs to start at the actual article then back-channeled to the list. -- Banjeboi 04:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no clue about the sexuality of the, er, members of the list; I just know that athis list is a tempting one for immature schoolboys of any age to add their friends, enemies, colleagues, teachers or bosses to.  pablohablo. 11:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've been working to introduce sourcing to appease the stated concerns; of the approximately 360 or so entries roughly 75-80 still need one added on this list. Many of those are most certainly porn stars, I simply haven't gotten to them yet. I've added refs from the Grabby awards and am now working through the GayVN awards; on those I've done 2009-2006 with 2005 back to 1986 to be done. There are other defunct awards as well as international ones I have not yet looked into. I have found no vandalism as of yet. -- Banjeboi 16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree, and that's what I told the editor who added them. They can be a good reference to identify which films are associated with an actor but IMHO it's a misleading ref when we need a stronger one. Once all items have at least a ref we can circle back and see which only have the IMDb - I think they only did A and B - and add stronger sourcing. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 10 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Telepathy and war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Article was vandalised before deletion. Large blocks of well referenced content were repeatedly deleted by the same user and another user who appeared to be associated with that user. Up to 17 references from reputable sources were removed. The two users (Verbal and Papa November) then claimed that the article was poorly referenced and badly written, and so should be deleted. I would like to think the deletions of citation and reference material were made out of a genuine a desire to improve Wikipedia - if mistakenly - except that the conduct of the respective users over time suggested to me that repeated deletions and reversions to versions with very little content were motivated by un-wikipedia-like agendas. Before the article was deleted, at least two repair bots tagged the article, one citing "possible vandalism".
  • The users who proposed deletion of the article engaged in acts of bad faith and what appeared to be edit warring, including reversions to versions with few references and almost no material and "biting" and baiting a relatively new editor.
  • The article was supported by other users who became interested in the article and who began working to improve it, as far as they could between repeated content deletions and reversions to versions with few references. The article was nominated for rescue.
  • User page histories show that the users intent on removing content have displayed an editorial bias in reverting and removing content from other Wikipedia pages as well. The users who campaigned for the article's deletion seemed to link to and quote a lot of rules and Wiki regulations during discussion but seemed themselves to have difficulty operating in good faith, constructively and with neutrality.
  • The articles for deletion discussion was closed and the article deleted by an administrator whose own editorial conduct was called into question. The closing administrator's behaviour was found in an arbitration case [20] to include edit warring and sock puppetry. It is possible that the decision to delete [21] the article and close discussion that the article generated, was made by a biased administrator who could have engaged in sock puppetry specifically connected to the article's original vandalism.

I would like the article restored, with its edit history. I would like to continue working on the article. Although I contend that improvements might pose a challenge in the eyes of questionable administrators and users, I am willing to work in good faith on the article. Frei Hans (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Frei Hans (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, the decision was sound. Accusations of vandalism, sockpuppetry, "un-wikipedia-like agendas", bad faith, editorial bias etc are extremely subjective - irrelevant "sources" and speculative or irrelevant content was removed from the article. Note that Frei Hans (talk · contribs) has been shopping his complaints around for some time: see here and here pablohablo. 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)diffs added  pablohablo. 13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pablo, how is it that your comment here was posted only moments after I notified (following deletions review process) a known sock-puppeteer, whose editorial priveleges have been recently curtailed, that a former administration decision of his was up for review? Frei Hans (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a clue, it wasn't telepathy.  pablohablo. 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would not surprise me if many people have said editor's talk page watchlisted, for various reasons. I certainly wouldn't consider the appearance of anyone involved in this to be anything like a surprise, or evidence of suspicious behaviour. ~ mazca talk 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. One editor who tried to delete the article also opted to merge some content into other articles. How is it that content can be deemed Wikipedian and encyclopedic when merged with a completely different article but not relevant and un-encyclopedic in the original article? If content is relevant enough to be merged, it is relevant enough to stand alone. If content can be merged with other articles then it stands to reason that the original (and more extensive) article with its greater depth should at the very least be restored to facilitate referencing and citation across other articles. Frei Hans (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not an appropriate medium to publish one's paranoid phantasies. Some misguided editors of the "every sperm article is sacred" variety tried to rescue this hopeless case by transforming the pure tinfoil hat material into mere original synthesis of speculations in formally reliable sources. Frei Hans thinks this was improper. And it was, because trying to "save" a blatantly hopeless snow deleteable article in this way is disruptive. Hans Adler 13:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing Hans Adler's deletion endorsement. Pardon me? I feel Hans Adler has tried to misrepresent what I, Frei Hans, think by ascribing words to my hand that never issued from my hands at all. To clarify, I take exception to the vandalism and misrepresentation of content that was cited and well referenced, with links to reputable sources:
~ The article was based on mainstream news reports, reports in well known science and technology magazines, and material on the websites of universities involved in the research.
~ Reports stated that the Pentagon had been funding research into applications for "synthetic telepathy". The technology magazine Wired reported that projects have been funded in the remote control of robotics by the power of telepathic or telekinetic thought, and into applications for soldiers to use to communicate on the battlefield as well as to influence "enemy command".
~ Extensive reference material and citation was included in the history of the original article, which has been deleted.
~ Far from being a "tin foil" concern, the research has actually been gaining mainstream traction, and was reported by mainstream news organisations as referenced in the article.
~ The deleted material could be included in the Telepathy article but I deliberately created a new article and kept it separate because the material included military applications using remote controlled and wireless brain-computer interfaces, as well as the use of EEG. Perhaps the article content could be merged with the Telepathy article, but that can only happen if users have access to the content and content creation history.
NB, I also want to make clear that I am not Hans Adler, although our user names are similar, and wonder at the remarkable coincidence of his being here too. Frei Hans (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nb I wish to make it clear that I am not A Man in Black, although our usernames suggest we are of the same gender. pablohablo. 16:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Headings such as "Orwellian future surpassed" and paragraphs such as the following were definitely not based on mainstream reports in any reasonable sense of "based on":
"No existing human rights law covers mind-tapping or torture using 'telepathic' applications developed for military use. The applications therefore exist outside of human rights law. Wire-tapping laws have not even been updated to keep pace with wireless LAN technology let alone telepathic technology. The development of telepathic technology raises almost incredible human rights abuse issues, and massive questions surrounding invasions of privacy for citizens all around the world."
The entire article was one large piece of improper synthesis plus a large dose of editorialising based loosely on the result of the synthesis. Hans Adler 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of Wikipedia is that users can contribute to articles. If users take issue with the style that factual and encyclopedic content is presented in, then users should make an effort to re-write the content in a style they feel represents "neutrality" - although it appears neutrality itself is subjective. I thought the article was written in a neutral style with a lot of factual referenced content. Others wanted to delete the article, claiming neutrality was an issue. The paragraph Hans Adler described was actually re-written (by myself) after criticism.
Unfortunately some editors, whose behaviour suggested sock puppetry (and whose behaviour was consistent with the action of AMiB who has been proven to take part in sock puppetry), took it on themselves to delete referenced content and campaign for the entire article's deletion. Instead of attempting to re-write content with a genuine intent to improve it, those editors chose instead to sabotage and discredit the article. Now the decision making capacity and neutrality of at least one of the editor's involved in deleting the article has been called into question, with an independent arbitration case finding AMiB to have contravened the general spirit of Wikipedia including indulging in non-neutral activities and sock puppetry.
As it is, if editors want to try re-writing the article's content in a different style then the article needs to be restored. I am interested in negotiating a neutral style while retaining the article's factual and informative integrity, and to do that the article and its history needs to be un-deleted. Frei Hans (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it seems a perfectly reasonable close given the discussion. I don't see the asserted vandalism having an immense effect either on the viability of the article or the AfD debate - the primary objections seem to be very basic, structural ones about the encyclopedic nature of the topic itself. ~ mazca talk 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mazca, the closing and deleting administrator has recently been found to have engaged in biased practices and sock puppetry on other pages. These traits were all evident in the campaign to have the article deleted. Do you not pause to consider that a gross injustice has been perpetrated by an administrator who has since been topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron for inciting deletions and who has been placed on a standard editing restriction for one year? Frei Hans (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am indeed aware of the history surrounding A Man In Black (talk · contribs) and the associated ArbCom case. This is why I gave the debate and the article a good read, as I know there have been problems in this area. However, I don't really see any real symptoms of the problem in this particular debate: consensus does seem to favour deletion, and were I the closing administrator I probably would have closed it the same way. The fact that AMIB was desysopped and topic-banned for various issues does not automatically invalidate all the good closes he's made, and I do not personally see a problem with this one. ~ mazca talk 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and give it an honest AfD. I have seen the sort of behavior the editor describes above. This practice of denuding an article of nearly all content and sourcing--good, bad or indifferent-- during an AfD is absolutely unethical, is becoming too common, and should be punishable. I know nothing of this particular article and its AfD, but I do know that the closing ex-admin engaged in exactly this sort of behavior in an AfD in which I was involved-- one brought up two times within a week of the article's creation, and Kept both times, but in the laughably censored version, in which it remains. So, restore article, allow editors to work in good faith to put the best sourcing and material into it, do not allow pro-deletion editors to mock the article by removing as much content and sourcing as they can get away with, and judge that version at the AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles at AfD can still be edited, which is a sensible way to go; articles at AfD are often improved during the AfD process, thus removing the deletion rationale. On what criteria would do you propose to disallow editors from working on articles listed for deletion? pablohablo. 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dekkappai, you clearly don't understand the situation. I can't blame you since presumably you didn't see the article in its original state: Article version as preferred by Frei Hans. Some misguided members of the Article Rescue Squadron tried to rescue the article from certain snow deletion by removing most of the blatant nonsense and adding a few reasonable related tidbits. Hans Adler 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Adler, please stop misrepresenting me by stating what you think I prefer or what you think I would like. I do prefer versions of the article that retained more content and referencing, and would have preferred genuine contributions from other users if they had been able to make them without their contributions being deleted as well as mine.
I do not prefer the version you linked to and never stated that I do. Sections of the article were being deleted so rapidly while other editors attempted to create reasonable well referenced content that nobody could say that a "preferred" version could have emerged from the discussion around it before sections and eventually the entire article were deleted.
The earlier illustrated version was my favourite at first, as I put a lot of effort into that first posting - but during discussion around the article I found other relevent content and several interesting contributions by other editors were made that could have improved the article further if these had time to develop. That is why I haven't a particular favourite, and would prefer the entire article with its history be restored.
Research behind the military project also seems to be in continual development and new material about it is likely to emerge as well - another reason why I would never expect to settle on a static version. My preference is for genuine up to date and well referenced content without interference from deliberately disruptive users. Frei Hans (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but recommend userfying the final wikified version to Frei Hans. They seem willing to try to understand concerns but still are missing some core issues of Wikipedia having to completely avoid original research; as such it's rather pointless to work in gray areas when all your work will be deleted like this. It's better to stick with mainstream sourcing and let other sources lead the way on what we report here. -- Banjeboi 17:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the original and various other "long" versions would have been deleted as snow but for the disruption of one editor. The AfD went on far too long and I'm not surprised Hans feels aggrieved, but his article has no place in wikipedia. The shortened version had a lot fewer problems, but still failed to meet our standards. The AfD addressed both versions, and I see no reason to overturn the closure. There was nothing dishonest about the AfD, however the increasing attacks against the nominator (me) and others who contributed are a cause for concern, as is the bad faith shown by Dekkappai. If Dekkappai had been there he would know his accusation is baseless. I also endorse Hans Adler's and Pablo's comments. This was an unimpeachable delete. Verbal chat 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also oppose userfication, endorse salt and would ask for a civility warning to be given to Frei Hans by an admin. This article is no good, and Frei has shown bad faith and poor judgement. Although he was given some bad advice by a few editors, he was given much ood advice which he ignored. He even reported me to AIV for nominating this article! Verbal chat 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and userfy back into User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war (merge the histories or something) don't userfy per Papa November's comment and several attempts by author to recreate another deleted article that he wrote, send the article to him by email so he can go to some wiki specialized in paranormal phenomena and put it there. Many commenters saw the article in different times of its evolution, so it's not like everyone !voted and then someone managed to fix the article after that. Also notice that the creator of the article is mixing concepts, the wired article about computer mediated telepathy is not actually about telepathy. You use a computer to read an electroencefalogram and then a radio to transmit the computer interpretation. There is no actual telepathy going on at any part of the process, even if Wired and the researchers used that name because it sounds cooler. They just do something that looks like telepathy. Idem for the other Wired article. It's all like moving a Pong pad using a fugly aparatus attached to your head. Very old news for people that follow the Human computer interaction field. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, he didn't write the other article [22]. As to if he misunderstood the purpose of userfying, I guess we'll all have our own takes on that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired article and also military spokespeople and intelligence sources cited in the article used the term "telepathy" specifically. The applications being developed are "wireless" and involve non-intrusive forms of EEG - the effect is one of synthetically produced telepathy. The term "synthetic telepathy" was also used by some sources and cited in a reputable publication. Frei Hans (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I checked all versions where there had been a major change in size of the article, and none of them were about this actual subject. Eric above understand the subject the same way I do. This is a development over a number of years of extremely exciting work with practical application and great promise, built not around the dubious ideas of parapsychology but upon actual science. Telepathy for military applications has been suggested from time to time, and in its wilder days I suppose DARPA may have tried it, but that would be a completely different article. I would not userify this: it's hopeless. An article on the topic should start over. DGG (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If as you say an article on the topic should start over - then the original article should be restored for its reference and source material. An existing article can be reasonably re-written with additional material, and even renamed and moved. But a deleted article is of no use to anyone interested in the topic. Frei Hans (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? If I made decisions with reasoning like that I could suggest that the users who campaigned for the article's deletion should all be "peppered" for their extreme unwillingness to work in a Wikipedian way to create improvements where they feel improvements might be made. Could you please describe "salt" in this context to me. I am unfamiliar with phrases like "salt" - perhaps because I am more interested in valid content creation then in disrupting the work of genuine Wikipedians. Frei Hans (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SALT. It means preventing users from recreating the article. Papa November (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some users show an extreme unwillingness to allow other users to create genuine content. By S Marshall's logic, should their user accounts be "salted"? Frei Hans (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts cannot be salted, but they can be blocked from editing if they are behaving disruptively. However, you'd have much more luck presenting a well-formed case at dispute resolution as I've suggested numerous times rather than just saying that you want me to be blocked. Papa November (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is just it, Papa November. I have never said I want your account "blocked". I suspect I operate with more good faith then you do. I have pointed out that I find some of your behaviour disruptive. As far as sock puppets are concerned, I believe it is important for others to know where these have been operating disruptively - but I would lean towards keeping their accounts open (if restricting administration duties). I believe this because a known sock puppeteer, with a history of disruptive editorial practice, is easier to keep tabs on. Frei Hans (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← If this were "genuine content", i.e. content that complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I'd be right behind you in getting it included. Im afraid that in my view, it isn't, so I'm not.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "useful encylcopedic content" has not been merged into Brain-computer interface. Some content was merged in a bit of a mash with Brain-computer interface and some with Telepathy. Both of the merges were clumsy and needed work to make them sit more comfortably within the bodies of the articles they were merged with. If those merges were to be improved, then logically the original article and its history should be restored for users to refer to. The rest of the article was originally well referenced and originally contained citation and quotes from sources that you deleted. After the user Papa November deleted references and citation he claimed the article was short on references from reputable sources! As other editors added more references, he continued to remove them. The user removed content to misrepresent the article, then campaigned for the article's deletion - and now asks me to take his edits in good faith! Originally I did take that user's edits in good faith, but he has since shown me that he seems to have a biased agenda. Frei Hans (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose userfication as Frei Hans has abused this privilege twice previously by immediately moving userfied content back to the mainspace. (Check the logs for User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal → Theodore Kowal) and User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war → Telepathy and war). There really is nothing more that could be done to make the article worthy of a place in an encyclopedia. Papa November (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The second of those wasn't a restoration and was copied back to the article (as best I can tell given the comment) before the deletion discussion concluded and before it was deleted, the other may have been a genuine misunderstanding - the apparent lack of willing to assume good faith by Frei Hans, doesn't mean we shouldn't extend the same back. That said the listing here still seems to demonstrate a huge gap in Frei Hans' understanding of what wikipedia is about, so I'd be reluctant to restore until that improves. I can't see the benefit in restoring for the article not to have the key issues resolve and be wasting everyone's time and no doubt raising tensions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the "Theodore Kowal" entry back to the main space because I thought that is where restored article's belong. I moved the article back to main space after an administrator restored the article to my user space. I did not create the article and thought that the original editor would have wanted to work on the article, so logically thought that the article should be in main space where he/she and other users could work on it. Incidentally, within minutes of moving it back user Verbal (as though stalking my every edit) tagged the article for speedy deletion.
As for the "Telepathy and war" move. The user Papa November moved the entire article to my user space before the AfD had finished, and deleted most of the existing article in main space. I moved his version from my user space, with his changes and suggestions, back to the main space so that other users who had become interested in the article during its AfD discussion could work on the article as well - collaboratively and, I had hoped, constructively. Personally, I think that if Papa November had really been interested in working on the article he could have moved it to his own user space instead of mine, and then asked me to look at his alternative version.
I did not realise Wikipedia had become a wiki where people now write article's privately in their user spaces and then publish them in main space where other users campaign for deletion. I thought Wikipedia was a community of users genuinely interested in collaboratively creating encyclopedic content in Wikipedia's main space. Frei Hans (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained[23][24] the purpose of userfication to you along with the reason why the content you moved back to the mainspace was speedily deleted. The original form of the telepathy and war article was copied to your userspace because you objected so strongly to the edited version. The intention was for you to come up with your own improved private version in parallel with the mainspace version. I gave you an explanation at the time[25]. Unfortunately, you just copied and pasted the original version back over the mainspace article, reverting the contributions by other editors. Papa November (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made very few reversions. Most of the reversions were made by Verbal - to versions where Verbal and Papa November had deleted most content. I moved the article to main space because other editors were working on it there. The article in its original form was far beyond "working stage", which is I suspect what user page space development is best used for. User page space in that case was inappropriate, unless Papa November planned to work on an alternative version in his own user space (which he did not - instead he used mine!). Frei Hans (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion After reading through all of this I also think this needs deletion and should be salted to prevent this from continuing. The editor who wrote this doesn't seem to want to except this. Also a note to this editor about assume good faith and no personal attacks should be explained if it hasn't been already. I am sad to read all the accusations against so many good faith editors here and in other locations. It's time I think to delete all of the article that have been iVoted deletion and to salt them so they are not recreated again. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion – reason for overturning is rooted in numerous ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling on the participants in the AFD. This squarely falls under the two bottom levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. MuZemike 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify what you mean. Are you talking about overturning the deletion? Could you also please quote (and link to) the incidences of "ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling". Some users that were pro-deletion were rude during the AfD discussion and in other discussions, but I am uncertain which ones you are referring to or how their rudeness could support your endorsement of their campaign to delete the article. Frei Hans (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he is referring to your constant, flippant accusations of sock-puppetry, vandalism and "agendas" against other editors as explained in the Wikiquette alert I filed last month and you chose to ignore. Papa November (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure my suspicion that sock puppets were (and perhaps still are) at work was vindicated in the arbitration case for AMiB. AMiB was found in an arbitration case, that I read by chance, to be a sock puppet operator after he deleted the article we are discussing now. It might be interesting to investigate this thread later for the same. Perhaps one might consider it a massive act of good faith on my part that I never filed a Wikiquette alert against Verbal and Papa November after their repetitive deletions and reversions. Frei Hans (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are sockpuppets at work, you need to file a sockpuppet investigation; WP:SPI. Wikiquette reports go here, however editing a bad article to remove off-topic subject matter and irrelevant references is not a Wikiquette matter.
What we should be discussing here is whether the AfD was closed correctly, which it clearly was.  pablohablo. 09:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)edited  pablohablo. 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to collaboratively create interesting encyclopedic content with integrity. I never became a Wikipedia user thinking that I would have to file appeals and sock puppet investigations. Unfortunate that poorly behaving users mean the process need exist, really. Frei Hans (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is contradicted by the history of the article, its AfD and the other places you have shopped around for support (for example here and here). It is not exactly "collaborative" to accuse editors with whom you disagree of sockpuppetry and vandalism. And those editors were questioning the encyclopedic value and "integrity" of the article in question.  pablohablo. 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can a user know the history of an article that has been deleted? You cannot prove anything unless you can cite article history. I would be very happy to see the article and its history restored, so that you might try to cite your allegations.
I did not "shop" around. I was advised by others to seek editorial assistance, and did. In fact, the user now complaining here and in other locations of "forum shopping" (Verbal) has been suggesting all manner of forums for me to go to. Perhaps he prefers to edit war in forums than to create content.
It is not exactly collaborative for other users to continually remove valid content simply because they don't like it, to revert content to versions where almost all content and referencing has been deleted, to lure users into uncreative forums based around the destruction of content by nominating articles for deletion, to bait and post aggressive messages on another user's page, and then to hypocritically post Wikiquette alerts about other users who show more good faith and neutrality. Frei Hans (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←This deletion review will be closed by an adminstrator, who will have access to the deleted article and its history. However the deletion review is not so much about the article as the AfD, which was closed correctly and is available for all to see. pablohablo. 11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not an earlier version of the article. That is a section that the user Dream Focus decided to work on before the article was deleted. The user indicated interest in adding the section to the article, before it was deleted. None of the Dream Focus material appeared in the original article. Frei Hans (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Hans, please could you stop accusing other editors for five minutes and discuss the article instead?

  • Do you honestly believe that your original version of the Telepathy and war article could have survived the deletion debate? (Note that even before other editors started working on it, there had been twelve statements advocating its deletion and none opposing.)
  • Do you honestly believe there was a consensus to keep the article at the AFD debate? (Note that I'm not asking if there were editors who supported it. I'm asking if you believe there was a general consensus to keep) Papa November (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, if the debate had not been stacked and if the editorial decision to close the debate had not been carried out by a sock puppeteer. Further, the Theodore Kowal article that was briefly restored, was tagged by Verbal for speedy deletion and then deleted by yourself. The pair of you seem to work in tandem in this way and I would be remise not to point it out where deletion of Telepathy and war is concerned. I did not create the Theodore Kowal article but its restoration seems to have been revoked by the pair of you for no valid reason. Why the great effort to try to suppress content that is informative and interesting? Why the concerted effort to try to avoid addressing the fact that the decision to delete was made by a sock puppeteer whose conduct and editorial decisions have been found in an arbitration case to be questionable? I am not accusing other editors, I am stating the facts about the way the deletion was handled and unfortunately that includes discussing the ethically questionable actions of other editors. Do you honestly believe I can take your and Verbal's edits in good faith anymore, after all of your provocations and your campaign to delete citable content with reputable references? Incidentally I would prefer the Theodore Kowal article be restored again as well, so that the original creator can be contacted out of courtesy. Frei Hans (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about restoration. When I am logged in and looking at this page I can see a link reading "restore". I want to click on that link to see what will happen. Does it actually restore the article. If it does restore the article, does that mean I have authority to restore it? Frei Hans (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it does restore the article it means that the software is malfunctioning.  pablohablo. 11:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, only administrators can view and restore deleted pages. I think you'll just end up at a page telling you that. Papa November (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to test it on one of the other articles here, to find out. If I test it on this one somebody is likely to accuse me of editorial bias. Frei Hans (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you that the link is there for admin use only. Your account cannot view or restore deleted pages. Papa November (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to find out for myself. Why do you keep trying to delete and remove content all of the time? Frei Hans (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not votes, nor can the "endorsements" posted here be considered votes. Wikipedia clearly states that such forum displays should not be considered votes. Incidentally, if one could say that hundreds of users never commented, then one could say hundreds are indifferent and are quite fine with the article - and so it should stay. You cannot consider such a small sample of online comments a "vote" by any stretch of the imagination. Most forums advocating deletion seem to be created by campaigning "deletionists", which is not really indicative of popular opinion at all but more an indication of editorial bias on the part of small teams who roam Wikipedia looking for content to delete. Frei Hans (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to C and other similar languages, "!vote" has become a useful shortcut for "not-a-vote" on discussions like this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the closing admin acted properly. I note that Frei Hans had recently filed this rejected SPI request [26] and that there is currently an Rfc/U about him at [27]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougWeller (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 July 2009
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Common End, Colkirk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting the outcome be changed from delete to merge (with the edit history retained). The consensus seemed to favor merging better than deleting. Sebwite (talk) 19:37, 3 July 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) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Two deletes, two keeps and four merges is not a delete consensus, and in the absence of socking, it's considerably outside admin discretion to interpret it as one. Sorry, Fritzpoll, but as I've said before at DRV: implement the consensus, and if you don't like the consensus, then !vote. Don't close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per that being the consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my comment in the previous AfD in the log was that there wasn't anything to merge - that is still the case with this article. So closing to merge seemed pointless, as was commented on within the debate - as I have said to you before, S Marshall, I'm meant to read the arguments at AfD to judge the consensus action. The consensus is that the article shouldn't exist in its standalone form - per the multitude of merge comments, and the non-policy/guideline based arguments by those arguing for retention. If preferable, a redirect can be set up to the proposed merge target, which may better fit the consensus. If people want these closed on the basis of votes, they should change our various guidances for administrators in these situations, not try to overturn these principles via DRV. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, as I have said repeatedly, I am a reasonable guy - I'm sure I could have solved this via discussion with the nominator rather than ending up here - but that's just a procedural/courtesy point Fritzpoll (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an interesting question - I think of merge as meaning "we don't want this to be a standalone article". Now, normally, this means transplanting the material to a new article and redirecting from the old article, primarily for navigational and GFDL reasons. In this particular case, however, there was no material to be merged that required history attribution, since the article was simply a one sentence statement. So here, I simply deleted the article, on the basis of the merges intending "no standalone article" - what I should have done is to place a redirect there immediately as the final step of my "virtual merge". The effect would be the same, but would have been less controversial (with hindsight) - If I undeleted and simply redirected, thus completing the merge to the extent that it ever could be, would that be satisfactory? Or would it be ok simply to setup a new redirect at the current location, since there is no material to merge? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that such a redirect would not be ok, as it would fail the test of least astonishment. As you note, there was only one sentence in the article, and a factually incorrect one at that, meaning that there is no material to put in the target article, so you'd end up with the situation of having a redirect from Common End, Colkirk to Colkirk but with nothing in the article at which a reader would arrive to explain why they were there. ClickRick (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that merging is a problem. Personally, I agree that "merge" makes no sense at all as an outcome, but this isn't the place for that discussion; the AfD is finished and I don't see grounds to re-fight it. I do think the closing admin's role is to implement the consensus, and I don't see how a "delete" consensus emerges from that discussion. Therefore, my position (as I explained earlier) is that "no consensus" would be the correct outcome, and I'd just add that "no consensus" does not prevent an early re-listing that might result in a more intelligent consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as the proposer of the AfD): there was no edit history to speak of. Specifically, there was the creator of the article (who unsurprisingly voted Keep in the AfD on the basis of WP:ITEXISTS) and me, when I had added an infobox as one step towards adding something notable to the article about the place. ClickRick (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. S.Marshall is right when he says "Two deletes, two keeps and four merges is not a delete consensus". Indeed it isn't. What it is is a vote count. In particular it's a flawed vote count because a) it takes no account of the opening argument, b) it ignores the fact that the two Keeps are on the same WP:ITEXISTS "argument", and c) all but one of the Merges were given without any indication that the contributor had even looked at the article in question, and none had given any indication as to what single notable sentence could possibly go into the target article. The closing admin made a decision, and while it would be presumptuous of me to say exactly what basis that decision was made on it appears that the strengths of the various arguments were taken into account rather than simply counting votes. Which is exactly as it should be. ClickRick (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse; would have fully endorsed "redirect, history available for merging"; disagree with no consensus due to clear consensus against a standalone article. I understand and agree with Fritzpoll's reasoning process, but I'm not 100% comfortable with the last step from redirect to delete, although requiring WP:RFD is excessive. Comparing this to the adjacent WP:Articles for deletion/Common End, Fulmodeston, the major difference (Thryduulf's recommendation, keep versus redirect) is insufficient to turn the outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recall that merge !votes count against deletion, since merge can be accomplished by normal editing actions. Hence the vote count consensus is against deletion, but there is no vote count consensus at the AfD about what to do with the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware that merge recommendations are sometimes counted as keeps since they require that the page history be kept. I favor recognizing a distinction based on whether a standalone article remains, and I find Fritzpoll's reasoning to be more compelling here. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: consensus against deletion, no consensus for action to take — Per Rividian's essay, Wikipedia:Notability (geography):Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low.; this essay has been influential in many AfDs. My preference would be for merge into Colkirk. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 1: those arguments risk turning into a re-run of the AfD, which is not the point of a DRV.
    • Note 2: the place in question consists of 7 houses and is, as far as I can determine from the Royal Mail website, a road.
    • Note 3: the place in question is smaller than a census unit (in this case, the civil parish of Colkirk in which it appears to be is the smallest unit of population for which census data is published). Rividian's essay would class this place as "Populated places without legal recognition".
    • Note 4: you're saying to merge but can you find even as much as a single worthy sentence to insert into Colkirk beyond stating that WP:ITEXISTS??
    • ClickRick (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying to merge, I'm saying there's no consensus about which action to take. I'm not an admin, I make no judgements about the contents of an article which I can't see, but only about the relationship of the AfD discussion to the close, and the arguments made in this DRV. IMO, the merge arguments were strongest: the delete case you are making here is better grounded than the one you made at the AfD, but, as you say, DRV is not AfD part 2. The issue against a merge is that you don't think the redirect would be worthwhile. Is that an issue for you? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admins are invited to consider more than the mere vote count, which explains, as S.Marshall will recall, why we changed the terminology from VfD to AfD. It is regrettable indeed that editors are still bean counting rather than considering the reasons provided for closing a debate which, in this case, are perfectly reasonable and in process. Eusebeus (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that we are all at odds on the definition of consensus. I follow the guidance at the deletion guideline for admins page, which tells me, broadly speaking to assess argument rather than count heads. I know from your participation here and your recent RfA that you aren't happy with this - the reasons you have for this are reasonable, but I think that you need to set up the RfC that you promised in an earlier DRV of mine, otherwise we're going to do this again and again :) I admit that there seems to be a split, and a perception that admins are substituting their opinion for the community's (rightly or wrongly), but DRV is not a place where you're going to settle it. This comment has no bearing on this DRV, per se, so if you want to discuss this with me on my talkpage, you are most welcome - I wouldn't mind the philosophical discussion, and you may even convince me. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reluctant to set up that RFC at a time when it would seem to be about a particular issue or a particular admin, for reasons I think you'll acknowledge. Trouble is, I'm too active at DRV.  :)

    Very happy to take the rest of it to your talk page, Fritzpoll, and thanks for the invitation.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposal — I'd be happy with the DRV to keep the article deleted —even though I continue to think that the AfD was badly closed, failing to take proper account of the merge opinions— provided there is no prejudice about creating a redirect once adequate coverage of Common End exists at the Falkirk Colkirk article. Is this an acceptable compromise for everybody? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's a problem, as it wouldn't be the same article - you can make a redirect now if you really wanted to :) Fritzpoll (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as you meant Colkirk and not Falkirk. I've said all along that it was simply the lack of anything notable to say about Common End which prompted the AfD in the first place, so if anything is found to warrant inclusion in WP in accordance with WP policies then I'd be happy to see it added, either as a section in Colkirk (with a redirect) or, if there is enough material to warrant it, its own article. ClickRick (talk) 08:29, 8 July 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 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IBS Treatment Center (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
72.11.69.198 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by retired (no longer active on WP) user Kurykh The reason stated was "the result was delete" with no further explanation. Most discussion at the time related to Notability in Wikipedia. At the time the article did not have many reliable sources but many new (non-COI) sources are now available due to the notability of the subject. Examples include:

  1. Yoga Journal published a story by Karen Kelly entitled Sweet, No Wheat in the August 2009 issue. Dr. Wangen of the IBS Treatment Center is cited as an expert on non-celiac gluten intolerance. Yoga Journal, August 2009, Pages 31-33.
  2. Book Spotlight in Gig Quarterly - The Gluten Intolerance Group Magazine published an excerpt from "Healthier Without Wheat" by Dr. Wangen - founder of the IBS Treamtent Center in the Spring, 2009 issue. (Note that Dr. Wangen is on the board of directors of GIG, but has no input into the contents of the magazine.)
  3. Finding a Fix for IBS: Second in a two-part series on IBS by Wenda Reed. Published in Seattle Woman Magazine in July, 2009. Cites the IBS Treatment Center and ibstreatmentcenter.com.
  4. What’s Wrong with Your Gut? Diagnosing Irritable Bowel Syndrome First in a two-part series on IBS by Wenda Reed. Published in Seattle Woman Magazine in June, 2009. Discusses the IBS Treatment Center.
  5. DESTINATION USA: IBS Treatment Center, Stephen Wangen, ND THIS WEEK IN MEDICAL TRAVEL TODAY; Volume 3, Issue 9 by Amanda Haar, Editor (May 1, 2009) Article featuring the IBS Treatment Center as a clinic to which people travel from around the world. (Scroll about halfway down the page.)
  6. Some patients struggle with irritable bowel syndrome By Taya Flores in the Lafayette, Indiana Journal & Courier Newspaper March 24, 2009. Discusses the IBS Treatment Center.
  7. You Don’t Have to Learn to Live with IBS Printed in The Journal Newspapers From July 3rd to August 6th, 2007. Article about the IBS Treatment Center.
  8. No Gluten, Please Article by Mary Jane Halligan in Seattle Woman Magazine on celiac disease and gluten intolerance. May, 2008, pages 28-33. Cites the IBS Treatment Center.

And there are many reviews of the two books published by Dr. Wangen (founder of the IBS Treatment Center) that mention the center in publications such as Library_Journal and ForeWord_(magazine). I respectfully submit that the article be revived and improved.

  • Endorse Self published work, and press released based stories, all of it at least all that I could see. If there are 3rd party independent published reviews of books by Wangen, try writing an article about him. LJ might do -- the review is at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15670999_ITM. I'm not at all sure we will find him notable even with reviews, for the books are self published, but it would be the best approach. DGG (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; if DGG is satisfied that is enough for me. (I also did a cursory check of the sources provided.) Stifle (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A self-published work can be notable (see Mark Twain and Virginia Woolf), but it has to make a whole lot more impact on the market than this one seems to have done.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted — Google News suggests there is no continuing interest in this of the kind to interest us here, so I see no case to revisit the AfD. The nominator should note the possibility of having the page userfied, if there is the possibility of turning it into a work that does pass our signifiance threshold. S Marshall is quite right to note that self-publication does not defeat other evidence of notability. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fifth link given by the nom does have some good information in it, and is about the center rather than just mentioning it, though I am unsure about how reliable the source is. Perhaps there's some hope for the article. If you'd like to work on the article as a userspace draft, I'd be happy to userfy the content for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback. I hereby withdraw the request for the time being. I think that the press will continue to report on the IBS Treatment Center and thus at some point in the not-too-distant future the volume of coverage will pass the (invisible) threshold of notability. For the record, Medical Travel Today is a widely read newsletter and should be considered reliable for other notability evaluations. I am not sure if Google News should be the arbiter of notability. In any case, thanks for your time. I will resubmit when more reliable sources are available. 72.11.69.198 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Medical Travel Today, as the link given will show, is the product of a PR firm, CPR Strategic Marketing Communications, which publishes a number of such newsletters. I've encountered them here before, and i consider them unreliable.I finish by urging my good friend Stifle not to rely on me so much.  :) I've made many delete !votes where the consensus has been otherwise, in almost every possible subject, even fictional elements. I'm not actually one-dimensional. DGG (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 July 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Scott Campbell (blogger) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Around 20 new sources listed on this page, as well as articles/appearances for my startup Net News Daily in The Guardian Online, BBC News Online, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, The Independent, The Scotsman, Original 106, Real Radio and Northsound 1. I also now write for TechCrunch/CrunchGear. I would count this as notable. Scott (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you ask an editor without a WP:COI to create a userspace draft which can be brought to DRV. I think it very likely that the sources you have are sufficient to establish notability, but experience with DRV tells me the conflict of interest and the lack of a userspace draft may be significant obstacles.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by what I said in the last DRV. The AfD closure was appropriate, given the situation then. Now, more sources are present, and so I support allowing re-creation in principle. However, I think that we would be best served by re-creating as a redirect to the Net News Daily article (which I note was just re-created without any DRV) because the subject's notability is tied pretty much only to the site. ÷seresin 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources are pretty much standard trivial sources, they aren't about the person, they are about the "experiment", the WP:GNG requires "sources address the subject directly in detail", these don't. Just listing up any mention of a person is not useful for an encyclopedia article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend a userspace draft. See WP:SUBPAGE. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, suggest non-COI user draft - per the reasons given above. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:30, 7 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bonnie Doon Shopping Centre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Was just deleted after AfD. The closing administrator closed it simply by saying "the result was delete" with no further explanation. But several participants said keep with some good reasons favoring keeping. There seemed to be reliable sources on the subject (though I am not familiar with it myself), and it was far from clear that the consensus was to delete. Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 1 July 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) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Stifle for alerting me of this. AfD isn't a vote, and going by the strength of the arguments, there's a clear consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it would have helped if the closing had been a little more specific--I suggest to Julian he might have also been more explicit here about what parts of the argument he considered strong. I am basically endorsing the result: Small malls are almost never notable, and there really wasn't enough to indicate otherwise. I did not join the original discuss and say that at the AfD because I thought it would obviously be deleted.DGG (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as, as far as I can tell, people merely asserted reliable sources existed (or probably existed) but didn't actually point to any concrete examples. WP:V and WP:N demand more than just vague assertions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are sources that can be found here and most easily accesible

here. These describe notable details, including the center's history and uses. Sebwite (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • But between those three books in your second link there are only four sentences combined about this topic... it's not really seeming like nontrivial coverage to me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Youth United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_10 I, being a different individual seek to recreate the article of this organization with all the Wikipedia policies to be taken into consideration, so unprotection of the page Youth United is sought to create this page again as per Wikipedia policies. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

  • Comment the latest version seems to still be at User:Extolmonica/Youth United. It has no references beyond its own web site. Unless some 3rd party references can be found, there is no real possibility of having an article, and we should consider deleting the one in userspace also. DGG (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with DGG. The mainspace article does not need to be unprotected before you write an article in your sandbox. We need some evidence that a viable page will actually be written (otherwise all evidence is that only nonviable pages will be recreated). Once there is an article ready-to-go, it can then go to mainspace. That is, exactly same thing you heard at WP:RFPP. Please don't forum-shop. DMacks (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with DGG and DMacks. When a userspace draft with serious third-party references is added, it will be considered. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with above on Mainspace article But I don't think the userpage one should be deleted, they should be taught how to impove the article, and add real sources. --MahaPanta (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed to the Admins First of all, the latest version of article is yet to be written. The article at User:Extolmonica/Youth United is written by some other individual and I don't take the liability for the same. I am obviously going to write in much different manner providing substantial third party sources. Please guide me as how to write the article in my user space. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created a test article Dear admins I have created a test article for Youth United at User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox. I would request the admins to please move this article to main space Youth United and Unprotect it for further modifications. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that one's worse than the last one, with not even a pretense of an indication of notability. If this organization is notable, where are the links to substantial coverage of its activities in reliable sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what do you mean by reliable sources. Couldn't you see the sources mentioned, which were primarily the National newspapers in India? If you were looking for our articles in Time Magazine or so then I would request to to be a little rational in deciding over anything. Look over the websites of National Newspapers like Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express and Tribune India and see what notability you are looking for now. I request all admins to be rational and flexible to deal with this case. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be OK now, with a little more work. I clarified some of the references, to show at least which ones were coming from Reliable 3rd party sources, but they still need proper expansion. Not all of them are significant mentions, but some of them are , especially [28], and they are from major Indian newspapers. If you finish formatting them correctly using the cite templates, they will be much more impressive, and reasonably so. I think it can go back to mainspace, and if anyone wants to list it for AfD, they can do so.DGG (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Extolmonica/Youth_United Looks viable for mainspace. Although I think almost all of it is useless unencyclopediac minutae (extensive self-governance info), there's a kernel of a notable group here now. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request Dear admins, thanks for finally showing some indications to uphold my article. I am ready to improve the article to any extend. The article User:Extolmonica/Youth_United was created by some other person and I don't seek upholding of this article necessarily. Nevertheless, the article User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox is created by me and I certainly seek the admins to consider this article for the main space. Whatever improvements is being sought, shall be done, and in this regard I would like to know more about cite templates as was suggested by DGG. This article was created after careful consideration of the last rejected/deleted articles. Despite severe confidentiality and internal issues I was able to quote various documents/certificates, especially [29] and [30], which is equivalent to Wikimedia's own [31]. These certificates are issued after very careful observation and inspection by the Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. (please refer [32] and [33]). The certificate of registration [34] is just an indication of mere existence, but certificates issued by Income Tax Department (mentioned in 2 and 3) exhibit implied notability themselves, as these certificates are only issued to very notable organizations. In the case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc, the certificate (mentioned in 4) was issued only after almost 2 years of its existence, only after verifying its notability and value to the society, and same is the case with Youth United. I hereby request the admins to take up this matter and consider the article User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox and NOT User:Extolmonica/Youth_United to be moved to mainspace as Youth United. Thanks to DMacks for considering User:Extolmonica/Youth_United as viable to be moved to mainspace, nevertheless after observing User:Maihunggoi/Sandbox, s/he may find the newer article to be more viable and apt for mainspace. Thanks and Regards. Maihunggogoi (talk) 15:07, 7 July 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I had created this page a while back, and it was speedy deleted. I did not know it was previously created and deleted, and I know little about the previous version. The page that I created, I feel, meets Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines, and therefore, should be included. In this and this list are at least several titles that have a substantially different meaning from the title "Wal-Mart" itself. Tatterfly (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse valid CSD G4 — There is Category:Wal-Mart which l covers everything that a dab would. Since all of these Wal-Mart pages are, in fact, related to Wal-Mart the business, there isn't actually any ambiguity in need of dab. This was all said in AfD#2. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore and relist — valid CSD G4 redeleting the page in line with a badly flawed AfD#2. A third AfD can better decide what to do about lists, cats, dabs, &c than DRV can. See my comment below. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, nothing unclear about the destination of the main Wal-Mart page or about the result of the AfD. All these pages belong in some way to the WalMart family and as such their links should be inlined into the content of the Wal-Mart page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's more to it than that, because of WP:CLN. The underlying point here is to think of ways to group Wal-Mart-related articles to help encyclopaedia users to find them.

    A category is not, by itself, adequate as a navigation aid. Oh, sure, experienced Wikipedians who can use categories proficiently don't struggle with it, but we're writing an encyclopaedia for an audience of the general public here.

    A navbox for moving between the articles, a disambiguation page, and/or a List of Wal-Mart articles (which is presently a redirect, for reasons I find very perplexing) are all options to consider.

    I think if we decide we can't have a Wal-Mart (disambiguation), we need to consider what provision we should have in its place.

    Personally I'm not inclined towards the navbox idea. Wal-Mart already has navboxes, and there are too many articles in the category to conveniently group in another navbox.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Very good points. The history of the list is worth looking at. It's certainly a valid CSD G4 given the conclusions of AfD#2, but it looks to me as if we should revisit the AfD since it did not consider constructive alternatives such as the obvious-to-me-now remedy of moving the page back to List of Wal-Mart articles. I'm considering changing my !vote to restore and relist; the reason for another AfD is so that the article isn't CSD G4 anymore. A third AfD, how lovely. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - after looking at some of the other pages starting with the title "Wal-Mart," I found several to be distinct enough from the Wal-Mart corporation itself that they would not belong solely in a List of Wal-Mart articles. The purpose of a disambiguation page is for navigation, and one who was looking more a more obscure meaning of "Walmart" (or similar) would visit a disambiguation page to find it, not "list of Wal-Mart articles." Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article that was G4 deleted did not address the reasons AfD #2 deleted it. Namely the "partial title matches" section here—it was still a list comprising things that were not the same title, they merely included the word. Valid G4. ÷seresin 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it was, Seresin, but with this very good-faith case, we're trying to be a little more helpful than that. If we can't have this page, then what system shall we use to group these articles for the benefit of end-users?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most missing entries seem to be noted in the main article earlier, but if something's missing, add it. But most of the things in those categories absolutely do not belong in a disambiguation pages, whose purpose is to disambiguate things with very similar names, not list related topics. ÷seresin 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for all the above arguments, It does seem that one in particular, Walmarting (with the redirect Walmart (neologism)), is the similar enough to the common title "Wal-Mart" to be disambiguated, but it would not make sense to put it on a hatnote either. It also does not belong in the see also section, because a see also section is supposed to list articles that one who reads that article may also be interested in reading, and it is not relevant enough to the Wal-Mart corporation to list in a see also section. Other titles include Walmart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach, a tournament that uses the name "Wal-Mart" (derived from and sponsored by the company, but otherwise unrelated, and therefore inappropriate for a see also section), and Wal-Mart camel, formerly an article, but now merged with the title redirecting, and given that name only because of the location where it was found. There is no standard on Wikipedia to substitute disambiguation pages with pages titled List of _____ articles. That would be like replacing Honolulu (disambiguation) with List of Honolulu articles on the basis that everything listed there is somehow tied to the city of Honolulu, and therefore should not be disambiguated. Sebwite (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to come up with things we can't do, and reasons why we can't do them. It's a little more challenging to come up with things that Wikipedia policy does let us do to group articles with similar themes so users can find them. I'd like to invite you to think of something constructive.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July&oldid=420278147"