Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2009 Deletion review archives July 2009 >

30 June 2009

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

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

Requesting Unsalting so that the title may be redirected to Brokencyde. Chubbles (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:ARRahman2.jpg – This discussion was started by a disruptive doppleganger account simply to stalk the contributions of another editor, without genuine regard for the actual copyright issues. Image remains deleted, per the copyright violation determination, that is easy to confirm, of the deleting administrator. – Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

No indication that the nominator even attempted to determine the image's copyright before listing it for deletion. Ricky28618 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the original image nominator was User:Ricky81682 the nominator here who is brand new self confessed alternate account seems to be a violation of the username policy as clearly intended to be confused with the existing user. Regards the deletion, there is no requirement for the nominator to search down copyright status, the onus is on the uploader to correctly specify an demonstrate it. No issue to review here. If the image can be shown to be properly under a suitable license, simply reupload it, or show the details to the deleting admin and request it's undeletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What confusion? My name has nothing to do with the nominator. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So a an account consisting of a name and 5 digits where the difference between the two is just those last 5 digits in reverse. And the first edit is to ask for a review of a deletion nominated by the other account. And of course mere coincidence and no confusion possible, whatever. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:00, 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) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The image was deleted in November. Also, seeing what happened below to the last editor who questioned that admin's actions, it's clear he has many friends around here. I suspect the same fate may come to me. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a great reason. If you aren't courteous enough to ask the deleter for more information or to reconsider, I'm not sure I'm interested in restoring the image.
    All that aside, do you have any proof that the image is available under a free license? The copyright process here, de facto at least, is that text and images are presumed to be OK, but once questioned, the uploader/adder must provide proof of the free licensing. Otherwise, they're deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep deleted per Usrnme h8er below. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no evidence provided to back up the Free license claim. If such evidence is available and can be posted with the image, no DRV is needed for the image to be reuploaded. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - since the nominating account hasn't presented any evidence of copyright permission and has now been blocked, despite their protestations about no confusion with the account who nominated this for deletion, posts to the other users talk page like this suggest otherwise. Similary nomination for deletion of articles created by the other editor --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the deleting admin. SPeedy deleted as a copyvio. The image was a crop of this press image. I seem to have deleted some, or all, of the uploaders images for the same reason...webscrapings all - Peripitus (Talk) 09:12, 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.
Category:Disney Villains (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted under the reasoning that fictional characters must not be categorized as villains per WP:POV and OR. However, The Walt Disney Company has released a franchise named "Disney Villains", which is more than just characters who are antagonists, witches, etc. There are direct-to-video films, video games and other merchandise by the franchise that can be categorized under "Category:Disney Villains", other than just characters in the official line-up. Therefore, the category would be named after an existing franchise and not as a way to label characters as villains only because they are "bad guys". --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:27, 30 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
StarM
Septoid2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No indication nominator followed WP:BEFORE. TheGriefer (talk) 23:30, 29 June 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.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible Trouble (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inappropriate to mix completely separate articles into a single AFD discussion. Suggest restoring and then nominating separately (along with a warning to the editor who merged the mess together). TheGriefer (talk) 23:30, 29 June 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.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quadrosoft (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No indication nominator adequately searched for sources, nor followed WP:BEFORE. Systemic bias concerns about an editor with a negative view of Eastern Europeans. TheGriefer (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close – nomination by a sock puppet of User:Biaswarrior. MuZemike 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and no merit in any case. This was deleted in 2004 ; the entire contents at the time of deletion was: Quadrosoft is a Polish computer company. " with the external link Quadrosoft site, and no references. I can't see restoring it in its present form, especially since I cannot quickly see any useful refs. in any language. The English translation of the German site is at [1] and does not seem very helpful. They seem to have produced one product only, a shareware uneraser for Windows. [2]. DGG (talk) 00:45, 30 June 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.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Smallz.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[DJ Smallz|article]]|XfD|restore)

DJ Smallz article can never really grow without the image. Poor reasoning by nominator. TheGriefer (talk) 22:28, 29 June 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.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie_Mitchell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin didn't even offer one day for discussion. -- TheGriefer (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) TheGriefer (talk) 22:28, 29 June 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.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mungery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deleting admin didn't even offer one day for discussion. -- TheGriefer (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) TheGriefer (talk) 22:28, 29 June 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.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was told about this deletion and wanted to protest. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie and was closed in 3 days, so there was a lack of time to discuss the issues anyways. None of the main page editors joined the discussion or stated any opinions on the matter yet. The discussion deserves a full seven days and it's clear that the people who know the subject should be given their proper weight. It is clear from this personal attack that people are putting politics above becoming the source of ALL human knowledge. Also, could someone temporarily undelete the article so that people can see the history? TheGriefer (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • James P. Barker – no consensus to overturn. There is a bare majority arguing to overturn and relist but insufficient to establish consensus, particularly given the fact that some of the arguments to overturn/relist concede deletion is a likely end result, anyway. I must stress that this is not an endorsement of the speedy deletion of the article, however, and that BLP1E is not understood to be a criteria for speedy deletion – Shereth 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James P. Barker (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The at Afd listed article was incorrectly been speedy deleted per A7 and BLP1E. A7 and BLP1E are not valid reasons for a speedy deletion. The deletion was clearly incorrect and the deleting admin concedes he acted hastily. Proposed solution. Relist at Articles for deletion. Iqinn (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could an admin please restore the original article so I can see for myself?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore & Relist No valid reasons existed for a speedy deletion. It may be unlikely that the article will remain as a separate article, however a full AFD discussion will allow the community to determine if a full deletion is the correct, or if there is info that should be merged or remain in the history of the redirect.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the discussions at WP:ANI as well as the article that it's currently redirected to. I suppose to be 100% technically correct I could say that no valid reason for speedy deletion is apparent or has been offered on the later noticeboard discussion. This is further bolstered by the statements of the admin who deleted it as linked in the noms statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Most in the AN/I discussion seemed to be of the opinion that relisting on AfD would be WP:SNOW. But BLP1E says If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources. It seems to me that this means that application of this criteria is the kind of thing that should be sorted out at AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, entirely reasonable BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, fully valid, both within the letter and the intent of BLP1E. Relatively low attendance at the AfD but nothing indicative of an incorrect decision. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the low attendance is due to the fact that it was open for just over 4 hours, instead of seven days. Question to both you and Stifle, Where in either WP:BLP1E or WP:CSD does it say that BLP1E is a reason for speedy deletion?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, then note explicitly that this was out of process and then still endorse as being a valid delete all the same. BLP1E applies, even if the CSD was incorrect. I see no point in reopening this just to be a slave to process. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To repeat a post I made further down the page: It goes beyond procedure for it's own sake. BLP1E's may be deleted. That's true. They may also be merged. They may be redirected with the history in place. They may be deleted and then a bare redirect created. Having the proper discussion would allow for arguments to be made for the options short of full deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't mind a redirect being placed where an article was deleted, nor do I mind another article being fleshed out with information from the deleted article. Nor do I think any of the participating admins would mind emailing you the content of the deleted article so you could accomplish this. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per spirit of BLP1E. As I recall, there was no encyclopedic content outside of the 1E.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD. Closing admin agrees that it was not within the clearly defined criteria for a speedy so it seems procedural to me, regardless of its chances of surviving at AfD.--Talain (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just double-checked the deleted version, and there's very little there that isn't covered in the article about the incident, and nothing I can see that's specific to this person except the birthyear and guilty plea. It was a 3-paragraph article. As WP:SNOW says, don't go through procedure when there's a snowball's chance in hell that carrying the procedure to its end will change the results... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with Sarek about WP:SNOW, equally there are good reasons why we show editors that their contributions are not deleted without either (a) valid speedy grounds or (b) a proper consensus.

    I would like to repeat my request for a history undeletion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist as someone who managed to get a delete vote in per WP:BLP1E, I was a bit surprised to find it speedy deleted. Although, WP:BLP1E is a valid reason for deletion, it's not a valid speedy. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per SarekOfVulcan. This article didn't even make an attempt at being a biography. It was designed, whether deliberately or by accident, to ensure that the only thing you will ever know about this individual is the crime they were convicted of. I'd support WP:SNOW as a valid rational for an article that was going to be deleted/redirected to the existing article on the incident per WP:BLP1E. Resolute 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How about we just pretend that we relisted it, that more people commented requesting a merge per WP:BLP1E, and that it was closed after a more reasonable length of time? The close was too speedy, there was no valid speedy deletion rationale, the closing admin should be admonished to be more careful next time, and yet the correct decision was reached. Continuing to discuss it is just pointless bureaucracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD on the assumption that the nominator's complaints are valid, since I'm not permitted to see this for myself.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emailed latest (and longest?) version to S Marshall. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Sarek. I agree that this was a textbook case of BLP1E, but I would just note that BLP1E is not a CSD criterion. Further, every single allegation in the version of the article I saw was sourced to reliable sources.

        I'm going to take this as further evidence to back my position that except in cases of copyvios, extreme BLP issues, or other cases of potential harm to Wikipedia, it should take two pairs of eyes to speedy something. From the evidence I saw, this wasn't tagged. It was deleted out-of-hand as an act of sysop fiat.

        I also endorse everything DGG says below.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist at AfD. There are violations of BLP that I accept as justifying speedies, such as potentially defamatory remarks. This does not seem to be one of those cases, according to anything said here. Further points:
    • I don't understand Stifle's argument against restoring the deletion history: either there are specific concerns, which can be outlined without violating BLP here, or there aren't, in which case the history can be restored.
    • DRV has a quite different audience and purpose than AfD, so a DRV discussion is not the same as another AfD. After all, if it did, we would not need a relist option on DRVs.
    • The AN/I discussion mentions that one of the other participants, Steven Dale Green, is judged to pass BLP1E despite being notable only for this event. WP:SNOW applies only to hopeless cases, which this does not appear to be. Barker was the first case brought, and he testified against the other participants, potentially adding cogency to the article.
I've held back, hoping that the more of the endorse case would emerge, but it has not. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist. It is normally futile bringing an article here if it is unlikely to stand, but in this case it should be relisted and procedure followed properly. This is not covered by any CSD rule, SNOW is not the least obvious, and it is important to establish the principle that BLP 1E is not a reason for speedy. Though "any aspect" is specified in the arb com ruling, I doubt they had matters like this in mind where there is no doubt about the facts and no possible harm to anyone. Since most such cases are in fact disputed in good faith, I doubt there would be consensus for including it as one, because speedy should be for articles where we would all agree are unsuitable. As for any BLP considerations except 1E, they hardly apply to an article on a confessed and convicted murderer & rapist in a crime that had world wide attention for political reasons. In any case, it is not accepted that arb com can make policy about article inclusion, no matter whether they think they can; their ruling has been generally accepted because for the most part it does express very clear consensus of the community as a whole, and has been generally applied in a reasonable fashion that is supported. This is not reasonable, for there is simply no case for drastic unilateral action. Not restoring the history is unreasonable also, for no version of it is defamatory. DGG (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak to the article content, not being an admin, but if admins who can see the old article agree it satisfies criteria for deletion under 1E, then we shouldn't overturn and relist. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we shouldn't engage in procedure for its own sake. RayTalk 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It goes beyond procedure for it's own sake. BLP1E's may be deleted. That's true. They may also be merged. They may be redirected with the history in place. They may be deleted and then a bare redirect created. Having the proper discussion would allow for arguements to be made for the options short of full deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I fully accept the proposition that there may be occasions that justify the use of speedy deletion for BLP purposes. However, as mentioned above, a case in which the worst of the facts have been confirmed by a criminal conviction reported in reliable sources is a poor candidate for such a deletion. Our normal procedures are sufficient for dealing with this matter. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: A7 and BLP1E are reasons for deletion. Well, A7 is more of a criterion, but that's just splitting hairs... Sceptre (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To summarise what is being discussed: these are valid grounds for deletion, but what is disputed is whether they validate a speedy. The deleted article was not A7, but Manning, who speedied the article, thought there was precedent to extend the scope of A7 on the grounds of BLP1E (cf. AN/I, RfAr). Should we take it that your endorsement means that you agree with Manning's reasoning? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This was a WP:BLP1E and all the other articles on the participants, including the "ringleader" have been redirected to this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:28, 6 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.
Template:Watchmen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deleted due to having few articles to link to - but there seems to be enough now (comic book, the movie, video game, the main characters article and the seven protagonists, soundtrack albums, and possibly two parodies), and Template:V for Vendetta shows a proper way to build it. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say that the additional articles added since the February TfD merit discussion rather than a G4 deletion. So, I'd have to go with permit recreation, though of course it can be nominated for TfD again. I'd also like to note that the middle version (the first G4 deletion) used yellow for the background of the title and group titles, which seems slightly appropriate. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per Lifebaka, reasons for the original TfD seem to be moot now. Kusma (talk) 08:41, 30 June 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 June 2009

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

"Fantastico (web hosting)" already exist separately. Surely it would make sense to redirect from "Fantastico De Luxe", and yet this article has an ugly history.

My interest in Fantastico De Luxe derives from cPanel, which is used by Webhostingpad.com. I'd like to figure out whether I should be using CGI, Perl, PHP, Ruby, RVSiteBuilder, or Fantastico De Luxe. So I've been checking each one at Wikipedia.

With all due respect, the reason that any modestly, useful information ever has to be deleted escapes me, but this seems to be the protocol. For my part, I have done my best to meet that protocol. This is the result. C-U RPCV (talk) 03:48, 28 June 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:Jewish_surnames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Another problematic close from the same admin who brought us the problematic close of Surnames by country. The decision by User:Good Olfactory to upmerge this into Category:Surnames tosses hundreds of surnames with thoroughly-documented Jewish connections into a useless catchall category with more than 14,000 entries. While the closing admin acknowledges that "This category may have to be re-created in some form depending on what scheme is developed", the decision to delete and upmerge was made in the face of clear consensus to keep. The nomination offered rather muddled reasons for deletion, and the only participant supporting deletion voted based it on the claim that "names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense", which is rebutted by the rather obvious observation that the use of names by different religions is rather easily handled by using multiple categories for each name/religion combination that can be documented by reliable and verifiable sources. Furthermore, a dozen published books on the background and history of Jewish surnames makes it clear that this is a well-defined field of study that constitutes a strong defining characteristic of such names. It appears that the closing administrator has a rather strong bias towards deletion of such categories, even in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. In classic We had to destroy the village to save it style, we are now left with the Sisyphean task of rebuilding a rather clear category and plucking the appropriate names from among the 14,000 in Category:Surnames because one admin decided he doesn't like it. Alansohn (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opinion (closer). What to do depends largely upon what results from the other DRV and depends on the consensus at Category talk:Surnames, since this was essentially an appended decision to the main one. Could have probably been useful to wait for the result there, but whatever. The names are not lost and you don't have to pick through 14,000 to find them. They are readily available from Cydebot's contribution history and I can provide a list to anyone in fairly short order. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jewish" is not a country, and appears to have no relation to any other structure other than the inclusion of the word "surnames". The rather clear disruption caused by the needless deletion is not mitigated by the fact that the names are not irrevocably lost, but any wasted time and effort could have been avoided by closing this as no consensus, at worst. The dozen books listed in the CfD should have amply justified that the category is defining, regardless of any of the nominator's preconceived prejudices on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and deal with at Category talk:Surnames (closer). On second thought, this doesn't even require a DRV. The close stated that the could be re-created if agreed to by consensus. All you need to is say you are going to re-create it at User talk:Surnames. If you get agreement by positive responses or silence, then just re-create it. That should have probably been what you should have done, and then if your re-creation proposal was opposed there, then you could have considered coming to DRV here. I'd note that the user didn't approach me at all about this close, which would have provided me the opportunity to give this advice, and even the list of articles that were in the category. DRV is a last resort, not the first stop for those who disagree with a close. (By the way, if getting the list of names from Cydebot's contribution history is a "Sisyphean task", the standards of how that phrase is used is clearly slipping. I could probably do this in 5 minutes ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is simple disruption by the closing admin, perpetuating the disruptive WP:POINT made in the close. "Jewish" is still not a country and has nothing to do with the restructuring of Surnames by country demanded by the closing admin in complete disregard of consensus there. Whether we are treating this as overturning the improper close of this CfD, or recreating it based on the Surnames by country as demanded, this is where the discussion should take place. There has been enough disruption already, and the Wikilawyering demands that this must wait for a discussion of an entirely unrelated category only perpetuates the abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, thanks for assuming good faith. I treated it as part of the previous nomination because that seemed to be the intent of the nominator. May have been correct; may not have been. Give me a break, though—you didn't even approach me about this! Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have no idea if it was the nominator's intent, but you deleted the category regardless of consensus? Give Wikipedia a break. "The nominator may have wanted it deleted so I tossed into the delete pile" is a rather poor justification for deletion. You have already been approached about this and other vaguely related categories, and your mind appeared to have been made up, with no evidence that it could have been swayed, cutting down on needlessly wasted time dealing with this improper close. Alansohn (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I have an idea, and I have little doubt about the nominator's intent. ("Missed in yesterday's nomination as it's missing from the regular part of the tree." is relatively clear, IMO.) I was suggesting that maybe my assumption would be "wrong" in the view of a WP consensus, or that even if correct, that it wasn't correct to give credence to the intent. But you can't have it both ways. Either it's parceled with the other CfD and we wait for the result at that DRV; or, if we treat it as separate, you probably should have approached me about it first and not assumed that my response would have treated it as being parceled with the first one. You can't say, "it's separate" and in the same breath say "you already refused to reconsider because it was parceled with the other". Anyway, it's all relatively moot. As usual, your behaviour is tiring in general, Alansohn. All I can say is go ahead and discuss this to your heart's content. But it's a waste of time, because you can just re-create the category and get the list from me, or look up the list yourself. There's no real need for a DRV if you're strongly craving re-creation. You could save yourself a lot of time by just being less confrontational. (Of course, maybe you don't want to, which we must keep in mind.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate and repopulate. I was in favour of upmerging the 'surnames by country' categories but not the non-countries (such as Category:Flemish surnames) which the nom (WAS) tosed recklessly into the mass nom. The cfd for Category:Jewish surnames was separate from the bulk nom and was not a 'delete by consensus' (there are only 2 in the Jewish surnames cfd suggesting 'delete', the nom + Otto, and the others are keep or rename). Alansohn does have a point here, albeit over-stated; I think Good Olfactory should do the recreating and repopulating.Occuli (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't we just re-create it? As I've said above, this was clearly anticipated by the close. Honestly, I can't see the benefits of a discussion here. I probably won't be checking back here so if someone will notify me if this is speedily closed as re-create, then I could assist as needed or wanted. I would just go ahead and re-create it now, but as long as the discussion is ongoing I probably shouldn't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - a difficult CFD, brought to a correct conclusion through appropriate deliberation by the closing admin. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - This appears to be a definite vendetta between Alansohn and Good Olfactory. Further DRV actions should be taken by an uninvolved party - see WP:COIWP:TEA.--WaltCip (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with WaltCip. --Kbdank71 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate and repopulate. Countries (whether the user conceives of these as territories or states) rarely produce surnames. Surnames are produced by national or ethnic groups. Thus, there are Flemish surnames and Walloon surnames but no such thing as a Belgian surname because Belgium is political construct cobbled together for the convenience of, variousy, the British, Germans and French - not a nation with a culture, language or ethnicity. Certainly there are Jewish surnames, although it is probably more accurate to write of the jews of Ashkenazi, Kurdish, Romaniot, Sephardic, etc. heritage.Historicist (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up comment (closer). Re-creation has now been raised (by an editor not yet involved here) at Category talk:Surnames#Jewish surnames. As mentioned above, I see this (combined with perhaps an inquiry on my talk page) as one of the possible steps that could/should have been taken before considering getting a DRV off the ground. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (nominator) -- Jewish surnames was just added to the nearly empty Category:Surnames by culture by Mayumashu, removing more pertinent categories such as Judaism. As explained by the (insufficiently referenced) article itself, most of the surnames are not unique to Jewish culture, but rather were assigned during the diaspora.

    ... he showed, from examples taken from all periods, that the Jews had freely adopted the current and popular names of their neighbors in all parts of the globe.

    As noted in the category description:

    Please note: even though surnames such as Harris, Lewis, Green, Black, Miller, Brooks, Gordon, and others are common Jewish surnames in some Western countries, they are also quite common amongst non-Jews as well. Also many names that are common in the Jewish community are really just ordinary German or Slavic surnames. Just as Smith, Thompson, Jones, Evans, Jackson, and Washington are common names in the African American community, one would not just assume they are exclusive to that culture. Most people named Schwartz, Klein, Roth, Hoffman, Schneider, Meyer, etc., are non-Jews despite common use of the names in the Jewish community.

    Just a slippery slope. Over and over we've seen Jewish categories tried as a "nation", resurrected as an "ethnicity", and resurrected again as a "culture". For those of Hebrew (sometimes called "Biblical") origin, a nicely referenced Hebrew-language surnames category would be preferable.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion this was clearcut because no one could OBJECTIVELY state criteria for inclusion or exclusion from this category, which makes the category unsustainable. Any Jew with the surname merits inclusion makes the category useless and only Jews have the surname would be hard to demonstrate and also probably useless as most Jews' surnames won't be in there - any where along that continuum is purely arbitrary and SUBJECTIVE, so useless. Also, there is no accounting for national differences among Jewish communities unless someone can provide some WP:RSes that Jews in Mexico have the same surnames as those in Russia or Iran or China, and they with each other, this is pure WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT at work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate No consensus to delete and unfair to those working on category to make them deal with it at broader category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment (closer). Category has been re-created by a user not involved in this discussion, further rendering this discussion moot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast:William Allen Simpson has already tagged the re-created category for speedy deletion, and apparently depopulated it again.[3] And just so we are all clear about the level at which we are dealing here, WAS has also just deleted Cohen (!) from both Category:Hebrew-language surnames and Category:Jewish surnames.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible recreate and repopulate - There is an active, vocal minority of extremist WP editors (including some admins) that have been intent for several years on diluting our encyclopedia's coverage of Jewish-related issues, including the elimination of very many categories. Their reasoning in this case is that Jewish surnames cannot be verified as typically Jewish. This is entirely inaccurate and unreasonable as there are numerous sources we rely on for the history and documentation of historically Jewish names. Let's abide by reasonableness rather than extremism and recreate and repopulate the category. The legwork for this should be done by the same editors who insisted on this category's deletion. Badagnani (talk) 05:36, 4 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.
Arthur Kade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Person is not notable. Seriously, I don't see how this afd was not closed as Delete. Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. While I'd probably have voted delete on the original AfD, neither side of the argument was sufficiently overwhelming in argument or numbers nor any errors of policy to justify overturning a decision of no consensus.--Talain (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there was no consensus in that discussion, but I think it blatantly obvious that this should be deleted.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, endorse overturn and delete – yeah, person is not notable. Consensus for deletion backs that clearly. Rough consensus is not equivalent to unanimity. MuZemike 08:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. It's a judgment call as to whether the subject's media appearances convey notability, but the overall trend of the discussion was that the subject had not yet achieved notability sufficient to justify an article. The article has plenty of references but hardly any actual content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and delete per Metropolitan90. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer statement. I don't mind particularly if this stays or not. If it's decided here that the article should have been deleted then fine, let's delete it. I disagree though that any consensus was there to be teased out of the discussion. By the numbers it was 6/3 in favour of deletion, but I feel JorgeMacD and Drawn Some's comments were adequately countered by subsequent comments, so discounted those; the nominator, Met90, and Orange Mike all assert that he's not notable, but seem to be measuring by some arbitrary standard that's stricter than wp:n and none of them explains at what point he would subjectively cross the threshold, and none of them explain why the Philadelphia magazine coverage fails to put him over the bar; and DGG's delete doesn't seem to be grounded in any particular policy, perhaps wp:notwebhost? but I don't see how that's relevant here. The onus is on the deleters to explain why he doesn't meet our standards for inclusion and I don't think they've achieved that here. Flowerparty☀ 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close No consensus or keeping both seem to be reasonable closes. If we're going to override this close we need a good reason to do so and right now the primary one seems to simply be disagreeing with the result. (Disclaimer, I've argued for keeping in the discussion). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I can give is lack of notability. I think the argument for deletion was stronger then that of the argument to keep.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 10:49, 29 June 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 June 2009

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

Why has this page been deleted? Please provide a legitimate reason. I have repeatedly provided three reliable sources to prove that Andrew Hsu is a real person and one who has contributed significantly both as a scientist and as a philanthropist, being the first to sequence the Homo Sapiens and Mus Musculus COL20A1 Gene and founding the World Children's Organization which has provided thousands of children with books and water filters.

Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003752165_andrewhsu18m.html

NBC Today Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OntiXRsuOY

San Jose News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwh-_87a6_A

I have not been given a legitimate reason for why this page has been repeatedly deleted. Att159 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted this article (slightly different name, essentially the same thing) under G4, which I pointed out on my talk page where this user asked me. GedUK  12:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as proper implementation of proper AfD close. A userspace draft might be a good way to try and write an article on this subject that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:01, 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.
File:Lou Gehrig stamp.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I submit that this should be overturned, because:

  1. There was insufficient consensus to delete. Only one other Wikipedian besides the nominator (Ww2censor) supported deletion, certainly insufficient to conclude there's community consensus on a contested delete. In cases of no consensus, the default is Keep, not Delete.
  2. The deletion nom was based on the WP:NFCC guideline, therefore the argument that an exception to guideline was warranted in this specific instance, for the reasons given, should have been considered.
  3. After the sole Delete !vote by Quadell, additional prose was added to the article where Fair Use was made of this image, discussing the stamp's specific design elements as they relate to Gehrig. This was not given any further consideration or discussion, as should have been the case after the initial objection was mentioned.  JGHowes  talk 22:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin: I believe that my closure of this discussion was correct because the delete !votes were stronger than the keep !vote. Even after the one-sentence addition to the article after Quadell's comment, the only information about the stamp in the article is "A Lou Gehrig 25-cent USA Postage Stamp was issued by the U.S. Postal Service on the 50th anniversary of his retirement from baseball, depicting him both in profile and at bat (Scott number 2417)". Per WP:NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In this case, the fact that the stamp exists is enough. There is no critical commentary on the stamp's visual appearance to justify the need for a non-free image to depict it; the prose alone describes the impact of the stamp, and the removal of the image is not detrimental to the reader's understanding. In my opinion, the sole delete !vote does not seem to contain many arguments which are valid in this specific information.
"The stamp's use is part of a significant portion of the article discussing Gehrig's lasting impact on U.S. culture and the continued recognition his memory evokes." This does not require the the stamp be shown; discussing it is enough to convey this.
"The heroic pose depicted by the stamp's artwork cannot be adequately conveyed by mere prose alone to the reader." The one-sentence discussion of the stamp in the article contains no commentary on the stamp's design which this image would be needed to depict.
"Because of the extraordinary interest in Gehrig (voted by American baseball fans as their favorite player, 60 years after he last played), my view is that this falls within the 'occasional exception' of the NFC guidelines." Interest in a person is not an indicator that additional fair-use images can be used. Exceptions to the NFCC policy are very rare, and I do not feel that this is an instance where it is appropriate.
In addition, the image's fair-use rationale was poorly formed. It did not contain a specific rationale as to why the use of the image in this specific article is needed. The article also contains many images of Gehrig already, so the image also seems unnessecary to me (from a non-policy based point of view) because the subject is already depicted so many times.
I don't mean to be difficult or combatative here; I simply closed the discussion to the best of my abilities based on the three !votes present. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; local consensus cannot override foundation-level policy. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think that fair use is project-level (e.g., the English Wikipedia sets its own NFCC), not foundation-level. Not sure if that's what you meant or if it changes anything, but thought I'd mention it. [Drilnoth, 12:11, 29 June 2009]
Stifle, that is a straw man. No one is calling for overriding policy, WMF or otherwise. The interpretation of NFC by the guideline calls for discretionary judgment in its application in each case. What is "minimal" in the instance of a lengthy article about the most popular U.S. ballplayer of all time is not necessarily the same as a stub article about an obscure garage band, for example. There are many facets to his life. That is why consensus is important to ascertain whether fair use of this stamp is minimal and justifiable to serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose, given the particular circumstances. My contention is that it does meet the guideline, because the U.S. stamp's issuance on the 50th anniversary of his retirement and the manner in which he is depicted are important to the reader's understanding of his impact on American life. How can the reader possibly visualize a stamp or painting without seeing it?
With all due respect to Drilnoth, his reasoning is perfectly valid for a delete !vote, but not to close an XfD lacking consensus based on the admin's self-described point of view.  JGHowes  talk 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question is, why does the reader need to be able to visualize the stamp? The text contains nothing about its appearance, just the fact that it exists. The fact that something exists does not mean that it automatically needs to be pictured alongside the associated text if the only image is fair use. And the stamp's being issued on the 50th anniversary of his retirement doesn't require a picture to illustrate it. How is the manner in which he is depicted important to the understanding, other than simply to show that the stamp exists? Please understand that in general I support the use of fair-use images on Wikipedia in limited quantities, but this just seems unnecessary.
Anyway, in regards to my closing, my view was similar to that of the two users who !voted for deletion. If I had just !voted, another admin would have had to close it, and there would have been three delete !votes about the image which would probably mean that it would have been deleted anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:43, 29 June 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 June 2009

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

I don't think good reasons were given in the discussion (eg, 'rather pointless article'). -Zeus-u|c 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure — WP:N was given in the AfD nom, and was properly discussed. The closure was fine, and this DRV request introduces no new reason to reopen the discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this fails WP:N. It is a real thing, both in video games and in real life, and should definitely be covered in wikipedia. -Zeus-u|c 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it is used in real life, I was referring to snipers. -Zeus-u|c 23:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A clear consensus was reached. Simply disagreeing with that consensus is not an appropriate reason for DRV to overturn a decision. If you honestly believe the material must be covered by wikipedia, then the solution would be to create a version of the article that was verifiably notable and worthy of inclusion with which to recreate it.--Talain (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that? -Zeus-u|c 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but make sure that you fix the problems raised in the AfD, particularly bridies', else your new article will simply be speedied. You can ask to have the old article userfied, if you want to use that as a starting point. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you userify the article? -Zeus-u|c 15:07, 27 June 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.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to request that this deletion be reviewed.

I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log [4] and I understand that the bill has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that the bill is below the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is.

I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:

  • Jan 2009 - 577 views
  • Feb 2009 - 4487 views
  • Mar 2009 - 3016 views
  • Apr 2009 - 2321 views
  • May 2009 - 6826 views
  • total - 17227 views

Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times.

To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability.

Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, there were 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well. A recent story of June 20 even indicated that the bill may be responsible for a nationwide bullet shortage. If this is true, enough Americans are aware of the bill to create the shortage.

As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor and no cosponsors, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress.

The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General.

Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration,

J appleseed2 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hereby endorse One's accurate reading of the consensus at the AfD.

    I would further remark that this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia, and the last thing we need is yet another article about a piece of legislation that's only of interest to one nationality.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion -- A bill that is basically D.O.A. would almost always be not notable, and I see nothing here that would make this case an exception. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion — Before the bill has passed, we'd need to see enough evidence of newsworthiness to justify WP:N. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as an accurate assessment of consensus. There is nothing substantially different in this than what was brought up and denied at the AfD.--Talain (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – clear consensus for deletion here. This is not AFD round 2, and, more particularly, the number of hits a page gets is not a reason to keep (or delete for that matter). MuZemike 16:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deleted out of policy. The reasons given were that it would never come to a vote, but that is irrelevant to political importance. I consider the argument from number of views is appropriate in judging the basic suitability for an encyclopedia, which is that people will come to an encyclopedic like ours to look for information on a topic. All of the WP:N requirements are essentially an attempt to deal with the ones that nobody reasonable will look for in a work like ours. DGG (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid AFD closure. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 29 June 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:Crayola.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Not a copyright vio, fair use under United States law and Wikipedia standards. All problems brought up in the deletion nomination were dealt with. Although the article itself is about Crayola, the image is used clearly in reference to the stamp in question in a section about the stamp, not as a primary means of identifying the subject of the stamp. The Wikipedia copyrighted U.S. stamp template clearly states that copyrighted U.S. stamps can be used here "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" under fair use if they are used to illustrate the stamp, not simply to illustrate the subject. Free images of Crayola crayons are in the article before the stamp image, so it's obviously not being used for that purpose, but to illustrate the stamp itself in its historical context.

I would be grateful if the decision to delete this image was reviewed, I feel its deletion was unnecessary, not by consensus, and detrimental to the article and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "keep" side had that debate by the numbers, and I don't think the "delete" side's arguments held much water. The basic question here is whether it's appropriate to have a public domain fair use image of a stamp, in a section of the "Crayola" article about that stamp, which (I respectfully submit) is a complete no-brainer.

    Overturn to keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question — Is it true, about the broad scope of fair use associated with images of US stamps asserted on the template page? Can we have some authoritative source for this? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The question is not whether this image is in the public domain. In the original XFD, some people brought that up, but I have never claimed it. The issue is whether this is a fair use of a copyrighted image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm generally minded to say that FfD discussions get NFCC#8 right, but, given that Stifle's assertion about the PD-ness is wrong (the stamp is from 1996, it is the crayons that are from 1903), and he otherwise argues against fair use per NFCC#8, I don't see that the balance of the FfD discussion favours saying the image was fair use. Is there something in particular that you think went wrong in that discussion? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not agree that NFCC#8 was broken here -- it's impossible to adequately describe a stamp design in words succinct enough to be in Wikipedia. I could probably photoshop together hundreds of fake stamps showing Crayola crayons. There is critical commentary about the stamp that would not be fully understood without seeing the actual image of the stamp (specimen). The stamp image is being used to illustrate the stamp, in the guidelines of the Wikipedia stamp template, general U.S. copyright law and the guidance given by the U.S. Postal Service itself (educational and philatelic use). Interpretations that this is a copyright violation are so draconian that virtually no image of a modern American stamp could ever be used on Wikipedia. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to see the informational value of images be more widely appreciated here (cf. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries) but it's the place of DRV to argue about FfDs that are problematic either because they were incorrectly closed, or because their discussion was carried out in ignorance of obviously cogent information; they are not a forum to continue any FfD discussions just because they didn't go the way you wanted. I think, as I said, the closing was OK. The point about USPS guidance might be the kind of obviously cogent information, but where is this guidance? How does it change the NFCC#8 case? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it was improperly closed because there was no real clear consensus. I am hoping that a posting here will generate a clearer result. Oh, and the USPS fair use guidance is here. -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Copyvio is one place where consensus rules don't apply in the normal way — check WP:CON, sect 1.1. If 100 wikipedians said an image was acceptable, but there is one person who showed a clear WPCC#2 violation, then the admin should delete the image. WPCC#8 is a more subjective requirement, and its the kind of thing where the weight of community opinion comes into play, but admins have to be conservative (not paranoid) in their interpretation of the WPCC rules. The absence of consensus is not troubling. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that copyvio, or any other case where there's clear risk of harm to Wikipedia or to a living person from leaving content up, needs to default to delete. But where there is no risk of harm (as in this case), the absence of consensus most certainly does not default to delete. Quite the contrary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Despite that the stamp was created in 1996, it is a mere copy of a PD image which does not gain a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly *not* a mere copy. It doesn't meet the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. criteria, for example, which is the basis for such claim and our rulings here. Could you maybe try to read and understand copyright rulings before making such aggressive declarations? DreamGuy (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion — I think I would have !voted keep in the FfD, but, putting aside the PD claim, this FfD looks to have been closed correctly, and no new information has come up indicating that it should be kept. It might be worth looking at taking another look at the copyvio policy with regards to USPS images, since at present we have a template that seems to suggest they can be used here freely, whilst the NFCC guidelines do not treat them any differently to other fair-use images. But DRV is no place to argue for changes to policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a close against valid consensus. Of course consensus rules in deciding on copyvio--how else are we to decide if the NFCC is actually violated? To take an individual person;'s word for it? No, the decision like all decisions is to be made according to the established rules by the community. The role of the closer is limited to rejecting arguments that are not based on the established guidelines. If you are the 1 in 100, you may possibly be right, but the overwhelming likelihood is that you are wrong. In this case the consensus was to keep. DGG (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The thrust of the discussion in the FfD was whether or not the image of the stamp added significance to the article per WP:NFCC#8. The closing admin believed that the Keep votes were not following policy, but the entire focus of the discussion was on how that policy should be applied and in that there was certainly no consensus. While copyright violations can be objective in some cases, significance is rather more subjective, and thus, subject to community consensus. That was the criteria used by the closing admin to delete.--Talain (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There were two !votes saying that the image passed NFCC#8, and two saying it did not. Both of those opining that it passed NFCC#8 claimed that because the image was used in a section about the stamp, and was being used to illustrate that stamp, NFCC#8 passes. This is very much against precedent. If an article about a music band has a section on a particular album, we don't illustrate that section with a non-free image of the album, because the article isn't about that album (and the band can be fully understood without seeing it). It's the same here, but more so. The stamp is not particularly important in the history of Crayola. Crayons have been used on album covers too, but we don't show those in the article. If the article on roses had a section about how a rose was on an album cover, we still should not use a non-free image to illustrate that section. The closing admin could not have kept this image without going against years of precedent, and two !votes are not sufficient for that. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I said that Wikipedia specifically disavows precedent, specifically because it doesn't want current discussions to be bound by previous decisions, and cited WP:OCE as my evidence for this, and added that the closing admin is specifically enjoined to disregard precedent in evaluating the consensus, how would you respond?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image of some music band may be superfluous to the understanding of one of its songs or albums since the real content is musical, not visual. However, in this case with a particular display of a product in a postage stamp, the meaning is not easily conveyed in anything else but a faithful reproduction of the image itself. Here we are talking about a specific image and what is displayed in that image as a critical part of the article, noting the intricacies of the "Gold Medal" award on the stamp, what it means, and how that is related to the history of Crayola products. This can not be understood without the image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Our image use rules are quite clear on this, and, more importantly, there was nothing at all improper about the close except that some people didn't get what they wanted. And the claim that we need to do whatever the uninformed majority vote wants in legal matters is just absurd. As in all deletion discussion closes, the closing admin has to make a call if the votes and arguments are in line with our policies or not. There's no right to jury nullification here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a legal matter, because it is clear fair use under american law; the NFCC requirements are much stricter than that very liberal policy. So its a question of whether it meets our requirements, for which one need not be an expert. NFCC is policy--just how to interpret it is often open to question. The decision on how restrictively to interpret it is one that the community decides, both on the policy pages and in individual cases. The decision on when to make exceptions altogether is also one for the community, as long as it is not overruled by OFFICE as not meeting the Foundation policy [5] or US law. DGG (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about... Fair use is a legal matter, and one you clearly do not understand in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as the image was published in the USA in 1903, therefore is public domain. If it were fair use, it would be decorative and not permissible. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to incorrect information: The stamp was not published in 1903. And the image is a photograph of three dimensional objects, which has a new copyright of whenever the photo was taken, even if some of the art on the box was designed in 1903. Good grief. This is why mob rule shouldn't be used to make decisions on legal matters. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that the stamp was issued in 1996, and is derived from a work from 1903 work now in the public domain. I would guess that the USPS does have copyright on the stamp on the grounds of transformativeness: the USPS successfully argued transformativeness in Gaylord vs US, part of which argued that artistic enhancement improved the case that the stamp counted as a new work. But IANAL, maybe it would count as a PD derivative work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The stamp features a three dimensional image (photo) of crayons in a box issued in 1903 or so. If this were just a scan of the image from the front of the box, then it would be public domain... but it's not. The photo is modern and under copyright, as it is of a three dimensional object and requires artistic choices of lighting, etc., so is a new work of art. the legal rationale for copies of public domain works to be public domain only applies to un-artistically altered two dimensional works. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is no different from one that would be obtained by putting the box of crayons on a scanner. I stand by my assessment that it is not sufficiently original to generate a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. The stamp included more than just the front of a box, it included the full box with crayons, with full artistic composition of the three dimensional elements. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate legal standards instead of aggressively making such baseless claims. DreamGuy (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at the Gaylord vs US summary, which noted the considerable effort and artistic talents of the photographer in his choice of lighting conditions, angles, exposures, and time of year and day, and observed that the Postal Service enhanced the artistic expression... in support of the courts view that a USPS photo of a sculpture counted as an independent creative work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gaylord case only enhances my argument since it upheld "Fair Use". The court said that the USPS could use a statue in a postage stamp without permission. It said "the stamp caused no harm to the value of Gaylord’s work" and "a stamp is an unlikely commercial substitute for future products sold by Gaylord." The exact same principles apply here — an image of a stamp in Wikipedia is not going to harm the USPS's ability to market a stamp (nor for that matter the ability of Crayola to market boxes of crayons), in fact it might actually stimulate demand for Crayola crayons, plus the stamp even though it's no longer being sold by the USPS itself. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaylord vs. US states it was fair use on the grounds that it was a substantially novel artistic expression. In particular, that stamp is copyright USPS. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a sculpture, it's a box of crayons. Or more precisely, the front cover of a box of crayons. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this meant to be an argument showing that USPS doesn't have copyright on the stamp? — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer - though overturn if Stifle turns out to be correct and this image is PD. Copying my notes to the creator of this DrV from their talk page:
    • The nomination was on the basis that the image did not significantly increase reader's understanding (NFCC#8) and also that it fell into one of the "unacceptable use" categories under the non-free content interpretation guideline
    • WebHamster responded that the image was used in a section about the stamp and claimed that the in-context it met the guidelines, though they did not state how it met the significance requirement nor why an image that was covered by "unacceptable use" was to be allowed.
    • Stifle stated that it was PD as the object depicted was sufficiently old. I note here that the image page did NOT claim that it was public domain.
    • Quadell refuted that it was PD and re-iterated that the image failed NFCC#8
    • Howcheng and the nominator chimed in that in their opinion it was not a PD image
    • Dougie stated largely that the use of the image was to illustrate the stamp, though without addressing the "unacceptable use" problem nor showing how the image significantly increases reader's understanding.
Resulting from this the image is not public domain (so we must meet the criteria), falls into one of the examples of "unacceptable use" and no-one has sufficiently refuted this and lastly the arguments as to it significantly increasing reader's understanding fell short of those saying that it did not.
If the image is PD (which is not a matter I'm knowledgeable enough to decide) then there is no issue, if it is not PD then I see that I closed the discussion correctly in line with consenus/the NFCC policy - Peripitus (Talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with that assessment. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OverturnComment as nominator -- All "Delete" votes and conversations cited above by the closing admin occurred before major revisions were made to the article to address the issues raised, especially by the original nominator. Yet he still closed the discussion summarily without any chance for other editors to comment on my changes that fixed the problems that had been brought up, in particular NFCC#8 issues. But even without taking that big point into account, there was still no clear consensus to delete, so it should have been left open for further discussion or relisted if possible in xfd as in afd. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You opened this here, so you already made that clear. You wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly think you respresent the opinions of more than one person contributing to this conversation, would we? DreamGuy (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you do the same with above "vote" by the closing admin then? -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The closing admin didn't have a double !vote here. DreamGuy (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 June 2009

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

At long, long last, these uber-hatable MySpace kings have released a full-length, which hit #86 on this week's Billboard 200. Now we can finally put aside the longstanding parade of assertions of non-notability. Requesting Unsalting of Brokencyde and BrokeNCYDE (the latter as a popular redirect). I have a copy of the deleted article in userspace (amazingly, it was nominated for deletion on its own, without anyone notifying me), and it's fairly well fleshed out (aside from very recent news). Chubbles (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support unprotection and restoration of Chubbles' draft. S/he knows music articles very well. Suggest re-directing CYDE as suggested and protecting, if necessary to protect second article from popping up on same topic StarM 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Surnames by country – There is clearly no consensus here to overturn the deletion, therefore the default outcome is to let the CFD stand as it is. That said there is certainly no consensus to endorse it outright; reading through this entire (long) discussion reveals a significant amount of thought has gone in to this from both sides. It is almost a shame that so much thoughtful discussion winds up with a no consensus result, but there is really no other way this is going to play out at this time. There has been a reasonable request to temporarily undelete the category tree to assist in creating a better category structure but due to the vast scope I am personally unable to comply with that request at this time - I see no problems with any other admin making them available on a temporary basis so long as the end result of the CFD is not infringed upon. – Shereth 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Surnames by country (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A case of destroying the village in order to save it. The discussion had nothing approaching a consensus for nuking the entire surname categorization system, landing us with a single category with some 14000 names. While the now deleted system may not have been ideal and needed refinement (it was missing clear guidelines on what makes a surname associated enough with a country to categorize that way) or restructuring (many have suggested categorizing by language rather than country - though of course there'll be gray areas and tricky cases there too, as in most of our categorization schemes) deleting it wholesale destroys an enormous amount of information and makes it much more difficult to create an improved system. Haukur (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I'm asking for the decision to be overturned and the categories restored without prejudice. We can work to improve the system from there. Haukur (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - a correct reading of a difficult and passion-inflaming CFD. Closing admin's comments indicate a close and careful reading of the arguments and a solution crafted carefully in response to those arguments. Otto4711 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was a consensus, but the consensus was for keep and modify. The closing was on the basis that it was the personal view of the closer--and supported by some of the comments--and in fact might be my personal view also-- that the group of categories should be reworked. But that is not a reason for deletion. If we need a new structure, that is no reason for destroying the old before we build the new. The closing explains that this does not actually destroy the information about what was originally where because it can be retrieved from the list of changes carried out by the bot, and so it can, but the better way to do it is to not rely on retrieving from the thousands of changes, a very awkward way of doing things, but keeping the old until there is something agreed upon to change to. The closer went far beyond a closer's proper role. He should have closed: "consensus to change: discuss what to change to and then propose an agreed solution." DGG (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Not only did the closing admin make the proper decision, the rationales were explained in detail. Good job in cleaning up a mess. The bad is the enemy of the good, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Reasonable, rational, and well-explained close. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well now. There's the question of consensus, and the question of a proper outcome.

    On consensus: there wasn't a consensus in that debate, and the closer appears to have substituted his own opinion for the proper finding. With all due respect for the ingenious arguments provided by Drawn Some and Carlossuarez46, an examination of the debate shows that the idea that this was a "proper deletion" is totally untenable.

    On the proper outcome: I don't see that it's strictly necessary to classify surnames at all. If it is necessary, then Category:Surnames is much too large to be viable, so I think it has to be subdivided. Personally I'd go with surnames by language, rather than surnames by country of origin.

    Overall I'm going to go with relist in the hope of getting a more satisfactory outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn I'm not seeing anything resembling a consensus for deletion here at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see consensus even vaguely leaning toward deletion or upmerge. Not in terms of strength of argument or in terms of numbers. Hobit (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's additional comment. I didn't want to go on at length in my nomination but let me add a bit about the way I see it. There were something like three times as many people arguing for keeping the system than deleting it in this discussion and there were cogent arguments on both sides - that strongly indicates to me that there was no consensus for deletion. I didn't participate in the original discussion, I only noticed something was going on when the bot started removing categories from articles I'm watching. Those articles include Jón and Guðrún (and those aren't even surnames, they're given names, but let that pass). Now, many people seem to think that categorizing by country is fraught with problems but categorizing by linguistic origin is not. I don't think this really adds up - it's just that we're familiar with the problems of the system we've had and not as familiar with the problems of a not-yet implemented system. Consider the names "Jón" and "Guðrún" - those are respectively the most common male name and the most common female name in Iceland. Nowhere else in the world are those names (with this exact spelling) used. This seems to qualify those names very clearly for being "Icelandic names" and in any system I think they belong in the same category. The discussion which supposedly decided to end that state of affairs seems to have done so on the basis that categorizing surnames from New Zealand or Honduras may be tricky. I just don't see why such a sweeping deletion needs to result from that. And about linguistic origin - wouldn't "Guðrún" and "Jón" be in the same category in a system like that? Not necessarily - "Jón" isn't a name which has any meaning in Icelandic, it's just the local version of the Hebrew name Yochanan. Haukur (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer comment: I disagree with your assessment of the strength of the "keep" arguments. There were none that were compelling—none. That is the reason I didn't "vote count" in determining what to do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's just completely incorrect, there were a number of good keep arguments. If I have to pick one I should say that I found Peterkingiron's comment particularly incisive. Haukur (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can my opinion be incorrect? I said I disagreed with you, but I didn't say you were incorrect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you point out Haukur, those two were miscategorised somehow, and are given names not surnames. I don't see this being relevant as an example of potential difficulties with the proposed "by language" scheme. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • When I tried to save Category:Icelandic names from deletion I was reverted into the ground and threatened with a block by the person who nominated this whole shebang for deletion. So clearly he did mean for it to be deleted. I don't know why it was categorized the way it was - maybe because most Icelanders don't have family names and the given name is the main name. Haukur (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You write: That is the reason I didn't "vote count" in determining what to do. Ah! I see now. So in the end it was really only one vote that really counted (yours), nevermind if a majority of editors voted the other way. Give me a break, pal. Now we have over 14,000 names plopped carelessly into one category with only a few sub-categories; pray tell me how anyone could possibly navigate through that and find what they're looking for? <sarcasm>Nice job.</sarcasm> I didn't want a change at all, but the least that could have been done was to organize all the surnames into language categories, which so far has not been done (and will probably take months by a slew of different editors thanks to you).--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, talk about personalizing a message! I feel so close to you right now ... by the way, heave you read WP:SARCASM lately? Or WP:DEMOCRACY, or WP:BATTLE, or WP:AGF, or .... You've reminded me that I need to read WP:MASTODONS again, so for that at least I thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Think about it this way. An obvious cat for Guðrún would be "Category:Icelandic-language given names from Old Norse". Jón would be something like "Category:Icelandic-language given names from Latin" or whatever. We follow what our sources tell us for the names. Reliable books dealing with the origins of names show the etymology of the names through linguistic origins. Modern borders don't usually define names, it's the language of origin. There'll be Jons, Johns, Johannes and Jonssons, Johnsons, Johanssons around the globe and also in the same countries, yet etymologists categorise these names by their linguistic roots. We can make these cats more encyclopaedic and useful this way. What do you think?--Celtus (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind people creating a scheme like that at all but it will be partially orthogonal to the original scheme which still needs to be undeleted. There's absolutely nothing preventing us from categorizing both by countries and by languages. In a country category 'Jón' and 'Guðrún' should be together. Someone's thrown out my orange and promised me he'll give me an apple instead. Later. When he gets around to it. I don't mind people giving me an apple somewhere down the road - but I still want my orange back! Haukur (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Admonish There is absolutely no consensus here to delete, and the tortured logic necessary to rationalize viewing this discussion as showing a community consensus of deletion shows no regard for the rather clear consensus for retention. As we are seeing more and more often, there is something seriously wrong at CfD. The usual cast of characters will impose their own biases, both at CfD and here at DRV, while the community as a whole views consensus and policy completely differently. It has probably passed the point where User:Good Olfactory should have his mopping privileges at CfD revoked and move on to focus on another area where he might be more effective in determining consensus per community standards. CfD needs to be swept clean by a new set of brooms. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alan, are you ever going to actually do something like participate in WP:DR, or are you just going to continue to complain about how "CFD is broken"? You never did respond to me at the last DRV when I asked for some actual stats. Out of all the CFD's, how many were taken to DRV, and of those, how many were overturned? If you're going to continually criticize CFD and the admins that close the discussions, even go so far as to demand admin admonishments, why don't you have the numbers to back you up? --Kbdank71 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kris, we are going round and round, in a process rather reminiscent of the Otto issue. The problems were entirely self evident, yet no CfD admin noticed, let alone addressed, the problem. Admins were approached, including yourself, with the responses basically being "it's not my job" to deal with this, even with ample evidence provided, go somewhere else. Evidence was gathered, a rather painstaking task of gathering up the details of dozens of Otto's incidents, and the evidence presented at WP:ANI led to a rather lengthy block that could have been averted with minimal effort if any CfD admin had been willing to address the problem when it was first raised. The overall CfD problem is orders of magnitude larger and far more disruptive. While the Otto problem is mere gross incivility, the overall CfD problems have led to the improper deletion of dozens of categories in clear disregard of consensus. Only the most egregious closes are brought to DRV and these have been overwhelmingly overturned, with the CfD regulars seeing no issues and the new sets of eyes being near unanimous in seeing problems that justify overturning. There is no "dispute" here that is readily amenable to the lowest levels of the WP:DR process. Again, the admins at CfD will have ample opportunity to fix the problems themselves. If the issues of improper readings of consensus are addressed, great. If not, continuing evidence will be gathered to have the problems dealt with at a higher level. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest everyone leave the "Otto issue" out of this, as much as we'd all love to milk it. (As for a recommendation that I be "admonished", I'll have to assume that this is just the third in a series of ongoing attempts to get me "admonished" for doing something or anything: [6]; [7].) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can tag most of your statements as nothing more than opinion, since you repeatedly complain but can't back any of it up. But that's your M.O., so I don't know why I should expect anything different this time. I guess I'll see you at the next DRV when you vote to strongly overturn, call for the admonishment of whatever admin closed the CFD, say over and over that CFD is broken, say that the "CFD admins" are ignoring the problem, all without taking one step to actually rectify these "egregious problems" that only you see. You know, the status quo. (and no, I'm not going to address the "Otto issue", because he has nothing to do with (your opinion of) "problems at CFD"). --Kbdank71 12:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (closer). The "village" (category scheme) has not been "destroyed" (users continue to work off Cydebot's contribution record) and though the nice cooperative work of a number of editors a "by language" scheme it is well on its way to being developed fully. This is exactly what I had hoped would happen as a result of the close. I didn't rename to "by-language" categories immediately because I wanted users to have a chance to decide what new alternative to select. It's my opinion that rather than complaining about how we're going to get there, users could best spend their time and concern here developing and finishing off the new scheme. I realise that there were users who liked the old scheme as it was, but they simply had no viable arguments for keeping the pre-existing structure. There was no good rationale for keeping categories like Category:American surnames, Category:New Zealand surnames, etc. That said, if consensus is to reverse this, I won't lose any sleep over it. But I might laugh at the subcategories of Category:Surnames by country and there would probably be a veerrrrrryyyyy slow, incremental, one-by-one renaming process that will likely result in the same basic thing that is being achieved right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly what I'm talking about - because some users had difficulties defining what should be in Category:New Zealand surnames you decide to delete every last one of those categories, including ones far less difficult to define. You feel that the categorization you disagree with is something you "might laugh at" and yet you feel that you can serve as a neutral arbiter of the discussion? This doesn't add up. If you have such a strong opinion on a matter that you can't even treat both sides with respect then you should participate in the discussion, not close it. Haukur (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're confusing some issues and caricaturing both what I said and the other sides' arguments. Unlike you, I don't have a strong personal preconceived opinion of the matter: all I know about the issue is what other users have argued at the CfD. One side gave some very persuasive arguments; the others gave none. Ergo, I think keeping the categories is a mistake, but not because that was my preconceived opinion. One doesn't decide a bad argument is a good one solely in the name of giving one side "respect". I don't think "respect" is a relevant issue at all, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You continue to baselessly assert that there were no arguments on the keep side even after I've pointed to specific cogent comments. As for me, I don't recall ever having or expressing an opinion on how to categorize surnames until Category:Icelandic_names (not surnames!) was deleted from under my feet. You deleted that category but you haven't defended that action at all and when challenged you say something about New Zealand and how you "might laugh at" certain ways to categorize things. Please either restore Category:Icelandic_names or defend its deletion on the merits. If you "don't think "respect" is a relevant issue at all, really" then you're not following Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which specifically exhorts admins to "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". It also says you're supposed to impartially determine consensus and, in bolded words, When in doubt, don't delete. Haukur (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never said "that there were no arguments on the keep side". I have said there were no convincing arguments on the keep side. I had no "doubt" about which arguments were controlling in the circumstances, thus had no hestitation to delete. Your focus on "respect" is misplaced. Respect has nothing to do with how I assessed the arguments. The point is not that respect is not important in the abstract (of course it is), it's just a confusion of issues in the point at hand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this approach is that you have turned your close into a single supervote that outweighs any votes, arguments offered or actual consensus. You are more than entitled to vote as a participant, but to vote as a closing admin and call your bias the "consensus", inserting your own personal prejudices to insist that keep votes can be discarded simply because you wave them off with a sniff as "unconvincing" is disruptive and turns consensus into a meaningless process that can be subverted by any admin with an agenda. It would seem that there is no consensus that cannot be turned into any result a closing admin chooses simply by discarding votes you disagree with. This is the unfortunate pattern at CfD, where an alternating pattern of voting and closing means that there is little to no separation between the biases present in votes and the exact same biases present in closes. Alansohn (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of unconvincing arguments, I don't find the "ad absurdum" argument convincing here. Part of the role of a closing administrator is to assess the strength of the arguments. That's what I did. The only ones who seem to think I carried this out with any prejudice or bias are those who disagreed with the results, which is perhaps not surprising, but is probably more revealing of their own opinions than any I might have about the topic. I'd also note that I do not (nor do any other admins that I know of) close any CfD discussions that I participate in or am otherwise interested in the outcome of. (For further discussion of any concerns about CfD process in a global sense, I suggest raising the issue at the appropriate talkpage rather than diverting the discussion here, which is focused on this specific close.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only ones who seem to think I carried this out with any prejudice or bias are those who disagreed with the results, which is perhaps not surprising, but is probably more revealing of their own opinions than any I might have about the topic. Is this really the way it looks to you? S Marshall says that "the closer appears to have substituted his own opinion for the proper finding" but doesn't appear to particularly disagree on the merits. But in a larger sense it's true that there is a very high correlation between views on the merits and views on the procedural issue. As far as I can see, everyone who participated in the CfD and has commented here either originally wanted to delete and now comes up with a clean bill of health for the procedural decision to delete ("rational, and well-explained close [that happens to agree with my recommendation]", "close and careful reading [that happens to agree with my recommendation]") or wanted to keep and thinks the procedural decision to delete was wrong "absolutely no consensus here to delete [and I happen to have come out against deletion on the merits]". This is common enough on DRV and it's kind of how we humans tend to operate. Your trying to portray those who disagree with you as particularly biased doesn't hold any water. Haukur (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which demonstrates exactly what was my point. Go figure. (Remember, I was accused of bias before I accused anyone of bias. I'm not sure why the argument could be used against me, but not vice versa. Maybe we shouldn't make it against anyone?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that argument, Good Olfactory, but what I don't see is how you could possibly have read a "delete" consensus from that discussion.

    If you don't like the consensus, then !vote on it. Don't delete without a consensus to do so.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Arbitrary", from "arbiter": one whose role is to decide. The word is not automatically pejorative, and not intended to be. And I don't understand how it's given offence.

    Thanks for the pointer to the policy, of which I was aware. I think you and I will not agree on this, so I shall wait to see where other editors' opinions fall.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, using that definition every decision made by a closer is "arbitrary", because someone decides how to close every discussion. You should be aware of the other possible meanings of words you use. One OED definition of "arbitrary" is, "derived from mere opinion or preference; not based on the nature of things; hence, capricious, uncertain, varying". Another is "Unrestrained in the exercise of will; of uncontrolled power or authority, absolute; hence, despotic, tyrannical." If you consider that I might have interpreted the word in either or those senses, maybe you can see how it could cause some resentment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure that there is anything to be gained now from overturning the outcome, but it was wrong in my view. The closer was sympathetic towards categories by language, but said this was too complicated for one person to implement, so he resorted to instant deletion of the lot. Failing a "procedural keep" (which I had expected), I would have thought the categories should have been left for (say) a month to help users to create an improved scheme, left with CFD tags in the interim, followed by delayed deletion. Although it is possible to work from Cydebot's contributions, it would be much easier (for interested novices, or using WP:AWB) to work from existing categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While I appreciate that the closer stated reasons for the close, it certainly did not appear that there was anything like a consensus in support of those reasons, nor a consensus in favor of eliminating the existing structure.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the reasons others have already expressed. There was no consensus in this discussion, and the discussion was not properly advertised to the affected groups (such as through the categorized deletion sorting, etc.) so many, many editors were not even aware the discussion was happening. People don't visit categories daily or even weekly in most cases, especially not when they've been there and been being used for years without any issues. I do also support the "by language" discussion that Good Olfactory mentioned, though I don't understand the argument that names can't be sorted from country of origin (for the most part). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does make sense to me, Nihonjoe. What would an "American surname" be? Running Bear, perhaps... but it's hard to see why countries without their own language would have a surname category.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I said "for the most part". There are some countries where names are much less likely to come from (United States, Canada, and that's about it really (maybe Australia)), but there are others which have many names coming from them, and which are generally associated with a specific language (Japan/Japanese, Russian/Russia, etc.), and these should have names sorted into appropriately named categories. I don't think the deletion nomination was well thought out, and the decision did not correctly asses the discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nihonjoe, I think you are greatly underestimating the sheer number of "Fooian [country] surnames" categories that were there, for which it would be highly problematic to claim that some given surname "originated" from that country. It's much more than a handful of ex-anglo colonies (US, Canada, NZ, Aust). For example, out of the following, for which could it reasonably be said that some given surname "X" originated from this country:
Algerian, American, Angolan, Argentine, Australian, Austrian, Bahamian, Belgian, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazilian, British, Cameroonian, Canadian, Chadian, Chilean, Dominican Republic, Gabonese, Bavarian, Ghanaian, Guatemalan, Haitian, Honduran, Iraqi, Israeli, Ivorian, Jamaican, Jordanian, Kenyan, Lebanese, Libyan, Mauritanian, Mexican, Moroccan, Mozambican, New Zealand, Nigerian, Palestinian, Pakistani, Papua New Guinean, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Puerto Rican, South African, Sri Lankan, Sudanese, Swiss, Tanzanian, Togolese, United Arab Emirati, Uruguayan, Yemeni, Côte d'Ivoire, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Guinean, Malian, Namibian, Senegalese, Singaporean, Syrian, Bohemian, Venezuelan.. etc
  • And those are only some pulled out from the nominated list, that have no clearly associated cognate language. Of those remaining countries that do have some 'primary' cognate language associated, about half as many again are significantly mutli-cultural, multi-lingual, countries. And even where one language or culture may predominate, minority languages and cultures exist, and with them presumably different surnaming conventions and origins. Would 'Finnish surnames' include or exclude Sami family names? Georgian may be the official language of the country, but like the rest of the Transcaucasus is a hotspot of ethnic and linguistic diversity, where surnames can often readily differentiate these groups. And so on. All things considered, "by language" and "by country" are rarely, if ever, interchangeable pairings.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly every category was properly tagged. As noted, that was tagged on June 6th and 7th (taking over 12 hours of my time), and not closed until June 24th – 11 more days than the normal 7 days. There was plenty of time for discussion, and lots of discussion.
    1. Are you saying that folks in some projects weren't watching their categories? (Many folks participated.)
    2. Or are you saying that after devoting my weekend to hunting down and tagging the categories, often hiding in the wrong part of the tree, I'm also supposed to find (or guess) every WikiProject and Wikipedian that happened to be interested, and notify their Talk, too? (Not on your life!)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The whole process reminds me of interrogation scene from The Deer Hunter: "Chevotarevich, is this a Russian name? No, it's American". Lines drawn by politicians should not interfere with human names. NVO (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and admonish - Ruining the navigability of surname subcats and putting all surnames in the "Surnames" category, then only fixing the situation as regards extremely well-documented East Asian surnames following strong protest does not assist our users nor reflect well on our encyclopedia. Everything we do must have our users foremost in our minds, and all such huge, sweeping changes (particularly those that are poorly thought out, do not have actual consensus, and negatively affect our encyclopedia's navigability) must be made with all deliberation and input from the community. Regarding the subcategorization of surnames by culture, language, and nation, common sense must be the overriding factor to which we bend in such cases. Most importantly, the closing of a discussion against the actual consensus has become a standard operating procedure here among our admins, who have been entrusted with a sacred duty to reflect community will. Such closings against consensus are highly inappropriate and must not continue at our project. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the closure was correct, given the debate—those supporting keeping did not refute the argument that the categories are inherently undefinable. Now, there is potential that surnames categorized by another criterion is good. However, given the fractured opinion in the debate on how exactly to do that, and that it would necessarily require extensive modification of the extant categorizations, I don't feel it was the job of the CfD's closure to do that. Another system can be devised and instituted. ÷seresin 08:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the closure was a thoughtful reading and appraisal of a difficult and at times wayward discussion. I think the calling for admonishment here to be overblown, almost preposterous. There was no abuse of process here. Rather, Good Ol' deserves to be credited with being prepared to confront a daunting assessment task, and do what the role demands: read and consider the points and arguments advanced in the discussion, sanity check for common sense, and then arrive at some determination. The closer's actions readily abide by rough consensus guidelines (not merely counting heads, looking at strength of argument, discounting fallacious or irrelevant arguments, etc). Which were the cogent arguments made, that defended and demanded that the "surname by country" category structure be kept as-is and not further modified? I don't believe I saw any. Sure, some said "keep, very useful", but without specifying just how it was useful to have categories that meant, as a few of them actually specified, "This category lists surnames found amongst citizens of Foo". Others who said 'keep' then go on to say "reorganise/prune/repurpose", most along the same lines as was suggested and as is in discussion right now at Category talk:Surnames. Still others made comments that indicate misreading of "by country" to mean "by culture" or "by language"; clearly these are not equivalents. The repeating thread through the discussion was that the present "by country" system was unsatisfactory. And it should be noted, that Good Ol's close was not to say "delete/upmerge, no need for these subcats", but was intended to clear the way for a revision/repurposing of the subcategorisation. Possibly, on consideration there may have been a better method than straight delete/upmerge first, but really whichever way it was done would involve rework anyway to redesign and reinvent the subcategorisation of Category:Surnames. It's done now; I'm not sure what added value overturning and recreating these categories would have, if the clear direction is to move away from the "by country" layout anyway. There's already efforts underway on a "by language" tree, surely it'd be better to continue on with that instead of going backwards. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "by country" is just as good a way to do it than "by language" and I think those two categorization schemes can coexist. Both schemes will have plenty of grey areas and tricky cases. The misreading of the country scheme to mean "surnames found amongst citizens of Foo" in the most general sense possible is silly. It's a strawman position that one citizen of Foo having a surname makes that a Fooian surname. Something should be classified as a Fooian surname if it's associated with Foo in a notable and verifiable way (e.g. if it appears in monographs on Fooian surnames). Barack Obama plays basketball (his article even says so) but he is not categorized into Category:American basketball players because it's not a notable or defining characteristic. Haukur (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's a strawman position, the descriptions on a few of those categories literally said the category was for "surnames found amongst citizens of [country]". That's evidently how some people thought of and used these cats, however much we or others think it's silly or if it was intended to restrict to notably and verifiably associated surnames. I'd agree that any proposed subdivision scheme will have its grey areas and tricky cases. The argument here however is that the inclusion criteria for 'surname by country' subcats are much more nebulous and open to conflicting interpretations and misuse. Even with your reasonable-sounding condition requiring evidence of notable and defining association, I struggle to see how "notable association" with a country can be consistently defined in the majority of cases. Given its modern demographics, would Hindustani names be notably associated with Fiji? What about Turks in Bulgaria (with attendant political controversy involving surnames)? Is the surname Fujimori not notably associated with Peru? I have no expertise in onomastics, but surely when scholarly monographs discuss Fooian surnames and their origins they intend and use "Foo" as a cultural/linguistic identifier, and are not referring to the modern political entity [country] that happens also to be called Foo.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was a good topical comment, thank you. In reply: I have no idea about Hindustani names, Fiji names, Turks in Bulgaria, the name Fujimori or Peruvian names. I have no expertise on these things and I'd be fine with whatever solutions the people active in editing these areas will come up with. A litany of possibly tricky cases is just not a compelling argument to delete the entire structure. You'd need to convince me that taken as a whole the structure was misleading rather than informative. It was an enormous category tree, I'm sure there were lots of tricky cases and I'm sure some of the tricky cases were solved in suboptimal ways. But the harm done by a suboptimal solution to the categorization of a particular name or a particular group of names is miniscule. Deleting the whole thing was much more damaging. As for culture, language and political entities you must remember that it's the last one of the three which keeps the statistics. For example, it's very easy to find information about which names are common in Iceland (currently or historicall). There's even some very good stuff online, see here: [8] A sorting of names by countries seems eminently reasonable to me. A sorting of names by language seems totally reasonable too - but I don't think it will be any less difficult to define boundaries there (and I'm a linguist, if that adds any weight to my opinion). If you want me to, I can give you a litany of tricky cases for sorting names by language but I won't unless asked since I don't oppose sorting by language as well as by country. But for the record, the deletion discussion we're reviewing also had people who opposed any categorization of names, whether by culture, language or country. Haukur (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – a 'by country' subcat scheme doesn't work if there are any exceptions at all. I don't think there would be any great difficulty in finding a source which says Obama or Eisenhower is an American surname or Portillo or Jones an English one. This doesn't mean that it is a suitable basis for categorisation. Occuli (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I can see plenty of WP:ILIKEIT keeps and "per above" strongest possible keeps, but no remotely convincing arguments for keeping other than the purely formal and procedural one that instead of deleting all these categories and creating more reasonable ones relating to languages or cultures one might as well rename some of the categories. Hans Adler 12:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bot, reverting a bot is not an "edit war". It took me a while to figure out how it was functioning and how to stop it from reverting me. When I finally did I left a note on the talk page explaining why deleting this particular category didn't make any sense.[9] At that point you started reverting me and threatening me - without at any point engaging my argument or talking to me like a human being. To this day, no-one has made any attempt to justify the deletion of Category:Icelandic names and you have made no attempt to justify your reversion of my edits to Guðrún and the other pages. The situation that now prevails is that Guðrún and Sigurrós are in no Icelandic-related category at all, an obviously inferior situation to the one prevailing before. You broke it. Either fix it or at least stop preventing me from fixing it. Haukur (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree but you get points for finally discussing the matter. There is a reference in Jón and Guðrún for those names being the most common names in Iceland. That makes them Icelandic names and they should be categorized together. In fact, these are the only facts referenced on these articles so if you want to remove everything everywhere that isn't referenced then it's everything else in these articles that you should remove. (Note: I didn't write these articles and I don't think they're good articles, all I'm saying here is that they need to be categorized together as Icelandic names.) Haukur (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, Jón merely being common does not make it "Icelandic" any more than Ian, Jan, John, Jon, Yan, Yon, or any other common variant makes them "American". Nor does a particular diacritical mark. Which came first, the chicken (diacritical mark) or the egg (pronunciation). The answer is neither: they were mutations originally from somewhere else.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, that proves my point nicely. Some people won't like "Jón" being classified linguistically as an Icelandic name (grey area!). Nevertheless, it clearly belongs in an "Icelandic names" category in a "by country" scheme since it's the most common name in Iceland and it's basically not used anywhere else. Haukur (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a number of the preceeding comments are:

    a) Focused on conduct rather than content. I think these should be disregarded, because DRV is not the place to resolve a conduct dispute. If there's a genuine conduct dispute, take it to DR. I encourage all concerned to ignore attempts to focus on conduct rather than content.

    b) Focused on what the outcome "should have been". I understand why there's a tendency to think in those terms, but DRV is not AfD round 2. Our role in this is to decide if the closer implemented the consensus. That clearly wasn't a "delete" outcome by raw strength of numbers, so we need to define consensus in terms of the weight of argument. We do need to resist the urge to allow our own personal opinions to reflect our assessment of the arguments that other people brought up.

    —S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... take it to DR." We are at DR. Do you mean WP:ANI? To be honest, I'd thought we'd resolved the issue with Haukur on his Talk, and didn't bring it to ANI. Had I known he'd try to rehash it here instead, I'd have given him the opportunity to explain himself at ANI first.... That's what comes of my trying to be nice to somebody.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I recall, Deletion review is/was part of Dispute resolution. You are here. Not taking you immediately to ANI or 3RR was being nice. Repeatedly pointing you at edit summaries and (in turn) CfD was being nice. Ignoring your diatribe was being nice. "Please" was being nice.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're starting to make me smile. Silly threats about blocking me for an "edit war" with a bot were being nice? Why should I take such nice advice on 3RR from someone blocked for it less than two weeks earlier? Haukur (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of such a huge set of categories with big number of voters requires serious weighing arguments from both sides, summarizing the arguments. Unlike deletion of an article, restoring a deleted category is huge hassle. Therefore its deletion must be thought and rethought 7 times. - Altenmann >t 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it was, nearly 3 times the normal 7 day discussion period. Here's the requested summary:
Delete/Upmerge (substantive comments)
  1. User:William Allen Simpson
  2. User:Otto4711
  3. User:Occuli
  4. User:Beeswaxcandle
  5. User:Beeblebrox
  6. User:Carlossuarez46
  7. User:Vegaswikian
Delete (less substantive comments)
  1. User:Drawn Some
  2. User:Dougweller
Keep (substantive comments)
none
Keep (less substantive comments)
  1. User:Badagnani, "Strongest possible keep per above"
  2. User:Mayumashu, "informative lists"
    • (also suggests rename)
  3. User:Cmaric, "academic useful pages" [sic]
    • (thought deleting articles)
  4. User:Alansohn, "could hardly imagine a more effective means of organization"
  5. User:Russavia, "valid categorisation." Ukrainians "may not like the consequences; that being a history lesson."
    • (example was Russian, meaning Greater Russian Empire)
  6. User:Wassermann, "User:Otto471 is totally incorrect, ... false statement is downright absurd and strikes me as profoundly disingenuous."
  7. User:68.0.143.11 (single purpose account), "extremely helpful"
  8. User:Alexsautographs, "It's a great resource"
  9. User:Evans1982, "Most names are indigenous to certain countries."
Keep some, delete others
  1. User:Altenmann, "no valid rationale. Well-defined categories."
  2. User:Peterkingiron
  3. User:WALTHAM2, "west Asian and North African, perhaps excluding Israel"
  4. User:Williamb
Rename/Reorganize (various proposals)
  1. User:Debresser, "originating in"
  2. User:Jarry1250, "Generalise"
  3. User:Johnbod, "Originating in"
  4. User:RoccoWasHere (single purpose account), "useful", "originating from"
  5. User:Ophelia Alexiou (single purpose account), "Culturally Originating from"
  6. User:WBardwin, "glad to see the topic of reoganiztion under discussion." [sic]
  7. User:CJLL Wright
    • (detailed proposal)
  8. User:Celtus, Strong support of the above User:CJLL Wright
  9. User:NVO, Weak support of User:CJLL Wright
  10. User:PericlesofAthens, "extremely useful", "cultures"
  11. User:Nexm0d, "re-categorize the articles to their real ethnic or linguistic origin!"
  12. User:Fayenatic london "relating to origin of the name"
  13. User:Henry Merrivale, "Essential categories. Study of Fooian surnames in its morphological and semantic aspects is a standard subject; there are hundreds of monographs on onomastics of different countries. Just to give an easy example: the ref list to Unbegaun's monograph "Russian surnames" (sic!) is 10 pages." "Probably the source of the confusion is incorrect umbrella category: Surnames by country."
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is obvious from summary, 8 folks wanted to keep all, 30 folks (discounting User:Badagnani) wanted to delete all or some, or implement another schema (for categories, that always involves deletion). By the numbers, that's a pretty strong consensus! There wasn't a consensus on which alternative to implement, although we are now trying to follow CJLL Wright's ideas.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that counting those who wanted to "keep all" on one side against those who wanted to "delete all or some" on the other isn't likely to cut much ice with the unfortunate person who closes this DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needless to say, this is a tendentious and highly selective misrepresentation of the debate. There was a common feeling that we could improve the category structure, nothing like a consensus to delete it. This is more Bến Tre logic on your part. Haukur (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, agree with cjllw. The discussion identified a clear problem with the category structure and a decisive close was appropriate. Outright deletion was perhaps a little drastic in some cases, when several of the cats could probably have just been renamed, but there's no sense in recreating the old tree as was and denying the existence of the problem, far better to press on and implement a new system. Flowerparty☀ 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since when does a DRV close "Admonish" anyone? AFAIK, for a DRV closer to do so would be contrary to the policy laid out at WP:DRV. I think some of you may be confusing WP:DRV with WP:DR. - jc37 23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Interesting discussion. A closer is not a vote counter. Anyone who thinks that he is, needs to go read WP:CON again, and this time for understanding. The closer is to determine consensus of arguments based upon the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Not those just based upon personal assertions. Personal opinion is only valid in questions of style. Not in questions of content. And in this case: no reference, no category, indeed applies. Categories are a navigational tool. If you want to add "referenced content", make a referenced list, create a referenced article. But without that reliably sourced referenced content, no category may exist. And a few isolated references for a few specific category members, doesn't mean that all the other category members may stay. Seriously, anyone could have depopulated all members without references, and been fully within policy. This is a consistent policy, which has been in place for YEARS. You cannot add annotations to category members, therefore they are NOT to be used for content purposes, again, because the individual category members cannot be referenced. And that's not just following WP:CAT, that's following WP:V and WP:NOR. - jc37 23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to DRV-closer: I still think the category structure should be undeleted without prejudice. But in case you decide against that I'd like to ask you to consider temporary undeletion as a compromise. Almost everyone agrees that the old category structure has a lot of information helpful in creating a new category structure. The person who deleted the tree has asked us to work off bot logs to get this information - that's a seriously unnatural and cumbersome way to do things. It would be much easier if the original tree were undeleted for, say, a month or two. Haukur (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. If it were to make it easier for editors to work on redesign and rebuild of category structure along the lines as is being discussed and commenced at category talk:Surnames, then I think Haukur's temporary undeletion proposal is a very reasonable one. It probably would be a little less cumbersome than working off Cydebot's logs. To achieve the temporary undeletion, would we presume an input list could be fed into some bot that would then go about re-adding cats? Or maybe, the input list or bot operation could be tweaked to add in the renamed cats (eg Russian surnames-->Russian-language surnames; Bangladeshi surnames-->Bengali-language surnames etc) where these can be readily identified, and the remaining more involved cases considered one-by-one upon recreation.? --cjllw ʘ TALK 16:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response -- How would the bot be programmed to check for a reference, and check that the reference is about language origin (not to a list of most popular names, as for the Icelandic names). Every single entry needs to be checked. And it's a lot easier to check the simpler existing edit list from Cydebot by hand (already organized alphabetically by country, already has the edit link in place, 1 click), than to bring up parallel category screens and click multiple times (open category, open article, open edit). He doesn't want to do the checking, he wants somebody else to do the work for him.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you're saying. Parallel category screens? Who wants whom to do work for whom? I just want the category structure back - preferably to keep it, but failing that I want it back in order to turn it into something not organized by country. Hence, the temporary undeletion idea. Haukur (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the references, it isn't any sort of unique failure of the previous system that not every article was referenced. Good Ol’factory has put five articles into the new Category:Japanese-language surnames and none of those articles has any reference at all (are you going to revert him?). Moving from "by country" to "by language" doesn't somehow make references more likely to appear, this is just neither here nor there. Haukur (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The admin's rationale was sound. The handling afterwards was a bit hasty and clumsy; and obviously people are a bit pissy about it. I know my watch-list took one hell of a beating. But this doesn't trump the rationale for the deletion. These cats have to be as useful as possible and every piece of information presented on Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources. The study of names is through language. No matter how badly we want our nationalistic cats, it isn't how surnames are categorised in sources dealing with the etymology and classification of surnames. The rationale to use verifiable and encyclopaedic cats was in the best interest of this project. We need to put aside our national pride and our personal preferences. We have to think about what is best for this encyclopaedia. So that means using reliable, meaningful and easily understandable categories.--Celtus (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn.
    • The Cfd itself had unusually wide repercussions and should therefore have had correspondingly wide publicity. Notice of it did not reach all editors who felt themselves to be affected, such as some of those at User talk:Good Olfactory#Surnames
    • Thre is wide agreement, shown in the Cfd and elsewhere, that some sort of national/linguistic classification of surnames is useful
    • It is neither necessary nor permissibile to undertake WP:OR about a classification scheme. Suitable sources are widely available, such as the categories used in Hanks, Patrick; Hodges, Flavia. A Dictionary of Surnames. Oxford Univerity Press. ISBN 0-19-211592-8.
    • It is, as far as I know, impossible to add references to a [[Category:..]] declaration. There is, as far as I know, no evidence as to how many categorisations in existing articles were actually supported by references within the article, although confident statements such as "Most have no references" are being made above. Certainly references are present in many cases, and the Hanks & Hodges book, for example, would easily serve as a source of reference for thousands more (nearly all those of European origin)
    • The only reasonable closure conclusions were "no consensus" or "reorganise" (or "reorganize" if you prefer). No argument has been presented that running the bot was necessary or helpful for achieving reorganisation.
    • In running the bot, exceptions have been made for Chinese, Slovene, Montenegrin, GSB/Konkani, Galician, Czech, Bengali, Belarusian, and Arabic. No rationale seem to have been offered for this bizarre list.
    • The remark "(through) the nice cooperative work of a number of editors a 'by language' scheme it is well on its way to being developed fully" made by Good Olfactory above is not supported by my own experience

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No exceptions were made. Most of those were in a separate CfD nomination on a later day, nominated after conclusion of this CfD, as they were already categorized under "language" or "words and phrases", and therefore could more easily be renamed "-language". I created Chinese-language (and others not mentioned here) by hand.
  • As to your quote, my own experience, So would it be possible for a bot-writer to use an existing or new bot to reinstate these as some "category:Hungarian-language surnames" or the like? This illustrates the problem.

    "These articles really do need to be gone through one by one and the ones that are not applicable to "by language" do need to be removed from the applicable categories. Users should also be checking for reliable, verifiable sources, etc. in each article, which are lacking in a large number."

    There is plenty of "cooperative work", it merely wasn't the answer you desired.... Nobody else is going to do it for you.
  • If you really have a source reference, it should be very straightforward to find each surname one by one in the Surnames parent category (or type it in directly), add the reference citation to the article, and add the correct category.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for explaining the basis on which the exceptions were made. I find it very arbitrary, since it depended on the precise wording used in the category definition, which may well have only loosely correlated with the way the category was used in practice. To continue with the Hungarian example, I don't know what the category said, since it's been deleted, but the actual uses did correspond in about 90% of cases with Hungarian language.
  • You seem to have a weird conception of the word "co-operative". I would characterise the response I've been getting from Good Olfactory and you as rigidly unco-operative, and rude to a point just short of breach of WP:CIVIL. A good example of the rudeness is your phrasing "If you really have a source reference" above, which I can only take as implying that I'm bluffing, whereas I've already drawn attention to the Hanks & Hodges book, which is a source for thousands of these names.
  • Your remark "Nobody else is going to do it for you." betrays your lack of grip on the realities of the situation. Wikipedia belongs to all of us equally. I edit it partly for the common good, partly because it's interesting and pleasant, particularly when editors do co-operate. If this deletion decision is overturned, I shall do some work on improving these categories, in areas where I feel competent to do so. If the upmerge stands, I shall edit elsewhere, always alert for any action which is liable to destruction by arbitrary use of a bot. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — This was a difficult to summarise AfD, and I think that GOl'f did an excellent job of summarising the debate: if I'm not sure what is best to put in their place, certainly all the concerns I had were reflected in the closing summary, and I am confident that the decision was well-considered. As an aside, given the impact of the deletion, it should have been no surprise to anyone that the CfD would be vigorously contested: the closing admin can take the unusual step of listing their own XfD closures on DRV if they want the appeals to be heard without the shocked outrage that follows the deletion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, then refine. The OP who stated that this is "destroying the village to save it" is spot-on. Yes, silliness like "this cat includes names appearing in the Fooian phonebook" is ridiculous. However, such radical anti-nationalist opinions as "there is zero reason the name Fujimori should be associated with Japan instead of Serbia" are equally silly. Dumping 14,000 names into one cat helps nobody, and impedes any attempts to re-org in a more helpful fashion. For example, if Category:Iranian names is judged to be inaccurate since Iran contains many cultures, if we dump into the 14,000 name subcat there's no way I can cat the names. If, however, we agree to attempt to, with references, divide it into Category:Persian names, Category:Azeri names, Category:Baloch names based on the documentable cultural associations of each, it would be infinitely easier if said names were filed under "Iran" instead of dumped in with every name on the planet. The delete smacks of POV "one world" opinions, and threatens other cats tenuously based on nationality (which makes them well-sorted for 95% of users) that would arguably be better based on "culture". MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a source. You are categorizing names from the source, not from an existing category. Your assertion only makes sense by assuming that you are categorizing by looking at the names first (your example, Iran), and then deciding by inference and deduction whether they belong to a subculture. That's contrary to long-standing policy. As are your POV remarks about "radical anti-nationalist opinions" and "one world opinions".
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but refine and prune -- Surnames can be categorised by places to which they are indiginous. Murray and Cameron are Scottish; Murphy is Irish; Sneider is German; Sarkozy is not French (Polish or Hungarian?); Portillo is Spanish; Patel is Indian; Fujimori is Japanese; etc. Many English surnames are ultimately English place names and are thus obviously English. On the other hand, in most countries settled by Europeans eg USA and New Zealand, there will be no equivalent, except possibly in the case of Native Americans and Maoris. National categories will not always be appropriate: the same set of Muslim first names are used as surnames in various Islamic countries, so that Hussain and Mohammed will need to be categorised as Islamic (rather than Pakistani or Iraqi). On the other hand in the Middle East, religious groups have effectively become ethnic groups, so that Armenian names will have been used by Armenians from a number of post-Ottoman states. Similarly, Lee would need to be categorised both as English and as Chinese. Due to there being a relatively small set of Africaaner surnames, though ultimately of Dutch origin, it might be appropriate to have a category for them, but this would be an exceptional case. These surnames characterise a person as to their ultimate paternal origin. I would discourage their use in bio-articles on individuals, but they would be appropriate for articles on people with a particular surname, which are usually little more than disambiguation pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. All those diverse circumstances and examples could be addressed (less messily, IMO) under a "by language" of origin/association tree, and not by place/country. If we'd been having this 'surnames by country' discussion in 1989 instead of 2009, then by rights we would not contemplating cats for Armenian names, or Georgian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Uzbek, Ukrainian etc surnames, but Russian/Soviet surnames. Similarly there'd be only Yugoslavian surnames, not Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin, etc. Doing it by language less susceptible to winds of political change, although it will have its own hardbasket cases. It's also a better indicator/measure of name origin, than political boundaries have been, or can be. --cjllw ʘ TALK 16:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In 1989 we would most likely have regarded Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin as one language. In 1999 we would have regarded them as two languages. Whether to regard them as one, two or three languages is a political question rather than a linguistic question. As for the erstwhile Soviet republics I think it would always have been reasonable for a "Surnames by country" structure to include them as subcategories of "Soviet names". In an earlier comment I mentioned that it's the countries which keep the statistics - I should also have mentioned that it's the countries that make the laws. My country, for example, has a finite list of allowed names and a commission which needs to approve any given names not on the list (including new spelling variants). New family names are not allowed at all. There's a lot to link names and political entities. Haukur (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in 1989, 1999, and 2009, whether Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin are different languages is answered by verifiable, reliable sources. Adding surnames to a category depending on its ending in "-ic" or "-ich" (or starting with "Mac" or "Mc") is by inference and deduction.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly are you disagreeing with? You say "in 1989, 1999, and 2009, whether Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin are different languages is answered by verifiable, reliable sources" and I totally agree with that - the point is that verifiable, reliable sources would have answered the question differently in each of those years. You can also toss Bosnian into the mix. My point is that distinguishing languages is something subject to the winds of political change. Haukur (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point is demonstrably false, according to references in the respective language articles. The identifiable cultures and languages existed long (hundreds of years) before the borders were recently redrawn, evidenced by the different surname endings and spellings mentioned above.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm quite right about this. Whether or not something is regarded as a language or a dialect is usually just a political issue - reliable sources in 1989 treated Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian as dialects of one language - Serbo-Croatian. Reliable sources now treat this differently, because of political changes rather than linguistic changes. Haukur (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It seems like a pretty reasonable group of names with notable and defining associations with Africa..." - That would appear to be an unreferenced assertion. - jc37 05:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is this meant as a joke? What is your evidence that these are not African surnames? If not meant as a joke, please keep in mind that everything we do at Wikipedia must be based on reasonableness, and keeping our users foremost in our minds. Substituting a "Surnames" category for a legitimate "African surnames" subcategory is neither reasonable nor something that assists our users in finding the information they need to find (with all verifiably African surnames buried in a "Surnames" category with 14 thousand entries). Let's not undermine our encyclopedia in such a manner, allowing a few editors with extreme viewpoints to ruin our perfectly reasonable system of navigation--as they have so far been able to do. Badagnani (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it wasn't a joke. Though, I think it was stating the obvious. Speaking of which: "What is your evidence that these are not African surnames?" - I don't need evidence, those who would include them need the evidence (reference).
  • I think you're confusing categoryspace with mainspace. We tend to allow unreferenced assertions in mainspace, due to presuming that the info is accurate, and we're just waiting for it to be referenced in a timely manner. And if it isn't it'll likely be deleted for one of various reasons (commonly: "unsourced WP:OR").
  • In category-space, since it's not about content, but navigation, you HAVE to have the references, for two reasons (among others). First, potential misrepresentation of fact. And without references in the source article, there's no way to PROVE it. (The oft-quoted line from the beginning of WP:V applies here...)
  • Second, since categories are for navigation purposes, if there are no references to support it, then what's the purpose of the navigation? To go from assertion to assertion? That's rather obviously contrary to Wikipedia policy (as I noted above). And this doesn't even get into WP:BLP issues.
  • And so far, all that seems to be currently verified is that these are surnames. Until the rest is verified, then: No category.
  • If anyone's "undermining the encyclopedia", it's whoever is attempting to create an category system based upon unverified assertions of original research, contrary to long-standing policy.
  • And while we're discussing this, you know what else has been lacking? WP:NPOV!
  • I'm am absolutely stunned that anyone would accuse other editors of anti-whatever bias.
  • I won't speak for anyone else, but for me, this comes down to a clear set of policies that have been in place for YEARS. And WP:IWANTIT just doesn't trump policy in this case.
  • I hope this clarifies. - jc37 17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really follow. Categories without references seem pretty harmless in most cases and certainly in the cases we're discussing. Diagne gets categorized as an African surname without a reference. What's the worst that can happen if this somehow turns out to be wrong? I don't see why that would be worse than unreferenced inaccurate statements in article text. Haukur (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're sorry that you don't understand. That lack of understanding is one of the reasons that the entire surnames by country scheme didn't work, and had to be replaced. From Youssouf to Aboubakar, there are/were no references proving they are African surnames. I'm hoping that folks will pay more attention to categorization by language. Meanwhile, take this shorthand statement to heart: no reference, no category.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other examples. It's a misrepresentation of the debate that the deletions represented a move from a "by country" structure to a "by language" structure. In reality they meant a move from a somewhat variegated structure to no structure at all. A number of the categories deleted are language-based and cannot be interpreted in any other way. Category:Urdu names was deleted. So was Category:Afrikaans surnames. Afrikaans and Urdu are languages. The language-group categories Category:Slavic surnames, Category:Germanic surnames, Category:Germanic names and Category:Celtic surnames were also deleted. I continue to think that the best way to proceed is to undelete all those categories and work to improve the system from there. Haukur (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not a "by language" system was to be adopted was left as an open question when the close was performed. Discussion was recommended on this point. If the resulting consensus is to create a "by language" system, then obviously these categories could be restored to join the system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This doesn't make any sense. You yourself have been actively participating in creating a by-language system and in suppressing efforts to work with other systems. (See e.g. User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Surnames_redux.) So what's the deal? Why did you delete these by-language categories? In what possible sense did the CfD reach a consensus to delete by-language categories? Haukur (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I haven't been "actively participating" in the development of the language scheme or in suppressing any other moves to develop other systems. I'm quite uninvolved, actually. I've responded to inquiries, made a few non-substantive comments on Category talk:Surnames, re-deleted categories that were re-created, and done some other administrative work (like unprotecting a surnames template) for some who've asked me for help, but no where have I expressed a preference for the language scheme over any other proposed scheme. The language scheme got off the ground quickly, but I haven't seen much action on an alternate scheme. I'd be happy to similarly assist the other scheme if it gets off the ground too. At this stage I'm not even sure what it would be. My statement above explains why the language categories were originally deleted: "Whether or not a 'by language' system was to be adopted was left as an open question when the close was performed. Discussion was recommended on this point." Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes you have been. See e.g. this edit of yours: [10] I'm shocked, shocked that you have added an article to a category without any reference being provided. Have you yet to accept the sacred shorthand statement in your heart? Haukur (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The examples that you gave here were categorized "by country". You seem to agree that they were incorrectly categorized. With the categories themselves incorrectly categorized, why do you expect the contents were better? (Checking them at the time revealed no references.) No reference, no category.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Flowerparty and others above. --Kbdank71 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly from the discussion at CfD and here, the existing structure had problems. By upmerging to the parent, all of the articles are in one place awaiting reassignment in whatever manner consensus arrive at. Clearly this has created the optimal placement of the articles to fix the existing problems and the best status to implement any new scheme. The previous arrangement was deeply flawed and would have been a nightmare to untangle. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; action to replace by-country categories with one enormous category was not supported by the discussion, and closer did not make a compelling argument for it. The existing structure had problems; a number of potentially better proposals were made; the closer instead opted for a third, obviously worse choice. It would have been just as easy to implement a new (potentially parallel) system from the status quo position than from the current position, indeed probably easier. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:53, 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.
George Bush (43rd U.S. President) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing admin did not interpret the fairly clear consensus for deletion correctly, closing the discussion by saying "It is not causing any harm." The arguments in favor of keeping are it's not hurting anything and people find it useful. For the former, WP:NOHARM is an exceedingly weak argument, one that should generally be avoided (yes, that is an essay and not binding but it is illustrative of a fairly widespread feeling about the merits of "it's not hurting anything"). WP:USEFUL is also an extremely weak argument. It appears that one editor's claim, based on page view statistics, that editors other than himself find it useful was sufficient to keep based on item five: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." However, PaulGS is not saying that he personally finds it useful. He is saying that he assumes that because it's been clicked on some number of times someone somewhere finds it useful. I submit that this doesn't meet the meaning of item five because there is no way to know why or how editors ended up at the redirect. For all PaulGS or any other editor knows, those editors had no intention of going to the redirect at all and do not find it in any way useful. The arguments against the redirect, particularly the argument raised by WaysToEscape, are both numerically superior by a 2-1 margin (yes, I know XfD is not a vote) but also logically sounder. Otto4711 (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What consensus for deletion? Far as I can see, apart from you as nominator, there were two keeps, two deletes, and a "mild delete". I put it to you that there was no consensus at all, and that Gavia Immer's "keep" argument was the strongest one presented in the debate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gavia's argument was quite effectively countered by Amory's noting of the high placement of our article in a google search. With the parenthetical our article is the second google result. Without it our article is the first google result. Otto4711 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as Keep An obviously useful redirect. The reason given for deletion was that it could be found eventually otherwise, if people followed the disam page, but that should not be required when there is a direct and simple approach like this from a very common term. Deleting something like this requires wider consensus that in a routine RfD, an almost unwatched process. Amory there and Otto here seem to argue that we should adjust the way we do things so our result is first in Google, almost the worst argument that can be imagined, and totally contradictory to our role, which is an encyclopedia, not a seo. Such an argument was properly ignored as contrary to policy. DGG (talk)
  • The argument for keeping is that someone might search for George Bush (43rd U.S. President) from an outside search engine. That argument is properly countered by noting the high placement of our article in an outside search engine. And in fact Googling "George Bush (43rd U.S. President)" doesn't turn up our article at all, further shooting the external search engine argument to hell. No one argued that we are or should be a search engine and suggesting that anyone did is a misrepresentation of the discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 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.
IndieShows (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I wasn't finished creating the page... I had an under construction notice up... now someone marked it for deletion and all the content I was working on is gone! It said the page was deleted because it was web content related and it didn't state it's importance. Well, theres a lot of articles here that don't state their importance. The article is about an independent music site that provides podsafe music and concert listings for indie bands only... it's important because it's part of the independent music revolution. There are sites like SoundClick.com that have a wikipedia page and they don't state their "importance". Besides, the bottom line is, I wasn't finished with the page. It will take me weeks to finish.Lennonno9 (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, this article hasn't been deleted?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was deleted, but was recreated by the nominator shortly before listing this DRV. I have deleted it again as it still appeared to relate to a website which did not state how it might be important or significant; feel free to consider this a deletion review of that discussion as well. The nominator is encouraged to read WP:WAX and WP:WEB in the meantime. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not a correct speedy delete. The article t gave an indication of notability by saying it was the site that provided the most complete information. Obviously third party references will be necessary to show that. Re-deleting it during the discussion here is not helpful. I have had sufficient conflicts with the 2nd deletor that someone else should do a restore to user space for the purpose of discussion. DGG (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to DGG or anyone else userfying this or any article I have ever deleted (subject to BLP etc. being complied with, if applicable). Stifle (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is impenetrable to me. Is there any chance of a clear explanation of the sequence of events? Did it have an {{underconstruction}} tag on it when it was speedied? Who tagged it, and who deleted it, and after how long, and what contact was made with the creator?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn for now per DGG, but without seeing what is deleted, it's darn hard to form my own opinion. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I guess it's hard for me to prove since everything was deleted, but I did have the "under construction" banner up. And I am trying very hard to make the article "show it's importance" on the web. For one I stated that this is one of the first sites to use the term "Radiosafe", meaning mp3s that DJs can play without asking the artist's permission, because the permission is given at the time of the upload... if you search google you will see, no other sites really use "radiosafe", so isn't this kind of important? This site is a pioneer so to speak coming up with words that are used a lot yet, but may be used often in the future. Now, can I reference this... that is difficult because I believe the site is only 1 or 2 years old. The article I was writing did have references though from mi2n.com and fatcatradio.com. I will read the articles you guys are suggesting I read above, but I do believe that my article was starting to show the importance of "IndieShows". Yet another "importance" is it's the only site I've found that is for independent band's concerts only, no major label bands allowed... again, can I find a reference to prove this? I hope so, but I don't know... Getting a website on wikipedia isn't easy ;). You guys do a good job at moderatoring I will say that, but I still don't think my page should of gotten deleted so quickly. Below is who deleted it first, how can I at least get the article e-mailed to me so I can start working on it again?...

(Deletion log); 08:03 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:IndieShows" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (Deletion log); 08:03 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "IndieShows" (A7: No indication that the article may meet (Deletion log); 13:56 . . NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "IndieShows" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)

Lennonno9 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was tagged with {{underconstruction}} when it was tagged as a CSD A7 Guettarda (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's talk page history shows that he received a templated welcome from a bot, a templated message telling him his article had been tagged for deletion, and then a friendly contact from Hairhorn, and then a pointer to policy from Drawn Some. Which is more than a lot of new editors receive when their stuff's deleted out of hand.

I think the fact that nobody's done anything that was technically outside the rules, here, shows how broken and bitey CSD is. I'm frankly disgusted with CSD creep, and I think CSD criterion A7 needs to yield to the {{underconstruction}} tag because of WP:BITE and WP:COMMON, but there's no policy to say that, so I have to hold my nose, roll my eyes to heaven and say "endorse".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 06:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be Wikipedia:Speedy deletion patrol to handle the jagged edges of CSD. I don't know why WP:SDP failed, really, it seemed to me that it caught enough stuff to be obviously worthwhile. The whole idea that we could have some CSD failsafe that allows the admins looking for CSD pages to apply the CSD criteria purely formally, where problems tend to get picked up informally, seems rather better than the current situation where admins feel pressured to get through the huge number of pages needing inspection, leading to snap CSD decisions, and then get cross-interrogated here about how deeply they have internalised WP deletion policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD I recommend Lennonno9 that he/she develop this article in her or her userspace before recreating it in article space again. Based on the above comments, this does appear to be a valid A7 speedy deletion. But since it is being contested, I believe that the issue would benefit from a full AfD discussion. --Farix (Talk) 13:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks I'll work on the article in my userspace. The funny thing is, and I know this means nothing BUT, there is an approved wikipedia article that cites IndieShows. Yet, IndieShows itself gets deleted every time an article is attempted. Thanks for the help guys. Lennonno9 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this article get approved? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lennonno9 Lennonno9 (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's not CSD A7 now. I guess Lennonno9 will soon be initiated into the tender mysteries of AfD, but I think the article has a fighting chance. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my biggest "beef" with this process. This is the critera for a web article: WP:WEB. However, I can go through wikipedia and find several approved articles that don't meet this criteria. For example you're technically not supposed to use blogs or press releases as references, but some of the most popular websites out there that have wikipedia articles that use these types of references. For example, this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundclick ... They only have 3 references... one is a press release and one cites their own website (how credible is that?) and finally they do have what looks to be ONE credible reference. So why isn't this SoundClick article deleted? Lennonno9 (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing the state of an article you find on WP to what you might be able to do with your content is not very interesting. If an article you find doesn't seem to reach the minimum standard you think articles should reach, is that because the topic is hopeless (e.g., vanity page), because the writing lacks value (e.g., it's a personal essay), or because the article needs attention to reach its potential? The rules governing minimum article quality are not promises about what you will find on WP, they are rules to help decide whether to improve or ditch weak articles that we might find. I've sourced two claims from the article, one to WSJ, one to Forbes, which I think leave it a fairly weakly sourced article. You can list the article on AfD if you like, or improve it, or say that it is not your problem. Note that that article has not survived an AfD; a duplicate of it was redirected to it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of our policies are applied inconsistently. Some of the inconsistency is necessary, some inevitable, and some in need of improvement. What is necessary inconsistency is that we make exceptions for special circumstances. This is even formalised under WP:IAR. if it is to the benefit of the encyclopedia that an article should be kept, it should be; if the encyclopedia would benefit from having it deleted, it should be. Our other rules are an attempt to specify circumstances for this, but we know we can not do it exactly. Thus it is explicitly stated that WP:IAR takes precedence over everything else. What is inevitable is that there will be differences among us on how to interpret both the specific rules, and when to use IAR. (I for example interpret the rules for inclusion somewhat broadly and rarely use IAR; some equally correct people here do just the opposite.) Allied to this is that our views of things change, and the people here change also, as some people leave and additional people join and become active--and as we learn by experience. The present state of Wikipedia contains many fossilized situations or incomplete changes--there are, after all, over two million articles. But two things ares unfortunate and need changing: First, we sometimes disagree radically in interpretation and have no adequate means of forming a stable and enforceable consensus. Second, admins and other editors make mistakes, or sometimes even act eccentrically--and we have no real way of catching it unless people complain, as you are doing. We should do better on this, and your assistance would be very welcome if you would like to participate more generally and help with the discussion and improvement of other articles. New voices are always welcome, and I am sure I speak here for all of us. DGG (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page was deleted yet again after spending a lot of time working on it. I believe it's time to focus on other things than trying to get an article approved here. I looked at all the help guides and tried to make it a legal article by showing importance and having references, but the bottom line is you guys don't like articles about websites, unless it's a very popular website, or the person just gets lucky. Sorry, I'm just aggravated right now. Lennonno9 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the DRV is over before you put recreate the article. If the DRV concludes restore, it will say so on the logs for that article, and other admins will see that it isn't speediable. You can work on the article in your user space until then. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:29, 30 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
  • North Carolina Stop Torture Now – deletion endorsed. I'm closing this discussion a day early as the consensus here is already obvious and the protracted discussion is not producing any change in what appears to be an obvious result, and if anything is beginning to devolve into circular debate and snarky comments. – Shereth 14:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
North Carolina Stop Torture Now (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There were only three contributors to the AfD of the 15th; the nominator and one other voted to delete, I voted to keep. The article was relisted at 0:40 on the 22nd by User:Juliancolton. Twelve hours and thirty four minutes later, with an admittedly impressive, if officially irrelevant six to two total to delete (the decision to delete being based solely on the merits of the arguments for and against, supposedly), the AfD was closed by User:Stifle.

I ask that the AfD be reopened; as of the end of the 21st, there was no consensus, and 13 hours is a laughable amount of time. Such a short span of time is extremely vulnerable to statistical anomalies and even more so to out-of-wiki-space canvassing. I take it from a discussion below, that closing the AfD as soon as a consensus forms is not considered, by one user at least, unusual, but it is incomprehensible to me that this should be so. It is like rolling a dice and waiting until you have a majority of sixes rolled, and then stating, the most common roll of a die is a six.

From the AfD: ..."The mission statement is standard...(for pages of groups such as NOW)..." I reworked the header. The notability is instantly apparent upon following the links already provided. A quick followup revealed the group's involvement in the South Carolina state legislature's proposition of HB 1682...Anarchangel (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)"

HB 1682 was the response of the SC legislature to the success of the books Ghost Plane and Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights, to be sure. However, the grassroots activism by SCSTN against the Aero base in NC, and other Carolina businesses connected with the post-2002 version of extraordinary rendition, not only gave additional impetus to this legislation, and public support, but gains additional notability by being part of these reactions to this most notable of events. Contributions Anarchangel (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Apologies, the title has been fixed. It now accurately reads North rather than South Carolina. I am going to check HB 1682 again, which is either the source of the confusion or is also inaccurately portrayed as a S.C. resolution. Aero is a NC company.

The media coverage was not restricted to either state; both HB 1682 and the org themselves were mentioned. Should this be relisted, we can hopefully see some attention paid to the facts and thus a counter to the proof by assertion that has dominated this discussion, and in fact seems to dominate the majority of discussions at WP. Anarchangel (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:RELIST, relisted AFDs may be closed once consensus can be determined, without necessarily waiting another seven days. Endorse own deletion as per the consensus. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle's comment above is almost a literal reproduction of the wording in RELIST. However, I believe that policy is in grave error, and I will show an example to illustrate why. If you roll a dice until you have a majority of one number rolled, and then declare that that number is the most likely of outcomes when rolling a dice, you have made just such an error; your sampling is skewed toward statistical anomalies. Thirteen hours is ridiculous. There is always some randomness when asking for comments in an AfD; the seven day time period allows for a -less anomalous- although still not error-free result.

Additionally, four people who prefer to ignore the citations in the article, or parrot others saying that there are no citations, all show up in thirteen hours, is even less of a significant result, for our purposes, than a number showing up several times when rolling dice. That is because the substance of arguments is to be considered over the number of arguments. WP:N always requires some value judgement; the citations are solid evidence and there to be seen. Note that I had considered and will continue to consider the previous AfD period of the 15th, contrary to Uncle G's assertion; however, its results were inconclusive, and Juliancolton was quite right to relist the AfD.

...I would request that consideration be given to the additional citations and material involving a second bill that should be added to the article:

Since no other assertions were made other than Notability and Verification by sources, I propose that the above evidence is proof that the AfD was not only, voted on by a majority of people employing only their PoV to assess the article, not only wrongfully closed, but that it was wrongfully opened, and that the article should be restored. Anarchangel (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that WP:RELIST should be changed, please feel free to gather a consensus to support that at WT:DPR. It's rather unreasonable to criticize someone for following the defined process. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do, and I shall do my best. Your thirteen hours is most fortuitous in that regard, it will make an excellent test case. It is reasonable to assume what happens when good men do nothing, let alone cut the shortest corners they can within the confines of the rules. Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is not at issue. I concede that Stifle is capable of counting. Just unwilling to count up to seven days, it seems. Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to say relists should be 7 days. This page is to review whether the close was correct, which it was. If you have further sources that you wish to be considered then how about asking for the page to be userfied so you can build them into the article. Quantpole (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. It is too early in the proceedings for that, however. This page is for many things. You yourself have named one. Among my responses to the assertions brought here: I have already conceded that the rules state that relists can be less than 7 days. My arguments themselves are entirely unchanged and so far, unchallenged. The AfD and closure has not been absolved of my other challenges because the rules are deficient at preventing Stifle's misdeed. If/when my assertions are answered, the discussion can proceed. Anarchangel (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find the answers at the top of this page, under WP:DRV. Nobody's going to type them out again for you.

    The primary purpose of this page is to decide whether the deleting admin followed the rules. He did, so this deletion review will fail, and that's the end of the line for the review process.

    Your point is somewhat different, if I understand it correctly. You feel that the rules were followed but the rules are wrong — in which case, you need to challenge the rules themselves, and this page can't do that because first, it's not what DRV is for, and second, because you could not build a consensus of sufficient magnitude to change policy here. Not enough people take part in DRV for that.

    The correct venue is the talk page for the policy or guideline that you wish to challenge.

    If you're successful in effecting a change of policy, bring it back here. DRV will almost always enforce the policy that currently prevails.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Closing admin correctly determined consensus and applied Wikipedia guidelines as currently written. — Satori Son 13:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Consensus was clearly to delete and Wikipedia policies were correctly interpreted. - 2 ... says you, says me 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15:34, 5 October 2008: Stifle writes into RELIST the rule enabling him to close relists before five days Now, I will grant you, that policy makers acting according to policy is an inevitable circumstance. Of more concern is the discussion that prompted that change. The problem is its length and substantiveness, and as per its length, it is no problem whatsoever to include it here in its entirety:

There are many comments I could, and most likely will, make about this exchange. For now, suffice it to say that there has never been a substantive debate on any time period preceeding the closure of relisted AfDs, and yet everyone here, including the person who entered it into mainspace, is acting as though it were the Holy Words of Moses handed down from on high.

Immediately affecting my petition here, I retract my statement "Juliancolton was quite right to relist the AfD", except for as it pertains to the inconclusiveness of the debate at the end of seven days after the initial AfD of the 15th. The existing rule, as this discussion page listing indicates (they are for the substance of my argument identical) states that AfDs should not be relisted if more than one editor has commented with substantive policy based arguments. The inconclusiveness of the debate goes to the argument that the AfD was improperly relisted. The AfD should have been closed, per WP:RELIST, for reasons of 'no consensus'. Anarchangel (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you haven't got anywhere with your first argument, so you'll try a different one. Quantpole (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe no one got anywhere against my arguments, so I thought I would let them have a go at a different one. Still no luck, tho, alas. Anytime you want to start taking things seriously, like AGF, or anything really, feel free. Anarchangel (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always find it amusing when people shout AGF when they are failing to do the same. Quantpole (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read RELIST when I made the DRV. I made my argument against 'waiting for a consensus to form', which still stand. I read RELIST, and it became obvious that there was another infraction of the rules that had been made. To follow your hypothetical, which assumes much and insinuates more: motivations cannot be regulated, only actions. That is partly why we AGF; what people think cannot be proven, only what they do.
  • Endorse As has been stated by others, a relist does not guarantee another 7 days of discussion, but until a consensus can be determine from topics that have little to no previous discussion by a number of editors. The closing admin followed Wikipedia's deletion policies and the closing was not inappropriate or contrary to the comments given in the allotted time. Whether the discussion would have benefited if more time was allowed is debatable. But unlike the first listing which requires 7 days, there is no minimum time for a discussion to remain open after a relisting. Whether there should be one is a matter for discussion at the appropriate deletion policy page. But that discussion is outside the purview of DRV. --Farix (Talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These waffles are great. Pass the syrup. Anarchangel (talk)
Please show evidence of attacks. My assertions remain unchallenged (WP:EQ), therefore I have no cause to concede any. I have challenged all points made; it is for other contributors to concede their points or address my challenges. The discussion is not continuing because other contributors are not discussing. Early closure is counterindicated. It would only exacerbate the problem, by lowering the chance that someone who knows what discussion is, might enter it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 June 2009

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


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

Meets WP:MUSIC; please evaluate my draft. The page is salted because previous creations were speedily deleted for lack of citations. But that was before Brisco had any charted songs on the Billboard chart.

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]
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:JR Fun Big.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

There was never a deletion discussion, it was just nominated for deletion, and then I was notified. Also it was deleted within a week, so it was undeleted, and then Speedy Deleted but it does not meet the requirements for Speedy Deletion, so it should be undeleted and discussed on it's talk page. MahaPanta (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I nominated this image for deletion back on April 6 (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 6#JR Fun Big.gif because it was not released under a free license, was incorrectly tagged, and was not useful in an encyclopedia. The uploader was notified at that time. PhilKnight deleted the image on April 12, after over 6 days and no discussion. He restored it a month later "per request" as "temporarily restore", but the licensing issues were not fixed, and Colds7ream deleted again seven days later. I can't see anything out of policy in any of these deletions. – Quadell (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responce: Why do you incorrectly think it was not released under a free license? Tags can be fixed, and it was for a template on my userpage. You failed to notiffy me ahead of time for discussion first. It was exactly 6 days, 6 days is not a week. You never discussed what was wrong with the tag. I can see all of those things are out of policy.--MahaPanta (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another decision from the bizarro-world of FfD. Because hardly anyone participates in deletion discussions there, the deletion wasn't based on a consensus; it was, perforce, a matter of straight admin fiat.

    I can't see enough detail or history to evaluate the truth of the matter, so I'll withhold !voting for the moment. But my starting point is that there was a very minimal attempt to communicate with the uploader and no consensus to delete the image, so I shall be looking for the licensing concern to be very clear-cut if I'm to endorse this.

    Having said that, I shall also be looking for encyclopaedic value in the image before !voting overturn. The idea that it's "for a template on my userpage" makes me wonder to what extent this image was suited to Wikipedia's primary purpose.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 05:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, per Wikipedia:DPR#Files_for_deletion_page, item 8, an unopposed FFD defaults to delete. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a dancing hedgehog, or something. The user was notified on his talk page, and has complained to me about that, asking me not to give him any more notices on his talkpage, so it's odd to think he wasn't notified enough. The lack of comment on the deletion discussion is due primarily to the fact that he chose not to respond, and anyone else who looked at the issue felt no need to comment or object. Many other deletion discussions on that page were objected to, but not this one -- that's because the image was available under "permission" only, and we can't keep those. Even after the image was restored with the notice that it would be deleted again unless copyright concerns were cleared up, the uploader never bothered to do anything. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said "not to give him any more notices on his talkpage", I said to leave my user page alone. They are as different as an article page and it's discussion page. I did not "chose not to respond", I was having computer problems at the time and didn't see the notice till afterwards. You never bothered to explain why the tag needed to be changed.--MahaPanta (talk) 13:14, 24 June 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 June 2009

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

All items regarding Billy Linds life history are factual and establish credibility to a listing on wikipedia due to subject matter regarding Mr. Linds prior life and new purpose with his organization - Andrealind (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 June 2009

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

Deleted for not being notable, but upcoming feature film District 9 makes it so, IMHO. 213.21.98.80 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 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.
Theodore Kowal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I lodged an article deletion review because the article's deletion seemed questionable. The article was restored by Aervanath to one of my user pages. I moved it from my user page back to Theodore Kowal and it was deleted again within about an hour. It seems strange to have been deleted again, and so soon, after it was restored. Next time, could the article be restored directly to Theodore Kowal with a note that it has been recently restored and to hold off deletion. NB: I did not create the article but thought the content seemed interesting enough to retain. Frei Hans (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do you propose to edit the article so that the concerns raised at the AfD, at which the consensus was clear, are addressed? The text, after all, was userfied for you in order that you might work on it, not in order that you should return it to mainspace straightaway, in direct contravention of the result of the AfD (I gather from your summary that the article you created was identical to that that was deleted and placed in your userspace; if I'm wrong, you should, of course, disregard this comment with my apologies). 76.229.232.170 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It doesn't work that way. It is (or should be, in any case) understood that when an article is restored to userspace as a courtesy, it is so that it can be improved or taken for use on another site, not so that it can be recreated against consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, for the same reasons as Stifle. I note that zero content edits happened between when Aervanath userfied the page for you and when you moved it back into mainspace. Just because the page spent some amount of time as a subpage doesn't mean that the same content is no longer subject to the same rules. lifebaka++ 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per above - the concerns raised in the AFD have not been addressed, and as such the page is still inappropriate for the mainspace. If you can address those concerns by citing sources which indicate that the subject meets WP:BIO, then it would be appropriate to restore the page. Until then, though, the result of the AFD is still in effect.--Unscented (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - restoring would be a simple runaround of AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV_1, closed Userfy, Aervanath

  • Userfy again. Explain to Frei that it was deleted for a reason, and that reason won't just go away. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Kowal, WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:BLP. It's possible that content from the deleted article could be re-used in another article. It's possible, though unlikely, that substantial new, sourced, information may be discovered. Explain to Frei that he may not move the article back to article space without addressing the substantial concerns raised at AfD. Note that we don't believe that the subject will ever be suitable for a standalone article, and that userfication is temporary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should userfy the article until Frei has indicated he understands and respects the reasons for the AfD, and indicates he wants to try to fix the article. He can indicate that here in the DRV, or he can talk to an admin about it, but simply userfying it without that undertaking, well... — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:29, 23 June 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.

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I disagree with the article CodeineFree not being deleted. It is blatant advertising only, with unencylopedic content, not a single citation, and written nearly solely by the person who runs the site. I say we delete... Can the powers that be, please review this? thanks :) Dvmedis (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, on reading the article's talk page, I'm convinced Deletion Review is the wrong place for this. If you'd like help with the technical aspects of bringing it to AfD (which steps to follow in what order), please ask me on my talk page and I'll help you or do it for you.

    I believe this can be closed as wrong venue.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 03:09, 21 June 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 June 2009

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

Article was redirected because it " doesn't meet with the notability status " which is unreasonable. Facha93 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a DRV issue - the article was never taken to AFD. There's nothing to review. This is a content dispute. I suggest that since there are continued disputes over the notability of this particular person that an editor who believes hat there should be an independent article write one that cites reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual and that keeps in mind WP:BLP1E. Otto4711 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jeffrey F. Bell – endorse. Only editor asking to restore was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Also, a side note: WP:CSD describes instances where admins can delete articles without discussion. There's not a requirement that an admin tag the article for another admin to evaluate. – Aervanath (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeffrey F. Bell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was deleted without ANY advanced warning or discussion (see my talk page). Please restore article so it can be listed for discussion. Rterrace (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The previous version was deleted through AfD for notability concerns, and was more complete than your version. So, endorse as a proper G4 deletion. If you'd like the content userfied for you to work on, however, I'd be happy to oblige. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question: Is it proper procedure for an admin, who was also active in the deletion discussion, to mark the article as a speedy delete himself and then, within two minutes, delete the article himself? I created the article (to fix a redline) in good faith. The way this article was automatically dismissed by an admin, who has an apparent conflict of interest, has left a bad taste in my mouth. Rterrace (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, no, it's better to avoid the possibility of seeming involved. However, like I said, he still did get it right. You're welcome to work on a userfied version, and I'm happy to userfy the content for you, but please be aware that you'll need to satisfy the concerns raised in the AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural overturn and list at AfD. No, it was very far from okay for an admin who'd participated in the deletion debate then to mark the article as a speedy and then delete it himself. The phrase "flagrant disregard" comes to mind. That's so blatantly wrong that I feel we have no alternative but to overturn it.

    As another consideration, there are good reasons why we show newer users their contributions are deleted on the basis of community consensus, except in extreme cases such as copyvios or BLP issues.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with an admin deleting a page as G4 if he/she was involved in the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. But I was under the impression that the deleter had personally tagged the page for speedy deletion prior to deleting it (remembering that I don't have the tools to check, I believed the nominator's account).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to pipe in here real quick. Note that my only connection to this page is that I came across it while You can help!. From what I can see here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeffrey_F._Bell the arguments against having the page were weak by the nominator's own admissions. If the page is simply going to be recreated again, isn't it possible that their notability concerns are misplaced? It seems that this whole deletion process is creatig more work for everyone, at least in this case. Restore the original version if the content is better, and allow Rterrace and the Biography portal folks to work on it. Ω (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per lifebaka. Except for S Marshall's opinion, I would also recommend closing as a disruptive sock nomination. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted there is no point going through the process for the sake of the process. The decision was correct, and although it wasn't the best thing to do, it was right. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's "no point going through the process for the sake of the process" then that begs the question: is there a point to the process?
Sorry, I shouldn't say this since I don't particularly care about the subject much, but reading the above this question just struck me. I understand what's being said, I just don't really buy into the reasoning.
— Ω (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is often a need for procedure. AfDs, RfAs and other pages play their role as performing needed tasks. In those cases, the procedure is done for our benefit, and it serves a purpose. We shouldn't perform procedures for the sake of satisfying our procedure, rather than our needs, for that leads further down the road of bureaucracy. While I don't necessarily agree with deleting an article who's AfD you voted in, but I'd say this is a fairly acceptable IAR situation. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This leads me to raise two points.

    First, my own concern is primarily with the allegation that an admin speedy-deleted an article that he'd tagged himself. That's subsequently been shown to be misinformation, but had it been true, then I think there would've been grounds for quite serious concern. I agree with Uninvited Company when he says CSD is becoming Wikipedia's default deletion policy, it being so much easier to speedy something than to bring it to AfD, and I think that's a disturbing trend. One of the few checks and balances that apply to CSD is the idea that two people are involved: one tagger, and one deleting admin. The idea that the tagger and the deleter could be the same person strikes me as clearly wrong.

    Second, that the purpose of procedure is not to make life inconvenient for we jaded few, who have seen hundreds or thousands of dismal articles being rightly removed and a small number of articles with potential being saved at great effort; its purpose is to show new users that their contributions are valued, and considered carefully, and arbitrarily deleted only in cases where they're causing blatant harm. Other deletions require the backing of consensus.

    I feel that it's an important WP:BITE issue that AfD, and even more so that DRV, show that a procedure designed to protect and engage new users rather than reject them is closely followed except in the most extreme of cases.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the above comment; it significantly clarifies your point. As the deleting admin, I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but felt the need to respond to your note. From everything I've read in wp:csd and other admin policy material, I'm convinced I didn't do anything contrary to established policy. For example, wp:csd starts out by saying, The criteria for speedy deletion[1] specify the limited cases in which administrators may, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. That's exactly what I did. I looked at the history of the article, read the original AfD, went back and looked at wp:csd to verify that it hadn't changed since the last time I used it, and went ahead and deleted the article. Then I dropped a note to the re-creating author explaining what I had done, and why, and offering to answer any questions. The point you are making is that the policy should be changed. There is some merit to that point of view, but if you want to argue that, then you should be making your case at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, not here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 24 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ibn Shaykh al-Libi corpse.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)


Request for undelete. NFCC#1 is the primary reason to undelete. It was in the discussion as acknowledged by User:Peripitus in his/her contradictory statement: "I am surprised that no-one mentioned NFCC#1 here except for the comment 'it is the only image of the article's subject available'". This statement is in error as this rationale to keep was raised more than once. To answer the User:Peripitus suggestion that free images should be available because the prisoner was in U.S. custody, photos of such "detainees" are not available as they are in high security and as stated in the article often secret. Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's location was not publicly known until 2 weeks before his death. The only other rationale, NFCC#2 and NFCC#8 were both a matter of unresolved debate. Two users stated the image "passes NFCC#8".

Quite frankly, using NFCC#2 as the primary reason to delete is a display of pitifully poor ethics. Seriously, we are concerned here as #2 states about "the original market role of the original copyrighted media" of a possibly murdered and definitely tortured U.S. detainee who's whereabouts until close to death were unknown and we have decided the primary rationale is the profitablility of Ibn Shaykh al-Libi's only image? This is a sad matter. If these rationales for deletion are sufficient then every non-free image in wikipedia should probably be deleted. - Steve3849 talk 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The vote was strongly in favour of "Keep" and meeting all Fair Use requirements, the closing admin went against consensus in deleting what seemed to be bordering on a snowball Keep. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on nom I think Steve3849 mischaracterises the closing argument. Peripitus, the closing admin, talked first about NFCC#2 and NFCC#8, and argued that both of these criteria, raised in the FfD nom, were not held. Either, if true, would be grounds for deletion. NFCC#1 was mentioned as a possible further copyvio problem, explicitly as a side note. Peripitus wasn't notified of the DRV: I've notified him now. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always it isn't a vote, no amount of bolded comments override the NFCC. I'm somewhat confused by the nom, who seems to suggest that NFCC#2 does apply, but we should ignore it on some moral or other grounds, which as a foundation issue we wouldn't be able to do, and would also seem to fall foul of not a soapbox. As to if all non-free images should be deleted, I'm sure you'll get a reasonable amount of support for that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the idea of a "soapbox": the argument against NFCC#2 as stated above is neither uncited opinion, nor propaganda. The information in the article referred to is properly cited. Again, the primary reason from my perspective to un-delete the image is NFCC#1. The image itself appears to be a cropped and low resolution still from a video that has been posted on facebook from the news source for over a week. The NFCC#2 rationale to delete continues to appear at most negligible. It might be helpful if someone could translate arabic. My apologies for the confusion. My intent was not to suggest that the NFCC#2 rationale applies for deletion; it does not. - Steve3849 talk 04:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An individual NFCC is never a reason to undelete an image, it has to meet all of them, so I'm not sure your position of stating NFCC#1 as a reason. Your statement on NFCC#2 said "...and we have decided the primary rationale is the profitablility..." certainly suggests you believe we should ignore that for some greater good, and that would be politicising our decision and soapboxing. I'm happy to take your word that isn't what you meant and you don't believe NFCC#2 is an issue, however no one has actually countered the NFCC#2 arguement as far as I can see. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC: only where all 10 of the following criteria are met - Failure to meet any criterion is reason to delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original nomination for this review was written as a continuation of the discussion prior to its deletion. The link to that discussion is XfD. - Steve3849 talk 07:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The argument that because he had been is US custody it was going to be possible to get a picture of him is made extremely unlikely by the article: the US was holding him under conditions which they have been extremely unwilling to disclose--much more secret conditions than Guantanamo--, before sending him elsewhere for additional torture. In any event, given the manner of his death, a photograph of him dead is highly relevant. There is no evidence that the image is available for commercial exploitation. DGG (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per DGG and consensus of the XfD. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't NFCC#8 just the sort of criteria that FfD's can be expected to settle, and that this FfD did in fact debate? I don't accept Peripetus's closing argument to override the FfD discussion here, although to that conclusion Google Image search returns some other photos of the subject while alive, including one sourced to a rights organisation, who can be presumed not to have a commercial motivation. Concerning the main criterion, the FfD proposer explicitly argues NFCC#2, and only one keep vote even mentions it: I think Peripetus is quite right to think that the FfD did not address this concern. I'd say restore and relist, but I don't like doing that with copyvios, so I think we should settle NFCC#2 here. So two questions: (i) who is the copyright holder for the image?, (ii) where has the image been published? The citation of NFCC #1 is odd: if a free alternative comes along, then that is reason to speedy delete/replace a fair-use image, but in the absence, speculating about possible free alternatives is not constructive. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist — I don't think any of the copyvio concerns are urgent enough that we can't have people look at the image to decide in a second FfD. Per my comment, NFCC#8 was properly discussed in the FfD which argued for the value of the image in the article. NFCC#1 is a silly objection, in the actual absence of alternative free content. The criteria needing discussion is NFCC#2, which was almost completely ignored in favour of discussion of NFCC#8 in that FfD. A more focussed nom should provide a more useful FfD discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:47, 21 June 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) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No special reason. - Steve3849 talk 15:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay; please do so next time before listing a DRV. It's basic courtesy. I would tend to endorse the closure but only because it went my way; I don't have a strong opinion besides that so no !vote from me. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore -- I too found the closing admins arguments disturbing, and was considering questioning them about it, because I found the closure statement to imply that the {{afd}} was a vote -- and {{afd}}s are not votes. Several of the opinions expressed in the {{afd}} were variations of "this image doesn't add anything of value to the article". The closing admin seemed to endorse this argument, and ignored the counter-arguments. Of all the captives held in the CIA's secret camps, who subsequently disappeared his is without question the most important. The Bush administrations' two key arguments for the invasion of Iraq -- Saddam Hussein had significant ties to Al Qaeda, and was training Al Qaeda bombers to use weapons from Saddam's still dangerous arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Colin Powell cited the confessions wrung from Al Libi under torture in his speech before the United Nations. The USA may not have won support for the invasion without the claims wrung from him under torture. If he was finally found that is very important. If he really is dead, that is very important. But given the misinformation and confusions about his real identity, real affiliation, and actual status, a picture, which could help establish that the dead man really was Al Libi. Geo Swan (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments as closing admin. Per Stifle's comments it is most helpful if those seeking to dispute closures of xFds discuss it with the closing administrator as either they may gain insight into the closure or may convince the closer to overturn-relist or get another outcome. Perhaps my remarks have been misunderstood as I wrote poorly ? Here the main reason for deletion is NFCC#2. We have a recent image taken from a press site that is being hosted here to illustrate an article. The only argument that it passes NFCC#2 was "There's no evidence that the image is being sold or leased for money, unlike AP images, so I don't see a NFCC#2 concern" yet there is no indication of how this was arrived at....did the person here talk to the news agency or supply links that show there is no money involved ? Who is the copyright holder as this is not identified anywhere ... NFCC#10a requires this. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRT NFCC#2 -- isn't this image a single frame from a broadcast? Doesn't that erode the concern that our use of this image will have a meaningful impact on the value of the broadcasters videostream? Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that NFCC#10a actually says "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder". The source and publisher are listed. Identifying the copyright holder is not possible and, luckily, is not required. – Quadell (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So I guess the source is Facebook. Who was the publisher? If the publisher posted the video to Facebook, we can assume that they were not intending to sell stills to the general public, which would calm my NFCC#2 doubts. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I was the editor who the closing admin mentions above, who commented "There's no evidence that the image is being sold or leased for money, unlike AP images, so I don't see a NFCC#2 concern". It's true. There is no evidence that the copyright holder puts a monetary value on this image, or that it was ever sold or leased for money. You may guess that it was, and I may guess that it wasn't. For any image, one could imagine that the copyright holder wants to sell the right to use it for money, but without evidence, it's not a reason to delete. The closing admin seems to be switching concerns, from NFCC#8 to #1 to #2 to now #10. All of these concerns were considered and addressed, and the vast majority of commenters at the FFD debate believe the image passed all requirements and should be kept. – Quadell (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No consensus to delete and the closer seemed too opinionated. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 26 June 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 June 2009

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

Far too few people commented (3, with a 2-1 majority to delete) for any conclusions to be drawn about what the community thinks about the long-term usefulness of this template. Also no reasons of any merit were given as to why it should be deleted (we have many complex templates, so complexity is clearly not a ground for deletion, and the user who claimed that the information produced by the template was "not useful" failed to respond when asked to be specific, and clearly some of the information produced is useful, so this comment can hardly be considered fully thought-out). Please relist so that more can comment and so that we can be sure that there are genuine grounds to delete it, and that we know what we want instead. (Closing admin has been requested to change decision but declined.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in particular the discussion was closed without an answer being reached to the important question now raised here - if it is to be deleted, then how much of the information in it is to be retained when it gets converted?--Kotniski (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Without trying to turn this into TFD2, I agree about the usefulness of this template, in that it makes categorizing and describing categories more difficult. Not only for use, but also when it comes to automated recategorization. Bots aren't set up to deal with this, nor is AWB that I'm aware of. The only positive I can see is that it gives categories a consistent look and feel. --Kbdank71 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've begun the process of extracting the categories, by adding a pseudo-category for each parameter. As the category names state, do not create! I'll let this propagate for a few hours until the site isn't so busy, and then use the pseudo-categories to build the real things on the actual pages.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain exactly what it is you plan to do? We've already had one botched attempt to clear this up - let's make sure we know what we're doing this time. (In particular I don't think a few hours is necessarily enough time for categories to propagate via a template.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is how we used to do it in years past, but the jobs queue is really slow today. It's still working on "Cities and towns in", 10+ hours later, and doesn't seem to have touched the counties and villages. Hmmm, I'll have to wait a lot longer, or think of something else. Brute force will do it, removing one {.}par[.] at each pass, but that would take 18 passes over 700+ articles. I'll think on it some more, as the categories propagate.... No rush, as long as it's finished before this review is over, and before the template is deleted.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what you tried to do at Category:Villages in Poland, I think you may be on the right track, but please take note of the .key. parameters (sort keys) that correspond to the .par. ones. Anyway, I hope you'll wait until discussion concludes before doing any mass edits. As I say, if you can wait till July 4, I can do them all very quickly with a script and save anyone else the bother.--Kotniski (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This template is potentially important and additional discussion is needed. It was unreasonable to close it until the use of a template such as this can be discussed. I don't know my own view on that -- I would like to here further view from people who work on categorization in a proper discussion. DGG (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus). That discussion was far from concluded, with so few particpants, and User:Kotniski's reasonable points unanswered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as TfD nominator.
    1. Although a small sample, it was 4:1 (including closer and original request on its Talk by Piotrus).
      1. The only person wanting Keep was its author.
      2. There was posting at (2 or more) other related Talk pages.
      3. It was closed late, after 12 days (more than the usual 7 days).
      4. Therefore, had plenty of opportunity for discussion.
    2. I see no reasonable points by Kotniski: "until someone comes up with something better." – not an intelligible argument for keeping.
      1. We already had/have something better, already used on tens of thousands of categories.
      2. Specific templates, simple syntax.
      3. Undoing will usually restore the original information that Kotniski deleted.
    3. Also, speaking as relatively expert on categories, this seriously impedes CfD, finding, merging, and renaming categories.
    4. Embedding categories inside templates is a good thing for single purpose templates.
    5. Multi-purpose, multi-parameter, multi-category, monstrous templates are another thing entirely.
  • --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – clearly a useful template; and why is the apparent Polishness of the creator relevant? I do agree with WAS that parent categories should not be added by template as bots, AWB and hotcat cannot cope with this, but this is just a matter of editing the template. (I was not aware that comments not made in a tfd could be counted as part of the tfd.) Occuli (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only assume it's because m:poles are evil. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing the template will only remove categorization from the categories the template is used on. In order to replace the categorization, someone will need to edit each templated category manually. That needs to happen now, regardless of the outcome of this DRV, becasue if it's kept, and it looks like it's going to be, the use of this template as it currently stands is going to cause major problems at CFD. --Kbdank71 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the problems will be as major as you think (it's not like this is the first template to transclude categories), but as I've already said somewhere else, once a decision is taken, I can convert all these template instances into normal wikitext (i.e. with the category declarations explicit, and preserving whatever other information we decide to keep). I'll be away for a bit, but when I come back around July 4 (assuming there's an actionable decision by then) I'll get onto it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occuli,
    1. What exactly is "useful"? We've already established that its main text is already covered by other templates, and its inclusion of categories is undesirable. Can you point to some examples of actual usefulness?
    2. Why are you referring to Polishness? I see no such comments here.
    3. You agree that the template has to remove the categories, and Kotinski claims this will have to be done by hand.
  • (Yes, persons that ask for a template to be removed – but we have to help with the process – are certainly counted as supporting deletion. Do you deny they were supporting deletion?)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tfd nom (by WAS) explicitly brings in Polishness; I was merely being diligent and informing myself on the topic. Opinions expressed outside a cfd (even in previous cfds) have never been counted as far as I know; perhaps tfds are different and we have to scour wikipedia for related opinions. I am not aware of templates which cover the same area and none has been cited. I agree that the categories will have to be replaced - this could be done by bot just as easily as deletion (1. undo addition of catdesc; 2. add catdesc2). Occuli (talk) 13:37, 24 June 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.
Nuvola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD discussion was relisted on 13 May. It was closed by a non-admin on 15 May with the comment "The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) 10 days is enough. Weighing the arguments, I don't think a consensus has been reached". I believe the closure was procedurally incorrect (it should have run for the full seven days after relisting and have been closed by an admin since it wasn't an unambiguous result). I reverted the closure and informed the editor, who was offline, that I had done this. Since I had voted in the AfD, this was reverted by another editor (see pointlessly long discussion here). I ask that this be relisted (or closed as a delete based on the lack of referencing and lack of policy-based arguments in the keep !votes, but I'm not out to re-run the AfD here). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - Since I'm the one that non-admin closed this uncontroversial article, I'll just point out that I believe this DR nom is in bad faith. Delicious carbuncle didn't seem to have an issue anymore with the Afd until I pointed it out in an unrelated matter at this AN/I thread. Now, a month later, he suddenly wants it reviewed? The Afd ran for a total of 9 days - May 6 through May 14. Delicious carbuncle !voted delete in the discussion. I closed it the next day as no consensus. Delicious carbuncle undid my close, even though he had !voted in the discussion. Another user, an admin in fact, undid Delicious carbuncle's undo and closed it back. If there were anything wrong with my closure, I would think that admin would have acknowledged that. The admin in fact noted in his edit summary, "No Consensus is an acceptable closure here." - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be perfectly honest, I had forgotten about it until you brought it up. I actually said on my talk page "I'll take it to DRV when I have a chance" so your accusation of bad faith is entirely misplaced. Please don't assume my actions are based on any kind of malice towards you, in spite of the fact that we have had recent disagreements. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allstarecho's history seems quite above board to me. Any user in good standing can revert a non-admin closure; after all, WP:NAC is clearly for non-controversial closures, and the act of reverting the closure establishes that the discussion was controversial—hence automatically invalidating the NAC. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for an admin to close a controversial discussion. (And I say that as someone who's had his own non-admin closures reverted in the past.)

    The policy basis for reverting a non-admin closure is, of course, WP:BRD.

    An admin then re-closed the discussion. I don't see any issues, or any bad faith, in that sequence of events.

    Even though I've said all that in Delicious carbuncle's defence, I still think he's in the wrong about the closure. I view "no consensus" as a perfectly reasonable outcome, since there was clearly no consensus in the debate.

    Therefore, I endorse this closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse no consensus outcome, but disagree with most everything else. Relistings may be closed at any time if a consensus forms, but closing no consensus despite recent comments should be avoided. I think that only admins should reopen AfDs, including NACs, but there isn't a strong consensus on this point (WT:AFD discussions from April: 1, 2). Somewhat paradoxically, I also think that it is too difficult to reopen marginal NACs (either in procedure or decision) in a timely manner. Flatscan (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No further action. I expressly do not endorse the closure. Non-admins should not ever make a no consensus closure, because non-admins should only be closing unambiguous debates, and a no-consensus decision cannot result from an unambiguous debate. No problems with the closure of a relist after a few days; WP:RELIST expressly allows this.
    However, there is nothing to be gained from relisting this, as I don't see a consensus forming either way. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but allow a speedy renomination if someone wishes to do so. I was going to punch "keep" on this one after 7 but noticed that nobody was discussing the complete lack of sourcing so I relisted it instead. On the issue of "no consensus" NACs, they should be discouraged but not outright prohibited. On the issue of BOLD reopenings, I disagree with S Marshal on this point. Anybody who would be precluded from closing an XFD discussion also should not be reopening it unless it's an obvious bad faith/disruptive close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No surprisingly, I'm going to disagree with you. Closing and re-opening are not equivalent. Closing ends editor participation where re-opening does not. An editor has nothing to gain by re-opening a prematurely closed debate since they cannot predict how future votes will go. Incidentally, I won't be renominating this article because I no longer participate in AfD discussions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak sustain We don't really have a rule on how long to run a relisting. My own feeling is that it should normally run another 7 days that, so people know how long they have to respond and so an exchange of opinion can take place, & I think RELIST should be changed to say so. I certainly very much object when it's closed in favor of the immediate next opinion that appears. But in practice, I don't think that closing this one as no-consensus this way did any real harm, & I think the lack of consensus was fair enough. It can always be nominated again in a month or two -- it is more likely that consensus will form then, than if we list it now. DGG (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus). Obviously a no consensus. But please, can we stop with early closes, especially by non-admins. Relist next year and do somehting productive in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on the relisting guidelines as they are currently written at WP:DELPRO, closing a relisted debate can never be called an "early close". A relisted debate can be closed any time a closer determines that consensus has been reached and though it doesn't state it, presumably when the closer determines that a consensus is unlikely to be reached. If one feels that this should be changed, then the proper thing to do is discuss it at WT:DELPRO. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ther's nothing to change - WP:RELIST, which is part of WP:DELPRO, expressly allows early closure "once consensus can be determined". That necessarily preludes an early "no consensus" closure. During the discussions about extending AfD runs to 7 days, it seemed widely agreed that early closures should be very exceptional rather than routine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 21 June 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:Sandrammerbaseblock.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. The same has been the case for last three-four images uploaded by me. I have asked the admin to refrain from speedy deletion and inform in advance if he wishes to do so after a mutual discussion. I had also posted a hang on on the page still the file is missing. Seems like no image I post is valid enough for other users to see. Vertical.limit (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, recreation possible. Deletion is borderline within criterion F9: "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license." Vertical.limit claimed the image as "own work"; however, it was located on a commercial website displaying a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. This meets the obviously-not-the-case portion of the definition. The uploader did not claim a free license, however. Nonetheless, the burden is on the uploader to either 1) demonstrate that he does own the image and is releasing it under a free license or 2) to provide fair-use rationale under the non-free image guidelines. If he does so, then either a re-uploaded version should be allowed to stand or the image should be restored. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with liberty to reupload if a proper verified license is obtained, exactly per C.Fred. Worth noting that speedy deletions do not require notification of, discussion with, approval of, or waiting for the page creator, although the first is encouraged. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if multiple files that a user is uploading get speedy deleted, it is usually something procedural that should best be addressed by discussion with the deleting admin, so they can be reuploaded in a fixed form. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse All speedys certainly should require notification of the page creator, who may have a perfectly good defense. (or, if its downright vandalism, should have a warning). But at present they do not; I regard it as an indication of institutionalized BITE, and the preference some feel for being arbitrary rather than polite. I rarely work with images because people bite more strongly there, and arbitrary is routine. But I myself would have considered this a valid F9 on the face of it. DGG (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demonstration possible Hi, I can demonstrate that, I own both the things 1. the image & 2. the domain, I can make the image vanish from the domain required but of course not for a long time since it needs to be there for the people to see it.

Please let me know if the need be to do so. Vertical.limit (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this isn't the best way to demonstrate ownership of the image and domain since it's for such a short time nor is it clear why the image is disappearing. Why don't you make a special page on the website where you clearly and specifically release whatever images you wish to release under a free license. Alternatively, a specific release from your company via WP:OTRS would probably be fine (see also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have applied to license out the images on CC-BY-SA lets hope it goes through. Thanks your advice has helped. -- Vertical.limit (talk) 15:07, 20 June 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 June 2009

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

Speedily deleted with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should not have been speedied; procedural revert of myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 17 June 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.
Hispanic Commonweal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Listing one of my speedy deletions for review here, to save the new user who created the article the trouble of coming here. I deleted it as a A7 group, with a dash of G11 advertising for the first-person tone in places. The "hangon" said (for non-admins) "I have just created this page for our new Non Profit Organization. I plan on spending a little time every week adding to its content. It should be up to your standards within a few months tops. Thank you for your consideration." Elluminati (talk · contribs) asked me why I had deleted it, so I replied, referring him to the need to show importance [and yes I foolishly also referred to the need to show notability, but I know that's not the test for a speedy deletion] and guidance on advertising and COI. His reply says that if I don't think the mission of the group is notable or important, I need to get a new hobby, and that he is not advertising but making known a worthy cause. I have suggested he leave the subject alone, and stop trying to promote his group, but if he can't do that, to write a neutrally-worded version in his userspace with references. Your thoughts please. BencherliteTalk 20:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My name is Jesus Rodriguez and I am the President of a newly formed NON-PROFIT organization called the "Hispanic Commonweal". It is our mission to bring the necessary resources of information of Education, Health care, Faith and Politics to local Hispanic Communities, one family at a time in order to better the lives of those in our community.

To cut to the chase, I think the main issue we are having here is that this person who has brought us to this point seems to think that everyone is some kind of expert in Wikipedia contributing or is otherwise a spammer. I have never contributed anything before to Wiki and therefore am very new to the process. He/She is using terms and "Wiki" language that I am not familiar with. I am quite certain that a person does not have to be a Wiki "insider" to contribute worthy information. This idea that since I am closely involved with the organization that I cannot make the contribution to Wikipedia myself is understandable under normal circumstances but in this particular situation is an outrage and I am sure against the fundamental spirit of this encyclopedic website.

I understand that this is a community of volunteers and the need to weed out a bunch of spammers is constantly necessary. So I am not yet at a point of making this a public issue. I am a very determined Hispanic activist who is merely trying to make known an organization that is for the preservation of Traditional Hispanic Values. I am only wanting to post the facts about the organization. Where it was founded, who founded it and what it's mission statement is. I am also prepared to or have other people make pertinent updates to the page as we continue to move forward.

I hope that something can be worked out here. This idea, from the person who brought us here, that I am "advertising" is another outrage. This is an organization that not only pays no salaries but all the expenses, which has been thousands of dollars, have come out of my own pocket specifically. So I do not see any other reason why I can't be helped in this matter. I am willing, as I told the person, to make the proper adjustments and work on making it a very good "Wiki" page.

I ask for the support of this community to be able to make a page that allows the facts to be shown about our organization. If it is the insinuation for this person that everything in Wiki is established worthy and "notable" then we all know that is just not true.

In closing, I hope that this is not because we are a conservative organization. I have heard rumors about bias here in Wiki, and hope that those are just conspiracy freaks.

Just tell me what I need to do, without assuming that I speak Wiki language.

Thank you,

Jesus Rodriguez, President Hispanic Commonweal Oak Creek, WI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elluminati (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 June 2009. Moved from DRV talk page. BencherliteTalk 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The version at the time of deletion met criteria G11 (spam) and A7 (no assertion of significance of the organization) and was properly deleted. That said, Bencherlite is welcome to work on a page in userspace, making sure to craft it using neutral point-of-view and citing independent sources. Editing in userspace will give him the time to refine it. Then it can be reviewed and, if up to standards, moved to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse first it becomes notable, then it gets a WP p. We do just the same with liberal organizations also, and commercial, and books and records and artists and everything else. I apologize for the term advertising, but we interpret it to mean "promotional", and saying you want to make the organization known is just what is meant by "promotional" -- not just in our use, but in ordinary language too. It first has to become known quite apart from us. Promotion of one's organization and one;s political views are excellent things to do, but this is not the place. DGG (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per DGG. Please write about your organization on its own website. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plain English answer from S Marshall
First: Wikipedia is not your free web host.

You do have freedom of speech. However, your freedom of speech does not permit you to write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is, figuratively speaking, someone else's wall (in this case the owner is the Wikimedia Foundation). If you want to write on Wikipedia, you have to follow the owner's rules. The site owner's rules are final.

Second: The main purpose of this Deletion Review section of Wikipedia, is to check whether the site owner's rules have been followed.

Third: The rules that apply in this case are objective tests, not subjective judgments. They are available for you to examine at these links: WP:RS for reliable sources, WP:V for verifiability, WP:N for notability, and WP:ORG for specific guidelines that apply to non-profit organisations.

Fourth: It follows from the above that you do not have an automatic right to promote your organisation on Wikipedia.

Fifth: It is understood and accepted that you are running a non-profit organisation.

Sixth: It is understood and accepted that you would like to bring your organisation's article into compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Seventh: It is also very, very clear from your remarks that the reason why you want a Wikipedia article for your organisation is to "tell people about it". In other words, the underlying reason you want a Wikipedia article is for promotional purposes. Or to put the same thing a different way: your organisation is not yet notable, and you would like a Wikipedia article in the hope of making it more notable.

Eighth: Wikipedia does not work that way. First you become notable, then you get a Wikipedia article. Not the other way around.

Ninth: It's clear from your remarks above that you have a basic expectation that Wikipedia is consistent -- in other words, you expect that because you can find things in Wikipedia that are not "notable", it's okay for you to have an article that isn't notable. However, Wikipedia specifically disavows precedent as a reason for a decision. (The relevant guideline is WP:OCE.) In other words, Wikipedia is admittedly and unashamedly inconsistent. We are often accused of "double standards" because of this, but that's not true; if you can find another article that's not notable, that doesn't mean we have double-standards. It means we consider each article individually and we haven't gotten around to that other one yet.

Tenth: Words like "outrage", "insinuation" and "bias" in your remarks above are likely to be harmful to your case. You need to understand that Wikipedia is threatened with lawsuits, with negative publicity, or other affirmative action by people who insist they are entitled to an article, every single day. We are very, very accustomed to that and have learned, through long experience, that users who take a threatening or angry stance against us are not people we can work with. You also need to understand that you have no legal recourse here, and you cannot realistically threaten us.

Eleventh: A good faith attempt to collaborate, find a compromise or a third way would receive a more positive reaction. It would not lead to your organisation receiving its own article, but it might lead to (for example) some mention of your organisation in one of Wikipedia's lists of activist organisations.

  • Wikipedia-speak answer: Endorse per DGG.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, promotional material for an organization of no apparent notability. Well explained, S Marshall. --Stormie (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as original tagger. We should have an essay pointing out that nobility is not the same as notability, and that non-profit organizations are subjected to our spam and notability policies just the same as for-profit companies, no matter how noble their goals are. I suggest that the essay contain something about creating an article about the cause itself instead of one about the organization, provided of course that said cause is a notable one. The essay could be modelled after WP:BUTITEXISTS. If I find some spare time later this week, I will start that essay myself. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks to most of you. However, it is clear that this community is not interested in helping those who are not already familiar with how Wikipedia works (very hostile and defensive to "newbies" and that is not appropriate, especially when the person identifies themselves clearly and open to verification from the start). I have no problem with most of what is being said and or with the guidelines and I agree with much of the reasoning. However, to the person who felt the need to lecture me and insinuate that I was "threatening", you can save the drama, I don't have the time and definitely not the temperament to be talked down to by some volunteer at wikipedia.

If anyone is interested in helping me please come talk to me on my talk board, I am interested in placing the facts of Hispanic Commonweal on Wikipedia not to promote. I understand it is a fine line, but the Hispanic Commonweal has already been recognized by very influential Hispanic organizations, such as C.A.L.L (Catholic Association of Latino Leaders)and Local and National politicians here in Wisconsin, like congressman Paul Ryan and County Executive Scott Walker (who is running for Governor). Certainly you can't expect those people to take the time to write a facts article about the organization. Anyways, the assertion that according to the moderators at Wikipedia the Hispanic Commonweal is not yet "notable" is obviously relative and simply a false accusation. I am not sure what the criteria to becoming "Notable" for you guys is, but when very influential people like the US Marshal of Central California is going to do an interview with us and support our cause, I am sure that that type of "notability" should suffice.

Could someone who would like to help me start working on a legitimate "Facts" Article for Wikipedia please come talk to me on my elluminati talk page? I don't care if it takes 6 months, I just want to start the process.

Thank you. Elluminati (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)elluminati[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.
Redstone Commercial Real Estate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion was unreasonable Nathanlgordon (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit the issue of the redstone commercial real estate page. All content was verifiable, the company was notable as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the page was not an advertisement, and not attempting to sell anything, nor link to any external sales sites.

Please discuss differences between that page and any other company pages that haven't been deleted. The content on those pages mirror their websites (for example, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters). The tone was informational, just like it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanlgordon (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See what about X --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've take a look at Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, I don't think the article is great and certainly needs some trimming, and it maybe touch and go as to if it covers the notability guidelines. (There are dupes in the sources, so the references are fewer than first apparent, one being used for some basic facts and isn't online so can't tell if it's anything more than a directoy style listing, one has a reasonable amount on the company, the other same award different year less, the other is a trade association award.) However if that needs work or even deletion doesn't remove the need for this article to be in line with the guidelines. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a ref from the NYT about their agreement to sell under the Newman's Own label. Stupid paywalls.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Delete, User has a conflict of interest. Doesn't get that he shouldn't write self promotional; articles. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:54, 18 June 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.
Mikie Da Poet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. 24.14.132.100 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mikie Da Poet page has been blocked for many years, reading the editors comments, they stated he needs to be mentioned on a news segment as proof of his status, well he was! the instructions said to be bold, well here it is. Mikie da Poet was called the new Eminem by Fox News when he performed live on Fox News and was called a superstar by FOX anchor David Navarro years before the block was ever put on, if a good editor reads this, not only should they take off the block, but they should send an im sorry email to the person who was trying to despute the block. The first guy desputing this was perfectly correct, Mikie Da Poet is a well known well respected artist all over the world. heres the link to the live Fox News performance. thank you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1lWbt3bk8

The IP editor is not asking for the page protection to be ended, he is asking for review of the article deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to re-read the nomination, Drawn Some.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not a editor, just a music fan, I dont know why Mikie was blocked to begin with, the proof the second editor ask for was sothing solid, solid proof, like a news segmant as he worded it, I provided that news segmant that shows Mikie is a established artist at the least. I dont know what page protection is, im asking that the block be lifted and Mikie Da Poet's name be aloud to sit with the other great names from Chicago and all over the world that he has worked with without being distured or deleted. Business as usual "trailer" search it anywhere, the most anticipated hip hop documentary ever, and they asked mikie to do the soundtrack, you can watch this and hear his song playing see his name in the credits, krs1, kanye west, dr cornell west, every big name in hip hop is on this project, and they used Mikie's old song from 7 years ago as the soundtrack. what is the reason why his name is blocked to begin with, this man has three albums in stores that can be purchased now, are you saying that this man is not worthy or does not have the credits to be on this websight? I have provided you with more credit then earlier editors asked from the other person desputing this artists name, his accomplishments in music deserve to be witness by the world. and to the nice professional person who wrote above, thank you for the advice, but when i click the links, I get lost, im not good at this, but i believe the public should see that they blocked Mikie, his fans would find it insulting, just because a man retires, doesnt mean block him for know reason and act like he never was great when the credits and albums are right in the editors lap.

  • Endorse deletion; draft new version in userspace. First, as to the deletion review proper, the last deletion of the article was correct: it did not present anything new beyond what was in the article when the AfD results were to delete it. Second, the title is salted via transclusion: that's why the page doesn't show as protected. Finally, the issue of whether to unprotect/unsalt the title is not the issue here. In my opinion, the best way to argue that it should be unsalted is to create an article in userspace with sufficient assertions of notability and independent sourcing that it is clearly superior to the old version. With the new article in hand, it's very easy to justify unsalting and moving the candidate article to Mikie Da Poet. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love this guys music and thought he should have a page, I read the old logs on why this artist was deleted, and it makes no sense, the Fox News performance above, link included, should be enough to lift the block and give this guy a page or what ever its called, im disapointed in your ability to guide me in the right direction the help this artist get his name up with the other greats, us everyday people dont understand directions that just take you in circles and lead to more messages and bigger words. he should have never been blocked to begin with, this block was done on purpose in my oppinion, so Mikie if you ever read this, get someone real smart that understands this process, cause i dont.

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.
Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedy deleted even after a third editor had removed the speedy tag because it didn't have merit. The reason given for deletion "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" هis simply wrong since the article is sourced and the organization in question is signficant and is the parent organization of several other groups that have articles in wikipedia. Dodge rambler (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 June 2009

[edit]

15 June 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Kvasir/Fyksland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
User:Kvasir/Fyksian passport (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:Kvasir/Fyksian language (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:Kvasir/Fyksian nationality law (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:Kvasir/Fyksian kron (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:Kvasir/Church of Fyksland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This deletion was made within mere 5 days without any input from the author. All the deleted pages were in the Sandbox area. Policies mentioned in the discussions do not apply. --Kvasir (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - See MfD:Fyksland pages for discussion and record of deletion (after 7 days). - Gump Stump (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure: Clear consensus at the MfD for deletion. Contrary to the DRV nominator's statement above, it was closed after 7 days had passed (7 days, 5 hours and 54 minutes, if anyone wants to get precise about it). Also, the author was notified of the nomination 15 minutes after it was posted. It unfortunately appears that the author is one of those who takes several months off between editing, and thus missed the notice. However, looking back at the discussion, I don't see that there would have been a different outcome. There is no blanket immunity for sandboxes which are clearly being used for material not meant for Wikipedia.--Aervanath (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: These pages were originally nominated for review separately; I've consolidated them into one deletion review since they were deleted as the result of a single MfD.--Aervanath (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid MFD. Wikipedia is not your free webhost. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question — Why did you want these pages, Kvasir? I'm having trouble understanding the background.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone tell me what is the rule for Sandbox then? As far as I'm concerned, the above pages were all experiments with wiki syntax until they can be moved to other wiki-style pages.

The Sandbox was created as a place with fewer rules and policies than any other pages on Wikipedia. For example, you don't have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making a major change. However, it must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks and civility still apply.

No one is saying my pages violated the above. So what was the problem? Why not just move those pages to user:kvasir/sandbox/etc for lower visibility. I don't understand why people should get upset what's in people's sandbox area anyway. --Kvasir (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the expectation is that what you do in your user subpages is in some way directed towards improving Wikipedia. A sandbox is simply a subpage set aside as an explicit testing ground. If you want to experiment with wiki syntax, tables, and templates, or if you want to build a new article in your userspace, then that's permissible. However, there's no blanket license to put whatever you want in a sandbox. The consensus at the MfD was that the pages were not contributing to Wikipedia at all; they were nice pieces of fiction, but Wikipedia isn't here to host that kind of thing, even in userspace.--Aervanath (talk) 17:52, 16 June 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.
Mimi Lesseos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

First time the article was created, text was copied from a source leading to the article's deletion. The second time however, the text was entirely original. Roaring Siren (talk) 16:37, 15 June 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:Unwired head.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Licensing still being resolved. The image contained an element that another user (who had no part in the creation of the element) contested was unlicensed. When the image file was deleted I was still in the process of checking licensing with the creator of that element - who I originally attributed in uploading the image. An associated article, Telepathy and war, was also nominated for deletion and then deleted unreasonably after the page was vandalised several times. Frei Hans (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an outstanding licensing issue still being resolved, shouldn't this stay deleted until it is actually resolved? The article you mention went through a deletion discussion and the outcome was delete. Merely saying it was unreasonable is not particularly compelling, usually pimrary authors of an article believe deletion to be unreasonable in some way. If you think there were flaws in the deletion process your best bet is to (a) discuss those issues with the closing admin and see if can be resolved (b) having done (a) and not reached an understanding one way or other, then list it here for further consideration, though you'll need to give some indication how the deletion process was flawed (i.e. not just disagree with the outcome) --Contributions/82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article that the image was created for was vandalised before it was nominated for deletion. A user arrived who repeatedly caused disruptive behaviour, deleting entire sections of the article and reliable references with no reason. Then the user, and another who I suspect of sock puppetry, nominated the article for deletion - claiming that it should be deleted because it had no reliable references. While I and other users were working on the article that pair kept returning to remove valid content, in some cases reverting the article to states where they had deleted most content. The article was re-written a number of times in different forms - I was happy with the work other genuine contributors made and was interested in the ideas other users provided for expanding the article. While very different from the original article, it did seem to be developing in spite of the content that others kept removing. The article generated more interest then I thought it would, but one or two users seemed to want to get rid of it and I feel they used some sock puppetry during the articles for deletion discussion process to sway the opinion of an administrator who might base a decision on the discussion. Meanwhile back at the article page, reasonable edits were being made by other contributors in spite of repeated vandalisms. That is why I feel the deletion of the related article was unreasonable. Furthermore, there are no licensing issues with the image in my opinion. I contacted the creator of the content asking them to reply to me if licensing posed an issue and they have not indicated that they are concerned in any way. I wanted to wait a while for their reply, before reposting any content. I am satisfied that licensing is not an issue for them. I made clear the content I created using theirs was non-commercial. I also acknowledged the creator concerned when I first uploaded the image to Wikipedia. If the content is re-instated I believe it would stand with a license that specifies non-commercial use and with attribution of the creators involved. The related article was originally written with information from reliable and well referenced sources, and created interesting discussion on related discussion pages. Before the article was deleted at least two bots tagged the article, one tagged the removal of a lot of content for another bot to restore - citing possible vandalism. Frei Hans (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to address your issue with deletion of the article, since you need to raise a separate DRV for it, but I strongly advise you to discuss the issues with the deleting admin and others first. You certainly need to be careful not to conflate vandalism (which is defined as WP:VANDAL) with "edits I don't like".".
Onto the actual issue of the image itself. First thing's first, just acknowledging the owner of an image when you upload it is doesn't give wikipedia any permission to use it. We need explicit permission to use it, unless we are using it under a claim of fair use (See WP:NFCC, this certainly wouldn't be the case here.). I am still somewhat confused as to the status of the image from the author you don't seem to have clearly stated they have been contacted and agreed to release it under a suitable license, if they have then please do as requested here your word on its own is not good enough. Finally you say "If the content is re-instated I believe it would stand with a license that specifies non-commercial use and with attribution of the creators involved." Again it doesn't matter what you "believe" it matters what the owner has specified. In this case we do not accept non-commercial only licenses. If you look to the page I pointed to before about requesting permissions the image section there specified the requirements the license must allow: "1. Modification, 2. Redistribution, 3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes.". You can get more help on things by either placing {{help}} on your own talk page in which case someone will come along and offer so help or by posting questions at the helpdesk --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 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) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does a user find out who a deleting/closing administrator was? I do not know who the deleting/closing administrators were in the case of the Unwired Head file and the related article, so cannot contact them. Frei Hans (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By looking at the logs associated with the items in question you can see who performed what actions on the pages. In this case the logs for the image page is here and the article here. You can also see from the deletion discussions on the two who the person closing the discussion was, which will generally be the person doing the deleting also. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:42, 19 June 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.

I uploaded the wrong file... please can you remove? -- Daniel Jones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 15 June 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 June 2009

[edit]

13 June 2009

[edit]
  • Paloma Faith – overturned. This clearly wasn't a speedy. I've restored and rewritten the article as a basic stub. Feel free to take it back to afd but I think there's enough coverage (and coverage is clearly expanding) to see that it would be kept. – Flowerparty☀ 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paloma Faith (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I personally think Wikipedia can sometimes be unfair to articles that meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines

My reason for undeletion is that this BLP meets WP:VERIFY, from personal experiences her recent song is getting heavy airplay by BBC Radio 1 and 4Music, plus some other music stations and 55,400 ghits. But on the other hand, I feel that it is due to poor editing that caused it to be deleted, though I have never seen the article before. Donnie Park (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • List at AfD. This source represents an example of significant coverage in reliable sources, which shows the article merits proper consideration at AfD. I believe it's clearly unsuitable for a speedy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin comments Firstly, I wasn't contacted regarding this concern prior to this being listed here, as is expected per the guidelines for DRV and common courtesy. Secondly, this seems to be a clear non-notable deletion: Epic Records, her recording label, does not list her; counting Google hits is not a measure of notability, and that's a rather low number for a musical artist anyway; she has yet to release any albums, and does not meet any of the other criteria at WP:MUSIC. No references were provided with the article, and it appeared to be a very clear A7 deletion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone should have googled for references before the article was deleted. In this case, three people should have done: the tagger's at fault, and so is the AfD nominator who clearly made no attempt whatsoever to comply with WP:BEFORE. But I also feel the deleting admin should've at least run the article through a google search before speedying.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:07, 14 June 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.
Planet Rugby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is protected from being recreated for some reason from a long time ago for spam being posted there. Dotty••|☎ 08:08, 13 June 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.
Lily Thai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was completely unreasonable. Deletion should only be by concensus, but there were two votes to keep and two to delete. Furthermore WP:PORNBIO says that a porn star is notable if they have been nominated for a major award. One of the people voting delete said she was nominated for an AVN award for Best New Starlet, which is a fairly major award. However he voted delete because she wasn't nominated in multiple years! Was this a recent change because I don't remember it, and in any case it sounds stupid; would you say that someone who was nominated for a Best New Artist Grammy isn't notable because they weren't nominated more than once? This needs to be undone and the deletor needs to be trout slapped!SPNic (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD is not a vote. The content of PORNBIO are what they are, the fact you think them stupid isn't that important for this purpose, they are a consensus view. If you think they need changing then the talk page there is the place to raise that issue. Irrespective they are secondary criteria and the expectation still exists they will be covered in multiple reliable sources independant of the subject. This article had one source an interview with the individual in question, at best it fails the independance requirement. The nomination for the award was not cited to any reliable source. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you actually look at the final count? THERE WAS NOT A CONSENSUS? The final count was two to keep, three to delete! How is that a consensus? And shouldn't you log in before you comment?SPNic (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And where did the voter get the information if it wasn't reliable?SPNic (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read again, AFD is not a vote because it is consesnsus based. i.e. Consensus it not a vote. Stating the numbers and then stating that means there is no consensus is meaningless. Admin's look to the strength of argument based in policy, guidelines etc. which represent a broader community consensus. The closers statements gives and indication of how they read the debate (non vandalised version). The three deletes are mention the requirement for reliable sourcing and reference to the notability guidelines. The two keeps make bald assertions apparently based on personal opinion rather than policy. As to determining reliable sources, see WP:RS. Also see WP:GNG which states - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", clearly an interview is not independent of the subject. And no there is no requirement for me to sign in to comment, which since I don't have an account is quite convenient--82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My vote wasn't based on personal opinion, it was based on WP:PORNBIO. And people who can't be bothered to set up an account are in no position to talk about weight of votes.SPNic (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, xe is in such a position. The editor without an account is quite right here. AFD is not a vote, and your "sounds notable to me" does not outweigh the statements that there are no reliable sources. You will start according the editor without an account the same respect that you would accord an editor with an account, right now. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well since WP:PORNBIO says and said at the time you placed the comment "Has received award nominations in multiple year" it wasn't. I can no more read your mind than the closing admin which is why I said "apparently based on...", so you may well have believed that it is covered by PORNBIO, but since it isn't, the net effect is the same. Wikipedia allows non-account editing, if it wanted to do so it could enforce signed in only ( it doesn't). I'm trying to help you understand why the deletion discussion didn't finish the way you think it should, which can help you to resolve those issues such that the article may be possible now or in the future. If you want to ignore that, then it's no problem to me. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, AFD is not a vote and the closing admin weighted matters correctly. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query — is the google cache version listed above the same as the version considered at AfD?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, AfD is not a vote. Weak arguments will not be considered as much as well reasoned comments; Tabercil's comment quite firmly counters the comment made by SPNic, and "Article shows notability" shows very little knowledge about policy or the article, and gives no insight as to how notability is shown. This was a proper deletion, and even if closed as "no consensus," BLP's default to delete; the result would have been the same. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, even though I disagree with Hersfold very strongly about BLPs. BLPs absolutely do not default to delete at AfD and there is no policy, and no consensus, to suggest that they do. I've read a number of people saying "BLPs default to delete" and I think it's a very dangerous meme that needs to be robustly challenged every time it surfaces. The only thing on Wikipedia that defaults to delete is an expired PROD; in every other case, deletion is an active decision that someone makes.

    Still, wrong though Hersfold is about that particular matter, I think he is correct to say that the "keep" arguments were substantially weaker than the "delete" arguments in this case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is offtopic, and I have no opinion on the actual discussion, but it should be pointed out that RfD also defaults to deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure with the same BLP issues as raised by S Marshall. We don't default to delete on BLPs! Hobit (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, while there were a couple of Keep opinions from editors who believe she is notable, she does not meet the notability standards spelled out in WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO, and no reason has been offered either at AfD or here as to why she should be considered notable in spite of this fact. --Stormie (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, the "Keep" arguments were pretty feeble, and were successfully rebutted during the course of the discussion. I agree with the nominator's call in closing this discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse closure due to lack of reasoned argument on the "keep" side. I share S Marshall's concern about "BLPs default to delete" being paraded as policy; there is no consensus for a policy like that (which would lead to a large de facto double standard between the notability of living and deceased people if a policy like that became widespread), even though some editors want that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per S Marshall, Hobit, Stormie, and Sjakkalle. "Keep" voters appear to disagree with the WP:PORNBIO consensus standards, but presented no substantive arguments indicating flaws in the determination of consensus or in the standards themselves, and presented no other arguments supporting notability. THerefore those "votes" were appropriately discounted. I am wary of AFD closures where the numerical consensus (nor non-consensus) is rejected based on the closer's individual interpretation of policy or guidelines, but this is plainly not such a case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 19 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
  • Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election – no consensus to overturn closure, default to endorse. However, as it is clear there is no real consensus to simply endorse per se I will userfy these upon request - interested parties may contact me at my talk page to indicate where they would like it to be userfied. I was tempted to relist this due to the lack of consensus but after reading the depth of the discussion here it seems to me that a simple relist will not generate a useful result and this should be allowed to be worked on in userspace prior to re-engaging in a deletion debate. – Shereth 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Straw polls for the Democratic Party 2008 presidential nomination (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Because at least one editor has misinterpreted the transclusion, JJB recommends the following links for illustration. At deletion time the article consisted of a frame article plus most of two (Democratic and Republican) other transcluded articles; to understand the deletion-time article all three must be consulted. Compare an early draft prior to transclusion.

The creators and main editors of the article were not notified. It was nominated before and there was a strong concensus to keep. There was no OR or SYNTH, it was simply a presentation of facts. Straw polls are an important part of American elections, especially the coverage that follows such polls as the Texas Straw Poll and Ames Straw Poll. William S. Saturn (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and undelete! Reasons below. (Second choice, relist and undelete; third, userfy.) 00:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC) SUMMARY: The primary issue is that AfD was fatally tainted by multiple false allegations that were not sufficiently recognized during discussion. Accordingly, review should overturn or relist, to enable full discussion of the allegations. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Affirm this 100% as a primary editor; had been waiting to make the case myself. There were also 2 others deleted at the same time for Dem and Rep polls, which were transcluded into this one. If those links are not the final names they point to valid redirects, and I think Republican straw polls and Democratic straw polls were also redirects. The issues relevant to DRV are:
  1. Deletion nom, Burzmali, knew very well the article history, but took care to nominate when both main contributors, Southern Texas and I, were absent from WP, and right at election day itself, hardly an appropriate time for determinations about the article, so the discussion ended up being slanted toward those already on record as favoring deletion, who were live (i.e., Orangemike, Niteshift36).
  2. Count was 3 involved deletionists, 3 other deletes and 3 other keeps, and 1 transwiki. But even not counting the prior slanting, 6-3-1 is a nonconsensus vote, not a delete vote.
  3. These editors made several misleading statements not directly challenged during discussion even though article talk belied each of them, as follows:
    1. Since articles' inception we kept them scrupulously clean of synth and OR, which can be seen on the articles' talk pages (could we see those during this discussion please?); all specific concerns by these editors were dealt with promptly.
    2. Results were not hand-picked; all straw polls that could be found were included.
    3. The entire article was based on the fact that reliable sources had grouped bunches of straw polls together. All presentation methods found in the sources were included. Articles were patterned after opinion poll articles, and it's hardly a deletion argument that no (secondary) sources group together bunches of opinion polls, so the whole reason for claiming nonnotability is invalid.
    4. The accusation of coatracking is unproven; I don't know that I ever used a campaign source as reliable, except occasionally as a convenience link to more detailed coverage that backed up coverage from an independent source. Every poll was independently reported.
    5. Nom was called on these points generically and shifted his argument to WP:V, yet all sources were verifiable, and many of them listed large numbers of polls (of course not all polls), and were appropriately identified at section headings.
    6. Niteshift's argument that there were never any standards is also belied by talk, in that standards were very carefully applied to overcome any presumption of inclusion/exclusion bias. In fact, though I had an admitted COI all this time, I was never once told by these editors that my COI influenced any of these edits.
  4. Opinion poll articles abound in great numbers and are no different from these articles, yet they are not disqualified on such grounds. It is no deletion argument that lists of opinion polls are synthesis because we don't know which are true opinion polls and which are push polls; or which have been hand-picked for insertion by which editors; or that no secondary source includes a comprehensive list of opinion polls; or that opinion polls have convenience links to campaigns; or that opinion polls are unverifiable because they disappear quickly from pollster sites; or that there are no standards as to which to include.
  5. The three uninvolved deletionists merely repeated the arguments of the involved ones, plus the inapplicable WP:IINFO and the irrelevant fact that straw polls do not always predict winners. OTOH, the three uninvolved inclusionists made good original (unprompted) arguments in favor of notability, interest, historicity, nom misrepresentation, nonoriginality, parallels in source-provided lists, and WP:SOFIXIT. In short, the better arguments should have won and did not.
  6. Finally, deletion nom has had for years a deletion campaign, duly noted here, that is (see for yourself) a thoroughly one-sided attempt to delete material favorable to Ron Paul. In recent months nom became an WP:SPA, and then dropped off, as he (apparently) realized his wait-and-kill tactics were no longer working. Nom has stated his belief that I should not bring this point up in deletion discussions, as perhaps constituting an attack upon an editor, but the sheer volume of these edits would make it improper to omit this point. This argument's size could be tripled if I were to get specific. In fact there is so much that I am probably not done now, even considering only data appropriate to DRV.

At a minimum, I respectfully request immediate userfication to myself of all 3 articles, because the amount of good-faith compilation and collation effort alone on part of both myself and Southern Texas, undone by a few rogue edits, is worth at least that much. JJB 23:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC) ADD: I appreciate the restoration of the main article; I have asked the restorer also to restore the two transcluded articles, which had most of the content, as well as the two maps and talk. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • See below Possibly relist otherwise userfy. Can we have the artivle temporarily undeleted, the cache link is not working for me. There's a mix of opinions from respected editors - this one is interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Straw polls are worthless as predictors of primary election results. I voted 'keep' on the first AfD because I thought this article, which was skewed by enthusiasts of second- and third-tier candidates who had no hope of winning, inadvertently demonstrated this worthlessness. For example, the article showed Ron Paul winning all these straw polls, but the knowledgeable reader knows that when the actual primaries came around, Paul didn't do much of anything. I didn't see the second AfD, so I don't know what the article looked like at that point. But the conspiracy theory set out above as to the article's deletion is a bit unfounded. Southern Texas was "absent" from WP because he was indef blocked after having been discovered to have been running run a large-scale, prolonged sockpuppet operation. One of the side effects of getting blocked is that you can't be around to defend your articles. That in itself is not a reason to bring them back. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_12&action=edit&section=T-2[reply]
Hi Wasted, I respect you, but there was no "Paul winning all" going on: all polls were reported, and the fact that Paul, Romney, Thompson, Clinton, and Obama won arguable pluralities was a significant historical fact that it is exactly WP's mission to preserve. I'm sorry, but your observations about the "worthlessness" of straw polls as predictors, and your digression about an editor, are not relevant or only tangentially so, as the question of the appropriateness of the closure does not turn on either. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I am the operator of the "Southern Texas" account, but the sockpuppet operation was run by Uga Man, an account that belonged to my sister. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Southern Texas says differently, and I remember the Southern Texas confession and apologies at the time ("once I got started with multiple accounts, I couldn't stop", "I tried to keep the bad users out of article space", etc.) before the User talk:Southern Texas page got wiped. I even remember some of the apologies towards editors that Southern Texas had worked with productively, including me. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Uga Man. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that story, it contradicts your prior confession. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "confession" was not made by me. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else doing pure socking and troublemaking wouldn't have bothered to confess. Regardless, if the powers that be have blessed the William S. Saturn account, then I have no quarrel with that. But my original point was that the whole episode doesn't give weight towards restoring the straw polls article. That has to be done on the article's own merit. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think much of this is immaterial to the discussion over the deletion. The nominations accusation of bad faith in the timing of the deletion debate doesn't help their case. However there is something of a contradiction in the sockpuppet stuff, the postings on the talk page of the account suggest the sockpuppeter had control of the account for a long time. Regardless it has no impact, the account was and is blocked as part of abusive sockpuppetry case, no amount of waiting to nominate the article for deletion would have changed that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure & Demand Toaster: As the original nominator for deletion, the articles are a cluster of WP:COATRACKs for minor candidates. They include results from high schools, polls that had less than 30 votes and no sources that suggested that any of the polls were notable. I don't disagree that some specific straw polls are notable, but the way the article was written was mostly WP:OR. In addition, the article lacked sources that suggested that straw polls, pooled on a nation level, are notable. I failed to notify the originator of the article because he is a sockpuppet master, go figure. Also, I didn't read JJB's conspiracy theory, mostly because he posts it on every AFD and Admin's talk I come in contact with. Fundimentally, I believe I am suppose to get a toaster for deleting Ron Paul Fancruft. Therefore, since I was apparently successful in this case, I demand that the lords of wikipedia inform the masters of the international anti-Ron Paul campaign of my success so I can get that toaster! Burzmali (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for accepting my invite. As stated before, Burzmali has been an WP:SPA on this topic for months now, and has had self-disclosed bias for years. Corrections: Coatracking would involve promotion of candidates, not neutral reports of all polls, as occurred. Polls from (eligible students at) high schools, and polls under 30 votes, are just as significant as others, because there is no evidence of their being materially any different from others. Polls need not be individually notable as standard policy at WP:NNC. Any specific accusations of WP:OR (this one is generic) were summarily and rapidly dealt with. There were several independent sources indicating that pooling of straw polls was notable. This statement of my activity on "every" such page is a stretch, because if true it only relates to the last month or two (not the years of prior such activity) and only when relevant to discussion. Accusing me of conspiracy theory contradicts WP:NPA. The "toaster" running gag is either meaningless or further evidence of COI, if you care to hear. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Relist This is part of the historical record. The evidence that the debate was inadequate is simply there were very few people who showed up for what in one of the important election-related articlesIt should at least get another hearing. DGG (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Whether by votecounting or strength of argument, this was a correct closure. Few AFDs get as many as 9 participants. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes to your last, but aren't AFDs with vote patterns like 6-3-1 more often NCDK instead of delete? Thanks. JJB 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • With the usual disclaimers of AFD is not a vote, my experience is that the threshold where no consensus changes to delete is a two-thirds vote, or when there are twice as many deletes than keeps. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great, threshold, favoring relist, thank you. JJB 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Request temporary undeletion of Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election, as it is not clear what the !votes in the AfD are talking about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Seresin. The AfD votes are much easier to understand seeing the article, which was not about “Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election”, but was a repository of links of the “Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election”, with a lead section blandly covering “straw polls. It was indeed a WP:NOR/WP:N issue. The three references (# ^ "Vote on the Michigan Republican debate". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617. Retrieved on 2008-01-10. # ^ Harwood, John (2007-10-12). "My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters". CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546. Retrieved on 2008-01-10. # ^ "2008 Republican Debate Polls - Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani". http://www.usastrawpolls.com/debates/2008-republican-presidential-debate-polls.html.) are (1,3) not secondary sources or (2) a broken link. Potentially, the article could be justified as a spin out of United States presidential election, 2008, but not with the fact that the parent article doesn’t contain even the word “straw”. I find the nomination and Delete !votes sound and the three Keep !votes to use “notability” in a non-wikipedian, real-world sense, without objective evidence.
I endorse (deletion) and recommend userfy. If it is to be relisted, I suggest giving the article more time in userspace to address the lack of third party sources covering, not contributing to, the subject, and a lack of incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason you came to that conclusion was because the full article wasn't undeleted. The Republican and Democratic parts were transcluded and they remain red-links.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William is correct that you did not see the whole article; please review the links I just placed atop this page. Further, even if it were a "repository of links of", it would surely be "about". But if it were a repository of links, so would be all the numerous opinion-poll articles, upon which these were based. Instead, it was better style to use inline links (to the many secondary reliable sources), rather than endnote references, except where refs were desired to demonstrate in-text points and multipoll compilation methods. Notability and nonoriginality was amply demonstrated by the article set; would you care to be more specific? Links 1-2 are indeed secondary, but are not current (obviously link repair will be necessary at this stage); while 3 is primary but (like many others) was put in deliberately to combat the false charge that basically nobody was collecting compilations of poll results with particular presentation methods. Your proposed spinout point is not an argument; this was spun out of opinion polls anyway, as stated. "I find" the three Keep !votes to use "notability" in WP's sense, accepting their linking to WP:N in good faith, and as evidenced by nom Burzmali's agreement that WP:N was not the issue; there were literally a couple hundred sources in all. Finally, of course most incoming wikilinks have been pulled (though, e.g., one of this article's maps still appears with redlink at Dodd's article), though I don't know userfication would address this, unless you want me to link from main to userspace. Anyway, please let us know your thoughts after considering the links, thanks. JJB 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination is visible again, it's clear that straw polls were the key factor in President Paul's eventual election, so surely this article deserves to exist. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, and JJB, I take many of your your points, but not enough for me to call for a simple “overturn”, but I do call for userfy, improve, move to mainspace, re-test at AfD if necessary I can see why people said “delete”. There is too much data and not enough prose directed to the specific subject. It looks like an illustrated appendix or technical report. It looks too much like it is entirely original research. There structure is wrong; it needs to be based on secondary sources. Now, there is some confusion, or something is very wrong, if you are telling me that http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617 is a secondary source. The secondary sources that will justify this as a stand-alone article will talk about “the straw polls of that election”, but not just about an individual straw poll, and not just about straw polls without reference to the 2008 election. There are many more references in the transposed sub-articles that I haven’t examined, and I haven’t otherwise searched, but I am confident that such sources exist. As for incoming links, you are right, in userspace you can’t do this, but you could, if necessary, tell us some example sections of other articles would benefit from this article, (if it is not entirely justifiable by its own secondary sources). Importantly, however, I think you need to ensure that there is some mention of the straw polls to be made somewhere in the article United States presidential election, 2008. I think it is more than reasonable to ask for userfication, and the subject is in principle appropriate for an article. Historical articles are definitely appropriate for an encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of those sources was major impetuous for bringing it to AFD the second time around. I searched for sources for the role of straw polls in the 2008 election and came up empty. As soon as the Primaries season starts, the straw polls quickly take a second seat to the delegate counts and opinion polls in the news, if they get any mention at all. This makes the first few straw polls (like the Ames Straw Poll) notable, but the rest are rather insignificant, and since opinion polls are far more accurate predictors of an election, none of the major news outlets seem to care about aggregated results of straw polls. In the very best case, I could imagine an article along the lines of The Role of Straw Polls in the 2008 Election, but that is a very different article than the "also-ran" focused article that was deleted. Burzmali (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're being too generous. Straw polls mean nothing. Look at the Republican one – Ron Paul did best in the straw polls and did basically nothing in the primaries; John McCain did worst in the straw polls and won the nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's because the polls added to the page were plucked from biased sources like Dailypaul.com, as my other comment in the AFD, the article is a WP:COATRACK for any "also-ran" supporter out to "prove" his candidate was actually a serious contender. Burzmali (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely false, I am not a Ron Paul supporter and I worked on the article. It is just denial of fact to argue that Ron Paul did not do well in straw polls. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why articles, especially when contentious, should be constructed around reputable, independent, secondary sources. The deleted articles were not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree that you were not a Paulite editor. Who was responsible for the "scoring" section (head-to-head, Olympics, NASCAR, etc.)? That's the most embarrassing part of the article, churning statistically meaningless data ten different ways (possibly to show how wonderfully Paul was doing, but meaningless regardless of the motivation). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't understand those numbers, and I'll allow for John J. Bulten to defend his edits. For the most part, the reasons listed above are not arguments for deletion but rather reasons for improvement of the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the methodology used was cribbed from reference 30, Oklahomans' for Ron Paul. Burzmali (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I see now. That makes it even more embarrassing, flunks WP:RS, and makes the article look even more like its only reason for existence was Paul pushing. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose was simply to list all 2008 straw polls, period. Actually, all compilation methods were included (no matter whether they came from one partisan or another, since all partisan sources were considered); we always took care to preclude any charge that we were selecting only some compilation methods. Recall that I particularly was working not to let COI influence any presentation; perhaps I overshot and was too neutral? Further, there was never any method found on talk for excluding some presentations and allowing others, nor was there ever a bright line for knocking out what sources were unreliable (individual reliability challenges were promptly dealt with; this link was not one of them). This link was one of hundreds of sources. But of course since I wasn't doing OR and everything was sourced I suppose that means I can be accused of "cribbing", I like how that Hobson's choice works. JJB 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This article's only value is that it demonstrates how worthless straw poll results are, once a reader mentally compares the results to reality (primary results and the nomination). The raw results and colored states "winners map" are sufficient to do this. The other scoring methods are wretched churning of junk data. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly closed the discussion based on the debate and nothing new has been offered to indicate that consensus has changed or that discussion should be re-opened. "This is part of the historical record" is an irrelevant argument to DRV (it's also irrelevant to AFD but I digress). There is no minimum number of people who need to participate in the AFD for it to be valid. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is part of the historical record should be in an encyclopedia--it's pretty basic to the concept of having one in the first place. It's sufficient for notability of even living people, to defeat ONEEVENT, & by analogy should apply also to everything else, as BLP is where we are most stringent. The close was bad, in not taking full account of the arguments in a divided situation.The e3ntire nomination anddiscussion was contaminated by the sockpuppet issue. And what the orig. nom says here needs some elucidation: 1/ this includes other candidates than Ron Paul. 2/ -the nom even says himself that some straw polls are notable!!! If some are, a combination article on them certainly is 3/--more important--from what he says here the nom was politically motivated, though I cannot figure out in just what direction. DGG (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, a closure based on false allegations that are not recognized during debate (and partly due to editors affected by the allegations being absent) is tainted by those allegations and must be relisted at minimum. That does constitute "new information" not brought up in the debate. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no false allegations in any of the three discussions. That one editor or another is away at a particular time and thus unable to participate in a particular discussion is unfortunate but does not rise to the level of reversible error. The first article I ever wrote got deleted while I was on vacation. It sucked and I was pissed about it (because it was nominated out of revenge for an article of his that I nominated) but it didn't constitute a reason to overturn or to relist. Otto4711 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, this is too blithe. William and I allege no OR or SYNTH, others allege OR and SYNTH without specifics. Are both allegations true? Would you be specific about why our evidence is "nothing new" or why there may specifically be OR or SYNTH? Thanks. JJB 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The time to address arguments raised at AFD is AFD, not DRV. DRV, as is often noted, is not AFD round two. The issues of OR and SYNTH, along with COATRACK, were raised in the nomination. There was ample time for those who supported the article to refute the issues raised in the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burzmali's first argument is illogical, and his second is contradicted by the sources present in the article, as noted above. Further, an AFD does not make a finding of OR. And do you really want me to explain the toaster to everyone, Michael? Or do you want to flesh out your accusations of editor agenda? JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • restore first the closer stated that no one addressed SYNTH issues when someone in fact did. Secondly many of the straw polls are notable and I'd view this as a list article. Seems to meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Experiments may be notable. Articles containing the original data belong in journals, not an encyclopedia. The only way I could see keeping this is if there is some kind of precedent in social studies related encyclopedias (not journals) that include all of this information. I am not a social studies person, but I have read encyclopedias of history, and have never once seen strings of straw poll data. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your argument for deletion? WP:LISTS are acceptable in this encyclopedia, and straw polls are a notable aspect of American elections. You think that because you have never seen it in an encylopedia means it should be deleted? That's ridiculous. This article contains prose and gives great information about the American presidential election of 2008 at its grassroots level. And as a side note, this article was featured on the main page, and is linked in many articles. Its deletion was hasty and it should be overturned. I stand by my statement that it will one day be an FL. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With due respect that I am not receiving fellow editor, I have made my argument. I am entitled to my interpretation of policy just as you are. You state that lists are acceptable. This is true, but as I stated, are there any lists in any encyclopedia that contain raw data of this nature? I have claimed to see none, and you have not offered any that would change my mind. Just because the article is well written, or was featured, does not mean it should be included as a separate article. You state that it gives great information. That may also be true. So do journals, newspapers, and a number of other sources which wikipedia is not. I remain unconvinced that this article should stay. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dispute your claim that it is simply a collection of raw data. Perhaps some parts are, but those can be removed. For the most part, this article is to comparable to most of the opinion poll articles for the election, the difference is that this article has much more prose.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for wider participation, this article does not strike me as something that needs to be removed, it seems well sourced, covers notable persons and events, speculation regarding motivations should not enter to the discussion. Unomi (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Personally, I detest straw polls, but the media seems to love them, as do high school and college students, who are, after all our constituency. The deletion was not made with sufficiently fair time to discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Canvasing in process... [17][18] Burzmali (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to explain why you're accusing my limited, neutral, nonpartisan, open, two-hours-old notices of being "canvasing in process"? The first response to them was LonelyBeacon's delete. I'm sorry I didn't take time to formulate a notice for this page, but that's hardly worth such a charge. JJB 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    No canvassing has taken place. JJB has simply notifed all involved users, regardless of their opinion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the closer of the first discussion and the consensus was relatively clear to keep it. Though in this case, I would at least give it another vote so relist. Needs more consensus then the second discussion had. Though the issue I have about this article is the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JForget 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Scott Campbell (blogger) – Endorse Reasonable close, 'new' sources aren't what you would call detailed coverage of the subject. I'm not aware of any BLP provision that proscribes articles based on age, but that isn't primarily the concern. This is a marginally notable subject (no offense, Scott, just stating the facts) with little to no biographical coverage. Barring some extensive coverage in the press I'd say we don't have much cause to overturn the decision. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC) – Protonk (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) (XfD|restore)

I have many more media article sources to back up the article and to meet criteria for the notability guidelines. I have articles/appearances from The Guardian Online, BBC News Online, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, The Independent, The Scotsman, Original 106, Real Radio and Northsound 1. The Press Association will also be putting out a video and wire story about it, so that is another reference source. --Scott (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of these different to sources posted in the AFD? if so can you post the links here. I notice you have a conflict of interest given you are the apparent subject. If you are so notable, why isn't someone else trying to write a wikipedia article about you? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, I would suggest that you think very carefully about the implications of there being a Wikipedia article about you. If you do anything over the next few years that you come to regret, and it gets reported in the press, then it may be put in the article and be used against you at a later time in your life, for example when you are applying for a university place or for a job. Please discuss with your parents or another trusted adult whether you should really be fighting to have this article kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it fair to endorse deletion on a policy that does not exist? There is no age limit at which you are allowed a Wikipedia article, so I don't see why this restriction is being placed on me. --Scott (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse fair AfD. Scott, do not get involved in articles concerning yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist simply on the absurdity that one of the two founders of NetNewsDaily isn't notable. Absurd results are a violation of the policy to use common sense. I do not think age has anything to do with it, except that , though I am reluctant to pay respect to subjects' wishes to remove an article, I would probably make an exception for a child. But that's not the situation here. DGG (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, relist. The two sources Scottcampb presents are sufficient to merit further consideration and this isn't the right venue to do it. And Scottcampb's response to Phil Bridger is right on the money.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - if new sources have come to light, then I would normally suggest userfication, addition of the material, and a return to article space without process. AfDs can only be judged on what is in the discussion at the time. DRV is not necessary for an article that is going to be substantially different since it will not be deletable under WP:CSD#G4. This process is unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive to Scott's goal. There are no process points raised here as yet, so I feel not need to comment further at this time. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the AfD, given the information at the time, was a fair close. Looking at sources now, however, I think another discussion is merited. So given that, I support allowing recreation. However, I think that we would be better served re-creating the NND article, and merging this content there. Given the subject's age, the COI, and the fact that his notability seems to be tied only to the website, I think not having an article on him, but some information in an article on the website is the best course of action at this time. I'm not sure if that's something a DRV may mandate, but it's my suggestion. ÷seresin 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Phil and Joe. Come the time he's unquestionably notable, someone else will (and should) write it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:03, 20 June 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.
Ronnie Radke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Should be unprotected and redirected to Escape the Fate, which is his primary reason for notability (and why the article kept getting recreated). He was their lead singer for their first two releases, and received a lot of media coverage. Chubbles (talk) 11:23, 12 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Looking at it purely in voting terms, consensus comes out at 8 delete, 5 keep. Cutting out "it just is notable" "it just isn't notable", we come out with 7 delete, 4 keep. Seems to be consensus to me. Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 11 June 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.
MacTalla_Mor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was "no consensus". All two "keep" votes (as opposed to the four "delete votes) were all newly registered single-purpose accounts. User:Nothariseldon had only edited the AFD. It should have been deleted.Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:46, 13 June 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.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TimeSplitters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Talk page should be archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive TimeSplitters, not deleted, as per other pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. SharkD (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 June 2009

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

Artist page Original Flavor was deleted via PROD, and then this album was A9'ed. The artist page has been restored, and so the A9 is now invalid. This is sort of an extension of a contested prod and hopefully is not controversial. Chubbles (talk) 17:14, 10 June 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:CA SupremeCourt.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

As I previously mentioned, this image is not replaceable because you're never going to otherwise get the seven justices in one place to take their pictures. It is arguably in public domain, although I don't think it actually is. (Compare with File:Supreme_Court_US_2006.jpg.) Nevertheless, I think there is no doubt that using it is fair use. Further, as it is the case with Supreme Court of the United States, I think having the justices' group portrait substantially enhances the article's vividness and is necessary to give flesh and blood to the article. Nlu (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. We don't use non-free images to give flesh and blood. The same encyclopedic information could be provided by showing free images of the individual justices. Clearly replaceable. – Quadell (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Quadell. Non-free images of people who are still alive aren't allowed except in the most unusual circumstances. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore A joint picture is important and unreplaceable information. This is one of the special circumstances. We can decide here how narrowly to interpret the rule. DGG (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think it would be impossible for them to be in the same room together? – Quadell (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely being viewed by you as important and unreplaceable information doesn't make it pass WP:NFCC. Aside the issue of if a similar photo could be taken, does it meet NFCC#8 (say) "add substantially to the readers understanding" in the context in which it was being used. If we show 7 individual shots and comment that they are rarely collected together does that not convey the same information (arguably showing all together is misleading if it's that rare an occurance). If the image itelf is a really important image in it's own right such that we could write about it, I'm sure then there will be independant commentary on it, does that exist? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be impossible for them to be in a room together as members of the C Supreme Court. Context is relevant, since we don't use NFCC pictures as just decoration. DGG (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't see how that answers the question in the slightest. The context in which it was used was listing the number of justices, it said nothing about the photo, said nothing about the signficance of them being in the same room at the same time etc. You completely fail to say how that picture adds any more encyclopedic value than individual pictures. You fail to say how it increases the readers understanding etc. It still seems to come down to merely your belief that it is important for some unspecified reason, scarcity and importance aren't the same thing. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The same can be said about any picture. As far as I am concerned, it speaks more than 1,000 words to see the seven justices with their diversity in gender and ethnicities together in one picture than seeing them in the hypothetical seven individual photos -- not to mention that such photos don't exist. You really expect any Wikipedia editor to be able to invite the seven justices -- or even one -- to allow a picture to be taken by the editor? --Nlu (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So it still comes down to a matter of personal opinion, one I still don't share just making vague waves toward pictures speaking a 1000 words doesn't actually tell me anything. Has anyone else written about the photo in this way showing it's significance? The general standard we use is not that wikipedia editors decide on such matters but the world as a whole writing about such issues. As to wikipedia editors taking pictures, yes it is possible they don't have to be posed shots, and it presupposes the only way to get a free image is to stand there and take one. There are images of these people and wikipedia editors can go and ask those with such images if they are willing to license them under a free license. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that those wanting to contribute to a free encyclopedia make quite a bit of effort to contribute using free material. A massive point of the project is free content, and a part of our NFCC being stricter than fair use doctrine is to dictate not having too broad a use of fair use, not using the lazy way out. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Juxtaposing seven free photographs of the individual judges would easily accomplish the goal you mention. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - from my perspective this is similar to whether we should allow non-free images of bands, when individual free photos are available or could be created. My understanding is the consensus interpretation of policy is to not allow this practice. Consequently, I believe the closing admin acted correctly. I understand what DGG is saying, but I disagree, we should be attempting to follow the consensus interpretation of policy. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    if consensus about the interpretation were to change, this would be a good place to change it. Personally, I think it at least is beginning to change in this direction. DGG (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this would not be a good place to change it; WT:F would. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Quadell. BTW. If the image speaks a thousand words, it is clearly replaceable with text. Rettetast (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Some of the above arguments for deletion are beyond bogus, but there is no clear reason why we can't take pictures of each person and combine them. Not as good as the combined picture, but still enough for the article IMO. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I'd certainly !vote to delete this, but I don't think this is a clear speedy and should have had it's chance in XfD. It isn't so clear as to be an automatic deletion without discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 14 June 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:Sonic Erotica Article Psycho-Sensuals Unite.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

for entry Sonic Erotica. ESkog takes too many liberties and makes too many assumptions.--Mirror Man (talk) 12:33, 10 June 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.

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

History-only undeletion. This was deleted years ago without any discussion that I could find.  ~ PaulT+/C 05:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A frivolous waste of time? From the instructions above: "'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page." According to that there really shouldn't be much of a discussion anyway. ~ PaulT+/C 06:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleting it shouldn't be a problem and as a one off is minimal effort, however the nature of the instructions doesn't make the process of someone going and undeleting a single phrase which adds zero value to the article or its history any less of a waste of time. Wikipedia gains nothing by undeleting it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:38, 11 June 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 the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
List of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon episodes (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Closer dismissed valid arguments based on wp:notability, wp:episode and other policies. Sides with nom despite lack of deletion rationale. Nom's reasoning and those of deleters are largely based on not liking it "I think this kind of list is a little different, because it isn't a plot summary like other lists of (show) episodes. If O'Brien is as successful as Leno or Carson, this list could end up being in the thousands of episodes. These kinds of shows have far more episodes per year, than sitcoms, comedies, etc." None of those are policy based. A no consensus close would have been fine. Also, additional articles were added after it had started and weren't given separate consideration by all the voters (ex. one year of Colbert show episodes). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would overturn and relist, as I don't think the closer was correct in dismissing so many "votes" out of hand. Relist because of the confusion effect of adding new articles halfway through. I'm a strong opponent of articles like this, but process and consensus are important. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep despite me voting for deletion. This page was closed as delete despite a 15:8 keep to delete ratio. While AfD is not a vote, I feel that is just too overwhelming to close this as delete. When User:Smashville deleted the articles, he stated that not a single keep vote was in policy, but I would highly disagree with him. I count about seven keep votes that do not mention any policies or guidelines in their answer, but on the other side I count three delete votes that don't cite and policies and guidelines. that still leaves approx. a 8:5 keep to delete ratio. A lot of the keep votes were based on notability and I simply feel that User:Smashville overlooked those arguments and deleted the article based on his personal feelings. Tavix |  Talk  15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My keep vote (like all the rest) was discounted as not referring to a policy or guideline but my reasoning was that the nominator didn't give a reason for deletion so there was nothing really to comment on other than the fact that the nominator wanted the page deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is spot on. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep There was clearly a majority to keep the articles. A list of episodes is a perfectly legitimate topic uder WP guidelines, even if there's one four days a week. Reywas92Talk 16:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per Stifle mostly. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep. The closing rationale seems to assume that you have link to or quote a policy for your !vote to based on policy. This is simply not the case. There were, as pointed out, numerically more keep !votes, and the keeps managed to demonstrate the possibility for a neutral, well-sourced, verifiable, and notable article. Cool3 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:EPISODE recommends that we need reliable, independent sources on the topic. Unless editors can prove that the show does receive such episodic coverage from the news media, this should remain deleted. There's a danger in thinking that the Tonight Show is notable, Conan is notable, NBC is notable... therefore, a "list of episodes of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" is also notable. Notability is not inherited; this specific topic needs indepedent coverage on its own to merit inclusion. I don't think the AFD closer made that clear in his closing statement. --Madchester (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, as I pointed out in the AfD, it's very easy to find reliable citations for all of the material in the article (guest stars and musical acts). As for reviews, they exist for every episode so far. It's crystal-ballery to say they won't in the future, and as I pointed out in the AfD, nearly every episode of Letterman has real reviews; why would Conan not be the same?
    In short. The keep votes were justified; there are plenty of sources. Cool3 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I addressed this issue multiple times in the original AFD, yet no editor took the iniative to provide third-party links to each episode of that article. If the article stays, I expect such news articles for each and every episode that's aired, in order to satisfy WP:EPISODE's requirement for independent sources. --Madchester (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep - This argument is definitely incorrect. WP:EPISODE states "Once there's enough verifiable information independent of the show itself, then: * Create a page for each series/season, or a 'List of episodes' page with every season/series." Having verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes is only required for having separate articles about individual episodes. WolframBerlin (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, the bulk of the guideline stresses the need for reliable, independent, secondary sources - regardless if it's just for the show itself or a specific episode. We don't create entire Wiki artciles that are simply reproducing info from the primary source. --Madchester (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete, first of all, ChildofMidnight, I never once said I "didn't like" the list. I was saying that this list will get ridiculously long when Conan has thousands of episodes. This list isn't even a plot summary, like most "List of ___ episodes", it is just a list of guest stars. CTJF83Talk 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep - Closing admin claims that none of the 15 keep !votes (against 8 deletes) "were based on policy". That is blatantly false, as many of the keep !votes and subsequent discussion to replies to those !votes addressed WP:N, WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT and WP:SALAT, to name a few. Further, the nom itself was not based on any policy, but just on a view that the list may become overly long - a view that many of the !keep votes disputed. Rlendog (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep with extra fish sauce for the closer. Implement the consensus. If you don't like the consensus, then !vote, don't close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for lack of sources if nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Overturn and keep per above, sources were indeed found and I didn't catch them on first glance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep These are the standard ways to deal with the situation. There is dispute about separate articles for individual episodes, but as for lists of episodes--that is I think accepted by almost everyone. The closer misunderstood the situation. DGG (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus) Bad close. There was no consensus, rough or otherwise. The closer's action should have been a standard !vote. Don't relist for a month at least. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus) arguments on both sides using WP:CRYSTALBALL to discuss availability of sources, there were valid arguments on both sides, and also, clearly, some votes. Bigger digger (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep the WP:EPISODE keep votes were justified and subsequently outright ignored by the closing nom as evidenced by his closing comments. Vodello (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus: goes against the community consensus/understanding that episode lists are a valid compromise between no episode coverage and complete epiosde coverage. Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion of List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) immediately. It was added late to an ongoing discussion of not obviously related articles, and deleted after less than seven days. (Six, but as long as we're nitpicking about the finer points of policy...) I'm not well read on Wikipedia policies, but I believe this falls under 'If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" ...' in WP:DP. And if it should be deleted, it should be done right and include all years, from 2005 onwards. magetoo 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Sceptre and TPH among others. Icky close. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Obviously an error in judgment on the part of Smashville when you have nearly a 2/3 advantage of keeping the articles and deleting them. This isn't a vote, but WP:EPISODE is a valid argument for deletion discussions and it was overlooked and there are reliable sources for The Tonight Show, The Colbert Report, etc. which can satisfy reliable sources and notability. Another error was made in not bothering to check related articles about The Colbert Report when List of The Colbert Report episodes and 4 related season articles still exists, leaving a red link for the latest season. — Moe ε 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus to delete, talk about a horrible close. How do these people become admins? There was clearly no consensus to delete in that AFD. And several of the comments by people arguing to delete were totally ridiculous: "raise potential copyright issues", "very hard to verify", "there are 3,775 episodes", "no plot line to write about", "kill it now while it's still small", "likely going to be hundred of episodes, per year", "this belongs on a fan page", "This has the potential to be an extremely bloated article", "this is useless fan fluff", "I don't see the value", concerned "whether or not it can be backed up by reliable secondary sources.", "A magnet for original research.", "nor is a list of the episodes encyclopedic." And the nominator's reasons were absolutely laughable — "most shows seem to have a list of episodes page....I think this kind of list is a little different, because it isn't a plot summary like other lists of (show) episodes." What kind of nonsense is that? Besides, how many plot summaries do you see in List of The Simpsons episodes, which is a featured article? Does the nominator even know what a talk show is?

    And why delete List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) and leave List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005), List of The Colbert Report episodes (2006), List of The Colbert Report episodes (2007), and List of The Colbert Report episodes (2008)? They're all acceptable sub-articles of List of The Colbert Report episodes. The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, and The Colbert Report are all notable televisions shows, and splitting off a list of episodes is perfectly acceptable.

    There's no policy against list of episode articles, it's common to have lists of episodes for talk shows rather than individual episode articles (as seen with The Colbert Report), the information is easy to verify, Category:Lists of television series episodes has over 2,200 articles under it[34], WP:EPISODE isn't a policy (or even a notability guideline), and episode articles themselves on Wikipedia have over seven years of precedent per the policy WP:NOT#PAPER. And you absolutely do not need "third-party links" to each episode to "satisfy" WP:EPISODE (although it's easy to link to TV.com if someone insists on them for some strange reason). WP:EPISODE doesn't even address list of episode articles (and it didn't address lists of episodes when Radiant! marked it a guideline all by himself either). That "guideline" doesn't even deserve to be called that. It's clearly breeding a new generation of know-nothing volunteers. It's "guideline" status is disputed[35][36]. Why do people blindly follow some page with no citations, that they don't even know who wrote, simply because the page itself tells you it's a "guideline"? What an ignorant bundled AFD, and equally ignorant closure. --Pixelface (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 16 June 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.


L-Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The article was based on information that i myself submitted and contributed to my article. It was definently original work and should not have been deleted, almost immediately after it's posting. I submitted the article on Aug 21, 2007 and it was deleted immediately. I disputed the deletion with the (deletor/i.e.edior?)....but he never responded. And then i read over other request and based on information from other contributors, this individual is somewhat of a serial deletor. He has deleted a number of other articles that author's disputed were in violation of any of Wikipedia's article rules.. I just hope this can be resolved in a somewhat timely manner. I am relying on this submission to use as a guideline to account on when and how i acquired the material for the overall L-Cat project. User-Soulsearchers Soulsearchers03 (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Deleted by Irishguy[reply]

The content of the deleted page, created by the above nominator, was:
L-Cat:
In theory, the L-Cat(Local Computerized Access Terminals), would be part of a network of information gathered from various points of interest and all processed or tallied to give an accurate average. Because of the information that was gathered by the system makes it invaluable and very cost efficient. It would be enviromentally friendly, and very pratical. I could be used for a small or large projects, and it could be expanded or downsized as seen fit by the person persons in control of the project.
As such, I endorse deletion. I'm not sure that you understand the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to document notable topics using verifiable information. It's not a place to promote new inventions, nor to "use as a guideline to account on when and how i acquired the material for the overall L-Cat project". You may wish to write about this on your own website. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.
Casting aspersions on the motives of administrators who delete articles is unlikely to help your case, too. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
  • File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg – Endorse Deletion with no real prejudice against new versions being uploaded of the media files (Obviously those versions should meet WP:NFCC). We don't need to be exact (i.e. 10% isn't hard and fast if 10% is totally insufficient for the purpose at hand), but we do have to be mindful. No compelling reason offered to ignore that provision or reverse the deletion. Protonk (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC) – Protonk (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I am afraid you have committed a mistake. The files were rather to be kept as they are, or shortened at worst, but nobody voted for their deletion, except the nominator. I doubt this is in accordance with Wikipedia rules...* The desire of Jaan Pärn to delete the contents and then the article Sofia Rotaru alltogether goes a little too far, even when users vote for keeping files. Do you think this deletion was done in accordance with the Wikipedia rules?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) --Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. The key criterion here is WP:NFCC#3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." As the editor who !voted "Keep...sort of" noted, there are many clips in the article, and no especial need for the deleted clips was shown over other clips in the article. No argument was made in the FFD that overcame that.--Aervanath (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all there were two or three "keeps" (week or strong) and one "delete". For me, not a rocket scientist, the consensus is clearly to keep. Second, the whole paragraph deals (or used to deal, since I cannot even follow anymore all of the deltions of Jaan Pärn on the article Sofia Rotaru about these songs where. It is for the intention to release an album with these songs with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, that Sofia Rotaru was forbidden to leave the USSR for 7 years. At the same time, Soviet power allowed her to sing the Circus song representing Soviet Union in India on Universal Youth Games. Circus was the major success of the Soviet delegation. Just listen to the observations of commentators on youtube (radio live recording). That's the whole controversy about certain and namely these songs in foreign languages of Sofia Rotaru, which changed her life, caused anger and satisfaction of the Soviet authorities at the same time. This was told in the article, but I guess later deleted by Jaan Pärn. --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I appreciate your argument, but please read all WP:NOTAVOTE; discussions are based on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. Also, please read all of WP:NFCC. Near the bottom, it notes that "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created". Even with these three deletions, there are still many sound clips on the article, and there was no "valid rationale" in the FFD to show why ALL of them were necessary. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Your first argument should be dismissed, as if we are following the WP:NOTAVOTE, you should have noted that not only Jaan Pärn basically lied in his arguments, but also other users have counterargumented him. Your second argument should be dismissed as well, as these were unique recordings for a Western recording company, in foreign, back then (in the late 70's!!!! - it's not that far from the hottest point of the Cold War) of the leading Soviet singer... I think all of them are complied with. Which one is missing?--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing is an explanation why it is necessary that there be more than one sound clip in the article. According to WP:NFCC#3a (which I have already cited above), Wikipedia requires "minimal usage" of non-free media. Without a sufficient argument to show why multiple non-free sound clips are required to demonstrate the style of her music, there could have been no other outcome. So far, I have seen nothing to convince me of this necessity. For each file, it is necessary to show why that particular clip, and ONLY that particular clip, could add to the reader's understanding of a key fact in the article. I have seen nothing sufficiently specifically-worded in any of the discussions, including this one. If you can give me an individual explanation why each one is critical to reader understanding, then of course I will undelete the ones which are critical.--Aervanath (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a familiar reasonuing: "first I decide to delete, just because, then I try to find a reason why exactly did I delete. And if the reason does not work, I'll always invent another one." I have provided already a detailed explanation why these audio files were important and unique. You haven't addressed any of my concernes regarding the Wikipedia rules as far as the voting and number of "keep"s and "delete"s is concerned. I could revert to you with necessary links, proper wording etc., if that's what's missing... But you will probably find another reason... Therefore, please kindly indicate me where can we discuss this with a third party input? Thank you.--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should go to WP:Deletion review and follow the instructions there, so that other users can review my reasoning.--Aervanath (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument applies to two more files

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg Rubikonchik (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


RESUME: The closing admin has not answered any of my queries regarding the proper application of rules as far as are concerned: (1) counting the keeps and deletes (obviously, only one delete was given - by the nominator, against two keeps, and (2) falsification of arguments by the nominator.--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin: the above conversation is actually a copy of the conversation from my talk page: User_talk:Aervanath#Sofia_Rotaru. That said, endorse my own closure as the nominator has still not given a reason what value each of these files individually adds to the article, meaning that there is still no justification to satisfy WP:NFCC#3a.--Aervanath (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator: As far as the files File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg and File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg are concerned, the closing admin is addressing the issue slightly beside the point. The files are not missing WP:NFCC#3a as Rubikonchik has described the exact episode in the career of Sofia Rotaru what the clips aim to illustrate. However, these do miss WP:NFCC#8 - Significance - as the clips do not increase the readers' understanding on the topic, being the ban on Sofia Rotaru to travel outside the Soviet Union for recording abroad in foreign languages. I will stress that she did not receive the ban for her musical style nor anything else that one could understand only by listening to the tracks, but for recording abroad in foreign languages. The relevant facts are clear to the reader without the clips. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the track "Circus" reflected by the file File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg is not mentioned in the Sofia Rotaru article at all, and has never been mentioned in the history, so the talk pages are the only location where one can find the episodes in the singer's career that the clips should illustrate. Not that the inclusion of these facts would create a necessity for the clips to be included. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion; permit reuploading of a version that passes WP:NFCC#3b i.e. is 30s or shorter. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of one, Overturn the other two. This DRV entry seems to cover three separate ogg files. The first, File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg, clearly violated NFCC#3, and several commenters said so. I think the closing admin was correct to delete it. But for the other two, File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg and File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg, I don't believe the closing admin interpreted consensus or policy correctly. The user who nominated these images for deletion claimed "1) The sampled recording is not discussed critically in Sofia Rotaru article, 2) The clip is considerably longer than the standard set in WP:FU, 3) The excerpt is not of reduced quality compared to the original.", but none of those three claims turn out to be true. The uploader, myself, and BQZip all opined that the files should be kept, and no one but the nominator argued that they should be deleted. It's true that BQZip also stated that there were too many sound files in the article, but one (Circus India) was going to be deleted anyway, and deleting all three missed the point. I don't believe that three sound clips is too many; consider the featured articles Gwen Stafani (four song clips), U2 (three clips), AC/DC (six clips), Mariah Carey (four), Frank Zappa (eight), Tool (band) (four), etc. I know other stuff exists, but having four sound clips in featured articles tends to be pretty non-controversial. – Quadell (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, BQZip01 stated in both the other FFDs that he felt only one clip was needed. His exact statemnt: "Keep...sort of... There are too many clips in the article to meet WP:NFCC#3a. Keep only one of the clips to show the musical style of the performer." Since there is still one clip on the article, after the deletion of these three, I took that as an argument for deletion.--Aervanath (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me stress yet again that technically, there is no problem for the two files to meet WP:NFCC#3a. However, these are by far not the best examples of Rotaru's musical style and therefore her other tracks should be used for that purpose. What the uploader was trying to achieve by the files was not describing her music style in general (as they are not discussed in a general context) but explaining the reasons why the Soviet concert administration banned her from travelling abroad. The main problem is meeting WP:NFCC#8 because the reader gains nothing from these clips. The major technical fault of the clips is they are considerably longer than 10% of the recordings. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Immenista and Wer Liebe sucht are not "considerably" longer, they are (were actually) only 1 second longer. So, let's say the truth here. Like I said, I was ready to develop the article, provide supplementary sources, citations, improve wording, etc. Circus song was also described in the article. It was, as far as I remember, beforeJaan Pärn started deleting portions of the article Sofia Rotaru, clearly described were it was sung and on what occasion and purpose. The live recording is very long, I have just checked it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folFjsyNzKs it's actually 5:37 min. long... (and it does not even seem the full version anyway...)
The nominator has copy pasted the same reasons for all of the audio files: "1) The sampled recording is not discussed critically in Sofia Rotaru article, 2) The clip is considerably longer than the standard set in WP:FU, 3) The excerpt is not of reduced quality compared to the original.". Now, that is precisely why I said the reasons are falsified from the very beginning. All of the songs were talked about in the article, none of them is of good quality (especially Circus). I agree though that Circus should be truncated. How long? The closing admin made, in my humble opinon, a rather quick decision, for some other reasons, not the ones which were mentioned by the nominator. Moreover, closing admin, namely for Immensità and Wer Liebe sucht, did not corectly count the votes, what really shocked me.
Anyway, guys, I have said what I had to say. For those who ignore, listen to 1) the song which was aired most often in Moscow in 2008 according to the www.tophit.ru - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL2fh-liRA 2) and here is the most recent song of Sofia Rotaru to listen to http://freshmp3.ru/gmp3.php?fid=184756 June 2009 (a 62 years old woman!!! - well, that's only eprsonal and has nothing to do with arguments here, just to cool off some hot spirits)--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do some math. "L'immensita" and "Wer Liebe sucht" are originally about 3 min long. 10% of it is 18 sec. The clip you are pushing is 1.6 times longer than that. As far as the discussion on "Circus" is concerned, here is your version of Sofia Rotaru article. Show me the part what I deleted where "Circus" was discussed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and what about this as far as the length of the audio file is concerned?. Regarding Circus in the old version, you may see aready the description right next to the audio file--Rubikonchik (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you indicated is an opinion of an editor, not representing a Wikipedia policy. Regarding "Circus", it needs to be critically discussed in the article. It never was even mentioned outside the file caption. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:47, 11 June 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:Fictional Jews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Back in February 2008, a dozen categories related to fictional characters by religion were deleted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_24#Category:Fictional_characters_by_religion this CfD with the closing administrator arguing that The strongest argument either way came from the last sentence of the nomination itself: It's pretty unlikely that someone looking for the Rocky, Michael Corleone, Scarlett O'Hara or Eric Cartman will look it up through fictional catholics. While true, these characters are fictional catholics, that is not what they are known for. And for those characters who religion is the main defining trait, as discussed, there are better categories that can be used. While all of these categories have been recreated -- and promptly deleted without discussion or explanation -- as a recreation of deleted material, the Category:Fictional Jews has been recreated almost a dozen times, more than any of the other categories. I believe this pattern of recreation reflects the belief of many different editors that this category should exist. I don't know much about what unites Catholic fictional characters, and I have little reason to believe that there is anything religious about fictional Anglicans or Methodists. But I do know that fictional Jews from William Shakespeare's Shylock to Rebecca from Ivanhoe to the title character Daniel Deronda by George Eliot to Philip Roth's Alexander Portnoy and even cartoon characters Kyle Broflovski and Krusty the Clown are distinguished by their Jewishness, for those who have appeared in print this is probably their most defining characteristic. While authors may select hair color, place of origin or even name on an entirely arbitrary basis, the choice to make a character Jewish is a quite often a rather deliberate and defining choice on the part of the author. It seems ludicrous, at best, to categorize Shylock, the quintessential Jewish character in fiction, solely in Category:Italian characters in written fiction after Act III, Scene I's famed speech from him that begins "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?", described in the Merchant of Venice article as one of Shakespeare's "most eloquent speeches". Even South Park's Kyle Broflovski would be more usefully put into Category:Fictional Jews than Category:Fictional characters from Colorado. Part of the problem with laundry list nominations at XfD is that useful articles and categories get deleted when the dross is collectively tossed out. While articles at AfD can be readily recreated with the addition of the sources and claims of notability that had been lacking, DRV is the only means of recreating deleted categories. Given the fact that the proffered explanation for deletion does not fit the world of Fictional Jews, and given that there have been numerous books, journal pieces, college courses, as well as newspaper and magazine articles on the subject, the proper action should be to allow recreation of the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn The nominator summarizes things pretty well. There should be a general category to understand how Jews have been portrayed in fiction. It is a category which makes sense (and is indeed a subject which has had multiple PhD theses and books dedicated to it). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly are "jew eyes", anyway? Do you have better eyesight? Are your "jew hands" more supple? Do you laugh when I tickle you because you're a jew? And would you laugh harder if I had jew hands too? Just some things I wonder about when I hear that. Personally, I still stand by my close. I doubt that even you, Alan, if looking for Kyle Broflovski's article, would start under Cat:Fictional Jews. Well, ok, maybe you would, but most people probably wouldn't. Being a fictional jew is not what Kyle is mainly known for. Being a South Park character, yes. Rocky, known for being a fictional catholic, or a fictional boxer? Anyway, listen, even though I said I stand by my close, I don't have the energy or desire to go round and round in what might be a rather lengthy and contentious DRV, so if you want to recreate it, knock yourself out. --Kbdank71 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kris, I took no objection to your close and still see none in anything I've written in the nomination, nor is your name mentioned at all in the nomination. While the rule of thumb that once you need to decide based on a "better argument" would have made "no consensus" the best close and while a close as "keep" would have been equally appropriate based on the same set of data, I still do not object to your close of the CfD in question. I only raised Kyle Broflovski as an example in response to the inclusion of Eric Cartman in your close. Cartman may have little in common as a Catholic with Rocky Balboa, but Kyle has far more in common with Shylock than with his neighbors J. B. Dix, Hawk (G.I. Joe), Parker Lee and Bob Russell (The West Wing) in Category:Fictional characters from Colorado. I don't see this DRV as "contentious" and expect little meaningful argument in opposition. I simply hope to restore a category that should exist and that hasn't for the past 15 months. If you have any other personal issue with me, Kris, you are free to take it elsewhere where it belongs. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I have no issue with you, Alan. I understand why you nominated it, and don't have a problem with it. As for being contentious, I've rarely come across a DRV or CFD that had anything to do with race, religion, or politics that wasn't lengthy and contentious. It was a mistake to imply you did that on purpose. I've refactored my comments above. --Kbdank71 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I wouldn't say it's an "overturn" because the closer interpreted the consensus correctly; but I would say it's an "allow recreation on the basis of new arguments" because that nomination's fairly convincing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure the nom has it wrong - can reliable sources be found that say that any of the characters he posits for a recreated category are famous for being (fictionally) Jewish or as I would suggest, they're famous for being in a famous work of fiction. It'll be an OR project: which of the Friends characters get put in here; some seemed like they were supposed to be Jewish - but was their notability based on that, or based on being in a highly rated TV show? Ditto, nearly every modern tv show or movie that has a broad array of characters from various (perceived) backgrounds to generate more opportunity for contrast, drama, etc. Looking back on nearly every show this could be done: Leonard Nimoy said he developed the Vulcan salute based on what his rabbi used to do, so is Spock now Jewish? Why or why not? And what RS'es tell us that he is or isn't Jewish when the actor who portrayed him seems to imply a Jewish element to Spock's character. If recreated, how is this sort of OR to be prevented? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I am often reminded, the question is if a fictional character being Jewish is a defining characteristic, not if it makes the character "famous". The standard that I use for inclusion, here and elsewhere, is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, a methodology that Wikipedia appears to enourage. this source from The New York Times describes "of course, there was the Jewish usurer Shylock, out for his pound of flesh, seeming to care more about his ducats than his daughter" in a 1998 performance of The Merchant of Venice. And as to another character, this from the pen of Charles Dickens and one that I had shamefully neglected to mention in my nomination, this source from The Independent in the UK notes that "Perhaps Shylock gives him a run for his money-lending. But there is almost no other character to compete with Fagin for the title of the most grotesque and villainous Jew in all of English literature." It seems hard to argue that these are not just two of many fictional characters for whom being Jewish is a defining characteristic. While I have seen a video in which Leonard Nimoy wraps himself in a tallit during a speech and describes his childhood recollections of being with his father in synagogue during the Priestly Blessing, in which a Kohen splits his fingers and blesses the congregation, and describes how this experience became his inspiration for the Vulcan salute, the character himself is never described as being Jewish. Reading reliable and verifiable sources is never OR. I invite you to deal with the inclusion of any particular entry in the talk page of that article; Here we are discussing whether Category:Fictional Jews captures a defining characteristic, and the reliable and verifiable sources say yes. Alansohn (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, interesting examples used in that there has been a lot of academic work comparing Shakespeare's Shylock to Dickens' Fagin precisely in regards to among other things changing stereotypes about Jews. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No doubt, there have been academic works on that as there has been on stereotyping of Asians (Charlie Chan), African-Americans (Steppinfetchit, Blaxploitation, Uncle Toms, Golliwogs, and far more), Central Asians (Borat) and Latinos (Frito Bandito) - that doesn't mean all characters who their authors have described (created) as Jewish/Asian/African-American/Latino etc. are among such stereotypes - I rather doubt that Jerry Seinfeld in character considered his character a shylock or fagin. It seems what you are proposing is a Category:Stereotypical fictional Jews which the academic research you mention might make that notable, but it would no doubt be entirely WP:OR decisions for inclusion or not, just look at the pathetic attempt at an article called Stereotypes of Jews. Which of the stereotypes would you apply to Jerry Seinfeld (character)? It's baloney, that's what it is... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that we actually accept arguments for deletion that rely on caricature without in any way addressing the actual argument, and that far too often we have such caricatures elevated as the "better" argument when adopting the distinctly non-Solomonic role of "weighing" votes. The caricature of "what do Rocky and Eric Cartman have in common" ended up tossing a dozen categories into the trash here. This is not Category:Fictional Jews by stereotype and I think that few other editors would have the same issue that you have with the title character in Seinfeld as being a fictional Jew. The fact that Seinfeld isn't often compared and contrasted to Shylock or Fagin in scholarly literature only demonstrates that all Jews in fiction need not be negatively portrayed in stereotypical fashion. The argument that deciding which entries to include constitutes verboten original research doesn't only destroy the entire category system, it requires that we dismantle all of Wikipedia. The decision to create an article (or list or category) or to expand it, requires editors to make decisions on what should or should not be added. Calling that process "original process" only turns the entire Wikipedia into a sorry joke. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and SALT -- long experience has shown this is better as an article Fictional Jews, perhaps with a fully fledged and annotated List of fictional Jews.
    1. There's no article, so all those "numerous books, journal pieces, college courses, as well as newspaper and magazine articles on the subject" have come to naught!
    2. Looking at the list, many entries are red-linked, or are characters that are only incidentally Jewish; or assumed or deduced or inferred, as no Jewish story line was ever developed.
    3. As a category, it would be yet another one that needed constant patrolling. Too little time, too many things to do....
  • --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an argument here other than that categories are hard to police? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All categories need patrolling. Why do we keep any category at all, when there is just so little time? Though, getting rid of the entire category system would end much needlessly-wasted time and effort, and force all of us involved there to build the encyclopedia by contributing to Wikipedia, which might have benefits of its own. There is no requirement for an article to exist in order to retain a category, and the list that does already exist can grow in parallel with the category, as WP:CLN encourages. I'm unsure how the presence of red links indicates that "characters that are only incidentally Jewish" are included and not simply that articles have not yet been created. We don't delete (or not allow recreation) based on the argument that it's too much work. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate A category and a list go well together. I don't see why we have to have one and not the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate/overturn/etc There have been a lot of "Fictional X" categories that I've despised and had welcome their deletion for being frivolous. Being Jewish is often the defining/major characteristic of some fictional characters, which sets it apart from many of the others (such as "Fictional characters who like ham sandwiches"). -- Ned Scott 05:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate this one. The problem with bulk noms is that a plausible general argument is put forward which applies to most of the nom but not necessarily all. I doubt if a single cfd for Category:Fictional Jews would lead to a delete conclusion, particularly given the above arguments. Occuli (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate Consensus has changed--we now accept lists and categories both. It's really that simple. The argument "better as an article" is now consistently rejected at AfD. if we removed everything hard to maintain , nothing on controversial subjects would be left. The inclusion of individual characters is for the talk page of the list. DGG (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a list being proposed, it's a category: and talk pages of categories are usually not patrolled by the regular editors of the articles dumped in them - yet another reason to have a list not a cat, as you rightly note. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the placement in a category is under the control of those involved with the article, and this is as careful as any other method. It can be argued interminably that one way is better than another, and the answer is to have both. In my experience, when the placement or listing of someone is challenged, the challenger very reasonably looks at both. DGG (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, now I don't feel so bad at not closing any more CFDs as "listify". I had a feeling that it was a waste because it would just get deleted at AFD. Although it is far easier to police a list than a category, just like it says at Wikipedia:CLN#Disadvantages_of_categories. You can watchlist a list to see what gets added or deleted. You can watchlist a category but that won't tell you what articles are added or removed from it. But hey, if AFD feels otherwise, we'll just end up with incorrectly filled categories, which will be Somebody Else's Problem. --Kbdank71 02:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lists are truly God's perfect information presentation mechanism. Lists can be watchlisted and changes monitored; categories can't. For that matter, categories can't be edited directly to add or remove entries, category entries can't be annotated with references, searches can't be done against category contents, there is no way to sort entries other than in the order based on article-specified sort preferences, there's no single-step way to move a category and all its entries, there's no way to track changes, additions and removals from a category, you can't have a red link to show a potential article, you can't watchlist changes to category entries, there's no context for why the entry is in a category, new users don't understand categories, you can only see a maximum of 200 entries per page, and many more disadvantages. When you really think about it, categories suck. No, not this particular one; the whole system. Plain and simple, categories are the worst possible way of presenting information in Wikipedia, but for some bizarre reason we just keep on using them and their built-in design flaws. These negatives are all fantastic reasons to rip out the category system in its entirety and rely exclusively on lists and navboxes. But if you want to delete (or prevent recreation of) this or any other category, you need to do a far better job than to use a category system flaw as an argument for deletion of this and only this category. We can get rid of useful categories on a completely arbitrary basis based on IHATEIT, which will just force other people to edit and maintain a corresponding list as Somebody Else's Problem. We have standards and what we need to evaluate is if the category captures a defining characteristic. None of the arguments offered in response to DGG have any relevance at all to this particular category and its merits or lack thereof. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
categories have two key advantages: they are automatically populated when an article is written, and they fit within a navigation system of hierarchal categories. This is why we have them as well as lists, they are in generally complementary, and wif we have one, we should almost always have the other. The question of inappropriate placement is dealt with by editing the article of the person involved. As for any particular person where there is doubt of appropriate placement in a category., the doubt will extend to the wording of the article also, then discussing it there makes sense. Browsing is part of the purpose of an encyclopedia, and all navigational techniques that facilitate it are justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
This is why we have [categories] as well as lists, they are in generally complementary, and wif we have one, we should almost always have the other. This statement of opinion—particularly the final phrase—is contradicted by reams of discussions where the consensus has been otherwise. I suppose it would be nice if that were the consensus, since it would be easy to resolve disputes, but unfortunately it is not consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're here because what is tossed about as "consensus" far too often is just what the same three or four people think in an isolated corner of Wikipedia where every possible effort is made to keep outsiders away, especially if they disagree with dogma. The votes with the "listify" excuse that "it would make a better list" are in direct conflict with WP:CLN, and I must agree that even a modicum of respect for this guideline would end much needless wikidrama. That all categories would be better as a list is abundantly clear and forcing an end to the disruptive "listify" vote might force such editors (and the closing admins who improperly listen to them) to address retention and deletion based on Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to try to marginalise opinion you disagree with by alleging that it's just "the same three or four people" talking in "an isolated corner", but really doing so fails to recognise that there may be no consensus for the view you espouse. I like to consider all users' opinions, regardless of who it is or where it's discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV overturn rate in general is spectacularly low while the overturn rate for CfD-related bad closes is disturbingly higher. The more outsiders who look at these CfD closes, the more they recognize that there's something disturbingly rotten going on, as SmokeyJoe pointed out below. The number of times at such DRVs where consensus among non-CfD participants is so utterly at odds with the CfD closing admins (and some of the other CfD habitues) sends a powerful message that those determining consensus on behalf of the community have a strong disconnect from real community consensus. There is, of course, the other possibility that everyone outside of the isolated CfD world has no idea of what they're talking about, but then again that's just restating the previous option but blaming actual community consensus for being wrong. Alansohn (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's easy to marginalise any "group" you wish to. It's a bit of a provincial outlook on WP life, IMO, but whatever lifts your bucket. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, because of my anti-Semitism. Wait, no—that can't be right .... Perhaps to support the petty tyrants, then? ... hmmm, if re-created as the non-tyrannical masses of unwashed gravel seem to desire, patrol the hell out of it to avoid the inevitable inclusion of those characters for whom it's non-defining. Of course, nobody will want to do this consistently, which will result in a largely useless collection of trivia, which is probably why it was considered for deletion in the first place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a defining characteristic based on the evidence provided? If not, you might have an argument. If it is, then what relevance does the dreaded slippery slope of possible insufficient patrolling not addressing the possible inclusion of questionable entries have to do with this particular category and why would it not be an argument that covers deletion of each and every category in Wikipedia? In general at CfD, arbitrary personal bias is a far better explanation for why some categories are deleted and others are kept. What it boils down to is that there is no objective means to determine that a category should exist, regardless of reliable and verifiable source showing it as defining, certainly not if anyone is determined to use "well then who will patrol it on a consistent basis?" as an argument for deletion. When admins close based on "strength of argument", how does "who will patrol it" get any weight at all as a basis for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your first question—no—there are many characters who might be Jewish for which their Jewishness is not a defining characteristic. I'm too tired to respond to the rest of your inquiries, partly because I know it will probably be futile and my experience is that typically your questions are rhetorical and you're not really seeking answers. If you are truly seeking answers to your questions and don't know the answers yet, I encourage you to keep thinking about it, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dream of one day hearing the answer to why these nonsensical rationalizations ("makes a better list", "won't be patrolled", etc.) are offered and (far worse) accepted by willing admins to justify deletion. One day, the truth will come out. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you channelling Mulder now? Probably the easiest answer you could find is that not everyone views every argument and every situation in exactly the same way that you do. Nuance is good—there is no unbiased "truth" when opinion is involved. If what you really mean is "I dream of one day hearing the answer that I agree with as to why these....", then maybe you should stop holding your breath. It may not exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no "truth", but then again nor is there any consistency in voting / closing at CfD from too many editors other than what can be predicted based on personal bias. It's hard to accept that anyone can actually believe that arguments on the order of "makes a better list" or "who will patrol it" could ever be accepted, let alone that there are any admins who are willing to act upon them, despite the complete and total irrelevance of such arguments in any CfD discussion. That you are unable or unwilling to answer what are non-rhetorical questions speaks volumes as to the sad reality of consensus by IHATEIT. Alansohn (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus) Bad close. Note general impression that participation and deletions at CfD often don't reflect community consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
right, and unless we can think of some way of doing it--like recombining all the xfds except AfD and possibly files, we will have a great many more Deletion reviews of them. A close based on limited consensuss of a general topic is not a correct procedure--the discussion should instead be brought to general attention. DGG (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a structural problem here. CfD and FfD should be separate, because they are somewhat specialised (noting that anyone may participate). Their specialisation causes a problem in lask of breadth of participation. This in no one's fault. DRV is the appropriate forum to oversee CfD, and I don't think CfD reviews here are causing a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An underlying factor in the biased participation (not knowing where better to say this), I think is the deletion of nearly every user-category. This has resulted in most users, especially new users, being unfamiliar with the workings and capabilities of categories. Possibly, noting the importance of experimentation/play to learning, it would be a good thing if userspace categories, including play-categories were given the degree of leeway appropriate to userspace. We might then get braoder participation at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and salt - I argued against the nomination but agree that the outcome was correct. There were no procedural errors with the original close and closing admin appropriately interpreted the discussion, giving appropriate weight to each side and determining the outcome on the basis of the strength of the arguments. No new information has come to light since the original CFD to indicate that anything's changed. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As if I needed any more evidence of the deep problems at CfD, I have to thank you for your vote. It is fascinating that you could argue so vehemently for retention (but bizarrely not vote to keep which might have swayed the result) and then insist that the category not only should not be recreated now, but should be prevented from being recreated at any time in the future by salting the categories under discussion. Even more bizarrely, User:Good Olfactory voted to Keep all at the original AfD, providing his support for the arguments for retention and adding his own evidence for keeping, but has similarly found the additional evidence provided reason to oppose recreation. It is quite telling that all of the endorsements come from CfD's regular naysayers and that not a single editor looking at this for the first time from outside the cloistered world of CfD sees any obstacle to recreation and sees the additional information provided as being adequate. This significant disconnect between the naysayers at CfD and the consensus of the rest of Wikipedia should raise deep and fundamental questions about the integrity of the entire CfD process, not just this one close. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, actually, I !voted in opposition to the original nomination, as a cursory reading of my comment clearly illustrates ("As for the nom, I oppose it."). So please, stop misrepresenting me and please, don't try to put the deletion off on me as part of your continuing campaign, m'kay? That people in good faith can disagree with an outcome yet still understand the legitimacy of that outcome is an indication of the strength of the process. All of your palaver about disconnects and dismissing those who disagree with you as "naysayers" is just another tactic in your ongoing efforts to undermine the process without actually stepping up to the forums where the process should be discussed. I don't believe for a second that you give a tinker's damn about whether this category gets recreated or not. I do believe that you see it as an opportunity to score a point against the, as you so often call it, 'CFD game'. Otto4711 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the fact that I initially thought the categories should be kept is irrelevant. I respect the outcome there. This should be an indication to Alansohn that not all editors abide strictly to what he always seems to oversimply as "IHATEIT" or "ILIKEIT" positions. Assuming for the sake of argument that I initially voted based on ILIKEIT, then why would I now be arguing to respect the CfD outcome on the basis of IHATEIT? Gad, I'm not that fickle. However, I suppose my pattern of comments could be viewed as "bizarre" if there is a lack of understanding of the different functions of CfD and DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't believe for a second that you give a tinker's damn about whether this category gets recreated or not." I saw the category deleted for about the tenth time, checked the CfD and realized that an excellent case could be made for recreation, and that once the slam-dunk recreation was complete it would make an extremely effective category. I didn't believe that there would be any meaningful opposition at all, and the fact that so many CfD regulars came out of the woodwork to express their opposition astounds me and only serves to highlight just how deep the problems are in assessing the validity of anything that comes out of CfD, not just the most egregious miscarriages of process that end up being discussed and reversed at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fact that so many CfD regulars came out of the woodwork to express their opposition astounds me and only serves to highlight just how deep the problems are in assessing the validity of anything that comes out of CfD: Last time I checked, any user who participates at CfD is still considered part of the WP "community", which is empowered to reach consensus decisions. Anyway, I don't know of any editor who participates in CfD and nothing else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree that every editor is part of the community and empowered to reach consensus and I must also agree that there is not a single editor who has never edited anything in Wikipedia other than CfD. There are a very small handful of editors who spend a significant chunk of their time at CfD and whose edits outside of CfD are often primarily related to categories added, revised or removed from articles. As in the old adage that to one with only a hammer every problem looks like a nail, a narrow focus on categories appears to end up skewing viewpoints. That so many DRVS, as this one, have resulted in consensus from non-CfD regulars so starkly opposite to those of the CfD regulars raises the significant issue that the community consensus reached at CfDs does not reflect the views and opinions of the community as a whole. I agree that we don't have 100% of editors participating at AfD, but the larger participation, the broader notification of active discussions, the broad acceptance of reliable and verifiable sources as a basis for retention and the far clearer definition of "notability" versus that of "definingness" has resulted in far fewer discrepancies at AfD and results that are far more representative of the community as a whole. This and other such DRVs are telling us that we need to develop a mechanism to ensure that CfD starts to reflect community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the vast majority of categories that are discussed at CFD are never brought to WP:DRV in the first place, a handful of DRV reversals of CFDs can hardly be evidence of systemic failure of CFD to comply with community consensus. Because WP is entirely volunteer-run, people will edit content only where they are interested, and they will contribute to policy and content organization discussions only where they are interested. This means that at any given time, the only community consensus at play is that which bothered to show up. DRV exists in part to address that, by allowing for more eyes to review. But that isn't to say that the original community should be criticized for having come to a different conclusion. This is particularly true when the discussion involves categories that classify traits such as ethnicity or religion, which are bound to inspire more disagreement and more disparate views as to how (or whether) they should be categorized. And you overlook the different insight that comes from spending a lot of time at CFD, in that those participants have a greater opportunity to view the category system as a whole, to analyze how different pieces fit in, and to consider what kinds of categories do and do not work in practice. Just as the real world needs both writers and librarians, you shouldn't disparage individuals for choosing to volunteer more of their time on the latter just because you don't always agree with how some of those volunteers think it should be done. No CFD system is going to guarantee results you always like. Postdlf (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OCAT is a good summary of CFD issues and practices, and there is a strong consensus for this even if not always a clear answer as to how it should be applied. Yes, it could be better codified, but we always need to be cautious about prescribing practice rather than describing it. Regardless, I'm optimistic about CFD principles becoming even more clearly expressed over time, just as there are now notability guidelines for different subject matter that are considered highly persuasive at AFD, while once there were still those who questioned whether notability should even be a criteria for deleting articles. Postdlf (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious. With all this talk of "CFD is broken", "deep problems at CFD", "the overturn rate for CFD closes is disturbingly higher", I have to wonder. Can anyone tell me what percentage of CFD closes are brought to DRV, and of those, how many are actually overturned? I'm seeing an awful lot of talk, but no data to back it up. --Kbdank71 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all There was no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate as it suits the proper role of a category, which is to categorize information. Categories are of a wider scope than articles since articles aim to present verified material about notable subjects. Categories can be open and indiscriminate, as in this example. Most of these don't deserve to be the subject of an article, but they all fit as categories. ThemFromSpace 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, but no opinion on recreation. User:Kbdank71 definitely had it right at the time. However, I think enough time has passed that it can be recreated and then (almost certainly) sent to CFD where it can be debated anew, without any prejudice from the older discussion. I would certainly not reflexively delete it based on a year-and-a-half-old decision.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate/Overturn This should certainly be a category. Jews in fiction are a notable topic in literary criticism. There are numerous extant Wikipedia articles on notable ficitonal characters whose Jewishness is central to their place in literature. I am only puzzled to understand why this category was deleted. There should probably also be a Wikipedia List of notable Jewish characters in fiction. Now I'm going to go read a book.
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.


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

Contesting PROD per charting record. Chubbles (talk) 18:30, 9 June 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.
Original Flavor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting PROD per charting record and single. Chubbles (talk) 18:24, 9 June 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) (XfD|restore)

The Afd is out of date (decision was redir). National tour, new record, passes WP:BAND #4. She has signed with RCA and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Biographies of contestants, she also passes notability (Yanks consider anyone making the live shows as a finalist) and passes WP:BIO basic criteria having been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject with numerous WP:REFS. Some feel it time to get on with article. Others are enforcing the redir without discussion and biting a poor new editor. That is not the wikiway. So I come here to get proper discussion and consensus. Triwbe (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Triwbe for a few references, so I'll hold off on !voting for the time being. I do have a few questions, however, the answers to which will hopefully help other participants:
  1. Is the national tour part of the X Factor live, or as an individual artist?
  2. Has the new record been released/charted yet?
If she's toured as independently, i.e. not as part of the X Factor, or if her record has charted I'd be happy for the article to be recreated.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected until sources are found. When there's some decent coverage of her outside of X Factor (newspapers talking about her record deal or about her album would be best) then I will fully support restoring the article. Currently, all anyone is pointing at for notability outside of the show are fansites and her own Twitter profile. Until we have sources, she's just someone who lost on a gameshow and may or may not have had a fling with another contestant. (On a loosely related note, she's performing in my town in a few weeks, so I may have some pictures to share if I find myself at the performance...). J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources regarding Diana's album:
http://entertainment.stv.tv/tv/85079-diana-vickers-starts-work-on-debut-album
http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3388&Itemid=9
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/leisure/music/4088619.Real_deal_as_Diana_Vickers_signed_by_major_label/.

This source shows how popular Diana is:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4139682.Diana_Vickers_more_popular_than_Britney_Spears_with_UK_internet_users -The source shows that Diana was seached for more than Britney Spears and came just after Barack Obama. -Sumeet_92

The following source refers to Diana being signed by RCA http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/diana-vickers-lands-record-dealbut-not-with-cowell/ . - T2h2o2m2a2s

Look at WP:BAND. Being "signed" doesn't factor into it at all. -- Smjg (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with J Milburn's comments. Moreover, unless I'm mistaken she still hasn't released anything, so the current news coverage is all about her forthcoming. While she may meet criterion 1 now, it's a grey area and, in the light of the edit wars that have gone on, I still feel that we should wait until she is more clearly notable (such as once an album or single has actually been released and charted) and the dust has had time to settle before trying to recreate it. Moreover, when/if we do recreate it, we probably ought to consider which of the many independently written versions in the edit history to start from or if we should make a clean start. -- Smjg (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more links that have been sent to me from members of www.diana-vickers.com
Sun newspaper:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article2423616.ece
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2331561.ece


Digital Spy links:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a145009/vickers-quigg-sign-to-rca.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/xfactor/a151030/vickers-ive-started-work-on-my-album.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a155593/wolf-bjork-to-write-songs-for-vickers.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a155810/vickers-works-with-freelance-hellraiser.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a157214/vickers-jls-lorenzo-to-play-live.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a157920/diana-vickers-writes-hit-with-cass-lowe.html
I cannot see the point in further delaying the inevitable, personally.

--Sumeet 92 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect, until she releases an album or single, then she still isn't notable outside of the x-factor show. And assuming her album will be released would be violating WP:CRYSTAL. So until then, keep as redirect.--Otterathome (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say one needs to be notable "outside of X"? It's pretty darn clear she meets WP:N, so I'm not seeing the issue. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow article Clearly the sun articles show she meets WP:N. Nothing else to see here, move along... Hobit (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. The requirement is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. One article in The Sun doesn't cut it. And I don't count the story about her outfit. That's not a claim to notability. As an aside, I took the liberty of removing the unnecessary and distracting bolding. لennavecia 04:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never understood "that's not a claim to notability". If a RS covers it, then per WP:N it is a claim to notability (the way wikipedia defines notability). I don't see how "this kind of this isn't notable" arguments can be accepted when "this kind of thing is notable" arguments are commonly ignored as bogus. Ah well. Hobit (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite. The general notability guide says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." and goes on to clarify "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail.... Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.". --Contributions/82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, but if there is a story about her outfit, I think it's hard to argue it's not "significant coverage" about her. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all difficult, "address the subject direcgtly in detail", it addresses what the subject is wearing, that's not "directly in detail". It gives nothing we'd put in an encyclopedia article. Regardless if you and I agree or not, is not important, it was merely addressing the notion that any coverage in as RS is a claim to notability, it isn't, hence we can have discussions on such matters and hence why such arguments shouldn't just be said to be bogus without reasonable consideration. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So if someone's writing, or art, or movie, or music is the sole topic of an article, that doesn't indicate notability of the person. That's a lot of BLPs you're suggesting we should delete by policy. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's not how I read it at all. If a newspaper article about Diane Vickers discussed her new album (music) in detail, that would establish notability. If it discussed her new dress, that wouldn't (and likewise for the interminable gossip columns about her and Eoghan Quigg). The IP has it right - we wouldn't discuss Vickers' dress in an article, so a newspaper article about her dress does not serve to establish notability. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • And I'd argue that if someone is important enough to have multiple articles written about them (passing WP:N and 1Event) they are pretty clearly important enough (notable) enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This seems pretty circular. No one has said someone passing WP:N isn't notable, so I don't think there is any need for you to argue that. The issue being addressed (which I guess I wish I hadn't bothered now) stemmed from your original query about how someone could discount a source stating "If a RS covers it, then per WP:N it is a claim to notability", whereas WP:GNG does specify a threshold for sources (e.g. Significance, reliability etc.) for which there may be disagreement and debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. She hasn't released her album yet, only coverage seems to be her frock and her beau (who has an article already - maybe merge there?) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:15, 17 June 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.

If you are going to delete Barack Obama administration controversies then why is there a whole category for George W. Bush administration controversies? Danvers (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Danvers[reply]

Probably has something to do with Bush being in office for eight years and having had controversies and Obama being in office for six months and not having any major controversies yet. Either that or a vast liberal conspiracy to suppress the truth. Take your pick. Drawn Some (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist

  • The tax issues of several cabinet appointees
  • Torture photo release / don't release issue
  • Close / don't close gitmo
  • Supreme court appointment
  • Bowing to the Saudi King
  • Visit Middle East but not Israel
  • Notre Dame speech

could all be considered controversies and ALL happened during the administration. The name of the page was not MAJOR controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danvers (talk • contribs) 14:00, 9 June 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.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It is the habit of the project to preserve task force and wikiproject talk pages as a record of past history. See here for a related discussion. "Not useful" is not sufficient criteria for deletion. SharkD (talk) 02:50, 9 June 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:F-GZCP.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
  • Discussion before deletion in favour of the image seemed valid. It would have been a nice touch to have an image of the actual craft attached to the article, so long as the image met fair use critieria (which it seemed to, if perhaps narrowly). Frei Hans (talk) 08:12, 9 June 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) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its copyright status was queried and no articles had links pointing to it. I have now undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason this needs to remain open, then?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The minority arguments to keep were basically metaphysical towards the end of the IFD, and had nothing to do with copyright rules or visual benefit to the reader. I am unsure why it has even been restored, and the whole issue of this DRV is moot, as it is overdue a speedy deletion as unused non-free content. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woot Speedied again. I think the speedy rules need to be updated with "do not delete something being discussed in XfD or DrV unless the problem is dire. In that case, at least explain the action in said forum. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 13 June 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.
Theodore Kowal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A search of "Theodore Kowal"and NASA returned 149 google hits - enough to be considered notable although the article was deleted because it was at the time considered un-notable (a user cited only 17 google hits). Frei Hans (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was deleted a year and a half ago. If you can recreate it overcoming the issues which led to the deletion, do so. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can also request an admin put a copy in your userspace on wikipedia so that you can improve it. Stifle (the editor who commented above) will generally do so I believe. That said, I'm not able to find anything that meets our inclusion guidelines (see WP:N and WP:BIO) but that doesn't mean much as I didn't try too hard and you may have access to better sources. Good luck! Hobit (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just note that notability isn't measured in numbers of google hits even if it can give a guide, 17 is very low so maybe unlikely, but if those 17 were full articles in the New York Times etc. then it'd likely be notable, similarly 1,000,000 hits for messageboard posts, is unlikely to meet the standard. It's the quality of the hits which counts. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for Frei Hans and let him decide whether there is anything or use, or whether to start again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 11 June 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 June 2009

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

Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although numerically there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, and Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. What is being called trivia is the same outline used at various government websites including the US State Department when discussing bilateral relationships. The first line of Wikipedia:Five pillars reads as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This certainly is an almanac entry, and a Wikipedia Pillar should trump denigrating it as "trivia". Another argument was that the word "relations" itself doesn't appear in a media report, so the article is original research. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations as defined at international relations and any Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) talk 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus based on strength of arguments. Yet another case of the same half dozen odd copy and paste delete votes that appear in all of these. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As opposed to the copy and paste DRV nominations? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am no fan of copy and pastes from anybody, but we are clearly seeing a voting block of accounts that are fixated on trying to indiscriminately remove these bilateral relations articles and as such cannot possibly reflect the actual views of the community. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on strength of arguments. eg one keep "vote" provided a primary source, one keep said "Article is flimsy and needs improvement", another used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. the remaining strength of keep arguments do not outweigh deletion arguments. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 9 arguments for delete (a couple of them rather extensive and certainly not "copy-pasted" as anyone who wants to take a look for themselves can confirm) against 5 for retention. Here are 3 of the keep arguments in full: The otherstuff; "Well, if this article is to be deleted, then why there is Armenia–Spain_relations with similar content and no references? Why double standards"; the extensively reasoned: "Keep with the current additions." and; "Keep. Article is flimsy and needs improvement, but I see no valid reason for deleting it." 9 other editors in good standing disagreed, and some of us argued rather extensively on the matter of adhering to the notability guidelines. Sometimes conensus goes against us and we just have to roll with it.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - Again, no discussion with me prior to this DRV, but there we go. Ca I say that I am confused by this nomination statement: "Although numerically there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes." - where are you reading this? I can't see any delete comment referencing trivia - all refer to the notability guidelines requiring substantial third-party coverage in multiple places, and none of the keep comments address it. Has the nominator nominated the right AfD? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
proves to me about the "copy and paste" nature of some. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I participated in the AfD, so I won't !vote here) As far as I can tell, the DRV nominator is just forum shopping; per the nom statement and comments like this on his user page, he just thinks that these articles meet WP guidelines and should stay. He had ample chances to convince people of that during the AfDs; DRV, however, is just for contesting deletion discussions that were closed improperly, did not follow correct procedures, etc., not for contesting deletion discussions where people didn't agree with you as much as you would have liked them to.l rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He isn't forum-shopping, because reviewing XfDs is DRV's primary purpose. (And the articles that were kept, and subsequently DRV'ed on similar grounds, didn't count as forum-shopping either.) I agree with you that the discussion about these articles is becoming immensely disruptive, and indeed far more disruptive than the original articles were.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt -- why is sorting out what's notable or not notable "disruptive." It's part of the process here. If some people don't care about these issues, or simply want to dismiss all disagreements as disruptive they of course don't have to participate in any of this. But we were left with a huge heap of unsourced articles of undemonstrated notability, and cleanup is in fact under way. Wikipedia is a tiny bit better off for this effort than it was when all this started a few months ago.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it is not only becoming disruptive, but has become disruptive, to consider these multiple articles in isolation , for random and inconsistent decisions are harmful to the encyclopedia. I am not saying, and neither I think is S Marshall, that any one or more specific individual is being disruptive. I am sure we are all trying to follow our judgment--but tin the basis of agree guidelines, our judgement is inconsistent and without more consistent process, doing this large number is preventing proper consideration of the issue and interfering with the proper consideration of other issues. Hence disruptive--and disruptive from the day these inadequate articles were introduced too quickly to improve them. This has overwhelmed us, and the proper course must be postponement of this until we have some degree of stable consensus. DGG (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a location to raise issues with the deletion process being improperly followed. It is not a location to attempt a second bite at the cherry when a deletion discussion hasn't gone your way. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. And so this, and any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, can and should be reviewed here. All systems except drumhead court-martials provide for review. If admin decisions were not reviewable, we would not be willing to have admins, as none of them, including myself are perfect. DGG (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose we'll have to put our readings of that policy onto the (long) list of things on which we disagree (: Stifle (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a change of opinion. I think that all AFDs, DRVs, and (ideally) creations of X-Y relations articles should be suspended in favour of a discussion setting out distinct guidelines on which such articles are appropriate. The number of AFDs and DRVs on the matter is proving poisonous, and as several people have pointed out, users (myself included) are getting entrenched on one side or the other and turning the place into a battleground, which is in nobody's interest and, if not stopped, could bring the issue to the same severity as the Macedonia issue. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For once I can say that I am in total agreement with Stifle. These AfDs and DRVs have just become a battleground, rather than a collaborative attempt to come to a consensus about whether articles should be kept or deleted. Most of the decisions just seem to be based on which particular admin closes the discussion rather than any strength of argument on either side. If we could stop this relentless stream of individual discussions we would have the chance of coming to some consensus about a general guideline for bilateral relations articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. These AfDs and DRVs are just raising tensions. I will not create any new bilateral relations articles, nor start any new AfDs. We are indeed rapidly approaching RfC or future ArbCom terrain, which as always means more time spent doing something other than improving our content. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels odd when Stifle, S Marshall and A Nobody all agree. It also indicates that the proposal makes sense. There is project/something that was working on all these. I don't know the detailed status of [37] but I think making one page for each countries relations would be good. I'd really like it if the creator of all these would stop and the AfDs of those that exist would stop while we figure this out. Say everyone stops for 30 days and everyone involved agrees to discuss. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, the disruptive, pointed, and frivolous renominations a mere month after a keep closure continue... At this point, any renominations, DRVs, where consensus was hardly ambiguous should be blockable, because it is clear that these renominations a month later are getting out of hand and that AfD is being not just flooded by these bilateral relations discussions, but by ones we already had. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or play games? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Could we have a history only undelete or, baring that, can someone provide a list of all the sources used in the article when it was deleted? The real issue in the discussion was WP:N (IMO) and it's hard to evaluate the "is not" "is too" AfD without knowing what the sources are. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? Hobit (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - yes, we all know Richard's whimsical interpretation of the five pillars by now, but that personal opinion still doesn't trump WP:N or license the dissemination of trivia here. Consensus was in favour of deletion; retentionist arguments were weak; the closer interpreted the debate correctly. - Biruitorul Talk 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - strong arguments to delete were advanced during the AfD and there was no error in the closing admin's judgment of consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Kudos to the closing editor for a clear explanation of the analysis of the discussion. Not one valid reason was given to keep the article and not even one reliable independent source providing in-depth coverage of the topic was shown. It certainly wasn't about counting !votes but about the quality and validity of the points made during the discussion. It is shameful that impartial and well-reasoned decisions are questioned in this manner when they are not so easy to come by. I hope that this sort of deletion review doesn't discourage participation. Drawn Some (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The fact that no attempt was made to contact the closing admin and discuss reasons for closing as he did aside, the delete !votes carried much stronger arguments. Many of the arguments to keep came down to "It's pretty and I want it to stay." --BlueSquadronRaven 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was earlier admonished for making cut-and-paste arguments to AfD, despite the cut-and-paste nature of the stub articles up for discussion. When will the nominator face similar for his activity at DRV? --BlueSquadronRaven 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I would very much struggle to interpret this as no consensus: while some bad, "I don't like it" delete arguments were made, the majority of the keep arguments are equally weak. No compelling sources were found to demonstrate anything worthwhile for the article, and despite a rescue attempt several previous delete voters even came back to confirm that their concerns were still unrectified. While I salute the effort put into salvaging the article, it rather saddens me the amount of good editors' time and effort being put into attempting to save these awful, contentless bilateral relations articles. ~ mazca t|c 23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
very well said Mazca. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do we non-admins know no compelling sources were found? Hobit (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking the "cache" link at the top should show you a copy of the deleted article. Hope that helps Fritzpoll (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd done that before and gotten a copy from June 2nd, which was horrible/old. The one I'm seeing now has more sources, but I've not idea if it was the final one. The problem with the cached version is you never know if this was the _last_ version, which in a DrV like this is actually important as both sides in the AfD are arguing about source quality without actually discussing the sources. Still would like a history only undelete. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion since strong policy-based reasons for deletion were present which overwhelmed the reasons for keeping it. Edison (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - an excessive amount of x-y relations article debates are being sent here. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on the basis the closing admin was acting well within the bounds of discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn Frankly it might fall within admin discretion given the !votes and a bit of an application of IAR. But that said, arguments for deletion were weak in the face of what is a well-sourced article that meets all of our inclusion guidelines and policies. The sources appear to be on target and from solid reliable sources. I just don't see any guideline/policy-based reason to delete nor any arguments in the AfD that are such given the nature of the article at the time of deletion. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 9 June 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.

World wide reported event about a police officer beating up an Afro-American recorded by a surveillance camera. R. Rios III (google news shows how often it is reported) Was speedily deleted as "attack page or unsourced" although source was provided and nothing else than the widely reported events were included. I don't think the information is at the right place where it currently is - Passaic, New Jersey - because it is just a coincidence that it happened just there. It would certainly not be covered in the article about New York City, had it happened there. Restore. Xodó (talk) 09:19, 8 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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.
  • I'll re-create the article tomorrow maybe, as i'm tired right now. Thanks for the permission to re-create the article, and i'll try to come up with some context. 04:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as article lacking any real content or context. I wouldn't recommend recreating it, it's more appropriate to Wiktionary. And if you do, please use a non-slang word instead of "cuss". Stifle (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment per Stifle, as well as the duplication possibilities re the profanity article. Cuss is a purely North American term (probably a bowdlerisation of curse), unfamiliar to the rest of the English-speaking world. FAIK this could be the proscribed list from that No-Cussing Club lot. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:10, 8 June 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:Corralesx.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

And thus starts round three of the discussion of this image. It's a non-free image, sure, but of a dead person, Diego Corrales. It was kept unanimously at this FFD. I was requested to reconsider my decision by a number of editors, and while I didn't feel it appropriate to restore on my own motion, I brought the discussion to DRV, where the discussion (third item at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 28) endorsed the decision. However, within three hours of this closure, Carnildo popped up and unilaterally deleted the image (against the consensus of both FFD and DRV), on the supposition that the image was replaceable and that "it is reasonable to expect that there aren images out there that people are willing to license freely". Not only was this expressly refuted at the FFD (the DRV discussion was solely on whether the image passed WP:NFCC#2 as a press agency photo), but even if the image had never been up for discussion before, it requires a 48-hour tagging period. I, along with another user, requested Carnildo to reverse this decision, but theyhas declined to do so. Requesting overturn of the deletion in line with the consensus of the two discussions. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, with . Wheel warring.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as issues claimed in the speedy were already dealt with in the FFD. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. (Disclosure: I closed the previous DRV, which endorsed the "keep" closure at FFD.) From the WP:CSD policy:

    If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.

    Since this is a fair-use image, it can hardly be described as a "newly discovered" copyright violation. If Carnildo feels that the first FFD reached the wrong conclusion, he is free to bring it back there. Also, I note that while the nomination at FFD failed to address replaceability, two of the "keep" !voters didaddress it, leaving it impossible to claim that the replaceability issue wasn't discussed.--Aervanath (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: According to the subject's article, he made well-publicised appearances in 2005, 2006, and 2007. There are presumably hundreds, if not thousands, of cell-phone and digital camera pictures of him out there that could replace this one. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The whole purpose of deletion review is to review a prior decision. When two straight declarations are made that an image should be kept, it is not the place of anybody to unilaterally come in, ignore the rules of CSD, and delete the picture. Wikipedia has procedures and protocols for a reason - because on balance, if we follow them, we will make better decisions. I've seen images deleted for what I thought were silly reasons. Since I'm not an admin, if I wanted to circumvent the community's decision, I'd have to go find a sympathetic admin to restore the image. But that wouldn't be right of me and it certainly wouldn't be right of the administrator. I don't see any rational justification for saying that it's acceptable here, either. 72.196.196.187 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore Once someone is dead the default assumption is that there do not exist any free images of the individual. If we didn't do that, it would be nearly impossible to ever conclude that an image of a dead person was acceptable for fair use. Moreover, I'd like to express my concern about such deletions in general. I hope that Carnildo is not deleting other images of dead people with no advance warning based solely on his personal opinion that there might exist an acceptable alternative. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with Carnildo that we can presume there are free images out there that could replace the image. That said, in order to be speedy deleted using this criterion, it seems that there is a two day waiting period before it may be deleted. So on those grounds, the deletion should be overturned. I consider the previous FfD and DRV moot, because they dealt with another NFC issue. After restoring, it can be sent to FfD for this issue, wherein the past FfD and DRV should be irrelevant. ÷seresin 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, if there are free alternatives available, I'd be happy to see one of those used. However, until then, we use what we have.--MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...until then, we use what we have" - WE DON'T HAVE IT! It's an image from press agency Associated Press. If you want to freely use a copyright-protected image just because you don't have anything better, be smart and make a copyright-violation of one of the Flickr images, since the flickr-user is less likely to make money from the image (and also less likely to put his/her lawyers against us!).--Damiens.rf 14:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore unless and until a free alternative is sourced, uploaded and this image is orphaned. At that time the image should be deleted through proper process and not speedily deleted. As far as I can see all the discussions to date have proven that no free alternatives are currently known to exist, even if this was not the explicit focus of any of the discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. In general, the clause "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" is considered satisfied when there exist non-free images that could hypothetically be released under a free license. If this were interpreted otherwise, I don't think any non-free image could be used on Wikipedia, since the copyright holder could always (hypothetically) release the image under a free license. Such an interpretation would deserve widespread discussion, and is certainly not a case for speedy deletion. – Quadell (talk)14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I don't agree with the reason Carnildo gave for deletion. However, this is an AP image, and AP routinely sues companies that reuse their content without permission. The AP makes its money by licensing content in this way, and since the image is a clear NFCC#2 violation, it was correct to delete it. There are thousands of non-free images that could be used without violating NFCC#2; the value to the copyright holder is only an issue when they sell the rights to use the image, as is the case here. – Quadell (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In case you were wondering, the AP does sue over this sort of thing. Since this case involves the very real possibility of the WikiMedia Foundation getting into legal problems, I have notified Mike Godwin, WikiMedia's general council, about this issue. I e-mailed him and left a message at User talk:MGodwin. I also notified Jimbohere in case he wants to comment. – Quadell(talk) 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore without prejudice. Carnildo has acknowledged that he/she speedily deleted the image without tagging it and waiting 48 hours because he/she anticipated that the evaluating administrator might disagree with his/her assessment and decline to speedily delete the image. This, of course, is a reason not to speedily delete something. The idea behind speedy deletion is to avoid clogging the system with uncontroversial (among the vast majority of knowledgeable community members) cases, not to push through controversial deletions before anyone can stop them. This clearly isn't a cut-and-dried case, so send it back to WP:FFD for full evaluation by the community. —David Levy 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete - This is a replaceable fair use image. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That's firm hard policy and if the community has not been enforcing it appropriately, then it is important to do so. Firmly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been unable to find a free equivalent. I suspect one exists, but none appear to be available and clearly none could be created. How does this situation not meet the criteria? Hobit (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We don't pick and choose which non-free images we use based on the probability of the copyright holder suing us. We either use non-free images or we don't. Any non-free image of a dead person or anything else in recent history is potentially replaceable with a freely licensed image. So if Jimbo is to be called in to comment, it shouldn't be about this image, but about the project's use of non-free images. The consensus in every discussion has been to keep, so unless we are to presume that all non-free images are potentially replaceable, someone needs to demonstrate that this one is. Otherwise the wording of our image policies needs to be strengthened. لennavecia 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Speedy deletion was against process and against the consensus expressed in two different deletion discussions. As for the arguments to delete, he's dead, so nobody's going to take a picture of him. The assumption that there must be a free picture of him somewhere is utterly without merit if no one can find one. If one is found, that's when we delete the image.--Dycedarg ж 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and meanwhile we just ask AP to fk themselves and push their business model up their asses. --Damiens.rf 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please be civil. Dycedarg did not address the NFCC#2 concerns, it's true, but that's no reason to be incivil. – Quadell(talk) 19:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The NFCC#2 issue has been addressed in that the image is of reduced quality, as noted in the previous discussions. لennavecia 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's not. The AP charges providers to reuse even reduced-quality versions of their images, and sues those who use them without permission. – Quadell (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not reduced quality. It was web-standard quality, there's a big market for this kind of images. BBC.co.uk, for instance, uses this image at the same resolution. And I assure you they're not doing that for free. --Damiens.rf 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're arguing that we delete the image because it's not small enough? So make it smaller. I fail to see how this is a reason for deleting it. As for whether or not the AP is going to sue us: That's not a determination that we are obligated to make. The foundation has laid out fair use guidelines and this image follows them; if the guidelines need alteration or specific exemptions need to be made for this pictures or AP images in general than that is the responsibility of the foundation or their lawyer to tell us that directly. Jimbo's statement is nothing of the kind. IANAL, but from what I know none of you are either. Companies do not get to decide whether or not their pictures are subject to the same fair use laws as everyone else's pictures; if our fair use guidelines actually do their job of protecting us from getting sued, then they will protect us from the AP as solidly as they will anyone else.--Dycedarg ж 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This part is important: At 2PM, I set my mind to get a free photo of this man. By 2:30:37, I had one. "Jimmy, thank you for the email. Diego Corrales was a good friend of mine and you are more than welcome to use any photos of mine you would like for Wikipedia. I only ask for a credit in my name." I emailed back to confirm which license he's ok with, and I'll be able to upload it for him later today. This is why I say that that calling this image "replaceable" is correct: it was replaceable. Is 30 minutes of work too much work? No, it is not. That's part of the research process. We don't cut and paste from other sources because it would be faster. We do the legwork. And we're proud of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:39, 8 June 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.
Flo Rida discography (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discography has been forked out from the main Flo Rida article as it was outweighing the prose section. Originally the discography was deleted for lack of depth, but now I feel that it's deep enough to warrant its own article. I moved it away from an improper title "Flo Rida Discography". Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 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.
Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Times change. While this article has been moldering in Wikipedia's graveyard for the past few years, an entire system of articles like these has been developed. This article falls within the scope of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge and WP:WPOOK, and it would make a respectable addition to Wikipedia's outline pages. Please restore it, so that work can resume upon it. The OOK's Religion and belief systems section is particularly scant and needs pages like this! Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

most recent version is at User:The Transhumanist/Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics DGG (talk) 03:06, 7 June 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 June 2009

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

Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem I recognise, ut I'm not aware of being able to view a single local consensus relative to other local consensuses in other AfDs. Would that these noms ceased while other editors work on more editorial solutions to the problem, such as merging - alas, here we are, and here I am, convinced that this close was accurate Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid closure. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus trumps policy.--WaltCip (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a debate that has 12 arguments favoring deletion over 4 favoring retention. Deleters carry the day both in numbers (that's 3-1 for those keeping score at home) and in strength of argument (which boiled down to failing GNG.)Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse though I'd like to know if the latest version of the article had sources as one of the delete !votes referred to "12 random facts" or some such. The cached version has GNG problems for certain. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per strength of arguments. I believe the closer closed in good faith, but the discussion, like most of these is hard to really gauge in terms of validity in arguments in that it seems the same half dozen odd accounts are copy and paste saying to delete practically all of these and have a couple times now made clearly false statements (such as that Tobago was never a French colony--it was several times over the course of three hundred years!). By contrast, from past encounters, Richard Arthur Norton has proven himself knowledgeable about history and politics and as such I am inclined to defer to his efforts in these discussions. If more editors followed his lead to improve these articles, at worst we would have improved articles that are at least relevant to some who are interested in these topics rather than all of these AfDs and DRVs that serve no encyclopedic function. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion arguments were much stronger. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and ugh. There has been a recent rash of second-bites-at-the-apple DRVs on "West Moldova - East Moldova relations" articles. Inevitably the only support they get are from the same people making the same comments at the AFDs. If you really have no argument better than "The other side was wrong and the admin was wrong to agree that their arguments were sufficient," you're almost always wasting everyone's time at DRV. This goes for both "sides" in this case: cut it out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with AMIB, as DRV regulars will be more than aware from my previous remarks. See the DRV talk page for a proposal.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:01, 8 June 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.
New Zealand – Pakistan relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Overturn deletion This should have been closed as no consensus or keep. There were independent reliable sources detailing the existence of a bilateral tax treaty. Editors subjectively claimed that the treaty was minor or trivial despite the independent sourcing. There were plenty of other sources showing the existence of economic and military links.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, should have been closed as "no consensus". Reliable sources were found and added to the article, so the subject is most likely notable. I'm not sure why we're holding these bilateral relations to higher standards than other articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The quality of the comments was uneven, particularly on the delete side, but I saw a couple of unrebutted references to WP:NOT, which most certainly is a policy argument. I think that against that backdrop, the "trivia" comments assume some force. Given that overall sense, and allowing for their numerical superiority, the closer was well within bounds closing this as delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. By strict vote counting, consensus is clearly delete (14D to 7K). Examining the actual arguments a little closer, the first two keep votes should be discounted: The first "Well written, verifiable and notable", is simply an assertion of notability without evidence or reference to policy, a classic WP:ATA. Whether the article is well written or the information verifiable is irrelevant to AfD. The second appeals to WP:ITSUSEFUL and also addresses verifiability but WP:V is not the same as WP:notability. If you ignore those two, then the consensus for deletion is even stronger. Yilloslime TC 03:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus This really was not the right closing, because there was potential, and the closer should have seen it. Saying "trivia" = IDONTLIKEIT, and should be ignored DGG (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn→No Consensus The page was far from reaching a consensus for either opinion. Both "keep" and "delete" sides presented good (valid) arguments, but neither did much to refute the others'. ~ Amory (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - yep, overturn to no consensus. In the script I use, "no consensus" is right next to "delete" - I must have clicked the wrong one. Had the nominator bothered to discuss this with me first before wasting everyone's time at DRV, I'd have fixed the problem myself. If we can agree not to continue this discussion, I'll do so Fritzpoll (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as admin error and allow Fritzpoll to restore.

    Then, of course, it'll come straight back to DRV, as so many of these articles do, because the other side will want Fritzpoll to be overturned. I'm still convinced that the "consensus", such as it is, on each of these articles has little to do with the individual article's merits, and stand by all my earlier comments on similar articles.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, right closure even if unintentional. Yilloslime's analysis is excellent and I have nothing to add to it. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse a debate that has 14 arguments for deletion against 7 for retention (a 2-1 ratio). If weight of numbers in community discussions, on matters over which people might disagree (is this notable or not), are not to be considered at all you will undermine the whole afd process. I would not in a million years think of challenging an afd result in the other direction with these kinds of numbers against it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Addendum: If i understand the closing admin, he accidentally pushed the wrong button and intended to hit "no consensus." While i think "delete" would have been the right decision here, i accept that "no consensus" on the drift of this debate was close to our range of tolerance. Really, i still think "no consensus" is a poor outcome here, but since that was fritz' intent, and we don't know if anyone would have brought it to DRV on that basis, overturn to fritz original reasoning with no prejudice against future afd's in a few months or whatever.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • But doesn't WP:N mean that we believe things are notable if there is appropriate sourcing. I didn't see any real arguments that it doesn't meet WP:N, rather that the sources were "trivia" or that the relationship was not-notable by some definition other than sources. I know you have an issue when folks argue that something is notable even when WP:N isn't met, I think it's only fair to expect things to be kept when WP:N is met. Certainly it should be hard to claim "consensus" in such a case even with a 2:1 ratio in favor. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I'd urge this either way as there certainly isn't consensus for deletion. The article met all relevant guidelines and policies from what I can tell. But given that the closing admin made an error and meant to close it that way it seems clear what to do. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical question: Assuming all the keep and delete votes of an AfD were backed by equally valid arguments, so that gauging consensus could be reduced simply vote counting (an impossible situation, but the sake of argument....), at what kind of vote ratio would you consider the minimum for declaring that there was a consensus. 2/3, 70%, 80%? Yilloslime TC 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really tricky question which I'll dodge as I don't feel that it's the case here. We need a reason to delete, and as this article seems to meet all relevant policies/guidelines I'd be loath to see it deleted as "IAR" unless there was a very strong consensous to do so. I feel that the arguments to delete an article which meets our guidelines and policies need to be very strong indeed in order to delete and I don't see that here. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. While the strength or arguments here would possibly be to outright "keep," I can understand a "no consensus" close based on divided agreement. Just because some think something is "non-notable" to them, does not mean it is not notable to others. Plus, the nomination actually provides evidence that supports keeping the article. To be right out and open, I have myself sometimes looked up these bilateral relations articles for those that seem more obscure just to see what if any kind of relations the countries have had so, even someone saying "friendly but slight" is a legitimate answer to a research question, and after an encyclopedia is intended as a reference guide. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Discussion was more than clear on whether or not this article measured up. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus on the page was for deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was without a doubt the hand of God that guided Fritzpoll's hand to check "delete" when he closed the debate. Clearly no one ever showed in the debate that significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources of the subject of the article existed and it was clearly pointed out that the article was a work of WP:SYNTHESIS of assorted factoids. Drawn Some (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - pointing out that the article was indeed composed of trivia dug up by Richard Arthur Norton was a compelling deletion rationale - at some level, trivia is trivia, and even he must know that. Moreover, that the trivia failed WP:N was repeatedly cited by "delete" voters. This is nothing but a tedious attempt at overturning consensus by stealth. - Biruitorul Talk 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No Consensus - I just didn't see a clear consensus to delete this. Many of the delete voters simply called it "trivia" without substantial reasoning to back up such a claim on relations between two large nations and those should have been ignored.--Oakshade (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closure was correct. Edison (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse even if it was by accident. The "keep" arguments are quite vague; only one source was given, a primary source. The "delete" arguments have asserted that reliable, third-party sources do not exist. In such instances, the burden of proof is on the "keep" side to produce those sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I have considered the supposed "accidential" closure. but considering the weight of arguments, delete is supported. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Roblox – Recreated from draft; any editor may send to AfD if they wish; the concerns before have largely been met now. Though some editors have disagreed, it's time for a full debate on the issue. – Mangojuicetalk 16:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Roblox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello, I am back at DRV with an updated version of the roblox article. Previously it was deleted for advertising and because the article did not indicate the importance of the subject. I have since found new references and feel that this notable game should have a Wikipedia article. I am hopefull that the article now meets your standards. If not, ideas and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! gordonrox24 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was re-create numerous times and deleted. It is a kids game so once it was deleted there were hoards of angry 8 year olds spamming Wikipedia. This resulted in the page being create protected.--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'd count one as "many new references". Since the various drvs - 1 2 3 4 - the only additional reference is this one. If that is sufficient to tip the balance is of course a different question. I do notice however that it is still sourced in other places to sources which probably don't meet the required standard as critiqued in previoius drvs. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All references on the page have been run through WP:RSN.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WP:RSN is not definitive and is frequently inconsistent in results. I'll note the first reference is www.examiner.com, WP:RSN currently has this discussion examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight. Kidslike.info seems to rely on submitted content and doesn't appear to have any fact checking, which would fail WP:RS... TRUSTe is nothing to do with the product as such (a membership list) and is a primary source to show they are part of the program (which I guess pretty much anyone could be, so nothing special there). Which leaves Midweek which hasn't proved that convincing in previous DRVs and the new one. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TrustE is a privacy program that just enforces our point of a kid safe game. We also have this and this I just have not placed them is a specific spot yet.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what TrustE is, the point is that anyone can sign up to it and the listing you give is just a list of members, it tells us nothing of any real interest about them as something they can "buy" there way into it doesn't help establish notability. The other two you've listed killerstartups.com which has featured in previous DRVs and been rejected. And your further examiner.com link, is exactly the same as the first reference in the article. As above you say it has been through WP:RSN even though they are currently saying as above "examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight". I'm still not seeing the many new sources you claim, I'm seeing one. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wording fixed. Hope that will make you stop tearing my statement apart and start giving me feedback and suggestion on the article like I asked.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about tearing your wording apart. This has been to DRV on quite a few times now, asking for more suggestions, the suggestion usually comes back to lack of reliable sourcing, it then comes back with little or no improvement on that. In this instance you do have some extra sourcing and as I said originally it might be enough to tip the balance. That however doesn't detract from some of the other sources being questionable and should probably be removed. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. It has in the past, and will continue to in the future.--gordonrox24 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the consensus requiring reliable sourcing will change? Or you think the consensus determining what reliable sources are will change? Oh well. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus about this article.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation I think there are multiple reliable sources there. The newest, Commonsense media also appears to be the best. Midweek looks okay while the examiner I'm less sure of, but I think there is enough demonstrated oversight to be on the edge of acceptable. A general websearch turns up tons of non-RS reviews. I think it passes WP:N, even if just by a small bit. Hobit (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, those are the same sources that were debunked at the last round of DRV. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One new source, which looks good actually. In the last DrV midweek was viewed as a RS by the person who made the first argument that everyone cited/used. I think we've met WP:N now. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what they said was a bit more nuanced than that : This source is an opinion piece, which are certainly considered reliable for confirming that a particular person holds a particular opinion, but it's being used in the article to verify a piece of factual information.. i.e. they said it would be reliable in some circumstances, but not the one it was being used in. What isn't really addressed is it's reliability from the perspective of notability. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And I don't think everyone followed with that view, Stifle actually did his own analysis and concluded differently. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct on Stifle's analysis, I had thought it was part of the above content. That said, the first editor said "This source is an opinion piece, which are certainly considered reliable for confirming that a particular person holds a particular opinion, but it's being used in the article to verify a piece of factual information." As WP:N has no objection to opinion pieces and we use reviews all the time for games, books, etc., I'm not seeing a reason why this doesn't contribute to notability. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You may be correct, my observation was that I didn't see anyone comment directly on that aspect one way or other. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at Afd The I was going to close this DRV myself as "no consensus to undelete", but after reading the arguments above I think that the proper forum to determine notability is Afd, not DRV. So, the current userspace version should be moved to mainspace, and immediately submitted to AFD. If it is deleted at Afd, then immediately re-salt it.--Aervanath (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I only have one worry about that plan. At AFD will people show more prejudice about articles? I am sure if what was decided here is explain at AFD it would be alright. I would support that idea, I will get User:Briguy9876 to comment here about that idea if I can. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, it really seems like a "Test run" for the article. I am all for it, and I am really willing to see if anyone will try to add any more sources for the few couple of days it is up. --Briguy9876 (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV isn't a soft way to avoid AFD scrutiny. Even if the result here is to allow recreation it isn't a set in stone decision that an article is allowed in some way, anyone would be free to list it for deletion tomorrow. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't understand what you are getting at. I just said that I agree to that idea, yet you still find ways to tear apart my statement. When I am done with this DRV and no longer have to deal with your comments I will be very happy.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You stated "I only have one worry about that plan. At AFD will people show more prejudice about articles? I am sure if what was decided here is explain at AFD it would be alright" there is no tearing your statement apart, it's a simple and direct response to it. I am and have been trying to indicate problems and issues to you which would be best addressed, that you choose to read them all as a negatives is actually disappointing. e.g. the use of low quality/poor sources is actually detrimental to an article, merely having a high count of references isn't helpful, it's the quality of the references. In this instance I don't want you to be disappointed to find that (i) a restoration here doesn't protect it from future deletion and (ii) that result of the deletion review will be pretty irrelevant for any such debate, an explanation of what was said here is unlikely to sway the discussion one way or other, people will evaluate it on the same basic terms --Contributions/82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You talk like I am stupid. I have a lot of experience working with AFD and know exactly how it works. You are tearing my statement apart. AFD is harsher then DRV, plain an simple.

I have no problem with doing this, I don't even see why your comment was necessary.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am not tearing your statement apart, nor am I talking to you if you are stupid. If it comes across that way, then I apologise, but it certainly isn't my intent. --Contributions/82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there anybody against this? If not I will close it and get an admin to help me reinstate the article, then I will list it at AFD.--gordonrox24 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't close this yourself. Wait for another admin to come through and close it, and that admin will take care of the mechanics. Even for admins (especially for admins, actually), it's highly recommended that you don't close discussions in which you've participated.--Aervanath (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I know. Thanks. I will place an {{adminhelp}} tag on my talk page and see if anybody is free to help.--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 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.
Marcelo Lucero (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article should have been deleted per WP:BLP1E, and I'm aware that DRV is not AFD 2: Electric Boogaloo, but at most, this AFD should have been relisted (again), or the keep overturned and the article deleted. Whichever makes the most sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there was no real consensus to do much of anything. The keep/delete !votes were split down the middle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:42, 8 June 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) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think that the administrator would necessarily change his mind about keeping, and would instead direct me to go to AFD or here. I left closer a message concerning this debate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Phil is correct. There is a belief that BLP applies to dead people as well but that's just wrong. It's a biographies of living persons policy and thus it cannot apply here. This close was perfectly correct within policy and consensus at that AFD. Concerns that the article covers the subject instead of the event (which BLP1E says should not be done) can be rectified by simple editing, rephrasing the text and moving the article to an event-related title. There is no need for deletion nor is there a consensus at the AFD to do so. If the requesting user here thinks that the article suffers from such problems, they should try and fix it. Consensus at the AFD is that the event was at least notable and that the problems can be addressed by editing. I see no mistake by the closing admin. Regards SoWhy 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, for there was no consensus to delete the article at all. However, I have to take issue with my colleagues above - this article is full of WP:BLP implications for the teenagers alleged to have committed the attack, one of whom we name in the article. They are clearly WP:ONEEVENT candidates, and don't appear to have been convicted of anything at this point. I will say all the information in the article seems to be supported by reliable sources, but this still belongs on Wikinews. However, that is an issue to be resolved outside this DRV. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin I don't think I can (or should) !vote here, because I obviously have a bias against keeping the article now, but I'll just give a little insight into why I closed it as I did.
  1. The comment "Recent" media coverage? It's May 2009 now (with coverage still ongoing), and Lucero was killed in November 2008. There are seven months of continuous coverage represented by the sources currently used in this article. suggests to be that WP:BLP1E cannot be applied, because the original one event has spawned elections [discussion] (one potential New York gubernatorial candidate is facing criticism for dismissing the killing as a "one-day story" in fact), hate crimes, and other recent immigrant killings in the United States all of which are relevant to that one individual, thus extending them beyond the coverage of 1E.
  2. It's BLP1E. Marcelo Lucero is dead, which I also believe weakens the deletion side's argument.
  3. The original nominator's concerns were met without deletion or nullified by discussion. Article is one sentence in length. Although there was a flurry of media coverage of this individuals death last year, I do not believe this article is notable enough. The article has been expanded to a point way beyond one sentence (thus allaying the concerns of point 1) and the "flurry of media coverage" has expanded beyond the "flurry" stage, and yet the story is "[s]till being discussed in the media to this day", and the notability concerns have been addressed by those points and those I have discussed above.
All quotes taken from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and are licenced under the GFDL by their respective owners ~fl 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course you can !vote Foxy, we're all big girls and boys here, the fact you closed will be appropriately factored in. At the risk of being tiresome, though, I'll reiterate, BLP applies to biographical information placed on any page on Wikipedia. It can no longer apply to Mr. Lucero, but it can and does apply to his alleged attackers (innocent until proven guilty anyone?) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, I removed the name of the only named attacker in the article. I don't think we can help linking to news sources that may or may not have the same morals as we do (in reference to naming names). ~fl 01:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing that name takes care of any BLP problems. DGG (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not particularly thrilled with the close. Living or not, we have notability standards and the debate seemed to be leaning toward delete. A bit of explanation on the closing admin's part wouldn't have been out of line. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP is not a relevant concern here (see that "L"?), but the article is heavily recentist. Will people still be talking about this in a year's time? In five years' time? I doubt it. I don't think I can support overturning the closing admin's decision (beyond changing from keep to no consensus), but I think there should be immediate liberty to relist this at AFD. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. B-L-P does not apply to dead people, and media coverage has continued for nearly a year and into other aspects of society and politics (well beyond the notability threshold). Retributive wikistalking like this is precisely why I'm thankful you're no longer a sysop, Ryulong. TAway (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being dead does not mean this article is not subject to the fact that it was a single news event, and this is not wikistalking. I discovered the article when you first left the abusive message on my talk page and found dissatisfied with the AFD result after I participated in it myself. I find this statement of yours also a personal attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is wikistalking. You did not "discover" the Marcelo Lucero AfD, you (and Daedalus969) followed me there following a completely unrelated dispute. You are being very abrasive and argumentative about this and your deletion/policy opinions on this article is far outside the near-unanimous mainstream represented here. As for personal attacks, you are welcome to "find" my impression of you whatever you like, but I think your "eat shit and die" comment qualifies far more than my questioning your judgment. Your recent actions and attitude here will be remembered should you attempt to regain your sysop bit in the future. TAway (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That comment was dealt with and the user it was directed to was subsequently banned. He acted in the same way you did when you decided to come into contact with me. And this is unrelated to the AFD or the DRV. I believe there was no consensus to do anything with the article, which is one of the reasons I had brought it to DRV after I commented in the DRV to look at your already questionable edits to other biographies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close BLP does nto apply to dead people. Close made sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close did not make sense. I'm aware that it's not a vote, but even if you number count, there are three deletes (if one counts the nom), two keeps, one rename/merge request, and one non-discernable comment by a new user. "Keep" should be modified to "no consensus" or "delete" or a new AFD started to garner more consensus than that from seven comments.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Number counting is for very good reasons not a valid way to determine consensus. The keep !votes have cited various sources and policy reasons for keeping, thus making it the stronger argument. We have one delete !vote that was about the article when it was proposed for deletion (which has been made invalid by expansion), one delete !vote that was "per above" and on !vote for speedy deletion which was completely against policy as WP:CSD#A7 cannot be applied when importance and significance are claimed to exist. So while there might be more delete !votes per numbers, it essentially boils down to "not enough coverage" while the keep !votes (remember, rename/merge is essentially a keep !vote as well, just a "keep but reorganize") cite both plenty of sources and policy as reasons to keep it. Comparing these !votes, consensus is clearly for keeping the article (which does not mean that it can't and/or shouldn't be transformed into an article about the event). Regards SoWhy 06:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close I see dead people. I would not oppose another AfD for greater consensus. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse not alive, so WP:BLP (a policy) doesn't apply: probably should be moved to Death of .... per WP:BIO1E (a guideline) but that's neither here nor there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 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.
Template:IPAEng (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Used in for example the weekday article Saturday Nsaa (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected all instances showing in article space to the new template location, {{IPA-en}}, or sometimes to {{pron-en}}. Somehow the Saturday article slipped through the cracks and did not show up in "Pages that link to". (It's now been fixed.) AFAIK, currently the old "IPAEng" location is only linked on old talk page entries and in archives etc. I was hoping to make the transition in article space complete so that people won't continue to use the template in its old IPAEng location, for ease of maintenance—the red link would clarify that it's no longer preferred,—but I understand if people feel a redirect is necessary to support the old talk pages. kwami (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I caught another one at Silk Specter. I believe a redirect would be better than simple deletion in the short term. After people get used to the new template, and this has fallen into disuse, deletion would be fine. lifebaka++ 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Actually, that should've been IPA-pl, or at least IPA-all, as it wasn't an English pronunciation. One of the reasons I'm trying to clean this up. kwami (talk) 18:38, 7 June 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.
Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Article was originally deleted for having no third-party sources to show notability. At that AfD, there were only three !votes, two to delete and one to keep. The article is now sourced with multiple reliable sources, including New York Times, Miami Herald, TimesOnline, and more. See User:Priyanath/Sandbox for draft of new article. Priyanath talk 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: What exactly is the purpose of this request? Since you seem to have rewritten the article from scratch, you can just reinstate it with the new version. The old AFD's consensus cannot be applied to it anymore (CSD#G4) so that article would need a new deletion discussion to take place before it could be deleted again. Similarly, I do not think you need the old version restored for the new version, so DRV is not needed. Last but not least you should ask the closing admin before filing a review request. Regards SoWhy 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this isn't the right venue. The article is protected from re-creation, so I followed the link from the attempted re-creation page here. Should I simply have an admin unprotect and allow re-creation? Thanks, Priyanath talk 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've asked the admin who protected the page from re-creation to unprotect, so I can move the draft into its place. Priyanath talk 17:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm un-protecting it now. Please understand that, for some odd reason, people don't let me make the decisions around here :) So I can't guarantee people will like the new article, but we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I understand that the new article has to stand on its own two feet, and I'm confident that it will easily pass any further review. Priyanath talk 21:45, 6 June 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 MXC episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Article has no sources and ""wp:v states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.""". Prevous discussion with closing admin. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-06t15:02z 15:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I think the requesting user is mixing "no reliable third-party sources exist" with "no reliable third-party sources exist in the article". A quick Google News search lists more than 250 potential sources for the show and in extension for the article in question here. Someone just needs to take the time and read through all that material. Nevertheless, WP:PRESERVE tells us that we should strive to fix content rather than deleting it. To say it with the sentence the requesting user here cited: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis added). Since reliable sources can probably be added, it's not a consensus violating WP:V and as such the judgment of consensus was correct. AFD is not cleanup and neither is DRV. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that if an article that is so encyclopedically unnotable that no one has bothered to reference it in 2 and a half years, it can stay unreferenced because Google News mentions the show and network but not the episodes and their content? wp:v also states "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The entire article has been challenged: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. The burden of evidence lies with people who want to turn the encyclopedia into Usenet where there is so much non notable content that finding and removing libel gets more and more difficult. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-06t17:44z
      • I have no idea what "MXC" is, and have no interest in finding out what it is, but what on earth can a list of its episodes possibly have to do with libel? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • More non notable articles that are in direct opposition to wp:v and wp:Notability and isn't encyclopedic, means there's a lower chance of people watching them, which increases the odds of inserted libel being missed, which unnecessarily harms more living people and creates more BLP fixing work for OTRS volunteers. It would be better for everyone involved if wp:v, one of the 4 most important policies in WP (along with wp:npov, wp:nor, and wp:blp), was adhered to when is states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-07t09:40z
      • Endorse - I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you're equating shitty authorship with non-notability. ~ Amory (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm equating notability with Wikipedia:Notability which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This article has zero references, not to mention "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-07t09:40z
  • Endorse- Consensus was clear, and DRV is not AFD round two. (Note: I voted keep in the afd) Umbralcorax (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the consenus was to keep the article, and I will have to endorse that. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I missed this one at AfD, but I endorse the close. I agree w/ Jeandré's reasoning, but the keep comments were within the range of reasonable policy arguments. The closer really couldn't have gone any other way. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely wp:v and Wikipedia:Notability (click or see quotes above) trump the wish of people who want to keep non notable and unsourced articles, in the same way that copyright violations are removed no matter how many people want to ignore the GFDL and keep the copyvios. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-07t09:40z
  • Endorse the closure as a valid reading of the consensus, but permit immediate relisting as a defective debate because Jeandré makes a good point about WP:V that was not sufficiently addressed during the debate. (My own view is that WP:N as a guideline can probably be disregarded in individual cases on the basis of a strong local consensus, but WP:V as a full-blown policy would need more than a local consensus to disregard.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Consensus states "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." The keeps at this AfD were useless because: one said other unsourced stuff exists, gave no reason, or said to trust the keeper eventho they provided no sources. The nom had wp:v. Shouldn't the closing admin look at the quality of the reasons given, instead of just counting the bold words? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-08t13:10z
      • While that's true, I think it's a little more nuanced than that. If the closer just got to pick and choose which arguments they listen to and which arguments they disregard, we'd end up with decisions by admin fiat, and how a debate was closed would depend on which admin closed it. Equally, the process can't be determined by a pure !vote count alone, or Wikipedia would be even more rife with sockpuppetry than is presently the case as people tried to game the system to achieve some desired outcome.

        Instead, the closer needs examine the debate as a whole.

        At DRV I don't think we can really censure an admin who's made an honest call about what they felt the consensus was (as in this case), but we can judge that the debate as a whole was defective and send it back to AfD, which is what I recommend in this case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse TV listings are commonly published in the daily newspapers. I'm not sure how to format such a reference, but there ya go. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I hate to say it, but it was correctly closed given the arguments. However, even lists like this require reliable sources. I would suggest that a second AfD (one with a more detailed nomination rational, that notes the various issues raised in this discussion) be filed if the sourcing situation does not improve after a reasonable time (say a few months). Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 10 June 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 June 2009

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

Page has been deleted as the page was created/deleted too many times perviously. The relevant sources are now available and so i have created a draft of the page here User:lolenelolene/draft. rootology (C)(T) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC) told me to reference his reply to me at the unprotection section - [1] . rootology (C)(T) said - "Please draft a copy of the page with sourcing in someplace like User:lolenelolene/draft, and reference my edit response to you here in case someone tries to delete that work in progress. When it's done, post a request to WP:DRV for review. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)." I think i have done everything he told me to do...so could you please reinstate the page? Thanks very much! lolenelolene (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • the notability guidelines state If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. There are two sources in the article, one is track listing which only lists the subject for backing vocals, which hardly counts as "significant coverage". The second is a local news site. So this doesn't appear to meet the basic criteria. Other material seems to be unreferenced and probably needs to be removed. e.g. "...Lolene signed a development deal with BMG Records to front their latest girl group. Lolene wrote the groups material..." is totally unreferenced. As is "After gaining attention in London as both a writer and vocalist..." which you'd expect this attention to be documented in some sort of reliable source? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok i have cut the page down, is this suitable? User:lolenelolene/draft I will cut it down further if you think this is needed for the page to be reinstated. lolenelolene (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You needn't cut it down on my say so, and I'm sure a few others will yet give an opinion on this. My primary point is that it doesn't appear to meet the notability guidlines, from the article as is she doesn't appear to have been noticed by the rest of the world such that they will write about her which would then be used as sources. The unreferenced material I pointed to in addition was that I was hoping you might reference those to some other reliable third party sources which would help with establishing notability --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the one source of any substance reads like a press release. There also appear to be WP:COI issues based on the name of the editor wishing to reinstate the article. This in and of itself is not a barrier to having an article but it does set the bar higher. Suggest waiting until some actual music is released and, if the reliable third-party sources materialize, a disinterested party will undoubtedly seek to write the article from a neutral POV. Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for a little while longer. The one source of substance is a local paper doing a "local girl makes it big" human interest story. Maybe after she makes it big? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Unprotection page". Retrieved 2009-06-06.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Wizetrade – refer to AfD. I'm going out on a limb here - there is clearly no consensus to overturn the deletion per se but there does appear to be a consensus that it was deleted out of process, and as there are some cogent arguments that it may be worth keeping, I believe it is worth discussing further. – Shereth 20:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wizetrade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was unreasonable as no links or subjective material was used in the creation of this page, and new content was provided each time in order to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia and its administrators. If necessary, would be interested in having a trusted Wikipedia author prepare the page to make sure that it’s completely compliant and objective. Thewizetradegroup (talk) 02:29, 5 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
  • France – Papua New Guinea relations – No consensus I'm closing this early becuase we aren't likely to get an outcome that matters here (at best we would force the debate to be closed as "no consensus". More to the point, I won't have these little battles fought at DRV. We don't need every AfD'd bilateral relation page to come here when some nominal attempt at rescue convinces the closing admin to keep the article. I understand the passion (in a paradoxical sense), but passion doesn't belong here, nor do accusations nor counter accsuations. Where there is a truly anomalous close that demands some community review, bring it here. Otherwise, consider dispute resolution to handle wide ranging issue like this. Apologies for the length of this statement and the early close. If you don't think I'm right about this or think the DRV should be re-opened, please just throw a post on AN, don't pepper my talk page or make a DRV-DRV. – Protonk (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
France – Papua New Guinea relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AFD debate, with 9 arguments for deletion and 4 for rentention, was just closed as keep by a longstanding admin (since 2003), Altenmann (talk · contribs). The article has only one reliable independent source, which notes that a french explorer was the 3rd european to land at the island, more than 200 years before PNG was independent. That says nothing about bilateral relations. The rational provided was simply "The result was keep; rescued." I would need a better rational to be convinced that there really was some "strength in argument not numbers" closure here and this just looks like another case of an admin basing a decision on his own opinion (which he was free to do by contributing to the debate itself) rather than doing his job, which is interpreting consensus and policy. Here's why he was wrong. One "keep" argument hinged on the brief visit of the french explorer 200 years before PNG was a state, and at least 150 years before one could imagine any sort of polity that aspired to being a state on the island. The second did as well (i.e. "per the excellent sources added." Since the only reliable independent source was this landing of a french explorer 200 years before independence, i presume that's what he meant). The 3rd said "you don't need secondary sources for an article," a clear failure to understand our notability guidelines for articles, i.e. "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine). The fourth keep argument appeared to hinge on A. Insisting that independent sources are not needed to establih a topic's notability and, B. That France controls New Caledonia, which is near PNG. The delete arguments hinged on a failure of the GNG, since no reliable independent sources that discuss the topic of the article could be found, let alone multiple ones. These sorts of closes make a mockery out of good-faithed participation in this process.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am surprised it wasn't closed as "no consensus" rather than "keep". I would like to hear more explanation from the closing editor before making further comment. Drawn Some (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified/asked the admin here [43].Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closing admin: AfD is not vote. Most deletion votes were cast before the attempt to expand the article. Expansion continues even after AfD close. The available quite reliable refs clearly show that there is communication between the two states. Hence verifiability satisfied. As for notability, this is not about relations between me and a a guy who lives next door. There are two officially recognized states. Once they relate to each other, these relations are notable, by common sense, since they affect many people. As for "keep" vs. "no consensus", I may be mistaken, but I failed to see convincing arguments in favor of deleting which remained valid after article expansion - Altenmann >t 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am mistaken in thinking that WP:N applies to all articles, including X-Y relations? Honestly-I'm not trying to be cute here. I've been assuming it does, and no one has directly told me it doesn't, but several people involved with these debates including admins and now Altenmann seem to be arguing that some criterion other than WP:N applies. I'm seriously confused. Yilloslime TC 00:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not mistaken. WP:N applies to everything. However WP:N itself is not cast in stone, black/white yes/no in all cases. There is a whole spectrum. For example, on one end it is commonly agreed that all human settlements are notable, even with population zero. On the other end it is commonly agreed that you must provide an extremely strong arguments to prove that a pet of a common citizen is notable. I subscribe to a position that bilateral relations between states are notable once they are verifiable. Feel free to start general discussion in talk page of WP:N. - Altenmann >t 00:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know I can accept that idea about verifiability being sufficient for this topic as far as you commenting in a discussion but you shouldn't close a discussion based on that opinion. I follow your line of thought however and it is not unreasonable. Still, I would say you should have closed it as "no consensus". Obviously there is a lot of leeway in an evolving situation and it's not an easy task to close some of these discussions and no doubt a lot of admins are steering clear of these so I don't want to give you a big hassle about it even though I don't agree and don't like it. Certainly you erred on the safe side of not deleting if you erred. Drawn Some (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closing admin Let me remind you again that AfD is not a vote. Consensus is not defined by the numbers of voters but by validity of the arguments pro and contra. I explained that after expansion of the article the serious argument contra ("no reliable independent sources") became invalid. Arguments of kind "paucity of relations painfully evident" is dubious from the very beginning. It may only accepted a s a reason for "merge" somewhere. Argument "'relations' articles as a genre not acceptable" flies out of the window: we have plenty of this "genre". And so on. - Altenmann >t 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closing as Keep One editor wishing delete said "Delete with prejudice. "relations" articles as a genre not acceptable". The rest of the arguments for delete were because it lacked sources for the information presented other than the government websites. Since there is no possible reason to doubt the information on a government website -listing treaties, state visits, and whatnot- will be truthful, there is no reason to not have that count as a reference. Follow the spirit of the rule, not the exact wording. Isn't that how wikipedia works? If it was an article about a person, you would need a source for the information, other than the person themselves, since you can't always trust the information otherwise. But does anyone actually doubt the information in the article, presented by the government websites? Dream Focus 20:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don't trust governments to report on themselves. Certainly they are not independent sources regardless of whether or not they may be trusted. You are also misrepresenting the discussion as far as the strengths of the positions. Drawn Some (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer's reasoning seems quite sound - that the article was rescued. The early delete !votes were flimsy and the trend of the discussion followed the improvement of the article and the participation of the original author, who had not been notified at the outset. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have been a delete, very clearly. Being extremely charitable still doesn't make it a "no consensus". "Keep" is just completely unrealistic as a conclusion, based both upon the !votes themselves and the nature of the votes. The same admin closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Picture as a "Keep" with the claim "seems to have been rescued" which is conceivable I guess but should more reasonably have been a "no consensus", with three Keep votes to two delete votes (and the Keep votes all being by editors notorious for voting Keep on pretty much every AFD they ever participate on -- at least one of whom was a Keep on the France – Papua New Guinea relations AFD and two of them are already endorsing Keep above -- this is gaming of the system, pure and simple, adn they do not even try to follow Wikipedia policies on notability). The admin who closed this seems to be operating with the assumption that AFD closure is some supervote that gets to overrule all other discussion. I'd strongly encourage this person not to close any more AFDs for the time being until all of the AFD closures can be examined, and in the France – Papua New Guinea relations case we should clearly have someone else put the actual Delete result there and overrule this way out of process decision. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE "Team Picture": AfD is not vote. Arguments for deletion were overridden by "Article Rescue Squad" expanding / addressing the concerns. I don't see how the situation is different if the article were deleted and ARS recreated it in significantly expanded form. Feel free to renominate. - Altenmann >t 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as keep. AfDs are not votes and strength of arguements would be to keep; however, I a "no consensus" would also be reasonable in this case as well. The article was clearly improved during the course of the discussion and as such some of the initial deletes may not reflect these improvements that occurred as the discussion progressed, which is part of the reason why these are not votes, because in any given AfD, the first few accounts to comment can say to delete, but then maybe someone dramatically improves the article and only the final keep notices these improvements. Thus, the numbers might not reflect that actual developments, because the initial comments are not always revised based on the improvements. I can understand a "no consensus" close here, but I am not seeing evidence that Altenman is somehow biased here, so I hope that just because Docu was asked to avoid closing these as keeps, this isn't going to be a trend of going after admins who dare close any of these as keep, i.e. it's not going to be DRV after DRV (it is bad enough we are seeing renominations for deletion of ones that closed as keep a month ago). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Houston, we have a problem. In my opinion the AfD, and this DRV, had more to do with two opposing groups of editors fighting to "beat" the other side than it did with collegial consideration of the merits of the article.

    I would like to propose a relist wherein !votes and comments from those who participated in the previous AfD are disregarded. I would also support a RfC if a previously uninvolved editor wants to start one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would have closed it as "no consensus", but it's the same end result. Endorse. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly closing as "Keep" or "No consensus" preserves the article, but they're not the same thing. One one can argue sets a precedent, the other doesn't. Yilloslime TC 23:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as keep Despite Bali ultimate's attempt to remove the cited relevant 3rd party information he refers to in this discussion here, this page was saved thanks to good faith efforts by people who saw significance in the relations of these two countries. According to the BBC (the cite Bali ultimate tried to remove), that early contact by Louis-Antoine de Bougainville with the Islands of Papua New Guinea was a "key event" in the history of Papua New Guinea. Bali ultimate prefers to ignore the BBC and argue that it is irrelevant because Papua New Guinea wasn't a nation at the time. Besides being a perfect example of Bali ultimate's own subjective opinion regarding significance, to remove this type of information is also clearly against the trend in international relations articles, where early historical contacts between people from different places lead to significant relations between governments of countries that come later. See France-United States relations including information about relations from a time when neither the democratic governments of United States nor France existed. That information is clearly relevant to US-French relations today and I would oppose its removal. I would also like to point out that French-PNG relations exist in several spheres, economic, cultural, political and militarily and those relations were cited. Those ties could also have been found to be significant under the provisional guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations. I would like to thank Bali ultimate for alerting me to this discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should be embarrassed cdog that you think the mention of a frenchman having visited New Guinea, half of which became an independent nation 200 years later, is relevant to this bilateral relationship. That i didn't edit war over the non-inclusion of this piece of irrelevant historical trivia speaks rather well of me, in fact. There are still no reliable independent sources that discuss this posited bilateral relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you look closely, you will see that this article is titled "France - Papua New Guinea relations", not "France - Papua New Guinea bilateral relations". They don't call it Bougainville Island for nothing. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does the fact that a frenchmen landed at New Guinea when everyone there was wearing kotekas, there was no communication (language made that impossible) between him and the locals, and the notion of a PNG wasn't born for another 150 or so years?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everything Bali ultimate is saying here is right on spot. I also wanted to delete the silliness about the discovery and especially the Alliance Francaise which is in more conspicuous in its absence than when present. Drawn Some (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see a problem with the fact that Bali ultimate tries to remove the reliable sources and then tries to have the page deleted for not having reliable sources? No offense, but I trust the BBC a lot more than Bali ultimate when it comes to defining "key" moments in a country's history.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as No Consensus or Delete. There was certainly not consensus for Keep. Not at 9D to 4K. Especially when some of those voting keeping obviously don't understand our Notability guidelines. (E.g.: "You don't need secondary sources unless someone has honest doubt about the primary source being valid"; " I disagree that government websites are not sufficient to establish notability." etc. Yilloslime TC 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close I can see a good argument for why this should have been closed as no consensus rather than keep, but a keep seems within discretion here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse keep well with in discretion and the right result also. The relationship of a very major nation like France with anybody can reasonably be expected to be notable--& France has long had major interests in OceaniaDGG (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus –(edit conflict) Most of the reasons for deletion came before the first improvement on the article. Many of the reasons for keeping came after the first and second improvements on the article. Taking the improvement of the article during AFD in consideration and the dialogue in the AFD occurring after that first improvement, there was at the least a lack of any rough consensus. I find valid reasons on both sides of the debate otherwise; neither side "prevailed", if I may use that loaded term. MuZemike 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - consensus was quite clearly for deletion. The stronger arguments were on that side as well. Yes, France controls some islands in the vicinity of PNG, and yes, a Frenchman once set foot on PNG, two centuries before that state gained independence. Interesting, but in no sense does that mean that any secondary sources have covered "France – Papua New Guinea relations". We can pretend they do by adducing bits of trivia designed to create just that appearance, but rather than deceiving our readers that this topic is validated by secondary sources, it's preferable to heed consensus and delete. - Biruitorul Talk 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus was not for deletion. There was no consensus. You're trying to trivialise the relations between the two countries by focusing on minor aspects and leaving out their military and development relations, for example. Also, at least one of the deletion votes was based solely on an editor's view that all articles on bilateral relations (including, for example, France-UK or China-Japan) should be deleted. Aridd (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so they performed some joint exercises and France sent PNG some blankets. Is that any less trivial? Does that take us any closer to the actual topic "France – Papua New Guinea relations" having been covered by secondary sources? Would we ever care about such details outside this series of nonsense articles? No. - Biruitorul Talk 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. There was 4 keep !votes, 3 arguing that govermental webpages establish notability. Essentially saying that we can forgo the requirement for independent sourcing in the case of bilateral relations. A viewpoint that is not in keeping with our notability guideline. And an editor that argues that we can base the article on the fact that a frenchman happened to stop by. Since the article in question gives no detail on relations between the two countries this is clearly trivial coverage. Taemyr (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does give details on relations between the two countries. If you've actually read it, you know that very well. Aridd (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the closing admin has explained, most "delete" votes were cast before the article was improved, and were simply left there once the article had evolved. Aridd (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The admin is making an assumption that the earlier voters aren't following the changes to the article. This is just an assumption, and is probably wrong for some voters (certainly wrong for in my case). Closing admins shouldn't be invaliding votes/arguments based on their assumptions about other users. Yilloslime TC 19:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was no "consensus". It's misleading to imply that there was. And, as the closing admin noted, most of the delete votes were cast before the expansion of the article. Aridd (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete After all I did do searches in both French and English and found a distinct lack of coverage. I have considered the improvements made subsequent to the nomination but they were mainly from primary sources. the French google search also found a lack of coverage from French media sources (which have well established news agencies in that country). LibStar (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
French media sources have well-established news agencies in PNG? Really? Which ones? This isn't an accusation; it's genuine curiosity. Aridd (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that French media (major newspapers/TV stations like TV5MONDE) is well established and resources, whilst I can understand in PNG the media isn't as well established especially providing news sources onlines, I couldn't find evidence that in France, there was any real coverage of Papua New Guinea. LibStar (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - poor close and a misreading of consensus in the discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Arguments of the closing admin presented above are convincing. At the same time I hope that the closing admin considers a number of comments here as a valid criticism: while he is right that AfD is not a vote, the closer must expect that when opinions are divided, the closure header must explain closure reasoning in detail, otherwise there are great chances that one side will feel injustice, and the closer will waste much more their time in defending their decision, as many other people weste their time here now. Mukadderat (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This trend of taking every one of these that closed as keep within the past month or two to DRV or back to AfD as a second nomination is beginning to become disruptive in the sense of keep nominating or DRVing these articles until they are deleted rather than moving on or better yet working to improve them. How the same half dozen odd accounts saying to delete practically every one of these bilateral relations articles somehow is supposed to represent consensus is beyond me and a few token article creations doesn't really cancel out the larger effort here. But if we use a common sense standard of notability, certain countries' relations with pretty much every other country in the world are indeed inherently notable. France is one such country, because 1) it has a long colonial history going back centuries and as such fought every major colonial empire meaning that the colonies of those empires were involved in the broader conflicts with France and 2) France is a permanent member of the United Nations security council and as such has significant international influence. And for the record, France actually does have some colonial history here. See New_Ireland_(island)#History. From 16 January 1880 to about 1882, Charles-Marie-Bonaventure du Breuil, marquis de Rays (b. 1840? - d. 18..) established a settlement on New Ireland Island at Port-Breton called Colonie de la Nouvelle France. Brief, perhaps, but still a colonial and therefore historic relationship. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:23, 5 June 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:SteinbeckCortez.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This image (which, I understand, was fair use) was - until it was deleted - the only image of the cover of John Steinbeck's book The Log from the Sea of Cortez included in the featured article of that name. On that basis, I think there is a justifiable fair use rationale to keep it.

There is a cover image remaining in that article - File:Sea-of-cortez-cover.jpg - but this is a different book, published by Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts in 1941, some 10 years before The Log from the Sea of Cortez. As the featured article explains, Steinbeck published The Log from the Sea of Cortez in 1951, after Ricketts was killed in 1948. It includes the narrative portion of Sea of Cortez, but excludes some material and adds other material. It is considered to be a completely separate work, published under Steinbeck's name alone. The article is about this second work, not the earlier one.

The image was either deleted pursuant to the FfD, or as a CSD G7 - see related discussion at User talk:Drilnoth. I'm not convinced there was consensus to delete in the FfD, or that it was eligible as a G7. In any event, I think there are good reasons why it should be restored and replaced in the article. Testing times (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin: I think I've said about all that I can on my talk page... I don't have any real opinion either way and was simply trying to determine consensus. Deleting per GiantSnowman's apparent G7 request seemed the least controversial way to close it (hmm... I guess I was wrong on that :) ), but I think that the consensus was to delete even if there wasn't a G7. I'm not going to comment on which of the two book covers should be used in the article, or if they both should, because I don't really have an opinion. I'm perfectly willing to perform and deletions/undeletions that are determined to be warranted by consensus in this discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus because there was no consensus in that debate. Permit immediate relisting because the grounds for deletion cited were fairly strong.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Essentially different books. Fora a very major writer such as Steinbeck, such things are important. DGG (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per CSD:G7 and per the consensus at the debate. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I'd like to note that NFCC 3a was not necessarily violated given the explanation by Testing times. Either way, it would seem more natural to list File:Sea-of-cortez-cover.jpg per 3a, and not the primary image used for identification. decltype (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G7 is not sufficient reason to delete if the content is not harmful to the uploader if other editors think it should be included. And the information provided by testing times show that the images don't make eachother obsolete since they picture two different works. No valid reason for deletion has been given, so the decision should be overturned. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep There is a clear reason to have it. If its considered a different book, or significantly different, then having both covers showing the name of the authors different(one of them mentioned on the first one, but not the second since they died and it got rewritten) can be valid for the article. And I think G7 is for articles, not pictures. It reads that way. Dream Focus 13:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion: there was no procedure violations bu the closing admin: G7 is a valid reason. At the same time this discussion shows that the image indeed may be kept per fair use, hence "common sense" policy may hint that there would be much less hassle to restore the deleted image rather than to upload it again, if the original uploader will not object. Mukadderat (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion the original uploader felt that the new picture was better, but it turns out it is of what is basically a different book. I'm feeling that at the least the original uploader should have been consulted to see if they were really requesting deletion or merely okay with it. In any case, while there were no procedural problems, I think it makes little sense to strip the article of a cover of the actual book. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 June 2009

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

The AfD was closed by the closing administrator with "delete" consensus and merge to Mahmudiyah killings. I and other strongly disagree with this outcome (read here). I then discussed the desicion with the closing administrator. Sandstein to understand the reason for his decision. He kindly explained, we discussed and after that i ask him, to either extend the discussion or to declare "Keep" consensus. So both article can be developed separately, what would increase the quality of Wikipedia. He disagreed. Please read about it here. Sandstein - (User Talk). From his explanation i understand that he has based his decision on the number of people who made policy-based arguments and did not take in consideration the strength of the arguments. The arguments for a "delete" consensus outcome were weak and the arguments for a Keep very strong. So that the AfD outcome needs to be overturned. Because we can not ignore the strength of the argument and we can not ignore the secondary sources and according to them her role in the Mahmudiyah killings was tremendous. Not to grant her notability and to delete the article could be damaging to Wikipedia. Finally i would like to thank everybody who takes the time to review the AfD. Iqinn (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse: Policy-based arguments are strong arguments. Sandstein's logic is sound and a good compromise, this article is not being deleted but merged. All the content will remain except for having a place in the namespace, anyone searching for her will be redirected accordingly. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure reflected consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per User:Ryan4314. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Deletion review is meant to review the decision of the closing admin, not to reopen the debate just because you disagree with the result. It seems to me that Sandstein correctly interpreted both Wikipedia policy as well as the strength of the arguments presented at the AfD. NoCal100 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there was clearly no consensus to delete this article. Badagnani (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was not deleted. lifebaka++ 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, for mostly the same reasons as those above. I'd also like to note that a merge close at AfD carries no more weight than a similar discussion on an article talk page, and as such may be overturned without the need of DRV (though it is often very difficult to get as strong a consensus on article talk pages). Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, and the nominator should be satisfied, because what the closer decided was that this should be a bluelink on Wikipedia rather than a redlink. As Lifebaka notes, a talk page consensus would be sufficient for you to un-merge; and "no reply" is sufficient consensus (see WP:SILENCE).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The merge was done properly, with full content kept; since relatively little is known about the victim except for the crime, and there were other victims as well, a unified article makes much more sense. Proper decision, proper merge. Good compromise. We have no agreement about how strictly a merge closure must be followed, but I do not think there will be consensus to unmerge, if the proper attention is paid to the article. DGG (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose""" There was no clear consensus. nut-meg (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: Even though at AfD I voted to keep the article separate, I endorse the admin's closure. Based on policy, it seems to me that his decision was correct and fair (although I do not necessarily agree with the policy). The merge outcome does keep most of the content, and making the subject's name a bluelink helps to preserve the topic on Wikipedia. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per the above. After reviewing the AfD it would seem that consensus has been followed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, substantial discussion of and support for merge, a well-discussed "compromise" close. Adding to others' comments, an AfD merge consensus is not sacrosanct, but please do not BOLD unmerge. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please do not paraphrase me again! I have stated my reason at the top. Do not take it personally. Your behavior looks a bit like harassment to me. You did it already on my talk page. [[44]] and elsewhere. Please stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess "I and other strongly disagree with this outcome" means something else. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Out of context. Read above: We kindly ask the closing administrator to explain his decision because we disagree with the AfD. I came to DRV because i believe the adiministrator had made an error as i have explained above. You know i am a beginner and my style is doubles poor i hope i can learn from you and others. I apologies if this has caused confusions. Do not directly assume 'bad faith'. Iqinn (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Austria–Georgia relations – no consensus to overturn. The discussion here is about evenly balanced between the various viewpoints here: the arguments in favor or endorsement are approximately even with the arguments for overturning, and there is an equal number of editors seeking a relisting of the article at Afd. Normally I would take this as a sign that the article should be relisted, but there seems to be a growing consensus on the admin noticeboard that there should be a moratorium on deletion debates concerning these articles. Taking that into account, this article should not be relisted until either that moratorium is over or the moratorium is rejected by the community. – Aervanath (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Austria–Georgia relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This AFD was just closed by User:Docu with the following rational: "The result was No consensus found for deletion. Discussion provided reliable resources for expansion, article was kept." However, in the AFD itself eight arguments were made for deletion against 3 for keeping the article. This outcome seems to me (at least it should be) well outside admin discretion (and his "analysis" of the sources provided, if one can call it that, seems odd -- only one source about a minor matter was found.) User:Docu has done this before in the recent past with Estonia–Luxembourg relations (now a dab page) which yielded at DRV a rather overwhelming consensus that not only was his close wrong but that he was acting well outside of his community granted authority. DRV here [45]. On a small procedural point, even though the sound round of admonishments he recieved at DRV over his last close like this led to him technically saying "no consensus" instead of "keep" this time, he edited the talk page of the article to say "the outcome of the discussion was keep."[46] I'll probably be seeking community input elsewhere on his behavior once i figure out the best venue, but i start here. As a wikipedia editor, I have to abide by consensus when it goes against what I think is the best course and i try to. That an admin, like User:Docu ignores consensus when it goes against what he thinks is best is demoralizing.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't even take responsbility for your own edits? Has libstar hacked your account or something?Bali ultimate (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result is accurate, the article kept as any time if there is no consensus for deletion. -- User:Docu
Ah, so now you are taking responsbility for your own edits. You wrote "no consensus" in one place and "keep" in another. I'm glad that smokescreen about it being another editor's fault is all cleared up now.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - strength in numbers and in argument clearly lay with the "delete" side; this has been yet another bad close by Docu. No multiple, reliable, significant, independent coverage of "Austria–Georgia relations" was shown to exist; participants who pointed this out were correct to do so; and the minority who disagreed could not come up with an effective rebuttal. - Biruitorul Talk 02:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really factually accurate, as the article as is contains multiple reliable independent covereage of their relations and those saying otherwise are not reflecting reality. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - but of course I argued for deletion in this AfD, so perhaps my opinion in this discussion won't matter much. (Translation: I eagerly await the opinions of uninvolved folks.) But for what it's worth, I recognize that determining consensus is not as simple as tallying up the votes—the strength of the arguments all matters. Still at, 3K to 8D, the keep arguments have got to be pretty darn strong to say that there's no consensus, but in this case they are pretty darn weak. The first one seems to be saying that since the article contains info, it should be kept. With all due respect to the editor that made it, this argument is non-sense. By that logic any article with content should automatically be kept; just forget about WP:N. The second one is slight better, but is still not grounded in WP's notability guidelines. The third essentially invents notability a criterion from thin air (existence of bilateral agreements), and then proves that this made-up criterion is fulfilled. Sorry, but I hope WP can strive for better than that. We have agree upon guidelines for notability—let's use them. When editors make arguments that are not based on agreed upon wikipolicy/guideline, then closing admins should ignore those arguments. Docu needs to recuse himself from AfDs on Bilateral relations. This isn't even the first time he's done this! And while I'm ranting, I think any admin making a non-obvious close (i.e. more !keeps than !deletes but closed as delete; or more than 2/3 keep or delete but closed as no consensus) should spend a few lines explaining his or her reasoning. Faced with what at least at first glance appears to be a clear consensus for deletion based on vote counting, a closing rationale of "The result was No consensus found for deletion. Discussion provided reliable resources for expansion, article was kept," really invites controversy and second-guessing. Bottom line: if you're going to do something controversial, at least spend a little effort explaining yourself. Yilloslime TC 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is that the deletes in that discussion did not adequately reflect the reality of notability due to the existence of reliable sources that demonstrated a historic and modern relationship. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Most of the deletes, and certainly mine, do discuss this directly. I looked around and found a nothing that would constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Others did too. IMHO, the best way to rebut this argument would be say, "actually look: here are sources XYZ that you overlooked, ergo WP:N is met." Only Stepopen even attempted to do this, and provided only one source, and it's in German, and it was published before Austria and Georgia even existed as independent countries. How pertinent it is to the topic is debatable, but even if it's 100% relevant, it's only one source, and we need more than one source.Yilloslime TC 04:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added another source after the AFD closed and found it relatively easily. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're talk about this source, no? I would not consider it "significant coverage" of the topic of Austria–Georgia relations. Sure, it mentions the two countries in the same sentence, but it's much more about the Austria-Russian relations than Austria-Georgia relations. Yilloslime TC 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's sufficient for our purposes, because its verifies that bit information, which means that we now have multiple sources verifying different sentences, i.e. the starting point for an article. Thus, we have at least two intersections of both countries that authors saw fit to write about in reliable sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not sufficient—you are confusing verifiability with notability, but clearly, I'm not convincing you, so I'll drop this but hope that this exchange is useful to other editors who are not as entrenched as you or I. Cheers. Yilloslime TC 05:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - These bilateral AfD discussions have largely turned into deletionist vs. inclusionist battles, so of course, we have to consider which arguments were well thought-out, and which were simply posted by default. In this case, a few editors pointed out hints of notability; indeed, there are reliable sources to be found on the subject. Taking all this into consideration, I endorse Docu's closure of this particular AfD. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete: Numerically: There were more delete !votes than keep ones. Substantially: Keeper TreasuryTag concedes, none of the keepers address the claims of being non-notable, keeper Cdogsimmons even alludes to this lack of notability in his !vote. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete, and ban Docu from closing all international relations AFDs. Consensus was clearly in favour of deletion, and Docu is too involved to close these objectively. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - based on strength of arguments. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of whether or not this particular case was handled correctly, it is very evident that the community does not trust User:Docu to close these bilateral relation cases and for the good of the encyclopedia he should voluntarily refrain from doing so in the future. There are plenty of other cases he could close instead. That last case was overwhelming found to be closed in error and it is still continuing as a disruption. Drawn Some (talk)
  • Overturn & delete: a flawed close that misinterpreted - apparently deliberately - consensus. I agree with Drawn Some's point as well. Eusebeus (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough one. Unusually for me, in this case I have some sympathy with our local Article Extermination Squadron, who I see have turned out in force for this DRV; I think the strength of numbers and weight of the arguments were both for deletion. But I don't think it's a completely open and shut case. There really wasn't a consensus, and while I think Docu's close was wrong, I do think it was defensible.

    What all this conceals, of course, is that this wasn't a debate on the article subject at all. It was basically a local election in the ongoing power-struggle between two opposing groups of editors who're moving into increasingly entrenched, mutually-opposing positions, and frankly, I wish they'd just grow up.

    On balance I'm going to go with permit immediate relisting in the hope of getting a higher proportion of contributions from editors whose !votes I couldn't predict ten times out of ten without even reading the debate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete - there was a good standard of arguments on both sides, however the consensus was to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we went by factual accuracy of arguments, the consensus would be to keep or as correctly closed, no consensus. Moreover, the article has continued to improve post-AfD. It would be not right for an article that has since continued to improve and therefore is better than the article when the AfD closed to be deleted on some technicality and for ongoing improvements to halt. It is far more important that we keep improving improvable content than be hindered because the admin who closed seems biased. The article is not the same as when it closed and as such, the new version at worst should be relisted and reconsidered. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse as no consensus which fairly represents the state of opinion. If no additional material is found, a merge might well be considered, but at the present time, there is in fact no agreement about what to do with such articles. My own view is that considerable additional material will be found when a sufficient search is made, covering all the possibilities including commercial ties. It would be very unusual if two countries of substantial size did not have significant commercial relations. After all, that's what they are going to the trouble of making treaties about. DGG (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - On the strengths of the arguments, I see a decision that is defensible as either no consensus or delete. The article has improved just a little since the time of the AfD, and the fact that there are people willing to work on the article should be taken into account. Also, I endorse in full Juliancolton's statement and "What all this conceals, of course, is that this wasn't a debate on the article subject at all. It was basically a local election in the ongoing power-struggle between two opposing groups of editors who're moving into increasingly entrenched, mutually-opposing positions." from S Marshall. If the whole thing is redone with a new set of editors who don't reference the article's previous AfD and instead just argue purely on the merits, I think this whole thing could be done a lot better. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 12:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as the article nominator, people may think that I'll naturally say delete, and I even think the addition of references doesn't get it over the line but in light of keeping this debate neutral as much possible, I would support relist. at best this was a borderline no consensus. It should be noted soon after this closure, Docu has now been restricted from closing bilateral article AfDs [49]. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as Keep The arguements for Keep convinced the administrator, who closed it accordingly. Do we really need to bring this to deletion review every time one of these country relationship articles is saved? Dream Focus 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream Focus, in case you don't understand, the closing administartor has been banned from closing these discussions, because of his ineptitude. PhilKnight (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? It wasn't just because the number of people who knew the discussion was going on, and went there to comment, said to block him from closing? The discussion was closed the same day it started, few people having time to get involved. [50] And is it the bases of the arguments, or simple voting that closes AFD now? Because apparently consensus means voting majority to some, and if the administrator doesn't do it their way, they'll try to overturn it, and get the guy blocked simply because he thought the arguments for one side were stronger than the other. Dream Focus 14:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, no your comments are disrepectful of the ANI process. ANI exists so that any user can get an issue resolved on a noticeboard that many admins patrol. do you seriously think closing it later would have stopped the restriction of Docu's closing? there's been an issue of several of Docu's closures. If you don't like the decision relist again at ANI. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - under the circumstance relisting the debate is probably the most appropriate course of action. PhilKnight (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: the article was reasonably expanded after tagged for AfD, hence the arguments must be reconsidered afresh since the controversy remains. Mukadderat (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus More weight should be given to later votes that were made after more references were added. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The main argument for deletion - non-notability - just doesn't seem appropriate to me when talking about bilateral relations. Someone pointed to a WikiProject page that said bilateral relations articles should exist when they are reasonably significant, but I don't see that that has been seriously considered by the community, it's a very weak guideline. There is a strictly bounded number of countries, and it does not seem too much to me to have bilateral relations article on every pair, so long as it can be verified by reliable sources, and there is a substantial indication of that here. One argument not raised in the AfD is where information like this should be on Wikipedia? Would people really prefer a huge list of minor treaties Austria has signed with other countries, a separate list of countries it has embassies in, and so on, with no way to include prose or miscellaneous facts, so that anyone actually interested in this information would have to spend all day navigating a maze of lists? I would even go so far as to say the correct closure would be "keep", not "no consensus," because those favoring deletion had no policy at all behind their arguments. Mangojuicetalk 17:39, 8 June 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 June 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Guido den Broeder/Visit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to delete this page per Wikipedia:CSD#U2. It's blatantly obvious that U2 does not apply here, therefore I request speedy overturn of the deletion. — Aitias // discussion 15:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Garden (talk · contribs) and Fram (talk · contribs) have been informed about this deletion review (cf. [51], [52]). — Aitias // discussion 15:20, 2 June 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:Fast Folk artists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The nominator, TenPoundHammer, nominated this for deletion in August of 2008, and a robust debate about the nature of this association followed. The creator of the category made a strong case for its inclusion, and the result of this CfD was "Keep". TPH then nominated it again for deletion in May 2009 with the thinnest of reasoning and without any notice of the prior CfD, and the category was deleted on the basis of one !vote. Based on the results of the last CfD, there is no consensus to delete this category, and one new !vote ("per nom") in a sham deletion attempt shouldn't have changed that. (when did one vote become consensus, anyway?) I would like to have the category Restored and Repopulated. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as nominator (I had forgotten about the first discussion by the time I instigated the second one, as I often do). I fail to see how this is not performer by performance. Yes, several (but not all) of them got their start performing for Fast Folk. So what? Some launched their career that way, others didn't. It's just not defining, and I don't see how it can be, and none of the arguments from the August 08 discussion has convinced me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As MrFizyx noted in the first deletion, this refers to a collective of musicians, not merely a trivial intersection of performance places. To quote him, "In an age where most music magazines come with a free CD and indy artists start record labels with ease and offer free downloads, I suppose it is hard to understand what was so unique about this magazine/record label from a quarter century ago. I created this category because these artist were part of an historic community of songwriters." This is more aptly labeled as a scene or subculture rather than a performance site. Chubbles (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not the nominator is "convinced" by the previous arguments is irrelevant. Editors should respect a recent, well-argued consensus with which they disagree, in the absence of a reasonable belief that the categorization is actively harmful. The alternative is battle by attrition, heading for the disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as the only other contributor to this CFD, I still think this category should have been deleted. However, as only two of us commented, perhaps the closing admin should have relisted it for further discussion rather than closing as 'delete'. I think the 'delete' close is justifiable, but given that there's at least one person here who wants the category restored, I'm not sure whether there would still have been a consensus if the discussion had been prolonged. Robofish (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist- The only delete vote was, and I quote "per nom", which, last I checked, is straight out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. There is no way it should have been deleted on that thin of grounds. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist A single, badly-reasoned vote is not enough to counter the consensus of a previous extensive discussion. (And the nominator's reasoning should've been more verbose). Side note: apparently the discussions where closed by the same person. Surely they'd find their first close holds more weight if they compare the two? - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "per nom" is a badly-reasoned vote that should be discounted, we'd never have another admin at RFA. Fact is, CFD does not get a lot of visitors unless we're talking about race, religion, or politics. There are many CFDs that get closed with no opposition and only one or two people that spoke up. I endorse the close, as there was nothing wrong with it. If consensus here is to relist, I'd be ok with that as well, because if Chubbles had joined the discussion, it probably would have pushed it to at least no consensus. That said, I suggest Chubbles assume a little good faith in regards to the nomination and close, and perhaps watchlist categories he is interested in. --Kbdank71 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: "Per nom" isn't neccesarily a bad reason, but it is when the nominator used just three words that represent a reason which was shot down in an earlier discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier discussions are not written in stone. Consensus can change. --Kbdank71 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not change on one quick-draw deletion vote. It does, however, change when one quick-draw deletion vote deletes something, and the community decides that it doesn't matter anymore, once someone notices and brings it up. The result of this debate seems to be, "yeah, we might have did this wrong, but now that we did it, ain't worth undoing." So since it would be a waste of time to pursue the matter further, I won't do so. Chubbles (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Yes, consensus can change, but if an earlier discussion had extensive attention from the community, the consensus can't change on the say so of just one person agreeing with the nomination. Consensus is supposed to be the view of the community (not one or two people) and no reason had been provided to show that a changed consensus was even likely. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen and relist. XfDs other than AfD are frequently closed with little attention, simply because the discussion often get little attention. If we always waited for a healthy showing with these discussions, it could take many weeks for the XfDs to close. So, a lack of opposition is taken to mean that there are no objections. Therefore, in the face of an objection after-the-fact, I believe we should reopen the discussion and relist it, as the discussion might not have properly gathered consensus. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I second the objections. Fast Folk Musical Magazine has a valid place in the history of the American folk/singer-songwriter movement, see the Fast Folk wikipedia article. Therefore, a list of artists who contributed is a valid category. This category appears to have been nominated for deletion arbitrarily and possibly without adequate research. Actions like this are the sort of thing that give wikipedia administration a bad reputation. DanTappan (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note - TenPoundHammer is not an administrator. Chubbles (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
…but I play one on TV. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - nothing procedurally wrong with the close and the closing admin did not misinterpret the discussion. Yes, participation was light but that's not particularly relevant as there is no way to extrapolate from participation what might have happened if more people had participated. I didn't bother !voting on this CFD, for instance, because the outcome seemed so obvious. CFDs have been closed without additional comments beyond the nomination. Complaints about whether editors choose to participate at CFD or not don't constitute significant new information. Otto4711 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/relist OK (closer). (1) This is essentially a complaint of "I didn't know about the discussion and would have opposed deletion had I known." That's a valid feeling to have when a category you like gets deleted, but it's not something that I as closer can foresee and therefore not a valid reason to overturn. (2) The previous discussion is irrelevant, except for an indication that more participation/interest in the topic is theoretically possible; (3) therefore, I'm fine with a relisting, but I echo Kbdank71's comments in suggesting that anyone who's concerned about a category add it to their watchlist. It saves the community a whole lot of wiki-drama and going back and forth from CfD to DRV if you just watch what you want to track. It's very easy and lots of folks do it. (4) In my experience, very few proposals or administrative actions to delete categories are done with bad faith motives. I'd like to see a review nomination for a category propose a review without insinuating that there was. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the keeper of all things precedential, is it my imagination or does precedent seem to only carry any weight in a close when a prior consensus in a vaguely similar case was delete? Why was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_25#Category:Fast_Folk_artists this prior precedent, where there was a clear consensus for retention of the exact same category nominated by the same nominator, ignored in favor of a one-person "consensus" for deletion, especially as you had closed the original CfD and seen the arguments posed there? What changed that demonstrates that consensus changed with this one vote? Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you can see from looking at the discussion (and as others have pointed out here, most notably by Occuli, who made what I think is a very good comment below), the previous CfD was not referred to in the discussion. At the time I also didn't recall closing the previous discussion. Ergo, it didn't become an issue. It was neither consciously ignored nor considered. (PS: I didn't know your imagination was "the keeper of all things precedential". Your clause needs an object, there.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have long stated that CfD is a game and it looks like we're playing one here. Your devotion to precedent is such that you maintain User:Good_Olfactory/CFD, a laundry list of prior cases in about 100 different classifications in which you catalog results of prior CfDs, laboriously sorting all results to ensure that you can quote them in future discussions. These cases have been referenced on several dozen occasions, almost always presented with the demand that a current case must be decided for deletion based on the prior precedents, regardless of the lack of connection to the prior cases. You have done this on numerous occasions, as have other editors such as User:Otto4711 who berated a supposed "noob" for not adequately studying precedents (here). Yet in this case, not only did the prior precedent never make into your laundry list, not only did you not mention it in considering the result, but you insist that "The previous discussion is irrelevant, except for an indication that more participation/interest in the topic is theoretically possible". While I do appreciate the fact that you now agree with me that any and all precedents can be safely ignored (and I will be sure to quote your opinion where insistence for deletion based on "precedent" is offered), can you explain why a precedent with far greater participation should be ignored for a consensus of only one vote to delete? What rules do we operate under at CfD in which the value of a precedent is either infinite or zero on a completely arbitrary basis? Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a non-issue. Had it been referred to, it would have been considered. It was not, so it was not. As I said, because of the oversight, I've no problem with a re-listing, but it's irrelevant in assessing the procedural soundness of the close. (I would appreciate it if any future questions directed at me as the closer could stay somewhat on the topic of this close. Alansohn mentions a lot of things about me that it sounds like he has gripes about but which are entirely extraneous to the matter at hand.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let me understand the rules of the CfD game: A precedent is of infinite value if its raised during a CfD or if it's raised by a closing admin who decides to raise it when closing a CfD (especially if it was to delete). However, precedent is worthless if it isn't raised or if the closing admin doesn't recall that he closed the exact same CfD nominated by the exact same editor who has opened such an inordinate number of CfDs that he too can't recall the result of the prior case (especially as it was closed as keep). Now that the precedent has been brought to your intention, doesn't this mean that the one-vote-to-delete close should be overturned and closed as Keep? If that's the case, why not simply overturn your own close instead of relisting? A simple acknowledgment to overturn your close would demonstrate some good faith on your part and, as you have stated, save "the community a whole lot of wiki-drama and going back and forth from CfD to DRV". A tiny dose of consistency that eliminates what appears to be a clear bias to delete regardless of the circumstances would help eliminate much of what you call "wiki-drama". Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not inclined to respond to your inquiry further since your sarcastic tone suggests to me that you are not seeking information in good faith but rather trying to "score points" against other editors. But the short answer is: you're confusing the validity of an administrative action with the results you see as most appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • In general, the rather tattered credibility of all CfD closes is undermined if precedent either must be heeded or can be simply disregarded on an entirely arbitrary basis. There is a rather deep and fundamental problem here with this particular close of a CfD in which the same person nominates a category that was closed as keep previously, there is only a single vote to delete and the same admin who closed before as keep now closes the same CfD as delete with no evidence of consensus, let alone a change thereof. Alleging sarcasm (and none is intended) is a wonderful way to avoid discussion but you have not addressed the fundamental inconsistencies here. The capriciousness that appears to reign supreme at CfD need to be eliminated, and volunteering to overturn the close would demonstrate a small measure of good faith towards dealing with these problems. Feel free to not respond and allow your actions to speak for themselves. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I appreciate your statement that no sarcasm was intended. Perhaps it's just your way you chose to express yourself and the mentioning of so many extraneous issues that are not on point. I am not volunteering to "overturn the close" partly because there was zero support in the latest discussion for keeping the category. A relist is a far better solution in this case, and one that most other users seem to endorse. Since there a "defective" discussion, it makes sense to have a new one. That's why I endorsed my close but said relisting was OK. I'm certainly not going to volunteer to overturn it simply to assuage your impressions of the CfD system as a whole. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read the policy regarding consensus? Previous consensus -> Make an edit -> Was the article edited further? -> No? -> New consensus. There doesn't have to be debate to form a new consensus. At the time of the close, it was unanimous. Not sure how that is "defective". --Kbdank71 18:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a theoretical position to take that is fine, but from a practical standpoint not much would ever get accomplished at CfD if it were thoroughly adopted. Judged in the context of the level of community participation at CfD, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in anycase, if we are going to rely on WP:SILENCE to delete, we should be open to people missing some deadline. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers_by_performance_venue. Some artists have gotten their start on The Tonight Show, but we don't categorise based upon it. - jc37 10:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per User:Good Olfactory. Procedurerly there is nothing wrong with the closure. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Ideally there would have been a link to the last CfD. Given the night-and-day difference between the two discussions, I think a relist is clearly in order. I can't imagine the close or discussion would have been the same if the link had been provided. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Any concept of consensus is worthless if one individual's vote straight of the "arguments to avoid" list constitutes a community judgment. CfD is a rather poor reflection of what the community as a whole really thinks and operates largely on what seems to be a deliberate effort to keep anyone out who might dare to differ with the deletionist dogma that prevails there. There might well be legitimate arguments for deletion of this category, or consensus might be allowed to change, but there is no way that anyone can look at this and say that the discussion that took place represents community consensus. Alansohn (talk)
  • Relist – having read Fast Folk and both cfds, it seems to me that the deletion argument ('Performer by performance') in the second is incorrect and the analogy of 'artist by record label' is closer (if we restrict the category to those who released recordings with/via Fast Folk). I also think that there should have been a link in the 2nd cfd to the first - it's really not that difficult for a nom to discover previous cfds via 'what links here' and surely one of TenPoundHammer's many otters can be delegated to check these things? Also CGingold seems not to be looking at cfd these days and would surely have picked up on this one (as in the first one). I don't think there was anything wrong with the 2nd cfd or its close; but the 'new info' presented here is the first cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. MGM put the case quite accurately and succinctly. No substantive arguments in favor of deletion, especially in light of the previous consensus, which should have been given more weight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – I see it as a procedural problem that, in a discussion that drew little participation, no mention was made of the previous CfD, which was clearly noted at Category talk:Fast Folk artists. Is it not standard practice to look at a talk page before nominating something for deletion? It should be. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:57, 4 June 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 June 2009

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

Page was kept on the basis on a no concensus on WP:N supercedes WP:ATHLETE. This is true, but the AfD gave no examples of how the references provided in this revision passed general notability. The only two reliable sources about the footballer fail WP:SPECULATION, as well as the footballer failing WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league or competition. --Jimbo[online] 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, though I probably would've closed as keep myself. As Blue Square Thing pointed out, failing WP:ATHLETE is meaningless if he passes WP:N, thus mostly invalidating most of the delete !votes (especially those that mention nothing but WP:ATHLETE). And though I don't see much discussion on whether or not he passes WP:N in truth (which is likely why it was closed as no consensus rather than keep) there is no valid consensus to delete there. A second discussion might be useful as to whether or not WP:N is fully satisfied, but you'd probably want to wait a while for that lest it get shouted down by "too soon" voices. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close Close makes sense given the circumstances. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to overturn. As Lifebaka observes WP:N overrides WP:ATHLETE so there's not much for us to do here. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as the original nominator I still feel the article fails WP:ATHLETE and only passes WP:N if it is applied without consideration of the actual content of the sources. Virtually every webpage about the kid is little more than speculation that Galindo has a great career infront of him. If he plays in either of the World Cup qualifiers he will easily pass WP:ATHLETE, if he doesn't play we would keeping the article on the back of press speculation, (ie content that would/should be deleted if it appeared on our site). King of the North East 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus The relationship of WP:N GNG and WP AHLETE is undetermined. They are both guidelines, and therefore both flexible, and attempts to specify which take priority have always foundered., they are to be read in conjunction with each other, and the choice of which one to use is a matter of judgment. If a person has some sort of notability outside W{:ATHLETE, then using WP:N GNG makes sense, but a person whose notability is athletics and has not played at the highest level is not qualified for an article. Endorse as indicating there was no agreement of how such interpretation should go; there can always be another AfD in a month or two or three, when we may reach some degree of agreement on interpretation one way or another. ,. (My own view is that, especially given the increasing range of GNews etc. , we will soon have what was mean to be a restrictive guideline, the GNG, used in an inclusive way that no rational inclusionist would justify. What this means is that I am not an inclusionist or deletionist, for notability of people, but rather insist that notability means accomplishments, not just minimal references, no matter wetyher this leads to inclusion or exclusion. The point of an encyclopedia is to have meaningful content.). DGG (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erb? WP:BIO (of which WP:ATHLETE is a part) specifically says "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.". That seems to make the relationship plain. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to me, this mean s they may be notable for other reasons than athletic accomplishments. DGG (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jonathan Kotula – Deletion endorsed. Consensus here is that notification of projects is desired but failing to do so will not make the AFD close incorrect and as such the close itself was correct. As deletion might not be the desired outcome regarding this subject, consensus also is that the article can be recreated if expanded with sources and if done so, it will not be speedy-deletable under G4 (which requires a substantially equal version). – SoWhy 08:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jonathan Kotula (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Jonathan Kotula is a World Series of Poker Bracelet winner. While the outcome of was delete and I am not questioning the verdict based upon the AFD itself; neither WP:POKER nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people were made aware of this AFD, thus the two projects with the most insight and potential interest in the project did not know about this AFD. Being a WSOP bracelet winner is considered to be the pentacle of the poker world It is easily on par with the WP:Athlete's notion of participating at the highest level. The Poker project easily considers this as notable enough for an article. We are not talking about an event that nobody has ever heard of, we are talking about a World Series of Poker Champion. I considered simply recreating the article, but it would boil down to the same issues---he is only known for one event, but that event is a WSOP championship. And while I am certain we can find more sources [53][54][55][56][57] most will be trivial in nature. As a WSOP champion, however, any event where he participates, it will be news. If he doesn't defend his title, it is reported! ---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) notifying WP:Poker of this DRV[reply]

  • Ignoring, the status of wikiprojects in defining notability critera, WP:ATHLETE et al are secondary criteria, as the heading to that additional criteria section says: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.", the special cases section considers various scenerios "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria" being the one which appears it might be the most relevant here. The oneevent argument for deltion is perhaps questionable, but does this person meet the general notability criteria? If not shouldn't he just be mentioned in the appropriate place? Wiki projects don't get to define the notability criteria for their area of interest (and many projects have overlapping areas of interest), if they want to change the criteria then they need to do it in the normal way, on the appropriate pages, with a broad community consensus. Non-notification is also non-issue, it isn't mandatory and you'd expect those involved in the wiki project to be watching poker related articles wouldn't we? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The projects do pay attention to the articles, but that doesn't mean that we know when somebody creates a new article, which is why it is standard to notify the applicable wikiprojects about said AfD's. This was created on April 29th and deleted without the project knowing it existed. But the question becomes, what is the epitome of Poker? Winning a WSOP Bracelet, this is the gold standard for notability in the genre. This is an article that we would have eventually created, and had we known about the AFD, would have defended it and probably gone out and done more leg work.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you ignore the stuff about who makes notability criteria and what they mean. I would say the "gold standard for notability" in an genre is actually the general notability guideline. (As a personal option I find it hard to reconcile the "epitome of Poker" with "we would have eventually created", and someone from the project would surely have noticed such an important article being created and nominated for deletion.) The question still is do they meet the established notability guidelines as have reached consensus amoungst the wikipedia community. If so then it appears that the reason for deletion can be overcome and an article written, if not then perhaps all there is to be said about this can be said within other articles (or not at all). And it still isn't the case that notifying wikiprojects is a required part of the deletion process. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notifying the projects is not required, but it is considered a common courtesy as the projects are generally the ones best suited to evaluate the subject and are the ones most likely to work to save it. They are also the ones most likely to revisit the subject if they are in fact notable, thus by notifying the projects, you avoid later issues. If WP:Poker had been notified, then I wouldn't be here today, the project would have been working on saving the article two weeks ago. The fact that we know about it today and care, should be an indicator that we are interested. As for "we would have eventually created"---how do you think I found this article? I was going to write the article about the subject, so the eventually we are talking about is last night--2 weeks after the AFD!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm not asking DRV to say that the subject is notable, only to give a bless on WP recreating the article per the conventions use on other WSOP bracelet winners. He will still be a 1E, which is why the article was deleted, thus recreating without bringing it here first, would be CSD bait for a G4. But some 1E's are more important than others. Being a WSOP bracelet winner makes him notable in Poker Circles.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine; I have no objection to recreation once the issues that led to it getting deleted are overcome. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and userfying is fine too if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And if the problem is that people didn't realize he met WP:ATHLETE when he does? How does that get fixed? Hobit (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-open the AFD- There were three people in the AFD, and that was one comment, two deletes. And this was after being relisted twice. I think if the appropriate projects had been notified A: The article might have been improved, and B: the outcome may have been different. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD has no quorum, and notifying projects is not required. I can understand point (a), but in choosing how to deal with a debate (close, relist etc.) the closing admin shouldn't be thinking about (b)--82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And if nobody from the project ever showed up, then it would be a strong indicator that said subject was deleted properly. 90% of the time no big deal. But when somebody from the project stumbles upon the AFD because they were going to create an article on said subject, then that should speak to the subjects notability as well. We are not talking about some unknown poker player who has never achieved anything.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say just recreate it better, personally, and skip having to be here at all. Reopening and relisting the AfD is an option, sure, but I don't believe the a properly written article on this guy would have to end up at AfD at all (keeping in mind that I have not searched for sources myself) and as such wouldn't be deleted at AfD either. Skip the middle man, create a better article, and improve the project. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Overturn - Could this be {{TempUndelete}}'d, as the article doesn't exist in Google Cache? If there is a lot of information, I would say overturn without prejudice to relisting on the grounds of "allow content to exist if someone who knows about the subject and who had previously not had the opportunity to find out about the AfD can assert its notability." If there is just a little information, perhaps it would be best to just close this DRV and recreate the article. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 19:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with recreating the article and doing so in the manner that other WSOP bracelet winners' articles are created. Normally, I would have done so automatically, but in this case, I felt the appropriate venue was to come here first as there is only so much that I can embellish upon the article. I am most concerned about recreating and having it simply tagged for deletion per G4. I have no problem with recreating and having it subject to being relisted as proposed above. As for tempundelete... not necessary, there isn't enough info in the original worth keeping.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, "overturn without prejudice to relisting" makes the most sense then. The article was deleted originally because none of the original commentators recognized the importance of this gold bracelet, so I feel that there is no reason to not allow the recreation of the article. I don't feel that this is so much a matter of "AFD round 2" as "AFD with more informed 'voters'." In this case, I see no reason to keep the content out now that we know the article is properly notable. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Drawn Some expresses what I wanted to say. The buisness with Overturn/Endorse doesn't really concerns me; all I really want at the end of the day is that the article is recreated and improved from what it was before. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note—The single sentence in the last version was '''Johnathan Kotula''' is an American casino employee (in the [[Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas]] O'Shea's Casino), who, on the 7th June 2009, won a [[WSOP]] braclet in Event 55 - the $500 Casino Employees No-Limit Hold'em event. He won a total of $87,929 <ref>www.pokerpages.com/players/profiles/117331/jonathan-kotula.htm</ref>, with an AfD message above and a reflist below. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD was very properly closed after a couple of relistings. No prejudice against having the article undeleted, moved to user space, improved to meet an acceptable level of quality, and then reintroduced into main space. Drawn Some (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Appropriate decision. Article can be userfied/improved then re-created. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • permit Recreation and if there is substantially more material, it will not be a G4. If you want to avoid deletion during the process, do it in userspace. The only reason I do not say relist, is that the article will stand a very much better chance if it is more substantial. Projects should be notified of deletions, so there can be informed discussion . DGG (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, as DGG above. The deletion of the original article was appropriate, but if a new article can be written that is substantially different and improved compared to it, it cannot be deleted under WP:CSD#G4. No prejudice against bringing the new article to AFD again, but it should be given a second chance to demonstrate notability first. Robofish (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made the comment in the original AFD and I stand by it. The article made no distinction between the WSOP Main Event and any of the other poker contests going on at the time. Unless more can be said about the guy, I don't think a separate article is a good idea. Perhaps work out the history of said event and combine the winners in a list on that event's article? - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this good close, and permit userfication per DGG and Stifle.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per DGG with option to recreate assuming there is a substantial improvement. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No procedure violation. Mukadderat (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn relist yes there was no procedural violation, but with so few comments the closer would ideally have thought to notify the relevant groups and would likely have had a very different outcome. While such notification isn't required, it puts us in a silly place where a perfectly fine article that meets our guidelines can't be recreated without being a G4 though it would have likely been kept if someone notified the right folks who understood it met WP:ATHLETE. Just saying. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 8 June 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_June&oldid=420278112"