Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2011 Deletion review archives February 2012 >

31 January 2012

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

The article Verismic Software had been approved through Articles for Creation process and then deleted by user:fastily. The editor gave the reason as G11, but everything stated in the article has a reliable outside source and is written in a factual tone. I placed a message on Fastily's talk page but they are out until Feb. 8th. I then placed a message on the admin who originally approved the article and they suggested I post a request here. Not sure what else to explain? Thanks, HeidiSmith (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore. The article was not written in a promotional tone; it appeared more or less factual and neutral. The G11 criteria are not met, nor are any other speedy deletion criteria that I can see. Is it only me or do we recently see a lot of questionable speedy deletions by Fastily (talk · contribs) on this board?  Sandstein  21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Sandstein. Fastily's been very active in deletion of late, and I've been assuming that the high number of Fastily-related DRVs probably has more to do with the amount of work he's done than with a decline in quality.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of late, Fastily has done more deletion work than any other admin. Almost all of his work on Wikipedia is deletion related. Given the amount of work he does in the area, it is unsurprising that he has more actions brought up at DRV. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - the article as it stands is rather brief, but it's well-sourced so there's scope for improvement. ~~ Bettia ~~ talk 10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take to AFD as it wasn't a G11. But reading at the sources there's clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source three is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like [1]. The only source that may be reliable is this, but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. Secret account 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD. This did not meet G11, because while there was clearly a promotional intent, the article is not solely promotional. However, per Secret it is questionable whether notability is established by the sources, which all seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage. This needs scrutiny at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secret, Verismic IS mentioned on this page [2], it is the one of the bullets above the fold 'Sparxent's Verismic Software' and I think being named one of InfoWorld's top 15 Green IT projects of 2011 is pretty notable [3]. Not exactly a 'passing mention'. HeidiSmith (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, the company didn't win the top 15 green projects award. The Boulder Valley School District was the winner with a small passing mention they used the software, so that is misleading. The other source I just saw the mention, and that's clearly not a claim of notability, or a significant mention of the company. Secret account 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, list at AFD if desired As already argued by the people above: not a G11 candidate, but unclear whether the subject is notable. Yoenit (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should get rid of this page right away, it's ridiculous, come on, why even thinking if it should be in the Wikipedia or not? It lacks decent sources and is unreliable. Seriously. Wikipedia's IQ is dropping by the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutshell1111 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Secure error messages in software systems (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two deletes which addressed the reason given for deletion: essay-like how-to content. Closer gave no policy-based rationale about why the "keep" and "merge" votes raised valid objections. Pnm (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you had asked Stifle to explain his close, he would undoubtedly have told you that the objections raised by the "keep" and "merge" were that the material is fixable by the normal editing process. In other words, the consensus was that while the existing content was of little use, Wikipedia should have an article with this name, so the material needs to be rewritten rather than deleted. The policy basis for this is in WP:ATD.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness to Pnm, I do have a standing waiver of any requirements to discuss my AFD closures with me before coming here. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stifle's waiver notice is here, and after reading another contributor's recent discussion contesting a "no consensus" closure without a stated rationale I concluded I should just come here. – Pnm (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I contended the article did not seem fixable by editing – and still do. Any article with this title would necessarily violate WP:NOTHOWTO or WP:NOTMANUAL. If you think otherwise may I ask you to explain the reason you disagree, or attempt to demonstrate the editing fix you suggest? – Pnm (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not my opinion, Pnm. It was the view expressed by Dcoetzee and History2007. On the face of it Canvashat and Tigerboy's remarks neither agree nor disagree with that, but they say "merge", and indicating that this title should be a bluelink. (By convention DRV regards "merge" !votes as a variant of "keep" rather than a variant of "delete".) Thus what Canvashat and Tigerboy have to say would be taken to support Dcoetzee and History2007, although perhaps given rather less weight. Bobrayner's remark suggest that the content should be deleted because nobody's going to fix it, which carries little weight per our editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT). That only leaves yourself as nominator and Lambiam, which is not sufficient to overrule the "keep" side. Stifle's drawn towards the deletionist side of the force a little more than I am, but I'm not surprised that he couldn't find a delete consensus in that debate. Believe you me, if there was one there to be found, I'm pretty sure Stifle would have found it.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The only user wanted to keep the article gave the reason "Content is very, very low quality. Topic is not." I can see how Stifle got "no consensus", but I think that a lot of the "differing" views were in fact saying the same thing- that the article did not merit independent existence.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, or redirect, or merge. Only one user wanted to retain this as a separate article, and even they said that it would need to be cut to two lines. There is clear consensus to not retain this as a separate article, although how exactly to do so is a bit more open to the closer's discretion.  Sandstein  21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There is consensus at the AfD that the article is poorly written and should be stubbified or redirected. There is no consensus that it needs to be deleted. A redirect or (selective) merge can be carried out by any user acting boldly and then discussed as necessary on the article talk page. See WP:BRD. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Low quality is not a policy-based reason for deletion, and all arguments on that basis should be disregarded. To argue along that line, it is necessary to show that a the quality of the article could never be improved, which requires the topic to be unsuitable in some particular way, or the content to be positively bad in some manner. not just low quality. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Feel free to edit, merge or even redirect. Or try continuing the discussion on the article talk page. One interested editor is more than enough to fix this. If fixes prove unworkable, feel free to renominate at AfD, preferably in not less than two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Like Tigerboy1966 and Sandstein, I see a consensus against a standalone article, which is usually better expressed as "redirect, history available for merging" or "delete, I will provide history on request". The problem here is that there is no consensus to do anything specific. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to not have an article on this subject. It's actually reliable and notable. You people have to know when an article is reliable and when it's not. Please, do not touch it.
  • Endorse and spell in all relevant guidelines and policies that the XfD discussions are supposed to judge on articles' names, not content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Ultimatum (American band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I think I'm doing this right... Ultimatum (American band) was deleted following a standard deletion review. I got the deleting admin to restore the page to my sandbox where I and other WPers could improve the article, addressing the lack of references and significance of the labels the band is on. I believe that these improvements (and continuing improvements like adding albums, etc.) have improved this article to the point where it is ready for resubmission to the mainspace. I contacted Mr. Ritzman who instructed me to resubmit the article here, rather than proceeding with a move without consulting anyone. I have informed Mr. Ritzman of this resubmission and await your (hopefully positive) comments. Thank you.

Here's the updated page. User:5minutes/Ultimatum (American band) 5minutes (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, 5minutes. Well done for a creditable effort there. I think you need to remove the "influences" section which is uncited, and for the magazine references, add page numbers to those citations that lack them. It would be best if you could also supply ISSNs. Despite these mild criticisms I think this material is roughly ready for the mainspace and I would not be opposed to putting it there.—S Marshall T/C 08:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per your suggestion, I have updated the magazine references with page numbers (I may still be digging some up) and ISSN's and have removed the influences section pending a discovery of a referenced article that says "the band sounds like so-and-so". 5minutes (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. While I have no knowledge about or interest in this genre of ... sound, the revised article is substantially better than the deleted one, and appears much more likely to be notable after a glance at the references. This does not rule out a second AfDF discussion if anybody still thinks it's non-notable, of course.  Sandstein  21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I'm not sure if I even have a vote as the one requesting recreation, but I'll vote anyway. Accept or ignore as you see fit. 5minutes (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Sort of. It's assumed that you'd like to have the article recreated, since you requested that earlier, so your !vote here is redundant. But any admin closing the discussion will understand that anyway, since you quite clearly noted the duplication. No worries. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. Looks OK to me, though - as noted - another AFD might result if notability isn't clear enough. I think it's borderline leaning to notable, but that's outside of DRV's scope. The claim, at least, is a credible one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. The article has been substantially improved and significant effort made to address the notability problems raised at AFD. I have some doubt as to whether the sources listed fully satisfy WP:GNG, because the main source seems to be HM magazine, a former low-circulation niche mag now reincarnated as a fanzine, and refs draw from both incarnations. However, that there is a case to be made that GNG is satisfied, and any further assessment belongs at AFD (if anyone wants to take it there). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the same for this page. Keep it. Why just keep attacking the articles? Leave it because it is highly notable.
  • Question - so should I consider this matter closed? Do I need to recreate the page or will an Admin do so? 5minutes (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 January 2012

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

This file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because I tagged it as do not move to Commons. From WP:CSD#F8, the following condition must be met: The image is not marked as {{do not move to Commons}}. This condition is clearly not met. I would normally just undelete it, but I already did that twice, thinking there was a mistake. However, User:Edokter is clearly willing to wheel-war over the issue, and I don't want to lose my adminship status. The reason I want it to be kept local is this: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom (not that I should need to provide this, seeing as policy does not require it for the user wanting the image to be kept. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: Undeleted for the purpose of this DRV.
  • The image has been moved to Commons in 2008 and deleted locally at the same time. Then you undelete the image on January 10 2012 and slap a do-not-move template on it. That's circular reasoning. And yes, you definitely should have provided the reasoning you just gave; I spent a good hour searching for any discussion on Commons relating to the BBC logo, and I couldn't find any (and it is not listed in the Commons discussion either). I just saw a file with a CSD-F8 tag, reviewed it (twice now) and found no reason not to delete it. So don't be suprised if other admins revert your changes because you fail to point to any relevant discussion elsewhere. Since the file is not even under discussion on Commons, endorse delete. — Edokter (talk) — 10:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edokter, you have wheel-warred and you do need to take that seriously. Technically, the evidence in the history of that file would be sufficient grounds to refer you to ArbCom for a summary desysopping. I think that would be much too extreme in this case, but you are required to engage in collegial discussion with your fellow administrator rather than trying to steamroller him. The appropriate course of action for you now is:-

    1) Apologise to Magog.

    2) Speedily close this DRV as "snow overturn".

    3) If you still wish to delete the file, open a FFD and seek a good faith consensus to support your view.

    You will find that there are very few circumstances in which DRV will endorse wheel warring, and this is not one of them. You would need a very urgent and pressing reason for doing it. Our main job here at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and wheel warring is very far from correct.—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are right, I should have discussed this. Therefor I apologise. I do feel the undeletion was just as much out of process as the deletion, hence why we are here now. And I do take issue with Magog not feeling the need to support his action with an explanation, in this case, pointing to a discussion on Commons would have been appropriate. How am I supposed to be aware of discussion on other projects if there is no explanation? I will not be closing this DRV because I am involved now, so I will let another admin use his/her discretion. If that results in a keep, I will happily file an FFD. — Edokter (talk) — 12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you really revert away {{PD-ineligible-USonly|the United Kingdom}} and then speedy it yourself, twice? Wow. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once, after I reverted myself. And since the Commons copy was not marked PD-USonly, nor subject to any linked discussion there, the PD-USonly is null and void here. — Edokter (talk) — 14:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear on two points you've brought up: 1) Yes, I undeleted after your redeletion, but I'd thought you'd made some sort of mistake. 2) the PD-ineligible-USonly tag has a link to commons:COM:TOO, which itself has a decent length section on why the UK threshold of originality is extremely low. By adding the tag, I was under the impression that this would suffice for reasoning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • First time I missed the fact that it was even undeleted. I only looked at the Commons version, and saw no discussion linking to it in any way, shape or form. Plus, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} ("Do not copy to Commons") adds to the confusion because the file is already there. This created an ambiguity in which I could only guess at the reasoning. That said... why not just wait until the file on Commons is actually under discussion before restoring any redundant local copies? — Edokter (talk) — 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because it's not a done deal that someone will remember to undelete it locally; people forget. I've seen it happen even after I place a strongly worded note on the talk page stating PLEASE UNDELETE AT ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA IF THIS IS DELETED ON COMMONS (I've noticed only some; I'm sure there are ones I didn't even see). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you guys get a kick out of communicating in wikispeak. Just sayin'. Dadge (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete here - as the file at Commons should be deleted, because even the most trivial of text logos are copyrightable in the UK. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite true; the UK may hold a lower threshold of originality, not a "no" threshold of originality. While that concept is under discussion on Commons, I still feel there is no point in maintaining a duplicate here while the file on Commons is still not tagged. — Edokter (talk) — 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, let's delete it here so that it will be forgotten here and disappear altogether from English Wikipedia when people forget to reundelete it here after the Commons deletion. All for the sake of creating extra work for the admins. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The UK threshold of originality is practically so low to allow any text logo to be copyrightable - I can't think of any recent examples where a logo was judged too simple to be copyrightable in the UK. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep local copy. A request to keep a local copy should ordinarily defeat a deletion under F8 which is for clear and uncontroversial cases. Now that a requests has been clearly made, and a passable reason given it should be retained. The discussion on Commons clearly implicates this file, whether it is tagged or not and there is no reason to weight for Commons to decide what they are doing there before we take action here. It doesn't save space to delete the local copy, after all. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 January 2012

[edit]

28 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Celebrity Cricket League (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (XfD2)

Page was speedily deleted on 22 January 2012, reason G4, despite being challenged by two editors. However, the previous AfD discussion took place in June 2011, shortly after the first CCL tournament started. CCL is (Jan/Feb 2012) into its second season and the new article clearly stated this, therefore the article was substantially different from the 2011 article. The event is widely and regularly reported in the Times of India and Hindu Times. I put the recent article through AfC, copy-edited it and added additional sources. The speedy deletion tag was placed on the article while I was in the process of reviewing it (a message at the top of the article clearly stated review was in progress). I notice another article of the same name was created and speedily deleted today, so the 'problem' is not going to go away. The deleting admin, Fastily, is away until 8 February. Sionk (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
:Kristijan Mesaroš (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

He is notable by gaining access to the main draw of 2012 PBZ Zagreb Indoors. I request undeletion. -Gabinho>:) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Maybe if he wins this rather dubiously notable Croatian tournament. But just because this local boy snags a wildcard slot, it's hardly a reason to overturn the AfD decision. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The No. 3 article of the tennis notability guidelines (NTENNIS) clearly states the following:

Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they

3. Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:
Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250)

As per the above I request Undeletion of the article. The player is now notable. (Gabinho>:) 13:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  • Undelete - Gabinho is absolutely correct. If Mesaros competed in the main draw of an international Mens ATP tournament, he meets WP:NTENNIS. The PBZ Zagreb Indoors is notable, not 'dubiously notable'. Sionk (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Gabinho. Meets NTENNIS, now notable. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable. Down with that article. Nobody knows it, sorry, it's just not reliable enough for an article. Don't tell me we're gonna have a page for all tennis playes. Nutshell1111 (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or keep deleted. By virtue of the NTENNIS guideline, he is presumed to be notable, but we would still need to see a draft article that actually establishes such notability through references to coverage in reliable sources. The guideline cannot preempt the policy WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  Sandstein  08:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 January 2012

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

There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag. The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes. The admin's looong comment said very little in many words. The admin received a barnstar for the deletion. CallawayRox (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Callaway, first, there was consensus. If you've read my post, you'd know that. Second, I did take into account the votes. If you've read per smy post, you know that. Thirdly, yes; I get barnstars for a lot of my AfD closes, keep or delete, mostly for my willingness to explain things in some detail - which you might want to take into account. And most AfD votes are good-faith and policy based. Being good-faith and policy based is the minimum we expect, not some magical gold standard which proves that the comments are utterly valid and whatever they say should be done. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that your comments about how important policy is and your implicit accusation of bias conflict rather nicely with the line at WP:DRV reading "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed". It is a shame your enthusiasm for policy and good-faith actions don't extend to writing your own DRV nominations. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really silly to "accuse" Ironholds of receiving a barnstar, as if receiving a barnstar later changed the already-made decision, since Ironholds had zero control over that. What exactly was he supposed to do4? Magically know in advance that he might be thanked and protect his user talk page so that no one could post a barnstar? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: I didn't participate in the discussion, because these typically lead to a lot of drama, and merely participating in such a discussion leads people to question your motives for the rest of your Wikipedia career. But I will participate at this DRV to ensure this dispute is not resurrected. The keep !votes reveal a circular fallacy: "there isn't a consensus that this is canvassing, because all the people that are canvassed by the template say that it isn't canvassing". This circular fallacy is a perennial source of drama when the larger community conducts an RFC (or AFD) about an entrenched and well-organized subcommunity. The closing administrator specializes in large discussions, where finding a consensus requires more than just bean-counting, and drew a conclusion about the consensus that was perfectly reasonable. The essence of the consensus is this: there are better ways to organize a drive to improve an at-risk article without nearly as high a probability of just canvassing blind votes. That's why we're not deleting the entire collaboration, or banning individual editors. It's also why the community is allowing ARS to try a new model, instead of acting in bad faith to stop any efforts to improve articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion was closed on the technical position that it's redundant, and oficially all the arguments for canvassing were removed from the final decission because there was no evidence for such serious claim of canvassing. So I'd like to ask the closing Admin to be coherent with the original decision and not take into account deletion endorsements that are based on the canvassing criterion, or at least recognize that this position couldn't count toward consensus for the original deletion. Diego (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ;). Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? The above was addressed to the Admin that will close this DRV asking him/her to be coherent with your decision. Did you understand otherwise? Diego (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha; sorry, misunderstood :). Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not contradicting that. Just because we didn't delete the template purely on the basis of canvassing, it doesn't mean the admin didn't take into account the fact that there are ways to rescue articles without using a template that increases the potential for canvassing. (e.g.: the heat vs. light argument.) It also doesn't mean that the issue of potential canvassing didn't affect the weight we afforded to the keep arguments, particularly with the circular problem that "we canvassed enough people to fight the consensus that this was canvassing". The canvassing issue can still affect our process, without being the reason for the decision. (But I suppose we could just ask the closing admin.) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Closing admin explained his close in great detail, and consensus was heavily toward deletion by both numbers and strength of arguments. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just imagine, if I were to turn up on CallawayRox's user talk page, and leave a barnstar thanking him for opening a DRV. Then I could come back to the DRV and say that CallawayRox got a barnstar for opening the DRV, and, well, nudge nudge, wink wink. The barnstar argument deserves a barnstar for ingenuity. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to no consensus. I was not involved in the discussion and have no opinion about the contested template's merits. The closer said that the opinions were split 53:34. Numerically, this delete-keep ratio is not a clear "delete" consensus, but rather closer to a lack of consensus. Still, it is in the range in which closers may weigh the strength of the arguments and give them more or less weight, as the case may be, to arrive at either a "no consensus" or a "delete" outcome. The closer's explanation is one which I personally find persuasive on the merits. But my understanding has always been that an assessment of the strength of XfD arguments must be clearly explained as based on applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than on the closer's preferences, or else it is simply a "supervote". This is even more important in discussions to which nearly 100 people contributed, because in such cases the numerical outcome is more likely to approximate actual project consensus than in discussions with fewer contributors. Here, the closer did not frame their assessment of the strength of the respective arguments in terms of a clear analysis of the arguments in the light of the policies and guidelines that apply to the issue at hand (if any). As such I cannot be fully confident that the closer did not use the closure as a "supervote", and would therefore overturn the closure to a finding of no consensus.  Sandstein  18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I didn't explain clearly; I did try to. The TL:DR reason was that TfD policy gives irrelevance as a reason for a template's deletion, and keep !voters could not show that the Rescue template actually added functionality in the field. Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... which TfD policy do you mean? WP:TfD is not labeled as policy and does not mention "irrelevance".  Sandstein  19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The template is redundant to a better-designed template". Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the TfD page is still not policy, but I now understand how you assessed the arguments. Changing opinion to weak endorse, on the basis that difficult, reasonably defensible closures in close cases are entitled to a certain degree of deference.  Sandstein  20:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakStrong overturn to no consensus. per Sandstein. I praise Ironholds for trying to close that difficult debate on its technical merits instead of the claims of battleground and canvassing, but I'm afraid the final rationale falls short of that noble goal. When the explanations given are that "when you have something that provides no additional functionality but strife, the easiest way to resolve this strife (and not, in the end, reduce functionality) is to delete it" and that "if I had simply counted, I would have come up with the same result", it's not clear that the technical closure is strong enough. Arguments were not addressed that the template provides an additional important function for the Wikiproject that other deletion tags do not, and this was not addressed at all in the closing. That said, I'm more concerned that this deletion won't possibly be used to claim that the ARS project was disruptive than to recover this particular rescue mechanism, thus my weak !vote. Diego (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Sandstein has changed to weak endorse, do you wish to modify your statement? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started with a weak overturn per Sandstein, but our positions have diverged since then. I now concur with SL93 that ignoring the Canvassing accusations because they were poorly sourced was a big mistake in the closure process and thus merits an overturn, so that those accusations can be properly addressed. Thus the strong overturn !vote. Diego (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion: There were more than half again as many deletion votes as keep votes (somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-65% of votes were delete), so to say that it's "no consensus" means you'd need to throw out almost half the delete votes while keeping every single keep vote. And I really see no reason for discounting any of the deletion votes. Most of them were based on the fact that the template was serially misused. And the template has been serially misused, in fact far above and beyond the closer noted (and I think canvassing could have been proven if people so chose). And knocking Ironholds for specializing in tough XfDs is just plain wrong. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The only thing unsurprising about this caterwauling is that ARS took almost a week to file it. The keepers never really mounted a much of a counter-argument as to what justifies their project advertising out in article-space, or why they could not just flag the XfD as Gene93k does to alert wiki-projects. The MfD found that there was a consensus...not only of numbers but also by strength of argument...of editors who either did not want the ARS flag to fly in article-space, or serve as a canvassing rallying point to organize bloc votes. The predictable "I disagree with the closer" grousing never provides a strong foundation for a DRV filing. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The opinion of the delete !voters was largely the same. There was overwhelming consensus that the template was for canvassing. The keep !voters did not establish a convincing argument discrediting that assertion. Delete !voters, and myself, gave several (I gave 6 on a closely related ANI thread) examples of this tag being used to canvass. The close matched the consensus.--v/r - TP 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The keepers have since debated flagging XfD as an option, just as Gene93k does; asking us to adopt that change would have not required an AfD based on (unproven!, per Ironholds words) canvassing accusations. The closing rationale, while difficult, is highly irregular: was canvassing a reason for the outcome or not? Diego (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I quite understand what you're saying.--v/r - TP 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diego, on that front you might take my line in the closing that I'd be uncomfortable deleting simply based on canvassing allegations as a hint. Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm reassured of your intention. But I see that as inconsistent with the reasons by which this DRV is being contested (.i.e deletion endorsed). Diego (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that if canvassing concerns were the reason why many people !voted for deletion, those should have been the reasons stated at the closing decision, but weren't (at least officially); but the official reasons are not enough to justify a strong closing stance. That's not a clean closing result, and it's likely to create more dissent in the future. Diego (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This template has been problematic for years. I've seen it used many times to effectively canvass articles and that problem was brought up at the TfD. The argument that the template helped rescue articles ignores the fact that it has rarely been used to source articles, rather it just brings additional "I like it too!" votes to the debates. The consensus according to both the numbers and the arguments was invariably "delete". ThemFromSpace 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly confused as to what this drv is intended to accomplish. What does this "critically important" tag do that Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list doesn't? If anything, the rescue list is more effective, since there's no template on the article to alert the afd closer that canvassing has taken place. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was an easy way to notify other members when the rescue list didn't exist. It also served to inform newbies that encountered an instant AfD of their first article, that there is a group of people willing to help them recover the article they created. Apparently this last function was seen as unacceptable by the TfD promoters. Diego (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second argument here—{{rescue}}'s message to the article creator, rather than the other ARS members—is intriguing. (Though it's a bit unfair to say it was seen as unacceptable, since I don't recall it being raised during the tfd nor do I see it on an admittedly cursory reread now.) Is there some way this might be accomplished without simultaneously being a canvassing tool? Maybe a less bitey rewording of {{afd1}} and/or {{afd2}}, or a user talk template? "Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, I notice your article {{{1}}} has been nominated for deletion [[{{{2}}}|here]] because it doesn't look notable (don't be offended, that's wikijargon for 'we can't find third-party coverage', not its usual meaning); maybe you could stop by the discussion and point us at some sources?"? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this confrontation serves to make a less bitey AfD notification for newcomers, it will have be worth something. The argument was used somewhere in the deletion discussion or the conversations linked as reference, I don't recall it exactly but I'm sure to have seen it this morning when reviewing the deletion. Can we elaborate on this idea at some other place? Diego (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closer properly followed process and clearly showed a detailed, neutral review of the arguments presented. The closing reflected the general tone and overall weight of the comments on a read-through and this DRV has presented no failure in the close which would warrant overturning. MBisanz talk 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean that the DRV has presented no failure, or that the failures presented would not warrant overturning? Because I'm pretty sure I've presented a couple of failures that I found in the process. Diego (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "...presented no failure... which would warrant overturning." The which connects. Killiondude (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See Killion. MBisanz talk 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closer followed process and gave a very detailed neutral closing statement. He gave a good overview of the arguments presented and closing does reflect the discussion. Not even remotely worthy of overturning. -DJSasso (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closed properly and neutrally. Individuals are entitled to disagree with the arguments put forward for deletion, and while I can see that this could perhaps have been closed as no consensus depending on whether or not some of those arguments were considered valid reasons backed up by evidence or simply personal opinions, I don't see a good reason to overturn. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Detailed close rationale that clearly and appropriately weighed both sides. Ironholds did not "ignore" the 34 "good-faith and policy-based keep votes", he found that the fifty-some good faith and policy based delete votes had the stronger argument. Resolute 21:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing rationale was solid. The user who initiated this hasn't followed policy, as they didn't make any attempt to discuss this with the closing admin. No reason to overturn this. AniMate 21:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the closing administrator did not ignore 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes, he just felt the 53 good-faith and policy-based delete votes carried the day. Mtking (edits) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that the 53 delete !votes were good-faith, but how were they policy-based? Diego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That it is was redundant to other templates, it was the only project that got to put it's template on the article and that it was used as a tool to canvas !votes. Mtking (edits) 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. A case was made that it helped newbies in a way that a simple AfD wouldn't (The special ability of the ARS to deploy its un-removable template to mainspace is helpful as it helps give voice to the otherwise silent interests of countless millions of interested readers and thousands of newbies affected by deletion). That's why we're arguing that these arguments/counterarguments should have been covered by the closing stance, but weren't. As for the claims of canvassing, I will make no more comments since they were explicitly dismissed by the closing rationale. Diego (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough; so, I evaluated it at the time, but didn't want to exhaustively cover everything or I'd end up with a 10-page closing summary. My basic feeling was that this is not a valid counterargument to the claims of irrelevance; the entire point was "unremovable AfD templates already provide a mechanism for keeping people informed about deletion discussions", and so stating "yes, but we provide an unremovable notification template!" is kind of like responding to "it's used for murder" with "don't be silly, it's used for killing people". Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But didn't elaborate on how they were stronger, which AFAIK is required to justify a consensus close. Diego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: If you really think that TfD discussion developed a consensus, I'm speechless. Ironholds' supervote close may seem wise to some in its outcome, but in terms of whether the close was proper, that's not what consensus means in the real world, nor normally in wikipedia. Be careful what you wish for, folks. You may be found unnecessary and redundant yourself someday. Of course the ARS is still locating and improving articles (and canvassing people to do it! egads!) no matter what happens to this template,[4] but it would be nice to have the tool. If you endorsers won't reconsider, so be it. Btw, how the hell are so many people participating in this discussion so fast? AfD itself is dying a slow death.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you meant TfD in your first usage of AfD. Killiondude (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
corrected, thanks.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may have to do another hunger strike.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I joined the ARS squadron recently to save worthwhile articles that were tagged, not to go on a canvassing spree with other editors. I disagree with my joining because the negatives outweigh the positives plus the recent drama. When I participate in an AfD on an obviously non-notable topic and only trivial mentions are shown, I hate the rescue tag. It's always, "Here we go again. Should I debate or ignore the nomination?" SL93 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued here that a tweak to the deletion process would help alleviate the drama and reconcile the inclusionist/deletionist positions. Would you like to join the debate? (long story short, the change I propose would make it easier for inclusionists to just 'let it go'). Diego (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin gave a serious and considered explanation in the original close, and has satisfactorily responded to all queries here. There is no suggestion that those supporting delete were canvassed or were misguided in their comments, and no one has given a policy-based reason to support a reversal of the solid consensus that was based on solid arguments. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- consensus does not require unanimity, and "I don't like the result" is no reason to overturn a deletion discussion. Ironholds arrived at the right conclusion after properly weighing the opinions presented, and there is no credible claim of mistake or misconduct. Therefore there is no reason to overturn. Reyk YO! 22:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse though I don't agree with everything the closing admin said this was a fair, well-reasoned close and no convincing reason has been presented to overturn it. The Keep opinions were not ignored, on the contrary they were taken into consideration. The idea that the discussion should be closed as "no consensus" because a large number of people wanted to keep the template would mean all contentious discussions would be closed as "no consensus", something which is clearly unsatisfactory (just because lots of people participated does not mean there is not a consensus present, though it is often harder to determine what that consensus is). I don't think any admin could be motivated to close a discussion a certain way because they would get a barnstar for it. Hut 8.5 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Not even gonna pretend that I read the whole closing rationale, but killing this template improves Wikipedia. Enough said. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal attack sucks balls, MZMcBride. Enough said.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, how in any way is that a personal attack? — Joseph Fox 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Context, my friend, if you know MZ's opinions, make it clear.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent: Given that I nominated this template for deletion in 2009, it's certainly no surprise to see me here endorsing a deletion discussion that resulted in delete. My only regret is that I wasn't able to vote in the prior TFD. This template has been used as a political weapon, it has long been at odds with how nearly every other WikiProject template operates, and its death is (will be) a Good Thing. Nobody has any issue with users improving legitimate articles. People do have issues with this template being used as an inclusionist beacon, meant only to be applied to articles of marginal or questionable notability. Sadly, killing this template won't prevent future inclusionist vote-stacking and mob mentality, but at least it can be done without an obnoxious and anachronistic banner sitting at the top of the article. Good riddance. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolute, you apparently know nothing about me, so flaunt your ignorance if you must. I founded Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue which improved thousands of articles in 2010-11, have written well over one hundred articles, and have improved hundreds more. Most importantly, I have squashed very many ill-adivsed AfDs from ignorant folks who had no subject matter expertise whatsoever before making their nominations. I live for knowledge, not for its deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to get into a dick measuring contest, I have started over 400 articles, taken and uploaded over 400 images, have 11 FAs and 40 GAs. And congratulations on getting involved in the BLP cleanup months after I did. Now that that's out of the way, I would like to point out that improving articles and dealing with a DRV over a divisive and redundant template are not mutually incompatible. But I'll forgive you for failing to notice that given how hard it must be to see so far up on your high horse. Resolute 03:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolute, I never said you weren't an excellent Wikipedian outside your hasty comment about my last 50 edits.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse- Quite frankly I'm mystified as to how deleting this template "improved" the encyclopedia, and the vehemence of those opposed to its existence bemuses me. The claims that it was used as a means of canvassing seems rather weak considering that the AFD page itself serves as a de-facto canvassing tool for those leaning towards the delete side (at least in my eye, your mileage obviously may vary). That said, the consensus, however weakly, leaned towards the delete side, so I cannot, in good conscience, state that I think it should be overturned. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Ironholds correctly assessed the arguments in the deletion discussion, and the assumption of bad faith from the initiator of this DRV is striking. There was absolutely no discussion of the close with the closing admin before this showed up at DRV, which is a fairly strong argument for a speedy endorse of the close. Horologium (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ho lawdy. Excellent close. Whether it should have been deleted is not the discussion we should be having here; the way forward is being constructively debated elsewhere. pablo 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This nomination is so pathetic I do not believe a rationale is necessary for endorsing. Let's just say I expected this DRV, but I am pleasantly surprised it took almost a week. Yoenit (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good reason to bring a DRV. The close was well within administrative discretion. Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and close per WP:SNOW per Spartaz and Horologium. This seems to be nothing more than a bad faith nomination. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If Wikipedia is ever going to make progress on stuff like this, we have to accept non-no-consensus results other than 80%+ majorities. There are other means by which ARS can continue to function. Editors can watch the various topical WP:DELSORT lists for instance, or even WP:DELREV. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That was a needful result and issue was well discussed. Nothing wrong with the close-as-delete-rationale; length was helpful. Alarbus (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Ironholds's rationale is a reasonable conclusion/summary of the debate, and no substantial evidence of any glaring irregularities has been presented in this DRV. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 11:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Spartaz. Not liking a decision is no reason to bring it to DRV, especially when a clear consensus was reached in the exhaustive TfD discussion (I don't know what further discussion is possible), and when the closing admin made such a lengthy and rigorous explanation of his decision. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer was too involved, being a partisan in this ideological conflict. The timing of the close is telling. The discussion started at 04:14 UTC and the close was started at 04:48 UTC, eight days later. Allowing for the SOPA outage, that's about as early as possible, while maintaining a superficial propriety. 04:48 is remarkably early in the morning, being the civil time for the closer. The closer's account had not been used for 5 days and so this was not a routine patrol but seems, instead, to have been a carefully-timed intervention to arrange a particular result, contrary to WP:GAME. Warden (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I was up at 5am, and the reason I hadn't edited for five days, was because my day job both occupies a lot of time and demands I work on PST. The reason I took this AfD was because it was complex and interesting - and if you look through my previous AfD closes, you'll see that complex and interesting discussions are the type I like to close, regardless of the subject-matter. "Allowing for the SOPA outage, that's about as early as possible, while maintaining a superficial propriety" - you know, I don't think I've ever heard "he allowed everyone to speak their bit and then closed it promptly" used as an argument for impropriety before. I closed it because I like complex discussions. I closed it early in the morning because if I'd waited, other people would've got there first...and I like complex discussions. Questions? :). Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We have to go back months to find another close made by Ironholds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical trials with surprising outcomes. That close does not seem to have any of the attributes claimed for this case and the long interval between these closes is also telling. My position stands: that this is a breach of nemo iudex in causa sua: "It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest." Warden (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more thinking of stuff like this, or the Wikipetan AfDs, or the Israel/Palestine AfDs, and so on. Your position is disingenuous; nemo iudex is a warning against having the appearance of bias in justice. You are not worried about the appearance of bias - you are directly accusing me of getting involved here to push a point of view, and of specifically taking this AfD in order to do so. At least have the balls to say so directly. Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironholds is well-known to have utterly broken sleep patterns. Him closing a deletion debate at 04:14 UTC is... not at all out of the ordinary. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting that my specific problem with this line of argument is not the assumption of bad faith, or even the disingenuous cowardice that accompanies it; it's that if I'm biased for having an opinion on deletion, every. single. administrator. who has ever deleted or kept anything can be dismissed from handling this AfD for the same reason. In effect, the only person trying to game the system here is you. In the AfD, I dismissed the accusations of canvassing. When the DRV was brought, I engaged with the Article Rescue Squadron to ensure that everyone was okay in me telling AfD participants that it was going on; notifications I passed around in the interests of fairness and transparency, notifications I passed around despite the fact that consensus here was overwhelmingly moving to "endorse" and deliberately bringing more people into the discussion would potentially undermine my position. These are not the actions of someone attempting to ensure a slam-dunk, nor the actions of someone displaying bias. Indeed, the only reason you're here to make your rather craven allegations is because I notified you that this was going on. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and I have no problem with any allegation that can be substantiated. But to accuse me of bad faith simply on the basis of "he was up at funny hours and a bit busy the week beforehand" is ludicrous to the extreme. Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Warden - That is some very weak evidence to be throwing WP:GAME accusations around. "Ohh well he was awake at a wierd hour and he closed it at the exact right time". I think we need more uninvolved admins patroling this conversation.--v/r - TP 16:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how much Colonel Warden believes himself engaged in an ideological struggle, there is no basis for those accusations, whether in Latin or not. Beware the argumentum ad hominem (and the argumentum de stercore tauri). pablo 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous. Looking at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13, we can see that this was closed over two hours after every other debate at that page, so harping about the timing is disingenuous. Frankly everything Colonel Warden has written here reeks of bad faith. If he has evidence that Ironholds was involved he should present it. AniMate 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My objection was not simply based upon the timing of the close - the eagerness with which the closer jumped on this discussion, not having closed a deletion discussion for 3 months. The principal objection was that the closer was not impartial. One has to be remarkably blind to the arguments of one side to take a 53:34 split and represent it as a consensus. This makes a mockery of the word and so makes these proceedings a travesty. As for Ironholds' repeated accusations of cowardice; this just seems to be a crude insult - the sort of abuse which one would expect in such a kangaroo court. Warden (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closer gave a detailed rationale which showed that he had thoroughly reviewed the arguments on both sides. In the end, he went with the side that had more !votes and (in his opinion) had a stronger policy-based argument. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 12:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If any keep !votes in an xFD means the result must be "no consensus," and if "no consensus" means the content is always kept, the consequences are simply unworkable. It would abolish the entire deletion process — and while some here might consider that their utopian ideal, it isn't an option that, well, has a consensus behind it. That's the tyranny of the minority, and while you might like it when the result is what you want, it certainly isn't the way to motivate a large number of volunteers to stick around. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 12:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: I was already aware of this through stalking various pages when I got a direct canvas attempt to come and weigh in. After looking at this plus some of the meta discussions around the deletion (including the invective here and on ARS's page) I see a case of "IDONTLIKEIT" being the primary motivation. This was one of the longest *fD closure discussions I've read in a very long time. IMO ARS is always going to be tainted with the stigma of being a minimal keeping group instead of a collection of editors that actually uses the maintanance templates to improve the article. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • wtf? "The admin received a barnstar for the deletion." and? Bulwersator (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but with strong concern over the rationales given by the !voters A very large number of the !votes were based on assertions about the "ARS". The "barnstar" issue clearly reflects this. I do not regard assertions about those using a template to be "policy based" arguments, but more similar to the arguments given in the ooast at deletion discussions concerning the ARS itself. I am not, nor have I been, a member of that project. I am concerned, however, that the template deletion discussion was based far more on opinions about the ARS than about any actual Wikipedia policies concerning templates. Collect (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, consensus was absolutely clear; DRV is not TFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion:I did not participate in the discussion or in the vote and I believe Ironholds used his discretion to close the vote after going through the discussion, similar is the case with tough blocks and WP:RFA we have WP:AGF to Admins and crats as it is with users with it comes within the area of discretion.Ironholds is very long standing user and knows the project very well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure — I think that the term "!vote" is used so frequently that some people forget just what, exactly, it means: consensus-building debates on wikipedia are not votes, even though some of of the smallest and largest of them can appear to be. Furthermore, on an *fd that alleges a template being used for WP:CANVASSing, it becomes especially important that the closing admin not simply count responses but actually read them word for word. Ironholds's closure reflects that he did exactly that, and the sentiment appears to be echoed by the vast majority of Wikipedia: just because a person can rally a bunch of people to a common area does not mean they automatically get the outcome they want. Rather, it reflects the notion that what matters the most are the arguments presented in the discussion and how those arguments relate to or reflect our policies and guidelines. On a personal note, it's my opinion that unlike this DRV's nominator, I believe that anyone willing to write that extensive of a closure freakin' deserves a barnstar—pretty much regardless of the outcome. --slakr\ talk / 14:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I haven't seen anything here to sway me. In fact, DRV nomination rationale and some opposes seem particularly weak. The fact that another editor chose to give him a barnstar -- that most cherished of treasures -- after deletion could not, in my view, be more trivial. Reading intention into the time of morning Ironholds chooses to work, is another doozy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I !voted keep in that exhaustive discussion. While I would have closed that discussion as "no consensus", given the carefully reasoned closing statement, I cannot say that it is unreasonable for the closer to conclude that the 5:3 delete/keep ratio of policy-compliant !votes did reach rough consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closing statement was measured and coherent. Closer took into account all points of view. Close should stand. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted no consensus my ass, did you actually read the deletion discussion. There sure as hell was a consensus. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • EndorseI agree that there are no convincing arguments that there was anything wrong with the decision. The bad faith comments about barnstars and being awake at an apparently suspicious time are pathetic. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Whilst I respect User:Ironholds immensely as one of the few admins prepared to make difficult decisions, I believe he made the wrong call in this case. Similarly whilst I can understand the frustration of the OP, the opening comments have not helped. The argument for those wishing to delete this template, is that it was being used by editors to canvas keep votes in AfD. Well if editors are abusing a template in that manner, then sanction the editors but do not delete the template. To Paraphrase, Templates don't rescue articles, editors do. It is a useful function to have a mechanism for retaining relevant content that would be otherwise deleted and to have a team of editors prepared to do so. Deleting its template is emasculating the ARS. For those arguing that there was a lot of delete votes, consensus is not a vote, its about strength of argument and the bitterness I saw in that discussion was not good. It should have been closed as "No Consensus". Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse DRV is not XfD 2.0 no matter how much you want it to be. I can not find a reason why Ironholds' close did not follow procedure or that any other consensus can be read from the discussion. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The discussion was proper, the close was neutral. Good call. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Ironholds reasoning for reaching the decision seem clearly explained, and entirely consistent with the balance of arguments. Regarding 'consensus', I'd point out that the criteria can only be assessed in terms of 'consensus amongst those giving policy-based arguments' - and several of the keep arguments looked less-than-convincing when looked at in that light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was one of the delete !voters who mentioned canvassing. The closer discounted those arguments, but I think he should not have. He asked for evidence of a specific incident of canvassing, but that's not what I meant. I meant that (nearly) any use of this template would constitute canvassing a priori; this is a logical statement, not a factual one. I am well aware that we usually try not to delete things because someone is misusing them; I claim that this template is always misuse, so that rule doesn't apply. The point is, the closer did not consider this argument, and I think it bolsters the other reasons for deletion. However, I am reluctant to endorse, both because I disagree with the closer about the canvassing and because the outcome of this DRV is obvious at this point. --NYKevin @794, i.e. 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The decision was well reasoned and a neutral third party could reasonably reach the same conclusion. Therefore the close is good. I'll note that, had I been closing this thread, most of the statements here, the "the decision was right because I agreed with it" and "the template was evil" statements, really wouldn't carry much weight. Neither would either of the overturns though, for much the same reason. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is ridiculous. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This DRV nomination is based on incorrect criteria. "There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag." Per Ironholds extensive explanation, there was. "The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes." Per Ironholds explanation: no, he didn't. "The admin's looong comment said very little in many words." Pure personal opinion. "The admin received a barnstar for the deletion." Utterly irrelevent to the deletion. Thus, endorse from a procedural standpoint if nothing else. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse DRV is not TfD v2. Prodego talk 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and snowball - I participated in the AFD, I don't agree with all of Ironholds' conclusions (on the matter of canvassing, for instance) but his rationale was well explained and a valid interpretation of consensus. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what little it's worth after this horrendous pile-on, I think that was a poor close of a poor discussion. The discussion was full of totally crap reasoning that should have been disregarded. "It is just being used for canvassing purposes" is a user conduct issue and we don't use the XFD process to resolve user conduct issues. "Why does one wiki-project get to put its tag in article space?" is a reason to put the tag in the talk space instead, it isn't a reason to delete it. The fact is that the reason this template got deleted is because users don't like the ARS. Welcome to the ugly side of wikipolitics. Let's not pretend it was a well-reasoned close of a well-reasoned discussion. And yes, let's close it early. This whole episode has been a disgrace to the encyclopaedia and it needs burying and walking away from.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can assume bad faith of the "winning" side in any contentious dispute with that tacky "welcome to wikipolitics" routine. It's a common complaint when someone's "side" didn't get its way. Sometimes it's justified; mostly it's not. But here it's about as convincing as Donald Trump's toupee (and just as tacky). You try to spin it as all the critics and opponents coming out in force to gang up on the poor defenseless ARS, but since there was so much participation from so many people not associated with either side of that dispute your claim is pretty hollow. You also say this disussion was about using XfD as a dispute resolution tool; that it would be better to examine the conduct of the editors misusing the template than to delete it. That would be fine, but you've overlooked an important part of the consensus at the TfD, namely that the template had no other legitimate purpose. Reyk YO! 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reyk, the ARS is not "my side" and in fact I've never been a member. I doubt if most of them would see me as someone sympathetic to their aims. I don't have a conflict of interest here, I'm an outsider calling it like I see it.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, but plenty of other uninvolved outsiders have reached the opposite conclusion to you so this is clearly not a politically motivated witch hunt as you are claiming. Reyk YO! 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that lots of people disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. It does probably mean this debate will be closed as "endorse deletion", because Wikipedia's essentially democratic in its approach to value judgments. What it does not mean is that I'm wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean this wasn't a politically motivated witch hunt.—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like some ideals of the ARS, but what I do not like is the tag bringing a bunch of members voting keep with no evidence of notability. Why sanction members when it's so simple to keep this deleted and walk away? Wikipolitics shouldn't be hard and annoying when a simple deletion can get the same result. Wikipedia can thrive without that template. ARS is a completely different Wikiproject than others because it is obviously bias. If ARS can stay, I want an ADS (Article Deletion Squadron) to balance it out. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the thorough, clear, well explained closing statement in the original debate. Begoon talk 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile-on endorse This discussion is not about the template but the TFD. The consensus was clear and Ironholds stepped into what he knew was going to be a controversial decision no matter which way it went and did a damn fine job of evaluating and summarizing the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn to no consensus. What seems obvious to me is that on both the underlying issue with the ARS, and the template, there is no consensus. I wish there were consensus, both to endorse the project, and also to endorse the template, but I'm not going to pretend there is for either. But there is no consensus the other way, either, at least if consensus refers to consensus of policy based opinions, not the sort of unthinking voting the template is incorrectly said to encourage, but is often prevalent on both sides, before the templates was invented, while it has been here, still persists now it is not here, and will undoubtedly continue. Too many of the arguments to delete were not policy based. Many of the votes for delete were for those who want to increase the already existing bias towards deletion by making it harder to attract people to rescue articles, and all such votes were in blatant contradiction to deletion policy that deletion is the last resort. Most of the other votes for delete were on the basis that there had been a few scattered cases of misuse for canvassing resulting in the keep of articles that should not have been kept, and to consider that more significant than the otherwise improper deletion of many articles is a misjudgment, based on balancing the facts without regard to the importance of preserving fixable articles that is required by policy. Personally, I'd have worked on devising a somewhat different notice not subject to the same objections rather than continue the debate here, because it does not seem likely that the existing prejudices will be erased based on anything said here. I want to distance myself from the view that the closer showed obviously bias: he was just in error: rather than try to disentangle policy from prejudice, he offered his own view of the situation. He did an analysis which would have been an appropriate !vote, but it was not a close based on the policy based arguments in the discussion. when the discussion leads to cno clear consensus on policy grounds, the closer does not get to decide which of the policy based arguments are correct--if there is no consensus about that in the discussion, the close must be non-consensus. Rather he closed on his own analysis that the lack of essential functionality was outweighed by the amount of dissension. I consider that a respectable though incorrect view, even if it did amount to some extent to IAR, but it was not the consensus, though he did point to one good supporting opinion. However, I certainly distance myself from the view that it is necessarily wrong to close only 2 hours after the deadline, or that 600 GMT is an unreasonable time for people in the US to work on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm based in the US? News to me...Ironholds (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be opposed to the Wikipedia:Integrity Rescue Squad who uses the {{toilet}} tag to ensure Wikipedia's integrity is ensured by deleting terrible articles? Would such {{toilet}} tag be canvassing? WP:CANVASS concerns are legitimate policy based concerns and consensus was largely supporting that.--v/r - TP 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    " Most of the other votes for delete were on the basis that there had been a few scattered cases of misuse for canvassing resulting in the keep of articles that should not have been kept" -- No. I think Ironholds misinterpreted my !vote. What I meant was that any use of the template is canvassing by definition. That's an entirely different argument from what you're presenting, and IMHO it's certainly a valid reason for deletion. --NYKevin @873, i.e. 19:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus)Overturn (delete/don't use for now, continue at RfC) The close was the best outcome, with no other viable options. Where a close needs that much detail, it is too much analysis, and thus a supervote. Also, the TfD aounted to a policy discussion, which should not be executed via deletion. Agreed that there was consensus that there was a problem with the template or its use. Consistent with "and if anyone can point to some (neutral) functionality that should be integrated into other AfD templates, I'm happy to undelete for the purpose of retrieving that", I think this needs to go to an RFC, with the template not to be used in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want to overturn because the amount of detail in my closing made it a supervote - because, who the hell takes some time to close a 90-person debate? - even though you have read all the detail in my "supervote" and agree that the decision made was the right onw, and you think that this should go to RfC....because I said I was willing to undelete if there was some template syntax in it that people wanted to use elsewhere. Not to be blunt, but what?!. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting a detailed close is a good thing. Reading it shows that the closer was aware that the issue would be controversial (many discussions involving the ARS are controversial), and the closer took the trouble to explain their policy-based deliberations. Please quote the text in the close that you consider amounted to a supervote, or strike that suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Apologies for a poorly explained (or defined) position. The “supervote” thing is a stretch of the normal meaning. It is not that Ironholds introduced new arguments, but that his rationale, his analysis of the discussion, I find non-obvious. On review, I retract the “supervote” thing. It was a good close of rough consensus. And I thank Ironholds for the explanation. Much is well done, but this is complicated, and there angles to it that don’t seem quite right.
On one hand, Ironholds is right, his rationale seems sound (though complex, to me), he has my confidence in distilling a rough consensus, and there is a clear case that the use of the template was disputed.
On the other, what I don’t like, is that this XfD amounts to prescriptive policy decision, and policy decisions are not decided by rough consensus. Where Ironholds writes “when you have something that provides no additional functionality but strife, the easiest way to resolve this strife (and not, in the end, reduce functionality) is to delete it. That is precisely what consensus says I should do”, I must disagree. The resolution of strife-causing behaviour should not be achieved through deletion, the application of an administrator technical privilege.
The question remaining is whether the rough consensus should stand as a precedent-forming prescriptive policy decision. Are new versions of the template going to be unilaterally deleted under G4? I think it is this that push me to type “overturn”. I hope the TfD will not lead to admins using a G4 stick to beat future ARS initiatives, and assert here that no WP:INVOLVED admin should consider doing so. (Here, WP:INVOLVED admins would include all who participated in the debate, but would not include Ironholds).
I think this should go to RFC, because this was fundamentally a behavioural issue that will probably recur by some other means. There are many ways to organise information on AfD nominations on articles that could be rescued by improvement. This method of resolution of the problem may just force ARS members to become creative, or to use off-site methods. I would like to see and RfC serve to help the ARS members productively, and openly, move forward. In the interest of facilitating forward discussion. I’d like to see the deleted template archived for reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, I have some sympathy with at least part of your concerns, in that this deletion raises wider issues. However, I think that your conclusions are misplaced. In particular, you are completely mistaken in your assertion that "resolution of strife-causing behaviour should not be achieved through deletion, the application of an administrator technical privilege", because the deletion of this template is not a use of technical privilege; it is a technical implementation of a community consensus. Your view would redefine any deletion, no matter how widely supported, as the actions of one admin, and your failure to distinguish between admin discretion deletions (WP:CSD) and consensus deletions (XfD) invalidates your argument to overturn.
However, I do think that you have a point about the need to build a wider consensus around ARS. There seems to be a clear consensus that ARS's work is controversial, both amongst ARS members (some of whom who post regularly at WT:ARS and elsewhere about their desire to combat what they see as rampant deletionism) and amongst critics of ARS (some of who repeatedly denounce ARS as being either a canvassing exercise per se or a vehicle for canvassing, and others who may be ideological deletionists opposed to any idea of rescue). If ARS wants to continue some sort of work in the future, or its critics want to avoid a repetition of the problems they have perceived, then there is a clear need for a wider community discussion about whether and how ARS's work should continue, and whether that work should happen under through ARS or some different mechanism. I hope that all parties to this heated conflict will agree that the community badly needs some solution which can remove (or at least dissipate) the drama on all sides, and an RFC seems like the way forward.
Such an RFC could have many outcomes, and one possible outcome could be a consensus for the recreation of this template or something analogous to it. In that case, a G4 deletion would be out-of-order, and any fresh TFD would have to bear in mind the RFC consensus.
The effect of your suggestion is to say that we should not implement a consensus because consensus may change, which is a recipe for decision-making paralysis. The article rescue process has been a bloody battleground for far too long, and subverting s consensus decision will only inflame tensions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this admited much of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturnto no consensus . There was clearly no consensus to delete. The closing administrator mentions the past nominations, which are not relevant in any way. A lot of things get nominated multiple times. The other ANI discussion should've been kept open [5], instead of moving it to a deletion discussion. The closing administrator also mentions the "militiarism" thing. Because something has the word "squadron" in its name, doesn't make it militarist. There is no actual proof of any wrong doing by the ARS. No one shows up to vote "Keep" on every article tagged. You never get more than a handful of people showing up at all because of the tag. Dream Focus 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything past "no consensus to delete" is, by your standard, not relevant in any way :P. I mentioned past nominations because I was providing context. I mentioned the militarism thing because the editors who commented mentioned militarism. You seem to be slightly misunderstanding the purpose of DRV; it is not to hash over old arguments again. If you want to post a big long schpiel explaining why everyone who disagreed with you is wrong, that's fine, but not here. You can use your userpage for that. You know, more. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even a few people from that tag can move a nomination in a disruptive way. SL93 (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • SL93, to you too, DRV is not for rehashing old arguments. Given that I specifically threw out the canvassing claim in my close, there's little point going on about it. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe that there is little point in going on about it when I'm not the only person who voiced that concern. It has been a bigger issue since before the nomination till now so it is not an old argument. You leaving that out that in your closure does not stop the claim from still being open. Anyway, if it is changed to no consensus, I would like to renominate it to settle this. It might not be deleted the second time, but it should have a result. SL93 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, it doesn't mean the claim isn't open, but what it does mean is the claim shouldn't be discussed here. This is deletion review, not a bloody debating hall. The only ground for bringing up something I dismissed in the AfD is "we should overturn because he dismissed it", which you are, of course, welcome to do. I somehow doubt that overturning the decision is your rationale for being here, though. Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it's not a bloody debating hall, you are a hypocrite. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because I have spent large amounts of time discussing irrelevancies? :P. Look, this is Deletion Review. The purpose of this page is to discuss whether or not a decision in a deletion discussion was the correct one. If you are spending lots of time discussing things not because it pertains to the appropriateness of the decision, but simply because you want to continue debating a point, you are Doing It Wrong. You see all those "endorse" comments above telling the disgruntled keep voters "DRV is not AfD version 2"? Well, that comment applies to enthusiastic delete voters just as much. Ironholds (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • It all does relate to the appropriateness of the decision. My comments all go back to the fact that you didn't add anything about canvassing which was frequently brought up. So it all shows that it was not a correct decision. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and renominate: I consider the closing comments a big mistake because it left out important issues that were brought up. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right; "renominate, he came to the right decision for the wrong reason". You know, the trick in an argument is not to try and blind the opposition with 110% proof stupid. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, using the wrong reason to close a TfD debate is a procedural shortcoming and thus a very strong argument to overturn it at the DRV. If there's a strong consensus on something among the people of opposing views is that the major discussion subject is the presumed canvassing. SL93 and me are both in agreement that this is enough reason to revert the deletion. If that means nominating it again, at least it will mean that the canvassing allegations will be addressed in depth and actual supporting evidence will be requested to analyze how serious it was. Diego (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you're going on about, but my reasoning is that it was not a fair representation of all views. You know, this is my view and you're trying to debate it. Hypocrite. When did I say that it was the right decision? SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall sit over here in the corner, laughing uncontrollably. Have fun :). Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Laughing uncontrollably because you're a dumb incompetent admin? Go ahead. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know an admin doesn't have to list every possible reason right? And cool it with the attacks. Your statement is clearly ridiculous when this is possibly one of the best rationals ever written right? Delete rationals are rarely longer than 2 or 3 sentences. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironholds didn't list the main issue. It was brought to ANI because of canvassing which resulted in the nomination and then resulted in this DRV. Long rationales don't automatically equal one of the best rationales. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I called Ironholds a hypocrite because he said that DRV is not a bloody debating hall when he is constantly trying to debate. I feel I have the right to call him a dumb incompetent admin when he calls my overturn reasoning stupid and says that it is funny. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Must say, I think it's pretty funny, too! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) You shouldn't call anyone that. Furthermore, what does the fact that it was deleted, with another big reason for deletion not even being mentioned, say about the template in question? That it really needed to be deleted. And, therefore that DRVing it was inappropriate, and that the deletion should be endorsed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it funny? SL93 (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close on the merits. FFS on the rest. The comments here railing against IronHolds and his impure ideology, his sinister timing, and his clearly biased sense of the debate, well - quite frankly I'm embarassed I ever spoke up in favor of keeping the template. If this sort of shenanigans and anger is what comes out of the ARS, then we maybe should consider the place of the ARS on the project. And I know that's a flawed argument, and it's not at all what this debate (or the TFD) is about. But it's hard to say there isn't a problem when you see debates like this one. And this right here is why so many had a problem with the template - and the ARS. Many are just tired of the shenanigans, even if it's only a few editors. Hell, the TFD nom was just to discuss the problem, and ended up backfiring spectacularly. That should give any editor pause, and yet here we are. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I said I wouldn't poke my head in, but... I don't think the problem is with the ARS. My opinion, standing here? We've got people on both sides of the aisle who are clearly angry and convinced everyone else is All Out To Get Them. The fact that some of those people are in a club with a lot of other people who aren't angry and paranoid simply acts as fuel for the paranoia of the people on the other side of the ideological divide, and their actions then spur the paranoia of those angry people in the ARS. The ARS itself is not the problem; some of the people in it and some of the people who object to it are. And last time I checked, we didn't punish the whole for the actions of a few, any more than we would block everyone who has ever !voted "delete" on the grounds that some of those guys are fuelling the flames as well.
    What we have here is, to use a metaphor, a war. Two countries, both of which have angry people with guns, fighting each other. The solution to such a problem is not to just nuke one of the countries - the end result of that is that the other nation's angry people feel justified, a lot of civilians get caught in the crossfire and, most crucially, one big chunk of angry people still have guns. It's not a very clearly thought-out metaphor, but then, to be honest, this isn't a particularly clearly thought-out post. What I'm trying to say is that we clearly have a situation where people feel very impassioned about their beliefs. The solution is not to punish anyone who occasionally agrees with the impassioned people. We should be looking to heal this rift, and such an action would only make it deeper. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree with you, but it's easy to get frustrated when good points are lost under piles of rhetoric. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Gingsengbomb's comment which he removed: Surely, surely you can't be serious. This has got to be a joke. If it's not, this is at least something I've never seen before. Someone voting to overturn at a DRV even though they agreed with the outcome. That...is a first. - A relist with a proper closing rationale will help this drama. Sorry that I want something more lasting where a possible agreement can arise. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    SL93, your idea of "something more lasting" (correct me if I'm misrepresenting your views) seems to be a decision that says "the ARS is a big pool of canvassers who gang up to alter consensus". Ignoring my decision to ignore that - which I stand by - how could making such a decision ever foster agreement rather than further divide the community? Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be found that the template has negative effects, but if it is kept in another nomination, it is possible for a discussion, RFC, the ARS talk page, or whatever to reach a solid conclusion. I don't think that most of them are intentional canvassers, but it does get the result of canvassing. The members of the Article Rescue Squadron pretty much have the same views and that tag brings people with the same views together in nominations the way that it is set up now. There should be some way that the ARS can help with a tag or without a tag. I stated earlier that I was against individual members receiving sanctions. That won't work with unintentional canvassing so the ARS needs some sort of overhaul. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough, but DRV or TfD are not the places to enact community overhauls; as you say, that's what talkpage discussions or RfCs are for. Deletion venues are simply not designed as a place to reach binding consensus on anything but the existence of articles (or lack thereof). Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the only outcomes from a TFD are: The Template is Deleted OR The Template is not Deleted. There are no outcomes with broader ramifications possible. Wrong venue. I definitely agree with your overall point, don't get me wrong, and I share your interest in any kind of process that gets the ARS to a place more fully in line with its charter. I've actually been idly observing some of the ARS overhaul conversations that have popped up in light of the Rescue tag's deletion -- and I mention that to point out that the deletion, even without a rationale focused on canvassing problems, appears to be bringing a lot of attention to "fixing" the ARS' problems, whatever they may be...so I think you've gotten what you want out of this. Another TFD discussion will just throw gasoline on a fire that's basically burnt itself out. Anyway, sorry for the snideness earlier, I didn't like your "dumb incompetent" talk and I hate this DRV :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The close was well within administrator discretion, and was clearly explained. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with a caveat. This was a carefully-reasoned closure, which took care to address the issues raised and examine them against the relevant deletion guidelines and policy. Closing a contentious XfD requires careful assessment of the issues raised, and the closing admin was right to set out the reasoning by which zie have weighed the debate. That helps everyone involved to understand how thorough that assessment has been. The DRV nomination's complaint about length is not just misguided; it inverts good practice.
    So the nominator's complaint about the closer getting a barnstar is so utterly irrelevant that it discredits the good faith of the nomination. The nominator's failure to even try to discuss the closure with the admin before coming to DRV is a clear breach of DRV procedure, and would alone be sufficient to dismiss the DRV as frivolous.
    The substantive weighing of the discussion seems to me to be right in identifying the duplicated functionality issue as a well-founded rationale for deletion, and in that respect the closure is sound. However, I believe that the grounds for dismissing the canvassing complaint are shaky. The closer's requirement for solid evidence of abuse of the template for canvassing seems to me to be raising the bar extraordinarily high, because this would need the evidence of not just one canvassing episode, but many. The resulting forest of diffs would overwhelm an XfD discussion, and I don't believe that it would be workable in the current format of XfD. At a first reading I sympathised with the closer's concern that assertion should not be treated as evidence, but since an AFD does not sanction an individual it seems to me to be wrong to subject a template to the same evidential test as we would apply before sanctioning a user. In a situation like this it seems to me to be sufficient to conclude that a template is an potent tool for canvassing, and that such a capability has caused the community to regard it as disruptive to consensus formation. In this case there was clear evidence from the discussion that a large proportion of the community regards the template as being a canvassing tool; that is clearly disruptive to our core policy of WP:CONSENSUS, so the nominator was wrong to dismiss that case. This template did not provide content or navigational aid to the reader; its purpose related solely to editors, and the closer should have examined more closely the widely-supported policy-based concerns about the impact on editors. Consensus decision-making is so important to Wikipedia that a loss of faith in it is corrosive to the project as a whole, so I suggest that in future the evidential test for editor-notification templates should focus on whether the community is satisfied that they assist rather than impede consensus formation. The question of whether any set of individual charges of canvassing were proven was a red herring at TfD, so the closer was wrong to dismiss canvassing concerns.
    Since my caveat would not affect the decision of the closer, I endorse the outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, or at least come up with a decent substitute There are indeed non-canvassing uses of the template, as was its intended usage back in 2007 (at least, I thought this was how it was supposed to be used). There's lots of unsourced or badly written stubs that, if they were improved, would uncontroversially meet notability and other guidelines for inclusion. If they are improved, even the deletionists will generally vote keep; if not improved the article will get 3 or 4 "per nom" delete votes and be forgotten. This use of the rescue template used to be uncontroversial, and still should be, unless people are going to say "no fair directing people to fix that article before I could delete it". (It's true that the rescue template often gets placed on the typical inclusionist/deletionist battlegrounds in which the existence of the article will be controversial regardless of its content; I happen to think this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. More relevant to the DRV, people who say the template is never used for purposes other than votestacking are simply mistaken). On the duplicated functionality issue: Merely being listed on AFD isn't always enough to make this happen; not everyone who runs across an improvable article has the time or ability to fix it themselves. The wiki project notifications are definitely no substitute for the rescue tag, I personally have no idea how to use them. So on top of there being significant opposition to deletion (thus "no consensus") the deletion arguments are, if not totally fallacious, not so overwhelmingly persuasive that the keeps should be ignored. 169.231.55.236 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — 169.231.55.236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Some of your commentary appear to belong in a re-run of the substantive arguments, whereas the issue here is whether the closing admin correctly weighed the debate. For example you say that the template "used to be uncontroversial, and still should be", but that's a POV which belongs in the XfD, not at DRV.
    I am curious about your focus on the canvassing arguments. Leave aside the fact that the closing admin actually discounted canvassing arguments, and consider your assertion that since the template has purposes other than votestacking, it should be kept. This would be a very extreme principle, open to a lot of abuse. (In extremis it would provide a reprieve for a template was disruptive in all of the 5,000 examples cited so far, but was used legitimately once in late 2007)
    It seems to me to reasonable for a discussion on any template to weigh the positive uses against the negative ones, and reach a conclusion on the balance. Why should it be wrong to for a discussion to conclude that the harm caused by negative uses of a particular template outweighs its good sides? You or I may agree or disagree with the answer to that question generated by any given TfD, but I find it bizarre to suggest (as you appear to do) that the community cannot reach a decision on that balance of legitimate functionality versus disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Mr. IP, of course, but when he says "I happen to think this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater," I think he is saying that legitimate functionality outweighs the claims of disruption. He also recognizes that there was no legitimate consensus in the discussion as any rational uninvolved observer would conclude.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different arguments. The first one is an attempt to restrain the scope of legitimate consensus by inventing a principle which bans editors from ever concluding that the bathwater is too contaminated to keep, even if the baby goes. No evidence has been offered that such a principle is in use, so it is quite legitimate for a discussion to form a consensus that a) emptying this bathwater would not throw out a baby, and b) the bathwater had to go.
The second point is based on the notion that "significant opposition to deletion" amounts to "no consensus". See WP:NOTAVOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree that someone finding significant opposition to deletion (61%/39%), assuming rational commentary all around, could conclude there is no consensus to take some proposed action? That happens every day around here. And as for the baby and the bathwater, I believe he's saying he thinks the outcome of deletion is the wrong result, that is -- that it goes too far. That's what the whole saying means; he's not saying others can't disagree. But -- "An attempt to restrain the scope of legitimate consensus by inventing a principle which bans editors from ever concluding that the bathwater is too contaminated to keep, even if the baby goes"?!?!? What?!?! Its just an expression meant to illustrate a point.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent, it's not complicated. On the numbers, simply read WP:NOTAVOTE.
As to the rest of it, the question of whether deletion goes too far is either a matter to be determined by consensus at TFD, or it isn't. If it is a decision which TfD is free to make, then the IP's raising of the issue here is just an attempt to re-run the TFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable closure that was well explained. DRV nomination is unconvincing. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The argument that a consensus had been reached in that discussion is not supported by the comments used in the close. I must commend the closer on taking the time and effort to provide a complete explanation, but still find it lacking. Of the Delete arguments made, several are clearly not supported by policy: 1) The namespace in which the template was used is not a supported cause for deletion; 2) The accusation of inappropriate canvassing which is not supported by evidence, and is therefor not a valid criteria for deletion; 3) - That the purpose of the template is actually duplicative to that of another template - i.e., one which notifies interested editors that there is a potentially notable topic whose article has been nominated for deletion regardless of subject matter. If the Delete comments supported by any of those arguments are appropriately discarded, I fail to see how this can be judged as a consensus to delete. The majority of Delete comments relied upon those three premises. Without supporting arguments that are rooted in policy, counting those comments as meaningful additions to the discussion stretches AGF to the breaking point, or at least it does as long as our policy remains that a clear concensus is required to make any change from the status quo. Changing the template instructions to allow its use in talk space was a perfectly viable alternative to deletion, as it is strictly useful to editors and not readers (just like the AfD tag itself). Jim Miller See me | Touch me 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misinformed. I provided six recent cases at the ANI thread that directly preceded the TfD. There were examples by other users also recent and more in the past of this behavior. The opposite was actually true. Evidence was not presented that this template was used how it was described.--v/r - TP 21:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors never go to ANI nor even think about it. This situation went from ANI to TfD (boneheadedly,I must say, by an ARS member) before I even knew about it. When your wikiproject is profiled in the media as effectively saving articles, you really don't imagine others thinking its untrue. It was claimed in the TfD that there was a coordinated campaign of Wikipedia Review types who descended on the TfD to ensure its deletion. Surely it was more attended to by far than the average AfD which can barely eke out 2 votes these days.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the AFD and I hadn't heard of the canvassing from WR. I understand your frustration about that particular ARS member though; if not for different reasons.--v/r - TP 23:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The admin who closed this clearly explained his reasoning, based on the arguments given in the deletion discussion, and the close was well within the scope of his responsibility. It was closed fairly. The argument for review doesn't justify an overturn based on DRV guidelines. First Light (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin explained his reasoning at length and clearly showed that even though he ignored some arguments for deletion the remaining ones were still valid and unrefuted. I'm especially puzzled by the "barnstar" argument presented by the nominator. Receiving a barnstar cannot be an indication of bad faith or of a bad result, and it is irrelevant to whether the deletion discussion was closed properly. Huon (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This template is fundamental to the WP:ARS and should not be deleted without an RFC on the ARS itself. IMHO the Rescue list will cause more issues because it isn't template based! I do generally endorse the closing admin's actions, including his hinting this DRV was worthwhile; I just think this was forum shopping and an otherwise successful attempt at killing off the ARS. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That kill-off-the-ARS argument is demonstrably false. It might make sense if the ARS had no other means of working, but as you know it has promptly adapted by creating the Rescue list, only 24 hours after the TfD closed. The idea of a list was proposed at TfD by a "keep" !voter, only 4 hours after the TFD started, so its creation was no surprise. If your crystal ball is correct in predicting that the list will cause more problems, then those issues can be addressed by a future process (probably RFC or MFD).
    Regardless of what decisions the ARS makes on how it works in future (or whether it has a future), it was quite legitimate for the community to decide that this particular mainspace template was not an appropriate tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How I see it is not that the ARS couldn't adapt or create other ways to do the same, but that deleting the primary mechanism that was in current use is disruptive. Diego (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Diego, this isn't the place to anyone's substantive arguments, and that claim of disruption to ARS was made at AFD. The community had to chose between the perceived disruption to ARS arising from deletion, and the perceived disruption to AFD caused by the rescue template's continue existence. On balance, the consensus of the discussion was that editors preferred to prioritise protecting AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark - the only part of your post that's really relevant to deletion review is I do generally endorse the closing admin's actions! pablo 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closing statements seemed accurate and non-controversial. Although, it's hard for me to imagine why someone who doesn't want to delete the template would have nominated it for deletion, nor do I understand why someone who did want it deleted would vote for the closure to be overturned. Anyway, the case for overturning this to no consensus is not persuasive. —SW— express 15:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    People can nevertheless !vote in a procedure against the desired outcome if they feel that will help the procedure to work in a smooth way. We establish procedures for a reason, and if those procedures are used in ways that differ widely to their original intention they are likely to cause trouble. The TfD was used to close a working tool that should have been modified, not deleted, per the main reasons stated in the discussion; and the issues about the ARS project should have been resolved through a separate RFC - since "being canvassing" was not a property of the template but blamed on the project. Diego (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC Ignoring for a moment that I've found the template to be a useful way to indicate that an article is probably notable but I can't find sources. I'm not at all happy with how that discussion went or how it was closed. There is no policy-based reason to delete the template. So the !votes to delete it should have been given very little weight. An RfC on how to use the template would have been much better. Putting it on the talk page, or bottom of the page or whatever would have been just fine and not an unreasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 January 2012

[edit]

25 January 2012

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

This image file was deleted in this 2 week discussion that I missed for failing to log in to notice prior to January 1 and January 24. I had no chance to respond to any concerns about the file. I cannot speak with the admin, User:Fastily, who deleted it as he/she is away from Wikipedia until sometime in February. This image file was created by myself from two photographs I personally took, front and back, of the headstone of Iwo Jima flag raiser, Rene Gagnon, at Arlington National Cemetery. I believe I had released its rights to CC. It was taken and then created in 2006. This image was determined, somehow, to be "3D Art," among other issues, which I could have addressed had I time and chance to respond. The Rene Gagnon article is now missing this illustrative photograph as a result of the deletion. Please undelete this image file. Thank you. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The maker of the headstone was the United States government, ergo, shouldn't it be in the public domain? Nor would it be covered under fair use? That type of rationale, as applied to the headstone in a national cemetery would effectively wipe out every photograph of it's nature, which I'm sure, there are quite many on Wikipedia. This would mean that photographs of the tombstone rows in Arlingtion National Cemetery should not be allowed. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some images at http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rgagnon.htm. I would be absolutely stunned if the front side of the headstone was eligible for copyright. Nothing original, just a cross, name, and dates. However, the back has an epitaph and a bronze relief of the flag-raising, so I suppose its possible it could be copyrighted. 169.231.102.6 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No procedural error is apparent; it is editors' own responsibility to be available during the time of a discussion. The deletion is also materially correct; the bronze relief on the headstone is a copyrighted creative work of which the photograph is an unlicensed derivative work. Even if the relief is a PD-USGOV work, which we do not know, it is itself a derivative work of the copyrighted photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.  Sandstein  23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein, your comment misleadingly implies that the FfD "discussion" hinged at least partially on this being a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. The single, brief nominator's statement which comprised the entire "discussion" did not raise that issue.

    RebelAt, even though it looks like this picture might not be up to Wikipedia's standards for free images, this could still be used in the article as a fair-use image. Would you mind writing a proposed fair-use rationale for this image, so it can be discussed by participants in this DRV? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to offer up a fair use rationale for the image: First, there are no apparent free equivalents or alternatives to the photographs of Rene Gagnon's headstone to be used in Gagnon's article. Second, there's no infringement to commercial purposes for images of Rene Gagnon's headstone at Arlington. Third, the image has an important encyclopedic use in illustrating how Gagnon is memorialized in death by for his role in the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. (A larger scale example would be Lincoln's tomb of which there are multiple photographs on Wikipedia). The photograph thus significantly adds to a reader's understanding and its current absence is detrimental. Fourth, this image has a home and a use. It will not exist merely to exist. Fifth, it's use will be minimal. Please let me know if I need to expand on this rationale, I'll be happy to.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't imply that the FfD discussion hinged on copyright status. I said that it was procedurally correct, and that it also happened to reach the correct result.  Sandstein  18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I'm not sure what I was thinking, as I misinterpreted your comment. I apologize.

RebelAt, I tend to be more on the lenient side when it comes to interpreting the NFCC, but in my opinion your proposed fair-use rationale is up to snuff. In particular, my opinion based on what I know so far is that the image would enhance reader understanding of how Gagnon is memorialized in death, thus complying with WP:NFCC#8. I vote to undelete and append a fair-use rationale like the one you've articulated in this discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Where is the photo? It's hard to make a decision without being able to look at it. But, assuming that the quality of the photo is okay, let's get it back up where it can be providing a useful service. Dadge (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot see the photo because it is deleted. It is a composite of the front and back of a gravestone. The back of the otherwise unremarkable stone holds a bronze relief based on a photograph. The quality or usefulness of the picture are irrelevant; what's at stake is its copyright status.  Sandstein  18:32, 27 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Georgia (U.S. state (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:RHaworth deleted this redirect with the summary "(R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)", but I think he's mistaken. I created the redirect after I committed that very typo, while trying to go to Georgia (U.S. state). It seems like an easy error to make, and there's no risk of confusion, so a redirect definitely seems in order. He's indicated on his talk page that he disagrees, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. Relevant policy includes Wikipedia:Redirects, where likely misspellings are an explicit reason for the creation of a redirect. Moreover, under "reasons not to delete", that page lists "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." I find this useful and think it should be recreated. Meelar (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my deletion. We do not need redirects for every conceivable typo. Authors are expected to use preview - they should spot a red link and correct it. We should not be helping them to leave ugly typos in articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The "some find them useful" principle has to have a line somewhere though, and I believe this is it. It is one thing to provide help for common mistakes, e.g. Michelle Bachmann, but extending this to typos of Wikipedia-specific naming styles is a bit absurd. What about the leading parenthesis, do we do Georgia U.S. state) ? A lot of people hit shift and do curly "{", how about those permutations? Tarc (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I suppose this could go either way at RFD but its not so clearly implausible to be speedied. 169.231.124.150 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. RHaworth's explanation above doesn't make much sense to me. This isn't about red links in articles. It's about what people type into search bars. Tarc's explanation makes a lot more sense. I'd just be far more generous about where to draw "the line". I think Meelar's point is valid: if someone finds a redirect to be useful, it probably is. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn it's certainly possible that this could be kept at RfD and I don't think it was sufficiently blatant for speedy deletion. I should also point out that R3 applies only to recently created redirects and this one had existed since 2005. Hut 8.5 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at RfD. I agree that it's an implausible redirect, but others apparently disagree; that discussion should be had at RfD and not at DRV.  Sandstein  23:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion and do not automatically list at RfD. Redirects are cheap. It's ridiculous and a waste of time to delete redirects like this under CSD#R3 when they are (a) essentially harmless and (b) not wildly implausible. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If nothing else, there's no way that 2005 can be considered "recent", so that by itself invalidates the R3 speedy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. If your Wikipedia literacy is high enough to commit this particular typo, you are a regular editor anyway. (I don't expect a non-editor to spontaneously use "Georgia (U.S. state)" as their exact search term; this combination of brackets and capitalisation is very niche to Wikipedia.) So, whether this redirect exists doesn't actually matter. Deryck C. 10:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to RfD' Using CSD in a case like this is to some extent a matter of judgment--but if one of my speedies like this were challenged in good faith, I cannot imagine why I would insist on it, instead of just reverting and sending to XfD. It's much easier than forcing someone to come here and waste time debating over whether we should debate something. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn In my experience, missing parentheses is not uncommon as a typo. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Are you going to have similar redirects for every page with parentheses in its name??

And what about people who type in Georgia (U.S.), Georgia (U.S.A.), Georgia (America), Georgia (US state), Georgia (state) or Georgia U.S. State? They have a more reasonable right to expect a redirect than someone who's made a punctuation error. What would be more useful would be some consistency on what appears when people make such "errors", partly to prevent them starting new Wikipedia pages.

Isn't it quicker anyway (than typing in Georgia (U.S. State) to enter "Georgia" and then click on the correct option from the list provided? Dadge (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Edelsohn-Rebecca 1910 census.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Properly licensed and no valid reason for deletion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks; that notice says "I will be unavailable until 8 February 2012" and "Admins, in my absence, you do not need to ask for my permission or input to reverse one of my administrative actions." On that basis, I am reversing the mistaken deletion unilaterally, in my capacity as administrator.  Sandstein  23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 January 2012

[edit]

22 January 2012

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

This is a slightly unconventional DRV, as I wasn't involved in the initial AFD; but I noticed it discussed on ANI and saw that this early close caused a certain amount of disagreement, so I'm bringing it here for further comment. This discussion was closed after less than two hours on the grounds that the article has previously been kept several times, and that this was a bad-faith nomination by a possible sockpuppet account. That allegation has been rejected by ArbCom, see here: this was a nomination in good faith. As for the first ground, while this article has been kept at AFD several times before, the last two AFDs, in 2009 and 2010, were both closed as 'speedy keep' after three and a half hours and eight hours respectively. The last AFD for the article which was actually allowed to run for the full period was back in 2008, three and a half years ago, and it's entirely possible consensus could have changed since then. In fact, this time round, one user besides the nominator did make a good-faith comment that the article should be deleted before the AFD was closed. That alone means that Wikipedia:Speedy keep should not have been used: none of the criteria listed on that page applied.

To be quite clear, I'm not asking for the result of this AFD to be overturned to 'delete'; I only think that there are good-faith reasons to doubt whether this person meets our notability guidelines, and that the AFD should be reopened and allowed to run for the full period so those arguments can be properly considered. Robofish (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I was able to satisfy your pescatarian suspicions. I think I have User_Talk:Fortheloveofbacon but I am happy to discuss it further.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a dozen speedy keep's with WP:NPASR every day at AfD for ill-prepared nominations would soon improve the quality of nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree, but I'd like to see such a practice written up at WP:SK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has WP:ITSNOTABLE been a reason for a super vote and a speedy close?  It is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. First of all, that's an essay (even though it's a very useful one). Second, please read it: "Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability." Well, two AfDs have provided community consensus. It's nice if one can throw acronyms around, but it's more helpful to know what's actually there. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NotabilityDiviner from WP:ITSNOTABLE states, "Keep It is clearly notable."  Evidence presented by Beyond My Ken is that "notability of subject is well-established", but like NotabilityDiviner, the statement about notability is a proof by assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous poster's (PP) last comment to me at ANI dwelt on excrement, and now the PP chooses to tell me I don't know what's in an essay I've referenced.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clause 2 begins, "2 The nomination was unquestionably...disruption...", and clause 2c continues, "c making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion"  SK#2c does not apply unless someone wants to claim that an AfD 3.5 years ago is "recent".  And not only is it recent, it is so recent as to be "unquestionably disruptive".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that a 5th AfD was disruptive, yes, since the first two were in-depth and thorough (by now I'm repeating this past nauseam). Number three and four were clearly disruptive, and I had (and still have) no reason to think better of number five. Out of the blue comes this account and finds its way to AfD, getting every detail right, and going straight for an admin with an article--one which, as I noted, has been the subject of disruption before. CoM or not isn't really interesting to me: I have a habit of running into his socks but when I closed this the topic hadn't even come up, and I wasn't thinking of it in the first place. But given Bacon's known history it was odd enough. Here's something funny: I don't think someone who's seventeenth edit, the second after a 20-month absence, is an AfD nomination. Explain to me how that is not fishy. And look at what we're doing here: an ANI thread that's still open, an SPI, and now a Deletion review, and poor Bugs wondering if he can even talk to the guy. Yeah, I don't have a lot of good faith here, and if the mission of Bacon is what I think it is, they've succeeded pretty well. Robofish and SmartSE, if it ever comes down to something I'd want you on my side, but in this case I think your good faith is misplaced. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting malfeasance because I behaved too properly in submitting it, while condeming previous AfD attempts because the submitter behaved improperly? You have confounded me, sir. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. I never said you did anything properly. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of the blue comes this account and finds its way to AfD, getting every detail right..." Did you mean to say I did everything right without doing anything properly? Also, please note that this user is the one who made the speedy keep. Contrary to what you say above, you expressed a predisposition towards accusing me of foul play from the get-go. Read comment here: "Hmm, maybe that account is compromised--it's odd. Maybe someone else can have a look; I've never dealt with such a thing before. Oh, Rubin, you're kept. I expect some currency in my secret Swiss account soon, since you math people are notoriously rolling in money. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) I do not know why you insist on this witch hunt, when the admins have said it was a case of mistaken identity. For the sake of professionalism, I have to ask that you please speak to the facts in this case. If you disagree with arbcom's finding or are unsatisfied, this is not the place to beat that dead horse. Talk to them, or even come over to my talk page, if you prefer. But by doing this here you are tainting the proceedings in a way that I have gone to great lengths to avoid, since it has been a perpetual problem from other users with whom I have no desire to be associated.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The following narrative sums up the situation leading to my actions: I read a comment by the User, and decided to read his user page. When I got to the bottom of it, I found a link to Arthur_Rubin. At first I thought, perhaps, it was tongue-in-cheek and there was another individual with the same name. Then I read the article and found it uncannily similar to a userpage in content. Then I got to the bottom and saw a link to his meetup profile. "This is irregular" I thought. Still not completely sure that User:Arthur_Rubin and Arthur_Rubin were the same, I fired up the edit history and talk pages. Turns out User:Arthur_Rubin likes to weigh in on Arthur_Rubin from time to time. fact, he is the 5th most frequent editor, there. That sealed it for me, so I put my fancy booklearnin' to use, and started reading about the finer points of wiki procedure. You seem to be implying that I appeared out of the depths of the internet only to land on this article. Nothing could be further from the truth. I read here all the time, and you should not misconstrue my lack of participation with a lack of familiarity re: the wiki. Arbcom cleared up that sock issue about 15 minutes after I spoke with them.

    Now, the last time that this was actually put up for review was in 2008, where the reviewers noted that WP:N was actually relatively new and still under development. They did seem to settle, however, on the fact that his Putnam win possibly satisfied the test. I do not think this is WP:PROF because he is no longer in academia, which means that it is WP:BLP1E. I quote "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This would suggest that the article is unnecessary, but that it would be appropriate to have a "Putnam Winners" article, in which it could be noted that User:Arthur_Rubin was a winner.

    I am voting "Relist" to try to show good faith, so please see that this truly is. If you're bent on seeing something bad, you'll find it... I'm a sock, I'm editing in bad faith, something is fishy, etc... Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think 7 out of 301 edits is significant, even if I were the 5th most frequent editor. (The toolserver isn't working for me, so I can't verify the numbers.) I should not comment on the merits of the deletion or whether procedure has adequately been followed, but it should be pointed out that my edits of the article consist of (1) Adding my birth year, to confirm that it's authorized in the article; (2) Wikilinking my thesis title (as, even among mathematicians, it's not obvious which words should be linked); (3) one minor edit to use {{DEFAULTSORT}}; (4) correcting the spelling of a category; (5-7) reverting clear vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 04:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Adding your year of birth is inappropriate as it is not sourced. Nor is it found anywhere on the internet from which it could now be referenced. By "weigh in" I did not intend to refer simply to your edits, as I don't think your reversions of vandalism would be deemed inappropriate by anyone. This is not intended to be a condemnation of these actions, it is merely that observing your actions re: this article convinced me that the User:Arthur_Rubin and the article Arthur Rubin pertain to the same individual. Rather, I was looking at the totality of your participation across the talk page, the review discussions, your opening of an ANI requesting a speedy keep and circuitously accusing me of sock-puppetry, and now here. Please know that I did attempt to locate information to expand this article or improve it. However, it appears that the majority of information available is found here on Wikipedia alone. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - regardless of the merits of the AfD having been closed early, the article makes a sufficent assertion of reliablity sourced to non-primary sources that I don't see the point of reopening just for the sake of "dem's the rules". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you on WP:BURO, however I think "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." is more apropos here. There has not been a true discussion since 2008. That stands by itself as reasonable grounds for addressing it. Additionally, recall that WP:N has actually developed quite a bit since that last decision was made (I was actually surprised how much when I looked through it just now).Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does the fact that something hasn't been discussed in 3 years require the community to engage in self-doubt and debate. 99.99% of articles haven't been discussed for deletion at all, much less within the last 3 years; should we now nominate them all and decide whether we'd be a better pedia without them? Process for process' sake is what will turn this project from an encyclopedia to a debating society. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's standards of notability have changed in the last three years. Experience at the academic AfD noticeboard shows that they have increased markedly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Your assumption that every commenter here who is !voting "Reopen" would also have !voted "Delete" if the AfD hadn't been closed is actually the logical fallacy. Most of the "Reopen" or "Relist" comments are procedural in nature and not based on an evaluation of the article one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The snowball clause is an essay giving some rough guidelines. It's not precise enough to present logical fallacies in a clear form; I don't think we can prove that this line of argument is either right or wrong. But if you want to talk about fallacies, you're quoting a one-way implication and pointing out that the hypothesis is false. That doesn't falsify the conclusion. Mentioning the snowball clause is shorthand for "the probability of this page being deleted is extremely close to zero, so it's best not to waste time rehashing the same old arguments again". The fact that a few people would support reopening the debate (but wouldn't necessarily advocate deletion) doesn't significantly increase the odds of the page being deleted, in my opinion. Jowa fan (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll actually defer to your expertise on the precision of that statement. I only meant to say that I think "unanimous" is optimistic. But I re-read my comment and thought it sounded a little terse, so if you took it that way, I apologize. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Even though I disagree with your opinion, I accept that you're acting in good faith here. Best wishes, Jowa fan (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - We all know what's going on here, enough with this "tut tut, AGF" tap-dancing. We have an AfD filed by a "new" user avoiding the scrutiny that'd come with their previous, real account. The same as the last AfD and the one before that. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination may have been in bad faith, but looking over the sources I think he only has borderline notability. I'm tied over whether to reopen a troll's request or to endorse a decision which would discourage future nominations of the article. meh... Endorse without prejudice ThemFromSpace 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- troll nomination plus empty "only voting delete so you can't speedy keep it" equals good use of WP:IAR. Reyk YO! 19:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we endorse the close purely on the basis of suspicions about the nominating account, then there will be no reason why Robofish couldn't open a fresh AfD immediately. Therefore we do also need to think about whether we endorse the speedy keep on the basis that the whole thing was already thoroughly discussed in 2008. I express no opinion on the former point because I find conduct questions extremely tedious and I don't really care, but on the latter point, I'm very reluctant to enforce a three-year-old decision without a new consensus, so I would say that procedurally, in the event of a fresh nomination from an unimpeachably good faith user, the discussion should probably go on for the full seven days. But I also think such a discussion would be pointless, since it seems highly unlikely to end with a "delete" outcome.—S Marshall T/C 19:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should allow a user in good standing to Reopen the article. While the last nomination was a bit odd (for reasons stated above), I see no reason why a member of the community with good faith doubts about Authur Rubin's notability should be barred from re-nominating it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I have been proven incontrovertibly to be completely unafiliated with (and heretofore unaware of) this other user, aren't I considered to be in good standing? I raise this for two reasons: 1. for the purpose of this discussion but 2. because more than that, I am concerned about ongoing prejudice over my account and choice of username. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if you felt insulted by my comment. I had seen that editors had raised suspicions about you and considered you to be of questionable standing for that reason. I haven't looked into their accusations in depth though, and am unfamiliar with the history of the person they suspected you to be. To answer your question though, yes, I shall consider you an editor in good standing from now on. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen The disruption came not from the Afd, but from the subject of the article posting on ANI and a lack of good faith regarding the nominator. If the article is notable, it can withstand a 7 day Afd. Nobody Ent 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I wrote that, the AfD was broken; for some reason, it was pointing to the first AfD rather than to the new nomination. I didn't say that the nomination wasn't in good faith, although I suspected that the the editor was one of the other nominators. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This debate is developing some rather nasty features. Some editors have claimed the nomination of the AfD (incidentally a subject that I have never had anything to do with before) was made in bad faith and was disruptive and that the nominator is a troll. From the nominator's history and behavior here I can see no evidence of this and none has been produced. Intemperate and uncivil language of this sort is unexpected at a venue frequented by the brightest and best of Wikipedia's editors. I note that one other editor has also had misgivings about this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse The speedy keep was justified in the circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that leads you to this view? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reopen. I have no opinion about either the article or the editor; this board is only for the discussion of procedural matters. The "speedy keep" does not invoke or appear to meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. The closure was therefore premature, especially as it appears that all other discussions since 2008 were also speedily closed and consensus may have changed since then.  Sandstein  23:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein hits the nail on the head. I wish I had expressed the matter as clearly myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
East Turkistan Government in Exile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who closed the AfD, I have no opinion about the notability of the new version of the article, but I have concerns that the new version that is now being proposed is an exercise in advocacy rather than a neutral description of this movement. For instance, it contains this unsourced map which is apparently meant to represent the real boundaries of real countries. Given that there seems to be no editor at the moment who is interested in or capable of developing this article in WP:NPOV form, it might be better to keep it redirected to the leader of this movement.  Sandstein  19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realized the issue of the map. Since this page is about a government organization, I decided to delete the map and link the words East Turkistan to the Wiki page, where several sourced maps can be found. And yes, it would be great if there were other editors knowledgeable in the matter of ETGIE to "neutralize" the article, however the majority of people who are informed of or associated with ETGIE are predominantly Turks and Uyghurs who do not speak the English language. ETGIE directs almost all of its activity towards the Turkic community. Tewpiq (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the draft article clearly shows notability, so the result of the AfD has been superseded. Producing this sort of result is an ideal conclusion to AfD, and I think the new version could have been restored by any admin without needing to come here. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting DRV to get more discussion to develop a consensus.--v/r - TP 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse protected redirect. Preposterous, pretentious, promotional, activism, advocacy. There is no reasonable claim for this group to be called a "government", and I think the title is unacceptable. This is an external separatist group, and shoul dbe described as no more. If there is any real connection to the people or history of East Turkestan, some mention should first be established at East Turkestan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your argument here amounts to a content dispute over what the article should be, and this is not the place for it. Wikipedia does not make judgments about which governments or separatist movements are politically legitimate. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. However, the AfD demonstrates a concensus against a stand alone article, and the subject has no mention in existing articles. Before re-creation, mention of this group should be made in related articles, and even then this title I can't support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The East Turkistan Government in Exile is in fact mentioned in other Wikipedia pages including the page for government in exile and the East Turkestan Independence Movement.Tewpiq (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From East Turkestan Independence Movement:
Pro-independence organizations overseas include the East Turkistan National Freedom Center, the East Turkistan Government in Exile, and the East Turkestan Liberation Organization (Transnational Hizb ut-Tahrir).[16] The most noticeable event towards the East Turkistan Independence Movement was the establishment of the East Turkistan Government in Exile by a group of East Turkistani immigrants lead by Anwar Yusuf Turani in Washington D.C. on September 14, 2004.[17] The target audience of these organizations is generally the Western governments and public, as almost none of the websites are in Chinese or Uyghur, and most Uyghurs in China and Central Asia have never heard of them.[18]
Well described as one of three "Pro-independence organizations overseas", targeting "Western governments and public".
This is not a government in exile. It is absurd for this group to claim to be their country's legitimate government. They did not previously hold power, or any role, in East Turkestan. What they have is a website - http://en.eastturkistan-gov.org/government/ and it read it as advocacy (we do not allow advocacy no matter how worthy the cause). No one else recognises or describes them as a government in exile, and so Wikipedia should not describe them so. Deny re-creation under this title. Allow expansion at East Turkestan Independence Movement, and should this group prove independently notable, allow a spin-out at an NPOV title, perhaps Anwar Yusuf Turani's East Turkistan separatist group. I don't think the groups is notable. All sources are connected or belong to a rash of news reports following their dramatic declaration of Government in Exile. I don't see independent direct secondary source coverage of the group or so-called government. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
DJ Many (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unlock For Creation Review New References And Discography DJ Many56 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note from your name that you appear to have a close connection to the subject. Could you provide some references here, as examples, to show that you have references which are both from what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources and which are independent of the subject which would show that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, having looked at the deleted article, the repeated re-recreation (including recently as DJ many, which appears to be identical to the AFD'd version, and which is now also SALTed), I see nothing to indicate that this should be recreated. I reiterate that some sources should be presented here - and they can't be the ones used in the deleted articles, as they have already been decided by the community to be insufficient. I am open to being persuaded to change to 'allow recreation', but at the moment I do not see this as a suitable result here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Should Allow Creation For Me To Point The New Sources And Info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Many56 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that. Just tell us what the new sources are here so we can review them. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, because I'm a beastly admin, I've just SOAblocked DJ Many56. Do you know how many times he has re-created this article about his non-notable DJ self. I've also WP:SALTed the article title. Sometimes enough really is enough - we all have better things to do. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 January 2012

[edit]

20 January 2012

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

Hello this edit is in regard to the redirection of the wikipedia article Trenzalore. Please look over the history of the article. I have placed alot of material to be analyzed by a different administrator. Tom morris has asked me to provide him with my resources and other supporting material. I have complied with his request but he still refuses to revert the article from its current redirected state. If you have any questions for me or my team i will happily answer them to the best of my ability. This article is not yet finished but it cannot evolve unless it is viewable to the public and users with an esoteric understanding add their input. I would like to make it clear this article is not about whether or not aliens exist. The article is about the television character Doctor Who and one of his future adventures.

I await your responce, Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect - First off, the original AfD could not have closed any other way than it did. I have watched Doctor Who since Tom Baker and even I had to pause for a moment to think "Trenzalore, what the hell is that?", before looking at the link and seeing for myself. This will in all likelihood never be worthy of an article. It is the name of a planet mentioned in a single episode of the 11th Doctor, describing an event that has not happened on-screen. No offense, but this is the nerdiest of nerd-lore. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect - I echo Tarc's last comment. Despite the essay written on the AFD talk page, there is no demosntratable notability here. But this isn't even AFD do-over, this is a DRV, and at DRV we determine if there was a process that failed at the AFD. After examining the AFD, I think the closing administrator closed it exactly as I would have.--v/r - TP 14:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin The key words in the DRV are "esoteric understanding": the !voters in the AfD rightly saw that the article was a coatrack for all sorts of fringe—sorry, "esoteric"—material. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "my team"? What? —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected. I recognised the name immediately and actually found the former content somewhat interesting to read, but Wikipedia is completely the wrong place to host it. Any other close of that AfD would never have been allowed to stand given the overwhelming consensus, and I can't see any new reasons being presented to justify recreation. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected. This article as it previously existed was devoid of context (it did not even mention the television series title "Doctor Who"). It also appears that most of its content came from sources that were talking about things other than the planet as depicted on this television series. If the planet becomes an important aspect of the Doctor Who universe and otherwise satisfies notability and sourcing requirements, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jerrydeanrsmith has now tried to recreate the article by moving Talk:Trenzalore to Article:Trenzalore, in the process removing the previous discussion on that talk page and the old AfD notice. Only an admin can move it back.... First Light (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Wikipedia is not a publisher of exegeses and fan fiction, which the most recent drafts of this article seem to be.

    The article is written on the basis for the outline of a movie script.This article was suppose to encourage those willing to add input on how a future doctor who episode should be structured.
    —Jerrydeanrsmith (talk · contribs), from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trenzalore#Rebuttal

    User:Jerrydeanrsmith is advised to find another website for this project—if tardis.wikia.com doesn't do this sort of thing, perhaps the Collaborative fiction section of the Fiction wiki would be a good place. In any case, subject is a plot detail in a work of fiction, and lacks independent notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


i understand. Thank you for your time and diligence in the matter. Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 January 2012

[edit]

18 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1990s (U.S.) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (2nd nomination) (which included the 1990s and 2010s articles) as no consensus, meaning that they are kept. However, a month earlier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) was closed as delete. There's absolutely no reason that two should be exist and one should not, so I'm bringing them here in the hopes of getting a common outcome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the deleted one for at least temporary consistency and bring an rfc on this. This sort of thing is the disgrace of our AfD system. In a case like this deletion review is not the place to discuss the actual merits, but we have confused the entire question of notability with the question of how to divide up articles. Nobody doubted in any of these that the material should be covered--the entire dispute was merely whether to put them into a single article. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I don't see anything policy based, with the exception of Rlendog in none of the AFDs, the last AFD (2010s) was a clear "needs further consensus" to, as neither the keeps or the deletes have much policy or guideline base agreements (like saying it meets WP:LIST with no reasoning behind it). Secret account 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that seems like an equally good idea to mine. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained to User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars in my talk page, I would attempt to finish my work on this series of articles ASAP so that when the voting would be held the next time around the Wikipedians taking part in the AfD would express their opinion based on the articles' optimal versions ​(and not having a voting based on the half-baked versions – which would definitely justify their removal). For this reason, I would agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars that the additional pages I created in this series should be added as well to the mass nomination. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
article background/history
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The page was originally created as a POV fork by Distributivejustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a WP:single purpose account: [6] who edited in the topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I.

This article was originally deleted as a POV fork as discussed at the original AfD: [7]. The article was then moved to the user space of David.Kane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) where it currently resides, inclusing history, but excluding the original talk page: [8]. David.Kane was subsequently topic banned: [9].

Yfever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently recreated the page as a stub, then took the page to AfD after the article was redirected.

At the AfD the argument was made that, just as with the previous AfD, this article constituted a POV fork. Reference to the discussion and rationale of the previous AfD was explicit, as well as an example of the POV nature of the current version of the article: Despite the fact that the work is called "controversial", there is no criticism of it it in the article.

In discussing the AfD with the closing admin, several things stood out: [10]

  • The admin made a note of taking a head count, as opposed to considering consensus when closing the AfD: "Given the headcount, I could possibly have closed it as no consensus"
  • Despite explicit linked reference to the previous AfD, the admin made no effort to review that discussion: "I didn't look at the AfD from May 2010"
  • Despite this being a "borderline case", subsequent review of the previous AfD and highlighting of the POV fork issues, the admin did not update the closing status of the article, and invited the discussion to continue here: "I stand by my closing... request a deletion review."

Once the AfD closed with a keep, Yfever stepped in and began to copy/paste content from other articles.

In light of the consideration given by the closing admin, and subsequent content forking, I ask that this AfD be reviewed by the community. I will be notifying all the editors who participated in both AfDs to get more input on the issue. aprock (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Aprock. The initial form of the recreated article was copy-pasted from the lede of User:Ephery/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?, a subpage of topic-banned user David.Kane: issues in the arbcom case WP:ARBR&I were closely related to the creation of the original fork. Additional content was copy-pasted by Yfever out of context from the stable article History of the race and intelligence controversy. This controversial paper, which is carefullly summarised in the History article, is never now discussed in secondary sources outside a historical context. There is no justification for having a separate article, written without reference to the events in the decades that followed its publication. The editing of Yfever is currently being considered at WP:AE. How a new user could find the original on a subpage of Ephery has not yet been explained. In addition it is now acknowledged that since the close of WP:ARBR&I there has been an unprecedented amount of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Although a disruptive sockpuppet of Mikemikev has been blocked within the last few hours, a checkuser confirmed that the account of Yfever has no relation to Mikemikev. A similar kind of article was created by another sock of a banned user user:Rrrrr5 some time back: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spencer195/Archive. That article The Color of Crime (New Century) was also a fork and is now discussed in the main article New Century Foundation. It is possible that Yfever'saccount is related to that bizarre account, which was a usurped administrator account. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reading the above, this is either an editing dispute or an allegation of puppetry, both of which belong elsewhere. I suggest the best course would be to resolve the puppetry--once that is eliminated , probably the contents will stabilize and a proper discussion can be held on the talk p. about what the contents of the article should be. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a content dispute. This material is clearly covered by WP:ARBR&I. I hope you are not suggesting otherwise or trying to ignore that case. Please look at the templates that are added on the talk pages of the associated articles, e.g. on Talk:Race and intelligence. If you think for some reason that this article does not fall in that category, clarification can be sought directly from arbcom. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any statement there about this particular article. I see a general statement about avoiding NPOV, which merely repeats the standard Wikipedia policy, but I see no statement that articles where NPOV is question should be deleted. The talk p. heading warns against POV forks, but whether a particular article is a POV fork, or merely detailed coverage of a particular paper is a matter for the community. I do see a prior topic ban with respect to you in particular, which was removed by motion. Since you are using general statements of policy to try to enforce your own POV by pretending it had the endorsement of arb com, perhaps the topic ban should be reinstated. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checking, I see the sentence in the findings on DK that "this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view". I do not think that having an article on this famous paper is undue weight, if treated correctly; but it's not my opinion on that point that matters, but the community , and they expressed it. It is perhaps inappropriate that we do not have an article on many other famous papers, but that is to be dealt with by writing the articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking your statement and stating your own POV. Procedurally, the second AfD was started in an improper way. It was initiated by the same problematic user (Yfever) who created the article. In normal cirumcstances all those involved in the first AfD should have been contacted. This was not a community decision in any way imaginable. It looks like the beginning of an almighty train wreck. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this was for both scientific and political reasons an exceptionally important paper; I do not think that necessarily corresponds to any particular POV on the underlying subject. I agree with you that the course of editing on the topic has been very far from ideal--and therefore I don't edit on the subject myself here. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very detailed discussion of the article, with a lengthy summary from secondary sources and in a historical context, already occurs in History of the race and intelligence controversy#1960-1980. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep of article. Article seems a well-sourced and balanced account of an issue that has generated much interest. I hope that the initiator of this DRV has informed all contributors to the AfD about it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Would you mind explaining what you man by "balanced?" The WP article begins by saying that this is a controversial journal article, but our WP article does not provide much of an account at all of what makes it controversial, or of the many criticisms leveled against the article, or of the context for the controversy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the article contains shortcomings then improve it by editing, not deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Any editor making edits to this particular article which infringe the restrictions set out in WP:ARBR&I is liable to discretionary sanctions enforcable at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That won't affect Slrubenstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It affects all users, including in particular you. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why me? What have I done wrong? I can't see any reason why Slrubenstein should not edit the article and I can't see any reason why I should not. However, I don't intend to, it is a horrible editing environment to work in. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The article is subject to extremely stringent restrictions that apply to all users. When you commented here, you were aware that this particular article had been at the centre of the WP:ARBR&I case in which you participated. You chose not to mention that. Mathsci (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was Xanthippe who wrote that this article is "balanced." Well, is it, or isn't it? If Xanthippe is now admitting it is not balanced, well, fine but just say so. If Xanthippe still thinks it is balanced, I would appreciate a serious answer to my good faith question: what about it in your view makes it "balanced?" Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have expressed my view. Let User:Slrubenstein express his. Does he think, the article is balanced or not? If the former, then fine. If the latter then let him edit it to restore the balance. It is Wikipedia policy that articles should be edited to improve them before deletion is resorted to. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You did not express your view, you are just posturing and wasting people's time. You say the article is "balanced" but when I ask, p0olitiely, and twice, why you think it is balanced, you have no answer. I am willing to answer any question about my view. Are you unwilling to answer questions about your view? If you have reasons to believe it balanced, why not share them with us? If you have no reason to believe it is balanced, then your asserting that it is balanced is worthless. We are here for a reasoned discussion. Your posturing, without reasons, is not any kind of contribution. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make accusations of bad faith. You say that you are willing to answer any question about your view. Here is one: do you think the article is balanced or unbalanced? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I do not need to accuse you of acting in bad faith, you are so obviously acting in bad faith. On Jan. 18 you wrote that the article seems balanced. On Jan. 19 I asked the reasonable question, what about it makes it seem balanced to you? This is now the fourth time I am asking you this simple, appropriate question. That you repeatedly refuse to answer is proof that you have no evidence that it is balanced, which means you are acting in bad faith. Note: it was you who used the word "balanced" so it is perfectly reasonable to think you could explain what you mean. Note also that in my view on this question, posted in Jan 19th, I did not write that it is unbalanced. Since I did not write that it is unbalanced, how can I answer your question? I wrote my position on this question and if you have any questions about anything I wrote I would be more than happy to answer them. Would you be happy to answer questions about what you wrote? So far it looks like you will stall and weasle and change the topic as often as you have to, so as not to answer a simple question about what you wrote. It is only logical to infer that there is no thought or consideration behind your posture, it is pure posturing. Your approach to this matter is almost reason enough to delete the article. Are there better reasons to delete it? Sure! Just read my own post from the 19th. Or MathSci's. Fortunately, some people here actually care about wikiprocess! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
balance = NPOV. Please be civil. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Where have I been incivil? No matter. If you won't answer the question, then you won't answer the question. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Concur with Aprock Aprock's reasons are sufficient for deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect. All of the "keep" arguments amount to, "this is a reliable source for a particular point of view." I heartily agre, which is why this article should be used as a reliable source for Jensen's view in the article on Race and Intelligence which is our article that directly addresses the subject matter of this article. As the WP article itself notes, the Jensen article was and remains controversial - this is why the data and arguments in it, as well as the critiques of it, which concentrate on the larger debate concerning race and IQ, ought to be presented in the article on Race and IQ where the article, and jensen's body of work, can be put in its proper context. It is the Race and IQ article that fully addresses this research and Jensen's conclusions, as well as other work by people who share Jensen's view, and other work that is critical of jensen's view. To create a WP article on one controversial article is clearly a POV fork that gives undue weight to a single journal article. This is especially wrong with regards to this article, because the article does not stand alone, it is very much a part of a larger and ongoing set of debates. I speedily deleted it because it fits all th criteria for a speedy deletion. Someone restored the article and created an AfD entry that produced four "keeps" and three "deletes." Only seven editors commenting? The best one could say is that the AfD was closed prematurely; it should have been more widely announced and time should have been given for more people to register their views. Given the narrow margin - 4 to 3 - the outcome of the discussion has to be based on the merits of the arguments, and all that the "keeps" really had to say is that it is a notable article. Sure, we all agre with that, but notability is a criteria for inclusion in a WP article and not justification for the creation of a new WP article that limits itself to discussing this one journal article. All of the substantive contents of this WP article is already in another WP article. We should use all notable and reliable sources in writing a proper encyclopedic article on the topic. I fail to see why one of the sources for the Race and IQ article merits another WP article. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Jensen's article is one of the most debated in the history of psychology. There are many articles about scientific papers in Wikipedia, and Jensen's is surely one of those that most deserves it. It is currently discussed in History of the race and intelligence controversy and Arthur Jensen, among others. It would be better to have a thorough discussion of it in a dedicated article. If the current version of the article is deemed to contain too little criticism of the article, this should not be a problem because a small library could be created exclusively out of critiques of Jensen's paper, i.e. there is no shortage of reliable sources. The current state of the article should not be regarded as a reason to delete it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue. Listen to DGG. This is a conduct dispute about sockpuppetry, and should be dealt with accordingly. Bes ides, I'm afraid that DRV is never going to overturn that close to "delete" on the basis of that debate, because there was no consensus for deletion. This DRV has no prospect of success and should be speedily closed.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue, but redirect - classic WP:POVFUNNEL. For the admins commenting - why haven't you blocked Yfever, obvious sockpuppet? Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Ever since the discussion closed, a lot of uncritical information has been added. It is now clear that this was only a WP:POVFORK to avoid the mainstream criticism in other articles. This is exactly the same problem that caused the deletion in the first AfD. The book is already covered exhaustively in History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#1960-1980, in the context of the whole controversy. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the article contents should be kept but we seem to be missing a general article about whether things like Headstart are worthwhile. I think the contents are fairly worthless currently and are covered by History of the race and intelligence controversy and should be redirected there for the moment and if somebody sets up an article on the general topic was started later then it could be redirected there. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existing general topic article is achievement gap. That article doesn't really have a history section. The existig history of the race and intelligence controversy is probably a better fit given that the legacy of the paper is the controversy it generated. aprock (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Admins can only really close deletion debates on the basis of the arguments raised in the discussion. In this DRV, we've had mention of CSDing under G5, ArbCom restrictions and discretionary sanctions, sockpuppets and much else besides. This was not discussed in the second AfD: how are admins supposed to take these things into account if you don't actually bring them up? Similarly, if there are behavioural issues, bring them up at ANI or a similar noticeboard—if you've done that, mention it in the AfD. Will admins now have to go on a complete treasure hunt across noticeboards, user talk pages and half the wiki before we can close a deletion debate in order to not risk ending up at DRV? I stand by the opinion that given the arguments presented in the AfD, I closed this correctly. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that Yfever started the AfD himself and did not inform editors involved in the prior AfD. You did not act improperly, but Yfever did in several ways. Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. This is a deletion review, not a third AfD. The relevant factors that prompted the review are clearly noted in the opening statement. Instead of responding to the tangential issues (socks, G5, WP:ARBR&I, etc) please do discuss the head count, lack of reviewing the previous AfD, and unchanged closing despite the original closure being "borderline". aprock (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You concerns about "head count" are simply based on out-of-context quoting of my talk page. When I said that it is "borderline", I'm saying that it wasn't a cut and dried case either way. But just because something is borderline doesn't mean that one must reverse one's position: 60/40 is more "borderline" than 80/20 - but saying that the former is borderline doesn't mean you instantly have to reverse and side with the 40 over the 60. There wasn't a clear consensus to redirect. Given a lack of clear consensus to redirect, I could have closed with keep or with no consensus, but there was a slightly stronger consensus to keep, so I closed as keep. I leave whether or not I should have reviewed the previous AfD up to DRV participants: I stand by my closing and by the principle that admins should close on the basis of the consensus in the AfD before them. Without that principle, one need only stir up a hornet's nest quietly in the background, allow an AfD to run its course, and if the admin closes it in a way you do not like, go to the admin's talk page and release said hornet's nest and then demand action. Not that this is what happened here. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I observe that you're not making yourself clear here. I'll add that I'm baffled by the fact that you did not initially review the previous AfD (even after it was mentioned and linked to). Likewise that upon reviewing it your assessment remained unchanged despite you calling this a borderline case. Maybe I should take up ESP :). aprock (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One question is, if all this information had been known at the AfD, should it have closed as delete instead of keep? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, can we avoid having yet another AfD just for the purpose of following proper bureaucratic procedures? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we have a policy on that: WP:IAR. We can do what we think best in the way of exceptional remedies, if there is consensus that it is necessary for the benefit of the encyclopedia . I don't think there is such a degree of consensus here to use it, for we can at worst always have another AfD--& remaining the additional 7 days will not harm anything. The practical reason for the rule that we do not discuss actual AfD - type problems here in depth is that this is a specialized venue, and many of the people who would come to a properly and neutrally announced AfD do not normally come here. There is an advantage in orderly consistent procedure for processes--especially since there are so many overlapping processes that no one person can follow all of them. If you're interested in some type of question, you need to expect where it will appear. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Fadzilah Kamsah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A motivational speaker who has won many awards in his country, including obtaining a datukship, which carries the title "Datuk", equivalent to MBE in Britain. He does clearly passes WP:N, do refer to here, here, and here for sources. These sources were from Malaysia's top tabloid/newspapers i.e. The Star, Utusan Malaysia and Bernama, a news agency of the government of Malaysia.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent revisions were speedily deleted per A7. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 17:07, 17 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Damian Roberts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The recent revisions were deleted per G4. While the procedure was technically correct, somehow we should put good faith on January 2012 editors, such as raintheone, for all their hard work. Actually, this topic is actually a fictional character of a soap opera Home and Away, but this article was treated as a hoax previously by horrible revisions in the past. I don't know the history of revisions, but I hope the deletion is undone to revisions that treat this topic as if it were actually a fictional character, not a fake (hoax) person. In the meantime, I'm not asking for overturn to keep; nevertheless, I would request, under Rain, to overturn to redirect to another page. By the way, there is another page deleted: Damien Roberts. George Ho (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho - I said it could have been redirected to the list of characters. I also said there was not much point in a deletion review as it quite rightly deleted because it should not have been recreated in the first place. So you are not requesting under my wishes as I stated via your talk page that their is little point in a review.Rain the 1 16:14, 17 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Seamus (dog) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Seamus (dog) was an article referring to the dog of Mitt Romney, which was involved in a controversial 1983 road trip where the dog was transported on the roof of Romney's car for 11 hours. Seamus was discussed extensively during the 2008 US President race, and the issue resurfaced last week. I saw hundred of news articles online regarding Seamus, prompting me to create the article 'Seamus (dog)'.

Anthony Bradbury, a Wikipedia administrator, deleted the article on Saturday, January 14, 2012 under his speedy delete authority, citing provision A7 (lack of significance). Upon discussion with him, he stated that the incident had significance, but the dog did not. I understand his logic, but I disagree with his decision. There is an article for Mary Jo Kopechne, even though her only significance in is relation to Edward Kennedy's Chappaquidick incident. Likewise, there are webpages for some pets of politicians which are far more obscure than Seamus. For example, 'Dash (collie)' is an article for a dog of Caroline Harrison, a lesser-known First Lady of the nineteenth century. Debbie W. 03:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Overturn. The cached version shows multiple sources showing interest in the subject. Discuss the merits at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as deleting admin. It might be said that a person is of greater significance than a dog; and the Chappaquidick incident, which effectively erased any chance of Edward Kennedy ever running for the White House, presumably is of greater significance the the Seamus incident, which patently has not prevented Mr Romney from doing so. Also, at the time of Chappaquidick Mr Kennedy was being talked about as a potential presidential candidate while at the time of the Seamus incident Mr Romney, I think, was not (correct me if I am wrong). This, at any rate, represents my thinking in deleting. But if the community disgree, that is their will and I shall not argue. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this has a realistic chance of remaining a stand-alone article. However, if someone wants to contest an A7, the best place for that is at AfD. I think an outcome of "merge and redirect" is possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain Though the attempt to equate an anecdote with a person's death is amusing, perhaps, it does not gain weight therefrom. Collect (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I was tempted to say overturn and list at AfD, but the truth is, I see no way in which this exists as a standalone article. The dog isn't notable. What is notable is that Mitt Romney was involved in a controversy involving his dog. Literally the only thing in the article about the dog was the claim that the dog was nicknamed "Mr. Personality", a claim that misrepresents the reference. Giant case of WP:UNDUE for something that deserves only a couple sentences in Romney's article, at most. Resolute 01:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD'. I don't think the article is worth keeping, but it asserts importance. The bar for speedy is much lower than notability , and I don't think it would be a good idea to erode it. Perhaps AfD will decide on a redirect if the information is in the article somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Overturn and send to AfD per the above unsigned. The bar for A7 is a claim of notability, not actual notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I thought I had deleted it. Obviously didn't. Can't think why I didn't, unless it had only been tagged for a couple of minutes. Possibly a sentence or two in Romney's article - which is where people would look for it, not under the name of the dog. It'd Romney that's notable, not the dog, and Romney is notable without the dog anyway. Kopechne? A human who died in dubious circumstances with a long-lasting result. The dog? Survived, and apart from possibly making a comment that resulted in him getting washed, seems to have been none the worse for his ride. If he had been, I feel sure action would have been taken. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as the author of this 'Seamus (dog)' page, I feel that the dog has become notable. If you type in 'Seamus Romney' under Google, you will get more than 200,000 hits, including links to major newspapers such as the Boston Globe and the New York Times. When I initially created this article, I thought about naming it the 'Seamus incident' and linking it to the Mitt Romney article, but I didn't because nobody refers to the event as the 'Seamus incident'. It's simply Seamus, Mitt Romney's dog, or in some cases 'Seamus Romney'. Furthermore, while I understand that Mary Jo Kopechne has had a more lasting influence than Seamus Romney, Seamus has had a much more lasting influence than many of the dogs of famous people which have their own Wikipedia articles. On the article for famous dogs (see below), there are dogs which are famous and have articles only because of their owners. For example, Lou dog, owned by Bradley Nowell, and Diamond who may have been owned by Isaac Newton, each have an article independent of their human masters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_dogs#Dogs_belonging_to_notable_people Debbie W. 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely beats A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does this beat A7? I do not see the logic. The number of Google hits only helps us know what language is more common on the web, which can be useful in some contexts. But I do not see how it is suggieient to determine the notability of an topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. WP is not an encyclopedia of "Googles Greatest Hits." People who access WP obviously have access to the internet and if they want to learn about Seamus the car-surfing dog, well, we have established that they can find no end of sources courtesy of Google. Great. They don't need WP to learn about this amazing dog. So why does WP need an article on the dog? We need to use our own criteria about what makes something "encyclopedic." in fact, I would argue that the opposite logic is more compelling - a topic that gets no google hits might be essential to include in WP and WP will become the only real on-line source of information about the topic (it is true! Many topics of intense scholarly debate and interest, which belong in an encyclopedia, don't score on google, or score very low). I am not dismissing Google entirely, I just do not see any necessary reason why google hits trumps A7. Google is an algorithm. We are intelligent, thoughtful people who should be able to reason this out with deliberation. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A7 is speedy deletion because of a lack of significance. Wikipedia defines significance as a much lower standard than notability. Wikipedia's guideline for speedy deletion gives the following as grounds for an A7 speedy deletion: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. Having 200,000 Google hits, and articles in major newspapers does not necessarily makes something notable, but it does make it significant, and that is why A7 should not apply here. Debbie W. 18:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nari Kusakawa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I initially prodded this article because it was an unsourced BLP. The prod was removed. I brought it to AfD with the argument that it was an unsourced BLP. There was some wrangling about WP:AUTHOR, which occupied most of the actual discussion. Towards the end of the debate I conceded that while I was pretty far from the satisfied with the "independent reviews" upon which this and so many of our other comic book articles are based, WP:AUTHOR had strictly speaking been met. I went on to note that despite this, the article still contained no independent reliable sources and we had no verifiable biographical information about the subject. I raised the point that the only verifiable information we have about this person is that her name is not Nari Kusakawa. There was no further discussion before Armbrust closed the discussion as "keep". The article still contained no independent reliable sources at that time.

I challenged Armbrust on his talk page about this, and after he'd closed the debate as "keep", he began to edit the article to add one source from the AfD and to tag the other concerns I raised. However, despite this post-AfD rationalisation, the article still contains no verifiable information about this person. The only sources provided are about her corpus of work, and therefore, while we might have sources sufficient for list of works by Nari Kusakawa, my position remains that we should not have an article about the person who isn't called Nari Kusakawa. —S Marshall T/C 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment AfD must only determine if a person meets the criteria of notability. Since in your last AfD-comment you have yourself admitted that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR (and this after you had wrote in a previous comment you were ready to whithdraw the nom if the subject had met that criteria...) and since you have moved into a new proposal of renaming the article list of works by... I don't see in what Armbrust was wrong, as AfDs are not "Articles for renaming" (we could discuss this in the article's talk page, and I have no prejudice against your idea) nor "for cleanup" (if "the article still contains no verifiable information about this person" you can delete it by yourself, we don't need an AfD for this). Cavarrone (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you say AfD must only determine if a person meets the criteria of notability, I disagree. Many AfD debates focus on notability but there are other considerations. In this one, we've met something unique: a living person who meets a specific notability guideline and yet we have no verifiable biographical information at all.—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cavaronne is, of course, extremely wrong in their interpretation of what AFD is about. Verifiability, notability, etc, are all in the purview of AFD. Indeed, if this was an unsourced BLP - even if the person appears notable - then the only possible AFD close is delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point was about the fact, as I subsequently wrote, that AfDs are not for renaming nor for cleanup. I see your point, but as far I can see, being the subject notable, the problem is addressable and the S Marshall "project" of writing an article about the corpus of her works and redirect and delete the current article could be a reasonable solution. - Cavarrone (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wrong: the real meaning of AFD is "articles for discussion". Indeed, many articles are "saved" by cleanup and they can also lead to renaming (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I never said that an article could not be "saved" by cleanup or renaming, I said we don't NEED an AfD for this. I'm moving forward, and the AfD closing does not prejudice, in any way, that we cleanup, improve, rewrite or rename the article. - Cavarrone (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 January 2012

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

<Hi guys, I was very surprised that this page was deleted. The discussion about whether or not to delete seems to have taken place between three editors over five days. The WJJF is the UK's largest Jujitsu federation, with over a thousand schools in the UK. In addition, we are represented in 17 countries worldwide. The reasons given for the deletion seem to center around whether the organisation is to be considered noteworthy by Wikipedia's standards, which is quite understandable, and whether the WJJF is n fact part of a larger organisation. I will consider the second point first. The WJJF is a member of the All Japan Jujitsu Federation which is for all intents and purposes a "federation of federations". We make no secret of our membership and in fact noted this on the Wikipage in question. We are very proud to be associated with the AJJF. With regard to the issue of whether or not we are noteworthy, well, this is of course a rather subjective matter, but as the largest jujitsu federation in the UK (and to the best of my knowledge the federation represented in more countries than any other, we certainly consider ourselves worthy of note. The suggestion seems to be that there is a lack of external sources to back up our assertion that we are, well, important. I accept this; there are not many external sources to this effect. However, out of interest prior to writing this appeal, I did my own cursory check of the Ju-Jitsu International Federation and Badminton Europe - the first I selected for its obvious connection to the matter at hand, the second was completely random but is the main federation representing badminton in Europe - a fact pointed out on Wikipedia. Both have pages on Wikipedia. I looked in the google news pages and neither was mentioned on any site other than their own. I do hope that neither of their wikipages will be deleted. The point I am making is that the bodies representing the less popular sports tend not to get media coverage and therefore cannot be verified in the same sense that, say, FIFA or the NFL might.

I hope that you will reconsider the decision to delete the WJJF's page; many contributors gave their time to make it what is was and it was, in our opinion, a useful resource. MikeyBoab (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. You present the argument that because articles about Ju-Jitsu International Federation and Badminton Europe lack independent sources your article should be undeleted. This type of argument is regularly used in deletion discussions and is known as the Other stuff exists argument. The basic problem with that argument is that you can also turn it around: maybe those two articles should be deleted, rather than your article recreated. What you need is reliable sources independent of the subject. If this organisation is really this big, surely somebody has written about it? Perhaps as part of a book on Jujitsu outside Japan? Yoenit (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wen normally do not make articles for subnational branches of an organization. For national branches of an international organization, there seems no fixed practice. I agree that independence is a key criterion--as well as sourcing. Additionally, there really is no point making an article unless there is something other than routine to say about the subsidiary group, and there rarely is--usually just the announcements of events, which no matter how well sourced, are not necessarily substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD closure was in line with consensus there and the nominator does not address the basic flaw that led to deletion, lack of independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 January 2012

[edit]

13 January 2012

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

This AFD was closed as no consensus under non-admin closure. I made a request to the editor who closed the AFD to reverse his/her actions and the request was declined. I am requesting a deletion review as the no consensus appears to be arrived at by a vote count. When considering reliable sources, Huffington Post was used as the key item that made the difference, but there is a discussion with the AFD that notes that it isn't usable as a source for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple !vote count would have resulted in a keep. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the initial creator of the AfD. I brought up the question of using a blog at Huffington Post as a reliable source, and it was determined that a blog was not a reliable source. I stand by my original nomination that there hasn't bee a reliable source to show notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't look to me as if there was consensus support for this (or the opposite) POV. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (non-admin closer) As I write this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old still has 4 discussions open for 3 January (Tuesday). Therefore it's not inconceivable that an admin still has time to choose to reopen the discussion if deemed appropriate. Anyway, for further explanation of the closure, please see my talk page. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no consensus for deletion in that discussion, I'm afraid. Debate participants heard the arguments and were not persuaded of the need to delete the content. Any admin who deleted that material on the basis of the "strength of the arguments" would, I think, probably be overturned here.—S Marshall T/C 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that such an overturning of a hypothetical delete judgement seems likely. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The sources are so obviously poor – the disputed Huffington Post source is the best – that closing as delete is only a little stretch. I agree that a stronger consensus is preferred, and relisting would allow one to develop at the AfD or at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Question regarding Huffington Post and relability. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisting may produce a clear consensus opinion one way or the other, but it looks unlikely to me. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn from the closers talk discussion "I reviewed the four references (current version) before closing and felt that the article meets WP:GNG" - in which case they should have commented to move towards a consensus and not closed the debate in a way which effectively matched that view point. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed the refs in order to make a judgement on whether the claims of notability were reasoned. I was aiming to save people some time and effort but obviously my actions have had the opposite effect. Sorry. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because "no consensus" was where the AfD had reached and there was no real sign that relisting would alter matters. However, 62.254.139.60, above, raises an important concern. Did the closer have a clear view of his own on the notability of the article and did this influence (or seem to influence) the decision? The discussion at User_talk:Trevj#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThrive_.28film.29 certainly shows he formed a view before closing and this would usually disqualify him from closing. However, in this particular case, where the reliability of sources was being questioned, it seems to me the closer was right to examine those sources to make sure the AfD arguments were in principle sustainable. Having decided the discussion had reached no consensus, he was checking to see if any arguments ought to be discounted. In doing so he formed his own view on notability. If he had then closed as "keep", that would have been wrong. I very much appreciate closers being willing to discuss their thinking fully and openly and it would be a shame if they felt inhibited from this. For me, it is not a concern that this was a non-admin close. Unfortunately, there are admins who can make poorly-judged closures and are afterwards unwilling or unable to discuss things. I prefer the present circumstances. Thincat (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no personal opinion on the film and had not heard of it before coming across the deletion discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I do not think it a good idea for non-admins to close contentions AfDs, for one thing, it tends to lead to deletion reviews. I think a more experienced closer would not have concluded there would be no further debate: I would certainly have chosen to relist in the hope of further discussion on the actual status of this particular Huffington Post article--Myself, looking at it, I think it counts as a RS: a responsible contributor to the HP finding it important enough politically to write about DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't seem particularly contentious to me. And, as mentioned in the edit summaries at the time, the subject of no consensus non-admin closures appears to have not been discussed since June 2008. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why non-admins shouldn't close contentious AFDs, as my esteemed colleage DGG points out. I would relist. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisting would be an option but I felt (and still do) that the likely outcome would still be no consensus. WP:RELIST states That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. -- Trevj (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Non-admins should not close discussions as "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, please refer to the edit summaries regarding this point. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to some extent with S Marshall. There is no reason that an experienced editor cannot close an AFD as no consensus if it clearly the outcome. In this case, though, I do not believe that the outcome was clearly a no consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Lupe Fuentes – Not undeleted, but the first section may be recreated. I construe DGG's statement, in conjunction with the original deletion, as a WP:BLPSE action, which may not be disturbed in the absence of clear community consensus, which this discussion does not reveal. – T. Canens (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lupe Fuentes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article unilaterally deleted without discussion due to legal threats from an IP about material supported by reliable sources. Deleting admin, Prodego, requested Legal to review. Nothing has happened in 3 weeks. Prodego refuses to undelete the article with the material that instigated the legal threat still in there. User_talk:Prodego#Lupe Fuentes Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In essence I reported this to them, and they seem to have vanished that report in to some black hole. The page should be undeleted, however I'm not willing to associate myself with restoring some of that page's content. Prodego talk 05:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two errors. First, it was never appropriate to delete the entire article. The questioned material was in a section that could have been removed and rev-deleted until it was decided what to do with it (I'm not going to judge that here). The second was when when Morbidthoughts insisted the the restoration include the questioned material. He had no right to make such a condition, and the admin should have ignored him and restored the part he considered uncontroversial. Again, the subsequent discussion would be what it ought to be, a discussion regarding that material. A typical example of BLP over-reaction--there were and still are BLP concerns, but the action should have been limited to them. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to insist on anything and he has the right to ignore me. Can the rhetoric. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I agree with Morbid. I prefer deleting the page and sending it to someone who can investigate instead of removing what I hope is the correct material and rev deleting the entire history of the page as you propose. Prodego talk 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy that alternatives to deletion are preferred to deletion holds everywhere. You ignored it. As arb com has said, BLP is not a free pass to do whatever one wishes. Agreed, it better to err on the side of caution with contentious claims, but the non-contentious nature of the first half of the article is pretty obvious. Prodego, the policy you have invented for yourself would permit the complete deletion of every article with a questioned BLP statement. 15:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)~~
  • On the basis of what I have said, permit restoration of the first section, and discuss the rest on the article talk p or BLP board. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been involved in a lot of debates about what is and what isn't notable, and it is incredibly frustrating when something obviously notable gets deleted because of some legal threat over something that's sourced. The content is sourced for crying out loud. We're not making anything up; we're not saying anything is true or false; we're simply providing and citing notable sources. Why are we (we=Wikipedia) the target of legal threats? Why are we responding in such a cowardly fashion to it? This is crazy. Are we going to let anyone with a pending conviction threaten us with some legal crap? Restore the page in its entirety. Geeky Randy (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD with the page blanked. There is not enough information here to allow a conclusion. We shouldn't hold up our standard processes waiting for a legal opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally undelete and blank for deletion review, but for a BLP it takes some examination, and in this case, I am not willing to undelete and blank the entire article as it last stood. I consider this a matter of BLP enforcement, and I ask no admin to do so without a discussion. For nonadmins, the question is about material discussing involvement is underage porn . Such issues seems to have come up twice; the last reported in the article is from March 2011; it might help very much to know if there is further information. I consider normally that reporting such matter when the first case was dismissed and in the second she has not been convicted of anything is highly improper and a violation of do no harm, and unless there is consensus against me, I will block anyone who inserts it. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoaa, we do not stop from writing about serious allegations simply because there has not been a trial or a conviction yet. We write what reliable sources have verified, that she is currently wanted in Columbia on child pornography charges along with her husband and that she has disappeared. Whatever harm that will befall her from this incident has already been done by the Columbian and European newspapers. Imagine if we had taken your position right after the OJ Simpson Bronco chase? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Morbidthoughts. What has been reported in the article is there because it was reported by reliable sources. To take that out is censorship. Furthermore, it was reported with good faith, WP:BOLD and WP:NPOV intentions, and to revert--and delete!--is going against all those policies. This is just crazy. Geeky Randy (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the Bernie Fine and Jerry Sandusky articles. Similar serious charges, no trial or conviction yet. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
GTA-Next Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was recently deleted. It was decently well written and included sources to back up this information also. It was not promoting the website, it was merely stating the information related to the website. By the standards set by deleting this page means that pages relating to other websites would also fit this category of deletion as they are technically "promoting" these respective websites (even though they are merely providing information relating to these websites. DoinItMySelfYo (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the cache version an accurate representation of the deleted content?—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    yes. Syrthiss (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly very upbeat and enthusiastic for an encyclopaedia article, isn't it? I'm not surprised that that material was deleted. I think DGG's right about the G7, so technically we should restore and relist, but I think that if we did so with that content, the material wouldn't survive AfD. I would suggest that the nominator starts again from scratch, with better sources if at all possible, and uses an encyclopaedic style rather than a marketing one.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the page creator I see failed to follow steps 1 and 4. I have notified the deleting administrator. I was the one who placed the G11 tag. Endorse deletion (process was followed correctly), with no objection to undeletion if the creator would like to make the article less spammy and provide reliable sources that establish notability. Syrthiss (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note as deleting administrator - I probably should have used speedy category a7, no indication of notability. This is a fan-forum website - the article cited no independent sources and did not assert that the website met the notability criteria of WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation but a improved version is very highly advisable first. I would certainly not have deleted as G7--the article asserts importance as a major fan site for a famous series of games. I'm not sure about G11--the article focuses too much about the importance of the site--though in view of the above statement about A7, I guess even the amount presented wasn't clear enough. There's too much space on its internal operations, and uses the full name of the site as often as possible. But both are correctable by normal editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 January 2012

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3

Qian Zhijun is a young man who was the victim of an internet meme, when his face was involuntarily superimposed onto various images (he was a minor at the time). The article QZ was deleted in 2007, after various afds, a admin wheel war, several DRV listings and a connected arbcom case. So, highly contentious. A few months ago, User:WhisperToMe recreated it AND an overlapping article on the meme itself ("Little Fatty"). He also uploaded pictures of the face on the meme, and created an article on connected "movies" (see below).

The argument is that, according to some sources in Chinese, the individual has since (from 2009) become notable as an entertainer and actor. I remain unconvinced, but that's beside the point. The point is that you don't go about recreating contentious BLPs (and certainly not two of them), which we deleted them via the deletion process, without gathering a consensus that recreation is warranted by changed circumstances. I thus deleted the BLPs under CSD G4.

OK, I am not asking for a review of my deletion. I am asking: is there evidence enough of new notability to allow the recreation of an article (remembering it would concern a living person)? I suggest that there should not be an article on the meme, as we've decided already to exclude that as not notable in itself. However, if the evidence is that this person is notable by virtue of his more recent career, then we should allow an article on him (which would, presumably, include his part in an internet meme). The discussion thus needs to be focussed on whether, if the meme didn't exist, would this Chinese actor be worthy of a biography? OK, over to you. Pertinent text below:Scott Mac 22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han.[1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q.[2] In 2007 New Line Cinema invited Qian to act in a film version of "Ghost Blows Out the Light."[3] Qian also became the host of a cooking show on China Food TV.[4] In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai.[5] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光).[6]
  1. ^ "草根英雄走出网络大行其道." Hangzhou.com.cn. March 8, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. "小胖，本名钱志君，因为2002年自己无意中的一个表情，五年来被各地网友不断 .... 他来 说最好的机会便是，电影《三国之见龙卸甲》邀请他出演角色，饰演刘备的儿子刘禅。"
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference CarminaEastWest was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Little Fatty likely to appear in Hollywood film." China Daily. July 3, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.
  4. ^ "Bagua Dish Little Fatty’s Food Diary Daily Broadcast." China Food TV. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.
  5. ^ "上百名“胖胖”聚会过节 网络红人小胖：有自信就美丽." Xinmin.cn. August 8, 2010. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. Text: "还认得我么？我就是著名的网络小胖。胖胖节我来当主持人。 新民网记者陆俊彦 静安文化馆现场回传" - Referring to this photograph, which is of Qian
  6. ^ 《一只狗》原创于深圳宣传造势 场面火爆(图)." Xinmin.cn. September 5, 2010. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.

I would like to list additional sources:

"网络红人百变小胖结婚了 网友感叹岁月真是把杀猪刀." Gansu Daily. July 19, 2011.
  • Article about Qian's new marriage.
  • Page 2 discusses his role in the internet meme: There is still continuing coverage of the meme in China.
"一只狗的大学时光将上映 剧中跑酷味十足." Xout.cn. July 30, 2010.
  • "片中饰演富二代的网络小胖，在戏里戏外都是大家的开心果，薛之谦笑称他才是这部电影最大的明星，因为他的恶搞照片伴随着中国互联网的发展，几乎无人不知，无人不晓。这次是他首次主演电影，谈及在大银幕上的表现，网络小胖谦虚的说自己还有很多需要和前辈学习的地方，为了拍摄这部电影，他也事先做了很多准备工作，希望大家能够满意他在片中的表现。" Google Translate: "He played second-generation rich Internet chubby, play outside the movies are all in the pistachios, Xue Qian said with a smile that he is the biggest movie star, because his spoof of photos along with China's Internet development, almost no one I do not know, known to everybody. This is his first starring film, talked about on the big screen performance, network chubby modest and say that they have a lot to learn from their predecessors, in order to shoot the film, he also did a lot of preparatory work in advance, hope that we can satisfied with his performance in the film." - This says that this was his first role as a starring/main actor WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to recreation I think that, altogether, the various amounts of coverage is enough to present his notability. Individually, they wouldn't, but we don't judge by that. The meme itself is, clearly notable and should have never been deleted, in my opinion. The article on Qian is a bit different however. At the time, he would have been a clear WP:BLP1E case, but his various news coverage for a number of things since, from the film to the tv show, showcase his added notability beyond that initial event. SilverserenC 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the only question is "whether, if the meme didn't exist, would this Chinese actor be worthy of a biography?" then the answer is no, but you're welcome to ask me again when he's secured a role in a proper film (not an internet video) that's actually being shot. I've reviewed the previous AfDs and DRVs (I know the nominator didn't want me to, but reviewing deletion discussions is the expected behaviour here) and I must say that Wikipedia in 2007 seems to have been quite a bit more testosterone-charged than I remember it being. The main problem was people using admin tools way too early. The more DRVs I see, the more I realise that early closes of almost any contentious discussion are counterproductive. They're also as disruptive as hell.—S Marshall T/C 01:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The University Days of a Dog is a proper film that was screened in Chinese movie theaters. It was released in 2010. It premiered in Beijing in August of that year, and it was screened nationwide in September of that year.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that but to whatever extent I can trust google translate, he doesn't exactly seem to be a top billed actor in that film, though he's not a bit part either. Do we have an indication of that film's run time and budget?—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whisper might know, but I noticed that the Douban page (essentially the Chinese Rotten Tomatoes) has links to popular film critic reviews, of which there are 26, so that's something. SilverserenC 02:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find that information (run time, budget, gross earnings, etc.). I said that he was one of the "main actors" because the Chinese sources describe him as such.
Thanks for the tip, Silver! If the critic reviews are published in newspapers they will be very helpful.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody told me that the information (box office figures, attendance, etc.) should be at http://english.entgroup.com.cn/enbase.html - But unfortunately it is asking me to make a trial account. How would I cite the information? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The run time is 96 minutes [14]. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update again: The Chinese characters "影评" (film review) have yielded reviews from staff members of Chinese publications. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Although I'm not convinced re-creation is wise, what I am convinced about is that WhisperToMe has an arguable case. Arguable enough to belong at AfD rather than here. Allow re-creation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far here is the revised paragraph:

Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han.[1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q.[2] In 2007 New Line Cinema invited Qian to act in a film version of "Ghost Blows Out the Light."[3] Qian also became the host of a cooking show on China Food TV. The program, Little Fatty’s Food Diary (小胖美食日记 Xiǎo Pàng Měishí Rìjì),[4] began broadcast from a television station in Qingdao, eastern Shandong Province on January 29, 2007.[5] The program was broadcast on Sohu, one of China's major web portals.[6]

In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai.[7] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光).[8] This was his occasion of starring as one of the main characters in a film. Qian did preparatory work before filming, and in an interview he said that he still had to learn a lot about acting.[9] In July 2011 Qian was married.[10]

New addition: After his marriage, some online users lamented the new status, since he had changed from his boyhood status.[11]
New addition #2 - The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief."[12]
  1. ^ "草根英雄走出网络大行其道." Hangzhou.com.cn. March 8, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. "小胖，本名钱志君，因为2002年自己无意中的一个表情，五年来被各地网友不断 .... 他来 说最好的机会便是，电影《三国之见龙卸甲》邀请他出演角色，饰演刘备的儿子刘禅。"
  2. ^ Carmina, La. "East vs. West: Asia’s 10 most viral memes knock out their Western counterparts." CNN. March 16, 2010. Retrieved on May 11, 2011.
  3. ^ "Little Fatty likely to appear in Hollywood film." China Daily. July 3, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.
  4. ^ "Bagua Dish Little Fatty’s Food Diary Daily Broadcast." China Food TV. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.
  5. ^ "'Fatty' to host TV show." China Daily. January 30, 2007. Retrieved on January 12, 2012.
  6. ^ "中华美食频道《小胖美食日记》联手sohu征选小胖搭档." Digital new-Media (BMedia). December 28, 2007. Retrieved on January 12, 2012.
  7. ^ "上百名“胖胖”聚会过节 网络红人小胖：有自信就美丽." Xinmin.cn. August 8, 2010. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. Text: "还认得我么？我就是著名的网络小胖。胖胖节我来当主持人。 新民网记者陆俊彦 静安文化馆现场回传" - Referring to this photograph, which is of Qian
  8. ^ 《一只狗》原创于深圳宣传造势 场面火爆(图)." Xinmin.cn. September 5, 2010. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.
  9. ^ "一只狗的大学时光将上映 剧中跑酷味十足." Xout.cn. July 30, 2010. "这次是他首次主演电影，谈及在大银幕上的表现，网络小胖谦虚的说自己还有很多需要和前辈学习的地方，为了拍摄这部电影，他也事先做了很多准备工作，希望大家能够满意他在片中的表现。"
  10. ^ "网络红人百变小胖结婚了 网友感叹岁月真是把杀猪刀." Gansu Daily. July 19, 2011. 1. Retrieved on January 12, 2012.
  11. ^ "网络小胖钱志君资料." Xi'an Civil Network. Retrieved on January 13, 2012. "也有网友感慨“岁月如飞刀，他也长大了”，并无限怀念起“我们的青葱互联网年代”"
  12. ^ ""Little Fatty" on the Big Screen." China Radio International at the China Internet Information Center. February 8, 2007. Retrieved on January 13, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that film which is bluelinked on WP, but where almost the entire article is an unsourced plot summary becomes a notable hook on which to hang this actor's notability? Really? Sorry - so far while some appear sympathetic to you trying to make an article, you have not shown that any real notability exists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, you said "but where almost the entire article is an unsourced plot summary" - The University Days of a Dog shows that the plot section makes up a small fraction of the article. The vast majority of the article is made up of sourced commentary from Chinese newspaper sources and RSes. The reliable sources talk about production, distribution, reception (2 reviews) and one source talks about themes. The film's notability, in my opinion, has been clearly established. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to the "Three Kingdoms" melange - where 'almost the entire article is the plot summary (actually detailed plot), and the "sources" include one which speciailzes in naked girg pics <g>, and boxofficemojo which, AFAICT, does not establish notability. And the obligatory cite for Fatty as meme. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. The bigger film role is the 2010 The University Days of a Dog - When I say "He starred as a main character in a major movie" I am referring to the 2010 film, since it's his first time as one of the main characters (the Chinese sources said this). However, thank you for pointing out issues in the "Three Kingdoms" article. I'll go ahead and see what I can do for that one. The CNN editor La Carmina did use the 2007 film role to support her statement that Qian went from "obscurity" to "film star" WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Hong Kong film, and therefore it got international attention, so there are some readily available sources in English. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the article improvement has been going along. Anyhow I found one of the editors was a Singaporean who knows Chinese. I asked him to take a look at the debate here, since this debate needs Chinese speakers. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not really in a position to comment since I've never edited the article. But just by looking at the number of sources that are available, I feel that notability has been established. Even Baidu Baike has an article on Qian Zhijun here. I found on Chinese Wikipedia this, which I thought might be helpful. And come on guys, give User:WhisperToMe a break! We can see that he's putting in a lot of effort. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be alright if I made posts on the Chinese Wikipedia asking more Chinese speakers to take a look and maybe offer suggestions regarding sourcing/etc? I think it would be very helpful to have Chinese speakers involved. I had no hand in the Baidu Baike article (due to censorship in the Mainland, more Mainland Chinese use Baidu Baike or Hudong than Wikipedia). I did personally help start the Chinese language "Little Fatty" article as an attempt at a translation of the English article, with some help from Chinese native speakers. Speaking of "Little Fatty" - the version I wrote in 2011 had a section called "Significance" with quotes from two English language journalists who said why "Little Fatty" is important in China. I'm sure there are Chinese language sources which also offer opinions and analysis of the phenomenon. I personally think the old DRV conclusion that "Little Fatty" was "non-notable" is flawed based on the English-language source analysis I found. Maybe Chinese sources would show this more clearlyWhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lonelydarksky. We don't allow articles to give users a "break" for their effort. Nor do the number of sources available indicate notability. The Chinese Wikipedia article was created by WhisperToMe and the "Baidu Baike" is simple another user-contributed project. So, none of this is an admissible argument in policy, nevermind a convincing one. All we have here is WhisperToMe bringing us sources - most of them tenuous and many about there meme. Nothing of substance is being presented here to justify allowing a recreation. If folks (other than Whisper) think otherwise, please state the argument, otherwise this fails. You need a policy-based consensus to restore.--Scott Mac 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I think I have built up a convincing case for also asking "Little Fatty" to be restored. Do you want me to post it in this thread, or start a new DRV thread WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • you've posted quite enough here, time to sit back and let people assess the data.--Scott Mac 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scott, I have analyzed the previous deleted revisions of the article, and the AFDs, and I believe there are deficiencies in both the older article and the previous AFDs. And I also conclude that my 2010 article has significant differences with the 2007 ones. I would very much like to make my case about this. Then I would like to let people sift through the data. Also, while the above is in relation to the person Qian, the case I have is different, relating to the internet meme. I would also like to argue for keeping the meme too. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original deletion discussions seem based on two concerns: Notability, and "Decency". Recent deletion prevents examination of new article. Editor now told to stop, but limited evidence presented here answers Notability concern. I cannot read Chinese, but, for example, 'Fatty' to host TV show is strong. Appearance in big-budget production with major cast (Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon) also indication that fame is not limited to Internet, or "15 minutes". "Decency" concerns presented at previous Deletion discussions ignore possibility that "Xiao Pang" ("Little Fatty") may be "cute" term of endearment in Chinese language, for example. (I don't know if it is.) Chinese film titles Enter the Fat Dragon, Skinny Tiger, Fatty Dragon show less sensitivity to weight-related humor than in West today. "Fat" nicknames were not so offensive in West in past either. "Minnesota Fats", "Fats Waller", "Skinny and Fatty" (some countries called Laurel and Hardy), "Fatty Arbuckle", for example. Actor now appearing in films, courting celebrity, not hiding in shame. Indicates this concern, also, groundless. Bravo to WhisperToMe for doing very good work despite discouraging opposition. Hanna Barberian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Barberian (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of his own TV show is Little Fatty’s Food Diary (小胖美食日记 Xiǎo Pàng Měishí Rìjì) - http://www.chinafoodtv.com/english/mov/xpms.html WhisperToMe (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - previous rationales. Sourcing is still weak for a BLP. Youreallycan 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) - Unlimited broadband access - unable ot investigate more at this time - moved to neutral. - Youreallycan 21:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so what sources would make this stronger? As for the previous rationale regarding sensitivity to the nickname, why do you believe still applies, or what would change the decision on the matter? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, after my friend translated two more news articles (and factoring some others), here's the second revised version:

Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han.[1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q.[2] The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief."[3] In 2007 New Line Cinema invited Qian to act in a film version of "Ghost Blows Out the Light."[4] Qian also became the host of a cooking show on China Food TV. The program, Little Fatty’s Food Diary (小胖美食日记 Xiǎo Pàng Měishí Rìjì),[5] began broadcast from a television station in Qingdao, eastern Shandong Province on January 29, 2007.[6] The program was broadcast on Sohu, one of China's major web portals.[7]

In 2010 Qian hosted a festival celebrating people with alternative body types in Shanghai.[8] He starred in the 2010 film The University Days of a Dog (一只狗的大学时光).[9] This was his occasion of starring as one of the main characters in a film. Qian did preparatory work before filming, and in an interview he said that he still had to learn a lot about acting.[10] "Seven years ago a photograph can lead to an Internet meme. Seven years later, to put it more accurately, the more mature and better Little Fatty who acted in The University Days of a Dog is no longer the same as before . QQ Entertainment News said "Based on this point, the phrase "spirit, spirit" coming from him, it's difficult not for him to become popular. This is because his expressions draw laughter. This is similar to Uncle Zhao's comedies."[11] In the film, he portrays Daxiong, a university student who dreams of becoming a cook and is the son of a wealthy man. Director Lu Zhengyu said that Qian's character is a crucial source of comedy, and many of the comedic scenes are centered on Daxiong.[12] Qian's role was also his first in a romance role, since his character engages in a romance with a kindergarten teacher. As part of the film's promotion, Qian was scheduled to go on a tour in many Chinese cities, promoting the film.[12]

In July 2011 Qian was married.[13] After his marriage, some online users lamented the new status, since he had changed from his boyhood status.[14]

  1. ^ "草根英雄走出网络大行其道." Hangzhou.com.cn. March 8, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. "小胖，本名钱志君，因为2002年自己无意中的一个表情，五年来被各地网友不断 .... 他来 说最好的机会便是，电影《三国之见龙卸甲》邀请他出演角色，饰演刘备的儿子刘禅。"
  2. ^ Carmina, La. "East vs. West: Asia’s 10 most viral memes knock out their Western counterparts." CNN. March 16, 2010. Retrieved on May 11, 2011.
  3. ^ ""Little Fatty" on the Big Screen." China Radio International at the China Internet Information Center. February 8, 2007. Retrieved on January 13, 2012.
  4. ^ "Little Fatty likely to appear in Hollywood film." China Daily. July 3, 2007. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.
  5. ^ "Bagua Dish Little Fatty’s Food Diary Daily Broadcast." China Food TV. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.
  6. ^ "'Fatty' to host TV show." China Daily. January 30, 2007. Retrieved on January 12, 2012.
  7. ^ "中华美食频道《小胖美食日记》联手sohu征选小胖搭档." Digital new-Media (BMedia). December 28, 2007. Retrieved on January 12, 2012.
  8. ^ "上百名“胖胖”聚会过节 网络红人小胖：有自信就美丽." Xinmin.cn. August 8, 2010. Retrieved on May 15, 2011. Text: "还认得我么？我就是著名的网络小胖。胖胖节我来当主持人。 新民网记者陆俊彦 静安文化馆现场回传" - Referring to this photograph, which is of Qian
  9. ^ 《一只狗》原创于深圳宣传造势 场面火爆(图)." Xinmin.cn. September 5, 2010. Retrieved on May 15, 2011.
  10. ^ "一只狗的大学时光将上映 剧中跑酷味十足." Xout.cn. July 30, 2010. "这次是他首次主演电影，谈及在大银幕上的表现，网络小胖谦虚的说自己还有很多需要和前辈学习的地方，为了拍摄这部电影，他也事先做了很多准备工作，希望大家能够满意他在片中的表现。"
  11. ^ "《一只狗的大学时光》网络小胖台词成流行语." QQ Entertainment News. August 8, 2010. Retrieved on January 13, 2012. "影片中把诙谐台词演绎的淋漓尽致的当推在片中饰演“大雄”的网络小胖。"
  12. ^ a b "《一只狗》主创将赴八城市 网络小胖受期待(图)." QQ Entertainment News. August 26, 2010. Retrieved on January 14, 2012.
  13. ^ "网络红人百变小胖结婚了 网友感叹岁月真是把杀猪刀." Gansu Daily. July 19, 2011. 1. Retrieved on January 12, 2012.
  14. ^ "网络小胖钱志君资料." Xi'an Civil Network. Retrieved on January 13, 2012. "也有网友感慨“岁月如飞刀，他也长大了”，并无限怀念起“我们的青葱互联网年代”"
  • So, is the sourcing stronger now? Youreally? Anyone else?WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WhisperToMe, please stop. All you are doing is providing MORE sources - that's not the issue. The issue is whether they show notability - that depends on the quality of the source, and how much they focus on the subject, not the number of sources. What is happening here, is rather than allow people to review whether that's enough to establish notability, you are simply posting screeds here, which will put anyone off reading it all and commenting. I appreciate you are doing a lot of work here, but this is not about how hard you work, it is about the notability of the subject. There is enough here for people to assess, so let them assess it. As I say, sit back and let consensus form.--Scott Mac 20:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scott, I do understand that providing more sources without addressing quality and focus is not the way to solve it. Having said that, a user used as his rationale "Sourcing is still weak for a BLP". When I post more sources, I do try to post sources that address "quality" and "how much they focus on the subject." I believe that the content sourced from the new sources I post should reflect the detail exhibited by those new sources. I will concede now that there is enough to review. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, if a source's article title has the words "Little Fatty" or 小胖 (Xiao Pang, Chinese for "Little Fatty") in the article title and/or prominently features photographs of Qian, wouldn't it be safe to say that the source talks about him in detail? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, - he doesn't appear to have "stared" in the movie and doesn't appear to have a major part in it? He seems to have been chosen for his comedy factor and had a minor appearance in it? Youreallycan 20:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He does have a small role in Three Kingdoms. He was chosen for comedy reasons (from my understanding that is common as a way to balance serious aspects). He has the large role in the 2010 film, where he was chosen for comedy reasons too. His character has a substantial story line in the 2010 film. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its so hard to investigate these externals. I will say that as per the above comment the first para is a bit exaggerated and the current para, could be re written from ... Qian starred in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon, where he played Liu Shan, the last emperor of the Shu Han.[1] His costars were Sammo Hung, Andy Lau, and Maggie Q.[2] The film producers said that they invited Qian to act in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon because, in the words of the China Radio International, "they think he's a really interesting guy and the movie needs a lighthearted character for comic relief."[3] to ...

Update: It turns out Qian was supposed to have a minor role in the 2007 Three Kingdoms film, but his role was axed because the film's script changed due to financing issues. So ultimately he does not appear in the 2007 film. This was discovered after a Chinese Wikipedia user called the issue to my attention. The Singaporean user who I collaborated with updated the film page, and I added some more material confirming that Qian's role was cut out: Three_Kingdoms:_Resurrection_of_the_Dragon#Replaced_cast. However Qian still did the 2010 film. And then we have the cooking show. I believe that this source says the cooking show had "365集）" - MDBG and Google Translate seem to indicate this, but I'm checking with the Singaporean just to make sure. The source indicated that Qian also engaged in related corporate advertising in Mainland China.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's 365 episodes. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Jon Weber (baseball) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD discussion, which I participated in, failed to mention an important piece of Weber's notability: he has competed at the highest levels of baseball in international competition, including the 2009 Baseball World Cup, where he won gold. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Foreign character (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin did not consider the weight of arguments, treating the discussion simplistically as a vote, in clear contradiction of policy. (Polite attempts to engage the admin in discussion have not been fruitful.) This is problematic since there were a large number of voters who had misunderstood the template in question, and were arguing to delete it based on specious arguments. This decision needs to be re-examined by a competent third party. Stemonitis (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion review will be very tricky for most of the people concerned because there are hardly any neutral participants. Only those involved in the original TfD. Stemonitis, I do believe you gave some good arguments aimed at keeping the template. I'm not very good at offering succinct arguments in XfDs, and don't believe for a second that I'm not completely biased, because having read the discussion, I believe the closing admin came to the correct decision – but that's exactly the problem, I voted to delete. So how are we going to get any further with this DRV? I think you've got off on the wrong footing with Fastily, and I believe that you now will not be satisfied with any explanation he now gives. However, there is no reason to suggest that he had not competently reviewed the discussion. I don't think this review will get anywhere apart from repeating the whole TfD again. My opinion: a number of users were voting to keep the template in question also not knowing why. For us two, at least, arguments are only aimed at outweighing the other. So where do we go from here? I've also had a number of discussions completely go against my views. Sometimes it's just better to accept the fact that the closing admin has done his very best, and if you feel the urgent need for review, let the dust settle and try to use a different rationale. Jared Preston (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not necessarily contesting the outcome. I think the template is useful, but that doesn't mean I think the consensus is that it should be kept. Perhaps it is, and perhaps it isn't. It's precisely because I know that I am not a fair judge of the debate that I want someone else to re-examine it. The point is that a contentious issue needs clear reasoning from the closing admin, and that was not forthcoming. XfD is not about weighing votes, it's about weighing arguments, and that's what I'd like to see done by an uninvolved party, who needn't be an admin, as far as I'm concerned. (And no, I cannot accept that Fastily did "his very best", because he/she evidently just performed a vote count, and refuses to accept that that was flawed.) The ideal outcome here would be for someone else to go through the arguments carefully, understand them, and explain which arguments are most worthy. (For instance, I think I argued that the "permission" aspect was a misunderstanding and so that argument for deletion should be discounted; no doubt the other side could produce similar counter-examples.) The admin's reasoning has to be clear, and has to be policy-compliant. Anyone who merely counts occurences of the words "delete" and "keep" is not doing that (sorry, Sandstein). I am not trying to re-open the debate, but merely to properly close the previous one. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I was not involved in the TfD. After reading the discussion, it appears that there was a clear (super)majority of opinions to delete the template, for reasons that were at least not self-evidently invalid, so the closure appears to be a correct reading of consensus at first glance. Because the DRV nominator does not tell us for which compelling reasons of policy the closer should have given less weight to "delete" opinions or more weight to "keep" opinions, I cannot support their request. DRV is not round 2 of the deletion discussion or a venue in which to hold the discussion on the merits all over again.  Sandstein  08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein, you're technically correct and your reading of the debate is very similar to my reaction at first reading. However, I was also uninvolved in the TfD and I'm not quite so sure. On examining the nomination statement again, reasons (2) and (3) are in fact reasons to edit the template, not reasons to delete it. Although I'm still digesting the others, it strikes me that this template does potentially have value.

    For example, you and I both speak fluent German. We both know that there's a difference between schon and schön, and we both know that you can spell the latter "schoen" if your keyboard doesn't contain the character ö. (Mine doesn't, if I want to produce o+umlaut I hold down "alt" while I type 0246.) It strikes me that plenty of people in Wikipedia's target audience will not know that in German, ö = oe, and there may be some value in a template that tells them. The estzet (ß) means a double-S and may be represented with "ss".

    I also speak French and there are regular features of French that it's informative and useful to tell people. The letter ç is pronounced as if it were "s", and a circumflex (^) usually indicates that a letter "s" has historically been removed from the word; the acute accent over an e is always pronounced a certain way, etc. I don't speak Spanish but I seem to recall that the tilde has a regular pronunciation value as well. Old English and Irish sometimes use the letter ð which has the value "th".

    In fact, the whole matter seems less than simple to me and some of the nominator's concerns could be addressed by editing the template rather than deleting it. I need to go back and parse the discussion in more detail before I actually !vote but I want to respond to Sandstein by saying that I think this needs thought and could be quite complicated.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • All right, I've printed the whole thing out (24 pages) and read it carefully. There are an awful lot of opinion statements in there, many of which show a failure to understand the issues and can be disregarded. Some of the points raised in the nomination are not reasons to delete, they're reasons to edit the template. But others do appear quite valid and not addressed during the debate. Those !voting "keep" are often !voting to keep an edited version of the template which, I think, would have to be language-specific, because transliterations that are appropriate for one language are not appropriate for others. After that exercise, I can see a consensus to delete not just through the numbers but also through the strength of the arguments, and I therefore endorse Fastily's decision. However, we should just be clear that although Template:Foreign character has been deleted and should not be recreated, this specifically does not prejudice against the creation of more specific templates such as Template:German character or Template:French character, and such templates could indeed be of value.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time, but I'm still confused on one point. How does your suggestion of creating more specific templates differ from keeping the template, and suggesting it only be used for certain languages? The transliteration was always user-specified, so there is nothing language-specific about the template, nor does there need to be. If there's a reason to have a Template:German character, then there's a reason to keep Template:Foreign character. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the way I read it was that editors did not approve of the template as it was actually used. To use an example from the debate, Götterdämmerung had a headnote that read "gotterdammerung" instead of "goetterdaemmerung", which was distinctly unhelpful. I think the consensus was that the way the template was actually used caused confusion, and indeed misinformed, without shedding any real light for our end users. But I do see your point that this is fixable. For example, Template:Foreign character could be amended to require a language input, so what you'd actually type would be {{Template:Foreign character|de}}. In such a case precedent and policy suggest that we should fix the template rather than deleting it.

    But I think the way the discussion went, any such fix would have to be forced. What I mean by that is that the consensus was that the existing template was not just unhelpful but actually damaging. The fix would have to be such that it left no confusing hatnotes on articles. Such a fix would be very complicated and challenging to code, because it would have to know that in one language ö=oe, in another å=aa, and so on for literally hundreds of languages. I think separate templates by language would be so much simpler to code and so much cheaper in terms of resources to transclude that they should probably be mandatory.

    I hope I've explained that well. I wrote a long post because I didn't have time to prepare a short one. It's clear in my head but I'm not sure if other people will be able to follow it on screen, so please let me know if I need to try to say it another way.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear. That example is a very poor one. As far as I can see, Götterdämmerung never had {{foreignchar}}, and even if it had, it would never have suggest "Gotterdammerung" [sic] (but rather the valid Goetterdaemmerung; it was unfortunate that the debate got side-tracked by this non-issue). One fortuitous aspect of the template was that it didn't need to know the language in order to produce the transliteration, because that was user-defined. The way to achieve the fix you suggest was thus already implemented in the existing template. The template can be misused, and probably was misused in some cases, but it's the others we need to worry about. I couldn't see any reason why it shouldn't be used in other cases, and it seems that you could advocate a similar situation being used in those other cases. I don't see how that translated into endorsing the deletion. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I get for printing the debate out and reading on paper rather than reading it onscreen and following the links, lol. But invalidating that one example isn't to be confused with invalidating the central point, which was most succinctly expressed by bobrayner and Hans Adler during the debate.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, at least I know now which arguments are considered to have won, even if I disagree with them. Thank you for taking the time and effort to investigate. It's nice to get some measured responses for once; there has been all too little of that in this case, both from participants and the closing admin. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion, as stated above, there was consensus to delete the template. this does not mean, however, that the subject cannot be revisit, and that a new template could not be created if there is consensus to do so. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a bit disappointing (sob!) that Stemonitis did not have the courtesy to let me, (the initiator of the TFD), know that he wished to bring it back from the dead. But let me just say that I still hold by everything I wrote in my initial nomination and subsequently (measured or unmeasured), throughout an extremely drawn-out and repetitive discussion; I believe that the tenor of opinion overall was clear and therefore of course would be glad to endorse the deletion if am allowed a say in these circumstances.--Smerus (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Callum Driver (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requesting review of my speedy deletion of this page, which I deleted under G4. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those of us without the bit cannot see the deleted content to see whether this was a valid G4. Either you need to undelete it for discussion or we need some detail on whether the content was the same. Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And another ref - http://www.whufc.com/articles/20120107/driver-makes-brewers-bow_2236884_2568383--Egghead06 (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Egghead06 that this is not a good candidate for a G4 deletion because the new version seems to address the deficiencies for which the old version was deleted (i.e., lack of a professional career and coverage).  Sandstein  08:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As the person who raised the second AFD nom I feel I should comment. That AFD stated "there is no evidence to suggest that the reasons to delete last time (fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG) no longer apply.". With the version recreated last week and deleted this morning, the first of those issues had certainly been addressed. Extracts follow:
Callum Driver ... plays as a defender for Burton Albion ... in January 2012 he moved on loan to League Two side, Burton Albion ... [he] made his debut for Burton on 6 January 2012 in a home game against Accrington Stanley, the match ended 2-0 to Accrington.[1]
  1. ^ "Burton Albion 0 - 2 Accrington Stanley". BBC Sport. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
It so happens that Burton Albion play in Football League Two, which is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#List of fully professional leagues under "England", so WP:NFOOTY no. 2 is now satisfied. As to whether WP:GNG is satisfied or not, that is a much more subjective matter. However, to my mind, the article had been given substantial additional content, with references, compared to the previous version. This, together with my comment about NFOOTY, means that the article should not have been deleted under WP:CSD#G4, which states "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy ... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since I reversed the speedy delete on appeal at WP:REFUND I will repeat my summary that now has played at top level, and article not the same as at AFD. Although I have reversed a few of User:Fastily's speedy deletes I will say that I support the vast majority of his deletions. So I do not see any systematic problem. User:Fastily does a huge amount of administrator work so a small subpercentage may need a check. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 January 2012

[edit]

10 January 2012

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

Article speedy deleted as a G4: but current version was not substantially identical (or unimproved) compared to the version deleted in 2008. Suggest restoring or relisting for appropriate discussion. 94.9.69.145 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Although content has been added to this article compared to the last time it was deleted, there is still nothing in there to suggest that Hakon Winther has ever done anything that would pass WP:GNG. His association to the North Norway movement should be mentioned on any articles connected to said movement, not in a separate article, and his football career is definitely not noteworthy. – PeeJay 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • this appears to be the diff between the deleted version and the one recreated. this is the diff between the one deleted and the one G4'ed. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak send to AfD, second choice weak keep deleted. I lean towards a new AfD because it will set an updated consensus. There is additional text in the recreation, but it is very weak. Two of the new sources are obviously poor: a personal (not Winther's) web page and a language blog. Neither Republikken Hålogaland nor Hålogalandspartiet exists as an English Wikipedia article. User:Eliteimp also created the Playerhistory.com article around the same time in June 2010. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural overturn. Unfortunately there is enough difference from previous version to qualify for G4, and almost 2 years had passed between deletion and recreation which with the additions could be impacted by WP:CCC, but as instigator of the original AfD discussion I too were looking at deletion options since yesterday noting its re-emergence, mainly on non notability and verifiability grounds. Suggest a new AfD if deletion overturned.--ClubOranjeT 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the G4 speedy because it was clearly an error and I do not see any other speedy criterion applying either. Importance is asserted. Whether the revamped article meets the notability guidelines, I am not sure, but that is not a present concern – the AfD discussion about playing in a fully professional league still has some relevance but is no longer decisive. Thincat (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • G4 is for when the recreation is substantially identical, and JClemens' diff shows that it was not. Our role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed and in this case I don't see that it was, so this belongs at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that recreating an already deleted article violated wikipedia's policies. If you go to an article which is already deleted, there is a notice on the page "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." Even though there are differences between the deleted article and the improved article, it's still the same content. And I don't believe he got a green light from any administrator to recreate the page. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not against policy to recreate a previously deleted article (not necessarily, anyway). If the original page was deleted through a deletion discussion then a recreation of the page that does not address the reason for deletion can be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4. Pages which have been speedily deleted can also be recreated, though if the recreation still falls under the same speedy deletion criterion it is likely to be speedily deleted again. There's certainly no requirement to get the permission of an administrator before recreating a page. Hut 8.5 21:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, let's go to AfD. Fwiw, I'm not endorsing my own deletion! ;) -FASTILY (TALK) 07:01, 12 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Public domain films (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is a discussion to recover this category: Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Film. Now that List of films in the public domain in the United States is sourced well, I wonder if we can put efforts into categorizing films especially made before 1923. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This review follows on from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Copyright_claimant_data. The main reason for the deletion I see was that films that are in the PD in the US aren't necessarily PD in other countries. The suggestion is to set up Category: Public domain films in the United States and make it a sub-cat of Category:Public domain films. We have a sourced article of PD films, so these categories wouldn't state anything beyond the claims the list already makes; anything added to the category will be required to be on the list with a source, and the category has the added benefit of making the information available from the film article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could adding the category Public domain films in the United States lead to category clutter, if a film is in Public domain in many countries? Lugnuts (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns; however, copyright laws are very complicated from country to country. If an American film is in the public domain in China, then I must add a category of China. Nevertheless, it requires a lot of paperwork from sources that mention the film. I tried "Copyright status" in Storm in a Teacup (film), but I realized I have done OR. --George Ho (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George, if a film is PD in over a hundred countries, which is possible if a country is a Berne signatory, then you cannot add a hundred categories. We would have to limit the category to films of that country; for instance most countries are signatories of the Berne convention that recognise the copyright terms of the country where the film is copyrighted i.e. if a film is copyrighted in America then it cannot be PD in the country of a Berne signatory; if the film then becomes PD in America then it might be PD in other countries. Whether an American film is PD in China is not really that notable, but if it is PD in the US then that can have ramifications in 164 other countries. The reverse is true of Chinese films i.e. it is the Chinese copyright terms that are relevant for Chinese copyrighted work. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the name of the category you propose above as Category: Public domain films in the United States needs refinement, the suggested title implies no limitation to just films produced in the US. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the concept of using Categories in this way as a potentially much better way of dealing with copyright data relating to films than adding confusing little snippets of data to all film articles. If we want to include copyright data, then this is a better way to handle it. I'm not personally convinced we should include copyright data at all, unless a secondary source has something notable to say about it, but if we are going to, then this approach of keeping it central to a "list" and using Categories beats the other approach hands down IMO. If the Category needs renaming, then rename it. Begoon talk 03:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. This category will be abused and misused, as it was in the past. Any reference to a film being in the PD needs to have immediate sources, a category should not be used to circumvent that process. We already have List of films in the public domain in the United States. If you create this category, it will be populated by films that people "believe" are in the PD but have no supporting sources. The notion that the Category would only contain films from the List-of article would never work, no one's going to police the category much less ensure the List-of article is properly sourced (I personally re-did the entire list, it was unsourced for years listing many copyright films as being PD, no one seemed to care). I would support a cat called Category:Public domain films in the United States from pre-1923, which is what I think George is really after. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Each category attached to an article has to be sourced within the article - we categorise by 'defining characteristics', ie essential properties, and something not mentioned in the article can hardly be essential. In any case, being PD in a particular country is incidental, not defining. Oculi (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think your "oppose" vote is grounded in policy, Oculi, because the existence of these types of categories are clearly permitted under Category:Public domain. Resurrecting the category would just bring it into line with books and music. The only real question is the scope and criteria for the category. Green Cardamom's revision to the proposal seems the most pragmatic solution. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 January 2012

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

This discussion was originally closed as keep, but then changed several days later to delete. The closing admin, Fastily‎, asked me to open a DRV here, expressing uncertainty on how it should be closed. By my biased reading of the discussion, the rationale for deleting it is that it is "redundant" to {{plainlist}}. However, the {{plainlist}} template does not work in image captions, while {{unbulleted list}} does. Andy called this reason "invalid" since the example given had only recently been converted to use {{plainlist}} and/or {{unbulleted list}}. However, this does not change the fact that {{plainlist}} fails in image captions, while {{unbulleted list}} does not. There is also no technical reason why {{unbulleted list}} cannot be simply changed to use "class=plainlist", which would make it generate the exact same html as {{plainlist}} (see what appears to be agreement with this point here). In addition, the {{unbulleted list}} template uses the same syntax as some other list templates, like {{collapsible list}}, which means it can be indented when used within another infobox, which makes the wikitext easier to read. I did not cite this reason in the debate, but one which has become very clear to me when I attempted to convert a few instances of the unbulleted list template. Finally, by not orphaning the {{unbulleted list}} template, we save needless edits to a few thousand articles, since adding "class=plainlist" would only require a single edit to the parent template (see here). Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Overturn to keep, albeit slightly reluctantly because I really dislike the syntax requiring all the list items as arguments, rather than the alternative method with {{plainlist}} ... {{endplainlist}}. But that {{unbulleted list}} works in image captions is a pretty compelling rationale for me, assuming that {{plainlist}} cannot be made to do so too. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the instigator of both {{Unbulleted list}} and {{Plainlist}}, which was intended to replace it; and as the nominator for the deletion discussion under review. We don't need two very similar templates, with slightly different syntaxes, for the same purpose. That will only confuse editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep on procedural grounds. When Andy asked Fastily te reconsider, Fastily should have asked Andy to open a DVR. Changing a Keep to a Delete days after closure is out of procedure. I myself already removed the discussion from my watchlist. As for the tempalte, {{unbulleted list}} does provide extra functionality that {{plainlist}} does not, namely styling and the fact that it works in image caption. It's a clunky template, but there is no way around that. I'd love to see it go, but not without a proper replacement. — Edokter (talk) — 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it true that this template has over 10,000 transclusions and if so, do we know how many pages will be broken by deleting it? I'm quite strongly opposed to deletion unless it can be shown that the cleanup afterwards is manageable and can be achieved in a reasonable timescale without disruption to end-users. I'm also troubled because I can't seem to find a consensus to delete in that discussion. —S Marshall T/C 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the transclusion count is now closer to 3000, after efforts by many editors (including myself, e.g., see edits to college athlete recruit end) to replace it with other templates. and, typically, a deletion outcome does include placing the template in WP:TFD/H, until it can be orphaned. but, I do agree that there was no consensus to delete, or I would not have started this DRV. Frietjes (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really can't see why there would be two decisions without a new discussion, so the first decision, which seems properly arrived at, should stand, while the later one, a couple of days later, should be overturned. Another option would be to relist, since two decisions is rather odd. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked Fastily‎ to review his closing decision, as I believed it was incorrect. He did so, and agreed with me. This is entirely in keeping with the deletion process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree; opening a DRV on the original decision would have been the proper procedure. — Edokter (talk) — 13:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, its not. Why do you think people are required to try and work it out with the admin who closed the debate before coming here? Admins are allowed to overturn their own closures. Yoenit (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you cite me the policy which states this? I am having trouble locating it (probably because it doesn't exist). Fact is, arbitrarely changing the outcome of an AfD two days after closure is a serious breach of procedure; it is exactly the situation what DRV is intended for. — Edokter (talk) — 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I found this snippet on WP:DRV: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator." First of all, what issue? Andy disagreed with the outcome; that is not an "issue" warranting a reconsideration. The original closure was correct; there was no consensus to delete. — Edokter (talk) — 16:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep There was a clear consensus to keep the template. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep consensus was clear and not irrational. Hobit (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can somebody give me an example of the broken image description using that template? At the moment I doubt that such a merge couldn't be done because of technical reasons. mabdul 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    an IP editor provided this example. basically, wiki-markup fails in image captions, as pointed out by Edokter, but HTML does work. the 'unbulleted list' template doesn't use wiki-markup, but generates HTML directly, so it works, while plainlist does not. one can make 'unbulleted list' generate the exact same HTML markup as plainlist just by adding 'class=plainlist' to that template, but there is no way to fix the 'plainlist template', unless that 'bug' is fixed. Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. mabdul 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep. mabdul 10:51, 12 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Laura Massey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this as "delete" two years ago, and there have been two DRV's since then. Now a user has brought up a source on my talk page, which may be considered significant coverage. See what you guys think of it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The Wired article would be persuasive if it we could accept it as WP:RELIABLE. But it's not. It appears to be a blog post, not something that was subjected to the kind of editorial review our guidelines require. (Btw, I applaud your integrity in DRV'ing your own close when a question arises. Good on ya!) Msnicki (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it in quite so much black and white as Msnicki. Yes, it's a blog, and I wouldn't see that as a reliable source myself, but Angela Watercutter is a staff writer and an editor of another magazine so there's a prima facie arguable case. I think it could be worth incubating and seeing what the user can come up with, on the understanding that the finished draft still has to pass scrutiny at DRV before it can be moved to mainspace. I don't feel very strongly about it so let's call that weak incubate.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A magazine's blog that is more about the nerd game thing than the girl herself is a bit underwhelming. I find this scrimping and scraping to get some video gamer personality an article...what is this,. 3 tries now?...to be a bit irksome, honestly. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. Wired (magazine) is reliable, and this seems entirely within what is covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation and relist as desired Non-trivial source added that certainly helps with WP:N, so not a G4. Not clear it's enough though, so no objection to a relist at AfD. Hobit (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Even if we were generous and described this as a reliable source, it is pretty much primary, references software as much as the subject and lacks sufficient depth to allow a BLP to be created around it. I guess hot geek girl working for M$ is an assertion of notability for many users but this source falls way short of meeting the GNG/BIO standard. Spartaz Humbug! 07:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, oppose recreation. I accept the source as reliable enough, but as the basis of a biography of a living person it's not substantial enough on its own. It mostly covers her service and conveys almost no information about her.  Sandstein  18:31, 17 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Elana Amsterdam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed improperly by a non-admin, Armbrust (talk · contribs). WP:NAC requires that for a non-admin closure, that the AfD discussion be "absent any contentious debate among participants." There were two of us still arguing for delete, many of the keeps were little more than WP:JUSTAVOTE and I had just hours earlier posted a serious criticism of the meager sources offered. While an admin might have been acting within the guidelines to close as keep, a non-admin closure is simply not appropriate. I requested that Armbrust undo his close but he has refused. Msnicki (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but WP:NAC is the authority cited in the close. If that's not supposed to apply, why cite it? Better question: if that "essay" is all wrong and some of you know what it should say (obviously, I don't), could one of you fix it, please? Like most folks, I'm just trying to do the right thing, but it helps to have the right information. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't his choice. It's there because the closing script used by many of of us adds it if you are not an admin. If it were up to me then it would point to the actual guideline on the issue if anywhere. On the issue of WP:NAC itself, I view it as the most common interpretation of WP:NACD and as "advice" and it's damn good advice, particularly for those not experienced in closing AFDs. However, as a guideline or policy, it would be creepy and I would oppose any attempt to promote it. I don't want to see non-admin AFD closers dragged to DRV because they closed an AFD with one drive-by "per nom" delete !vote or 20 minutes early.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per Eluchil404, and I want to add that administrators do not have a monopoly on judging consensus on Wikipedia. They're janitors, not authority figures. While most of our administrators are sincere and well-meaning, their numbers include self-confessed drug users and quite a few children, and I see no reason to trust an administrator's judgment more highly than I would any other established user.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the "Keep" decision for the Elana Amsterdam article, per the sources I added to the article and numerous "keep" votes per those sources. One editor even struck out their delete vote and changed it to "keep" after the sources were introduced. Hopefully the user that improperly closed the AfD (due to delete !votes and discussion occurring) won't continue to do so, as it is monotonous to have to re-do AfD discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 January 2012‎
  • Endorse Might not have been the best discussion for an NAC, but the closer weighed consensus correctly, and I think that's what counts here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a keep. While incomplete, the article seem like a good stub. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse'. In my NAC days, I would give pause before closing AFDs like this one where the nom was actively trying to impeach "keep" !votes but I might have closed this one after reading the nom's last comment where he said Okay, apparently the consensus is going heavily toward keep. The keeps weren't the strongest I've seen but it's unlikely that any admin would have closed this any other way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I took part in the discussion and argued (I hate using the word "Vote" in AfDs) for a keep. I was little surprised that it ended with a NAC but the argument was heading very clearly for a keep. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 January 2012

[edit]

7 January 2012

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

Premature closure. Substantial information had been added to the associated article's talk page and deletion discussion less than 24 hours prior to termination. Only two active participants since article was wholly unsourced, yielded zero known non-circular search results, listed incorrect geographical coordinates, and was generally indiscernible from a hoax. Associated discussion may be seen here. No prejudice against subsequent deletion if rescue is impossible. Suggest relisting.   — C M B J   10:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I can see the page in the Google cache, I'm not having any luck finding the sources listed on the talk page. Could someone list the 14 sources involved? I've asked at WP:IRAN for help evaluating the sources. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd more than welcome collaboration from WP:IRAN if we can find someone willing and able, though I think we should avoid turning this into round 2 by debating content here.   — C M B J   23:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the debate was that largely it wasn't based on the sources--just people's sense if an intersection can be notable. As you pointed out, if it has coverage enough to meet WP:N it's at least potentially worth having an article on. So we really need to figure that out. This, IMO, is a case where the original debate was suffeciently flawed that a debate on the merits needs to happen again. We could just relist and hope for a more informed debate, but I think we should see if we can get language/subject experts involved so we are more likely to make the right decision. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The six sources in the article
The eight sources on the talk page
Religious activities
Mourning assemblies
22 Bahman demonstrations (1389)
Qods Day demonstrations (1388)
Closures
City planning
  • (closing admin) I have copied-and-pasted the sources above. It also might be useful to read the discussion between CMBJ and I on my talk page at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Paramount Intersection. There I have explained my reasoning as to why I did not feel that CMBJ's keep !vote was sufficient to sway the consensus, and xe has presented some arguments against it. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist When substantial relevant information is presented late in a discussion, the discussion needs to continue long enough to judge whether the information results in comments that might change the apparent conclusion. An admin is not permitted to judge whether the additional information changes the conclusion--that would amount to a supervote. The closer must let the community comment, before closing. If the closer should have a personal opinion on whether or not the information changes the result,as it seems from their talk page comments the closer did here, they should instead comment in the discussion, and let someone else close--all as usual. It seems obvious to me that the additional information was substantial and relevant; whether it would induce me to say keep is another matter, which I will consider if I decide to comment on the relisted discussion; it's not relevant to the decision to relist. (On the other hand, had the additional information been trivial, it need not be taken into account; this is a discussion the closer most make, but it seems here clearly more than trivial.) I strongly deprecate the practice of closing a non-obvious AfD discussion without a least a few words of rationale: such a practice would make these talk page discussions less necessary, and increase transparency of administrative decisions. I suggest that we require it. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The nomination is fair enough but was refuted by new information; the first !vote is an entirely subjective near-rant from someone whose contributions are usually much better; the second simply endorses the previous arguments, neither of which hold up; the third is subjective; the sole keep !vote begins with a subjective rationale but goes on to list sources, which is better; the fourth delete is reasonable but doesn't address the new sources; and the fifth makes a (somewhat out-of-character) bare assertion with no reasoning to support it. That leaves just one, which attempts to address the sources but admits to not being able to read them and then states without evidence that the intersection fails the GNG. When the only policy-based rationales are either outdated or unsupported, the subjective ones are refutable in ten seconds and discussion is still ongoing, relisting seems like the only reasonable option. So let's have the sourcing debate properly. If it turns out that they don't provide enough coverage to convince people that the intersection meets the GNG, that's fine, but so far we haven't even come close to demonstrating that. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse with userfy  Alzarian16 has done insightful analysis and I fundamentally agree.  However, I think a better way to handle this AfD is to use DRV to conclude that more sources have been found, and to enable re-creation of the article.  This Google CID is not by itself definitive, but shows grey areas on all four sides of an intersection, and lends credibility to the possibility that this gathering area is notable.  But re-creation should be done judiciously.  If WP:IDENTIFIABILITY were a policy, and the existence of topic titles had to be verifiable, I doubt that the current title would be identifiable in the English language.  I looked at three of the sources listed here in Google translate and they were minimal.  Based on those three sources, "...the rallying point of numerous public gatherings and activist assemblies" is WP:SYNTH.  A better map than the Google map would be helpful.  Before creating an article, maybe this topic should be mentioned in Shiraz, Iran.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Juliet Simms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non-admin closure. Closer decided to keep article while discussion had already moved to a redirect to Automatic Loveletter. Discussion was still active, so closure was a surprise. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a mistake to close this AfD as a keep closure without reading the debate in its entirety. The rationale for nomination was nothing other than "unsourced BLP" and the first vote was "speedy keep" addressing the nomination reason. The second vote, a "redirect" was complaining about the article containing content no other than the band, thus not addressing the AfD nomination reason. I should have not closed it so early, and I think WP:RELIST should have been a better move to generate more clear consensus. Although it is worth mentioning that the user who made this review called this a s***y decision. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this decision is really bothersome, I can go ahead, reverse the closure, and WP:RELIST it. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<waving a peace sign>Yes, reversing the closure and relisting will be a better idea. Night of the Big Wind talk 04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. One additional "keep" vote since re-listing. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 January 2012

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

I would like this article to be restaured, so as to correct the problems. Thanks in advance,--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted as an advert and upon searches i can't find reliable independent sources. So I'm unsure how this could be anything but. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than 300 on google schlolar [16]. I suppose some of these are worse to use. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How reliable though and how many are actually about the place rather than passing mentions. I think it may be possible but you may be better getting it moved to userspace to allow you to work on it to see if possible and move if ready. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine with me. Can you please move it so as to keep the history to User talk:Rédacteur Tibet/Mind and Life Institute ? thanks,--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't but thats the best approach gives you time to work on it without risk of deletion. Im sure a passing admin will do it for you but i have left a note on Fastilys page asking if he will kindly do it. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that the File:MindLifeInstituteLogo.jpg (and related reduced-size images) risk deletion on 12 January. I indicated on the talk page of that file why it should not be deleted: "This logo was used by the page on the Mind and Life Institute. That page was deleted. However there is no doubt it will be created again with renewed content (but the logo image will be used again). The page on this institute is part of the WikiProject Organizations, and it was listed as a popular page on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organizations/Popular_pages, which supports the claim that the page will be recreated. As a consequence, the logo should not be deleted.". Who could take action on this, in case restauration happens to be done only after 12 January? RobleQuieto (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RobleQuieto. Can any Admin. move the Mind and Life Institute to User talk:Rédacteur Tibet/Mind and Life Institute so that the history is saved? Thanks, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It doesn't meet G11: It's clearly not "exclusively promotional". Also WP:COI does not mean that the editor can't work on it, as erroneously assumed here. Finally, Rédacteur Tibet is an editor in good standing who obviously has done good edits outside of this article. The article does need independent references, though. — Sebastian 21:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It dosent appear to be overly promotional but is in a pretty bad state. Needs a lot of work even to prove notability. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added bibliography section with an article and 3 books that contain independent references that I'll exploit to improve the article. Other contributors are wellcome to participate. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Po Sum On (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Someone at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#PO SUM ON wants this article to be resurrected. To be honest, the deletion discussion lacks a possibility that the non-English sources may indicate notability of this "Hong Kong"-based corporation (http://www.posumon.com.hk/). The Chinese name is 保心安, and I used it to search for this topic: [17], [18], and other news sources. If anyone understand Chinese, that may be relieving George Ho (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin – If there are reliable sources that provide sufficient coverage, and there is a rough consensus that agrees with that, then I have no problem with restoring it. However, it is not up to the closing administrator to find sources in which those in or outside the deletion discussion have failed to do (otherwise, said admin would need to instead !vote in the discussion than close it). --MuZemike 22:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've crossposted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China in the hope that we can attract some attention from some of Wikipedia's several thousand Chinese speakers.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note: This is mentioned in also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong because the company headquarters are in Hong Kong. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I looked at the first of the links that George Ho provided, and it's about the company donating 1000 packages to the Wuhan traffic police - a nice idea for a PR action, but certainly not noteworthy in itself beyond the limits of Wuhan. The article reads as if it's just taken verbatim from a typical press release, and indeed, the newspaper itself is of doubtful notability. We have no article for it; not even in the Chinese Wikipedia. While its English name may suggest it being comparable to the Times or the NYT, its Chinese name "长江商报" translates actually to "Changjiang commerce newspaper". For all I know, this might just be a one of those free advertising financed newspapers. After realizing that the deleted article didn't even have a link to any Chinese sister article, I regret having wasted my time with this thus far. — Sebastian 23:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean, "Endorse deletion"? Anyway, let's search for this topic in other Chinese sources. There may be others that significantly cover it. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strictly, SebastianHelm is in accordance with convention when he says "keep deleted". In cases where the nomination statement doesn't ask us to review the previous deletion decision or the debate, DRV has an alternative function of supervising whether it's appropriate to recreate a previously-deleted article, so one would expect !votes in the format "keep deleted" or "allow recreation".—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about the misunderstanding. I know what you mean, George; "Keep deleted" sounds too much like "Keep". And thank you, S Marshall, for the clarification. So, to avoid any misunderstanding, I changed it above. Please feel free to delete this discussion that now has become moot. — Sebastian 17:22, 9 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
East Turkistan Government in Exile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who closed the AfD, I have no opinion about the notability of the new version of the article, but I have concerns that the new version that is now being proposed is an exercise in advocacy rather than a neutral description of this movement. For instance, it contains this unsourced map which is apparently meant to represent the real boundaries of real countries. Given that there seems to be no editor at the moment who is interested in or capable of developing this article in WP:NPOV form, it might be better to keep it redirected to the leader of this movement.  Sandstein  19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realized the issue of the map. Since this page is about a government organization, I decided to delete the map and link the words East Turkistan to the Wiki page, where several sourced maps can be found. And yes, it would be great if there were other editors knowledgeable in the matter of ETGIE to "neutralize" the article, however the majority of people who are informed of or associated with ETGIE are predominantly Turks and Uyghurs who do not speak the English language. ETGIE directs almost all of its activity towards the Turkic community. Tewpiq (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the draft article clearly shows notability, so the result of the AfD has been superseded. Producing this sort of result is an ideal conclusion to AfD, and I think the new version could have been restored by any admin without needing to come here. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 January 2012

[edit]

4 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A sub-article of a clearly notable main topic. The issue is that of appropriate scope, not overall notability. The discussion was fairly evenly split between keep & delete, with a significant group wishing to merge. The closing admin dismissed all the keep arguments as merely ILIKEIT. Whilst there are arguments on both (or three) sides, there was clearly no shared consensus to act in any particular way.

It was later raised with the closing admin at User_talk:DGG#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FChristopher_Hitchens.27s_critiques_of_public_figures, but this was dismissed out of hand as, "There's no point in continuing here. I was correct in every way that matters." Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Administrators are empowered, and expected, to use their judgment, discretion, and knowledge of policy to apply appropriate weight to each !vote in a discussion. By this process DGG has parted the veil of an apparent lack of consensus to uncover the true consensus beneath: that Wikipedia should not play host to this material. His finding was absolutely correct and I endorse it accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 13:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which finding was correct and appropriate? That my !vote was an ILIKEIT (as he wrote) or that is was not (as he wrote)? And how have irrelevant findings (such as personal preferences, even as a !vote, personal previous experiences with the nom) gotten weight to appear in the closing rationale, and has a finding about quote farm been so less weight that it did not appear in the closing argument at all (though afterwards it appeared from the lost & found)? -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, you write Wikipedia should not play host to this material. However which way you wrapped it, this is a !vote judgement on the article. That is not what DRV is about. Also, you have not commented in the first AfD, and do I assume you have not read the article after deletion. I think you writing here is not relevant at all. And, let' s not forget, you were asked a retract. -DePiep (talk)
  • My comment was about the thing we're supposed to be reviewing—the finding of "delete" at the AfD. I thought it was correct and appropriate. I realise you were unsatisfied with your subsequent conversation on DGG's talk page. I think that you felt annoyed because DGG misspoke and you felt he was being inconsistent and unreasonable. I understand why that is, but Deletion Review is really about whether the close was right. It's not really about the talk page discussion afterwards.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV has always been a farce, for just that reason. A deletion review, where the one thing that can't be examined is the content under question? To extend this to also ignoring the admin's response since, and their marvellous claim of infallibility, "I was correct in every way that matters." is only to be expected. It's just a shame Hitchens never turned his pen to Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG didn't say he was infallible. What he said was he thought he was basically in the right on this occasion. I do agree that Christopher Hitchens on Wikipedia would have been bloody hilarious.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)S Marshall, I did point to the closing arguments. And the elaborated argumentation on the closers Talk page can surely be an argument here, e.g. when it deviates so seriously from the closing argument. All this for that reason: to evaluate the closing process. Finally, your I realise you and I think that you we can do without. I can write my own edits. Please retract. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall you have not contributed to the AfD. Now here you show up without knowing the deleted article, with a !vote saying WP should not play host to this material. Which is a !vote and not what DRV is about, and in between you write what I think and feel. Any independent admin would throw your comment out. -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, you still have not retracted personal remarks (attacks) I pointed out. -DePiep (talk)
I would not characterize either of those comments as a personal attack --Guerillero | My Talk 04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are far from attacks, and I see no reason to retract them. They are remarks about your reaction to the deletion, and your subsequent comments show how accurate they were. It's not necessary for me to see the deleted material in this case, because DRV is not AFD round 2. Deletion review is about reviewing the deletion debate and the close. I have all the information I need to reach my recommendation to the closer, and you will note how many people agree with me. It's a pity that you chose to take offence but I must say that I do see that your choice: my remarks were not offensive of themselves.

    If you wish to continue the dispute then you should not do so in this deletion review. You should instead head for the dispute resolution process such as WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U, where I will happily submit to community review of what I've said.—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, you were paternalisticaly saying what I was supposed to think or feel. And in general here: your interpretation of what DRV is, is not convincing and only tailored to serve your outcome (your even squeezed in here a !vote). Your noting how many people agree with me illustrates that nicely. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, SMarshall is correct in his interpretation of DRV: its purpose is to review the close itself, not a second attempt at !voting on keeping/deleting the article (aka "not AfD round 2"). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bite (or whatever your hidden name is), even I could construct such a point in time and talk where S Marshall is right. But overall, S Marshall was paternalistic to me and disallows any closers:Talk page about discussion. That is not DRV as in WP:DRV. The problem is, he doesn't like it. How about you? -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...what? You're not even making sense now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with S Marshall. In addition, it is somewhat disingenuous to say that DGG "dismissed out of hand" the concerns that were raised on his talk page. DGG made that comment after engaging in an extensive discussion. Endorse. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I nominated this for deletion. The article I found was, in its substance, an anthology of quotations from the late Christopher Hitchens wittily lambasting various public figures. I believed this to be redundant to the mission of Wikiquote, and suggested that the material was more appropriate there than here. While many editors defended the page, they neither changed it during the AfD to make it more than an anthology of quotations, or really explain why the collection was an encyclopedia article rather than a collection of quotations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was not merely "a collection of quotes", as noted at the AfD, and so it couldn't be moved, as an article, to Wikiquote. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would have required some fairly trivial reformatting. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and kudos to DGG for making the right decision and properly giving BLP weight over N. Its worth commenting that DGG is not a BLP fanatic, in fact, I would characterise him is generally BLPSceptic so the weight of the BLP risk is clearly high if DGG finds that BLP outweighs N in this specific case. Spartaz Humbug! 02:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Closing editor did not invoke BLP at any time. Are you a troll? -DePiep (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please tone down your rhetoric. Spartaz is an admin who has the bit turned off. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind an admin's bit. I was reading his comment. My response stands. -DePiep (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – The arguments for retention were sorely lacking substantively, whereas the arguments for deletion have been much more substantive. The only flaw in the process I see was that it probably wasn't necessary to relist; it could have been closed as a "delete" without needing to. --MuZemike 03:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Clearly within administrator discretion. I understand, and agree with, DGG giving little to no weight to ILIKEIT arguments. The article was a POV coatrack and BLP nightmare, and Wikipedia already has way too much similar harmful content. Reyk YO! 03:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. ILIKEIT arguments should be given no weight. Then "IDONTLIKEIT" too. But admin endorsed them in their closing reasoning, by supporting the nom unrestricted. Now, admin shove all counterarguments under ILIKEIT. DGG had to retract though, but that was the line of (your's holy) admins' judgement. And, when admin called all keeps an ILIKEIT, that is not true (DGG had to admit). -DePiep (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Reyk YO! 06:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The admin discarded explicitly ILIKEIT arguments. While the opposites, IDONTLIKEIT arguments (which should be discarded too) he endorsed explicitly. E.g. by following the nom (unrestricted) and by adding a personal !vote. That is bad reasoning, and not for a closer to do. -DePiep (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page is deleted, endorsing sir. No "Merge" available, while even the nom proposed that. What are you talking about? -DePiep (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? -DePiep (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Closing admin did not use in whatever sense a keeping argument. -DePiep (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or merge. Closer used arguments that should be left out: personal experiences with the nom from outside the discussion. Closer concluded keep arguments do amount only [sic] to ILIKEIT, and later indeed retracted in his talk page after I pointed errors out. Other keep arguments but one do not add to WP:ILIKEIT: they are views, not fanclub writings. Closer added personal view, which they are not entitled to: they should use the discussion, not !vote themselves. So, closer in is not uninvolved. Closer endorsed the nom's rational unrestricted, while there were irrelevant aspects in that (e.g. introducing "Hitchens a troll", which is an "IDONTLIKEIT" and bad BLP. Why weigh that in? Also in the noms ration were Merge arguments, which closer (blankedwise) endorsed but did not use. Only afterwards did the closer invoke "quote farm" as an argument. All in all the closer did sloppy reading and reasoning. Skippable arguments were used, and otoh unskippable arguments were dismissed. -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC) ce -DePiep (talk)[reply]
  • Endorse AfDs are discussions not poling booths. The closing admin did the correct thing and looked over the policy points made by the two sides. As for the prose itself, we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. As it was deleted, the article falls there. In addition, the idea that his critiques of public figures was notable was never backed up with sources. The sources for the article were only sourcing the quotes. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A close does not have to be perfect, in order to be valid. In most closes, an extended argument is not given; sometimes it is, either in the close itself, on on a talk p., or at deletion review. It rarely happens that an opinion as detailed as I gave on my talk p. will be judged by everyone as completely correct in all its particulars--or even judged as everything being entirely correct by the person who made it a month later. But this is not an early medieval lawsuit where any inadvertent technical error by the speaker forfeits his case forever, or like a Roman ritual invocation, where any slip of the tongue means the whole thing must be done over. Rather, it's like when I speedy delete a page presenting the prices at a corner grocery, giving the reasons as promotional and no indication of importance and copyvio, and the contributor says it should be restored because he had permission to use the material. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy? copyvio? -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"speedy" refers to speedy deletions, while "copyvio" refers to copyright violations. Just part of Wikipedia's jargon. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Charity Standish (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Grace Bennett (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Jessica Bennett (Passions) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Kay Bennett (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This debate resulted a delete; however, I re-created these deleted articles into redirects. Somehow, the deleted history logs were recovered are are recently prone to unnecessary reverts to former states. I wonder if anyone either endorse deletion or overturn to "something". Actually, these characters are non-notable for lack of significance or impact, but I should have used it in the debate. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? I don't understand what you are saying. You didn't recreate the article, they were redirected after the deletes by me. Why does this need to go to DRV? You're trying to enforce a deletion I made? I could've enforced it for you with page protection. Are you trying to get it overturned? I dont understand what you are trying to do and you really should've discussed this with me on my talk page first so at least I could understand what you are trying to do before you drag me here.--v/r - TP 23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I never had page protection in my head. Nevertheless, I'll rephrase: "I just want a consensus about what to do with them." Maybe I'll ask for page protection if that's a better suggestion, according to you. --George Ho (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nevertheless, I did ask for history-only undeletion because someone else suggested it, otherwise. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a history only undeletion done. All that needs to be done is reverted to the redirect and maybe a 2 week semi-protection to prevent that IP from removing the redirect. There isnt a need for a DRV.--v/r - TP 00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Don't even need semi-protection since it only happened once.--v/r - TP 00:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...Well, I just don't know what else to do other than DRV. I've already reverted to redirect before DRV. I did bring these articles to attention because some people think background about these characters should be known, including soap fans, such as IP editors; nevertheless, I don't know if DRV is necessary, in spite of failures to meet GNG and of potential to be learned, like a profile in Soapcentral.com. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I restored the page histories (while retaining the redirects). So long as the redirects exist, the page history should remain accessible in case there is a question about the content of the page that was redirected. In particular, if some future argument arises as to whether new materials merit the existence of an article at one of these titles, editors generally will be able to see what was previously deemed deficient. Any additional information to be added at this time can be included in the list to which these titles have been redirected. bd2412 T 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you discuss restoring the page histories before undeleting them? Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would there be to discuss? I didn't restore the articles, and there were no assertions of copyvio or defamation in the edit histories, which would be the only reason not to keep them if the material is merged or the title redirected to another article. Our deletion process is directed towards articles, not edit histories of articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete and redirect, and redirect are three distinct outcomes. As I wrote below, a close as redirect would have been acceptable, but you used the undelete tool to amend the AfD outcome without consulting the closing admin. I'm not positive, but I think that WP:Requests for undeletion would shy away from restoring these page histories without a specific reason. There has been no merging to List of Passions characters or Bennett and Standish families since the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration or at least a proper merge. I wouldn't have brought this here, because our results on this sort of article are hopelessly inconsistent, but since it is here, the close was not in accord with consensus. The close was delete, but there was not one single responsible person, including the nominator, arguing for deletion rather than accepting another solution. The nom himself proposed a merge to Bennett and Standish families. The first person to comment accepted a redirect, the second accepted a redirect, but only the last, an editor whose comments I consider useless for the purpose of making rational decisions, because he has always !voted delete on everything with an identical cut and paste pseudo-rationale. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reopening this DRV with permission from the previous closer, User talk:Elen of the Roads#Fictional women of Passions, volume 1 DRV. I would like to discuss BD2412's restoration of the page histories. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD close as delete (closing statement) or delete and redirect (what was done by TParis). Keeping the history deleted would have prevented the reverts/restorations of Kay Bennett and Jessica Bennett (Passions) by 71.147.50.96. Closing as redirect with history intact would have been acceptable. I haven't seen any discussion of amending the close, but that discussion can happen here. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Freemasons (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nominators rationale was that many entries are categorized without a reference. I very strongly agree with one of the dissenters in that discussion who pointed out that this is a WP:V issue and should be resolved through removal of the category until reference is provided, not through deletion of category. We have plenty of potentially controversial categories for people, like Category:LGBT people, and categories for similar secret group members - Category:Members of secret societies. In light of that, I see no reason to justify deletion of this category; it should be restored. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading the CfD entry, much of the basis for deletion is that the cat is (potentially very) difficult to maintain. I don't do a lot with categories. Is maintenance a real reason to delete a category? I can see how hard maintenance could be, but I'd think the LGBT cats would be more of a problem. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read that discussion and the previous ones, I think the whole episode counts as an epic logic fail at CFD. We have a list of Freemasons, which the CFD nominator actually mentions and describes as "duplicative". However, WP:CLN explicitly allows and encourages categories that duplicate lists, so the nomination was mistaken and so was everyone who agreed with it on the basis of duplication. Such !votes should be disregarded in assessing the debate.

    Yes, it's wrong to add the category to a biography where the person's freemasonry is not verifiable, but how does that make it a good idea to delete the category and which policy or guideline encourages that outcome?

    In DRV terms the debate was closed according to the consensus so very little blame attaches to the closer, but I'd also see this as a straight overturn to keep because the CFD outcome was contra-policy and illogical, and the only basis for ignoring rules is if that improves the encyclopaedia, which this doesn't.

    Finally, I want to point out that although the 2007 debate was closed as "delete", that outcome wouldn't have survived DRV. I submit that there was clearly no consensus in the 2007 debate and the "delete" on that occasion was a supervote.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation That CFD does not hold up to current standards, no matter how you look at it. The stated reasons for deletion (High maintenance, duplications of lists) are clearly invalid arguments for deletion, as was pointed out in the debate itself. Yoenit (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep I have nothing to add to S Marshall's comments above. Well argued. causa sui (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's recreated then as freemasonary is a part of Category:Esotericism and is viewed negatively by some then WP:BLPCAT seems to apply to its inclusion on a BLP - citable self declaration and that the membership of the group is a part of their notability. Youreallycan (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn CLN covers this eventuality. Youreallycan is correct that BLPCAT applies, but that is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and bring it back into the right place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The close was a good reading of the discussion, but pilots raised here demonstrate that further discussion is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above --Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Membership of a secretive society can hardly be described as defining, the main criterion for categorisation (which is mentioned in the 2007 cfd). Relist it at cfd if consensus is thought to have changed. Occuli (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to keep free masons are not really a secret society anymore. Policiticians and civic types regularly advertize their membership, as well as related groups such as shiners etc. While V definately applies to any particular application, and BLPCAT as well there is no justification for not having the category to begin with. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question: If we overturn the deletion of a category, can that category be easily repopulated? I seem to recall that a bot or script of some kind has been used in the past but I'm not sure of how it's technically done.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 11 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Laura_Ramsey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Notable actress, 22 roles in well-received and well-known movies and television shows JesseRafe (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse what? Deletion or restoration? There are plenty of sources about her. 22 roles is not non-notable. In addition look at how many pages link to what should be her article. I can't see what the original article looked like, but perhaps if someone took the time to gather the sources and make the page look right, it should stick (like I was planning to do today when I noticed she was a red link on Kill the Irishman, which surprised me given how many shows and movies she's been on). JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - is a standard comment in deletion reviews - it means - endorse the closing admins decision. Youreallycan (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What decision? The only comments were mine and the person who said "Endorse".JesseRafe (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be, endorse the last deletion decision. - Saying that, if someone was to write a decent article about her, judging by her google returns she may well have a degree of wikipedia notability, but saying that imo wouldn't "overturn" the last deletion discussion decision. Just to clarify, my comments are just general and I have not investigated this specic case enough to make a judgment one way or the other. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's what I'm trying to do. I'd've been done with a serviceable, notable article three hours ago if this page weren't locked from editing. A decent sourced article is easy given how many roles she's had and news results. JesseRafe (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you ask the last deleting admin, User:Causa sui to userfy the previous for you and then add your content and if it is demonstrably improved/different/well referenced in comparison to the previous version I don't see anyone likely objecting to you replacing it back to main space. WP:Deletion review is not really for that kind of article improvement editing. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did post a message with that user. I have no idea what the previous version looked like, but like I said, starting from scratch with an infobox and a couple of charts for TV and Film work, all wikilinked and referenced, should only take a couple of minutes, and her name is red-linked on quite a few articles already, so it wouldn't be an orphaned article. So I was looking for "article improvement editing", but for the ban on creation of the article to be lifted, so that it can stand on its own mettle.
Yes, the admin has now returned to editing so .. If you let the deleting admin know your intentions for article improvement they might just undelete it for you on request. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So is that admin the only one who can unlock the article? I thought this was the appropriate forum to discuss the topic about the block on the article on the whole rather than just appeal to one person's choice. I'm only asking again because it's been over 8 hours since I posted this here and left a message on that admin's talk page and posted on the article's talk page, would've thought it'd've reached someone's attention by now... JesseRafe (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure about the reason it's not able to be recreated as I can't see any WP:SALT in the logs - perhaps it's just the multiple recreations - anyway - yes - my advice is to go back and talk to the admin that took the last deletion decision. Youreallycan (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
causa sua was quite right; that was what I intended, & I thank them for it. Any admin who sees the like should do similarly--no need to ask me. . I often restore for discussion when BLP problems or copyvio isn't in question & this almost never happens; if people think I should routinely protect, I can do it, but it's rarely been necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Thanks. I had a bit of a look at the recreated article and clicked on a couple of the externals and found only a front page and a another link were it didn't seem to be specifically about her , perhaps was there somewhere but I couldn't see it immediately. I am endorsing the consensus in the AfD and the admins deletion. As Causa Sui has said, he will userfy it on request, where it can be developed and consideration given to replacing it after improvement. Youreallycan (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the externals were not of note -- mere fan sites, but did you check the references? I'm confused why this was speedily deleted and couldn't be judged on its own merits, and not those of its prior iterations which were deleted.JesseRafe (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I thought the whole purpose was to recreate the article? My new version was fuller than the one deleted previously, and it had multiple outside references. Can it please be restored and put to a vote as its own stand alone topic whether its due for deletion or not, rather than a speedy delete without due process as happened here? The various top tier publications (say what you will about quality of content, but Maxim etc are certainly well known) that gave her write-ups are surely of note. JesseRafe (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of DR is not to recreate the article, it's more of a discussion about if the deletion was correct. Why don't you just ask the admin to userfy it for you and then improve it in your userspace and ask if it's improved to a standard to replace. Youreallycan (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm confused I guess. I thought we were starting from scratch. I posted here because the article was blocked from being created. I've started quite a few articles from nothing in my time, and about 80% of them were immediately nominated for deletion once I hit 'save page' the first time, but of those, all survived with some more time and references added. That's the only process I'm familiar with and I don't know why it hasn't happened here. As I said, I had no idea what the previous version looked like, so I asked that the ban on its creation be lifted and I translated the page from the French Wiki (and, c'mon, she's notable enough to have pages in Viet Namese and Finnish even! ;)) and added references and wikilinks into a new article. What else could be discussed here if I didn't do that? Only a select few had seen it before and since it was blocked from creation, even its article history was inaccessible. So while the previous deletion was voted and settled, I understand that, but I did not recreate the article, I made a new one -- it doesn't make sense that my new article should be deleted just because a previous one was deleted. Shouldn't it be discussed on its own merits? JesseRafe (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a bit of wiki process. The article title as you were told here is protected due to repeated recreations of a poor article and has only been relaxed for this "deletion review" - If you are cut and copy pasting a page from another wiki then you may need to apply WP:Attribution. Youreallycan (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't -- as can be seen from a brief glance at the two (even if you don't know French). I took that only as a base, but then filled it in with a fair amount of research from those 4 or 5 outside reputable sources (not the fansites in External Links, but all the magazine articles and interviews in the References), so it has a lot more content than the French wiki and a lot of the French wiki stuff I cut out. What my main point is that the previous creations may have been poor articles - I don't know - but, in my opinion this one was not. And it does not appear that it was looked at on its own at all. Just deleted because it was deleted before. It's kinda a Catch-22. You say we're supposed to discuss it here, but who's gonna discuss something that was (maybe rightfully?) deleted a month ago? And if nobody wants to reinstate a poor article (of course not!), why can we not examine and talk about a good article? Why do they have to be tied together? Why can't the new iteration be looked at de novo and judged for what it is, not hindered because it shares a name with a previously existing poor article. JesseRafe (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It just the way it is dude. I suggest you take the easy route and rather than all this typing and discussion - just ask the admin to userfy it, and get on with improving it a bit and ask him if he agrees it's been improved enough for replacement. Youreallycan (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've userfied the article per his request on my talk page. More details at User Talk:causa sui. causa sui (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that someone created a new article on this person on 7 January. I've tagged it for a G4 speedy deletion—it's not an exact copy of the previous article, but it's completely unsourced and doesn't address the reason for deletion. Some admin might want to consider resalting the title until the userfied version is made acceptable (if it ever is). Deor (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
20th Avenue (Brooklyn) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Since this article's creation, there has been many problems surrounding the notability of this street. I discussed this on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets and it is quite obvious to me that this street is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. According to the project page, a street has to pass one of the following criteria to be notable:

20th Avenue clearly does not meet any of these criteria. It has not become synonymous with any group or company (having a few subway stations on it does not count for this criteria because there are many other streets in the city with one, two, three, or even four stations on them and they do not have Wikipedia articles), nothing significant or important has ever happened on this street, and it has never been shown or mentioned in a movie, television show, or song nor the subject or a documentary or media source.

There was clearly an imbalance in the AfD. People who voted for to keep it have no knowledge of streets and their notability while those who voted to delete it like me are members of projects related to New York City. From looking at the contributions and sudden stop in activity of the User who created the 20th Avenue article, it seems obvious that he/she wanted the street on Wikipedia likely because he/she lives on it. Also, we already have a Disambiguation page of this street with the same basic information because there is nothing significant about the street other than it being served by a couple of subway stations. Not every street that has a train station on it is worthy enough of being on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would have many short articles about streets that are just 1-2 sentences long and not likely to ever be expanded.

If you Google search "20th Avenue," as one of the users who voted to delete it showed, no legit information about it from sites like the NYC Department of Transportation pops up proving that is a notable street. The only sites that show are random yellow pages about various small businesses that are located there. I am not trying to pick on anyone or any street. I just feel it is not right for someone to create an article about a random street in Brooklyn and then suddenly disappear from this site. If a user created an article about the street that I live in, I would nominate it for an AfD too. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure - The nom who brought up this DRV has simply repeated their AfD arguments which has nothing to do with the admin's closure. As for the strange charge at one of the four editors in favor of inclusion "wanted the street on Wikipedia likely because he/she lives on it," this has no merit and is blindly speculated due to that user being inactive after the AfD (no evidence of a SPA). And I can't speak for other editors but I have heavily edited street/highway articles in my years on this project. There is no rule anywhere in WP to invalidate an opinion of a user simply because they don't usually edit that type of article. --Oakshade (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because there was no consensus at the AfD and the closer found accordingly. The deletion process has been correctly followed here. DRV has no role. The nominator is encouraged to renominate the article for deletion after a reasonable interval, since consensus could change in the future.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a very defective afd discussion, and reads almost like one from the VFD era. User:Alessandra Napolitano's and User:Oakshade's keeps are textbook notability-is-inherited arguments, and User:Tinton5's is a blatant "Keep, it's notable". User:DGG's argument, while more eloquent, still amounts to "There must be sources" without demonstating any. The rationales for deletion aren't particularly strong, either, for all that they cite the WP:GNG, except for the nominator's comment at 21:12, 23 November 2011. Who created the article is of course immaterial. The no consensus closure was the least of evils. Endorse, but send it back to afd and hope for a better discussion. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send back to AfD- Terrible discussion. Neither side even attempted to make an evidence based case for their opinion. Reyk YO! 02:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of discussion. This is a re-argument of the deletion discussion, and I don't believe the deletion nominator made an attempt to contact the administrator prior to coming here. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All right, I guess we can close this discussion. I did not know we can nominate an article for deletion again if the first attempted ended as No Consensus. I will give any user 2-3 months (or whatever the minimum of days allowed between AfDs are) to find reliable sources for this street and expand this article. If it is nominated for an AfD again, which will likely happen, I hope no one uses the fact that there are two subway stations serving it as an excuse to keep the article because that alone is clearly not enough for a street to be considered "notable" or "significant." If you ask anyone who is not from New York City, they will likely never heard of this street Reyk and the IP user is right. The first AfD was badly skewered. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Yes, I hope people will work on. it. If it is AfD'd again, I shall use the argument that even a single subway station built onb a street is definitive evidence of notability as subway stations are not built by accident, but on streets where there is a justification for building them there--normally that it is a major commercial streets; or, if it is not one yet, the station determines that it becomes one, because of the focussing of the customers. With time, a particular one may become less important, but it was important once or the station would not be there. Most long time inhabitants of a city are aware of all subway stations in their part of the city and the streets they are on, with the exception of the 1% who never need to ride the subway. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't agree with your logic though of course not really the place to discuss it here. If I take your suggestion it may well be a major commercial street, but since the notability standard doesn't make major commercial streets automatically notable then it's not relevant. On the London Underground there are dozens of stations built in areas which are purely residential the only "significant" feature being the station or station entrance, sometimes maybe a newsagent shop, sometimes not. If you take it further still normal railway stations aren't built by accident either but sited where they are "important" - sometimes the siteing would have been because of some historical significance of an area, though that doesn't necessarily hold true today. This morning I will go to "Station Road" in the next village from me ("Station Road" is a common name on which railway stations appear on in the UK, I don't want to think about the disambiguation nightmare for that), outside the entrance if I go one way there is nothing but open countryside, if I go the other way there are a row of resedential properties, there are no shops, not offices etc. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the usual way around this is to say that if it's a main shopping street, there will presumably be sufficient sources in sufficient work is done on print local history--that's the normal way we manage to accommodate the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And for the multiple small towns, disambiguation is never a problem: just add the name of the station,or the locality.If we can tell the villages apart, we can tell their similarly named streets apart also. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not big on giving anything presumed notability, but I count three subway/elevated stations serving this street. It is the main thoroughfare in a significant neighborhood (Bath Beach). To me, that's enough. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To you that's enough unfortunately we haven't codified being enough for ScottyBerg (or any other editor) to be an inclusion criteria. We go so far as to try to make the criteria objective such that we look outside the realms of wikipedia editors into the general world to see if they believe it's enough. That is they take note of it by writing about in directly in detail in multiple independent reliable sources. That is a general consensus broader that the local consensus in any given debate and so shouldn't be overriden merely by a few who believe that some arbitary number of x makes something notable. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)— 62.254.139.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There is nothing arbitrary about the criteria for a major agency to choose a tremendous amount of capital, investment, workpower and resources to decide where they allocate two major projects to build and continuously operate for almost a century. If the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company and its successor New York City Transit Authority, which by the way are outside the realm of Wikipedia editors, finds the street notable enough for such major allocations, then I will consider it notable despite if some internet editors claim otherwise.--Oakshade (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again this comes down to you being personally impressed with such facts (as a wikipedia editor), not that they evidence notability by being written about in a non-trivial way by multiple independent reliable sources, the broader agreed standard which has consensus. As to if the reasons for building there are arbitary or not, the transport systems idea of a good place to build (general area, cost to run lines there, availability of land, cost to build and no doubt many many other criteria) are disjoint from wikipedia's standard of encyclopaedic notability. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 January 2012

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

Carlon Jeffery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting that the actor have his own entry, I worked on it in my own userspace: User:QuasyBoy/Carlon Jeffery. Actor has a regular role in the A.N.T. Farm series, which was recently renewed for a second season. Other than A.N.T. Farm, he appeared in three episodes of Heroes. I figured, I would take this to deletion review, seeing that the decision on Sierra McCormick (Jeffery's A.N.T. Farm co-star) was overturned: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 19. QuasyBoy 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does the actor having a three episode stint on a show (Heroes) that at one time was one of the most popular shows in the country and currently has a regular role on another show (A.N.T. Farm), which was just renewed for second season not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. It seems you only nominated the subject based on WP:TOOSOON, which maybe I understand because the first attempt for an article on the subject was shortly after the show premiered. Prior to A.N.T. Farm, I would say the subject shouldn't have an article, but this is clearly not the case now. As for "independent reliable sources", they can be added through regular editing. Deletion doesn't need to be the answer for everything. QuasyBoy 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Meets WP:ENT #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows ...". Assume notable film or TV Show is shown by having a wiki article. Multiple meaning more than one. Significant is a judgment call - Main role in A.N.T. Farm is one, recurring role in Heroes is at least the second. Body of work adds support. Three people formed the clear consensus in the original AfD 6 months ago. At the very least this article should be restored and another AfD started with an opportunity for more people to comment or form a stronger consensus one way or the other. In my opinion automatic speedy G4 after 6 months is a bit harsh particularly after a very limited contributor AfD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Overturn as meets WP:ENT #1[reply]
  • Comment That "significant role" in Heroes isn't mentioned in Heroes (TV series) or List of Heroes episodes. The character is covered in four sentences in List of Heroes characters. If that is "significant", we have a lot of articles to write on other actors before we get to this actor. As for writing that article, we need independent reliable sources to base the article on. Other than the Disney bio (the producer/station for his one apparently notable role), we have "Disney Orders Live Action Comedy 'Ant Farm'" which tells us ... absolutely nothing about Jeffery. So while we're overturning a valid AfD, we also need to clean upc this bit about "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability Up until now, that's been policy, not a guideline. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the role is recurring in a major TV series is significant in of itself (and maybe we should be writing about a lot of other actors we are not). As for deletion Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Articles_without_third-party_sources suggests "An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance". The article should be tagged as needing sources, not deleted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD did not find sources for this BLP. No one here is providing sources for this BLP. Yes, there might be independent reliable sources out there. There also might be independent reliable sources out there about the pebble that found its way into my shoe this morning. Or not. Yes, the guideline you cited suggests unsourced articles should not always be deleted, because someone might find sources. That's what the AfD was for. No independent reliable sources exist for this BLP on an actor with one significant role. "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If you believe such coverage does exist, go ahead and find it, rather than wasting your time here saying, gee, it might exist. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some reliable third-party sources independent of the subject:
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/northwestpov/2011/06/17/former-colerain-township-resident-stars-in-disney-show/ archived at http://www.webcitation.org/64PNhAFGH
Pay wall but has article - http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/enquirer/access/1721072901.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+3%2C+2007&author=John+Kiesewetter&pub=Cincinnati+Enquirer&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=Hometown+%27Heroes%27
what is behind pay wall, I think, but can't afford to verify, http://www.wingsmodels.com/news/carlon.php
These should show basic notability. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The sources look like enough or at least quite close, the first is a blog hosted by a major news organization and the second a local article and what looks like a copy of it hosted by a talent agency. For an article we really like a bit more, but there's probably a Disney Channel bio and other reliable, though not independent sources. His body of work puts him close to, if not over, the WP:ENT bar so that I don't think any weight can be assigned to the prior AfD which stated that he "clearly failed" WP:ENT and had no sources. Neither assertion is true at this point, so a new discussion is needed. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Keith Akers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I found book coverage - [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. The deleting admin hasn't edited since August. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's nothing stopping you from creating a new article with these sources, or from adding them to the old article (which has been moved to project space here). Provided the article has some sort of evidence of notability beyond that considered at the AfD then it won't be speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 20:40, 1 January 2012 (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/2012_January&oldid=478534864"