Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 April 22
2009 April 24 >

23 April 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of topics related to Barack Obama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Yet again, a discussion in which there was no consensus has been closed as "delete". I have contacted the administrator concerned on his talk page, and he has declined to reconsider without elaborating on his reasons, so I can only presume that his reason for disregarding the consensus is based on his assessment of the weight of the arguments.

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

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

  • As nominator, overturn to no consensus (in case that wasn't entirely clear from my nomination). I can't help wondering what's the point of contacting the closing admin on their talk page prior to opening the DRV, since I know of no case in which the closer has ever changed their mind.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more useful in the case of speedies. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus- since the reason listed for deletion is invalid. Categories and Lists can co-exist, having a category on a subject does not mean there cannot be a list. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus- Looks to me like roughly equal numbers making a roughly equal number of good and bad arguments on each side. Closing rationale picks a winner rather than reflecting a consensus. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Umbralcorax. There were maybe ways to close it as delete, but that wasn't one. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus, I believe you'd have a hard time arguing that a consensus of any sort was reached there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus There wasn't one. The closing admin used a reason that is explicitly false per precedent. - Mgm|(talk) 07:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a case for making it clearer to AfD posters that the perceived "choice" between a list and a category is a false dichotomy. We can have both, and in many cases Wikipedia does have both, which is a perfectly encyclopaedic way of proceeding because the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to research, verify, source, and summarise information and then make it accessible. The "accessibility" part of that means that any way of organising information that even a few end-users would find helpful is encyclopaedic.

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

  • Overturn to no consensus very obvious from a quick glance at the AFD. Delete in the clear minority and rest can't make up their mind in which direction to go. Agathoclea (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article is a horrendous idea, but there was no consensus to delete it, so, sadly, overturn. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closer's role is not to decide whose side he agrees most with, it is to evaluate whether a consensus exists to delete. Deviating from that standard, and deleting even if the consensus isn't there, is only correct if there is a very strong policy-based rationale to do it, and that happens almost only in the rare circumstance where the keep votes are all highly ignorant of the objections to the article. The arguments for keeping the article presented by Skomorokh and ChildOfMidnight were most certainly not ignorant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the close sounds more like an opinion than an assessment of the consensus of the discussion. The comment does not explain - or even acknowledge - why the arguments specifically given against "category is more appropriate" had no merit. Guest9999 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No Consensus There was no consensus in that AFD. There are enough reasonable arguements on each side, neither side's arguements can just be dismissed.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but keep a very very close eye on the article; as pointed out, this is a coatracking magnet. Undeletion should ensure that it does not upset the NPOV status quo we're trying to hit this president around. Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deleting admin was notified by both S marshall and by me, but has not yet responded. In lieu of actual comments, the rationale given at the afd, and what he said oh his talk p. [1] was not of any help in figuring out the logic used. DGG (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD is no vote, and the better policy arguments were taken into account.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy that says Lists and Categories are mutually exclusive? Umbralcorax (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy that says all Categories should exist as lists? The l/c discussion is always a judgment call, in this case close enough (personal enough or political enough) for people to have different views. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. Bali always !votes to remove content, but he does it in good faith. Think of him as a sort of deletionist counterpart to A Nobody.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who !votes in good faith. Sceptre (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they both do, though that's not germane to this DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per above, despite my personal opinion about the self-reference. Perhaps later when Obama Mania has died down we can have an objective look at this page. ThemFromSpace 22:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I don't like the list, but agree with above participants that there was no consensus to delete. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Consensus was not reached in the discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bad close. Lack of rationale to explain contentious close. What "rationale" there was is in apparent conflict with WP:CLN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse remember that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. While about the same number of people rallied for keeping and deletion, a lot of the keep votes were "it is helpful" or "good navigational tool", which are not strong points for AfD. The delete people used a lot more policy related discussion and I feel the closing nominator got it right when xe said it should be a category. Tavix |  Talk  21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for a list article (or the eqiialent), they are both very good arguments. Lists are, among other things, navigational tools, and being a useful one is a valid reason to keep--for a list DGG (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This seems to be a classic no consensus. Probably the bigger problem is that the closers insistence that a "category is more appropriate" in this case, which is in clear contradiction of WP:CLN, which emphasizes that lists AND categories are intended to co-exist in synergistic fashion. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Civony (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

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

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there to be reliable independent sources in an article when it's posted. In any case, if there are such sources that show that this game meets WP:WEB, let me know and I'll be glad to undelete. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to give Terryrayc time to add supporting references, then bring it back to DRV when he has (at which point, given decent sources, I would expect the article to be restored).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mutoh Europe nv (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

  • Mutoh Europe NV has never existed; can we get the exact page name please? Stifle (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Mutoh Europe nv, according to .IT's deleted contributions. DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion G4 was applied even though there has never been an actual AfD. While "in DRV endorsed CSD" is almost an AfD, I'm going to suggest we recreate and List for AfD to achieve closure. This is especially true if the content was significantly different (and more sources is certainly significant). Also, I've changed the header and {{DRV links}} to the right article. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist per Usrnme h8er. Deletion process does not appear to have been correctly followed here. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Stifle.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I'm not sure it'll survive AFD, but it can't hurt to do things by the book. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, but I still see it as deleted, will it recover or do I have to enter the contents again? .IT (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "relist" is the outcome of this discussion, the admin who closes this DRV will restore it and relist it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and the discussion lasts for 5 days. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7 :-) Hobit (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRVs are still 5, to my knowledge. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm waiting till my disputed change of Prod to 7 days is confirmed, before I propose this obvious change also. DGG (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed a move to 7 days on the Deletion Review talk page recently. So far, it has 100% support...—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, is that good or bad? .IT (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7 days is certainly advisable here, even more so than AfD, as there are often many people to notify and there needs to be time for their voices to be heard. Much of AfD is not controversial--almost everything here is, and there is a need for full discussion. DGG (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Please Y'self (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

  • WP:CSD#G4. Article was userfied by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at Koshoes's request to User:Koshoes/Please Y'self. Koshoes later copy/pasted the exact text from the deleted article with no apparent changes whatsoever back into article space. Article AfD'd, tagged as G4, and deleted as recreation of deleted content. --auburnpilot talk 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid deletion. I think you know a lot more than you're letting on. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a fully valid G4 Speedy, the content appears to have been pretty much identical and the consensus at AfD was clear. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid application of G4 as a copy-paste job of a previously deleted article. Even if not, the arguments in the AFD lead me to believe it was a copyvio anyway, which on its own is a valid reason to speedy delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse, per Stifle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but it shouldn't go like that. I was meant to add {{hangon}} but I never had chance to because the nom had opened and closed without telling me. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 09:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In clear cut cases where the CSD applicable is undeniable (copyvio, obvious recreation, attack pages) the admin has no obligation to take such a tag into account anyway. In fact, the hangon process is non-mandatory as a whole, that's the point with WP:CSD to differ from WP:PROD. Adjust the page in userspaces that it meets inclusion criterion, then and only then sould you move it back to mainspace, I usually recommend going via this venue or WP:RFC before moving it back as that will guage how good a job you've done restructuring the page and largely protect you from deletions. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_23&oldid=1138434706"