Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 March 15
2010 March 17 >

16 March 2010[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gallery of sovereign-state flags (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

EVERY !vote was based upon WP:ILIKEIT or "Others do it" (but ""commons crashes computers!"" was a cute reason too). WP is not the place for a Pretty Picture Gallery, Commons is. Just because WP can do it, does not mean it should. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. A clear, near unanimous, consensus to keep. Just about all the keep !voters were well aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments to keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me, "aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments" ??? One person said that the caption "Flagg of XXXXX" was enough encyclopedic content, and another said NOTREPOSITORY needed to be rewritten? Not very weighty arguments to keep IMO. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The consensus was clear in this case. The nominator made a credible claim based on the image use policy, but a significant number of editors weighed in to disagree based on the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content. Moreover, as to the nominator's argument that the content belongs on Commons, the images themselves are hosted there already. The only policy referenced by those in favor of keeping was WP:IAR, and although it was only referred to by a single editor, there appears to have been strong consensus to keep the article on those grounds alone. IAR specifically exists to allow us to set aside rules when we agree (achieve consensus) that the policies are preventing us from building an encyclopedia, and in this case the gallery of flags very closely mirrors the practice in paper encyclopedias, a fact with which virtually all participating editors agreed.--~TPW 23:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it would be intresting to have a count of the number of soft redirs to commons and which have the Pretty Pictures all on WP to see how true "virtually all participating editors agreed" is. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. What is all this "review" business about? As I understand this is simply the most prominent page from Category:Lists of flags - which is just one of many "lists" families we have. All lists help to organize information, and sometimes also provide some additional information about items listed. E.g. List of largest power stations in the world has links to Wikipedia articles about various stations, and also gives their location and capacity info; I suppose one could also add a photo of each station to each entry. A List of premiers of China lists, indeed, premiers, with their term in office dates, and gives a picture, whenever available. Now, the set of all current flags of de facto sovereign states is as natural list as any, and, compared to many other lists, has the advantage of being close-ended (only 200 or so states, and new ones don't appear often). And of course once we have a list like this, the most natural piece of information it ought to contain along with each link is the picture of the flag! Now, I am not saying that the list can't be improved by adding other info (e.g., since what year the flag is in effect, the aspect ratio, etc.), but deciding on what details of info should go into the list is an entirely different business from deciding to delete the list.
    Now, it is true that a list like this should exist on Commons as well (it does). But I think the gallery on commons should be modified so that each link there goes to to the appropriate Category on commons, rather than to an article in English (or any other language's) Wikipedia. Vmenkov (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list with some context can help. I remember seeing on the Russian Wikipedia a page where they list the flag ratios for each national flag. We could do that here, along with adding a date of adoption. We should still link to each page here (each article has a Commons cat link). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be acceptable. But this page is not that, and has no intention of becomming that. It is a Gallery, not a List. It has no Encylopedic content. The argument that "Flag of XXXXXX" is encyclopedic content was put forth, but, IMO, does not wash. List of flags of Norway actually does have Prose and links to Articles other than "The Flag of <Insert Country>". A "Gallery of Flags", by its very topic, will never have Prose. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the argument is, "since it does not have any prose (beyond the links to flag articles and country articles), it is not a proper list?" While this is logical, and while I fully agree that some additional information on each flag, if concise enough (i.e., not hurting the layout), would be useful, I don't think it's an argument for deletion. First of all, I don't think that lists even have to have some "prose" at each item - there certainly are some that don't (e.g. Index of Eastern Christianity-related articles, List of people from Rome), or have very little (List of Biblical names, List of New Testament stories). Second, what is the most important information one would want to have for each flag in a list of flags? Why, it is of course the appearance of the flag! While is can be described in words, this information is certainly better conveyed by a picture (sometimes pretty, sometimes ugly, sometimes ho-hum - that depends on the flag designers...); so really, in this case - due to the specific nature of the matter being discussed - the pictures (and the "gallery" format) really serve as the information conveyance medium, just as prose would do in most other lists. This is not exceptional either, whenever Wikipedia discusses other visual of "spatial" topics. Besides the flag galleries, images play a core role in lists elsewhere; see e.g., such articles as List of U.S. state fish, List of U.S. state butterflies, List of uniform polyhedra, or list sections in such articles as Uniform polytope, Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron, Platonic solid, Lattice system. I believe that our time is best spent not by train to constrain information into preconceived forms, but by finding most suitable presentation form for each particular topic, or a group of topics. Different types of information call for different presentation formats, and for this particular subject area - international flags, or Flags of the U.S. states - the gallery format appears quite suitable. Vmenkov (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OP, I understand that you don't like the fact that this article is a Gallery and not a List, but I think it would be more productive to propose renaming the article (perhaps to List of sovereign-state flags or Flags of sovereign states). I think you'd have a good argument for that, since one glance at Category:Lists of flags shows that these articles do need a consistent naming scheme. And perhaps once the name is changed, the editors of the article will be willing to also add text content, to remain consistent with the other Lists of flags. Indeterminate (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am all for a soft redirect to Commons, seeing as it is already there and this is a duplication of what Commons presents. That was even suggested by the Original AFD Nominator. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus for retention was rather clear. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-Even when discounting several of the more questionable keep comments, this would be, at the worst, a no consensus closure, and personally, I don't even think it was that. Consensus to delete definitely does not exist. DRV is not AfD round two.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a consensus built upon ILIKEIT and "others do it" be the right thing to do, when the properly designed infrastructure already exists to host this near exact page elsewhere? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus was overwhelming. Wikipedia is governed by consensus in such matters, and unless there are clear indicators that the AFD discussion strayed very far from the general sense of the community, the consensus formed at AFD is controlling over existing policy, guidelines, etc. I see no such indicators here. RayTalk 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because 2 people is not a full consensus. Keep had many arguments. 2 transwiki arguments, 0 delete. I concur with closing Admin. Perhaps close here per WP:SNOW? Hamtechperson 17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Although both the nomination and the DRV are understandable based on WP:NOTREPOSITORY, the "keep" consensus in the AFD was based on a very reasonable comparison to paper encyclopedias. This is an unusual case where the general wording of the WP:NOT policy conflicts with more specific traditions of what is considered encyclopedic content, and the consensus on how to resolve that conflict seems clear. --RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There was an overwhelming consensus, both numerically and in terms of strength of argument, to keep this article. Participants in the discussion were clearly aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, but they firmly rejected the argument. This is an instance where strong consensus is established to ignore a policy for the benefit of the encyclopedia. In addition, please note the first of the five pillars, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia," which states: "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." In this AfD, the community reasonably gave this principle precedence in deciding to keep the article, as described by others above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse it seems the nomination is more a case of idontlikeit (the result that is) but this is clearly a case of encyclopedic material and if its good enough for a paper encyclopedia its surely good enough for us. I remember looking at the flags and country articles in Britannica at school and letting my imagination run wild. Surely this deserves a place here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:01, 21 March 2010 (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.
Gallery of dependent territory flags (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

EVERY !vote was based upon WP:ILIKEIT or "Others do it". WP is not the place for a Pretty Picture Gallery, Commons is. Just because WP can do it, does not mean it should. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. A clear, near unanimous, consensus to keep. Just about all the keep !voters were well aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments to keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me, "aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments" ??? One person said that the caption "Flagg of XXXXX" was enough encyclopedic content, and another said NOTREPOSITORY needed to be rewritten? Not very weighty arguments to keep IMO. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The consensus was clear in this case. The nominator made a credible claim based on the image use policy, but a significant number of editors weighed in to disagree based on the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content. Moreover, as to the nominator's argument that the content belongs on Commons, the images themselves are hosted there already. The only policy referenced by those in favor of keeping was WP:IAR, and although it was only referred to by a single editor, there appears to have been strong consensus to keep the article on those grounds alone. IAR specifically exists to allow us to set aside rules when we agree (achieve consensus) that the policies are preventing us from building an encyclopedia, and in this case the gallery of flags very closely mirrors the practice in paper encyclopedias, a fact with which virtually all participating editors agreed.--~TPW 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content" ... other encyclopedias do not have Commons. Just as the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER shows us, we are not constraind by the limits of paper or what Other 'pedias do. Just because it can be done does not mean it should be done. Consensus may be clear, but, Consensus can be wrong, esp. when the only basis for that Consensus is WP:IAR ! Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my reasons for endorsement were not clear. I don't buy the NOTREPOSITORY argument because the images are actually hosted on Commons. My interpretation of the consensus at the AfD (and that's really all we can discuss here, whether or not consensus was judged properly) is that the IAR was properly used as a policy argument. When the vast majority of editors who participate in the debate feel it is encyclopedic despite other policies, IAR is properly invoked, and since it's policy that makes it the stronger argument. It wasn't that the only basis for consensus was a desire to simply ignore rules; it was that the overwhelming consensus in this debate was to keep the page as a useful part of the encyclopedia. When consensus is backed up by policy, proving it "wrong" is a tough row to hoe.--~TPW 12:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons is the place for a Gallery. A consensus of ILIKEIT and "others do it" has no traction to duplicate the same page on WP, when you consider that the proper infrastructure has been set up elsewhere to host a near exact copy of this Gallery. A soft redirect would be perfectly acceptable, as was suggested by the original Nom. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus for retention was well within the scope of reasonableness. Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reasoning the same as the above DRV discussion. RayTalk 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per my reasoning in the above DRV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per a stop at willoughby (except I'm referring to my argument above not theirs). Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 21 March 2010 (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.
St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Inappropriate no consensus close. Virtually all of the keep !votes included the astonishing claim that "there must be sources out there somewhere". Since when did "there must be sources" become an appropriate source for anything? Woogee (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin - No effort was made to discuss this with me prior to the DRV. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true, and if I was supposed to do that, I apologize, but what would the result of that discussion have been? I did notify Juliancolton that I had added this discussion here. Woogee (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the big, orange box atop the DRV instructions, contacting the closing administrator can often resolve the matter faster.--~TPW 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The essay upon which the keep arguments were all based can be frustrating, because I think it encourages editors not to bother doing the hard work of actually sourcing high school articles. However, 3 out of 5 editors felt confident that this was one of the vast majority of secondary schools which are notable. Two other editors felt that no, there is not enough information in this particular case to demonstrate notability. Since it is most likely that any sources won't be found online, the argument for keep is just as reasonable as the one for delete, and even if you go just by the numbers I don't see how an admin could have closed this as "delete" despite the nominator's instruction to do so.--~TPW 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. After initially thinking "no consensus" was open to be made here, I can't but form the conclusion that none of the keep !votes were consistent with policy (for the reasons articulated by Atama in the debate). They should be discounted for that reason. Additionally, the keep !votes were specifically refuted by Atama. Notability requires verifiable objective evidence, not guesses. That is a core wikipedia guideline. This was not a debate where some keep !voters argued sources were significant or reliable and delete !voters disagreed. This was a clear case where no coverage of the subject was presented at all. This DRV is an appropriate vehicle to re-inforce that (a) high-schools must be held to the same standards of notability as every other article; and (b) notability requires verifiable objective evidence. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I won't let my views on schools stand in the way of consensus here. While I firmly believe there is no reason to hold schools to any different standard to other organisations, it would have been too much to ask of JulianColton or any closer to discount the keeps on that basis. There is at least an informal consensus of sorts that I know has been used as a precedent in AfDs for a long time. I'd encourage those who believe that schools can be held to a different standard to try to achieve a genuine consensus for that. I firmly disagree with the position, but will oppose that position in AfDs (sensibly of course: most schools are notable, it's just these small exceptions) rather than try to make a point at a DRV. To be honest a "delete" close would have been controversial and I can't genuinely fault the "no consensus". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- JulianColton got it exactly right. While the keep arguments weren't strong, there was absolutely no consensus to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Our guidelines are applied as the community chooses to apply them (N is just a guideline in the first place, & admits all sorts of exceptions) It is consensus that for a secondary school, wp:V is enough, not because there are necessarily sources, but because there are so overwhelmingly likely to be sources that it is not worth arguing about them. Better a few % of non-notable HS among the HS articles, than thousands of discussions over them. ` DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does one find the "consensus that WP:V is enough" for schools? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
right here, and at the afd, and all previous secondary school afds for the last 2 years. If all discussions lead to the same decision, there's consensus. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my view community-wide consensus about notability standards can't be achieved by a run of AfDs. If there's genuine community consensus about schools, it needs to be reflected by amendment to WP:ORG. Indeed reading through the talk page there, it appears that attempts to get such consensus have failed. Each AfD should be treated on its merits. Indeed, WP:OUTCOMES, which is often invoked in support of following AfD precedents, itself states "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of their sources". That statement has particular resonance for this AfD, which threw up zero secondary sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Close was fully within admin discretion, there was no consensus to delete.--Milowent (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - other than the nominator not liking the keep arguments, no grounds for overturning have been specified. We only amend a close if it is clearly wrong and that is not the case, here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we should revise WP:RS to say "Don't bother looking for sources, they're sure to be out there somewhere". Woogee (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and it doesn't matter if no-one ever bothers to find them." --Mkativerata (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion. In light of the well-established consensus that secondary schools are generally notable, and the clearly established existence of this school, something more than weak sourcing needs to be shown to overcome the presumption of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Appropriate and correct reading of the state of the discussion. Wikipedia is governed by consensus in such matters, and unless there are clear indicators that the AFD discussion strayed very far from the general sense of the community, the consensus formed at AFD is controlling over existing policy, guidelines, etc. I see no such indicators here. RayTalk 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was one of those who favored Keep on the AfD. Wikipedia has a systemic bias toward Western European and North American topics, and toward topics that can be easily researched online. To counter this, where there is evidence that a a subject exists (sources demonstrating this are already cited), that it would be notable if covered in sources (particularly likely for a secondary school), and that it is not controversial, insistence on sources beyond those proving bare existence when such sources are highly likely to exist offline but ate not online should, in my view, by bypassed. In any case the AfD consensus was clear, and what is notable is a matter for case-by-case consensus, WP:N establishes guidelines but says itself that "...it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present." DES (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The closing admin made the right decision here, as no consensus was reached in the discussion. The argument that there is a presumption of notability for high schools is a fairly strong argument; however, problems with WP:V are a major issue and a solid argument for deletion. At this time, it appears that the content of the stub that remains post-AfD is verifiable. Therefore, I believe the actions taken by Juliancolton, Atama, and Terriersfan were the correct ones. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse stupid as it may seem there is a meta agreement that secondary schools are all notable whatever the state of the sourcing. Its utter bollocks of course but its a long standing compromise that ended a wiki civil war so I guess we are stuck with it. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close; that was the status of the debate. I personally think it should be deleted, but this particular procedure is not where one goes to get that to happen. I think if these people who voted keep on "sourcing may exist" don't find suitable sources in 3-4 months, another nomination would have a higher chance of success. Orderinchaos 11:57, 23 March 2010 (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.
Mohammed Daniel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were actually more votes to keep than delete and many improvements were made to the subject so that he was mentioned in more than one independent source which was the reason for nomination and deletion. The closing admin stated "Being mentioned in multiple places is not enough to ensure that someone meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. The research done persuades me that there is nothing at this time to indicate notability" which is incorrect because the sources clearly demonstrates notability and the arguments of the nominator were comprehensively shown for their weakness as more sources were continually being added to the article. BintAmeen (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Note for transparency I participated in this debate and !voted delete. This was a good close. Consensus is not determined by headcount. The strength of the arguments were overwhelmingly on the delete side, were grounded in policy, and lead to the inevitable conclusion that there was not significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I read the closing admin's comment about "multiple mentions of the subject" being insufficient as being nothing more than an (entirely correct) reference to the notability guidelines that require significant (as opposed to minor, trivial or incidental) coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Putting aside the fact that a number of "keep" votes appear to have been lodged by SPAs emerging from Kuwait, this is a perfect example of why consensus finding is not a mechanical vote counting exercise. I think those in favour of deletion correctly interpreted the standards in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the request of BintAmeen I have restored the article to their userspace and it can be viewed at User:BintAmeen/Mohammed Daniel. something lame from CBW 07:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.'Significant coverage' is quite nebulous as there are many articles that make it through an afd that have far less sources and coverage.What Mkativerata would be significant coverage to you? As it definitely is not the same for all admin based on many afds I have seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BintAmeen (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was posting the following while the page was archived and am posting it here perhaps for future reference. I have gone through each reference and have illustrated that in spite of the new references the article's contributors have added nothing has changed. Many of the references were simply deceptive, different pages announcing the same lecture, for example was used as a source four times and is simply not a reference to begin with. There are now three reliable sources two of which describe two of MD's lectures and another presents his views about Niqab. These three are mixed in with dead links, repeated links to the same lecture announcement. Here is a listing of the sources and a brief summary of their contents:
  1. http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:eXDkeYj2wtYJ:www.islam.gov.kw/thaqafa/news/sections_details.php%3Fcat_id%3D2%26start%3D50%26page%3D6+mohammed+daniel&cd=5&hl=ar&ct=clnk&gl=kw&client=firefox-a Mentions that MD attended a cultural conference with no further mention
  1. http://www.muslimleadersoftomorrow.org/about/search_mlts/c2a724520e788b193085c9ac9bd1c9ab This website mentions MD's name as an attendee of conference with no text other the caption underneath the picture
  1. http://www.cordobaacademy.com/faculty.html Significant coverage from an unreliable source
  1. http://kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NjgzOTc5MzIx An article written by MD about kindness to animals
  1. http://kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTA4ODk2NjcxMQ== An article written by MD
  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch8JB-GXnNI Youtube footage of MD
  1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/june_09.html leads to: http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/images/scan-imam_daniel.jpg which is an interview with Unique Magazine which is no longer online—this ref was entered as a separate one and then labled dead link
  1. http://www.chillnite.com/course-the-sublime-character-of-the-prophet-pbuh is a post on a networking site announcing a lecture by MD
  1. http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/150340/reftab/36/Default.aspx Is yet another announcement for a lecture by MD
  1. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3ASlrBcNWVc74J%3Awww.arabtimesonline.com%2FPortals%2F0%2FPDF_Files%2Fpdf09%2Fdec%2F23%2F28.pdf+arab+times+mohammed+daniel&hl=ar&gl=kw&sig=AHIEtbQSQBl95XsEO0_8tfyW5AIJSe3Clw&pli=1 is an announcement for the same lecture as the above
  1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/images/scan-imam_daniel.jpg is a dead link as has preceded
  1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=723048&pageId=473 This is the al-Watan article that mentions MD as having attended a conference
  1. http://www.thecedarnetwork.com/?page=fullmembership/ is not found
  1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=723048&pageId=473 This link was mentioned two links ago—same thing
  1. http://www.qatar-conferences.org/dialogue2009/english/English1.pdf This link yielded a malware warning so I did not go past—if someone else is feeling brave...
  1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/20100129_jan.html#daniel Has MD's picture and his attendance at a conference
  1. http://www.kuwaitagenda.com/en/calendar/view/1075/2.html Is an announcement to the same lecture mentioned twice previously
  1. http://jesr.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=735332&pageId=163 The fourth announcement for the same lecture
  1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=774205&pageId=473 Mentioned his views on the niqab during the course of an article
  1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=667319&pageId=163 Details a lecture given by MD

I think the results of this reference review shows the desperation with which the efforts to keep this article is based upon.--Supertouch (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow/speedy endorse. Per all the above. Other than Bint Ameen, no other commentator above is of the view that the close should not be endorsed.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As noted by others, consensus is not a head count. The strength of the arguments were in deletion's favor. --~TPW 19:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear esteemed colleagues, as I am the subject of the article (Mohammed Daniel) would it be possible that I request the removal of the article. I do not believe that my lowly-self warrants an encyclopedic entry and am not of those who seek the limelight. I also apologise for any inconvenience or upset caused to you by those who deem me worthy of such.Imam MD (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no Wikipedia article at present, so nothing to delete, and the absence of an article does not diminish the subject. What it means in this case is that few others have written about the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close, within allowed admin discretion. RayTalk 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Those arguing to keep the article mostly asserted that the subject was notable without providing verifiable evidence. Therefore, those arguing for deletion had the stronger argument and the closing admin took the correct action. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse someone please put this DRV out of its misery. I think we know where this is going. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 21 March 2010 (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.
Worker–Communist Party of Kurdistan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Referring to the party there was only one keep-comment but no support at all for deletion. This is really few feedback for an AfD relisted twice, but in any case there is no consensus on deleting. PanchoS (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where you contacted the closing admin before listing this. Could you do so? Given there was 1 !vote to keep and none other than the nom to delete I'd think it likely he'd restore just as if this were a contested prod. Hobit (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutly right, that would have been the right thing to do. I just forgot about this. This can be closed. Sorry, PanchoS (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2010 (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/2010_March_16&oldid=1138437297"