Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 December 15
2007 December 17 >

16 December 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Betsy Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Second person to attain the age of 113, first person in the Oldest People category of Guiness World Records. The deletion discussion had extremely few takers, with a 2:2, which I find as a no consensus rather than a delete. Material was not merged into List of American supercentenarians as promised by the nominator. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note It has been confirmed at checkuser that Kitia was running two sockpuppets, You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) and I'll bust your beak! (talk · contribs). Kitia and I'll bust your beak! were the only "keep" !voters in this AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article had only 3 refs, all of which ere mere list entries ([1], [2], [3]), so clearly failed WP:BIO. Kitia's argument to keep was based on the notion that she thought WP:BIO should presume notability for very old people. The closing admin was quite correct to close the discussion on the basis of the guidelines as they are, not on how a particular editor would like them to be (note that Kitia's prposal at WT:BIO has attracted no support). Kitia appears not have read the AFD debate: there was no promise to merge into List of American supercentenarians, because there was nothing to merge (the only verifiable info on this person is nationality and dates of birth and death). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Per the deletion guidelines, AfD is not a vote count: the closing admin has a duty to weigh arguments, and to disregard those which "contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious". Kitia's argumnts fell into that category, as did those of the other keep voter, a single-purpose account who ignored WP:BIO and added a gratuitous allegation of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are wrong, as it tells of the 2002 study, where the subject was born, where the subject died, and stuff on immigration. And besides, I though that 3 refs established notability. I think that the discussion did not attract enough voters, whic would show that Baker established notability. You've Got Mail! (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC) see below[reply]
    • PS i'm sorry I didn't vote in the discussion as I was taking a wiki-vacation.
      • Reply Notability is not established by having too few voters, nor by having 3 trivial sources. It would help considerably if the "keep" !voters studied WP:BIO. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per my reasons listed above. You've Got Mail! (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC) This admitted sockpuppet account has been indef-blocked.[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid close and arguments for keeping were refuted. --Coredesat 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe (and thats a big Maybe), but BHG has been constantly merging super-c content into list of American supercentenarians, which she failed to do. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not been consistently merging them: I have been merging those which do not meet WP:BIO but where there is more than one or two sentences to be said about them without padding the entry out with waffle about who was the next oldest person etc. In any case, it's completely inconsistent of you to object to something not being merged into List of American supercentenarians when for weeks you reverted without comment every article merged into that list, then nominated the list at Afd and then nominated it again a week later because you didn't like the AfD result. You are trying to have it both ways, Kitia, complaining at AfD that the lists are daft and useless and will grow too large, and then complaining here that a trivial snippet has not been included in them. Betsy Baker is listed in Oldest people, and there almost nothing more to be said about her than is in that article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The AFD closer did not explicitly comment on whether he/she had discounted the new user's opinion, but it would have been entirely appropriate to do so. Very few users find AFD by their 7th edit or know about the Willy on Wheels vandal (1st edit). We are supposed to assume good faith but this user's behavior is highly suspicious. Other than that anomaly, I find no process problems in the discussion or the closure. Rossami (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Per BrownHairedGirl & Rossemi. - Galloglass 13:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - While I appreciate Kitia's efforts, this is one of a series of articles created with the assumption that extreme age = notability. In recent AfDs, some were kept, and some were deleted (for reasons outlined above which I won't repeat). This one has failed to demonstrate notability, and should remain deleted. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and merge as nominator mentioned. That way the article stays gone, and we get to have a slightly more complete list of supercentenarians. Everyone would be a winner. Neıl ☎ 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, there was no proposal at AfD to merge, because there was nothing to merge: the only verifiable info on this person is nationality and dates of birth and death, which is already covered in Oldest people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, endorse deletion. Neıl ☎ 09:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion; rare does not meant notable, the close was correct by following policy. — Coren (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (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.
Jose Luis Aquino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I really don't understand the pages deletion. More people voted keep than delete, and yet it was deleted. Notability was established by WP:BIO with the band, and his death only furthered it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has been selectively canvassing this debate, and may be the puppetmaster of You've Got Mail! and/or User:I'll bust your beak! (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser has confirmed that both those accounts were sockpuppets of Kitia. Both voted "keep" in the AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn bizzare admin activism on a great article. You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC) This admitted sockpuppet account has been indef-blocked.[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per admin's very clear and well-explained reasoning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh... the deletor suggested that there should be an article on his death or the band, of which there are none. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, there are none. But they could be written, and their absence does not make this person notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. AFD is not a vote. If an article is created on the band, I would not be opposed to an overturn and merge outcome. --Coredesat 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; the keep arguments basically amount to "the band is notable". That might be good for an article on the band, but not this one. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The closer did not comment on this issue but one of the "keep" participants in the discussion has been confirmed as a sockpuppet, created with an open password and another of the "keep" participants has a pattern of highly suspicious behavior. Other than than anomaly, I find no process problems in this discussion. Notability is not inherited. Even if the band is someday determined to be notable, the individual players in the band must independently determined to be notable in their own right. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, which was correct per policy, no prejudice against a redirect if we can write an article on the events, and if that article belongs here rather than Wikinews. Which it might not. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD is not a vote and notability is not inherited. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Afd is not a vote, fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (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.
Zayda Peña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Pretty much the same as above. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has been selectively canvassing this debate, and may be the puppetmaster of You've Got Mail! and/or User:I'll bust your beak! (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 17 December 2007 (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.
Tangled Up Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think 'No consensus' would have been more appropriate. The tally is 6:3 delete (inc. nom), but, other than the nom, the delete votes lack little depth. Also, consistency is very important: we cannot have a similar article being kept with another deleted. The closing admin, Pigman, has courteously replied to my concern. The JPStalk to me 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse; WP:WAX isn't a defense in AfD, it also isn't a defense in DRV. The consensus seems clear enough to me. Consistency is desirable when it happens, but is neither a goal to strive for nor a sufficient reason to keep or delete— this is not a court of law, we aren't bound by precedent for the sake of precedent. — Coren (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). Wikipedia should not speculate on future events just because they get covered in the newspaper. The fact that we made a mistake in another discussion is not a reason to propagate the mistake. Rossami (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The keep arguments amounts to little more than stating that the event somehow inherits notability and more reliable sources will surface. It might be useful, though to update WP:MUSIC with some remarks regarding separate articles on tours in general and upcoming ones in particular.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the entire processes are pointless because I'll recreate the article once the inevitable RSs trickle through. I don't care for Girls Aloud, but will look out for it of principle. The JPStalk to me 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JPS, I understand your reasoning, but that's just how it works here. We can't speculate on whether something will become important; were we to do so, we'd be filled with literally thousands of articles on trivial subjects which never met that expectation. If those reliable sources come, great - it means we'll have a new article. Better still, if they come, we can retrieve this article's history, so you won't have to start from scratch. But that if is the important word here... we have to wait until that point comes, if it does. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure since the AfD was properly closed but it will soon be academic. Any tour by Girls Aloud will quickly attract sufficient RSs to establish notability and the tickets are already on sale as here. BlueValour (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Afd is not a vote, and whether something similar is kept is not particularly relevant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote...and the nom really said all that was to be said. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Pankorea.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe that this had a valid fair use rationale, as I was the one who wrote it, and I would like to review it to see if it could be better phrased to fit wiki-policy. Atropos (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as the image has been restored independently. The issue is resolved. Atropos (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Tart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Referencing concerns have been addressed and I do not believe there should be notability concerns - the paper is well known to university students across Britain. A copy of the entry can be found at User:Jonathancherry/The Tart Jonathancherry (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation/Overturn speedy The version that Jonathancherry has created has 2 reliable secondary sources covering the paper significantly. As the original closer of the AFD I think this addresses the concerns raised in the AFD debate about the lack of secondary sources and has established notability. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/notice : The page appears to have been accidentally created in main article space, I've moved it to User:Jonathancherry/The Tart. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn invalid deletion, the article seems to have been substantially rewritten since it was deleted at AFD. One AFD somewhere should not justify blind speedy deletion of any future article on that topic. --W.marsh 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I still don't beleive the notability concerns have been addressed (judging by the draft), but I don't feel strongly enough about it to actively oppose recreation. — Coren (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree with Coren here, I don't see anything in the current draft that even addresses notability. If it gets recreated, it should immediately go to AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the first three secondary sources not address these concerns? There are publications like the Epigram (newspaper) with much smaller distributions than the tart. --Jonathancherry (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't just point to references, if there's notability, you need to explain in the article what makes it notable. Corvus cornixtalk 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • An article has notability "if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The references demonstrate this.--Jonathancherry (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the keyword here is "significant". The Times article just barely meets that, and that's hardly multiple sources. The Epigram article only mentions The Tart in passing as "one of three new papers". Like I said, very marginal. — Coren (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You haven't addressed my concern. You can't just point to an external link and say "that shows it's notable". The article itself must include language which explains what makes the subject notable. WP:CSD says that the article must make claims of notability. This one doesn't. Corvus cornixtalk 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have added a Press section in the article itself, explaining how it has been featured in both the student press and a major national newspaper. I have added an additional student press article (Oxford University Cherwell) and added a 'controversy' section which should hopefully address some of your concerns. --Jonathancherry (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There is now a Times [4] story devoted to the paper, not just mentioning it, that would seem to clearly establish notability. DGG (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow recreation - The Times article is pivotal and gives arguable notability. I am not enthusiastic about the page which is self-promotional but that can be resolved by editing. BlueValour (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per W.marsh, BlueValour. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. My initial reaction was that, while the material was substantially different enough from the originally deleted content as to not be deleted by G4, it still did not establish notability beyond local interest. However (as is often the case), DGG has made a compelling argument, backed by reliable sourcing. Pastordavid (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (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.

Closed outside of consensus by Jc37 (talk · contribs) who is already being questioned on this on his talk page. Strong overturn, there was no accepted support to remove the category. Lawrence Cohen 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WTFOMG Overturn; this was a clear keep, but even if consensus was unclear the default is also to keep. — Coren (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. There was clearly no consensus for deletion, and no consensus for converting the category to a list. Not only did keeps outnumber deletes, but multiple users explicitly argued against converting the category to a list ( [5] [6] [7]). In his closing comments, Jc37 wrote that listification would allow "criteria for recall to be voluntarily listed, if wanted, sonething that obviously can't be done in a category." But the category already encouraged admins to outline their understanding of their commitment in their userspace, and some had done so in detail. Furthermore, the category provided an automatic membership count, and automatic links between the category page and members' user pages. The category contained over 130 admins, all with links to it in their userspace which have now been erased. Listification and deletion was a radical move unsupported by consensus. Tim Smith (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I think there was no consensus to delete, and I am one of those who supported deletion. - Jehochman Talk 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does Tim's comment above mean that all admins who were in the category somehow had their category removed from their pages? How would that get undone if that happened? Lawrence Cohen 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it does. As to how to undo it, the bot operators who in my view acted too hastily (this DRV was predictable if they had read the close) ought to undo it. If they can't easily reverse it, they ought not to be operating those sorts of bots. I reverted the change to my user page myself already. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. No consensus to delete. Epbr123 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn: Should not have been deleted in the first place, that is unless we are throwing consensus out the window. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I don't see consensus for deletion or listification. henrik•talk 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep Misread consensus. Perfectly useful category per WP:NOTART. -- Kendrick7talk 17:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I consider this recall notion an piece of well-meaning folly - admins have tenure for good reason. However, if people want to be foolish, let them. There's no consensus to delete this and no pressing policy reason to do it in the absence of consensus, so overturn it. If someone wants to relist it, they are free to do so - I couldn't honestly care less.--Docg 17:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, there was no consensus for either listing or deletion. Redrocketboy 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Sometimes I just have to shake my head. The category may not have any real use, people can disagree about that but this close was quite wide of the mark. RxS (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep - I saw no consensus for deletion there - on the contrary, in fact - Alison ❤ 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn...no consensus whatsoever to delete...--uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any merit to a merge of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion to WP:MFD? WP:MFD tends to cover the other project stuff. Hiding T 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: It might be arguable that a consensus was not reached here (personally, I thought a consensus to keep was achieved) but in the absence of consenesus to delete, the category should clearly have been retained. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do. Hiding T 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously a lot of folk do, but you needn't care if you don't want to. To fully and effectively not care, you could go all the way and not comment at all next time if there is one. :). ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently User:JzG since he's commenting on it. --W.marsh 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delistify the list, restore as category: No offense to the closing admin but the close was way wide of the mark, and the justification given was scant. There is no need for a relist in this case. This was either a consensus keep, or, if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to those arguing against keeping this, a no consensus keep. Absolutely no justification for listification here, and whatever bots did it can very well undo it once this DRV is closed. (the bot ops perhaps should have waited a bit, common sense would have told them that this DRV was inevitable... not waiting in this case results in wasted effort.) Is it SNOWing yet? ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was rather shocked to see my watchlist light up. Agree that the consensus was not to delete. It is useful as a category, you could keep the list as long as someone wants to maintain it. Woody (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn although I think this category has been monumentally useless in doing anything about abusive admins, that's not an excuse to abuse the deletion tool and delete it against consensus. --W.marsh 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Recently, there was a controversy involving admin Mercury, who closed a recall discussion about himself/herself. If there is a move to delete the category because one thinks the recall setup is inadequate, then consider discussion about recall first rather than delete the category as a first step. Archtransit (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (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.
2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't as much care if this particular article is undeleted as I wish to have the closing decision reviewed and invalidated. The closer's stated rationale credits "policy and guidelines" arguments in the debate overpowering the "ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline" as the reason for deletion. A look at the debate, however, should show that the reasons given for deletion were too much detail and too little importance, as well as unsubstantiated calls for non-notable (they were unable to cite the WP:N criteria it would not meet). The keep argument was based on WP:V and WP:NPOV policies. I sought an explanation from the closing user and received the reply that the user felt it met deletion by virtue of "WP:N, and WP:HOCKEY's guideline, which are, IMHO, are more important, as they are specialist guidelines, and I feel the WP:HOCKEY is most applicable here. It clearly didn't meet it." link to conversation. I submit that:
1. the WP:V and WP:NPOV policies are more important, as WP:N is simply a guideline for interpreting policy
2. the article in question met WP:N criteria anyway
3. no one has been able to point me to the WP:HOCKEY guideline but such a WikiProject's guidelines should be of little, if any, significance in deciding a deletion debate.

Thanks for your consideration of what I consider an important issue regarding deletion policy and precedents. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentI think WikiProjects do have a relevant role in the details of criteria. The question of how to integrate this in the more general criteria remains unsolved. usually, they are simply accepted by default because all those most involved with those articles either agree on the project, or come to no consensus there--in which case there are no criteria adopted, tho it is not unusual to pretend otherwise.DGG (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Season articles have always been problematic. However, the emerging consensus seems to be that they are justified for fully professional teams playing in a major league. For example, a season article on Tamworth F.C. was recently deleted since they only play in a semi-professional league. This seems a clear case of WP:NOT since this is a junior league club. BlueValour (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. What section of WP:NOT are you referring to? DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - we are not being discriminating when we include so much detail on a team at this level. BlueValour (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. That is the first deletion argument I've seen for this article based in policy (or guideline, for that matter) and an entirely reasonable one at that. Of course, had the argument come up at the debate, I would've countered that there are enough reliable sources to describe the season well (like 2006-07 New York Rangers season and 2007 Florida Gators football team). DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will note that this was brought up in the other debate when it was mentioned that wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, you seem to be correct about that. I suppose I did not give that argument much weight since it was obvious that the article was not/would not be a collection of statistics. Perhaps, on reflection, it was not so obvious and I should have argued against that position. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Closure seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the discussion, with a reasonable enough weight of opinion for deletion. Davewild (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks but as I said my main concern here is the closing rationale. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; the close is a reasonable interpretation of the debate. This is the only argument to be discussed here. — Coren (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closer said, "the arguments based in policy and guidelines are much stronger than the ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline" which is sound but the keep arguments were based in policy and guidelines while the delete arguments were based on too much detail and too little importance. How does that represent a correct interpretation of the debate? DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, simply put, the keeps were basically all WP:ILIKEIT or WP:WAX— statement of preference, but none address the repeated concerns that the article never met notability guidelines. Maybe a good argument based on policy and guidelines could have been made to keep the article, but it wasn't. — Coren (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was there a good deletion argument made? I argued in the debate that the article did meet notability guidelines and that it could meet Verifiability and NPOV policies. I sense a strong scent of BIAS in the whole affair. If an article can meet WP:V and WP:NPOV, then editors' personal opinions of importance are insignificant. The fact of reliable sources signifies its notability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate the arguments that you make. However, you will not be provided with a clear policy basis for the deletion of this page because there is none to give. Many editors have in the past argued, as you do, that provided that policy (V and NPOV) is complied with then a page should be permitted to exist. In other words we should not have WP:N notability thresholds. That is a valid viewpoint but not one which has found widespread support. Whilst we have WP:N then in all such notability debates editors will make a judgement as to where the boundaries lie and it is on such judgement that this article has foundered. BlueValour (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for your thoughtful response. Would you agree with me then that the closer was incorrect when stating that deletion "arguments based in policy and guidelines" and the keep arguments were "based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline"? Furthermore, could you point me to the WP:N criteria that the article could not meet? DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm, let me put it this way, if I had closed then I would have used a different rationale. Meeting the letter of WP:N is not, in itself enough for a page to survive. It also needs to convince enough of the Community that the article has enough importance to be part of Wikipedia. Whatever the rights and wrongs, this is the way the AfD process works. In this case, accepting that it was not a vote etc., there was a 2:1 consensus that the page was not sufficiently notable. BlueValour (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, as I said in my opening statement, I am not very concerned with undeletion. I do not contest the "vote" count so much as I am concerned with a closing administrator's false declaration that the article did not meet WP:N and that arguments based in WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV were "pure opinion without basis". I believe this reflects an increasing incorrect assumption that WP:N = importance = deletion criterion. As I've tried to point out, WP:N is a guideline to interpreting Wikipedia's inclusion policies. Attempts to have editorial views of importance be a deletion reason have failed several times. The wise and unbiased method to determine "encyclopedic" is to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that equals WP:N. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, as a WP:HOCKEY member. For the most part, any junior team's season article can pass WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. One could also argue WP:5, since almanacs are part of Wikipedia. The sticky parts are WP:NOT a collection of statistics, as the initial creation of such articles at the major pro levels was fought over this point, but most have enough prose to justify existence as stand alone articles. For most junior seasons, it isn't going to happen. WP:N doesn't really have an allowance for articles of this type, so it remains a grey area. As a junior hockey fan, I'd have no great issue with creating season articles for many teams at many levels. However, the question becomes one of the notability threshold. NHL, certainly. Minor leagues? Possibly. Junior leagues? Ehh.... For the most part, discussion within WP:HOCKEY has decided that this level of detail for junior league's is too much, and a failure of WP:N. Resolute 06:16, 18 December 2007 (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/2007_December_16&oldid=1140395935"