Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 17 Deletion review archives: 2008 August August 19 >

18 August 2008[edit]

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

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

dozens of reliable sources. admins speak for themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.54.191 (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion, no reason has been presented as to why the AfD closure was incorrect, edit summary of nomination indicates a lack of good faith. --Stormie (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is not AfD2. The AfD got a good hearing, and there are not procedural problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2008 (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.

Postville Iowa Raid (Agriprocessors Kosher Meat Plant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This page was speedily deleted with an edit summery of (G10: Attackpage or negative unsourced BLP). I noticed this fairly new article shortly before it was speedily deleted. (It had not been tagged, or else I would have removed the tag and suggested a WP:AfD instead, since this was obviously an controversial deletion, so that a reasoned discussion could take place first.) While it is true that the article needs work, this in and of itself is no reason to simply delete the entire article without allowing for discussion and improvement. The article was by no stretch of the imagination an Attack Page, as has been asserted by the deleting editor. Much of the information in the article comes from the government itself, and another source is an inside account of the process as observed by an official federal translator who was involved in the process, and which has been extensively covered in the press. I recognize most of the information contained in the article from local, national and international news accounts, and I believe that it would be quite easy to supply citations in proper wikipedia style to most of the information contained in the article. In addition, formating the article into sections should provide no great difficulties, and I was planning on starting both of these when I first discovered the article just prior to its being speedily deleted without notice. Any percieved POV problems can be addressed by allowing multiple eyes to attend to the article. Why not allow wikipedia editors a chance to bring the article about this important and historic immigration raid that has recieved so much attention, both nationally and internationally, up to wikipedia standards before speedily deleting it? This is not what Speedy Deletion was ever intended for. Ramsey2006 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from my message on Ramsey's talk page] I interpreted it as an attack on those who supervised the raid, an article created simply to disparage the raid, and as a hopelessly anti-raid POV (not to mention the idea of "raid" itself seeming rather POV) it is an attack page that can't be rectified. We can speedy delete an advertising article if it's a page which exclusively promotes some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic: it can get so bad that it simply needs to be deleted immediately. This page was similar, except being an attack page that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. With all of the article's sources simply being listed at the bottom of the article, I couldn't tell what (if anything) was being sourced to reliable sources, except the court calendar (which obviously isn't enough to sustain the article), and the reliable sources that are being used (such as the NYT article) are being used in a totally POV way, taking the guy with the obvious anti-raid POV at his word without even listening to anyone with a pro-raid POV. Contrary to what is stated, the article was hopelessly POV, and as I noted on Ramsey's talk page, anything with a decent source would need to be completely rewritten. All reliable sources that were listed on the article I copied to Ramsey's talk page, so that s/he could begin work: if everything needs to be rewritten, and if all that's currently on there needs to be removed, there's no reason to keep the article. As to my speedy deletion of the article: because I have the technical capability to delete articles, I have no need to place a tag. If I believe that it deserves review from another editor, I'll place a prod or nominate it for AFD, but there's no reason to. Reading from WP:Attack page, "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place;" I don't deny that the subject is notable, but as it was primarily an attack page against the persons who conducted the raid, and there was no good revision to revert to, I deleted it and gave the listed reliable sources to someone who knows enough about the subject to write an appropriate stub article. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall the article containing any personal attacks. But if it did, said personal attacks can easily be removed, and were certainly not the thrust of the article. Furthermore, calling a raid a "raid" is not POV, but even if it were, relatively minor edits could resolve the problem. As for advertising, I don't recall any of that, either. I do not agree that "everything needs to be rewritten" and that "all that's currently on there needs to be removed". --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it was advertising: I said that it was similar to advertising, in which we can speedy delete a bad article, even on a notable topic. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't mean to mischaracterize your statement. Let me amend my response to say that I don't believe that there was anything similar to advertising contained in the article.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are misunderstanding the analogy here. :) As I read it, Nyttend is not saying there was advertising or anything like advertising in the article. Rather, s/he seems to be comparing the processes of deleting an article for BLP concerns and deleting an article for promotional concerns, noting that in either case deletion may be proper, even if on a valid subject. Regardless of the specifics in this case, I believe this is a correct interpretation of policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. I don't believe that the content of the article is "solely or primarily" an attack against any named person. I also disagree that it is "hopelessly POV". While I do think that the article needed some work to bring it into compliance with encyclopedia standards, it was not hopeless. The raid was widely reported and therefore notable. Let's restore and fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. I do not believe this existed purely for disparagement/attack purposes, as even in the google cache version I can spot numerous paragraphs that seem to be factual, referenced and encyclopedic. If any such content exists, it really calls for cleanup or AFD rather than a simple speedy deletion. That said, the article was in bad shape... but there's a reasonable argument that it's a notable topic, and there was some quasi-useful content in what was deleted. It should go to AFD. --Rividian (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Has been all over the news and will likely have long-term implications for meat packing in general. Certainly not speediable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Sections of the article were purportedly referenced and well written. I would like to see the article return -- possibly any NPOV statements could be revised. I disagree that a statement that it was a "raid" is by itself biased. Wikipedia references a raid as either "a sudden attack behind an enemy's lines" or "a police action involving the entering of [a building] with the intent to capture personnel or evidence". By either of those definitions (defining "lawbreakers" as the enemies of the police), the action was a raid. Government press releases refer to the action as a raid. I do not see how calling the action a raid is, in and of itself, NPoV.
  • Overturn deletion but consider changing the title, and then rewriting the article to be shorter and more encyclopedic,and less a detailed blow by blow account. . Cleanup will be necessary, and coordination with other related articles, and there is every reason to expect the involvement of people with various strong POVs, but in any case it was not a speedy A10. Snow overturn, and I suggest waiting a few days for improvements before proceeding to AfD. Simplest way to proceed now will be for the deleting admin to revert himself. . DGG (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, article has POV issues and sourcing issues (some sources are reliable but a number are blogs), but I don't believe it meets any criteria for speedy deletion. --Stormie (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article was recreated by original creator at Postville Raid and is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postville Raid. We've got some duplication of efforts going on. I'll notify contributors to that AfD, but I'm not at all sure whether this discussion should be happening here or there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow some improved version of this article. The present version (reposted at the link above) needs work for tone and possible copyright issues, but having some article on this event is not an attack, and "raid" is the most common term for this sort of immigration enforcement action. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing/keep deleted. While I disagree with the speedy, its main article is Agriprocessors and we don't need a separate article for this specific event. Overturning now that there is a more proper redirect is kinda of pointless. Synergy 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, over at the AfD, Ultra has shown some improvment on the recreated title and I believe that one would be the more preferred fork (given its notable to keep the fork). Synergy 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the best title can be decided on later, and then the merge done as necessary. I think it's fairly clear that onle article will be needed; perhaps we could suspend this discussion until after the afd thre. DGG (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is an article that needs reworking and improvement, not deletion. This was a notable incident that received major media coverage nationwide and beyond, and has received continuing coverage since, including editorial responses in The New York Times. The reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Issues of tone or alleged "attacks" should be addressed through editing, not summary execution of an article. Alansohn (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2008 (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.

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

A new version of the article has been recreated, so I'd like the old history undeleted. Thank you, Korg (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the same individual. Nothing problematic in the history. (Nor anything really to be gained, as there are no sources either.) Why not? GRBerry 15:11, 18 August 2008 (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.

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

Move to userspace, preferably User:Banaticus/rpol so I can add requested site review prior to restoring article to main Wikipedia space. For instance, [1] and [2]. Please include history of page, as discussion at the RfD appears to indicate that poor NPoV edits were made prior to article's deletion. Banaticus (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment Many people do not do so, possibly because they are unduly scared of admins. We do not place bureaucratic blocks in the way of editors trying to save articles. If this is desired to be an absolute requirement, propose it, but based o earlier comments here I do not think the change will be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
      • Nowhere on that page does it say it is optional. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nowhere does it say it is mandatory either. Chiding him for it is just process for process sake. What exactly would he need to discuss and work out with the deleting admin? --SmashvilleBONK! 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As per the required steps to list a new deletion review, I notified the deleting admin hours before Stifle's comment was posted. ;) Banaticus (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The intention is that you try to discuss the matter with the deleting admin before listing something on this page, not just before Stifle notices and objects. :-) Jossi may have been happy to simply move the deleted article to your userspace without a deletion review discussion being necessary. --Stormie (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yup, that's the idea. It's both courteous to the deleting admin and helps avoid unnecessary process. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify on the merits, no reason not to allow for improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Userfy. Reasonable request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Straightforward request. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to userfication so Banaticus can have a crack at improving it, but based on those two links provided (a blog and a college newspaper) I'm not sure that he's going to be able to overcome the reliable sources and notability concerns expressed at the AQfD. --Stormie (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu – Deletion endorsed. While some issues with the deletion reasoning have been raised, they have already been discussed at the previous DRV which resulted in a decision to keep the article deleted, and significant doubts about the actually deleted version remain. The current combination of redirect and article on the murderer would therefore be the starting point for further editing but it is also possible that a discussion of a fresh draft might come to a different conclusion. – Tikiwont (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

The article survived an AfD a couple of months before admin Phil_Sandifer deleted the article, giving the edit summary 'No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter'. I restored the article and he deleted it again. I say that the subject of the article is notable and worthy of inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was uncontroversial for 15 months, and with good reason - it's a tabloidy piece of WP:NOT#NEWS of minimal significance that falls well under the general understanding of BLP, since the deceased has living relatives who are implicitly harmed by our deciding to memorialize ephemera like this. Why on Earth is this being dragged up 15 months after an utterly uncontroversial deletion? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did not realise at first that Phil's deletion was endorsed here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30. Still, I request deletion review on the basis that his deletion was designed to circumvent, and does circumvent, the consensus of the community at AfD to 'keep' the article, and that his cited BLP policy does not apply to a dead person. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say it better than I did 15 months ago: "BLP is about protecting the dignity of people. The fact that the child in question is dead does not remove the fundamental BLP issues - her family, including her brother mentioned by name in the article, still have every bit as much potential to be hurt by this article as she would be. BLP is our policy about being ethical citizens. This article has clear ethical issues - this is an ephemeral case where we do not add meaningfully to the world and we substantively take away. It should remain deleted." Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the only BLP violation could have been solved by omitting the brother;s name. DGG (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is manifestly untrue. We have BLP for ethical, not legal reasons. Her only claim to notability was her unfortunate death. The reasons we ought not have an article on her and the reasons we ought not have an article on a marginally notable living person are the same. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Based on the process I can see, the BLP deletion is justified. Subject is adequately noted at Dante Arthurs. Townlake (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on the prior DRV. Unless there has been a change in the facts of the case (e.g. better sources are now avalible) or Wikipedia policy/consensus (e.g. BLP speedies are considered innapropriate) a new review is unlikely to bring a different result. Since neither of those conditions apply the prior decision should stand. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLP speedy? No, this was deleted for WP:CSD#A7. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did I mention the person in question isn't living? -- Ned Scott 08:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is more than adequate precedent to treat articles on the recently deceased as BLP issues because of living relatives. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. invalid speedy deletion. No offense, Phil, but you should have listed this at AfD if you disagreed with the first AfD's results. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also not swayed by the fact that this wasn't challenged right away. It's a big wiki, and it's easy for these things to go unnoticed and slip through the cracks. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also not swayed by the first DRV. This occurred around the time when BLP paranoia was particularly high on the Wiki (again, BLP reasons for a dead person? WTF?). badlydrawnjeff was right. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. There are many things that badlydrawnjeff was, but "right" was never one of them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. See that L in WP:BLP? Stifle (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How to Proceed Article has been redirected to the criminal, which does make sense according to out current practice. An afd discussion should be held for that article, which may or may not pass our current standards for BLP, but let community decide. I am particualarly bothered by the deletion comment of violating the "spirit of BLP" ; I hold with strict enforcement of BLP, but only within the limits of the actual rule. Certainly not for deletions specially opposed to the actual rule. The suggestion tht it apply to the recently deceased was mooted duringthe original discusion of the policy, and soundly rejected."the spirit of BLP" can encompass a great many things. None of the other reasons given permit a speedy after a community vote to keep. As for a delete of the redirect, which is what would now be the question, this should be dealt with at the new AfD--it may become irrelevant, and if not, should go to RfD. BLP is not about "our policy for being ethical citizens" a very widereaching role, we should be ethical citizens, and many of us think that this is done best by reporting with NPOV everything outside the limits of the actual BLP policy, and censoring what doe not need to be censored by our policy is the opposite of ethical. DGG (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Typically, I'd agree with you. In this case, though, reading the May '07 DRV it seems like most of the deleted article's content (which I don't have access to) was similar to the later People You'll See in Hell narrative on the event. I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion if I'm wrong in that assumption, but on the surface, I find Phil's action justifiable, and the DRV that already took place on the subject seems to have generally agreed. Townlake (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Was not speediable. Overzealous interpretation of the scope of WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion as proper as per Chick Bowen below. Sounds like WP:BLP violations permeate the history to the point that it would be too hard to excise the information while maintaining the GFDL. Allow recreation subject to WP:BLP, including incidental mentions of living people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The subject of the page is an eight year old girl who was murdered. I agree that her page should redirect to a page on either Dante Arthurs (where it currently redirects) or to a page on the crime itself. I'm obviously not able to read the article, but I find it difficult to believe that an eight year old girl could have been notable on her own. If her only instance of notability is that she was the victim in a particular crime, then I believe that she should merely be referenced on a page discussing the crime. Banaticus (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the article as it now stands is on the murderer, which is almost certainly the better choice.DGG (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse. previous endorsement at DRV surely should satisfy even the most died in the wool process wonk. Spartaz Humbug! 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
even those with the most flexible interpretation of language should realize that Living and Dead are not synonyms There was a proposal to include "recenttly dead" and it was soundly rejected by the community. And I don't see any blp problems with respect to the convicted murderer. DGG (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:BLP explicitly covers only living people and therefore cannot justify speedily deleting an article about a dead person. If the article contained objectionable content about living persons, that content can be editorially removed without deleting the article.  Sandstein  15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ick I certainly think the article should be a case of delete and redirect. And I'm very worried about someone treating BLP to include this. That said, this appears to be a case of NOT#NEWS and given previous deletion should certainly be deleted. So don't endorse but delete. BLP didn't belong here and notability doesn't either (WP:N is clearly met by sources). But deletion was the right thing to do. I've no objection to sending it back to AfD, but have little doubt about the outcome. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The second and third paragraphs of the deleted version are OK, but the first is unsourced, speculative narrative about a minor who is still alive (the subject's brother). That text goes back to the earliest revision. Given that, I don't see how this could be undeleted, and as an admin I can't do it in good conscience (I came here to close this debate). A new version might be a different matter, but this one should stay deleted. Chick Bowen 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not wish to defend the article's mention of her brother. I am defending the inclusion of an article on the subject (the girl). Phil's deletion of the article rests on NOT#NEWS and BLP violations. The BLP violations that he asserts will not be adequately addressed by excising mention of the brother; he states, correctly, that the existence of the article affects the family of the deceased girl. I say that the effect upon the family by the existence of an article on the girl is not a violation of BLP, and is not a reason to otherwise speedily delete the article. I request that I be permitted to recreate the article, with modifications, and submit it to AfD, AfD being the proper forum for this discussion. Will an admin please close this review? - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2008 (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.

University of Windsor Students' Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I disagree that a delete consensus was reached. At best it was no consensus. The deletion should be overturned. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reopen clear case of no consensus--the debate was so sparse that it should have been continued for further discussion. Of similar pages, some are kept, some aren't, and the comments of neither the keep nor delete people rally addressed the issues involved. DGG (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh geez.. you could've asked me why I closed it the way I did before DRVing. Plus I noticed you notified the other keep voter, which is a violation of WP:CANVASS. Anyway, Endorse closure. AFD is not a vote, remember. The delete voters said that it wasn't notable on it's own, and as you can see where were no realiable sources to prove this. The keep voters said it was inherently notable, but if you look at previous AFDs on student organizations, very rarely are they notable (unless they of course are covered in reliable sources). I'll relist it if consensus leans that way, though. Wizardman 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The AfD shouldn't have been closed as a consensus-delete with that little input. Townlake (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no quorum on deletion debates. There have been multiple proposals that there be a quorum for deletion debates but they have at every juncture been roundly rejected by the community. If the only complaints about the close are "I don't agree" and "not enough input" then there is nothing in policy (or even in practice) to support the request for review...
    brenneman 08:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, and I reversed the re-opening of the debate. Have some patience, people![reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    well, he's been consulted now, and his statement above is that he, not surprisingly,endorses his own close. We ought not raise procedural objections to people trying to rescue articles. He offers to relist if a consensus decides that way--not that there would be any choice if such were the consensus. I note that he closed entirely on his own opinion, and not a good one, because it was "most such organisations are not notable," which is irrelevant to the question of whether this one is. and it would have made more sense to join the debate and let someone else close, which. 09:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
    • If I was trying to raise a procedural objection I'd have been more likely to speedy-close this DRV for not following process, which would be absurd. I'm merely asking why the nominator didn't do the closing admin the basic courtesy of asking him to reverse or explain his decision before coming over here, especially given that it is explicitly stated as something that should be done. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete full history and convert to redirect to University of Windsor. Without knowing, I presume that the article clearly failed WP:N, and this swung User:Wizardman to delete. If so, the redirect is preferable. This case is a symptom of the overuse of AfD to the point of exhaustion of interested wikipedians, and relisting is not what is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The normal outcome for student organizations is to smerge them to the University. Very, very few have enough independent sourcing to sustain an article. This article managed to assert that the group exists and is a member of Canadian Federation of Students. Neither the article nor the AFD participants demonstrated any reason to have an article. Given the normal outcome for student organizations, and the lack of anything to merge - there is more data in the university article (though just the trivial factoid of being local #49), delete and redirect or redirect without merging would be fine outcomes. Keeping as an independent article would not be a reasonable outcome. GRBerry 13:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll relist it; the bickering here's generally pointless and won't solve anything. Wizardman 13:59, 18 August 2008 (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/2008_August_18&oldid=1138431785"