Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 2

< June 1	Deletion review archives: 2008 June	June 3 >

2 June 2008[edit]

Architectural design values – Closure (no consensus) endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SYN. Also not discussed at the is the WP:COI of the user and the copy vios of previous attempts(Design values, Architectural intentions) to insert this content, and the failed DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23. Copy vios (http://www.aho.no/Utgivelser/Avhandlinger_elektronisk/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf and http://books.google.com/books?id=Gi7vcuGpAW8C ) Sole editor is Ivar Holm (Gutt2007 (talk · contribs) and 84.208.68.188 (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to "his own work". Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, nor is wikipedia to be used as Self-promotion. speedy delete Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (no consensus). I see no process problems in this closure. Given what was known and discussed at the time, a "no consensus" closure seems quite reasonable. Furthermore, because this has been through an AfD discussion, it is ineligible for speedy-deletion. The one exception is if the copyvio claim can be substantiated (in which case, the normal copyvio investigation takes precedence and no Deletion review is necessary). I will note, however, that the copyvio allegation is unprovable by the link provided above.
The important question, however, is why you didn't raise any of these issues during the deletion discussion? Deletion Review is not AFD-round 2. If you think critical facts were not considered, renominate the article and open a second discussion. (You should, however, very clearly explain why you are doing so only 2 days after the last discussion was closed. Other editors tend to be very skeptical of spuriously rapid renominations.) The prior discussion participants do seem to have fairly considered and rejected the original research/synthesis claim. Other than the copyvio claim, I don't see a basis to reconsider this decision. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No consensus to delete, a proper close. MrPrada (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An initial comment on the possible copyvio issue. The talk page of the article claims that the source has a WP:OTRS ticket:

[Ticket#2008051010007236] GNU Free Documentation License

Unless that ticket fails to cover the source for the article then I am not seeing the copyvio. Smile a While (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is citing his own Doctoral thesis, and using wikipedia as a web host. Just because he has Ticket#2008051010007236, doesn't give him a pass to add his own original research. --Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position on this. However, the initial question is that of copyvio since if the article is copyvio it must be deleted irrespective of the OR position. You placed a couple of Copyviocore templates on the page so, I presume, you must have doubts about the validity or application of the OTRS ticket since otherwise there would be no copyvio and the tags would not be appropriate and should be removed. What I am asking for is a clarification of the basis for your concerns. Smile a While (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we can;t speedy delete as OR, and the possible nature of the item as OR was covered in the AfD discussion. If someone should happen to write a review of a subject as part of a doctoral dissertation that is not OR, but source-based, and meets our other requirements, and is willing to release the copyright under GFDL, then I see no reason why we shouldn't use it. DGG (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure As has been said, DRV isn't AfD Part 2. This conversation has already occurred and a correct interpretation of the results was rendered. Townlake (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (no consensus). DRV is not AfD2. Nothing wrong with the AfD close. This is not the forum to debate a debatable copyright question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close - there was no consensus for deletion. The fact that there are two "possible copyright infringement" templates currently on the article is irrelevant to this discussion (they must be dealt with separately). With the discussion in the AfD, there was no choice for the closing admin but to close without deletion. B.Wind (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barony of Qlejjgha – Deletion endorsed – PeterSymonds (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

endorse. Okay this is definitely not a clear-cut case. Firstly, DRV is not used to complain about process. ~~These articles were deleted legitimately at the end of the five day prod period~~(see addendum). Secondly, sending them to AfD would be adding to unnecessary process, because the outcome of several similar AfDs had been deleted with unanimous delete !votes. Granted, not every article is the same, but when so many were sent to AfD, the net consensus was that these articles should not exist on Wikipedia. Thirdly, the outcome of a deletion discussion back in 2005 is completely different to the outcome in 2008. Every deletion debate is handled separately, so arguments based on the previous debate have little-to-no relevance. Fourthly, while the similar articles were at AfD, User:Tancarville failed to provide any evidence of notability, verifiability, reliable sources or any information that would pass WP:BIO. Despite arguing on the AfD page, no evidence was provided in the time that the AfD was started and concluded, which was the full length of time. Overturning this decision would lead to unnecessary process, with no chance of survival, so closing it as "endorse" is appropriate. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum It has been brought to my attention that they were not all deleted legitimately after a five-day PROD period. The few links I clicked on showed an uninvolved admin deleting after 5 days, as shown in the edit summary. Therefore I correct the statement I made above. However, I am going to invoke WP:IAR which is not something I've done often. These articles have no chance of survival at AfD, as evidenced by the creator's failure to provide any sources/evidence of notability/verifiability while the other AfDs were running. Re-opening it would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, or process, as they would have been deleted had they been brought up. This is my decision, but I understand that it is going to be a controversial one. Therefore, if an uninvolved admin feels they should overturn this decision, I give them full liberty to do so. However, please be sure that you are doing so because you feel the article can survive, and not purely because of process, because I am 100% sure that there is no chance that these articles will survive AfD. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RGTraynor prodded this article and the other listed articles for deletion. Unfortunately the Prod wasn't viable as these articles have survived a prior bundled AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria). I removed the Prods explaining in the edit summary why, a short while after doing so DragonflySixtyseven mass deleted all the articles. These deletions were totally out of process and were done on the grounds of the articles lack of verifiability and original research. These articles had been in existence for several years so why the rush to delete? Why couldn't the normal deletion policy be followed? Why the reluctance to send them to AfD?
Yes process can be irksome at times, but generally it is there for a good reason. When I see an out of process, mass deletion like this, I can't help but feel profoundly uneasy. I'm listing these articles as I'd genuinely like to know if the community considers such out of process deletions as acceptable or not. RMHED (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote RGTraynor's prod, "Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). While the article has been in substantively the same form since 2004, actual published sources (most unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added in 2006 - coincidentally, right after a blanket AfD was filed on these articles - and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." Google turns up only this article, the creator's website and a handful of Wiki mirrors. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR"; to quote my deletion summary, "Hell with it. This is unverifiable, and remains unverifiable. Tancarville has had YEARS to provide better sources, and has not done so."
Procedure is important, but it is not all-important. To restore false articles solely to cross the t's and dot the i's of their writs of deletion is pointless. If independent evidence can be shown for the existence of the the subjects of these articles, I will gladly restore them (this is not a blanket offer; each existence will have to be shown separately); otherwise, they stay gone.
(Interesting point: one of these articles was apparently cited in a court case where the Court ruled that it was "apocryphal at best") DS (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The articles in question were created by User:Tancarville (Charles Said-Vassallo) in 2004 and 2005. The articles have been in substantively the same form since then, but “published sources” (somehow each and every one of them unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added the day after the mass AfD was filed last year, and the sources upon which the text was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." Furthermore, WP:COI and WP:COATRACK issues came up in that the alleged holders of a number of the titles were the creator’s own family members; one of the articles RMHED unprodded was a title claimed by the creator for his mother, for instance. Beyond that, the author of the alleged published sources is a "Charles Gauci," who himself was the subject of some of these articles as a “noble,” and who showed up as User:Count Gauci as an SPA in one of the recent AfDs, with phrasings oddly similar to Tancarville’s; for instance, "Please see sense and make comments rather then delete" cropped up in both of their comments at various stages.
At the time of the mass AfD in 2006, the consensus was clearly going towards Delete (the best Tancarville was getting was “Keep if and only if the articles are vastly improved / if reliable sources are found”) when it was suddenly bucked over to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility, a February 2005 discussion where Tancarville’s self-proclaimed credentials as a geneaologist were swallowed without question; the AfD was never properly closed. As it happens the only evidence we have for any of this is Charles Said Vassallo's word for it. While Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages. There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign.
Those decisions would never be made today, and on the sixteen AfDs that myself and another editor filed last week on these articles, the near-unanimous opinion of those other than Tancarville, Count Gauci and SPAs have been for deletion. Since I do not pretend to be an expert on such issues, I brought the matter to the Royalty Wikiproject, and their unanimous opinion has been for deletion. Since those AfDs, citing huge WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COI issues, have so far ruled for Deletion with overwhelming consensus, I filed prods on a number of the other articles, since (after all) prodding is supposed to be for non-controversial deletions. I only wish that RMHED had informed me of this deletion review, since he’s obviously curious as to my motives.
My apology for being so longwinded, but basically, Tancarville has had a free ride on Wikipedia for four years, creating over sixty articles based on his own original research, claiming nobility for himself, his mother and father, and his other relatives, all stemming from an island two-thirds the size of Plymouth, Massachusetts, where such noble titles were abolished decades ago, and where such articles have survived so long only out of shaky process and startling misapplications of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
Like DS, I would be happy to see restored any article that passed WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:COI muster. I just couldn't find any in a couple days of search, and neither could half a dozen editors from the Royalty Wikiproject. If RMHED has some information we don't, I'd be grateful to see it. RGTraynor 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD if User:RGTraynor wishes. The removal of the PRODs was proper, since, quoting from WP:PROD:

Articles that:
Have previously been proposed for deletion using the {{prod}} process.

Have previously been undeleted

Have been discussed on AfD or MfD
are not candidates for {{prod}}.

(own emphasis added) Also nothing in the CSD meets the summary given in the deletion logs. There's nothing to support this sort of admin-discretion deletion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Tancarville created these articles out of WP:COI, and it's my understanding that almost all of them were deleted via AfD, not PROD. I did a bit of research myself, and like the members of the Royalty WikiProject, I couldn't find any reliable sources about these obscure titles, nor could I find any proof that the author was a "trusted" name in genealogy. Should these be relisted at AfD, I could only see them being deleted all over again; overall, I agree 100% with RGTraynor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy-deletion of the ones where there was not a relevant AFD decision after the "no consensus" decision from July 2006 that RMHED cites above. I spot-checked a number and found only a few that were deleted via a subsequent AfD. I share the skepticism expressed here that these articles will survive the AfD discussion. The evidence being presented here against the articles is compelling. But the process is important and DRV is not AFD2. We can spare 5 days to do it right. This discussion should have been held at AfD. Rossami (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Its inconcievable that these articles will survive AFd without further reliable sources being provided and this issues was raised years ago (eons in wikitime). Process is important but not to the point of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is sending a few articles to AfD "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? If an admin considers that an article lacks verifiability or contains original research are you saying they should delete it on sight? RMHED (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument. Obviously these articles weren't "deleted on sight;" they've been unverified, unsourced messes for four years, they've been pawed over more than once, a pertinent Wikiproject's endorsed the deletions, sixteen similar ones have been under AfD, ~~six~~ all sixteen have already been deleted from AfD, and a couple already have been deleted after the prods expired; it is not remotely a case of a cowboy admin gunning down good articles at random after a moment's casual glance. It isn't even the case that you or anyone else here thinks these articles would survive AfD; in effect, this is process worship for the sake of process worship. As Howcheng cogently states, this is a sound application of WP:IAR. RGTraynor 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This appears to be a good application of WP:IAR. They were kept during the AfD on the condition that better sources be added. It's been years and none have been forthcoming. Ergo, deletion was warranted. howcheng {chat} 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Howcheng. AFD survival was conditional, and the condition has failed. Bastique ^demandez 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are several blue links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria that deserve a second look. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not all of Tancarville's articles merit deletion. One is of a town in Malta, one is of a CEO of a major Maltese bank who was murdered in mysterious circumstances, one is a Euro MP, and so on. RGTraynor 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, and probably relist individually after checking, starting with the weakest. AfD survival was not in the least conditional--it closed as no consensus to delete. Personally, i would very much like to see these articles deleted, and intend to so argue, but trying to use speedy to overturn the result of an Afd is just plain wrong. Its an improper use of IAR to support such a deletion--there was not consensus to delete. It's notsome technicality of the rules that by prevent us from deleting, its the lack of consensus to delete. Using IAR to override consensus is an arbitrary contradiction to the idea that its the consensus that decides what will improve the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Tough call. I would have argued in favor of deleting these, but DGG and Lifebaka really hit the nail on the head. They should be restored and sent to AfD properly. MrPrada (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per DGG, essentially. It doesn't seem at all inconceivable that the "no consensus" result would be repeated. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Essentially per DGG. I agree that it is unlikely that any of these will survive AfD. However, speedy deletion of articles which have survived AfD is a really bad idea. We don't lose much by relisting. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per DGG. Dloh cierekim 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD. Much as I'd like to see these deleted, there's a process for it and when they've had a PROD contested and an AFD closed without deletion, deleting at random is not really on. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse When did we become blind slaves to process? If we cannot exercise common sense from time to time, we become needlessly supine in our requirement for bureaucratic warrant for any action, as advocated by DGG above. I agree, therefore, with RGTraynor's rationale as laid out above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD and WP:CSD are for uncontroversial deletions. Having a previous XfD closed as "keep" or "no consensus" means most reasons for deletion are already proven to be controversial. This isn't process wonkery, the processes work the way they do for a reason. In this case a single admin proclaiming that he knows better (or different) than previous consensus (or the lack thereof) is wrong: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale". Just take the articles to AfD again. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. They may have been controversial a few years ago. They are proving to be almost completely uncontroversial now. Of the sixteen AfDs filed on those articles, except for Tancarville and the aforementioned "Count Gauci," who dissented on two, every single opinion proffered was for deletion. That's not merely consensus, that's fairly overwhelming consensus. RGTraynor 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While consensus can change, I've seen no evidence that it has. I'd like to note that I don't oppose the deletion of the article, I just don't believe that a single person gets to decide it. We wouldn't have XfDs if this was the case. And Dlohcierekim is right about the possibility of snowballing here if it does turn out to be uncontroversial, but I fail to see what harm it could do to have the pages back up for few days or so. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since these survived prior AFD, I would say the thing to do would be to AFD them again. Perhaps with the improved scrutiny of a number of editors some way to ave them can be found. If these deletions are so uncontroversial that PROD or Speedy is appropriate, they should snow-close pretty quickly. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even allowing for change in consensus, the thing to do is send back to AFD. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 12:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AFD. Process is important, no compelling counter-reason here. Sources unavailable to wikipedia editors, if this means “not online”, is not good enough. AGF until references are proven false or unreliable. “Merge all to Maltese nobility”, for example, is conceivably a non-deletion sensible outcome. This was not a good application of IAR. There are good rules written to cover this situation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 8 June 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 Fling (band) – Relist to generate consensus – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

In my understanding the criteria was met. Two guidelines were met from WP:Band. Clarification please on EXACTLY what more needs to be done. Blue Gillian (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for now. I can't see any reasons explicitly given in the nom here to overturn. If you'd like to show evidence that an article can be written about the band, please provide the evidence, and I may change my !vote. Also, I believe that WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #7 doesn't work since Letter Kills is not notabile outside of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, but I could be misunderstanding the way that's written. If you'd like you can work on the article in your userspace (at, say, User:Blue Gillian/The Fling (band)) while this is going on; it'd help your case here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Letter Kills seems notable per the presence of multiple reliable sources, satisfying both WP:MUSIC and the general notability guidelines. This band contains a former member of Letter Kills; therefore, #7 of WP:MUSIC is met for The Fling (band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Consensus not established at AfD. Closing explanation inadequate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Foreignchar – Relisted Happy‑melon 09:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The singular name template was a very widely used template but when the TFD was placed on the template a notice to the fact was never transcluded to the articles affected - The public became only aware of the TFD when all instances of use where removed by a bot The plural name version also had a lack of a TFD notice on the template. Agathoclea (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin: That would certainly explain the difficulty we had in getting any involvement in the discussion! I'd repeat the point I raised above, though: there is no point whatsoever in overturning this TfD soley on this technicality, but rather the merits of the template should be considered. Happy‑melon 12:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. While that may have been an issue, it's not enough to overturn here. Even with that the TfD got plenty of traffic, and looks to have generated a decent close. This technicality is a bit too small to warrant an overturn on its own. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Failure to properly advertise a TfD is hardly a minor technicality, as it means that the discussion will take place only among those who regularly review the TfD debates, not among those who actually use the template. I do not believe that the former kind of discussion can result in what is sought by consensus. And I would hardly say that the TfD got plenty of traffic, as it had to be relisted twice to generate more debate. The fact that there was no Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Foreignchar page created is a minor technicality — the fact that interested parties were not informed of the debate going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Foreignchar is not. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Failure to properly advertise the discussion is not a minor technicality; it is a flaw that makes it impossible to use that discussion to determine consensus. Since no valid consensus can be formed from that discussion relisting is the only viable option. Might as well relist both together though, instead of just listing one and deleting two. GRBerry 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist both and advertise properly. As I see it, there was definitely no consensus regarding Template :foreignchars; it was not really properly nominated and only mentioned once en passant. There have been previous debates on the talk pages from which it was obvious that any suggestion of deletion (that was known about) would be controversial. In my opinion the nominations should have been advertised at WP:GER, since many German articles are affected. As far as merits go, as I see it, use of the hatnote was a tacit compromise that avoided move wars and long discussions on the use of certain German characters. The need for greater discussion on this proposal is obvious from all the discussions on foreign Latin characters and diacritics, as at the failed proposal Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). The issue is not really the template: the hatnote is so widely used and the desirability of standardization is so obvious that it boils down to recommending deletion of the Wikipedia usage instruction (hatnote/footnote) itself without discussing it at a more appropriate and visible place such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, or WP:Village pump, or at an affected project, preferably with an advertisement on the Community Portal using the RFC bot. I don't really think this is the proper place for a detailed discusson of the actual issues, but it is difficult to discuss the issues elsewhere while the hatnotes etc. have been deleted and nobody can see what we are talking about. Perhaps we could agree here on a proper place for the substantial discussion, without which a discussion about the template seems rather inappropriate.--Boson (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per others. Seems ambiguous enough to warrant a proper discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for a better discussion. It's not as if everyone who might be interested checks TfD regularly, DGG (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, comparing the first AfD to the second, I think that there may have been a different outcome if the notification had happened. Everyone who wants a chance to participate should be allowed to. MrPrada (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gabriel_Murphy – Closure is endorsed. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an article with a number of sources that help asset its notability and it should be a stand-alone article rather than redirected to the Aplus.Net article as this individual has a broader business background than just Aplus.Net. This article now has much more substance with backed references to establish that it should be a stand-alone article. 69.76.132.152 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the admin who closed the AFD and decided to convert the article into a redirect as there was support for the retention of biographical information in the Aplus.net article. I don't believe there has been a change in the subject's individual notability to merit the existence of a dedicated article. I'm beginning to gravitate towards supporting the removal of most of the detail on Murphy if it's considered extraneous to Aplus.net. SoLando (Talk) 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While Mr Murphy is a noteable figurehead as the CEO of Aplus.net, there is much more information about this individual as referenced in the 16 cited sources. There appears to be a number of articles with much less content and cited sources yet they stand on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyc (talk • contribs) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I agree that this article should be seperate from the aplus article as this person has information that expands beyond the scope of aplus. I would recommend removal of the information about this individual within the aplus article and just link his name back to the Gabriel Murphy article, which should be its own article, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.13.22.85 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally agree as the article seems to establish notability beyond aplus with facts from sources that are trustworthy and authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 14:00, June 2, 2008

Note, none of the three above editors have many contributions outside this discussion, and User:Troyc and 70.13.22.85 have none (74.5.120.11 should be considered a good faith editor). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For non-admins, I think the revised history that is currently visible under the redirect is sufficient to get a rough sense for whether the new article merits an AFD listing. The personal life section is new and unsourced, the numismatics section is new, as are its "sources". The deleted article linked to 3 sources not from the Kansas City Business Journal, namely: [1] [2] [3]. GRBerry 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I have reviewed the article carefully and I do think there is enough content outside of the scope of the Aplus article that this article warrants is own article (but all info/references on Gabriel Murphy should be removed from the Aplus article and directed to the article on Gabriel Murphy). I do think the sources establish notability though some additional sources will be needed under the "Personal Life" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree- I have reviewed the previous article for Gabriel Murphy and I think it is pretty clear that the scope goes beyond aplus. Personal life is non-important and should either be sourced to show notability or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.177.2 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as per status quo. Bad closure, with no consensus to. Merge and redirect better reflects the AfD. Note the illegal "move any relevant information into Aplus.net and delete" in one delete !vote and the unwelcome "vanity" comment in the other.
- Comment There was demonstrative consensus to delete the article. My decision to convert the article into a redirect after deletion was based on the AFD itself and the fact that pertinent information already existed in the Aplus.Net article (check the history of Aplus.Net). In retrospect, that should have been included in the rationale for the sake of clarity. Nevertheless, there does not appear to have been a substantive change in the independent notability of this subject. A large part of the "expansion" is unsourced (likely unverifiable) and that which has attribution doesn't seem to assert individual notability. SoLando (Talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the one "keep" suggestion was struck and converted to "neutral"; the remaining comments indicated that a separate article was not merited per the reasons also cited by the admin. No objection to subsequent creation of redirect article. B.Wind (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe you are referring to the discussion on a much earlier version of the article prior to its sources and expansion of other topics. I believe the current version of the article is notable and has enough content outside of the aplus article to stand on its own without a redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and current redirect. The AfD was sufficiently clear in its consensus for not having a separate article. Having a redirect to Aplus does not amount to saying that it is the only thing important in Mr. Murphy's life, but creating one after deletion was justified as we have one (and as far as I see only one ) notable topic related to him. The sources in the recreated version do IMO not yet warrant expansion.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Luv Addict – Closing discussion as no longer necessary, as the admin has revised the AfD. If anyone objects to my doing so, as I brought the discussion here, I don't object to the closure being undone. :) – Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article on a song and related articles (Replace Me, Kountry Gentleman, Whatcha Gonna' Do With It) were listed at AfD, where I believe that consensus very clearly developed to redirect the articles according to the guidelines quoted from WP:MUSIC. I do not believe that the AfD closure reflected any of the issues discussed within the conversation. I have discussed the matter with the deleting administrator (here), but she declines to reconsider her decision unless approached by one of the editors who participated in the AfD. I'm perfectly happy to create the redirects myself (trusting that this would not be perceived as a WP:CSD#G4 issue), but I believe that the language of the closure should be revised to reflect the actual outcome of the debate. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After after reviewing comments about my close of this AfD I thought the most helpful thing I could do would be to change the outcome to redirect, which I have done. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that the language of the closure was " delete these OR stubs for now.", I dont see how a redirect would possibly be considered a violation of that. DGG (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither do I, which is why I trust they would not be. Nevertheless, I think that the closure should be revised. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I brought them to AfD and have no problem with the redirects...I usually bring songs to AfD because they tend to be created by fans who incorrectly delete Prods or undo redirects without discussion and in contravention of WP:Music...redirects are totally appropriate tho. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While Gwen's idea may not be a bad one, it's not what consensus was leaning towards (except possibly with Whatcha Gonna' Do With It, supposing no redirect target exists). I favor relisting them after reopening the AfD's, but simply reclosing as redirect is a possibility as well. As for simply creating redirects now and performing a history restore under them, such redirects wouldn't be G4-able under any reasonable interpretation of the criterion. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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