Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 16

E-Ligion Movement – OK your 15 minutes just expired. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

We are not a hoax, E-ligion is a real movement just small at its current state. It feels almost as a religious discrimination to silence a movement that is just forming just because one has not heard of it, Just as many people have not heard of Eckankar , Bwiti, or Cao do. We only wish our message to be heard, and if the E-ligion Movement page is to be deleted then so should the page on vampires, werewolves, and other mythical creatures because they are not real. People will be hearing about us in the next few years as we plan to be active in the community so the truth may be heard. Censoring the message of love is a great injustice to humanity as a whole. The E-Ligion Webpage. While it is not finished it will be up and fully operational in about a week. Give us time this is not a made up one day thing, this has been an endeavor for about a year. We are slightly known with the temple of the true inner light as I was taught under a clergy, and we are known to a hindu temple in belton, tx as I also studied under them for a short time. We are known locally so please just give us a time limit and I promise we will meet it and have a second source of proof other than our webpage. I spend majority of my time reading on wikipedia, absorbing its knowledge. This place is almost my internet home, I just want the chance for other people who are wikipediholics who want to find a way that is right for them. -Blessed Be!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonichippie12 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Because this article has not been deleted and the deletion discussion has not finished, this page (Deletion Review) has no role here. This is where you would come after the discussion is finished if there were some procedural error in the AfD closure. You should participate in the discussion at AfD if you wish to challenge the proposed deletion.
I must say that this article does not appear to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I would very much expect it to be deleted at AfD on the grounds that the organisation is not notable enough for inclusion. What you need, before a Wikipedia article is appropriate, is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources—in other words, to have appeared as the subject of an article in reputable publications, on the national news, or in other such venues. This is not a matter of discrimination. I assure you that our policies and guidelines in this are objective and measurable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as vandalism/spam unless the comments at the AFD were false or independent actual sources can be found, it is unquestionably not for Wikipedia. User:Sonichippie12/Censorship of E-ligion Movement can also be deleted.--Otterathome (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, unquestionable speedy deletion. Wikipedia is for topics, subjects, organizations, etc. that are notable, not those that hope to make it. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pitbull discography – There is clearly consensus here that the page Pitbull (rapper) is not currently overlong. It is also clear that there is a history of repeated recreation against this consensus. I am changing the subpage to a protected redirect. If the page continues to grow, and becomes overlong, please reach consensus for a spin-out on the article talk page, and then request unprotection at Requests for Page Protection. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nearly two years after being deleted through AfD (and salted over a year ago), I created a subpage to hopefully get the article reinstated (it has become too large for the main article). I contacted the protecting admin, Stifle (talk · contribs), and he suggested bringing it here, due to the fact that he can't overturn that consensus of 2007. I'm confident that I've successfully brought the article to discography standards and it should now merit a separate article. — Σxplicit 04:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be too large for the main article to me. I agree that Pitbull is notable enough for his own article, but I don't yet understand why he needs two. Please could you clarify?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSTARD#Discographies, it's regular practice to split discographies when it becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article. Granted, Pitbull (rapper) isn't large (nor small, at that matter; it's no stub), but the actual discography is about the same length as the rest of the main article. — Σxplicit 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. I would suggest merging any information in to main pitbull article that isn't already there, and making it a redirect to that section. If the main pitbull article was longer itself, then a separate page may be needed, but so far it's very short.--Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion/consensus - it looks at a glance like everything that might reasonably be included in a discography is already at Pitbull (rapper) and I don't see the need for a separate discography. The suggestion of allowing re-creation as a redirect to the main article's discography section (possibly protected, possibly not) is reasonable. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the size of the main page doesn't motivate a breakaway. The redirect meets the purposes just fine. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like these, where the XfD is nearly two years old and the subject of the page has changed considerably, I am in favor of allowing re-creation with very little or no restriction. So I have no problem with Explicit's subpage being moved to the mainspace, with no comment about the suitability of the page. If another AfD decides that this iteration of the content still does not merit an article, well then that's fine. But deferring to a very old AfD which was about considerably different content is not what we should be doing. ÷seresin 04:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per Seresin. While reasonable editors can differ over whether the discography is quite large enough to warrant a split, this really is an editorial decision that we should not be enforcing with protection based on a two-year-old AfD. In my view, Explicit's revised article can be moved to article-space here and the decision can be made either via talk-page discussion or via a new AfD. The precise situation around Pitbull has clearly changed (among other things, notability is no longer in question) and I think a DRV decision based on a very old and very sparse consensus is unhelpful. ~ mazca ^talk 23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories – Closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Issues regarding WP:OC#OPINION were raised and considered by the participants at CfD and consensus was clear that the existing title of Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories was appropriate and within the confines of Wikipedia policy and the decision to rename it to Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists is out of process. I'm not sure what exactly a conspiracy theorist does for a living, but there are certainly those in the category who have not theorized any conspiracies regarding September 11, but whose role as a proponent of conspiracies theorized by others is a defining characteristic that falls into the "activist" label described by WP:OC#OPINION. The rename not only disregards consensus, but it imposes a definition on the category that does not match the consensus set at CfD. The escalating trend of closing admins casting their opinion as a supervote regardless of the discussion at XfD needs to be replaced by giving proper heed to actual consensus as a rule and overriding that consensus only in the rarest and most exceptional circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I think renaming the category was probably appropriate.
I do not agree that there is an "escalating trend" of "closing admins casting their opinion as a supervote"—I rather think that was a historical trend, that peaked in late 2008, and is now on the decline. And I'm inclined to give the closer scrutiny at DRV since then some of the credit for this fortunate change.
Where I do agree with Alansohn is that in this case, the closer admin implemented his opinion rather than the consensus. The fact that I think the closer was right should not matter, because that did represent a procedural anomaly that it's perfectly correct to bring to DRV, so I shall go with relist.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin I'm still inclined to endorse my closure. The rename had a non-trivial amount of support amongst the 'keep' crowd for various good and persuasive reasons (cf the debate) and wasn't simply plucked out of thin air on a whim of my own. Re. the mismatch between activists and theorists; as I noted to Alansohn in our pre-DRV discussion, activists should be reasonably categorisable within a subcat of Category:Activists by issue, which is much more tightly defined than a nebulous and anomalous 'Proponents' category.

Xdamr^talk 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - closing admin reasonably interpreted the debate and the relevant categorization and overcategorization guidelines. He did not simply make up this close, nor did he cast a "supervote" (whatever that even means). Otto4711 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm abstaining from all CFD DRVs because I think the CFD process is broken. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As per this, I agree. Or perhaps it would be better to say that the category system itself is a pig's ear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to endorse the close, despite technical problems. But the real problem here is that the category has been overused and libels people whose articles have no or insufficient support for it. The name change is good (more restrictive) in the long run and more consistent with overcategorization policy, but as "conspiracy theorist" is somewhat stronger than "proponent", it makes it even more BLP imperative to eliminate marginal and disputable cases immediately, in line with Otto4711's earlier comments.John Z (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally - I closed the cfd with 'Prune and Rename' and I think the first part of this is imperative. Theorists to the theorist category, activists to an activists category, and opinion-holders should not be categorised at all. --Xdamr^talk 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - 'rename' and 'keep' are not in my view inconsistent - a renamed category has been kept. The close seems to me a well-reasoned interpretation of the discussion, especially as there are no other 'proponents' categories. Occuli (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn So we are switching to a stricter category name that requires serious pruning of the category exactly why? I don't see any consensus to do that in the discussion at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a reasonable close that responded to a number of valid points raised by the discussion. No error or misinterpretation or "overriding" of consensus is evident to me here. I also agree with Occuli that "rename" and "keep" are not inconsistent or necessarily mutually exclusive. "Keep" is not the same as "do not rename". "Keep" ordinarily means "do not delete", especially when the original nomination proposal was to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New rename nomination The category was proposed for deletion, not for renaming. Thus some participants (and non-participants) may not have commented on the relevant aspects of the renaming questions. The current name "9/11 conspiracy theorists" seems to be interpreted as characterizing people in a way that raises serious BLP issues. See the discussion at Template talk:911ct#BLP is serious, and_policy. We should have such debates before deciding on renaming, not after a decision has been made. I support relisting the category for renaming. Cs32en 08:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once a category is listed at CFD, all options become available. CFD is not bound from considering renaming if the original nom is for deletion, and vice versa. Otto4711 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Admin made a good determination of the arguments. --Kbdank71 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, disregarding consensus, the closing admin cast an excellent vote that meets your criteria of what the final result should be, in a process in which votes an admin disagrees with can be simply disregarded and tossed out as "not compelling". That any two admins can look at the same set of votes and come to two widely different conclusions means that what we're seeing here is an admin imposing his own personal biases and interpretations, a problem that sadly persists at CfD. Consensus is worthless as a concept if it can be conveniently ignored by the supervote of any one biased admin who has turned himself into judge, jury and executioner. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alan, if you're confused about what I said, asking for clarification is a good idea. In other words, don't use the term "in other words" to clarify anyone's words but your own. Per WP:CON, "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments". If you have a problem with an admin doing just that, perhaps you should take it up at WT:CON instead of assuming bad faith in stating a biased admin disregarded consensus with a supervote. --Kbdank71 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kris, "Consider" does not mean that consensus can be ignored, especially when the concerns of the closing admin were considered and resoundingly rejected. If two admins can weigh the same results and come to radically different conclusions, we're just playing a charade in which everyone gets to vote, but the only vote that counts is that of the closing admin. I understand why any admin would be loath to relinquish that authority, but I fail to see how Wikipedia benefits from this kind of arbitrary interjection of personal bias to override rather clear consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, local consensus can be ignored if it goes against general consensus (ie. policies & guidelines). That's been a determining factor at XfD and DRV for years. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but I don't think that the global consensus (policy/guidelines) are close enough to being on-target here that the admin can make the claim that they override local consensus. I certainly don't see it. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wait, so are you saying that local consensus in this case overrides global consensus? --Kbdank71 20:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per arguments by Alansohn. Consensus was clear here. The right action would have been to keep and then discuss the change per the last !vote in the CfD. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 August 2009[edit]