Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 6

Joe McElderry – Not really an issue for DRV, as no admin action is necessary to reverse the redirect. NAC. – Tim Song (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although the closing admin was IMO absolutely correct in the way they closed the AfD, subsequent events mean there may now be grounds for inclusion. Specifically, it is now known that Joe McElderry will be placed in the top three in the X Factor and thus meets criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing this with the closer? Tim Song (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the closing admin interpreted the discussion correctly and made the appropriate decision, so I am not asking them to reconsider. In the light of new events, I guess the community needs to reconsider. (I have posted a comment to talk:The X Factor (UK series 6) and will also notify the admin.) I42 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the thing is that DRV normally does not consider requests to overturn "redirect" to "keep" or vice versa, since from DRV's point of view they are one and the same. The standard venue for these cases is the article's talk page. Tim Song (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; thx. I'll take it there instead. I42 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Horizon episodes – Speedily closed. There was no consensus that the speedy deletion was apropriate, but as the article has been recreated and can be sent to AfD at editorial discretion, there is nothing more for DRV to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC) – Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted without community discussion and consensus as required by WP:Deletion, solely by one individual, and wrong reason for deletion was given (A7), which does not apply in this case. If this article is to be deleted there should be a formal discussion first, so that consensus may be reached. And as was brought up by Fabrictramp on my userpage "The article didn't fall under A7 by any stretch (and there's a lot of consensus against admins speedying A7s on sight), "written like a review" is not a deletion issue, and OR / unreferenced are not speedy issues. (Unreferenced was recently brought up as a potential speedy reason and shot down by consensus.)". George (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleting admin Sample: Horizon takes Michael Portillo on a search for a humane way of executing people. The waddling Tory watches as a dummy is hanged. He sees a pig carcass being electrocuted. He is exposed to CS gas and in one extraordinary scene becomes euphoric and nearly dies from hypoxia in a Dutch training lab. It's grimly fascinating, but what's the real agenda here? For a start, the UK doesn't execute people any more, so the science of pain-free state killing is only a live issue for Horizon's US viewers (at whom its programmes appear to be increasingly aimed). There's a sense that this is more about the grisly stunts we get to witness, along with some chilling archive clips. What it does very effectively is give the lie to the idea that execution, as it is currently practised, is anything like humane. Personal attack on a living person, WP:OR, non-encyclopaedic, unsourced. My reason for speedy deletion may have been overly concise, but I stand by my action if only because of the attack on Portillo. I actually think it reads as if its copied from somewhere, but I can't find the source, so it may just be "something I made up at school today" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you on that, I still don't understand why delete the whole article, without giving a chance to community to improve it by tagging it appropriately/removing editing certain content, having a discussion about it?--George (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 clearly does not apply. As to G10, other than this arguable attack on Portillo, is there any other incidents? I can't find much, but then perhaps I'm very not familiar with the nuances of the English language, not being a native speaker myself. If that is the only incident, I would think that G10 is a bit excessive. Tim Song (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although could be other valid reasons to delete this list (even when complete), this wasn't suitable for an A7 speedy. Them From Space 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an A7. I would however have deleted it as a G12 because it's clearly copied from somewhere, by the language probably a TV listings page or similar. We don't have to have an obvious source to do this. Since it wouldn't survive an AfD anyway (WP:NOT#DIR), I don't think there's much point in resuscitating it. Black Kite 00:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to AfD It's not an A7. Unless you can show where it was copied from its not a copyvio. " Just something made up i school one day" is the classic case for deletion via Prod, not speedy. OR and SYN are good reasons for deletion if they can't be fixed, but via AfD. Attack on Portillo-- If they can show it, we can describe what they show. (It can hardly be simultaneously copyvio and made up in school one day, so giving both as reasons mean delete because we don't like it.) I am not predicting what I'll !vote at a proper discussion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list has been recreated. I think this DRV can be seen as moot since nobody is endorsing the criteria for which it was deleted under. DGG's suggestion on an AfD might be a good idea right around now. Them From Space 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, speedy close. Nothing left for DRV to do here. Tim Song (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lolene – I think we can go ahead and unsalt without prejudice to another AFD at editorial discretion if desired. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

When the page was deleted (later to be WP:SALTed), the subject was not notable. Now the subject has a #5 single on the Billboard Dance/Club chart (link), giving notability per #2 on WP:BAND.

I am not requesting that the deletion to be overturned, but that the page be unprotected; a user has created a new article on the subject, located at User:Lolene, that should be moved to the mainspace as the subject is now notable. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Old AFD, deferring to the community to review the new article. MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Older DRVs here and here --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt and permit recreation – This may be notable enough for inclusion. MuZemike 17:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt and permit recreation, without prejudice to a subsequent AFD. Circumstances have changed enough that the new article is not a G4. Tim Song (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michaele Salahi – Phew, what a mess. There is no doubt that there is a clear consensus to overturn the close so the AFD outcome is hereby voided, but the question is what to overturn it to? Opinions are split between delete, merge and redirect but merge and redirect are subsets of keep so we can hardly overturn a keep to a .. er .. keep and, while AFD may have a tradition of closing discussions as merges, it is clearly outside the scope of DRV to do likewise. In any event, I am confident that the article has enough eyes to allow a meaningful discussion of the merge/redirect option to take place locally. I am not seeing a clear consensus to delete in either the AFD or the DRV discussion. My conclusion is that we know the outcome was wrong but we have no binding consensus from DRV on what the close should have been. I am therefore closing this as overturn to no-consensus with a strong recommendation for users on the article talk page to take the content of this discussion into account when considering the merits of the merge proposal. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am bringing this here with the agreement of the closing admin, who admits there may be problems with his close and that the matter needs further discussion.

This concerns a marginally notable BLP. Salahi became newsworthy as a result of gatecrashing a Whitehouse function. That incident and her involvement in it, despite being little more than passing news, merits inclusion in the 'pedia, and gets it at 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Other than that, she's famous for being (I quote from the article) "an American self-proclaimed model and socialite... [who] is hoping to land a part in an upcoming reality show." i.e. not notable at all outside the event.

The Afd, unfortunately, hinged around the interpretation of BLP1E and whether it applied. There are sources which speak about her (unnoteworthy?) activities outside of the gatecrashing incident - but are these really derivative because of her fame there? Does BLP1E apply when such other sources exist?

It seemed to me that most people in the discussion favoured merging or deleting the article. Those favouring keeping it argued on the basis that BLP1E did NOT apply here, but they really never explained why keeping the article was otherwise a good thing. Why do we want a seperate article here?

My problem with the closing is that Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) simply told us what his own interpretation of BLP1E is. Now, some people might agree with him. But is that is rather beside the point, since the question is what is the consensus about this problematic BLP. We certainly could do with defining BLP1E better, but the pressing question is what to do with this article ON ITS OWN MERITS. Here I think the consensus of those who were commenting on the article and not the wikilegal questions is clear. This article should be merged or deleted (I care not which).

Aside from that, the article is a marginally-notable disgrace. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as I commented on the closer's talk page, the closing statement was poor. But otherwise I saw no problems with this close. A merge might well be appropriate, but deferring to local consensus is usually a good idea (in other words, take it to the talk page). Hobit (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, with a redirect left behind. The close was fundamentally flawed. BLP1E is a valid argument to show lack of notability, and it's a judgment call to evaluate whether it really was one event or not. The closer cannot just discount BLP1E when a significant number of commenters make good, valid explanations of why it applies. I don't want to reargue the AfD, so suffice it to say the closer messed up and needs to be overturned. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, merging anything relevant into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Consensus pretty clearly was against 'Keep' on this AfD. What policy commenters cite (BLP1E in this case) is not relevant, all that matters is the consensus that is formed. So long as the commenter's opinions are valid, they can not be discounted because the closer disagrees with their reasoning. Prodego ^talk 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The arguments made seemed to be ignored at least that is what I thought when I read the summary of the closer. My read was those of us who used the argument that BLP1E applied was ignored. Most if not all the important informations is in the article 2009 White House gatecrash incident so there is no need to have this BLP nightmare. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Always good to see non-regulars at DrV. I assume this was being discussed somewhere for you all to show up at the same time. Could you please provide a link if on-wiki or let us know where the conversation occurred if not? Or, if I'm mistaken and it was coincidence you all showed up so soon after the listing, let us all know that? For the record, I got here by seeing Scott's comments on the closing admin's talk page as I'd also commented there. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - All discussion was on-wiki - and openly, and very civilly, on the deleting admin's talk page if you must know. Check my contributions for evidence. I also posted a note on the article - inviting those working on it to come here too. This looks like an allegation of bad faith here. Since when did DRV become a club for regulars?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Way to assume bad faith there, Hobit. I too wasn't aware this was a private club, but if it is, can we regulars vote each other off the island? For the record, I learned of this DRV on my talk, after I was asked my opinion about the article in question and what to do about the terrifically bad close, not that it's any of your concern. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dude, no bad faith. I just wanted to know where the discussion was. Having a large group of people show up to a discussion in a place they normally don't show up to in a period of less than an hour, all !voting in the same way is highly unusual. I went out of my way to not accuse anyone of anything, even leaving open the possibility that it was a coincidence. Further, at least one of you is a regular at WR where BLP issues are discussed off-site. It was a reasonable question. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You need to work on your tone, it's showing too much snark. Or just try scanning a few talk pages first before making comments that read like bad faith (to more than just me). Besides, what if it was? WR is like AN/I-annex these days. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before this gets out of hand, could somebody answer a question for me? Under BLP1E, which is policy, the prescribed options are "keep" and "merge." Neither BLP1E nor the related BIO1E call for straight-out article deletion. It therefore strikes me that, with no policy basis for deletion, it is not appropriate to bring this to deletion review and call for an out-of-policy deletion. What is, then, the basis for bringing this dispute here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My reason for bringing this here has nothing to do with wikilegal BLP1E stuff, indeed quite the opposite. BLP1E is contentious policy, but that's not the point. Indeed, I think that the closing admin's attempt to give his opinion of it in the closing was wrongheaded. In doing so, he failed to look at the consensus which was that this article should not exist independently. The policy reason for bringing this is that the admin failed to interpret consensus properly. Had he done so he'd have closed either as delete or as merge - I doubt those voting for either of those would have cares which he chose.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Close was clearly within closing administrator's range of discretion. There were four options with significant !voting support: keep, merge to gatecrashing incident, merge with husband's article, and delete. The keep or merge options were favored by roughly 60% of the !voters, supporting a rough consensus to retain the content. The decisions over whether to maintain individual articles, a single article about the couple, or a substantial section in the incident article are ordinary editing decisions and should be made through the ordinary editing processes, and the closer's decision was the choice which interfered the least with the continuing editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge/redirect. It seems to me that there is (1) a fairly strong consensus that Michaele Salahi should not be a redlink (counting the keep, merge and redirect !votes), and (2) an even stronger consensus that Michaele Salahi should not be allowed to remain an article (counting the delete, merge, and redirect !votes). Under such circumstances, I think I can bring myself to say that the closer clearly erred, especially given the closing statement which tends to suggest that the closer substituted their view for that of the community. I do not see the point removing the page history, though. Tim Song (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point Lack of consensus results in a keep scooteristi (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that there's no consensus? Consensus seems clear to me. Indeed, so clear that I'm willing to find clear error in the close, something I rarely do. OTOH, I concur in the view expressed by some here that DRV isn't really the ideal venue for overturning a keep to a merge, but since it's here already, let it just continue. Tim Song (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what to vote, but... I think the content should be merged. However, there is a discussion going on at Talk:Michaele Salahi/Archives/2014#Merge discussion, and I don't believe that this DRV is really necessary to merge the content of both this and Tareq Salahi, which I would have closed as merge instead of keep had this AfD not been closed as keep, to 2009 White House gatecrash incident. However, if we are going to continue the deletion review, can we bind the fate of Tareq Salahi to this DRV as well? There is nothing really different between the two. NW (Talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No difference between the two? Was she a politician? Was she a polo player? Did he perform with the Redskinettes at FedEx Field? Will he be a "Real Housewife"? When the police arrested him, did they arrest her as well "because they are the same"?

Overturn and merge with 2009 White House gatecrash incident. While AfD is not a vote, there was a 2.5:1 consensus to delete/merge rather than keep. Has this ever happened before? With regards to NW's suggestion, a well-visited AfD is as wide a discussion forum as an article is ever going to get. Obviously strength of argument must be taken into account, but as a starting point if 71% support for merging at a busy AfD isn't sufficient consensus, I do not understand how a more appropriate consensus will be achieved in a less populated area of the project. WFCforLife (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge or redirect. There is a very strong argument for merging at the AfD, and combined with the delete arguments this should have been the outcome. Kevin (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closer: Just wanted to say that I'm terribly sorry for all the trouble I've caused surrounding this AfD. Please forgive me for this! This is something I'll definitely learn from, but I'm sorry it has to be at this expense. Again, my sincere apologies; please proceed. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about it. It was a rather difficult AFD to close. Regardless of the close, somebody would have likely taken it to DRV. MuZemike 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Crafty (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Nod. Arbitrarily0: IMHO, the best thing an admin taken to DRV can do is watch and learn... make the case for the close again, if it's at all unclear what your arguments were, and then see what everyone says... and determine how you can apply it to your next close. While I think your close was about as wrong as they come, your approach to handling the post close situation is spot on... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because no-consensus defaults to keep and a merge discussion is already underway. There is enough cited information in the article for a merge so that shouldn't be objectionable. Them From Space
Question? If this AFD is overturned and the result is a merger, what would become of the Tareq Salahi AFD? The result of that AFD was originally to merge it with the gatecrash article, but then the closer changed it to Keep after seeing that the Michaele AFD ended with a Keep. It wouldn't make any sense to me for Tareq to have his own page if Michaele doesn't, especially since the Tareq AFD closer voiced support of a merge in his decision. If the Michaele decision is overturned, can/should we simply merge Tareq as well? Or should we do a separate DRV for Tareq? Or combined a DRV there with this one? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I think the closer correctly interpreted policy in this instance, as WP:BLP1E requires that the subject be known only for the one event, and that they've otherwise tried to maintain a private life. Neither is true in this case, as the subject was known before the event, and has hardly remained out of the public spotlight since. Thus, the closer was, I think, correct in discarding the BLP1E arguments. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and merge with 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Wikipedia cannot be littered with duplicate articles. There is no point having Tareq Salahi and Michaele Salahi when exactly the same information is available at 2009 White House gatecrash incident. This deletion review must apply to both Tareq Salahi and Michaele Salahi. Tovojolo (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - a clear misreading of WP:BLP1E and, as a consequence, a poor close of the debate. Eusebeus (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and merge/redirect both this one and Tareq Salahi - this isn't what BLP1E means. Black Kite 00:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and either merge/leave a redirect or delete (it makes little difference to me). The closing admin (whom I highly complement for being responsive and cool-headed after receiving some criticism) simply erred in their close. This is a classic example of an admin offering a !vote as a rationale rather than explaining how they interpreted consensus, and it's important to reverse these kind of decisions whenever we come across them. Arbitrarily0 is welcome to his or her interpretation of BLP1E, but said personal interpretation simply cannot be the basis of an AfD close. "Correctly interpreting policy", as one editor suggests above, is not the core duty of an admin closing an AfD, it is rather "correctly interpreting consensus." It's not so much that Arbitrarily0 wrongly interpreted consensus (though I think that would be true for any keep close on this AfD—closing this as keep was not really possible in my view), it's that she or he did not seem to even make an effort to interpret consensus (as Arbitrarily0 has somewhat admitted, and again props for being willing to admit to and learn from a mistake—we need more admins like that!). Some of the comments above (as is typical here at DRV) re-litigate the AfD to greater or lesser extents, but I think there is no getting around the fact that the closing admin failed to interpret consensus, which means their close must be overturned, and which further means that bringing this to DRV was not only appropriate but indeed necessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Merge/Delete the Gatecrash article is the appropriate place for information about both individuals, as there appears to be nothing here beyond the incident and miscellaneous non-notable past incidents. Alansohn (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close Sources were given that showed coverage before the incident in question. In the closer's judgement (and by the judgment of a substantial number commentators in the original debate) this was enough for it not be a BLP1E. Moreover, given the individual's attempt to remain in the public sphere, it seems clear that under a Do-No-Harm test there's not any serious worry here. This is thus within admin discretion and there's no compelling reason to overturn. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse Close It is clear that this woman is a detestable gnat on humanity, yet there is far more information on her from reliable sources than for many people who have done useful things with their lives. Like the Salahis or not they are both notable outside of gatecrash incident, he as a politician, she as a wannabe TV star. Most of this debate to delete/merge seems to be emotional not dispassionate and thus misses the point of the page existing. Why don't all of the people claiming BLP1E go find the truly BLP1E entries, like the ones for the miscellaneous bloggers that dot Wikipedia (go search "blogger" and AfD those), and leave this couple's bios the hell alone? scooteristi (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is DRV, not AFD2. The point is to determine whether the close correctly interpreted consensus, not whether you believe the Salahis are notable. Black Kite 07:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In which case lack of consensus results in a keep and the close was proper. scooteristi (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that the problem there is that less than a quarter of the editors that commented opted for Keep. The vast majority opted for Merge, Redirect or Delete, so whilst there was probably no consensus on those 3 options, there was clearly consensus not to Keep. Black Kite 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - However there was also no consensus to delete, either. The question of whether or not a merge should take place really isn't something for DRV to decide, but rather something that should happen at the article's talk page. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to think that the AfD should have been closed as no consensus, yet you endorse the close above even though the closing admin closed as "keep." Keep and no consensus are, by definition, not the same thing and it's important to point that out. Had this been closed as no consensus with a decent rationale I doubt it would have ended up at DRV, or at least it would have been roundly upheld. I think your actual position Umbralcorax (pardon me being a bit presumptuous by telling you what you really think!), and probably some others here as well, is "overturn close to no consensus, defaulting to keep." It's not merely a matter of semantics, as that close would much better reflect the consensus of the community and be a better basis on which to continue discussing what to do with the article, whereas the current close completely ignores the large "don't keep" (whether delete or merge) sentiment in the AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There's absolutely no reason an AFD closed as keep cannot be merged, since a merge is effectively the same thing, since the information will be kept. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I definitely agree with that, but I was making a different point, namely that it's important to bear in mind the distinction between "keep" and "no consensus, default to keep" and that AfDs should be closed as "keep" if that was truly the consensus and "no consensus" if there was none. If it makes no difference whether we close as "keep" or "no consensus" then presumably we should just get rid of one of those options. But we don't do that because "no consensus" closes show that a significant portion of those who commented (and did so based on policy) felt the article should not be kept in it's current form, and that kind of information routinely comes up in later AfDs if they ever happen or in continued discussion on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close Some people exist solely to serve as a warning to others, and such peoples' biographies should be recorded. The Salahis appear to fall into the category of notorious people, rather than famous or celebrated, but that does not disqualify them from an encyclopedia entry any more than it does an entry for Bernard Madoff. 189.216.195.229 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse close~~. Overturn to No Consensus, so that we can pave the way for Bigtimepeace and others opining "delete" to start up another AfD down the road and hopefully catch a day when "keep" voters are on vacation. Closer was within his discretion to close as he did. In addition, a well reasoned rationale was provided. Any way you slice it, this AfD constituted "no consensus", that is, there were many opinions on both sides. Our policy on that is and always has been that no consensus defaults to keep. Had the closer simply stated "no consensus", we probably would not be having this discussion. I for one am happy to see an admin actually consider the community opinion and close accordingly; admin should not have apologized but should be proud of the decision. That being said, the article and the subject really make me puke every time I see it, and I hate the fact it is on the project.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this comment is completely off the mark in my view, and to me at least almost seems to describe another AfD. If you think the AfD should have been closed as no consensus, then in point of fact you think the close was incorrect, because the admin closed as "keep" and keep and no consensus are simply not the same thing (even though "no consensus" as a rule defaults to "keep"). A "no consensus" close means the article is much more ripe for deletion in the future, whereas as a keep close suggest the community strongly did not favor deletion, merging, etc. Furthermore, you seem to be missing the point of many commenting above when you say that you are glad "to see an admin actually consider the community opinion." Normally that's exactly what an admin does when closing an AfD, and the entire point of this DRV is that the closing admin did not do that, but rather did something more akin to casting a !vote as their closing rationale. Even if you think "keep" was the right choice here, it's possible to still object to the manner in which this was closed. Indeed I think it's necessary to do so, as "this is what I think BLP1E [or any other policy] means, so I'm closing this way" type AfD closes are extremely problematic. I must say that the endorse comments on this DRV up to now are completely unconvincing, and mostly seem to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment has made me re-consider and I have changed my vote accordingly. Be that as it may, I do not appreciate your introduction to the comment in which the statement "completely off the mark" and "seems to describe another AfD" in a subtle way call me stupid. I simply felt no consensus would offer the same result, keep, and would be a waste of time.Turqoise127 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my comment seemed to imply any stupidity or other deficiency on your part as that certainly was not my intention. I do think your comment was quite off the mark (we all make comments like that from time to time) and my first thought was that it sounded like it was describing a different AfD, but probably I should not have mentioned the latter point which isn't really relevant. In any case I did not in the slightest mean to impugn your general intelligence but rather to question the aptness of your comment, and it's my fault if my reply to you had the former rather than the latter effect. Sorry to have caused you any stress, but the "hopefully catch a day when "keep" voters are on vacation" comment above was not really the best way to respond. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – there was no consensus for deletion here (full disclosure, I would have !voted delete myself, but was oblivious to this deletion discussion). If people still wish to discuss a merge, that can always be done locally on the incident's talk page. MuZemike 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was clear consensus that the article should not be kept. The merge votes were unclear because some said to her husband's article and others said to the incident article, both of which were also up for deletion at the same time. The clear consensus on her talk page and on the AFD is that it should not be kept as a separate article. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: BLP1E applies here. Jonathunder (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that she A: was notable, if marginally, before the event, and B: has made no effort to stay out of the public spotlight, just how exactly does BLP1E apply? Umbralcorax (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding "consensus". Given the way the !voting broke down among the four primary options (keep, merge with husband, merge to incident, delete), it's evident that there was going to be a clear "consensus" against whichever option the closer chose. Therefore, since the "consensus against" argument would invalidate any of the main options, the only plausible alternative would be a "no consensus" close, resulting in a keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you don't understand what people were !voting. You are misinterpreting that the vote was split four ways, which it was not. If one said to merge with husband, merge with incident, or delete, it obviously means they do not want a separate article for her. There is a clear consensus that the article should not be kept. There was not consensus on where to move the information to. Unfortunately, all three of these pages were at AFD at the same time, misdirecting both voters and the closing admins. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from that, the argument of most mergers was along the lines of WP:BLP1E (albeit not everyone quoted it). In other words, they were saying that she was only notable for the incident, and therefore she should be covered by the incident itself. The wikilawyers will doubtless argue otherwise, but in practise this was simply a less inflammatory and more constructive way of saying "delete". WFCforLife (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge with husband's article" is another way of saying "remove content entirely"? I don't think so. And anybody who cites BLP1E is citing a policy that quite expressly prescribes only two options, keep and merge, which makes it illogical to cite as a reason to delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it's illogical to delete the article. But there is still consensus to merge, either with her husband's article or the incident's. There is in absolutely no way consensus to keep. Reywas92 ^Talk

(edit conflict) A "delete" outcome would have resulted in Michele Salahi redirecting to the gatecrash incident, or to her husband's renamed article. A merge would have resulted in the very little distinct content that there is being transferred to the relevant destination, followed by the same process. Yes, there were two different schools of thought on how best to merge, but at a basic level "merge" and "redirect" were clearly synonymous with "delete". WFCforLife (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, from where do you get the view that BLP1E "quite expressly prescribes only two options, keep and merge"? This says nothing at all along those lines, with the language that comes closest to that being "in such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." "Usually" and "expressly proscribed" are rather different obviously. Additionally, the section says nothing about persons who are only known for "one event," and where that event itself is judged to be not notable. Arguing for deletion in that case (as opposed to a merge), and referencing BLP1E when doing so, is completely appropriate in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural endorse - I would have likely argued for deletion had I been a participant in the AfD, and I can't say I agree with the closer's rationale. Regardless, it seems pretty clear to me that despite my personal opinion, there was no consensus either way. Since the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" as an outcome is marginal at best, I endorse the closure on procedural grounds. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: clear consensus to "not keep", bolstered by this indeed being a BLP1E. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original decision was right, and continuing coverage shows the significance. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The significance does not extend beyond a BLP1E thus the closure was in error. JBsupreme (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, at best the right description of that AfD was no consensus (thus defaulting to keep). It's funny -- a number of people who contribute regularly to DRV are very much in the habit of arguing that AfDs closed as delete were "within the administrator's discretion", "no policy problem here", etc. Here we have a DRV on an AfD closed as keep and all of a sudden those same people are very keen to overturn. What happened to admin discretion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there, the question here (and in any other DRV) is whether the close fell within admin discretion or not. It's perfectly consistent to argue that one AfD closed as delete was within admin discretion and that another closed as keep was not, and really that goes without saying. I think the problems with this close are pretty obvious (even if you think it was technically within admin discretion), and the closing admin has basically admitted that. Of course as with any contested DRV or AfD there are undoubtedly people !voting a certain way not so much because of the specifics of the case but rather because of their meta beliefs about deletionism, inclusionisn, BLP, etc. (and I do not like when people do that). However your comment hinting not-so-subtly at bad faith or hypocrisy by one "side" is not really helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Consensus was definitely not to keep. It's a BLP nightmare anyway. Aside from the Real Housewives info, the article pretty much just calls her a liar. AniMate 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Kind of thought-provoking to see this close in DRV at the same time as Rachel Uchitel. Admin's close here is within discretion, by taking into account strength of arguments and applying existing policies, and does not try to alter those policies (which is what happened, in my own opinion, in Uchitel's case). I realize many have strong opinions on marginal BLPs and I confess I have not read whatever huge past discussions must exist on that subject. In my view, the maternalistic desire to protect through deletion in such cases is well-intentioned but often ill-advised, because it is impossible to surf the internet without running into stories about these people, and these external news stories are often drama-fests that are probably more damaging than the fairly neutral and balanced articles that Wikipedia editors will eventually arrive at. Not having a page on wikipedia is not going to help Ms. Salahi, and would only remove what is likely to be the least-biased and best summary piece about the subject from the internet.--Milowent (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was absolutely zero consensus the page should be kept, even the closing admin admitted it. No credible case for IAR either. There was no consensus the other supposed events were notable enough to undermine BLP1E. Triplestop x3 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read policy. We don't need a consensus that BLP1E doesn't apply, just a lack of consensus of the claim that it does. If there is a lack of consensus, a closer can weigh arguments. That they chose to do so in a way you don't like is not a reason to overturn. And it is a bit ridiculous given what policy actually says to claim that the close somehow relies on IAR. If anything, an overturn would be in violation of policies. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The close was against policy as it was obviously against consensus. Period. Triplestop (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. There was certainly no consensus to delete, so those trying to use this DRV to delete are simply arguing their own opinion to do AfD Mk II, not reading the debate - they're instead using DRV in their campaign to delete marginal BLPs. There was no consensus on whether to keep, merge to the incident, merge with her husband's article, or delete. Debate can continue on the talk pages about where and whether to merge. Fences&Windows 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article with the one on her husband to create one article on the Salahis. Together they strike me as noteworthy but individually they are not. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect; possibly delete the history on BLP grounds, no merge. The sourcing is decent here but given the gravity of the allegations in the article ("appear to be embellishments or outright lies") it's not good enough. Chick Bowen 01:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- Taku (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While several people have taken this as an opportunity to vote keep for a second time, (or voted keep for a first time, now that their hopes of being the hero who closed this AfD have been dashed) not a single person has rationally explained how a 29% rate of support for the article amounts to consensus to keep. That is what this discussion is about. Furthermore, not a single person has explained how an admin's personal feelings about WP:BLP1E equates to them having the discretion to make this decision, they have merely maintained that it does. If an admin truly does have discretion to say that more than two thirds of us were simply wrong and that therefore the consensus was keep, then I would suggest this as a more appropriate logo than the mop. WFCforLife (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rational explanation: The choices are (A)Keep, as solo article, (B)Keep, merge with event, (C)Keep, merge with husband, or (D)Delete article. There was no majority, much less consensus for Delete. Thus the close was correct. Whether to Keep (solo) or Merge is a separate issue entirely from the AfD (though admittedly from what I've read in the various talk threads, it's a concept most people seem to be having an exceeding difficult time wrapping their heads around). Please learn English, a "consensus" implies unanimity or an overwhelming majority, there was no such overwhelming majority for Delete in the AfD (it's not a political election where 50%+1 wins). The only consensus I could find was that nobody likes the Salahis, so the discussion is split into those people who hate them and think they should serve as a warning to others and those people who hate them and think mention of them should be censored or redacted. scooteristi (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have every right to disagree, but please don't lie to support your view: The choices you describe were (A) Keep, (B) Merge with event, (C) Merge with husband, (D) Delete. Merging with the event effectively amounts to the deletion of this article, as it is an argument that WP:BLP1E applies to the person. Therefore (B) = (D). (C) is a decision that could not be taken in this AfD because it would affect an article outside the AfD. Nonetheless it was a vote against doing nothing. Closing this as a keep was a clear statement that there is strong consensus to leave it as it is. There most certainly was not. WFCforLife (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the definition of the word Delete escapes you. Delete means the article and the information it contains are Deleted, Gone, Sayonara, Removed altogether from Wikipedia. That is the purpose of the AfD. Nothing more, nothing less. Any future actions such as merging one or more articles are secondary issues to be handled post-AfD.scooteristi (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, attempting to sell AfD as "all or nothing" is detrimental to the project. For a more detailed reply, see below. WFCforLife (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. No argument whatsoever to delete an article about a very noteworthy person whose actions have had international consequences (US-India diplomatic relations, Organization of the US Secret Service, Defining moment in the Obama presidency, etc) that have been discussed extensively by reliable sources from around the world. The only argument I've seen here is "I don't like that she's noteworthy, I don't like what she's done to become noteworthy, and I don't like her, therefore delete the article." There is simply no reason to delete an article about a noteworthy person with reliably sourced content. Bryan Hopping ^T 15:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, which is why consensus favored a merge. Triplestop (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The consensus clearly was not keep. Whether the couple are merged to the incident article or a joined article about the couple does not matter, the result was not keep as a biography of an individual. Miami33139 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your math sucks, in the original AfD discussion 89 votes were cast, and only 23 (that's a mere 26%) argued for deletion. That's not a consensus, much less a majority. The full breakdown: 89 total votes, 23 delete votes, 66 keep votes (and those brokedown as 25 keep solo, 5 merge with husband, and 36 merge with article). That means even while the voting is leaning towards a merge, there is no clear consensus for one. scooteristi (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an extremely misleading characterization in my view. Merge !votes are not keep votes, they are merge votes, plain and simple. They are quite different, and in this case the 41 people asking for a merge by your count are saying this should not exist as it currently does as an article. Combine that with 23 delete votes and fully 64 out of 89 (or over 70% of those who commented) believe that the article should not exist as it currently does. I'd say that's a pretty strong consensus to do something other than maintaining the status quo in terms of keeping a full article. Given that nearly half of those who weighed in supported a merge, and that no doubt most who !voted to delete would be fine with a merge since it basically would have the same effect (i.e. Wikipedia would not have a BLP article on Michaele Salahi), closing the debate as merge would probably have been the best course of action. Regardless, suggesting that there were "66 keep votes" is sheer fantasy and conflates the "keep" and "merge" positions that are in fact quite distinct. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hate to sound like a broken record, but obviously the definition of Delete escapes you as well. Delete means "remove or obliterate", thus if the AfD were successful then the article and the information the article contains would be obliterated from Wikipedia. That is the purpose of the AfD. Nothing more, nothing less. Any future actions such as merging one or more articles are secondary issues to be handled post-AfD.scooteristi (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The object of any discussion is about what we should cover, and how we should cover it. Arguing for deletion of an article does not automatically equate to arguing for the deletion of the content within it. As an example, I think this page should be deleted. I think much of the content within it is notable, but that the notable parts of it are more usefully covered elsewhere. I don't know how representative that view is, but I'm far from alone. Drawing such black and white conclusions as you have just done suggests that you either have not carefully considered the merits of the discussion, or that you believe doing so will give the closer no option but to opt for "all" instead of "nothing". In either case, you are misguided. WFCforLife (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scooteristi, obviously I am well aware of the definition of "delete" both in real life and on Wikipedia, as I am older than the age of 7 and have been on Wikipedia for quite some time, even to the point where I myself have "deleted" a fair number of articles, and participated in a fair number of AfDs and DRVs. I'd ask you to not speak in a patronizing fashion to other editors, and will certainly do you the same courtesy. Incidentally you completely ignored the substance of my comment, and are simply wrong in your assertion that "future actions such as merging one or more articles are secondary issues to be handled post-AfD." Sure, that can happen, but AfDs are closed as "merge" all the time, and my argument above was that, given the total number of merge, delete, and keep votes and the arguments made therein, closing as merge would have made a lot more sense as a close better reflecting the consensus of the discussion. Of course you can disagree with that, but you should recognize that there are more ways to close an AfD than "delete" or "keep" and that that was precisely my point in replying to you above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my voice to those requesting that the closer apply this DRV to this AfD as well—the articles should have been listed together to begin with, and the closer of Tareq noted that the closure of Michaele directly affected closure of Tareq. Also please consider comments here about merging them or both into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Aside from that, I think the closure was incorrect and the result should have been delete or merge. ÷seresin 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, with a possible swift merge first. BLP1E does apply and none of the keep arguments put forward reasonable policy to keep it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep the article, at most merge it with the Tareq Salahi article. These people are cautionary tales of our age, a real-life version of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Great Gatsby", and for that reason their sordid story needs to be recorded for posterity. 189.217.221.45 (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Moved from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 13; original comment diff. Tim Song (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Foswiki – Deletion endorsed. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful data to merge and we have a clear consensus – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

notability Wwwolf3 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foswiki started as a fork of TWiki, when the brand owner decided to act more commercial and disputed with the community. Nearly all main project developers decided to continue the work in a new community driven project. This leaded to the creation of Foswiki in 2008. Since then continously new Versions were released, which documents the vitality an maturity of this project.

Release	date
1.0.0	09 Jan 2009
1.0.1	24 Feb 2009
1.0.4	19 March 2009
1.0.5	25 March 2009
1.0.6	21 June 2009
1.0.7	20 September 2009
1.0.8	29 November 2009

Furthermore many users of the predecessor TWiki decided to migrate to Foswiki as they expect that the former developers of TWiki will continue their work with the same quality and enthusiasm as they did with TWiki.

So it is not a new software, as stated in the reasons for deletion, but more the continuation of development under a different project name. More information about this can be found here. Development of Foswiki and TWiki - get the facts

It would be very nice, if you could spend some of your worthfull time to think about the 4 entries, which voted for deletion. 2 times because of stated lack of notability - this is obviously not correct 2 times "just because" - this is no argument

Delete Another article for a brand new software project that has not established notability in any way, and the fork is hardly controversial. §FreeRangeFrog 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

- This user is gone from wikipedia!

Comment It seems we have a massive conflict of interest here. Please understand articles are removed from Wikipedia because they don't meet guidelines for inclusion, not based on how many developers work on the project or what it was forked from or what its features are. §FreeRangeFrog 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- This user is gone from wikipedia!

Note — article tagged for coi, all involved users notified about editing with a COI, and issue reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- As explained, the participation of some of the developers in this discussion, was reasoned by the notification about the deletion of the Foswiki article.

Delete No evidence of notability. The Keeps seem to be all from new users unaware of our policies and guidelines and especially WP:Notability. dougweller (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- The labeling with conflict of interest has an easy to understand background, please read about it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki

Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- this user points out, that his job on wikipedia is to delete articles.

Delete - per nom. Dayewalker (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

~~- this user seems to has never been busy on any software related topic.~~ As of the reactions to my evaluation of content and authenticity of the reasons leading to the last deletion, I decide to edit my post in this way. I hope the souls can calm down now. Wwwolf3 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also have a look at [1] to get an impression of how the article would look like. And be assured, the german wikipedia has the hardest fights for relevance . Wwwolf3 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. SPA !votes properly discounted. And keep deleted. I checked out de:Foswiki and can't find a reliable source providing significant coverage of the subject in there. Nominator's lengthy discourse and ad hominem comments against AfD participants do not inspire confidence. Tim Song (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but I would, since I'm the person who closed the AFD. I see nothing wrong with the closure of the AFD, per Tim Song. Also, see this; I did say someone could recreate the article if they thought they could source it properly... --Deskana (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of new users participated in the AfD and were apparently not familiar with how we do things here. I left a detailed explanation on the AfD talk page, but it appears that nobody took notice of that. Please read it now. I will just repeat two points here:

The mistake was to think that the TWiki article must be forked merely because the TWiki project has forked. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Until Foswiki has enough coverage in reliable sources, both projects need to be discussed together under TWiki.
There seem to be ownership issues at TWiki. It should be easy to deal with them, since Peter Thoeny is the owner of the TWiki trademark and we have a conflict of interest guideline and a conflict of interest noticeboard for dealing with such cases.

Wwwolf3, I suggest that you redact your first post here as it is not constructive. The article will not be restored if you argue like that. I think it would be best for all involved to follow the advice I have given you on the AfD talk page. If you want this article restored instead, you need to point out reliable sources that discuss Foswiki in depth that didn't play a role in the original AfD. [2] [3] Hans Adler 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse decision Being barraged by SPA contributors like that has become a guarantee that any keep claims with actual merit will be ignored. Miami33139 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion discarding SPA comments with little or no policy/guideline basis, as is normal in AfD, the consensus was clearly in favour of deletion. The DRV nomination here doesn't offer any reason to reverse this decision, instead providing attacks on users. Hut 8.5 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion – you don't challenge deletions by attacking others. This should be placed in WP:DEEPER. MuZemike 22:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second sentence makes no sense. TWiki is notable, and its fork Foswiki is already at least borderline notable. (See the two links in my post above.) The problem is that Wwwolf3 doesn't understand how the English Wikipedia works. The user seems to know the German Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is culturally more homogeneous and probably has a higher proportion of adult users than the English Wikipedia. This allows them to work with a notion of notability that is quite different from our WP:N. In the case of software their main criterion is article quality plus at least a little bit of coverage. But in many fields they are more on the deletionist side, so it's easy to get the wrong impression that everything that is notable there is notable here as well. Hans Adler 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So in German Wikipedia is it permissible to contest deletions by openly questioning the merits of those involved in the discussion (as opposed to the arguments brought forth)? MuZemike 02:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously not. My main point was that Foswiki is already at least borderline notable and very likely to become notable in the near future. A secondary point was trying to make you understand what makes some SPAs here behave with so much suspicion. Hans Adler 11:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For recreation of Foswiki article Some links to support the notability of Foswiki:
- TechCrunch, the leading and most widely read (4 million rss feed subscribers) tech weblog included Foswiki in a list of Wikis: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/26/why-google-wave-sucks/ & http://screencast.com/t/ZDkxNzc3Zj
- Atlassian, the world's leading commercial wiki creator on their confluence page called Foswiki the leading open source alternative: http://screencast.com/t/OTE1M2E5YTQ
- Highly anticipated open-source releases coming in '09 (Computerworld): http://www.computerworld.co.ke/articles/2009/03/31/highly-anticipated-open-source-releases-coming-09
- TWiki's hunt for cash fractures its community (CNET): http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10078682-16.html --Kalyxo (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The H - Foswiki - "NextWiki" one year on: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Foswiki-NextWiki-one-year-on-812302.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrjones (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first, second, and fourth are the textbook definition of a trivial mention. The third's coverage of this subject amounted to one paragraph. The only arguable source is the fifth. I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and merge with TWiki into TWiki and Foswiki, alternatively overturn and keep.

Background: TWiki is an open source project founded in 1998 by Peter Thoeny. Since 2007 TWiki is marketed commercially by TWIKI.NET, a company also founded by Peter Thoeny. In October 2008 all developers were confronted with a choice between accepting an unpopular new governance model and being locked out of the project website. As a result, all core contributors left and TWiki was split. Since Peter Thoeny owns the trademark, the developer community had to choose a new name: Foswiki.

Pre-split TWiki had considerable notability:

Wolf Marbach: TWiki: Installieren * Konfigurieren * Administrieren, October 2008 [4]
Anja Ebersbach et al: Wiki: Web Collaboration, November 2007. Discusses MediaWiki in Chapter II (130 pages), TWiki in Chapters III-IV (170 pages), and Confluence in Chapter V (70 pages). [5] Quote: "Currently, TWiki is without doubt the flagship of the free wiki variants."
Dan Woods, Peter Thoeny: "Wikis for Dummies", July 2007. The TWiki founder being a coauthor, the word "TWiki" appears on most pages of this book.
Dan Woods, Gautam Guliani: Open source for the enterprise: managing risks, reaping rewards, July 2005. Short discussion of the business side. Quote: "One of the most successful, productized, and deeply integrated open source projects is TWiki^TM. [6]
There are countless 1–2 page discussion of TWiki in books on marginally related topics such as enterprise use of a specific Linux flavour.

Post-split media coverage:

Heise online, the German online IT news source, reported the split in German and English, at a time when Foswiki still had its preliminary name "Nextwiki". [7]
(Slashdot story "TWiki.net Kicks Out All TWiki Contributors " submitted by "David Gerard" [8])
The German edition of PC World mentioned the anticipated Foswiki 1.1 release in the CMS/wiki/collaboration category of "the most important open source updates of the year". [9]
Heise online briefly discussed Foswiki 1.7 and the formation of the Foswiki Association. [10]

Notability is not temporary, so it was not lost in the split. But who has it now? The company/founder/trademark, or the renamed open source project?

In this situation deleting one of the two successors without even keeping a redirect to the article that discusses its history was the worst possible outcome. I believe it was not based on a rational evaluation of the facts, but was mostly a reaction to the canvassing that affected the AfD. The way this deletion review was started has caused further damage, but presumably that's the fault of an individual, not of the potential Foswiki article.

I have no connections to TWiki. I became aware of the situation after the disruption at the AfD was mentioned on a noticeboard. I will contact David Gerard, as he may have further neutral and competent input. Hans Adler 11:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and redirect to TWiki. Largely per Hans Adler's argument. However, I looked at the deleted article, and it contained hardly any information that is worth keeping. Its only significant sections were "Features" and "Extensions", which were just pruned from the official page. It did not contain any RS that established notability. Therefore we can avoid the mongrel title "TWiki and Foswiki". — Sebastian 17:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that also makes sense. It seems I let Kalyxo's vigorous rejection of a merge influence me too much. A TWiki article with explicit mention of Foswiki in the lead and a separate Foswiki section looks like a good interim solution until Foswiki has gained notability under the new name. If we can trust these claims, that shouldn't take too long. Hans Adler 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it in the interest of Wikipedia to have authors, that are skilled, knowledgeable and eager to help populate wiki pages with relevant and neutral content? A simple redirect from Foswiki to TWiki would be a slap in the face of all those who tried to make Foswiki independent, as Peter Thoeny (in their opinion) exploited the TWiki brand for his interests. The redirect would be a statement, that Foswiki is "just TWiki", which is the opposite, of what all those people strive for. If you rename the page to TWiki and Foswiki, that might resemble the fact, that both software projects have the same roots and are still compatible. I could live with that. Just having the redirect from Foswiki to TWiki is a solution, that might be easy to implement. But it does not come close to the reality, as I understand it. By the way: It is unfair, to examine a months old wiki page, nobody worked on, as it was deleted very fast. I strongly believe, that the users of the software and other wikipedia members would have a lot of good content within the guidelines to add. I would love to see a situation, where the project could get a possibility to have their own neutral and unbiased information page. --Kalyxo (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the original closure was correct given the debate; nothing in that AfD, of course, precludes the creation of the redirect. So I'm not sure why we should overturn the close. But no objection to redirecting from me. It is a plausible search term, after all. Tim Song (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I now see that recreating after AfD as a redirect is OK per the proposed WP:Recreation of previously deleted pages. I thought it wasn't, since many people argue that technically merge=keep in an AfD. If I had known that I would have created the redirect a long time ago. Thanks! Hans Adler 21:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - I was the original AFD nominator. Nothing was wrong with the closing and significant third party sources still have not been found to recreate the article. 16x9 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amanda Knox – Wrong venue - there is no deletion for DRV to review. Try WP:RFPP#Current requests for unprotection after a consensus has been reached on the appropriate talk page if no one is around to unprotect it, though it seems that tedder (talk · contribs) is taking care of the matter. Or, as they suggested, create an article at Talk:Amanda Knox/Draft first. If consensus is to unprotect, it can be moved to Amanda Knox. NAC. – Tim Song (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amanda Knox has received many requests for an article, according to the administrator locking it up. Yet it is still locked up. Please unlock it and allow a discussion. This is hereby a request to unlock it so a discussion can be made to start the article.

Proof that many people want the article. There are very few people against having the article.

Could you unprotect it? I'd like to start a separate article. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done so, as multiple people have now requested I do so. Could you please alert people at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher of your decision to split off part of the article? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Obamo (talk • contribs)

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

6 December 2009[edit]