Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 February 27
2009 March 1 >

28 February 2009[edit]

  • Aduri – Relist. There is agreement that the keep arguments were not particular strong which also applies to some !votes here. Further discussion regarding the references and the distribution status should hopefully settle this. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Aduri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While on !vote counting the result was no consensus, certainly the arguments for keeping the article (including those absolutely having nothing to do with the article itself) where not policy based, and amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. The result should have been delete. Cerejota (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, reasonable consensus to keep. The appeal is simply because the nominator did not agree with the outcome. Nominator's persistence is amounting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.32.56 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I would've relisted this - very few useful comments at the AfD. Black Kite 01:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, as per Black Kite - most of the comments are petty bickering and sniping over text formatting issues, rather than actual discussion of the article in question. Certainly, no constructive "Keep" argument was made. Would benefit from a second look. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Closing admin - Couldn't you have discussed this with me before listing it at DRV? Juliancolton (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not personal, but I guess I could have. I apologize, and in the future will take care to discuss with the closer before DRV. --Cerejota (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep, reasonable justification to keep because of worldwide distribution and because the film and filmmakers are infact listed on the internet movie database. Agree with Schmidt that it may meet some of WP:NF. User:Higherthinker
  • Endorse "no consensus" because that's very clearly the outcome of the AfD.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, the main focus of the AFD was disrupted by the excessive use of templates. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist SarekOfVulcan's comment that the references were not independent came too late in the discussion for other people to react to it. Keepers said it was notable but didn't explain why and the so-called wide distribution is not proven in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "no consensus" it's evident there was no consensus in the AfD. But the worldwide DVD distribution by Amazon.com is clearly noted in the article. --User:somumu —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the only convincing argument at Afd was that this failed to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources remains true and was never rebutted. Too much emphasis on vote counting rather than seeing if the objections had been overcome. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete or at least relist per Sr Suarez. Eusebeus (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus. A no consensus close has to be really perverse before i would !vote to overturn it to a delete. Just renominate in 1 or 2 months or so. DGG (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. amazon is considered worldwide distribution. look the film up on amazon before making claims that distribution is 'questionable.' additionally, the sites referenced on the page are independent of the filmmakers. User:Moses321 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.229.73 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice to renomination. The templates got in the way a bit, but that shouldn't be any reason to read the outcome differently. Themfromspace (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Strong Keep. After reading over the AfD and this discussion, this article is a strong keep. I for one believe that notability is not only reserved for Hollywood. The article cites various independent sources to show its authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.60.5 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The arguments to Keep were not convincing. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Strong Keep. The arguments to relist were not convincing. The baseless arguments are clearly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. User:Iamadiscodancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 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 Myer stores – relist. I find the arguments by Bilby and MacGyverMagic fairly persuasive here. I also find the endorsements rather unpersuasive. How was this consensus formed? How were the arguments weighed, the closing admin gave no closing rationale, and as has been pointed out, many of the arguments for deletion consisted of simply pointing to NOTDIR. I am a bit puzzled why people who are arguing that the discussion ought to have been closed as "no consensus" are arguing for "relist" instead of "overturn to no consensus", but I guess more discussion may be welcome. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Myer stores (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There did not appear to be a consensus to delete this article, especially given the poor quality of the nomination (which read, in total, 'WP:NOTDIR'). I suggest that it be relisted for deletion so that a consensus can be developed. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist, there would not appear to be a clear consensus either way, and many of the Delete votes are just "I don't like it" and variants thereof. I would have closed that one as "no consensus", but I think another look at this is called for. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Closing admin WP:RELIST permits relist only for a lack of comments, based on the arguments put forward by both sides, it appeared the article failed to pass the NOTDIR criteria and should be deleted. MBisanz talk 03:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad reasons or dubious comments are often discounted by a closing admin. For the relist criteria, you can basically treat those as non-existent. - Mgm|(talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're just making excuses for not providing suitable comments. Be proactive for Wikipedia and ask to be relisted too. It's the only decent thing you can do.
  • Relist - clearly no consensus and moderator needs to be more proactive in providing reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I would have !voted delete; but there was no actual consensus to delete this.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There was no way that relisting was appropriate to this discussion, and a consensus to delete was formed. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The nominator didn't sufficiently explain why WP:NOTDIR applied and several delete voters simply parroted his statement. The keep voters were in the majority when it came to explaining their reasonings. By a mere headcount this would be no consensus, on argument strength it was a keep. A relist for proper consensus building is the right move. - Mgm|(talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Given the length of the debate a relist would not ahve been appropriate. While the nomination was poor, there was plenty of reasoning on both sides and the closer was correct to weigh the arguments in the context of the discussion and determina consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion should not have been relisted, it should have been closed no consensus. We're only asking for a relist now as it's probably the fairest way to proceed at this point. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As above. Loserman16 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Eluchil404. Plenty of reasoning from those that have voted delete (whilst there were a few that just simply agreed with the nom). --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While I agree that there was some arguments put forward by those arguing to delete, most of the arguments were simply a case of pointing to WP:NOTDIR, including the nom, without any attempt to say why it fails. The keep votes, on the other hand, did make a case. In all, it looks like no consensus, not delete. - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure looks rather clear to me, plus I don't know what relisting would have accomplished, there were plenty of comments already. Wizardman 17:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Alexis Grace – relist. Procedurally, DRV is mainly to assess the validity of the AFD debate, not the merits of the article. I have not counted, but there appears to be a slight majority for "overturn and delete", but reasonable people have argued against deletion both on the AFD and on this DRV, so I am unable to see a consensus here for outright deletion at this point. Looking at the challenged AFD, I can not see any way in which a consensus to delete could be construed from it, but closing as "WP:SNOW" when the issue is contentious was clearly not a good idea, at least with the benefit of hindsight. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alexis Grace (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is mostly a procedural DRV, agreed with the admin that closed it. There's a major problem with this AfD, and it is this - this article currently fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E, but a bigger problem is that of the 14 Keep votes on this AfD, 11 of them contained only a rationale that quoted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Idol_series#Biographies_of_contestants - in other words, a definition of notability purely invented by a WikiProject. (Of the other 3 Keep votes, two had no rationale at all, and other just quoted Google).

Now, there might be a perfectly good article to be written on this person, and if so, that's fine. American Idol finalists are bound to have a lot of Google hits and mentions in media. But we have to consider notability for one event. The article fails both WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E now, but even if it was well-sourced, it would probably still fail WP:BLP1E ("If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.") not to mention WP:ONEEVENT ("When an individual is significant for their role in a single event ... the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person."). American Idol winners (and probably runners-up)? Notable. American Idol contestants that go on to pass WP:BIO via a succesful career? Notable. All American Idol finalists? I'd have to say no - at least not automatically.

Therefore, I'm mainly bringing this to a wider audience to discuss not only the notability of the subject (and other reality show contestants per BLP1E), but also the use of unofficial notability guidelines being used as rationales in AfD. Black Kite 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I'd just like to point out that there's not a very serious BLP1E issue here. If the logic of BLP1E is to avoid harm due to undue publicity then it shouldn't be a big issue with someone who is trying to become a celebrity and was already on television broadcast throughout a major country. There are also editorial preference issues with BLP1E but those aren't as important. I haven't thought about this enough to say anything else substantial regarding overturning or not, but I'll note that in the past DRVs have looked dimly at wikiprojects unilaterally expanding the notion of who should be notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, little harm in this case, but this is more about the Wikiproject issue (and, of course, WP:ONEEVENT still applies, even though it's a guideline itself - I've refactored slightly to make this clear in my nom). Black Kite 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No need for deletion. Quit nominating these articles. Jason (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. WikiProjects do not get to set lower notability standards for articles in their purview. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect The common outcome at AFD for this type of articles has been to redirect titles for contestants to the series they were in unless they've done something other than the show. She's done nothing besides American Idol so all the encyclopedic information about her can be covered inside the show's article without causing fragmentation. The musician and creative artist guideline list placing in a major contest as potentially notable, but there still has to be information to build an article with for it to be applied. - Mgm|(talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist wikiprojects can try to set standards; but it is up to the wider community whether or not to accept them. I do not think that the community is willing to accept that aIl contestants are by that fact alone notable--I personally regard this as absurd. Obviously any contestant sets themselves up for possible ridicule if particularly unsuccessful, but normally that would be a possible violation of oneevent and donoharm--they will get unfavorable publicity enough without us. But in this case, there is not even that. Fox does all that is needed on its own website. DGG (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect or relist (if relisted, discount all AfD arguments that do not specifically address the issue of substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources). In the AFD for Alexis Grace, the "keep" argument relied entirely on three false assumptions: (1) that WikiProject notability standards override general community standards; (2) that having a Wikipedia article establishes notability (i.e. "all finalists have articles, so all finalists are notable"); and (3) that a high number of Google hits (most of which are passing mentions of the person's name) equates to substantial coverage in reliable sources. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I'm persuaded by User:DGG's very cogent argument.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The nominator does not think the closing admin interpreted the debate incorrectly since he agrees with the closer, does not think the debate was procedurally closed incorrectly and does not come up with new information since the deletion. Aspects (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? The nominator (myself) clearly disagrees with the closer - as I have pointed out, the article fails WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. Black Kite 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does your first sentence mean then? "This is mostly a procedural DRV, agreed with the admin that closed it." To me that says you agreed with the admin that closed it. If you did disagree then you should read what deletion review is about: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Do you disagree with the closer's interpretion? If so, you should have discussed this with the closer before beginning the deletion review. Aspects (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "agreed with the admin that closed it" means that I did agree this DRV with the closer before starting it. Black Kite 11:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No need for deletion. The Idol contestants have their own page as long as their in Top 12. 96.249.147.36 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (ETC)
    • What is the basis for your assertion? Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can go check the top 12 contestants from season 2. Their pages were built right after they were announced as a finalist. 96.249.147.36 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (ETC)
        • Thank you for your response.
          While you are correct that most Idol finalists have their own articles, the presence of a Wikipedia article about a subject does not constitute proof of that subject's notability. Notability is determined by the presence or absence of real-world characteristics—primarily, the presence of "substantial coverage [of the subject] in reliable sources". In addition, because anyone can create an article about any topic for any reason, the presence of similar articles is not by itself sufficient reason to keep an article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 08:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete fails WP:BIO and/or WP:BLP1E. IMHO, no wikiproject may change what is notable or not as determined by the community's consensus - this is the ultimate of bias and unencyclopedic cruft-making. Why couldn't some editors start a wikiproject telephone books say, and determine if you have a number listed you are notable within the project and therefore deserve an article at WP. Absurd? Well, so is some show having all its "contestants" being notable whether it's Idol, Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, or anything else that manages to get some tv station funded from hour to hour. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, a wikiproject notability guideline that has not been endorsed by the wider community cannot and should not override WP:BIO. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and delete A clear-cut case as a false appeal in the AfD to a non-existent standard of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this gets overturned and deleted without being relisted, could it please be userfied into my userspace? Thank you, Aspects (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't be a problem, but be aware that should Ms. Grace become more notable, a further DRV will be required before moving the article back to mainspace. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Wikiprojects lowering notability standards are a bad precedent (especially for BLPs). -- lucasbfr talk 08:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This issue seems to get discussed every year, so I dug up a few older discussions in case anybody wants to see previous rationale:
  • Closing admin I'm glad this is coming to DRV. Personally, I feel that Wikiprojects should not be able to lower the bar of notability, that is what policies and guidelines are for. However, if I had gone ahead and deleted or redirected the article per that line of reasoning, people would have screamed I was placing my opinion above those at AFD. So having this DRV to establish this precedent is a good thing. MBisanz talk 21:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - it is not in the remit of a wikiproject to dictate policy changes. Changes to BLP need to be discussed on the appropriate talk page. In this case, the subject doesn't satisfy BLP yet. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete The notability of articles should be set by a strong central guideline (WP:N), which shouldn't be greatly deminished by any individual Wikiprojects. Themfromspace (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Redirect to season article. It's a dangerous thing to see Wikiprojects attempting to override the BLP policy. Adam Zel (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Local consensus (such as a wikiproject guideline) does not have the power to ignore broad site-wide consensus for notability and WP:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 08:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on previous seasons, all top 12 finalists have articles. No reason to deviate from this for this season. Syjytg (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument here (even if this was an AFD). The problem is that a Wikiproject's guidelines have been allowed to trump generally-accepted rules. Quite possibly, many of these biographies would also need to be deleted. Cool Hand Luke 08:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete: What references there are in the article all derive to a single source; much of the information is original research. This speaks to several policy issues: WP:OR and WP:UNDUE at a minimum, and also raises the question of how exactly this contestant meets encyclopedia-wide notability when there appears to be only one reliable independent reference source available. Concur with Cool Hand Luke and several others that guidelines espoused by any wikiproject cannot supersede that of the encyclopedia as a whole. Risker (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Motley Moose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was under the impression this page, upon it's re-listing and removal from the "Speedy delete" page, would be given a few more days of review at least, or perhaps given some leeway in editing under Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. All of the issues brought up in deletion review can now be addressed completely, including all WP:NOT criticisms. I would like to review the deletion of this article, at least temporarily. The consensus built on it's deletion was fatally flawed; not by malicious intent, of course, by a serious misunderstanding even I missed until I reviewed the AfD discussion in detail. Also, with the speed it was deleted, I was unable to save any of the information off of it, as (again) I didn't know it'd be yanked immediately. I did contact the deleting admin, but no response in over 24 hours, and I didn't want the cache file to drop into the memory hole. Thanks, guys. Lemme know what I need to do. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. Support userfying the content if the nominator wishes to use this on another site. Just to note that it's very much the exception that deleted articles vanish quickly (or at all). Stifle (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ahh, okay, I didn't know how quickly the caches disappeared, if at all. Couldn't get ahold of the admin who deleted, and it doesn't seem to be notated anywhere. Though again, I'd dispute the consensus based on my comments above, and can certainly prove it, you are entitled to your opinion. Just let me know how to get ahold of that text. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some factual errors in the above. Ks64q2's request to Fram was made less than 24 hours ago as I write this (It's right now about 30 minutes from the 24-hour mark.), and approximately 18 hours before Ks64q2 wrote the above. It was clarified a mere sixteen hours ago, 9 hours before Ks64q2 wrote the above. And the article was not speedily deleted. It was listed at AFD for 6 days, from 2009-02-21 to 2009-02-27 inclusive, including a re-listing on 2009-02-26. A 6-day discussion is not "immediate", by any stretch of the imagination. Those 6 days indeed were the "few more days of review", and they were given. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I misspoke, I meant 24 hours after it's deletion, and I was concerned about the cache file being gone permanently. The Google cache file here is junk, the page looked nothing like that when it was deleted, and I've never been through an article deletion before. I mean, the guidelines I was aware of suggested that Wikipedia:Give an article a chance would actually be used- the first I was aware of the deletion was on 25-FEB. No contact was made, no Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process occurred- the first thing that happened was it was tagged for speedy deletion, which was eventually revoked. I understand the "normal" review time was given. I figured if deletion was decided, I'd have maybe a day where it would sit there before being deleted, giving me time to grab the code. Let me know if I'm completely off base here in any way. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, per Uncle G, this was hardly an immediate call, and I think that the correct decision was made in closing the AFD. Note that the AFD discussion has a talk page with some further points that shed additional light on some of the claims made in the discussion. However, no objection to the content being userified. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment The talk page also contains a significant number of counterpoints never addressed, and also suffers from the same misunderstanding I mentioned earlier.Ks64q2 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Look, buddy, we told you- this article had absolutely no place on Wikipedia. We don't give a damn what your "arguments" are, they don't matter a whit. I've been reviewing Wikipedia articles for years, and you come along and think you can just fire up anything you want? Fuck that. Deletion endorsed, and let him remake the article somewhere else. 12.40.50.1 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ... really, I don't know what to say. Heh, at least you had the guts to tell me you didn't care "what my arguments are". Look, dude, I understand there's standards we want to keep on Wikipedia, but if you've got a problem with me, or an ideological problem with the site, then this isn't the forum to take it out on. Take it to my talk page, or I'd be happy to flip you my email address, but don't take it out on this article. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sort of addition to this discussion does not help in the slightest. Please desist. Uncle G (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment If the standard of arguments above are anything to go by, the AfD standards on this article have not been met. I'm particularly concerned by the misuse of the speedy deletion criteria. To whit

    "So give an article a chance. Unless it's a blatant speedy delete--such as nonsense, advertising, slander, or a copyvio--don't tag it speedy. And don't PROD or AfD it until the original editor has had a chance--a week should be enough time--to add substance to the article and list sources and do everything else people tend to use against such short articles. You may want to consider using the {{expand}} tag. Regardless, even if Prod is used, work with the original editor and make them aware of the reasons for the tag. Help them work within the accepted norms of the community to get the article up to snuff, lest you scare off a newcomer.

    You might consider a websearch for references—part of checking potential notability. If you find anything useful, fill in a few sentences of the article and cite. This is almost always sufficient to make an article PROD-resistant while usefully contributing to the project."

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.49.192 (talk • contribs) 2009-03-01 03:10:01
    • Once again: Speedy deletion was not involved here. You are perpetuating another factual error. This article went through AFD. The AFD discussion is linked-to, right at the top of this very discussion.

      And the text that you quote aren't our speedy deletion criteria, anyway. Those can be found at, unsurprisingly, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk)

      • UncleG, I'm sure you've got lots more experience with Wikipedia than I. The article was originally flagged for speedy deletion. This was amended, yes, but the fact is that the first action taken against this article was to recommend it for speedy deletion. And, again, you'll have to excuse my impertinence, but you don't seem to care that the Wikipedian guidelines weren't followed for the article's review and submission for deletion- considering the WP:NOT guidelines you're using in your argument are no less valid, as far as I can ascertain, than the ones I'm using. Kinda sucks, IMHO. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, this was a point I have been trying to make. There was no pretense at following guidelines set up at Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, or Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Taking a look at the example of Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard, the page was significantly improved in actual 48 hours between the article's editors becoming aware of the article's deletion review until the time it was deleted. Sadly, this wasn't enough time to make it perfect, or run down all the references for the site, and the AfD discussion didn't involve any constructive advice on how to improve the article; instead, it seemed to be focused on justifying the original submission of the article for deletion to the point that outright requests for advice/counterpoints were almost entirely ignored. Not sure why the article merited such treatment. In light of all this, I would like to obviously Endorse relist. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, those facts are wrong. You were given constructive advice within less than 3 hours of your first edit to the AFD discussion. You attempted to follow that advice over the following 2 days, and the discussion proceeded to evaluation of the sources that you presented, where they were found to be wanting — as explicitly noted in the discussion closure.

      Another editor in the discussion, Capitalistroadster, tried to locate sources on xyr own, and reported coming up empty-handed, lending support to the conclusion that no sources exist. Editors looked for sources. Some reported finding nothing. Others cited sources that, upon inspection by other editors, didn't seem to actually document the subject at hand in any way, or weren't published by independent and identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, or weren't even sources at all.

      If no sources exist, there can be no article. It's a stretch to say that you weren't given a chance to demonstrate otherwise, when not only were you given a chance, you even took up the opportunity. You simply did not succeed. You've shown no reason for believing that you would succeed now — no sources that were overlooked, no new sources, and no errors in others' evaluations of those sources that you did cite (to which not only did you have the opportunity to respond, you did respond, at length, without refuting a single point). You've shown no reason to think that the AFD discussion didn't focus upon sources, no reason to think that the proper study of encyclopaedists — the finding, reading, evaluation, and use of sources — was ignored, nor any reason to think that deletion policy was not correctly applied. Uncle G (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sigh, I'm gonna end up pissing off admins, aren't I? Again, sir, you ignore many of the points I was making. Indeed, I was given the opportunity, but more sources exist- you seem to imply plugging the users who contributed to the deletion article's submission of the article's namesake into Google constitutes "no new sources" existing. You argument here seems to be "If a couple Wikipedia editors couldn't find them in thirty seconds of indexing Google, they don't exist (or don't matter)". Besides the fact that there are more sources that exist, existing sources are certainly valid, but I could never make the case in detail. Since I see no easy way to refute this argument otherwise, allow me to make a point by point refutation of what occurred during this process. (Note- large volume of text redacted from here) Ks64q2 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm satisfied that the closing admin did what they were supposed to do: implement the consensus.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sir, if the only criteria for article deletion is a consensus, then a poll should have been posted and results decided thusly. Furthermore, if the consensus was flawed in the ways I have chronicled above, this would further call the decision into question. Furthermore, affirmation of the deletion decision should be based on the merits of arguments presented, not simply on what a majority of the people felt- or am I mistaken in that belief? Ks64q2 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Revision of Comment Upon further discussion with user S Marshall, he points out that the closing administrator acted to follow the community consensus, and was not specifically judging on the validity of either side's arguments. I will wholeheartedly agree with this point. The administrator acted within their purview and as Wikipedian guidelines suggest in following consensus. Thank you for your clarification, S Marshall. However, then what is the appropriate forum to discuss a flawed consensus? Ks64q2 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response--I've replied to that point on my talk page where you also raised it.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response to revised comment -- The appropriate place is at the AfD before it closes, I'm afraid.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response Aha. Alas, the refutation I posted above wasn't promulgated in time for me to argue for it, and given that I was only aware of the article's deletion less than two days before it was finally deleted, it was a losing battle to fight. However, if the proper procedure now is to userify the article, address the issues, and then resubmit it at a later date with those issues addressed, then I'll gladly withdraw all of my discussion here except the request that the content be quickly userified, so we can all move on to other issues. Thank you again, S Marshall! Ks64q2 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Simply put, the closing admin closed the discussion based on the consensus, in other words, the only way it could possibly have been done. If the closing admin had ignored consensus and closed it as keep, they would have been quickly overruled and possibly sanctioned. It's pointless to ignore consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to Ks64q2's comment above, I suggest this drv is speedily closed as withdrawn by nominator. I also support userfication as he requests.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Request, per Nominator, as long as the material can be userified for me. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • transmitter plant – Nothing to do. There's no actual prose content in the 2 deleted edits to be restored, and no worthwhile action to take. – Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
transmitter plant (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

History-only undelete. –radiojon (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As far as i see there isn't anything in the history of Transmitter plant but a signature that I should maybe rather have deleted as A3 than as A1, but in any case there is no real content worth restoring.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As Tikiwont says, there's no article history here to undelete. Hiding T 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, nothing to undelete. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_28&oldid=1142605092"