Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2009 Deletion review archives April 2009 >

31 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Madras Bulls (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article had passed an AFD after I cleaned it up, but an admin speedy deleted it a year later with no discussion. I think this should be restored to the version before the deletion by User:DJ Clayworth Corpx (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Restore and fish slap for not talking with the admin first (unless I missed it, in which case I apologize). It is likely (though not certain) the admin missed the previous DrV and might have restored and relisted on request. In general speedying something that survived DrV seems unwise. I can't see the article and the DrV result back in 2007 was a relist (which never happened?). But something that the community let survive a DrV (even this weakly) should have been sent to AfD rather than undergone speedy deletion in my opinion. Speedy should be reserved for things that clearly don't meet our guidelines and that others felt it _might_ in the past should be enough to cause an AfD rather than speedy. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AFD is here. The XFD link above also goes to the relisted AFD Corpx (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a fishwack for me too, I missed that. IMO this is now a speedy restore. Changed it above. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been made more complicated by the fact that an article has now been created at Madras Bulls. I recommend restore on the grounds that an AfD was passed which makes CSD invalid but first the current content needs to be merged in a way which works with the GFDL, for example moving the history to Madras Bulls (biking group) and then merging the content manually. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought there as a policy on CSD that prevents speedies of something that passed at AfD but I couldn't find it. Any pointer? Hobit (talk) 17:35, 1 April 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.
List of Exalted comics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I created this as a new article today. Someone placed a "CSD" tag. I placed a "hangon" tag, expanded the content, and asked for some more time on the Talk page. Despite this, Nihonjoe deleted the article. Discussion with Nihonjoe was unhelpful. I am particularly concerned that Nihonjoe is speedy deleting articles when in fact he does not understand the principles of "CSD" and "hangon". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am unsure why Axl says the discussion was unhelpful. I suggested he create the article in his userspace and then move it to the mainspace once it was ready. The article which was deleted had almost no content at all. If he wants, I'll even userfy it for him. As for my understanding of "CSD" and "hangon", it's apparent Axl doesn't understand how they work as the "hangon" tag specifically says that the article might still be deleted even when tagged with {{hangon}}. I've been doing CSD for years now, so I think I have a handle on how it works. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 31 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.
SkillStorm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have reached out to the administrator that deleted this page and his suggestion was to opt for a deletion review. I would like to suggest an Overturn of this deletion. I think that with several improvements, this article is a good addition to WP. After doing some research in the consulting industry, I think this is a notable enough company that had a poorly written article. If overturned, I will definitely be contributing to make this article meet WP standards. Adiaza2181 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to correct cases where the deletion process was not properly followed. It is not a de novo examination of the article, nor a chance to get a second bite at the cherry and convince different people of the article's merits. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. The article was deleted due to a lack of third-party coverage, not writing style. For the community to consider revising the original decision, the time to present any new sources is now so they may be considered. Restoring based on "I will definitely be contributing to make this article meet WP standards," while noble, does not justify the subject's notability. Spring12 (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This company has third-party coverage ranging from Entrepreneur Magazine (see here) and Staffing Industry Analyst (see here), both highly regarded publications in the staffing/consulting industry, not to mention extensive coverage in bizjournal publications in San Diego, Tampa, Orlando, Dallas, Charlotte, South Florida and Indianapolis. I don't understand.Adiaza2181 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the links to the rest of the coverage so we can review? The problem is those two links you gave are merely passing mentions, they're not in depth enough for Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Spring12 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At this point you need to show significant coverage per WP:N. If you can do so, it is likely the article would come back. Trivial coverage (just a passing reference to the name) won't help much. A detailed bit of coverage by reliable sources would help a lot! Hobit (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That SkillStorm,, received the San Diego Better Business Bureau's 2008 Torch Award for marketplace ethics might also help a bit. No idea how notable that award is. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found several articles regarding SkillStorm in bizjournal publications here:

I have a few more notable articles but unfortunately they are in the print edition only. Is there any way to submit PDFs into consideration? Also, the company was featured on the radio on an AM business talk radio show see here.In regard to the awards that the company in question has been awarded, there was an extensive list on the deleted article. For example, for the Better Business Bureau award, I found mention of the company on the BBB site. How can that be submitted for consideration? I'd also like to thank all of you for your help.Adiaza2181 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A posted scan of the articles in question (posted on some other website) is generally acceptable unless someone has reason to believe the sources are forged. Quotes from the sources on the talk page of this AfD could also be posted. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and userfy to the author's userspace for improvement. Proper AFD closure. Move deleted article to User:Adiaza2181/SkillStorm for the user to improve. Can move back into the mainspace once suitable. MuZemike 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more articles for consideration:

Thanks again.Adiaza2181 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow restoration South Florida Business Journal appears to be reliable and coverage is certainly significant. entrepreneur's ranking of the company gives us more than just local coverage. I will note that the nom is a (the?) primary author of the South Florida Business Journal article. I would like to hear any WP:COI disclosures. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion even considering the above, the article does not appear to pass WP:CORP at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse all the above are incidental or local., or,. in the case of Online Business Week, a directory listing. The only keeps at the afds were from spas or people with COI. DGG (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think local awards are generally notable. In any case, WP:N doesn't restrict local sources in any way. WP:ORG does, but it isn't clear that that SNG can restrict the sources for the GNG. Hobit (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the closing statement and DGG's insightful remarks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Administrator instructions

30 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:SSDJafarSwingsTowardSpaid.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The image was deleted for CSD I5 (non-free image not used for 7 days) because the reference to it was removed in a vandalization of the article. At no time did 7 days pass when the material was not being used. Also, there is question as to whether the image is even non-free. This obviously goes against the letter of the law and the spirit of Wikipedia. See article history for the multiple vandalisms by Norcal44. Int21h (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done so (as the instructions indicate), and I am still in the process of doing so. I do not believe such action precludes this request for an undelete; they can happen simultaneously as to allow anyone to undelete the article. I do not believe Wikipedia follows a strict exhaustion of remedies doctrine. For example, I should not have to ask a vandal to undo his vandalism, then wait for a period, then open a request for undo of vandalism before I can undo vandalism. All this touches on the Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY rule, which I think is all to often forgotten. What if the page got speedily deleted? You are saying I would have to request he undelete it, wait, request for an undelete of the page, wait, after that is done request the deleter undelete the image, wait, request for an undelete of the image, wait more, etc. If I add a few more causal deletes in there, that's weeks of undelete requests due to simple vandalism, with very real effects on the comity of Wikipedia. Int21h (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't see where that request took place; can you please point it out to me? Stifle (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per your suggestion, I specifically asked East718 on his talk page to undelete the page for the reasons given above. This is on top of the standard notification that I gave referencing my arguments above for an undelete. There has been no reply. Int21h (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You left him a message after making a listing here; the instructions suggest doing so beforehand, as it tends to result in things working out much more quickly. In any case, restore assuming it will be used in an article now; if the use is inappropriate that can be addressed through the proper channels. tfeSil (aktl) 08:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Restore this is a photo from a police camera in a police station recording an arrest, being used in the article to document the abuse. The entire section of various sourced alleged incidents of abuse was removed from the article repeatedly by the single purpose account User:Norcal44, as part of a continuing edit war without apparent effort at discussion over whether the material is acceptable content. It was deleted by East718 during an interval when the material was absent from the article. It had previously been marked for deletion by a bot during a previous interval when the material was absent. At no time did 7 days pass when the material was not being used, and thus the deletion reason is invalid. As for the edit warring, it must stop and the matter be resolved by proper dispute resolution. I have notified the other party to the edit war. DGG (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment technically should be restored, but I see no reason for this collection of non-free images in this article per WP:NFCC (quite apart from the fact that they're of dire quality, add little to the article anyway, and are illustrating sections that clearly fail WP:UNDUE), and should they be restored should be sent straight to IfD. Black Kite 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as far as I can tell, the images are public domain as a result of a California Public Records Act request. I have not had time to update the image description pages, but will at the next opportunity. Int21h (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the case, then no problem. Black Kite 06:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on File:MihaitaConstantinResistingArrest.png. They're not public domain. - Mgm|(talk) 07:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a redlink at the moment. Hobit (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment below on why they are not copyright-able. I will put even more details on the page when it comes back up. Int21h (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the DRV on said image below this one. - Mgm|(talk) 18:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be much obliged if an Administrator could please temporarily undelete these images so I can save it locally, or email them to my email listed under my account. I spent a good amount of time obtaining these videos and extracting images out of them, and I have since lost the original media. (The account that created them was mine, just in case you were wondering, but I forgot the password. :() Int21h (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any admin can directly access the files (without the need for undelete) and save them locally. I would ask you to email me and I could respond with them, but I don't really have any indication that you are in fact User:WarIsPeace, I guess it would be. I would suggest just waiting until it is restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I can't evaluate the value of the image as I can't see it. But given the reasons it was deleted, it should be restored. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 2 April 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.
File:MihaitaConstantinResistingArrest.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The image was deleted for CSD I5 (non-free image not used for 7 days) because the reference to it was removed in a vandalization of the article. At no time did 7 days pass when the material was not being used. Also, there is question as to whether the image is even non-free. This obviously goes against the letter of the law and the spirit of Wikipedia. See article history for the multiple vandalisms by Norcal44. Int21h (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done so (as the instructions indicate), and I am still in the process of doing so. I do not believe such action precludes this request for an undelete; they can happen simultaneously as to allow anyone to undelete the article. I do not believe Wikipedia follows a strict exhaustion of remedies doctrine. For example, I should not have to ask a vandal to undo his vandalism, then wait for a period, then open a request for undo of vandalism before I can undo vandalism. All this touches on the Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY rule, which I think is all to often forgotten. What if the page got speedily deleted? You are saying I would have to request he undelete it, wait, request for an undelete of the page, wait, after that is done request the deleter undelete the image, wait, request for an undelete of the image, wait more, etc. If I add a few more causal deletes in there, that's weeks of undelete requests due to simple vandalism, with very real effects on the comity of Wikipedia. Int21h (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Restore this is a photo from a police camera in a police station recording an arrest, being used in the article to document the abuse. The entire section of various sourced alleged incidents of abuse was removed from the article repeatedly by the single purpose account User:Norcal44, as part of a continuing edit war without apparent effort at discussion over whether the material is acceptable content. It was deleted by East718 during an interval when the material was absent from the article. It had previously been marked for deletion by a bot during a previous interval when the material was absent. At no time did 7 days pass when the material was not being used, and thus the deletion reason is invalid. As for the edit warring, it must stop and the matter be resolved by proper dispute resolution. I have notified the other party to the edit war. DGG (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment technically should be restored, but I see no reason for this collection of non-free images in this article per WP:NFCC (quite apart from the fact that they're of dire quality, add little to the article anyway, and are illustrating sections that clearly fail WP:UNDUE), and should they be restored should be sent straight to IfD. Black Kite 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as far as I can tell, the images are public domain as a result of a California Public Records Act request. I have not had time to update the image description pages, but will at the next opportunity. Int21h (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the images are not public domain. (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270) 1) That law only governs access to information, it does not put information into the public domain or transfer any rights. 2) The law only applies to California and does not apply to anyone outside the state, meaning that copyright can't be satisfied even for the majority of Americans. - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL. But doesn't "6253.3. A state or local agency may not allow another party to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to disclosure pursuant to this chapter." effectively mean that anyone has permission to post material subject to this rule? Hobit (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Disclosure" does not equal "republish." Basically, it's saying that they can't prevent anyone from seeing the evidence, but it doesn't have any wording to release the copyright of the evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree copyright isn't released. Rather they legally may not prevent disclosure, and preventing publication would be preventing disclosure (as I read it). Eh, as this law could be changed at any time, I suppose it doesn't matter how you read it, it probably isn't a "free" image. Ah well. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is already published elsewhere, then preventing republishing does not put up any restrictions that would lead to people not being able to see the evidence. - Mgm|(talk) 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Disclosure" simply means that, upon request, they must provide access to the material. That doesn't mean they have to put it online, just that it must be available for people to see it. Which may mean physically going to wherever it's stored and seeing the original there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are. (This idscussion shouldn't be here, but oh well.) In County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, No. H031658 (2009), the County says exactly that, that they have Copyright. It is the first case dealing with the issue.[1] The court of appeals decided (with jurisdiction throughout California, not just in the 6th. Appellate District) that the county cannot copyright records unless explicitly allowed to do so by law.[2][3] The operative conclusion was "The same persuasive reasoning applies to the interplay between copyright law and California’s public records law, with the result that unrestricted disclosure is required." (County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, No. H031658 (2009), at 35.) As far as I can tell, the decision means (and, like it says, it is the first case on the subject) that records obtained through the act cannot be copyrighted, as this would allow limitations on disclosure (which is what copyright is), or limitation on uses of the material (which is what copyright can be), which under the act and the Constitution (see California Proposition 59 (2004)) are clearly a no-no. Int21h (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be much obliged if an Administrator could please temporarily undelete these images so I can save it locally, or email them to my email listed under my account. I spent a good amount of time obtaining these videos and extracting images out of them, and I have since lost the original media. (The account that created them was mine, just in case you were wondering, but I forgot the password. :() Int21h (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I can't evaluate the value of the image as I can't see it. But given the reasons it was deleted, it should be restored. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 2 April 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.
Alan Cabal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Procedural nom. Page was deleted at AfD (here), but re-written in userspace and then moved to mainspace. It was then deleted as a G4 recreation. The version of the page deleted at AFD is here, and the new version is here. I am neutral. Black Kite 12:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - history-only undelete performed by request. Black Kite 06:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of 2 weeks ago. While the two versions Black Kite shows above are different, past iterations of this article have had all of the soruces in schmidt's current draft. They are passant, largely, ("garbled uplink is the guitarist and he loves to party"), and do nothing to establish him as notable and passing WP:BIO (no one disputes that he was once in a band or that he contributed frequently to the New York Press for a number of years -- it's just that those things on their own are insufficient to establish notability). As Cabal no longer is involved in anything notable (he builds stage sets, apparently; an IP who claims to be him always pops up at his AfD's) there is nothing "new" that would have or could have changed to enhance his notability. In short, the problem remains what it has been all along; there are no non-trivial works about him in any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability or otherwise support a reliably sourced and verifiable BLP.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse until such time as new sources are presented that represent significant independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources and support a claim to notability (the Jewish Press article that just quotes Cabal's email message to the editor doesn't really cut it, nor does someone writing about their own band which happened to include Cabal as a member).--Michig (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see detail of the additional sources that are claimed address the AFD issues. If User:MichaelQSchmidt could supply the passages of text from the new sources that discuss Cabal it would help to see if there's any reason to believe these issues have been addressed. If this review results in the speedy being overturned and, inevitably, another AFD, I would suggest that if the subsequent AFD resulted in deletion, evidence of decent new sources be required before any subsequent recreation of the article. We've already wasted far too much time and effort on this article.--Michig (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MQS was kind enough to supply the relevant passages of text from the sources for me to take a look at, and with all due respect to his efforts here, I still believe the deletion should not be overturned as the notability concerns have not in my view been addressed.--Michig (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Overturn Deletion as article was deleted AFTER the speedy tag was in good faith itself removed by an admin. The deleting admin must have at the very least run into an EC and realized the tag was removed and then read the reasons for it. Despite this, he deleted it anyway. So I support return to NEW VERSION as an as an example of what any editor can do when looking beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT to actually dig for sources and present infornation properly when doing the required WP:CLEANUP of an article thought meritless by others. Cabal is no angel and has far more detractors than admirers... hell, I don't like him myself... but personal animis toward a subject should have no place at an AfD nor at in bringing any article into line with policy and guideline to be then worthy of Wikipedia. Consensus can change with a neutral review of old and past articles, and whatever Cabal might be doing today or tomorrow or next year does not diminish past notability, no matter how one might feel about the individual as a person. Yes, many facts in the present article are the same as facts in the earlier ones. World history does not change, nor can it be re-written, simply because one does not like events or those behind such events. Any properly encyclopedic article will then include as much properly sourced material as is relevent. So naturally, the only thing that then "could change" is in how the assertions of notability are presented and how they are sourced. Proper sourcing per WP:RS and WP:V and proper presentation of such is exactly as guideline and policy instruct. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection There was no edit conflict. Please stop making these accusations. I deleted in good faith, I had no idea that the speedy had been removed. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair. Yes. I think it is safe to say that the two of you were reviewing the article at the same time. You reached different conclusions, and you in good faith removed the tag... seconds before he in good faith deleted the article. Is it established procedure to err on the side of deletion in all such cases? Or to hold an preliminary AfD before having to retry it at another AfD? I have not been able to find anything in guideline or policy that indicates that this later is the proper procedure, just as I have not been able to find other instances where the tag removal preceded a deletion by such a short margin. Had you been faster or he been slower by perhaps another 30 or 60 seconds... it would be a different story. Just how close were the timemarks? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt it's worth noting that schmidt, the article creator, removed an earlier speedy tag, which he well knows is against the process. Just since we're being such sticklers for "procedure." As it is, Black Kite and Dougweller were the two admins who looked at this. And judging by their comments here and elsewhere, they appear to be in agreement that DRV is the best venue.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is also worth noting that I was informed by bali after my own good faith (erronous) removal of the tag with the statement: "And do not remove speedy tags from pages that you created. Read the tag if you don't understand that's not allowed (though of course you should at this point)." I immediately explained my lack of knowledge and requested he return it as I had never removed one before. I did not take issue with his assumption that someone who had never done something of that nature should automatically somehow know that they should not. I certainly KNOW it NOW... and will take issue with any futher implication of bad faith such as made in the above statement "which he well knows is against the process"... when earlier he was specifically told in an aplogy that I did NOT know it as agaianst process. And again, all that is needed is to take a look at the timestamps of the two editors who were diligently evaluating the article. If Black Kite was the first to complete his evaluation and remove that tag... even if ny nano-seconds, honor would indicate that his removal be respected. If Dougweller was first in completing his evalauation then his deletion was per the book. If he was late, he was late. Period. Else I'd have to wonder if a decision to delete 3 seconds after one to keep is allowed.... maybe next time a delete will be accepted if made 3 minutes or 3 hours or 3 days after a decision to keep. If good faith is to be shown on all sides, they were nearly neck and neck in their evaluations of the article. Black Kite was faster. Is his good faith decision to remove the tag to now be discounted simply because his decision was reached sooner that of the deleting admin?? Anything resulting from this premature deletion is a result of that premature deletion. Procedural overturn of speedy and return of newer article IS the proper following of procedure. The rules do not exist so thay may be ignored when it suits one's purpose, do they? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the "new" version is slightly different than the AfD version, but isn't actually better (in fact it could be argued that it's actually a little worse as it's more "puffy" than the relatively lean AfD'd one) and it doesn't address the core issue here, which is notability. The bottom line is that this guy just plain hasn't gotten any more notable in the two weeks since the AfD, and no amount of rewriting and wrangling could fix that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I believe different enough... as the earlier versions were poorly asserted and poorly sourced. What has changed is in how it is now presented... with 5 new sources, 2 of which were discussed at the most recent AfD but that had never previously been sources in the article. Same puzzle. Different pieces. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, in my (and one other's opinion) the presentation is worse, more puffery and uncited stuff. But that doesn't really matter. No one argued delete because of poor presentation. They argued delete because reliable sources independent of the subject didn't establish him as notable. Cleanup? That's lipstick on a pig (a phrase we can safely use again).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the previous version had sources and presentation of assertions that did not meet the approval of editors at the last AfD. THIS one is not THAT one. This one has 5 new sources, 2 of which were brought up at the last AfD. The assertions are presented differently and in a manner that allows proper sourcing through Reliable Sources and confirmation per Verify to properly show the Notability that the earlier versions failed to do. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There seems to be a common misconception that "cleaning up" can cure a subject of unnotability syndrome. Unfortunately, that is not the case. yandman 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Cleanup to correct the flaws of earlier versions is what "cures". Poor article on am unfavorable subject = deletion. Better article on a unfavorable subject = deletion. Seems like a set of equations that cannot be countered. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No reason to be re-hashing the decisions of previous AfD's. This DRV is about the speedy deletion of a recreated article that was "substantially" different (despite pre-concceptions) than its predecessors. If it is returned, it may likley be sent to AfD.... but its not an AfD that needs be overturned. Its the speedy deletion even after the tag had been removed by Black Kite (who is here remaining neutral)... THAT is the issue here, and the only required and valid reason to overturn. You want to discuss notability? Do it at an AfD of the new article. The Speedy was improper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • commment i suppose reasonable people can disagree. To be clear -- the sourcing was not improved, notability was not established, and no new sources that discuss Alan Cabal were uncovered by you (or anyone else). The recreation was an end around on an AFD from two weeks ago that delivered a clear consensus for "delete."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for your opinion. There are other opinions that the article was indeed substantially changed in format and style and that sourcing was (slightly) improved to make a (slightly) stronger case for the notability of Cabal. This is not the venue to argue about reasons why an earlier version was deleted or how the various concerns of the earlier AfDs might or might not have been addressed. The issue here is supposed to be solely about the overturning a slightly speedy speedy... as even the deleting admin noted that his closure followed immediately upon another admin's valid removal of the CSD tag. Rather than say "oops" and return the article, the second admin decided to let it go... to either DRV or oblivion. This in all good faith requires a procedural overturn. Go to AfD if it must, but the speedy was incorrect. That's the only issue here, not the merits of the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction I deleted an article that at the time I hit delete had a Speedy tag. I don't think you understand the way the software works. It takes me to another page that I then had to change slightly, it would be during that time period that the tag was removed. No edit conflict is created as I'm not editing the page. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I quoted your ANI statement above. I ask of any neutral admin with the ability to check, please see whose timestamp is first... User:Dougweller's for deletion? or User:Black Kite's for removing the speedy tag. Since both admins were at the same time revieiwing the article to evaluate and determine the validity or need for a CSD, the only fair and honorable thing to do would be to give the benefit of the doubt to whichever one completed their determination first. Whose timestanp is soonest? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because I was first doesn't mean I was right! Admins aren't infalliable, and that's why I brought it here - to let the community decide. Black Kite 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I grant that, and am sorry that you are now in this, as controversy is no way to be repaid for good faith on anyone's part. Did you bring here as a preliminary AfD? Or did you bring it here for a decision to be reached in regards the closeness to the two timestamps? Had you been a minute slower, or he a minute faster, it would be a none-issue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I give up. You don't understand the software, you insist, wrongly since I wasn't editing the article, which I've already point out, that there must have been an edit conflict that I would have seen (thus not granting me good faith), and you evidently feel you need to have someone to blame and won't consider that it might have been better for you to take it to DRV in the first place rather than recreate an article so shortly after it had been deleted. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I do not understand the software you use, but I do however understand that at nearly the same time as you were evalauating the article to determine if a CSD was vaild, another editor was himself making his own evaluation. I don't know which of you began their evaluation first... I only know which one finished first. I also know that if this stupid article is returned to mainspace it will be sent to AfD within seconds. I also realize that it will likely have 15-20 delete opinions posted with the first few seconds... all pretty much saying the same things being said above. But, and no matter repeated claims to the contrary, it is different enough to deserve a chance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse behind all the puff of the new article, there still isn't anything to demonstrate that he's actually notable. There's no in depth discussion of him anywhere, only trivial mentions. ThemFromSpace 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Puffery is a negative essay recently created (January 19) which very premise lacks good faith: that editors are simply adding references to avoid deletion. Not surprisingly, this negative "puff" piece has been enthusiastically picked up by editors who delete.
It is hard for me to believe that all 28 references are not notable, including a book, Time magazine, New York Times, Billboard, for all references, see: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article#References. Ikip (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well a clear consensus was arrived at by the editors who participated in the AfD 2 weeks ago that they did not establish notability. No new sources that would have changed that consensus have come to light. Ssome of those sources you link to, by the way, don't mention him at all and are not remotely about him, like the Taibbi article [1] or the Necomonicon book [2]; others have barely passing mentions -- for instance, this one [3] says "Internet bohemians and online celebrities, people with handles like "Mnemonic," "Razor" and "Garbled Uplink" went to a party. No further mention of "Garbled Uplink" or Cabal at all. Some, like the Jewish Press [4] note that he sent them a mean email. Most are self-published or otherwise not independent of the source (the article about the defunct band by the band leader). There's nothing new here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those wishing for an overturn must do more than assert that the reposted article differed significantly from the AfD'd version. The speedy is only demonstrably incorrect if the reposted version addressed the reasons for deletion (i.e. a lack of independent sources establishing notability). If a consensus is established to that effect, the article can be restored (and those who still wish to see it deleted may re-nominate it for AfD). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand your statement, and had the revised article been sent to AfD, would be properly answering these questions about the differring interpretations of the 5 new sources. And with respects to the good faith of User:Black Kite in his evaluation determining the revised article deserving that chance, feel inclined to now ask how many different ways the wording of a CSD tag is allowed to be interpreted? What is now being asked is a sort of Double jeopardy, no? The same "trial" twice? I certainly cannot "announce" this discussion anywhere, else be involved in canvasing... and those who might have then had chance to see it at an AfD and opine do not even know it had come back. Independent sources HAVE indeed been brought to this discussion: The Jewish Press, Newsday article, 2 Billboard articles, two books: Our Gods Wear Spandex and Cyberville... but this is a venue I thought was intended for discussing the unusual events of the speedy deletion, and not one to discuss former versions of the new article. If I'm wrong, fine... but I have seen it many times repeated at DRVs that they are not the venue for rehasing an AfD... only for investigating the event of the deletion itself.
    If however, a preliminary AfD is to be held here, and to answer ThemFromSpace, in-depth discussions of the subject are found in the Cyberville article... pages 13, 20-21, 23, 32, 39, 114, 168, 212, 336 and a few other pages probably too that I didn't catch. In the Newsday article he's mentioned several times in every paragraph. The Zundel controversy is in-depth too. So if this venue IS to be a preliminary AfD, I ask that some method similar to an AfD posting be put forward that can let interested editors know that the discussion is indeed taking place... because in looking at the AfDs for earlier versions, there certainly were other editors that felt the article worth keeping on Wiki. Might not their opinions be just as worthy as any other's here? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore to new version of the article. Two admins looked at this article at essentially the same time and made judgments that were different, and both were made in good faith. I see no abuse of process here and the timing and tag removal issues are unimportant, as the core purpose of this DRV is to look at the article and decide if it was subject to a G4 deletion as recreated content, not to point fingers or to argue about timing. Also, this is the appropriate venue, not ANI. After comparing the two versions, I see sufficient differences prima facie that support that it is not subject to a G4 speedy deletion. The content is clearly different, it's structured differently, there are way more references, 28 vs. 10, and there are more included bibliographic entries, and the word count is 535 vs. 2025 (new). It's very clearly a new and different version, the issues in the last AfD have been addressed, including RS relative to notability. The deletion thus fails G4 criteria. The author did not just rehash the same content with a few word changes as an end run around the last AfD. Any issues about notability, references, or other editorial concerns should be argued in a new AfD, if someone is so inclined. Bottom line: The new article is not a G4 recreation and should stand or fall on it's own merits. — Becksguy (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Becksguy. This is not a subject to speedy deletion. Massive numbers of references: 28.Ikip (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question—Has any attempt been made to follow up the remark in the third AfD from the IP address purporting to be the article's subject? In cases of marginal notability like this one, maybe the subject's wishes should be taken into account. I am in no way suggesting that his attitude to Wikipedia stinks and we should give him an unflattering article just to piss him off. Because that would be quite wrong of me. So I haven't suggested it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to make it as neutral and balanced as possible. Trust that there is stuff online that paints him in an extremely unflattering light... but in being neutral, such invective had no place in a BLP, so it was left out. My work on it was as a personal challenge to see if even the worst article might be made suitable for wiki. I had thought I was successful. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, Michael. Procedural relist because there was genuine confusion between administrators here, and it's not unreasonable to ask for it to be relisted under the circumstances.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The article seems improved, both with respect to balance and to references. It deserves another discussion. DGG (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate, the admins didn't reach the same conclusion, so lets go with the same default result as a no consensus at AfD, keep. That said, this might have a hard a time in the inevitable AfD. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There still aren't any sources that address him in depth. AniMatetalk 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to improvements, i.e. sufficiently notable for the paperless encyclopedia anybody can edit. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse latest AfD or keep deleted or endorse G4 speedy clarified Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC), depending on whether this is a deletion or recreation DRV. The new version is substantially longer, but I don't see convincing improvements with respect to the AfD closing rationale. Why didn't the article creator request recreation at DRV before moving to article space? Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Requesting recreation at DRV is common practice, and approval immunizes an article against WP:CSD#G4. Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The newer article's creator saw the deleted as one lacking substance and scope and not itself being worthy of return. The newer article's creator then took the sorry state of the deleted article as a challange to instead create a properly balanced and neutral one so as to improve the project, adding information and sources not previously existing within the one that had earlier been deleted. The article's creator took special note of the timbre of the arguments used in the deletion AfD and did as much as possible to address the more salient objections. The author then today learned that his efforts to address those issues in the article and so improve the project were themselves for some reason under extremely close scrutiny. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cmt really? You are the "newer" article's "creator" (which has the same precise standard of sourcing as the last one). And this is what you, the "newer article's creator" wrote on the last AfD, which was 12-2 for delete -- "Keep Same reasonings and discussions as at the last AfD. Nothing has changed except perhaps interested editors do not realize it is once more on the block. No doubt it will be returned to a 4th or 5th AFD if there is another no consensus keep here. And I really do not wish to have to dredge up the sources offered from the last AfD, but will if it is absolutely required. And yes, I was notified about this discussion, but the article is already on my watch list." [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Response to unsigned statement) Did I say I was not the author of the new article? Simply responded in 3rd person felt correct at that moment. ANd thank you for underscoring my impresion that some wish to use this venue as an AfD and not a DRV. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn On the basis that there was a disagreement over whether it was a speedy candidate.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC) below account community banned User:Manhattan Samurai sock; usually his edits are removed. For some reason, other editors want it to remain. *Overturn For a guy who's supposedly of "insufficient notoriety" for Wikipedia inclusion, Mr. Cabal has ginned up quite the ongoing debate. What's really striking is that his name is now one of the only RED entries in a number of Wikipedia entries that cite him, e.g. CounterPunch; Gonzo journalism; and New York Press. I'm also not seeing why Cabal is less important than say, Jeff Koyen; Toby Young; Christopher X. Brodeur; John Birmingham; or Tucker Max, the latter entry which started as a self-promotion tool back in 2004, fully two years before the subject was of note for anything. Additionally, blog entries are used for thousands of Wiki references, including many of those I just cited, but for some reason, not allowed for Cabal. Seems like mucho double standards for the Cabal entry. Jarmancooper (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)— Jarmancooper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blocked as sock of community banned User:Manhattan Samurai.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I please have a link to the checkuser case that implicates Manhattan Samurai? Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's not proven to be a sock at the moment, so I've removed the strikeout on the comment—it is possible that this is an experienced IP editor who's just registered an account. Though I do understand the suspicion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And i've restruck. Take it up with blocking admin if you don't like it. I will not allow MS to disrupt this (particularly after this was recreated substantially unchanged 2 weeks after an AFD went 12-2 against this, and which was littered with his socks.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I've unstruck again. The SPA tag is sufficient.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? There are others here and elsewhere who have quite politely disagreed with you... others who recognize that it is substantially different. Their opinions are just as worthy as yours. Thank you for the continued good faith responses. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith extends to people who disagree with you. Actually, that's probably the most important aspect of assuming good faith here. I've noticed you've thrown the phrase around here alot in this debate, seemingly exclusively to those who you perceive to be agreeing with you, with the notable exception above. I'm sure Bali ultimate is assuming good faith but he also realizes that assuming good faith doesn't mean we can't use our brains to point out the obvious. I just hope that you were sincere when you thanked him for assuming good faith. AniMatetalk 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Bali Ultimate has been the epitome of courtesy and respect. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for recognizing that Bali ultimate is both courteous and respectful. When we treat those with whom we disagree with good faith, Wikipedia works. I'm sure you understand why many of us are wary of a new user making their first comment here after everything with Manhattan Samurai and his socks. This whole mess really isn't too big of a deal, as single purpose accounts who show up only to express opinions in contentious debates aren't given that much weight. Still, thank you for being sincere and assuming good faith in regards to Bali ultimate. Your sincere attitude is to be commended. AniMatetalk 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the blocking admin for the block reason in the absence of any checkuser evidence and was told "See the duck test". I replied "Sorry, and with respects, I think Wikipedia would need to see a few just a couple more feathers to presume it is a quacker from one specific individual... meaning that Wikipedia might wish to see more than just one edit to make a specific allegation that the account is one any one specific individual, as there are thousands of banned or blocked users that meet the same "test". Now certainly the comments of a SPA account will be generally be discounted, and certainly Manhattan Samurai has a puppet history... but if the SPA is not a puppet of MS, he has been blocked for simply making one edit and voicing one opinion, I would recommend he/she come forward and request an unblock. If it is MS, a checkuser can make such determination. But if it is not.... well, somebody got blocked who might not deserve to have been... simply for voicing an opinion in a rather civil manner. Any checkuser's or admins wish to opine? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Q: Thanks for pressing on. You're doing the right thing, not only by this entry, but thousands of others. And no, I'm not a sock of Manhattan Chowder, et. al. or a meat puppet, or whatever (the list seems endless these days). I made a valid point, backed it up with several facts, and instead of dealing with the point, Bali and GG--who've apparently both been after this entry for a long time--decided to violate "WP:Block Conflicts of interest -- Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." So I'm blocked -- using the "Like a duck" rule (is this now standard WP?) -- because I spoke up against an insidious practice that has become one of several fundamental and almost tragicomic inequities in this once free and open place: The attack of particular entries for reasons that, while they may be valid in some cases, are not consistently applied, and often seem more related to an editor's ego, personal issues and ability to rally powerful pseudonyms to his or her cause than the desire to objectively disseminate the truth. A sympathizer sent me another example: Tim Folger, asking eight months after its creation, why isn't it being rewritten, deleted, etc.? I don't know. I can't answer. The WP guides are so innumerable and so confusing anymore it's completely discouraging. I used to edit here and I really used to enjoy this place. I thought the Wales vision was as socially and encyclopedically ingenious as it was technologically disruptive. But I've lost my taste for it. "The Encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?" Unless, of course, you're a sock, a meat, a blocked, a banned, a spa, an urban samurai, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Who is this slogan kidding? Wikipedia is an incredible tool, but it is slowly and inexorably being corrupted, by the very forces it set out to eradicate. If that's the voice of a disruptive sock speaking, then so be it. I'd like to think I deserve the "Emperor, You're Naked" Barnstar, but this is not an environment given to self-examination and that's precisely what is slowly killing it.Jarmancooper2 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>

To Jarmancooper/Jarmancooper2: Now you are definitely showing yourself as a sock... I don't believe it has been proven of Manhattan Samurai, but a sock of someone none-the-less. If you wish to appeal the block, there are procedures to follow. Creating another sock as a voice is not the way to proceed, and will doubtless result in continued blocks of the new accounts. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (perhaps relist). The article had additional sources that weren't in the previous version. That means an attempt was made to address the concerns expressed at AFD. Such articles do not fall under the G4 speedy deletion criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 07:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wil be content with whatever the community decides about this article and probably won't take part in an AfD if that follows. Just in case there is any confusion still about the tagging debate, I should point out that the only relevance is that another Admin, perhaps correctly, thought it was not a G4 candidate. Articles don't need tags to be speedy deleted. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully endorse there is no reason to overturn the deletion of this non-notables biography, despite the obvious socking. Verbal chat 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist I think it's unlikely to be kept at AfD, but I don't think it is a speedy candidate as it is significantly different. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for procedural reasons. The speedy was declined by Black Kite (talk · contribs) and per deletion policy, another admin should not overrule it. If they do it by mistake, they should restore it when realizing their mistake. Whether the article itself is worthy of inclusion is not the subject of this DRV but of an AFD that can be started afterwards. This DRV is about the G4 speedy deletion and that should be overturned on grounds of respecting another admin's decision. All comments about whether this article is G4 or is not are void because it was already declined by the time of deletion. Everything else would allow forum-shopping and wheel-warring between admins who disagree with each others decisions and any other outcome here would effectively set a precedent for future conflicts when two admins reach different conclusions about a speedy candidate. I'm assuming dougweller acted in good faith but once he knew about the previous decline, he should have restored the article and use other ways of deletion instead. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This DRV isn't really about the speedy, though. Even though I declined the speedy, I brought it here (which is where it should probably have been to begin with) for the community to decide whether the re-creation was correct. Otherwise, the article would probably have been AfDd again anyway. Black Kite 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, DRV is about whether deletions were correct, not recreations. While I understand your motivations, I'd say you decided that it was okay to recreate when you declined the G4 speedy. After all, the decision behind declining an G4 is usually "this article is not substantially the same that was AFDed, so the AFD consensus cannot be applied". The only thing this DRV can decide is whether the deletion afterwards was correct, because DRV is not AFD2. If the new article should be kept or not is something a new AFD has to decide, that has no place at a DRV imho. Regards SoWhy 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again - 'deletion afterwards' could easily suggest that I was aware that while I was deleting the article another Admin was declining the Speedy, which is not what happened. Once again, the actions were virtually simultaneous, and as I probably initiated the deletion before the speedy was removed, even if the software only finished it afterwards, there could equally be an argument just as wrong that the deletion came before the decline. Neither is correct, they happened at what was to all intents and purposes the same time, going through two distinctly different software processes. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I did not want to imply this. I used "afterwards" in the sense only that by the time you deleted, Black Kite had declined it. Whether you were aware of it or not, I cannot judge so I'm assuming you were not. My point is solely that imho you should have restored it once you became aware of this conflict simply because the first admin decision recorded in the logs about the page should count, not the latter. It's a purely procedural point, I know, but it helps to make clear that the first admin's decision should not be overruled, not even accidentally. Regards SoWhy 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think by the time I realised what had happened, things had progressed to DRV and others had commented. Even then it didn't occur to me to undelete - I assumed that since the DRV had been initiated, that was what should happen. I still think that a DRV should have taken place before the article was recreated only 2 weeks after an AfD. What I do wish is that I'd never seen it! Of course, there still almost certainly would have been an AfD as soon as the speedy was removed. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response There is no wheel-warring. There was a virtually simultaneous set of actions, where I initiated a deletion of a tagged article but by the time I had finished the process the tag had been removed. There has been no disagreement in the sense of one of us seeing the other's actions and then taking a contrary action. If Black Kite had asked me at the time I would probably have undeleted it, but that did not happen and he took it to DRV instead. Because of that, I'm leaving it to the community to decide. I'm not sure why, given the number of people who have endorse the deletion, you think I should now unilaterally ignore them, Black Kites's actions and the DRV and make a decision myself. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller is correct, there is no wheel-warring. I don't see the slightest hint of anything but full good faith actions by either admin. This is a case of different judgment calls made virtually simultaneously. — Becksguy (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The fundamental flaws that led to the deletion are still present, and shifting the words around doesn't protect it from the {{db-repost}} criteria. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new article grew (from the old version to the new version) from roughly 535 to 2025 words, an increase of almost 4 times, the number of references grew from 10 to 28, an increase of almost 3 times, and there is more structure now, from 1 section to 3 sections in the body. The article is obviously and clearly substantially different and has addressed the issues raised at AFD3. To characterize the change as "shifting the words around" is grossly unfair and also clearly untrue on it's face. Regardless of any other changes, just shifting the words around would result in an article of about the same size. I did a side by side comparison using two windows and the difference is crystal clear. If you feel the article is lacking, then argue at AfD4, which I'm sure will be initiated microseconds afterwards, if the article is restored. This DRV is about the G4 speedy deletion of the new article, nothing else. — Becksguy (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't turn it into Miss Universe, it's still a pig. Re-iterate opinion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. No sense insulting all the Miss Universes with a Cabal comparison. They deserve much better. I suppose what I attempted was to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse... but it is still perceived as smelling of swine. Maybe I should turn my attention toward making that article on Baconaise into a FA, as edible pork products are apparently seen as far more notable than contoversial writers... and heck, it already has 6 sources and only one is a blog.
Look.... I grant that Cabal is not popular among many wiki editors, and because of that unpopularity, his article is under a great deal of scrutiny. And even though it will likely never be FA or GA, the improved article is in much better shape than many others (see Baconaise). And yes, if the DRV of the new article results in it being allowed to be reposted, it will immediately be rushed to AfD #5 (I see this DRV as AfD #4), and will have a dozen delete opinions immediately within the first few seconds of it being so nominated.
Cabal is seen as an ass by many. He is controversial. He is hated. But he does have enough independent coverage toward notability as required by guideline, and enough verification of his backgound... and he is even quoted by other notables in their own works, which seems to show his imfluences as a personality... even if sometimes seen as a noteriety. I feel that if the article can be kept neutral and non-defamitory, it will remain a proper and encyclopedic contribution to these pages... and certainly one of more note than bacon flavored mayonaise. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your laboured attempt at humour--you should probably not be doing that sort of thing for a living--and attempt to divine peoples' motivations without actual evidence are noted but irrelevant, and the 'independent coverage' which has been scraped up in a desperate bid to 'save' this article, as has been noted already, are still crap references. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see two DRVs going on at the same time here. One is the DRV for the recreation of the Alan Cabal article and the other is the DRV for the speedy deletion of the recreated Alan Cabal article. It's interesting to point out that most arguing to endorse the deletion are arguing about the former DRV and those arguing otherwise are arguing about the latter DRV. I think this should be about the former as any recreation of a deleted article like this should go through DRV first. That it didn't go through the proper channels isn't an excuse that the article should be kept as is because two admins differed on the terminology of speedy deletion. This shouldn't have even been posted in the first place without going through a recreation DRV, so any arguments about the speedy deletion are moot. ThemFromSpace 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy deletion and allow Schmidt's version of the article. I don't see how the new version of the article construes as wikipuffery. With that said, as SoWhy said above, I am assuming good faith in that the admins in question aren't doing anything unbecoming their position. This is exactly what DRV is for. Finally, I don't oppose to relisting at AFD; in fact, I expect that someone will probably re-nominate it. MuZemike 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Procedural grounds, and per the purported sock of Manhattan Samurai: 'For a guy who's supposedly of "insufficient notoriety" for Wikipedia inclusion, Mr. Cabal has ginned up quite the ongoing debate. What's really striking is that his name is now one of the only RED entries in a number of Wikipedia entries that cite him, e.g. CounterPunch; Gonzo journalism; and New York Press. I'm also not seeing why Cabal is less important than say, Jeff Koyen; Toby Young; Christopher X. Brodeur; John Birmingham; or Tucker Max, the latter entry which started as a self-promotion tool back in 2004, fully two years before the subject was of note for anything. Additionally, blog entries are used for thousands of Wiki references, including many of those I just cited, but for some reason, not allowed for Cabal. Seems like mucho double standards for the Cabal entry.' Unomi (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse false accusations against an editor raise a presumption that the editor acted properly; this presumption has not been overcome. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for procedural reasons. Take it to AfD if need be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OverturnI'm getting dizzy from this game of musical chairs. Two admin's butts hit the chair at the same time. Seems like the only fair thing to impose is a re-do. Also Editor:Schmidt had made considerable improvement to the article. Like them or not, the article is worthy of reconsideretion since the facelift. No implication of impropriety. Let's start over and see what happens. --Buster7 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as has been noted by others above, the core issue from the previous AFD - notability - has not been addressed in the new version. That said, hats off to MichaelQSchmidt for giving the article it's best chance. Nancy talk 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MichaelQSchmidt has added nine new references during this DRV, bringing the total to 37, as compared to 10 in the old version. — Becksguy (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt And not a single one establishes notability for Cabal. There is still nothing written about Cabal in a single reliable source. I've provided my analysis of these sources on this DRVs talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It seems agreed that there was a procedural snafu and the article is, in any case, too substantial now for speedy deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the reason for the deletion (lack of notability) was clearly not addressed by the rewrite. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:25, 3 April 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.
Ill Na Na 2: The Fever (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting WP:PROD; album does meet WP:NALBUMS despite being unreleased, see my draft Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:05, 30 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.
Daphne Loves Derby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting PROD, as group meets WP:MUSIC (e.g., [6]. Chubbles (talk) 00:33, 30 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.

Administrator instructions

29 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TurnKey Linux (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article has been rewritten (User:Abd/TurnKey Linux) and cites multiple reliable sources. LirazSiri (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a link to the AfD, please?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be one: Guy A7'd it, and it was subsequently userfied. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then allow restoration. Aside from the sources Hobit correctly mentions below, it's appropriate for Wikipedia to contain plenty of information about free, open source content because of Wikipedia's own nature.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost positive there was an AfD or DrV, but I'm not finding it. Weird. Hobit (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it's appropriate for Wikipedia to contain plenty of information about free, open source content because of Wikipedia's own nature" -- couldn't possibly disagree more. Everything is about proper sourcing; whether a software is open and free, or closed and commercial, shouldn't make the slightest difference. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Restoration I vaguely recall the AfD, but just looking at the sources, I think there is enough there. The German source and infoworld both are RSes. The "WorkswithU" site is just one step (maybe) above a SPS. Linuxdevices seems to be a RS. Sources are a bit light on material, but there's enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to mainspace. Just finished checking out the sourcing and I concur 100% with Hobit. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3 and subsequently Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 9. Also, I believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnkey Software Projects is a related topic. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 05:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Sourcing now seems to have cleared up notability issues that may have affected earlier versions of the article that were previously under DRV. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - nice work on acquiring the reliable refs. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Probably as reliable as references will get for some open-source software. Spring12 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Agree that the article has RS, not the greatest I've seen, but enough for a non-controversial subject. Infoweek is a major newspaper in the IT industry. I can't comment on comparison with previous version(s) without them to see, but this version look OK. — Becksguy (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Administrator instructions


28 March 2009[edit]

  • Lori Haigh no consensus, endorsed by default, so undeletion is denied. Article can be recreated from scratch if so desired.– Aervanath (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lori Haigh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

If you google Lori Haigh, pages and pages come up about her. She is currently the subject of a HarperCollins book. She is known for not just one single issue as stated in the deletion request. We feel the deletion requests were made and concurred with by malicious individuals in her personal life and we request the page be reinstated. She was the only person in history to be sued by a Catholic priest. Someone has been deleting the facts, changing the facts and then making it appear unworthy for a wiki page. Her art gallery was famous the world over, and the gallery website receives over 10,000 hits a month to it. Please reinstate the Lori Haigh page. 67.164.39.237 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions Who are 'we'? And why didn't you discuss with with the editor who closed the AfD Bjweeks (talk · contribs) as the process asks you to? Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We" is someone who is very confused, and who has little to no knowledge of history. It's pretty certain that Scott MacDonald has nothing to do with this person's personal life. And anyone who thinks that Roman Catholic priests don't sue people for libel has never looked into the subject. Hearne v. Stowell (2 A. & E. 719, 6 Jur. 458), an 1840 case where a Roman Catholic priest sued for libel, was cited as case law precedent for many years afterwards, and in fact can still be found listed under libel in law books even today.

      It looks like we are missing an article on Hugh Stowell, and probably Daniel Hearne as well. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse – This is not AFD round 2. Also a deletion review based on bad faith presumptions. MuZemike 18:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing has been presented to show that the deletion process wasn't properly followed, and deletion review is limited to considering whether or not it was. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted that the deletion discussion was closed a little early, but there is no point relisting it only for it to be deleted again another five days later. If someone has citations to reliable sources which would change the direction of the AFD, which was clearly tending towards deletion when closed, I'd be happy to reconsider. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, deletion procedure was followed correctly. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Relist I think if I am reading the date stamps right that the AfD was closed after only 3.5 days, and that this deletion review was started about 5 days after the AfD was started. If the AfD had been left open for the full 5 days, then the person requesting this deletion review might have been able to make his or her claims that person is notable (i.e. that they are the subject of a book and run a notable art gallery) in the AfD discussion. Of course, this is probably moot if the claims to notability can't be backed up by reliable sources, as the AfD would just end in delete again. Also, I just want to mention to the person starting this deletion review that you should assume good faith.Calathan (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Premature close as observed by Calathan. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Close was a bit early and this isn't a clear case. Anything that has this many sources is always debatable and so the AFD should have been allowed to run it's full course. In an AfD I'd suggest we move this from coverage of the person to coverage of the event or actually just delete it. She's got a lot of news coverage, some of which proceeds the one event. But BLP issues and the nature of the material make me feel an article purely about the subject is inappropriate. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Hobit. At the AfD I would argue for a merge, with a mention of the case and the three rather good references from the former "Lori Haigh" article moved to Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Compensation_payouts, and both "Lori Haigh" and "John Lenihan" redirected to there.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Deletions at afd run for 5 days, in the absence of a valid reason for speedy or an explicit snow close that is obviously sensible. DGG (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Not convinced that the article should stay, but Google turns up some information about Haigh's work as an art gallery owner that establishes notability outside of the single incident mentioned in the initial article- she was discussed in the press following an attack on her during the showing of controversial artwork, and operates a gallery that has shown art by some notable people. At the very least, we should get input from more than three editors and let the AfD run its full course before deleting. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (without prejudice against recreation) I would've preferred if the deleting admin had clarified their reason in the close since it would clearly be controversial, but I can see a BLP issue in there. If the focus is moved to something else, there might just be an article in it. I suggest the nominator makes a draft in userspace first. - Mgm|(talk) 07:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • valid AfD + bad faith assuming request for review + BLP concerns + marginal notability = Endorse--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it's not salted, so if there's something more than what was under consideration, it could be recreated with that additional material consistent with BLP etc... While, that way, it may have a second bite at the apple (another chance of surviving AFD); DRV is not that second bite. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Buddhism and the body (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was used for navigation between the pages specified on the removed. Removal does not coincide with one rule. search request db-DAB--Andrey! 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • For non-administrators: It was a disambiguation article for Sestroretsk railway station and Sestroretsk rail station 1871-1924, each of which has a headnote pointing to the other, and it didn't have "disambiguation" spelled correctly in the title. (I mis-type it too, sometimes. ☺) And it was deleted, as AndreyA observes, through speedy deletion, even though no speedy deletion criterion for such pages exists. (Usually, such disambiguations are sent through Proposed Deletion if someone wants them deleted.) Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me a navigating template to make in the beginning of article or standard methods we will manage?--Andrey! 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. While nothing strictly permitted this page's deletion, it is extremely unlikely that someone will type in both a misspelling of the station name and "disambiguation". As such, while process has not been strictly followed, there is no sense in undeleting it and putting the page through a deletion discussion only to have it properly redeleted. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, not a valid speedy deletion, and the deleting admin should be slapped over the wrist for that, but as Uncle G points out above, a disambig for two articles that reference each other and which has a spelling error in the title is not going to be all that useful. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Stifle.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Stifle and Lankiveil. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Stifle. The sort-of procedural violation (a liberal application of criterion G6 could justify the deletion) in this case was not so significant as to warrant undeletion on that grounds alone. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:58, 30 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.
  • Buddhism and the body – History undeleted. The new article is different from the AFDed version, so GFDL should be followed by giving proper attribution. – Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Buddhism and the body (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting a 'history-only' undeletion. The original article was poorly focused and suffered from extensive essay-type OR. I initially !voted for its deletion. Several participants in AfD cited my and another editor's (User:Mitsube) comments in their move to delete. Late in the process, I came to feel that some of the referenced material in the article could be preserved in a properly focused and sourced article on the topic (which is discussed in a number major publications on Buddhism). I created a draft version of a new article in my userspace which deleted the OR, and added a new introduction and subject headings to refocus the article, sourced (in my comments though not explicitly in the article, as it was intended as a working draft) from the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. I linked to the new article in the AfD, and several editors commented that it appeared to be an appropriate starting point for an acceptable Wikipedia article on the topic. My hope was that after a little back and forth on AfD, we could post the new version of the article and close the discussion. However, the AfD was close by an admin (User:MBisanz), I think on the basis of the consensus before the new version of the article was offered, after just a couple on the article by the participants in the AfD. I went ahead and moved the new version of the article into the old space, forgetting about the need to keep the history for the old contributions. User:Aleta caught this and started Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material to discuss the situation. People seemed to feel that DR was the best solution; resurrect the old history for the article, and the current version will be the next edit if DR ops to restore. Clay Collier (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn The discussion at AFD did not establish a consensus for deletion (7 keep, 2 merge and 9 delete). As we see above, some of the delete !votes were made without a proper understanding of the process. The closer failed to provide any explanation of his finding in such muddled circumstances and so the original article's history should be restored and the AFD result amended accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow the requested history-only undeletion. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree entirely with Colonel WardenVote Cthulhu (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History-only-undeletion is fine here. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. The AfD result was clear and the merge votes were against retaining the substance of the article. One of those merges was "merge and delete" and the other was "Merge anything that is salvageable". The opinion is clearly that the original article was fundamentally flawed. If Clay Collier is inspired to create an entirely new article suggested by this one then good luck to him - choose a new title and find a new rationale. andy (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the result was that clear. By my count, it was 11-6 for deletion counting all merges as deletes before the introduction of the new version of the article. Mitsube and I changed our view after the new version was posted; another user stated that their vote was based on the arguments that that Mitsube and I had made for deletion. Taking out just Mitsube and I makes it at most 9-8 for deletion. Given that people involved in the discussion who were in favor of deletion have said that they were fine with the new version, that seems like no consensus to me. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collier has the point here. Why Andyjsmith continues in his relentless crusade against this and a handful of other articles even in the face of consensual opinion and fact itself is beyond me.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the edits and not the editor, please. Aleta Sing 02:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD close, but allow history-only undeletion. As neither Clay Collier nor Mitsube amended their original rationales, it is unreasonable to expect the closing admin to interpret their later comments as retractions or reversals. The situation has been clarified, and the new article appears substantially different from the initial copy to user space. Flatscan (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original close, but allow history-only undeletion. I hate to say "me too", but I think Flatscan sums up my opinion fairly well for the most part. The original AfD could have remained open a little longer after the new version was posted, but I think this process will take care of it. Care should be taken that no article on this subject become a synthesic essay - I think there is a high potential for it. Aleta Sing 02:43, 30 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.
Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that not only was this category moved without any clear consensus but it is now adding clearly false information to dozens (or perhaps hundreds of articles). Satellites which are famously known to be sunk to the bottom of the sea or impacted into land are now categorized as "orbiting Earth". Including Sputnik 1 itself! I have no idea why the editors at Categories for Deletion are apparently allergic to using the term "former" as to me indicating the difference between something that is currently or is not currrently is a simple fact that is easily encyclopedic. But I also believe that there was no consensus for this move based on the discussion comments, several of which raised concerns about it. Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun was also moved by the same editor also without consensus (and possibly also introducing the same basic error of fact into some articles, I haven't checked.) In that case the category was moved to one that no discussion participant even mentioned. Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist for wider discussion As with many CfDs,the participation in the discussion was insufficient. As a minimum, appropriate workgroups and wikiprojects should be notified, as at AfD, and time allowed for the possibly interested people to comment. CfD is an obscure process,and nobody who is actually concerned with working on articles will know about it. Any reasonable appeal from it should be allowed & result in a relisting, until we figure out how to fix it so it gets representative and knowledgeable participation. DGG (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. There was nothing wrong with the close, there was consensus for the move. --Kbdank71 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The discussion was inadequate and did not arrive at a decisive conclusion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – there is clear consensus for the move. There are very few current/former categories - membership of Category:Presidents of the United States implies nothing about current status. Occuli (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That one doesn't but as soon as you include the word "orbiting" into a sentence about satellites without any qualifiers currency is implied. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per DGG. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to get broader participation. 'Former' might be appropriate here, even if it isn't for other situations. I'm sure there are space flight and astro WikiProjects that should probably be tipped as to the discussion on this particular category. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No amount of consensus should result in introducing factual errors. If outright overturning doesn't gain enough support, a relisting should discuss possible alternative titles that address this. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Wikipedia former featured articles and categories like former monarchies (removing it there, also implies currency of the fact when it actually isn't. Does anyone know where the supposed rule that was being used is documented? - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Current_or_former. Call it "custom", "tradition", "precedent", "long-standing consensus", or what you will. I think on balance it's fair to say that it's been most often applied to categories for people or objects and not to organizations or institutions, like monarchies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify- what's the rationale for the avoidance of the 'former' modified in this case, or in general? I can see that we wouldn't want categories for something that might change on a regular basis, but 'Satellites Formerly Orbiting the Earth' seems pretty definitive. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see anything wrong with the close other than I disagree with the result (per Mgm's reasoning). Hobit (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the right thing to do, IAR perhaps, is to relist. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there was no error made in the close by the admin and there has been no new information presented here suggesting that reviewing this decision is warranted. There is no minimum required participation for CFD so the idea that there was insufficient discussion as at best a misunderstanding of how CFD works and at worst expressive of a desire by an extreme inclusionist to radically transform the CFD process itself. Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the claim that no one interested in working on articles will be aware of the CFD process is not only patently false and patently ridiculous, it is patently insulting to editors who participate heavily in CFD. As one who is involved in the AFD process, CFD process and manages to bang out the occasional article, my experience has been that, with a couple of extreme inclusionist exceptions, the editors who participate heavily in CFD have a far better grasp and understanding of both the process and the relevant policies and guidelines than do the editors who pop in and out of AFDs when their pet articles are up for discussion. Perhaps you might want to "refactor" your comment? Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No error made here by the closer in interpreting the discussion. The main issue raised by the nominator here was raised at the discussion itself, so this cannot be said to be "new information" that wasn't considered at the time. The current name may be misinterpreted by some, but that would be a good reason to re-nominate the categories for a potentially better name—something like Category:Artificial satellites sent into orbit around Earth or something more elegant. But the fact that an even better name can be found is not a good reason to overturn the decision and revert back to names that fairly clearly went against one of the long-standing practices of good categories—to avoid "current" and "former" designations. (With Otto I also think the comments about the degree and quality of participation at CfD is purely POV/speculative with little basis in fact.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This CfD contains a huge mistake in the way it was presented and no CfD should ever result in this sort of error. I can see this happening due to the way the categories were listed/grouped in the CfD itself:
    Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth to Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth
    Because of the way this was grouped with the other proposed renames people were caught unaware of this key change. Anyone not looking closely would assume this to be a typical rename to a better title, when actually this meant non-orbiting satellites would get recategorized as orbiting.
    Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth fulfills a purpose and should exist.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Administrator instructions

27 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Selvidge Middle School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting undeletion so that the content in this school's article can be merged to its school district, Rockwood School District. This article was deleted in an AfD debate during the days when school articles were deleted instead of being merged to their respective school districts. I would like to salvage some of the content from Selvidge Middle School, and expand Rockwood School District#Selvidge Middle School. When the article is undeleted, please redirect it to Rockwood School District#Selvidge Middle School. Thanks, Cunard (talk)

  • As far as I can tell, per the AfD, the article had no verifiable reliable sources. What of that content do you want to merge into another article? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to use the deleted content in the article as a stepping stone to merging the content. The unverifiable content in the article can be easily sourced by the school's website. Cunard (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whilst I sympathise, and indeed agree that edit history can be useful, I'm not sure that it really is in this particular case. Looking through the edits, there are no sources at all for anything, and the (purported) facts differ from revision to revision. For example: Does the school have 700 or 800 pupils? Two different revisions state two different numbers. Neither cites a source. (A third says 728. Again, there's no source.) How useful is either bare statement of fact going to be to future sourced content? Not useful at all, appears to be the correct answer, since according to the WWW site that you yourself point to, both revisions were falsehoods.

        There's not really all that much in the edit history that either doesn't have the same problems of self-contradiction across revisions and inaccuracy or that isn't simple regurgitation of a school directory listing. (Several revisions are little more than the name and address of the institution, in some revisions supplemented by the fact that its pupils come from other schools.) About the only information that is useful in the deleted edits are some MAP results. But by my calculations what was in the deleted revisions doesn't agree with the published figures.

        So whilst I sympathize, I suspect that if you use the deleted content as a stepping stone you'll waste a lot of time sorting fact from falsehood, that you could have spent just getting actual facts from actual reliable sources. You'll still have to obtain facts from sources. You'll just waste additional time using them to check what deleted content was true — time that is probably more profitably spent simply writing up the facts that one has obtained from sources directly. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I have now added sourced content to the article, but I would still like to have the history of the old article to see if there is anything I can salvage.

          In response to your comment above about the number of the students this school has: it varies from year to year. In 2004, the school had 742 pupils; in 2006, it had 692; it 2008, it had 714 (source). Due to the constant changes every year, the school may have had 800 pupils in a year before 2004. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • I'm well aware that it fluctuates. Nonetheless, none of the deleted revisions actually have correct information. That's but one example of the mess that you'll find. It's your time to spend, but don't say that you weren't warned when you conclude at the end of the process of looking up all of the purported facts properly in sources and checking everything to see whether it is actually correct or not that you weren't really helped by the deleted content very much, if at all, and could have done just as well on your own from scratch. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems reasonable, but bear in mind that content should be cited to reliable third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted If all the old content was not cited to any reliable source, editors should just use the reliable sources that they can find. There is no good reason to use the unsourced content if they are going to find a source for it anyway. GRBerry 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above, the unsourced content would give me more information to work with. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, normally I'd support a request such as this, but in this case the contents of the article are unsourced, and in my opinion, of a fairly low quality, with lots of promotional language and the like. I'd suggest starting from scratch using the school's website as a reference and source for new content. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • So why not allow the user to see the material so they, as an editor, can figure out what can reasonably be merged. I don't understand the point of hiding material from them. We seem to be asking them to take our word for it that there is nothing useful here. Hobit (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't suppose I'd mind too much if a history-only undelete was performed and the article was redirected, but having looked at the article again, none of the incarnations as far as I'm concerned had any sourcing or references. I don't believe we should be merging unsourced material into any article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Undelete as a starting point This is not the place to consider the reliability of the content. The original deletion decision is from 07, and nowadays we would normally redirect or merge rather than do an outright delete. DGG (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History undelete and redirect. The material may not be sourced (I can't see it) but that's not even vaguely a reason to delete, let alone not restore. No objection to userfying the information so the merge can occur. Such a request would likely have been granted by a large number of admins had the nom asked there instead of here. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History undelete and redirect per Hobit, but as I mentioned above, nothing that isn't properly cited should be added to any article (notorious WP:FACTS excepted). Stifle (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And note that "properly cited" does not include citations to the school's website. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should probably ask on your talk page, but why would you object to the school's website as a source in the article. I thought primary sources could be used. Certainly doesn't help with notability, but that's not the issue here, so I'm confused. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Primary sources can be used in certain circumstances, as long as they confirm non-controversial information. It also shouldn't be the only source you have. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History undelete or userfy to Cunard as a basically reasonable request that it would be simply obstructive to refuse.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:02, 29 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.
BYOND (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedural DRV. I received this comment on my talk page. I believe the discussion was closed with the correct decision based on the information presented in the discussion, but Undead Pancake apparently disagrees with the decision. As there was only a small amount of discussion (compared to many other AFds) I am therefore bringing this here to have more eyes look at this AfD closure to determine if there is consensus for the status quo or if my closure as "delete" should be overturned. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my own closure. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be inclined to relist to achieve a better participation and consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, while it's always preferable to see more participation in AfDs than this, there is no quorum for AfD and the AfD was listed for the requisit 5 days. Of the four people who !voted it was 2/2 with one of the keeps being on the margin of SPA and with a checkered change history. No reliable evidence was provided at the time to establish notability even though it was discussed in the AfD. Further, the AfD has been closed for six months, any reason this is going to DRV only now? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While there is no minimum required amount of participation, agreement among the participants needs to be clear before a discussion with particularly low participation is closed. (Overturn as no consensus is also acceptable) - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been over five months, if the user is willing to improve the article just userfy it and let him/her bring it here when it's ready to go live. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost always fine with that option. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy – I don't know how good bringing back a 5-month-old AFD discussion would accomplish. MuZemike 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - It should get another chance to be decided whether to let the article stay or not, the AfD was closed to shortly with little participation, and the reason was no notability, however articles exist with less notability then what the article was closed for. --Undead Pancake (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, I believe that the article should have been deleted, but getting more input couldn't hurt. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Relist Close wasn't utterly unreasonable by any means, but 2 keeps and 1 delete (plus nom) when none of the arguments are very strong would probably be better as a relist. Hobit (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The policy issue that drove the AfD decision was the lack of verifiable sources for the article (something other than blogs or 'download here' pages on free software sites). No one has really presented any evidence that that decision was in error, or that re-running this old AfD would have any different response. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:31, 30 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.

Administrator instructions

26 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T-Wayne (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted for being mere speculation initially. After someone re-created it an administrator salted the title. However there are many sources written about the supergroup (a joint project of the vocoder-heavy singer T-Pain and rapper Lil Wayne). Initially they were written about the two simply establishing themselves in the project but later there came news about their upcoming album. Examples:

  • Cohen, Jonathan (2008=10-03). "Lil Wayne Already Recording 'Tha Carter IV'". Billboard. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Hobbs, Linda (2008-10-06). "Lil Wayne Busy On Carter IV". Vibe.
  • Ketchum, William E. III (2008-07-18). "Lil Wayne and T-Pain Form Supergroup".
  • Reid, Shaheem (2008-06-17). "Lil Wayne Forming Supergroup With T-Pain, Announces Carter III Tour Plans".
  • Reid, Shaheem (2008-07-22). "T-Pain Says He And Lil Wayne Are Making Progress On Joint Album, But First Up Is His Thr33 Ringz LP". MTV News.
  • Reid, Shaheem (2008-08-11). "T-Pain Might Drop LP And Mixtape With Lil Wayne; Clipse Aim For 'A Wider Audience". Mixtape Monday. MTV News.
  • Reid, Shaheem (2009-02-25). "Play N Skillz Want In On Lil Wayne And T-Pain's 'T-Wayne' Project". MTV News.
  • Tardio, Andres (2008-07-22). "Is T-Wayne Album Really Coming Out?". HipHopDX.

It just seems unfair and mysterious as to why the page was salted. Could it be that the recreated pages didn't cite its sources? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It's usual, when an article has been salted, to present a userspace draft before requesting restoration. The sources do verify that the album exists, but don't appear to provide any more substantial information than that. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'll write up a draft tonight in my userspace. Once I think it's well done I'll post it up here. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft is here: User:Andrewlp1991/T-Wayne draft
  • move to mainspace Draft looks okay (a bit too "spamy", but not terrible), sources look very good. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my previous closure as correct, but now permit recreation based on Andrewlp1991's work. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that the original closure was fine. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 29 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.
Sean Kennedy (Author) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two years have passed -- speedy deletion should be reconsidered as a deletion discussion CelticWonder (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Ok, instead of delete, I propose moving article to Sean Kennedy (Radio personality). CelticWonder (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (as speedy deleter). The article as reposted still had no indication of notability, and cited no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: The most recent article failed to address notability issues raised in previous AfDs. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I propose a potential WP:Conflict of interest with User:Victoriagirl, who has been the originating proponent of deletion twice. "I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 .. doesn't quite make the grade." (so simply because a news article is now 9 years old, this suddenly makes it "invalid"???) "I note the two 'books' discussed in the article are not included at Library and Archives Canada (a must for titles published in this country)," (Abaddon was published in the US -- NO LAC REQUIREMENT) "nor are they recognized by any of the online retailers and used book searches I checked" (Abaddon is available at Amazon.com).

    To quote others that appear reluctant to participate on WP (yet) regarding this issue:

    It is interesting to note that User:Victoriagirl is from Vancouver. Maybe she has an axe to grind with Sean? Why else would she try so hard to delete THIS article, and not others we've seen with much more flimsy reason to not be deleted? It certainly seems easy for her to just say, "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions" -- and yet, I haven't seen her examples other than: "It's still not in the LAC"

    Does this mean that any book by any author that's not in the US Library of Congress, ISBN number or not, is suddenly invalid? ... I think she's grasping at straws to further an agenda. The fact that she's Canadian and from Vancouver makes me suspicious. I don't want to get all conspiracy theory here, but it sure seems like this person is the ONLY one who objects to this article. Sure, she's got a lot of Wikipedia credentials, and it sure seems like she's got nothing better to do than police Wikipedia, but seriously, what's her REAL beef that she's using minute technicalities to keep Sean out of Wikipedia, when so many OTHER articles are slipping by her unnoticed?

    Why the focus? Why the practiced, detached "this is just how it is" but with the zeal of someone with an agenda?

    ...and another:

    Personally I'd rather take the good with the bad. Nothing is ever 100% true or false. Given an updatable dynamic "encyclopedia" you will have difficulties of conflict between people on what is right and wrong, THAT IS HOW HISTORY/KNOWLEDGE WORKS. Consider that paper encyclopedias a> arent perfect either b> probably had editor battles behind the scenes on the content c> are non editable once released. Just simply putting the dynamic element to things makes the other two challenges simply more apparent. Instead of blaming the attempt at providing knowledge (which is hella better than funk and wagnals so far as i've seen). Why not fight the good fight and do your best for the sake of the truths you do know?

    I know not everyone here is american, but for the most part Wikipedia and most of the peeps here are. A fundamental American concept is to debate and fight for what you believe in, that was the foundation of our nation, so why is suddenly this such a bad thing in a knowledge base? The responsibility is there not only to make things better that you see wrong, but as well, like other threads and posts i've said, to take responsibility for what you read and use your head. You simply seem to want to make a rule that something is "bad". Feel free. I'll happily keep reading and trying to learn more, no loss for me.

    I understand it's frustrating, but if life is easy you are doing something wrong. The battles of wikipedia are very much a load of bullshit sometimes, sure. Better to participate and do our best to bring it to improvement than to wash our hands of it and let it fill the heads of the masses who refuse to think about what they read or hear.

    I'm not going anywhere. This article will stay.

    CelticWonder (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Deletion (as creator). NOTABLE = YES.
    • Person is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
    • Person is "popular", and as an an "entertainer - Has a large fan base AND a significant 'cult' following"
    • RantMedia (almost 19,000 Google hits) was co-founded with his friend James O'Brien, and their forum currently has 615 members with over 19,000 posts just since the forum site was upgraded less than two years ago (I don't know how many thousands of posts were before then). This is not a maximum indicator of his following, as many listeners to "radio" do not always sign up on the related forum. Various searches on YouTube with appropriately combined keywords related to Sean, RantRadio/Media, NewsReal, Patrolling, SKTFM yield more than 100 each [7][8][9]. Sean Kennedy is the primary voice behind their name, so it can be said that RantMedia's popularity is because of him, indicating the need for his own article.
    • Amazon & Lulu sell his book: The Scabbed Wings Of Abaddon (ISBN: 978-1-4303-1620-6)
      • ...though of course this article is about him, not his book. The fact that his book is sold (and people BUY it) through THE major online retailer of books should most certainly mean something for his significance. He has three books (two full-length, one comic) available for free or sale on their website and is working on a third full-length.
    • He's had MANY online video/audio shows over the last ten years, some of which are available for sale on DVD via their website and tend to sell out quickly.
    • A referential list of media appearances over a five year span can be found here, with links to original articles.
      • ...including a Wired article from 7/28/2000 [10] with an audio interview, and a Vancouver Sun article from 9/9/2000 [11][12].
    • One of his shows "NewsReal" is syndicated on seven radio stations [13], including his own: RantRadio Talk, Osprey Radio, SRN One, Wild Bunch Radio, WNY Media Network, KJAG Radio, PureRockRadio.
  • There is no valid reason for this article's deletion. If we use Victoriagirl's argument for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bottle too Far, for example, the fact that Sean's Abaddon book alone passes her tests:
  • I am not Sean Kennedy, and though I've had battling issues in the past with people that disagree with me, I am clearly not a "single purpose account". These arguments were used before by wiki-police on previous AfD pages.

    Not to mention that obviously Sean is NOT a hoax and the legitimate attempts at repeated resurrection of his article (i.e.: not as a result of vandalism) multinationally by completely different people is enough proof of his mainstay as an Internet icon, is it not? He's been around for ten years, and he's not going anywhere.

    Your mention of not being "included in the Library and Archives Canada" is a moot point. Simply because a music group is not inducted into the "Rock & Roll Hall of Fame" does not make a band any less of a band; they just weren't chosen. For the sheer gritty content Sean provides, I'd imagine potentially biased media (a library of "scholarly"/"historical" works included) would not be so eager to choose to include his works. That in itself should not be grounds for inclusion/exclusion from the Project.

    My purpose of a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument was reasonable, though hasty, and I also rather suggest the possibility here of WP:BIAS:

    • Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions -- Sean's popularity is undeniable. I've already stated my reasons why; therefore his inclusion is appropriate.
    • Wikipedians are people that have enough free time to participate in the project. The points of view of editors focused on other projects, e.g. work or personal life, will be under-represented -- generally we aren't the wikipedia-type of people, and we typically fall under the "work or personal life" category. The majority of people voting "delete" on the article two years ago (before his book had an ISBN number and was available for sale at a major retailer) don't appear to be the type of people that would gel with his mindset.
    • ...articles about or involving issues of interest to the so-called underclasses are unlikely to be created or, once created, are unlikely to survive a deletion review on grounds of notability
  • The issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (2nd nomination): looking like a vanity page has clearly been addressed as the entire article has been written and edited with a WP:NPOV.

    The issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Author): fails notability has been addressed numerous times (sale of book through appropriate means, search engine popularity, etc.). Verifiable references are abundant.

    Finally, your issue of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Writer): the subject of successful AfD nominations in recent months can be easily addressed two years later with simply WP:CCC#Consensus can change.

    The entire existence of this page, despite VERY MANY VALID points that it should exist, is apparently hinging on whether it is included in the "Library and Archives Canada". CelticWonder (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I'll begin by addressing the proposal of a "potential WP:Conflict of interest" made by CelticWonder. Leaving aside the fact that this is not the appropriate place for such a charge, I point out that twice nominating an article for deletion in no way meets the definition of a conflict of interest. I will return to the selective quote he provides later.

      First, as it concerns COI, I'd like to address the first of the two quotes from "others that appear reluctant to participate on WP (yet) regarding this issue" that CelticWonder has seen fit to post:

      • I am not from Vancouver.
      • I do not have "an axe to grind with Sean" (whom I do not know).
      • Even the most casual glance at my history would reveal that I've participated in dozens - perhaps hundreds - of deletion debates.
      • I have at no point written "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions".
      • I have never said "It's still not in the LAC" - though I have noted such.
      • I have never mentioned the Library of Congress.
      • As previous the AfDs indicate [14] [15][16]I am far from "he ONLY one who objects to this article".
    • Returning to the aforementioned quote, which CelticWonder has edited to read: "I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 .. doesn't quite make the grade." These words, pulled from the AfD of April 2007 read in full: "Speedy delete as repost. Subject still fails WP:BIO. I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 and a four year old piece from a free computer tabloid don't quite make the grade. I note the two "books" discussed in the article are not included at Library and Archives Canada (a must for titles published in this country), nor are they recognized by any of the online retailers and used book searches I checked. The Toronto Public Library (the largest in the country) doesn't carry either title, nor do any of the libraries at the University of Toronto (the largest academic collection in Canada)." My point then, as now, is that Kennedy has received next to no coverage from reliable sources (this has nothing to do with the age of the article). As my observation about LAC has been brought forward time and again I think it important to make it clear that the article then under discussion stated that Kennedy had published two books - and yet these were not recognized by any library search or on-line bookseller. The subject has since published one of these through Lulu.com and it is available on Amazon (one of over 26,000 Lulu titles listed by the retailer, ranked 1,111,627). Neither fact confers notability.

      The comparison with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bottle too Far (the existence of which counters earlier claims about my history) is irrelevant: it concerns a book, while this concerns a BLP.

      Contrary to CelticWonder's bold assertion, no one has ever claimed Sean Kennedy to be a hoax, no one has suggested that CelticWonder is Sean Kennedy and no one has described CelticWonder as a single purpose account.

      I'll leave off by repeating Spataz's request, would CelticWonder please"point us in the direction of the non-trivial secondary sources for this person that meet RS so that we can consider this under our guidelines and polices." Victoriagirl (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Keeping in mind that I clearly did not write those two quotes, the one by 2xMakina simply suggested the possibility of reasonable doubt in your repeated selection for deletion of this article, thereby a conflict of interest in that your bias may be swaying the swift "speedy delete" you attached to this article not 1.5 hours after it was posted. So...
        • I didn't say you were from Vancouver (you're from Vancouver Island, which is across from Vancouver.)
        • ...but I will second that "Maybe " you do have "an axe to grind with Sean" (either personally or with his mindset -- no one can "prove" this but you, of course, but evidence that you were involved with multiple requests for deletion, including specifically this topic of a clearly notable figure two years after the last request, suggests this possibility.)
        • "Your new evidence doesn't refute my assertions" was a paraphrase of your comments on the discussion page, which were deleted so we can't quote your utterances here, and the futile argument of semantics regarding the "Library of Congress" was obviously his misreading.
        • I have never said "It's still not in the LAC" - though I have noted such. Yes you did. On the current discussion page for this article before it was deleted. Your primary focus was this matter, despite it being a moot point, and not a requirement for a published book to be considered "notable".
        • And true, you are far from "he ONLY one who objects to this article", but you started two of the four total AfD (citing that it has "been the subject of successful AfD nominations", and you voted speedy delete on another. WP:CCC#Consensus can change, and as I've already stated with plenty of evidence, Sean represents WP:Notability (people) fully, just supposedly not enough for you.
        • You say Kennedy has received next to no coverage from reliable sources yet there's proof ALL OVER THE PLACE that you are STILL BLATANTLY IGNORING: [17] [18] -- both include links to original articles or scans (if the original page isn't available). CelticWonder (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Removed level heading that was messing up page format. Please can the nominator read WP:N, WP:BIO & WP:RS and point us in the direction of the non-trivial secondary sources for this person that meet RS so that we can consider this under our guidelines and polices. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose deletion. First off, a little effort should be taken to incorporate as many of the sources listed on that website into the article (the newspaper articles mainly) with links if possible to the original articles and not reproductions on another website. The whole cult following criterion is a bit dubious to me, but on a cursory look, this seems to qualify. The age of the articles for RS is not an issue so long as it is clear that they are referring to this guy...notability cannot be lost. I'd also rather see an article about his prime work, RantTV, since that seems to be the only source of notability for him and the sources tend to talk more about RantTV than him. His book being on amazon is absolutely not a valid claim to notability...amazon aims towards having everything, not everything worth having. I am also loathe to use hit counts and forum membership as indicators...a single news article that says "he has a cult following" or something like that would be much better. The article could definitely use improvement, but there seems to be a weak case for notability under WP standards here. Cquan (after the beep...) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion. Pretty much agree with all the points of the creator. Looked at article seems reasonably well referenced, NPOV, chap is notable. Hope this is the way to add a vote, first time I've done it. SimonTrew (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notable terrestrial radio appearances has been added. CelticWonder (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain deletion. there are no real elements of a notable career here. His books are self-published and essentially unknown, whether in canada or the US. He has written some short stories, some of which were used as episodes in a radio series. He has had some interviews. He runs a radio show. Unfortunately, except for a brief article on Wired, nobody seems to have noticed in any reliable published sources. That one item is not enough to justify an article. DGG (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Forgive me for using your comment as an example, but it's one of many similar previous comments on AfD discussions that blindly say "I only see one article" or that "oh, he runs some radio show" like he just started two months ago. He has MULTIPLE shows (audio & video) spanning TEN YEARS, his listener base is huge, and there are MANY "Non-trivial" secondary sources as I have listed above. Notability doesn't disappear with time, and he presently continues to write & perform. CelticWonder (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Frankly, I consider this borderline, and therefore a matter of judgment. Different people can see this material , and judge it differently. I have found similar articles very difficult to decide on at AfD, and I am not sure about just how we should judge. I once thought that the general WP:N guideline would avoid such issues, but then it comes down to matters like "substantial" enough coverage. I don;t think that being an admin or not has much to do with the necessary judgment: everyone's opinion is equal here of such matters. I just give my own. I do not intend that anyone follow my view unless they independently agree with it. I'd like to have Stifle's full opinion on this, in fact. He's as good at this as I. DGG (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain deletion per DGG. Despite attempts to dress things up, there is no there, there. As well, nominator needs to understand the true meaning of 'Conflict of Interest' and, based on the tortured reasoning applied to Victoriagirl's alleged motivations, should be adding the word 'obfuscation' to his or her vocabulary. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If DGG has satisfied himself that the article should not exist, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not an administrator of Wikipedia as DGG and Stifle are, so even though I've supplied abundant evidence that Sean Kennedy is notable, ganging up on an article that should full well exist with a "keep deleted" vote simply for the notion that "what's good for him is good for me" is unfair to this voting process, is it not? CelticWonder (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, this isn't a vote. Second, I strongly suspect that Stifle is basing xyr decision on DGG's reputation. DGG doesn't come to the conclusion of deletion lightly, and if xe has (as xe did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Writer)), it's a fair likelihood that a case for the contrary (that has a proper foundation in our policies and guidelines) is going to be quite difficult to make. Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What Uncle G said. (And for future reference, I'll accept "he" and "his". However, for the sake of being complete and giving the article a fair chance, I have reviewed the situation de novo, and remain of the opinion that Mr. Kennedy does not meet WP:BIO at this time. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - note that I've personally got material in several public libraries and in the National Archives, yet I'm almost definitely not notable. Those two criteria are not suitable demonstrations of notability - merely demonstrations that you're willing to mail them your material. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: I find the focus on public libraries and the LAC rather puzzling. Really, all this based on a two year old observation offered as part of evidence to counter the false claim that Sean Kennedy had written two books. Since the subject continues to be raised, I think it important to correct some gross misinformation. Library and Archives Canada is not a repository for material people have been willing to mail, rather it gathers books published in Canada (whether written by Canadians or not), books concerning Canada and Canadian subjects that are published abroad and, finally, books written by Canadians that are published abroad. Kennedy's book, self-published through Lulu.com, falls into this final category. I will not speculate as to why it is not found in the LAC, nor will I comment on the attempt by CelticWarrior (above) to liken the holdings of LAC to induction in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. As public libraries have twice been mentioned now, I'll point out that AMICUS, which provides a search of 30 million records from 1300 Canadian libraries across the country (including the Vancouver Public Library in the author's hometown) has no listing for Sean Kennedy's book. Make of that what you will. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The Library and Archives Canada and AMICUS (one in the same as far as online presence is concerned, btw; search engines use same website), has no such requirement. Cimmerian has submitted both of Sean's released novels for inclusion yesterday at LAC, and once they have been processed at Library and Archives Canada, it is archived on a LAC server, and added to LAC's Electronic Collection then they will be viewable by the public only at selected terminals at LAC's main building in Ottawa, as per their Legal deposit procedures page. CelticWonder (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Search engines may use the same website, but Library and Archives Canada and the 1300 libraries covered by AMICUS are not one and the same. I think it important to add that "viewable by the public only at selected terminals at LAC's main building in Ottawa" refers specifically to the ability to access the contents of the book, and not the record. CelticWonder, I wonder whether you might clarify: what you mean by "has no such requirement", and how it is you know that Cimmerian has submitted Sean Kennedy's book to LAC. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Oh, you want to know "how" it is that I know? Maybe because he answers his e-mails. Wow, spo0oky... Despite ALL the evidence produced to pander to Victoriagrrrrl's lack of notability accusation, you still insist that a listing in the LAC is of utmost importance, despite his multiple books collectively being ONE of MANY of Sean's accomplishments in his TEN YEAR popularity. The reason one chooses "restricted" as opposed to "open" availability is because the books are FOR SALE. LAC doesn't seek out books written under one of those attributes, they are submitted by publishers. And responding to your earlier utterance, there was never a "false claim" made that Sean Kennedy had written two books. CelticWonder (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose deletion - has been featured on CBC (that's Canada's national broadcaster, and Canada is this whole other country eh) and in Wired, as well as some other sources that people in the past have called "non-notable sources". That's a lot more than you'll find for other internet personalities. It's also interesting that he'd have that much coverage considering his whole thing is anti-media anti-consumerism pro-open-source bias. Frankly, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, but you'll find more sources on Sean Kennedy than you will on the 2000 Simpsons episode articles we've got. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • edit: sorry, as above, featured in not just Wired and CBC, but also in Vancouver Sun (large daily paper for 3rd largest city in Canada), Spin Magazine (large mainstream music mag), Seattle Times, and New York Times. Obviously more exposure, and more national exposure, than most of the (for example) 100,000 indie-rock band articles that I've been trying ever so hard to get deleted over the years. Certainly doesn't really support a delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The additional sources presented are trivial references. The speedy delete, as a repost of information previously deleted without substantial improvement, is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The speedy deletion of the article by NawlinWiki was justified, since the article was basically a word-for-word repost of the deleted version, so the only question in my mind is whether the outcome of the March 2007 AfD, and the two subsequent ones (1, 2), was correct. (By the way, if the article's text is kept in any form, including as a userfied draft, the deleted history should be restored in order to preserve attribution. The current version is a GFDL violation.)
    While there does seem to be just enough coverage to make a case for notability, I am not sure whether the coverage demonstrates the notability of Sean Kennedy or of RantMedia (or RantRadio). Almost all of the coverage identified thus far, including the Wired piece and the other interviews, is about Kennedy's shows rather than about Kennedy himself. So, while I do believe that we should attempt to include some (not all) of this information in a Wikipedia article, I wonder whether a biographical article is the best means of doing that. Perhaps it might help, as Cquan suggested, to see how the article would look with the references included... –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As per DGG. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow creation at this point. I honestly don't see where DGG et. al. are coming from. The short Spin article is about this guy (apparently under a different name?), and other sources provide significant coverage. The COI issues are troubling, and I'm not sure (author) is exactly what he's notable for. If anyone doubts the sources, they can send it back to AfD where I strongly suspect it would be kept. The article itself is poor and could use significant trimming. Too promotional etc. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. While there are a couple of third party mentions that establish a few basic facts about the guy, most of the actual content of the article is essentially self-sourced from the subject's personal web site and his projects. It's not enough to have the third party establish that he exists and then let his website fill in all the details- we need third party sources for the complete article. The sourced material that doesn't come from the subject's own web site and sources wouldn't be enough to write more than a blurb or stub, and there doesn't appear to be potential for sourced expansion. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. I find myself agreeing with DGG. If this wasn't a marginal case discussion wouldn't be so complex but I think the crux of it is that nothing has changed since the original AfD. While there is media coverage, it's old (significantly older than the old AfD) and weak, with only a couple of very short snippets being about the subject rather than incidentally being involved in otherwise marginally notable activities. I would also like to note that "I'm not going anywhere. This article will stay." is a particularly bad attitude towards building a consensus based encyclopaedia. I've seen "I'm goping to argue this until I win" attempts in AfD and DRV before and it tends to result in closure comments like "WP:SNOW" and "Bad Faith Nomination". Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - fails to meet our standards of substantial coverage. The New York Times mention, for example, is literally one sentence of text and one sentence of "I like this guy." Vanity press books from Lulu are no evidence of anything but willingness to put your name out there. There's simply no substance about this guy, least of all as "Author"! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Without simply using Wikipedia tutorial articles that I've read already as an answer to this question, WHAT SPECIFICALLY is it going to take for you to consider him "notable"??? There HAVE been substantial improvements to the article in the form of references to NON-TRIVIAL notability, so I am at a loss for words at this point.
  • He's been asked & featured personally onto multiple radio shows including CBC twice.
  • He's been in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, some referenced on the article itself. If you want all of them on there that I've listed above, I'll put them ALL on there.
  • The former two points are ADDITION to the MANY shows he's had, both audio & video, over TEN YEARS, recognition due to his popularity on many websites, prominence in search engines, a populous forum, etc.
If the abundant evidence provided isn't enough for what I believe is a strong argument against deletion, I don't know what is. He's notable (see ALL above). More than one person here is ignoring this. Why? After all the proof I've supplied here, since I can't use WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument (though it should be, after all this tiresome defense), proponents for deletion should really take a hard look at the entire project, because there should be a mass killing of thousands of articles if THIS one doesn't qualify for inclusion. Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions rather than on ... protesting inappropriate inclusions. Why has extreme deletionism become such a popular new fad over the last few years? I don't know what else to do here, so what is it you are looking for? CelticWonder (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion: The deletion criteria seem nebulous, almost tailored, and comments like "nothing has changed since the original AfD" is patently false, as anyone who looks at the edit history of the page can plainly see. Why say something that isn't true unless it's in your best interest to do so? Or more accurately, serves an agenda? I see an active, malicious intention to suppress Mr. Kennedy and his views, and I don't fully understand the reasoning behind it; However, if someone is working so hard at finding reasons to NOT include Mr. Kennedy in Wikipedia, perhaps it bears investigating why. If the article is miscategorized, then help recategorize it instead of deleting the article out of hand. If it is poorly written, perhaps suggestions would be in order. If it lacks qualities required, then state them plainly. It appears that while SOME of this was done, not all of it was. Too much "thou shalt not" and not enough "this is how you do it," to be considered a mere administrative or quality issue. WWJMBD (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, [some of] the most active and established users in DRV, including people notoriously inclusionist, have all joined forces to or been coerced into !voting an endorse decision in a conspiracy that rivals only the moon landing actually taking place in a sound studio on Mars and the fact that bigfoot until recently was CFO of Lehman Brothers. Please help perpetuate the conspiracy. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, something does seem a bit odd here. Not bigfoot odd, but "not quite following WP:N" odd. Perhaps because of the nature of the topic, perhaps because of issues with the nom's behavior.
  • Wired has a 15-minute interview on-line with two people, one of whom is the topic of the article. I've not listened to it. But that's got to have significant coverage.
  • Spin has a short (200 word?) article as an interview with the person.
  • The Vancouver sun (a significant paper) has a really long article about work done by the person and about the person himself, including a 1/2 page picture.
Just those would generally be enough to keep an article around here as it pretty plainly meets WP:N (articles in the Vancouver Sun and Wired?). And there are a number of legitimate sources past this. I think DGG !voting against may have moved the discussion a bit far to one side. Toss in the behavior of the nom, and I think we are going to be deleting an article we shouldn't. I'd suggest the nom consider writing an article on the most notable of the radio shows. The coverage in the Sun etc. is likely more than enough to keep _that_. Hobit (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After some nastiness, both on this and my talk page, I'd decided to walk away from this review. However, I see that my behaviour is now being called into question. How so? Hobit, would you please elaborate.
I'd like to address the three examples of media coverage provided, all of which were discussed two years ago in previous AfDs [19][20][21]:
  • The subject of the 2000 Wired piece is not Sean Kennedy, but Rant Radio. As Mangojuice pointed out in the second AfD nom it "says very little about this person".
  • The Spin mini-interview, also from 2000, is not really "an article ABOUT Sean" (as is claimed above), but is certainly worthy of note, despite its brevity.
  • The Vancouver Sun piece, again from 2000, published in a regional supplement, concerns RantRadio - not Sean Kennedy.
In short, these articles, together with fleeting mentions in other sources cited - like the New York Times - simply don't meet the basic criteria called for by WP:BIO.
Finally, since I have returned, I may as well address a piece of misinformation that has appeared in my absence: that "there was never a 'false claim' made that Sean Kennedy had written two books." In fact, the claim that Sean Kennedy was the author of two books was part of the April 2007 Sean Kennedy article. The questioning of the existence of the books was discussed at length in the third AfD nomination. One of the titles under discussion has since been published through Lulu.com. As it also concerns past debates, I feel it relevant to repeat the observation that CelticWonder's claim of 26 March ("I am not Sean Kennedy, and though I've had battling issues in the past with people that disagree with me, I am clearly not a 'single purpose account'. These arguments were used before by wiki-police on previous AfD pages") is false. I regret that he hasn't seen fit to correct the error. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Victoriagirl, I would appreciate it if you would stop wrongly insisting that people "correct their errors".
  • "Self-promotion" was inappropriately cited HERE and HERE to begin the very first of MANY unnecessary AfD's, and since no one cared to pay attention to correct this grossly misleading suggestion and quash the notion that it was ever self-promotion (therefore creating an AfD page with no merit, rather than simply suggesting a cleanup), this one comment set a precedence for a string of speedy deletions that destined Sean's rightful place in WP to never have a chance.
  • "Single-use account" was accusingly hinted five times as "XX has made few or no other edits outside this topic" on this page alone.
  • You still refuse to accept that his radio & TV appearances attest his notability strongly.
My reason for making the comment I made was to entertain that my arguments held merit, not to accuse YOU of making such suggestions. "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" has been supplied, as well as Sean's meeting the requirements to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", and being "popular" enough beyond all doubt as an "entertainer - Has a large fan base AND a significant 'cult' following". Since you wish to continue the argument that he isn't in the news "enough" for his books by your standards, I repeat my proposal to everyone to move the article to Sean Kennedy (Radio personality) CelticWonder (talk) 16:17, 1 April 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.
ManchVegas Roller Girls (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Were trying to get ManchVegasRollerGirls page up and running, it was filled with all the appropriate information since the last delete & with all due respect within 30 seconds of it being up it gets tagged for deletion. Once I was in the process of contesting the removal with the admin whom redirected me here. Since the Nashua team has there up and running we want to get ours going but can’t since it gets removed every time even with all the required information to provide. I know there’s a conflict of the manchvegasrollergirls and the ManchVegas Roller girls. That was my bad it should be ManchVegasRollerGirls that was a type on my end. We’re just trying to get our page up and running like The Nashua Team New Hampshire Roller Derby. Thanks for your time. Team1up (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read those plenty of times, I placed the wiki up for the team for Manchester NH under request to do so. I don’t care about edits...or who edits it we have people who can monitor and help manage the page. I care about the process of that it was placed up with legit information and that people take it down w/o any real valid substance behind it other than. All we want is to have the site up; it has every reason to be on wiki. We even have more references to add.. But we could not add them since the admin took it down w/o giving a change to add the additions. Team1up (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also as seen here " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ManchVegasRollerGirls " The previous reason for removal was lack of refrences, we provided refrences this time and yet still got removed. Sorry for the re edit again.. forgot to add in that tidbit of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team1up (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: And yet you clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the pages I mentioned above. The mere idea that you would have "people who can monitor" goes in conflict with wikipedia. It indicates that you consider the page "yours" and that you would have editorial rights with regard to the content - which is simply not the case. In terms of the process, the page was deleted under general criterion 11 for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, this is within wikipedia policy and process and is within the remit of an administrator. I'm choosing not to express an endorse/overturn opinion myself simply because there is no way for me as a non-admin to see the deleted content. Notice that it could also possibly have been applicable for criterion 4, recreated content, per Stifles link below. Given your admitted conflict of interest and close proximity to the subject as well as the tone of discussion and previous AfD, my recommendation is probably to avoid contributing on the subject. That being said, nothing would prevent you from creating a userspace version of the article which demonstrates verifiable notability in a neutral tone then asking for comments before moving it into mainspace. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:27, 27 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.
Sutherland Global Services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Sutherland is a major Business Process outsourcing company and should have a wiki page. Rockingbeat (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list of steps to list a new deletion review encourages editors to "attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster". Did you make such an attempt in this case? If you did not, you may wish to do so.
    In light of the number of times that this article has been deleted, I would suggest writing a draft article in userspace—one whose content is neutral and supported by reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject—and then bringing it to the attention of the community. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion As can be seen in the deletion log, this article was repeatedly deleted because it was promotional in nature and copied the company's official website exactly. Such text violate our WP:NPOV and copyright policies. The deletion didn't preclude an article from ever being created. It is just locked to avoid such a promotional entry being posted again. If you have a neutral, verifiable article to place there, please let us know so we can evaluate it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Wikipedia, not wiki. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and keep salted – per deletion log. If a neutral, encyclopaedic version can be written (use a subpage or the sandbox), then please show us. MuZemike 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; I recommend providing a sourced, neutral userspace draft before coming back here. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This series of multiple copyright violations must absolutely not be restored. Our Wikipedia:Copyright policy is very clear, as is our mission to provide free content from the neutral point of view. If editors repeatedly take the lazy route of simply swiping someone else's copyrighted, non-free, text and pasting it here, then the consequences will be the inevitable ones, warned about on every edit page that one ever sees here: there will be no article.

    I'd say that the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of some very bad editors, except that it doesn't appear, from their contributions histories, that the people responsible for these serial copyright violations are editors. They are a succession of single-purpose accounts whose only edits are to copy advertising and self-promotional blurb into Wikipedia. It's not unreasonable to conclude that these are not editors at all, but people carrying out actions motivated from an interest different to that of writing an encyclopaedia.

    If you think that a proper article about this subject can be written, Rockingbeat, based upon in-depth, reliable, and independent sources, then I suggest that you write one, using the methods suggested above. You'll be the first genuine Wikipedia editor to try, if you do. There has been no attempt to actually write an article at any point, so far. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse delete. Appeal gives no reason to believe that the deletion was improper. Given NPOV and advertising issues, the userspace draft proposal seems to be appropriate here. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:00, 30 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.


Administrator instructions

25 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Roblox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I contacted User:Sandstein The admin who deleted the article, and gave him the link to the re-written article I have been working on. The previous article was deleted because the user writing it was using it as an advertising tool. User:Sandstein replied saying he was happy with the sources given and he thought the page was good enough to be re-instated. He then suggest that I bring my draft here for review. Our draft can be found here. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted - the sources on the draft do not appear to be reliable. kidslike.com appears to accept contributions at large with no indication of fact-checking or vetting. killerstratups.com is a "user driven internet startups community" whose goal is to promote "'“the next big thing' on the internet". examiner.com looks to me like a souped-up blog, with local people whose expertise in their fields or communities contributing material on what they personally find to be interesting or cool. roblox.com is of course not independent. That leaves a single potential source, midweek.com. This source is an opinion piece, which are certainly considered reliable for confirming that a particular person holds a particular opinion, but it's being used in the article to verify a piece of factual information. I don't believe, based on reviewing the sources presented and a quick search through Google (not definitive but still persuasive to me in this instance), that Roblox is sufficiently notable to allow for recreating the article. Sorry. Otto4711 (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysing the sources reveals:
    1. User-submitted content, not a reliable source
    2. User-submitted content, not a reliable source
    3. Interview-style press release
    4. Almost all regurgitated from roblox's own website.
    5. Sourced to roblox's own website
    6. Sourced to roblox's own website
  • As such, keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Stifle's analysis. Nothing here that would overturn an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now. I suggest that the DRV-nom read the neutral point of view guideline as well as the verifiability policy and use both of them to rewrite the article again. MuZemike 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak allow restoration. At no time did I say that I was happy with these sources, but references 3 and 4 do seem sufficient for borderline notability. Yes, they seem to regurgitate corporate material, but as long that is done in a medium of some intellectual and economic independence, we call it journalism. But keeping it deleted until some more substantial sources turn would not be all that bad either.  Sandstein  19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have reached somewhat of a concensus. I say we leave it deleted for now and I will work on getting sources to better fit Wikipedia's expectations.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:11, 26 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.
  • Human Achievement Hour – Deletion Endorsed. There is a long standing tradition at DRV of not allowing discussions to be used as platforms to attack other users. Sorry for the curtailment of the drama but this discussion has clearly fallen below an accetpable level and since its more then one editor involved the shutter comes down. there is already a clear consensus to delete. – Spartaz Humbug! 09:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Human Achievement Hour (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Thehondaboy believes that this AfD was closed contrary to consensus, and brought it to the attention of WP:AN/I. This is the appropriate place for a review of the deletion, so I am beginning this review here. I endorse the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thehondaboy's concerns can be found here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - closer acted correctly on information given, and there's no obvious additional information that wasn't brought up in the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close was perfectly correct; especially given the double-voting and SPA IP Keeps. Even the "good" Keeps made little policy-based attempt to justify the article's existence except by pointing to Google hits. The odd thing is, publicity stunts do tend to attract odd Google hits, but even the article itself couldn't point to any solid third-party discussion - mostly "hey, did you hear about ...". I have to admit the "Notable Human Achievements" section was a pretty good joke, though ... it was a joke, wasn't it? ... Black Kite 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Black Kite. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - properly-conducted deletion discussion which happened to be sullied by meat puppets. Jd027 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - correct reason in closing, admin waited the requisite 5 days to close the AfD, I don't have a problem with this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate - N complaint: Though never formally stated as N, several complaints were on whether the event is notable. While this may have been a problem at the initial creation of the article, which received a notice for deletion within hours of creation and it's first mention on a pro-environment blog (suspiciously indicating the possibility of the notice being from a biased editor), it was not a problem within a roughly 48 hour period after the notice was given. Well within the 5 day review time frame.

N clearly states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

The event is notable, and has been referenced in:\

  • The National Post, a major newspaper with a global reach.
  • The National Review Online a major political magazine and online news journal referenced the event.
  • The Duluth New Tribune, a 138 year old Minnesota newspaper has mentioned the event.
  • The event has been mentioned by Michelle Malkin who has a nationally syndicated column reaching more than 200 newspapers, and is additionally a contributor on Fox News, MSNBC, and C-Span.
  • The event is also to be brought before the House Floor of the Oregon State Congress by Representative Matt Wingard with a youtube video to follow.
  • The O'Reilley Factor has contacted CEI about the Wikipedia take down as well indicating its circulation in news media circles.
  • Additionally, countless blogs have mentioned the event including openmarket.org, greenbiz.com, rightwingnews.com, americandigest.org, twilightearth.com, planetsave.com, and climatebiz.com;
  • and it results in 26,100 Google search results.

N clearly states that notability is: Not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity. The evidence clearly shows that the event is notable, it does not matter if it is not popular to those who disagree with it or how famous the event is.

SR complaint: The article was clearly high-quality in form and function and met the guidelines and clearly had a neutral point of view and was a verifiable event.

NFT complaint: Obviously with the above cited verifiable references, the event is not "something me and my friends made up". The creator is a published policy analyst with a major Washington, DC think tank, and additionally the references prove it is not an idea within some group circle.

The reasons for deletion were weak at best, but even then evidence is given here that completely blows any of those arguments for deletion out of the water based on WIKI guidelines, not anyone's personal opinion or bias.

Failure to restore this article is ridiculous. Wiki's own guidelines dictate that is proper form to be an active article. It follows all guidelines, and any questions relating to reasons for deletion have now been answered in full.Thehondaboy (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion; the closer followed AfD process and correctly weighed the balance of policy-based argument. Having also looked at the deleted article I got an unavoidable impression of the tail wagging the dog, and blogs and self-published sources are generally considered unreliable and are not adequate to source article content. (Disclosure: my hidden agenda can be found at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N). EyeSerenetalk 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would you even bring up N and V with the sources I've listed? While you call out blogs and self published sources I've given you the National Post, NRO, Duluth News Tribune, etc. Did you just bypass my written arguments before you posted?Thehondaboy (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article in the National Post has at the end "Michelle Minton is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute". So this was an editorial that was written about the event. Also, the other two articles referred to the SAME EDITORIAL as a reference for the story. As stated abouve, blogs & self-published sources are reliable. As for the idea this is a "left-wing conspiracy" designed to remove the article, let me just say for myself, I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, however whatever political bias I have is checked at the login screen when I work on Wikipedia. The article just does not meet the standards for inclusion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. There are 8 refs listed at the bottom of the most recent pre-deletion version of the article. 2,5,7, and 8 are to blogs or blog sections of other websites (such as with The National Post, eg network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/03/23/this-earth-hour-leave-the-lights-on.aspx). Refs 3 and 4 are to the CEI press release itself, which can be fine depending on what's being cited, but given the weakness of the other sources are not adequate in themselves. Ref 6 is to an article written by the founder of the event, and ref 1 basically reproduces the press release and is also rather bloggish (although it's probably the strongest of the lot). I appreciate your frustration, but these just don't support the article's claims. EyeSerenetalk 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wildthing, I don't care if you're a libertarian. If everyone else here has an ulterior motive, then you "checking your bias at sign in" doesn't mean a hill of beans. And since everyone here has discounted the Duluth News Tribune, I'm now convinced WP is a place for only biased like minded individuals. Further more, discounting the NP article because it was written by Minton is a bogus claim. You are faulting Minton because she is a contributor at a major international paper and has the ability to write her own story, which was not categorized as an op-ed, that is your impression of it. Thehondaboy (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't abbreviate as Wiki! – WP is OK. Keep in mins there are many other wikis around, and you end up insulting veteran editors by abbreviating as such. MuZemike 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • MuZemike, don't tell me not to use a word because I'll "insult a veteran editor". That just increases my suspicion of bias amongst a group of editor's indicating that WP is political, and not an encyclopedia. You're comments are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. If you have nothing constructive to add about deletion review, please move along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs) 2009-03-26 18:46:10
  • Also, this is DRV, not AFD2. "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly ... this process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". Black Kite 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for the reasons already given. There is an argument to be made that a mention of this reaction to Earth Day could be made at the Earth Day article. In that case, a redirect there might be appropriate. Martinp (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, clearly a correct close. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, procedurally, this was closed correctly and should be deleted. I'm the editor who found the references mentioned above however I'm also the editor who commented that the Google news hits were misleading because only a small handful of them actually discussed the subject of this article. Even with the reliable sources that have been found, this event doesn't pass WP:NEWSEVENT.--RadioFan2 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closed correctly - I do like the 'tail wagging the dog' comment. It is already mentioned in the Earth Hour article by the way. dougweller (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • if so, a redirect might be the appropriate solution.DGG (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, when you discount the obvious single-purpose accounts, consensus was for deletion. I have no objection to a redirect from this title to Earth Hour. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nothing I've seen makes the close look like anything other than the correct call. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate Unless the section about this is greatly expanded in the Criticism part of Earth Hour, I see no reason for this to not have its own article. It seems like Wikipedia overall tends to endorse the Climate Change theory and stifle articles critical of it and policies contrary to the Environmentalist position. So allowing an article for Human Achievement Hour would help dispel this criticism. Rockingbeat (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, if using a redirect, a much larger and more detailed section in Earth Hour would have to occur and would need to be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs)
      • CommentWe don't protect sections of articles. And WP:Undue would apply - this has so far received too little coverage to be notable and that affects its mention in any other article. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the deletion process was properly followed. The WP:NPOV policy applies within an article, and does not oblige us to have articles for and against a certain subject when one side has far more coverage than the other. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The decision was procedurally correct, the counter-arguments didn't hold water, and the SPAs and double-voting simply illustrate the thinness of the alternative case. Rockingbeat, this is not the venue to argue against climate change, nor does this deletion discussion have anything to do with the rightness of the theory. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He wasn't arguing climate change. A critical read of his comments make it very clear that there is a climate change bias on WP with efforts to squash opposing events. Allowing the page to stay would dispel those criticisms. Thehondaboy (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read what he wrote. I don't consider myself signficantly uncritical. Reading his comments discloses his belief that such a bias exists on Wikipedia; it does not demonstrate that the claim is true. Allowing a page to stay in order to give the project a good political image by the appearance of balance (rather than adherence to our normal notability criteria) is a classic example of giving undue weight to a view. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse absolutely no way this could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major problem that all of your criticism's face is that you are picking and choosing which reference to come up with some trivial reason why it doesn't count, but not one of you can discount the Duluth News Tribune and no one has tried. The Tribune article ALONE validates the existence of the WP article based on WP rules of notability, Thehondaboy (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event has now been mentioned in the Charleston Daily Mail a Pulitzer Surprise winning newspaper by Don Surber; Let's sit in the dark and freeze to death. There's too much out there at this point to ignore. Thehondaboy (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh oh, mentioned in the San Francisco Examiner. Heard of that one guys? Turn it on! Turn’em all on. I doubt I even need to depend on the bias of the deletion review anymore. Someone else will end up posting it. It's everywhere. Thehondaboy (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, 1) that's an editorial; and 2) the Examiner is a free tabloid newspaper. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion provided that title is redirected to Earth Hour#Criticism. There is some coverage of this event in reliable sources (see USA Today) but it is primarily in the context of talking about Earth Hour. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt. No question about the correctness of the deletion, regardless of how much chaff the nominator tries to throw up. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored? I'd missed that DGG had restored it. I am not happy about this being done on a routine basis, and I am particularly not happy with it being done in this case as it is giving added publicity to a negligible event happening tomorrow. Is this a normal thing to to? Before I realised DGG had restored it, I put it back to its earlier state - text not visible, article history there which allows people to see it that way. If DGG or anyone else feels strongly about this, restore it - I didn't mean to edit war, and thought it had been done by someone else. Having done it and about to go to bed I don't feel like undoing it. I'd like to know though if this is normal and within guidelines (which is probably is, I respect DGG and this may simply be something I missed). I hope this isn't too rambling, maybe I shouldn't have had that Mojito. :-) Before restoring it though, please look at this edit on my talk page [22] - with all respect, DGG, this looks like a run around the deletion process. But I will go along with any decision made by another Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorted, article semi'd (sp?) by DGG so it stays hidden but history is available. I think making the history available is fine, but it should then be protected - I note that one article creator restored his article during a current DRV,[23] which shouldn't be possible Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • my intention was to restore it for discussion, not to reverse the closure. Most of the time it makes no particular difference whether its displayed or hidden, for just the 5 days. I carelessly put it visible, not remembering it was time-sensitive, and that the display might be taken as promotional. In such as case, I would not deliberately do so after a delete closure, unless it is reversed. I am not prepared to close this review early as restore, but if someone thinks it justified, it's up to them. As for the article, I have no particular opinion one way or another. I apologize for confusing matters. It remains visible in the history during the discussion, semi-protected to avoid edit warring back and forth. DGG (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and redirect to Earth_Hour#Criticism. The only reporting of this in reliable sources is as part of the reaction to Earth Day. A handful of opinion columns about it does not mean it should have a separate article, and the AfD was closed properly.--ragesoss (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate As multiple people have pointed out, this has been reported in major newspapers and other media outlets. Some of the largest right-leaning blogs have major features on it, including National Review and Michelle Malkin's site. National Review has now mentioned the article's suspicious deletion as well. There is no legitimate reason to shut this entry down. Deleting the article as of now has the appearance of being politically motivated. DesScorp (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeeScorp, what you have to understand is that all of these people are editor's running off the Earth Hour site as they visit, checking the link to HAH in criticism section and bleeding off into here to make sure it stays deleted during the 28th. They don't care about the this project's reliability or truthfulness. Next week this thing will go back up and it won't get a single complaint. This whole fiasco just proves that Wikipedia is a busted project that doesn't work. Thelobbyist (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — Thelobbyist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Note especially this edit --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually, we understand when fervent political activists mistake Wikipedia for a soapbox, as you and your suddenly newly active friend are attempting to do. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like the fascists have won. For now. You've allowed an article that supports one side of the issue and have deleted an article that supports the other, and all the rules-lawyering in the world won't alter that fact. Fascists are always big on rules -- at least when the rules are convenient. NPOV? Hah! Some POVs are clearly more equal than others on Wikipedia, and the POV that wins is the one that has the largest pack of amateur fascists patrolling the site for Politically Incorrect articles. Must. Protect. Narrative. Must. Protect. Narrative.76.195.223.161 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet CalendarWatcher, if you determine this is political activism --your opinion by the way-- you have allowed one side, and not the other. That's called censorship. You're an amateur in a sandbox world based on WP rules you ignore. What that means is that WP is broken. 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) thehondaboy
  • Wikipedia editors are showing their left-wing bias and their support of the enviro-zealot extremists by not allowing this article to be shown. If this article is deleted, then the "Earth Hour" article should also be deleted to keep things equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpet Crawler 2009 (talk • contribs) 2009-03-28 15:29:05

Reinstate- Amazing myopia. The only possible explanation for the deletion of this page is "political activism." Censorship of political views is never pretty, and a dangerous step. WP editors have crossed the line- will WP remain relevant?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucio (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — Brucio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Guess who did a story this morning? TIME Magazine. This whole thing is so corrupt. "It's not notable." Then why is it in Time Magazine? Where not talking about a blog. We're talking about USA Today & TIME Magazine... Thehondaboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and that was a trivial and dismissive comment in a longer article. But you all don't seem to accept that when the AfD took place the existence of other articles was irrlevant, what counted was our notability criteria. It didn't take place suspiciously quickly as the National Review writer claims, it ran the standard 5 days (some get closed earlier, this one did not). And this will run 5 days. Perhaps at the end it will be reinstated, perhaps not, but insults won't help. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Indianapolis Star, Indiana's most widely circulated newspaper, described Human Achievement Hour as a "competing national event" to Earth Hour and devoted 3 paragraphs to Human Achievement Hour that explained the purpose of the event. While Deletion Review is not the proper forum for resolving notability disputes, the recent publication of reliable media articles such as the Indy Star's necessitate that we renew discussion about Human Achievement Hour's alleged notability. Jaminus (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this attempt to get around the AfD [24] is a very bad idea - you don't seem to read your talk page, but if you continue to do this you might find yourself blocked (not by me, but it is the sort of action that gets people blocked). Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Correctly carried out closing. Chillum 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate While this article was clearly not notable at the time of its creation -- and thus was properly deleted -- the fact that several reliable and credible sources have referenced Human Achievement Hour since the closing of the deletion debate means that discussion must be re-opened to ensure that the article gets a fair shake. Following the article's deletion on March 25, 2009, articles discussing the subject have been published in sources including the USA TODAY, Time Magazine, Chicago Tribune Breaking News, Duluth News Tribune, and National Review's The Corner. Notability is not constant -- as WP:NN states, "subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence." The case for inclusion is much stronger now that the topic's notability has improved, and the only way to discuss the merits of the deletion is by debating its notability -- again. Assuming there is no dispute that the notability of Human Achievement Hour has grown significantly since March 25, the deletion debate must be re-opened -- whether or not you think the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Jaminus (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion was a disgraceful event in Wikipedia's history. It's obviously a clumsy and ham-fisted attempt by ignorant young enviro-goofs to crush any dissenting views of the juvenile Earth Hour stunt. Even this discussion is filled with veiled threats by activists to dissenters to ban anyone who complains. Wikipedia is really lurching mindlessly into the control of partisan goon-squads. For shame, Wikipedia, for allowing such ignorance to take control. Bushcutter (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and redirect to Earth Hour#Criticism as noted above. The AFD was not wrong, the close was proper, and the coverage has been all in the context of Earth Hour, so it makes more sense to be included there to me. I find it deplorable that so many of the editors campaigning for this to be included find it necessary to fire insults at the people who are endorsing the close; calling people "ignorant young enviro-goofs," for example, is a disgusting personal attack, and as far as I'm concerned invalidates the argument and should be grounds for a strong warning if not a block. Attacking your opponents is not the way to influence a discussion such as this, and I highly suggest that the rhetoric be dialed way down as this discussion goes forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate As has been pointed out by numerous people here, this event has been covered by many major media outlets and blogs. It is certainly noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, and the deletion smacks of nothing more than pure political bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.64.33 (talk) 03:26, 29 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.
Devendra Prabhudesai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion closer acknowledges there is coverage of the author's books, but says there is insufficient coverage of the author. But the coverage of the author's work is good evidence of notability for the author, and without the article on the author there is no coverage of the books at all (they don't have articles of their own). Also, the AfD nominator indicated that the article subject was notable, but needed work. This work was done after the first two delete votes, and a reopening of the deletion discussion to gain greater input for consensus was refused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. Also, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the closer offered an opinion rather than determining consensus and that this opinion didn't follow policy guidelines. Allowing the AfD to go on longer to determine consensus is hardly asking for another AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I temporarily undeleted it in the page history to facilitate the review. DGG (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close based on the article as it existed (there was nothing about the author himself, only his books) but I think the article could be improved to prove notability. I'm looking at it now. Black Kite 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion proper read of the consensus. This is not afd round 2. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I closed the AfD, so I'm not going to !vote in this, but I would point out that coverage of the author's work does not automatically provide good evidence of the author, and particularly I did not say that the books were notable; that wasn't in the scope of the AfD, nor of my closing rationale. --GedUK  21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion DRV is not AfD round 2. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Updated version at User:Black Kite/DP. Black Kite 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There really wasn't a consensus in that debate and I'm deeply perplexed by previous remarks that suggest there was; am I reading the same AfD as everyone else?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as a valid reading of the consensus. Nomination reads like an AfD argumnet—I'm not seeing a reason for this DRV, other than to re-try the AFD. From WP:DRV: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:24, 30 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.
Template:BS-daten (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The original "BS-daten" template, used on dozens German railway line articles, was deleted and replaced by "Infobox rail line". The new template has some major disadvantages: first it doesn't dovetail into the route diagram but displays as a separate box; second, it is often a different width; third, it introduces a different colour scheme and fourth, it is a real hassle when translating articles and adds a lot of time to the process. There are a lot of railway line articles to go so this is a real factor for me. The overall visual effect is messy and definitely worse than before. Have a look at the Haßfurt–Hofheim railway article and its de.wiki equivalent or what was my budding "B" class candidate, the Hof–Bad Steben railway and its de.wiki opposite number. Before I understood the deletion review process I'm afraid I created a new Template:BS-daten, but have been told this could be removed at any time, so I'm asking if we can sort this out. I hope I've used this process correctly - it's new to me.

I would be grateful if we could agreed to retain this template until such time as a multi-lingual version of "Infobox rail line" is produced which can handle "BS-daten" fieldnames and data and which also generates a single box combined with the route diagram template. Meantime we can legitimately undo the changes and continue to use "BS-daten". Many thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This was deleted with only one comment. Apparently the problems weren't recognised. What should actually be done I do not know, but it clearly needs some discussion by those who work on the subject. The user is apparently new to WP process, and already he apologized if he wasnt following everything exactly, so I think the message above might not really be appropriate in this instance. DGG (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – I agree with the nom that the replacement is not satisfactory. Occuli (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - as the single user who !voted to Delete this template, I'm prepared to admit I was wrong here. I hadn't realised the problems with the replacement, and now I do I agree that this version is preferable. On the other hand, there are reasons to prefer a uniform standard, but this is clearly an issue which needs further discussion. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - please note that Infobox rail line does have the ability to include the map template; this is a common practice on Amtrak articles. I'm going to demonstrate on Haßfurt–Hofheim railway and drop you a line. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful responses. Stifle asked me to respond to his question. I didn't contact the deleting administrator because I didn't know the process. I acted in haste to reinstate the template (actually I translated the German one from scratch, so it may not be exactly the same as before, but it seems to work), but then decided it would be wrong to reapply it without asking the editor who made the changes (Erik9) why he was doing this. He then pointed me at this forum. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Relist to get a proper consensus, without blame to the deleting admin. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain what happens now? Does this get reviewed again? If so, where? Thanks in advance. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the normal listing period of five days expires, an administrator will judge the consensus and take the appropriate action. At the moment, it looks like that action will be to restore the template and relist it at AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist without admonishing the closing admin - clearly there is further discussion to be had about the issues surrounding these templates. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:08, 28 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.
Craig Barber (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The article was notable to a degree, and the image is public-domain. This should go through AfD again for fresh discussion. Samllaws300 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (logged in at a public terminal)[reply]

  • This can be speedily closed, I don't think it does need discussion again. --Samllaws300 (talk) 11:50, 25 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.
Category:Flanders and Swann (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was deleted as part of a purge in 2007. I'm not convinced that this consensus against categories still exist. There are several articles and one sub-category that can populate this.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, unless nominator can provide evidence that consensus has changed. --Kbdank71 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of similar examples in Category:Categories named after musicians e.g. Category:Rolf Harris. I know "other stuff exists" is not always a good argument, but in this case I believe that as these similar examples have existed for some time without causing problems, I see no problem in restoring this category. (I suspect that if I'd simply re-created it, no-one would have complained, as seems to have been the case with some of the other categories purged at the same time).
As a counter request, I'd like evidence that categories like this are not acceptable. I'll raise the matter with the original nominator to get their view. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist How can we find out if consensus has changed otherwise? DGG (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not demonstrate that consensus has changed. There is still a strong preference for navigation templates for all but the groups with lots of articles related to them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - no indication, despite the occasional aberrant result, that the general consensus against small and eponymous categories has changed. Indeed, presumption is against eponymous categories in general. Unfortunately with these band categories everybody wants their own favorite band to have a category so we end up with hundreds of cats with practically nothing in them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fair enough, if general consensus is still against categories like this I'm happy to go along with it, but it struck me as odd that we have Category:Flanders and Swann songs, without an obvious parent category. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a navbox, which has all the relevant articles I've found (so far). One thing I'm considering is renaming Category:Flanders and Swann songs to Category:Flanders and Swann songs and revues, so that it's a bit bigger. However that's a discussion for WP:Categories for discussion, not here. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist DGG has hit the head on the nail. The editor has followed the letter of the law in coming to DRV to consider recreation of the category. Other than the circular reasoning of stating that it was deleted before and that there is no proof that consensus has changed, how on earth could we know if consensus has changed? On the other hand, the significant number of such categories that have been retained, as documented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 28#Category:Travis .28band.29, goes a long way to show that there is no absolute policy banning the existence of such categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; WP:OC applies. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 31 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.

Administrator instructions

24 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lauchlan Maclean, 2nd Laird of Brolas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Public domain source from 1899 scanned by Google. Editor deleted because Google stamps a copyright claim on every image that they scan. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 24 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.
  • Category:Second wranglers and Category:Senior wranglers – Overturn deletions. There is a pretty clear consensus in this DRV that the categories should exist. Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of CFD is that it is a very low-traffic page, so it is more likely than with, say, AFD, that a page which is genuinely encyclopedic and useful will be deleted due to WP:SILENCE. While DRV is traditionally limited to considering whether the deletion process was followed, and enjoined from re-engaging into the merits or otherwise of a particular article or page, that rule is one that was rightfully ignored on this particular occasion, it being to the benefit of the encyclopedia to do so.
    A few users suggested that relisting one or both of the categories for CFD might be an option, but they were in a distinct minority and I have not relisted them. Of course, those users, or anyone else, are welcome to do so.
    On an entirely practical note, I understand that User:Cydebot handles depopulation and deletion of categories where a consensus to delete has been formed, and these categories were no exception. I am not altogether sure on how the articles which were previously in the categories can be or will be added (or, indeed, how one might figure out what articles were in those categories), but I have undeleted the categories and hope that someone will be able to reconstruct them. – Stifle (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Second wranglers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:Senior wranglers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

My objections (Senior wrangler discussion) are:

  1. Otto's rationale is a logical howler ('Valedictorian' is not usually defining so it is never defining), and all the 'deleters' followed like sheep. Accordingly no case had been made for 'delete'.
  2. BlackFalcon relisted when there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus.
  3. Having contributed at some length to the 'delete' argument, such as it was, influencing the last 2 contributors, BlackFalcon should not have closed the discussion.
  4. As the cfd opened on 27 Jan, and the last comment was on 24 Feb, 19 days after relisting, it is clear that the cfd was thought to be 'finely balanced' otherwise it would have been closed earlier. Such cfds should be closed as no consensus rather than waiting for a random 'casting vote' long after everyone else has stopped watching.
  5. The deletion of Category:Second wranglers was even worse; the delete argument conceded the battle early on and descended into irrelevant skirmishes. Again, it was open for 3 weeks, evidence enough that a 'delete' consensus was difficult to perceive.
  6. There should a warning on the cfd notice - think carefully before suggesting a trivial rename as there are piranhas out there.

(As to the quibble that 'Category:Senior wranglers' should have been taken to DRV while the second wrangler category was being cfd'd, the counter-argument is that BlackFalcon should have allowed say 24 hours rather than 1 minute between closing the one and opening the other, to see if a DRV was opened (it would have been). It is irritating to have to go through the same arguments twice simultaneously, or indeed twice consecutively. Or thrice, not to mention last year. I can see the logic of Bencherlite's closure but it seems unduly bureaucratic.) Occuli (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and restore both: there is clear consensus in the proceedings on Second Wrangler to keep that one, and to restore the Senior Wrangler category. I would also have given less weight to the arguments to delete Senior Wrangler, since they do not appear to proceed from knowledge of the history of nineteenth-century mathematics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baa-aaa-aaa - maybe it's just the ungulate in me but I see no procedural errors in either CFD that warrant overturning either of them. This rather bitchily-written DRV comes off like the sourest of grapes and an attempt to make it all about the people involved and not the arguments. "Important" is not and never has been the standard for categorization and if the keepers couldn't make the case, too bad. They wanted to use the second CFD to try to make the case for the first CFD and it didn't work. Too bad they'll probably force the reversal through here. Otto4711 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must there be procedural errors in order to warrant overturning? I think a perfectly valid deletion after the usual AfD (and I presume also CfD) with no procedural errors can be validly overturned. The grounds could be things that were not considered the first time. To say otherwise would be to claim infallibility. Consider all those people who hang around AfD discussions to urge deletion of articles whose content they are unwilling to know and to tell people with expertise in the topic to submit in meek and servile fashion. Are they infallible? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, procedural error is not required. DRV is also appropriate when "...significant new information has come to light since a deletion...." That hardly seems to have happened in the three hours between the close of the 2nd wranglers CFD and this DRV, unless calling people stupid sheep is significant new information. DRV is not to be used just because one disagrees with the outcome of the XfD, which appears to be the case here since the DRV appears based on nothing more than the rhetorical equivalent of "Nuh-uh!" Otto4711 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sour grapes? The clearest possible consensus at the Second wranglers CfD was for retention. Consensus can change and it did. It is a clever move by the closing admin to ignore the clear consensus on the issue at the Second wranglers CfD and concoct an excuse that the prior CfD should have gone to DRV first, therefore providing an utterly out of process excuse to close the newer CfD as delete. Apparently process means nothing when one agrees with the outcome. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ouch. I'm not impressed by an accusation (without any evidence) that I "agreed with the outcome" and so closed it as delete. As I noted below, I closed the 2008 discussion as "keep". Please rethink your remarks. BencherliteTalk 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't believe that the decision was "concocted" in this case, which would imply that the result was manufactured to meet a desired result. The issue here is a basic and fundamental misapplication of Wikipedia policy, applied in apparent good faith, in assuming that the result of a prior case requires mandatory action in any and all future cases, unless the original deletion is explicitly overturned by a DRV that addresses the specific original case. A closing administrator had three basic options: 1) To treat the prior case of Senior Wrangler as controlling and delete in the Second Wrangler case, disregarding any contrary consensus; 2) treat the newer case as controlling and respect the consensus established at Second Wrangler as the most current, overturning the prior decision at Senior Wrangler; or 3) to decide the Second Wrangler case on its own merit, leaving the seemingly inconsistent result that Senior Wrangler was deleted unchanged. A review of Wikipedia policy shows that the clear consensus established at the Second Wrangler case is the only relevant matter here, leaving options 2 and 3 the only viable ones under policy, while option 1, chosen by the closing admin, is in clear contradiction to policy. Wikipedia does not operate on a precedent-based system. While prior cases may influence newer ones, the result of any prior consensus has no binding value whatsoever in any future situation. In fact, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia official policy on such matters, mandates that "Consensus Can Change", stating that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." In this case, consensus changed in the clearest possible manner. Even if the Senior Wranglers case was decided correctly -- and it was not -- there is no obligation to delete Second Wranglers simply because of the incorrect assumption that the prior precedent is binding, even for the sake of "consistency". That an article for Company A is deleted places no binding precedent to delete articles for all all other companies, or for articles for all smaller companies, or articles for companies in the same industry as Company A or even for smaller companies in the same field as Company A; Each case must be decided on its own merits, as long as all other policy requirements are met, as they are here. An approach that demanded that all similar cases are automatically driven by prior cases not only establishes a firm roadblock to improvements to Wikipedia, it encourages an approach to game the system to shoehorn all cases into the neat "binding precedents" that are already being used at CfD to stifle change. "Concocting" a decision would imply that this one case was decided incorrectly on an arbitrary basis and I do not believe that anything was concocted here. The issue of misinterpretation of policy here, ignoring clear consensus here for retention of Second Wranglers and insisting that prior precedent is binding when no such policy exists, is one that could well be misapplied elsewhere by assuming it in good faith to be Wikipedia policy despite clear evidence to the contrary written directly into Wikipedia:Consensus. This out of precess decision needs to be overturned here to ensure that it is not misapplied elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn These were the highest possible honours for Cambridge undergraduates in mathematics; consequently, the highest honours in mathematical sciences in the world altogether in the period. I am not for the moment arguing that everyone who attained these ranks were notable, though I would be prepared to do so for senior wrangler. But certainly for those who did attain these rank, and have articles in Wikipedia (which is about 2/3 of the senior wranglers and 1/3 of the 2nd's), it is a distinctive specification of their of significance and appropriate for a Wikipedia category. The argument about CfD is irrelevant--for a category, there is not other method of review of seeing whether consensus has changed. We must have a way or reviewing any decision--it's a basic meta-principle of orderly procedure. As for arguments specifying animal noises as proposed decisions, there's nothing rational to say-- or that needs to be said. :) DGG (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The function of DRV is to determine whether the XfD close was technically correct or to offer up new information that weighs on whether circumstances have changed. Your comment does neither. DRV is not CFD round 2. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both Not much substantive remains to be said. To repeat: this was a "most notable award" in the 19th century - much more notable than Rhodes Scholar, say, more like being Miss America, and consensus is that these are appropriate for categories. Procedurally, a deletion consensus was never apparent, based in policy or practice, or logical, especially once this fact was established. As noted Black Falcon's close was defective in other ways. Bencherlite's closure was wrong, based on a othercrapnowdoesn'texist idea, rather than the specific arguments on that page about that category, which showed a clear preponderance of keeps - about 10-6. Finally, I'm glad I edit conflicted with DGG, because his point about the necessity of methods to review decisions is well taken.John Z (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there should be review mechanisms, and of course there are, and the mechanisms and circumstances for that review are spelled out clearly. "I disagree with the outcome" or "the people who support the decision are sheep" do not fall under those circumstances. Otto4711 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How then do we see if consensus has changed for a category? DGG (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Talk about beating a horse (or ungulate, in this case) into submission: this whole saga has been going on for nearly two full months now—let's try to make it an three with this discussion! Oh, can the wrangler categories ever rest in peace? Seriously though, the merits of deletion vs. keeping have been debated ad nauseum in both CfDs. The entire reason that, as User:Occuli points out, that the second discussion was marred with some petty sub-squabbles was in all likelihood because everything that could be said had pretty much been said. User:Michael Hardy says that a valid reason to overturn a CfD could be the illumination of "things that were not considered the first time." That may be true, but I highly doubt anyone can point to any surprising "new information" that has now come to light that was not discussed in the CfDs. For that reason, we are pretty much stuck with questioning whether there are procedural errors that would warrant overturning or (please, no) relisting. The two closers are not infallible, but they both appear to have made good-faith efforts to honestly make a decision based on the discussion and arguments that were before them. I personally agree with the result of the decision, but regardless of which side they had come down on, I cannot fault the closers' actions procedurally in these cases. User:Occuli's presumption that "it is clear that the cfd was thought to be 'finely balanced' otherwise it would have been closed earlier" is a bit of a non-starter: it's more likely that it stayed open for so long largely because the more regular users who typically close CfD discussions had all participated in the discussion! Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It stayed open so long because the CfD process is not much visited except by specialists, and the supporters may have neglected to canvass. DGG (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like another less-than-likely theory. There's a far simpler possible reason which, without any evidence that would lead us elsewhere, should probably be accepted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no particular opinion either way, but I dispute your claim that the merits were debated at all, much less "ad nauseam". Only one serious argument for deletion was advanced in the CFD for Category:Senior Wranglers, namely that the category was equivalent to "valedictorians"; this was not properly rebutted. One or two people advanced the claim that Senior Wrangler is a "defining characteristic"; this was not rebutted either. So there was not a debate in any meaningful sense. For Category:Second Wranglers, the "debate" was even more of a travesty. This time arguments for keeping the category were advanced, but the opponents of the category repeatedly refused to engage them, relying instead of arguments from consistency with the previous deletion. —Dominus (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you see is typically what passes for "debate" at CfD: users setting out their opinions. There doesn't necessarily have to be vigorous back-and-forth between users for the issues to be pretty much exhausted. In my opinion, they were here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your own position on this is inconsistent. The paramount importance and significance of the Senior Wrangler was brought up in the CFD of Category:Senior Wranglers. The claim of importance was never answered, and was disregarded by the closing admin not because it was false, not because it was irrelevant, but because "the claim is unfortunately unattributed". No attempt was made, it seems, to judge the matter on its actual merits. In the following CFD for Category:Second Wranglers, the matter was argued more thoroughly, with extensive documentation, but several contributors to the discussion again disregarded this argument and its overwhelming evidence, this time arguing "that this is not the appropriate format for rehashing the senior discussion", "the place to contest the closing of the previous discussion is DRV, not here". You yourself said "I'm unsure why users are re-arguing the senior wrangler issue here. That seems to be an issue for WP:DRV, as has been repeatedly pointed out." Now the issue is being brought up at DRV, as you said it should, and you claim that no "'new information' ... has now come to light that was not discussed in the CfDs." This argument is circular. The relevant facts were disregarded in the first CFV; they were argued extensively in the second CRV but you said they should be brought up in DRV instead; now here it is in DRV and you are disregarding them because they are not "new information" and "the issues were pretty much exhausted". This is a circular argument. However well you meant your remarks, they amount to moving the goalposts. The facts are unarguable that the Senior Wrangler award was of major importance at the time, and this has been extensively documented. These facts have been disregarded throughout this process by the opponents of the category, using first one and then another procedural quibble that never engaged the substance of the issue. Your own claim that this is "beating a dead horse" is another circular argument of this type. You claimed in the second CFD that the arguments about the importance of Senior Wrangler should be postponed to DRV; now that it is in DRV, you say proponents are "beating a dead horse", implying that the argument was over in the CFD and is being inappropriately prolonged. When I say that the matter hasn't been debated, that's what I mean: the opponents of the category, including yourself, have persistently refused to engage the matter. —Dominus (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not circular, because my advice was disregarded, and the issue was presented there. My comment was an after-the-fact observation—by then, it was too late. Trust me, the horse is dead; i.e., everyone (if they have read the entirety of all discussions) are aware of the arguments that you assume are being ignored. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say people had not read the arguments; I said they ignored them. This is not an "assumption": The admin who closed the second DRV (Bencherlite) has said as much. —Dominus (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we repeat ourselves over and over and over again in the hope of forcing a user to "not ignore" them, even though there's no reliable way to assess how much someone "ignored" an argument? If you want to do that--knock yourself out--but don't complain when others make observations about unnecessary repetition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I agree with DGG. I think the closure was in good faith, but the arguments for deletion were all thin and seem to have no knowledge of the significance of the wrangler grade. Being a wrangler was massively notable and it is appropriate that they should have categories. There was no real consensus based on building an encyclopedia to delete these. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both. In line with the clear balance of opinion at the Cfd on Second wranglers. Jheald (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As was made clear in the Afd for Second Wranglers, if not perhaps at Senior Wranglers, this was one of the most senior academic prizes in mathematics during the nineteenth century. Those advocating deletion on "valedictorian" grounds have clearly failed to understand this, and although both Cfds were closed in good faith, they were done so on a mistaken assumption and should be reversed. It doesn't matter how long this takes, as long as the error is eventually reversed, and accusations that people are "beating a dead horse" are certainly not in the spirit of WP:AGF.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the idea that those of us supporting deletion are dumbasses is an example of good faith? Otto4711 (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that, you did. What I said was that you were mistaken. You've just failed to WP:AGF for a second time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you said was that we weren't able to understand a basic argument. Sure sounds like an oh-so-polite way of calling people stupid to me. Could it possibly be that we did understand it but we just think you're wrong? Otto4711 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are still failing to AGF, but thats not my problem. My problem is that so far no one has successfully explained why these categories should be deleted: both the arguments for endorse above are based on technicalities relating to previous Cfds, which carry no weight in this DRV. Other reasons for deletion are that 1) the subject works better as a list, which is irrelevant to the discussion, because lists and categories are designed to work in tandem and these categories are an ideal way of associating the award with the people who won it, and 2) this is just a list of "valedictorians", which is simply untrue. The position of Senior Wrangler was a major academic prize during the nineteenth century, and many if not most of its recipients went on to become notable, or even famous, mathematicians. Please explain what it is that you don't understand, or don't agree with, in this summary.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jackyd, you quoted me on the "beating a dead horse" comment and then suggested that this was contrary to the spirit of AGF. Well, apparently you missed the fact that this comment preceded my comment that began, "Seriously though". In other words, the stuff that preceded that was said in a spirit of jest. I would suggest that in light of the context of my comments, an assumption that the comment in question was a serious criticism of others is not an example of assuming good faith. So you may want to examine your own assumptions before repeatedly criticising others'. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit, it was not obvious to me that you were joking, but I withdraw my comment in your case if it causes offence. I do maintain however that Otto4711 was certainly not adhering to AGF, both in his opening comment and in his subsequent replies to me. I still await a reasoned response to my summary of the issues at stake.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from second closer For what it's worth, I closed the 2008 discussion of the main category as "keep" and didn't participate in the 2009 discussions, as I'm much less active at CFD than I used to be. Yes, the second wranglers category was open for about 3 weeks longer than it should have been, but not because the decision was difficult (if the main category is deleted, the runners-up category has to go too - not based on some "othercrap" argument, which applies to articles, but because categories ought to be consistent) but because it seems to me that most of the few people who tend to close CFD discussions had participated! So I endorse my closure of the second category. As for the main category, I abstain in the circumstances. BencherliteTalk 07:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn We need the category and not just the list because it's the appropriate way of annotating biography articles in the article itself.

Then consider how we can rework current policy so that category-related deletions are a bit more visible. We seem to have a regular problem where article deletions are seen by those concerned, but categories all too often slip through. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse both, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the problems that the DRV nominator does. Nothing wrong with either close. --Kbdank71 10:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both so as to respect Keep consensus on Second Wranglers CFD. Closing admin's argument that it would be illogical to keep Second Wranglers category while deleting Senior Wranglers category was correct, but should have been applied in the opposite direction. Closing admin seemed to feel this could only be achieved by a DRV - so here we are. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both: It's pretty clear to me that the closing admin closed "Senior Wrangler" without consensus, so I'd overturn that decision, and then overturn the second wrangler decision since it was based on the first. Also: Comment: one editor's reasoning for deletion of Senior Wrangler was that in the editor's personal opinion being the top of the school, or being from any school isn't defining. This isn't about anyone's opinion of whether valediction in general is important, it is about whether valediction from Cambridge in math in the 19th century was important to the people then, which it clearly was. RobHar (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both. The contribution of Black Falcon to the discussion makes it inappropriate for him to have closed the discussion: despite being a comment rather than a !vote, it was a long comment that made a significant difference to subsequent !votes. And that CfD seems more clearly to have been a non-consensus; there was no clear argument from the closer (as sometimes happens on split decisions such as this) showing that one side's opinions had policy behind them while the others are just ILIKEIT. There is also a second procedural reason to overturn: the original CfD was about a simple rename, and many participants may not have taken it seriously because of that; it was only later in the CfD that it became a discussion about deletion. Since the second decision followed from the first rather than being in any way independent (it would have been illogical to keep the second wranglers and delete the firsts) it should be overturned as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS Probably this belongs in the inevitable relist rather than here, but documents such as this one (a history of 18th-century English Utilitarians written in 1900) makes plain that, at that time, these titles were considered defining: everyone for whom it is possible is introduced as "So and so, senior wrangler" or "So and so, second wrangler" or even "So and so, ninth wrangler". It's not our task to determine whether these titles should be defining, but merely whether they actually were. That is, in response to Carlossuarez46 below: it may well be that the usage of the time was unfairly biased in favor of just one school, but we should report accurately and neutrally on that rather than trying to change it post facto. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both this is not CFD round 2, there was nothing wrong in the process. Having valedictory categories for just one school is not the NPOV we strive for, and that it is a first-world school is just the WP:BIAS of WP, now overcome by the deletions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both CfD is a rather sorry process, and these two CfDs ably demonstrate a fundamental disrespect for the purpose of categories, which is to allow readers to navigate across similar articles, not to impose persoanl biases. The arguments for retention provide clear and credible justifications for retention. By contrast, many of the weakest arguments come from admins who should know far better, such as the claim that "The list in this case is more useful. The list contains every person who, well, came in second. The category does not, therefore it is less useful", which directly contradicts the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline which states that "these methods should not [emphasis in original] be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this DRV should shed some much needed light on a dysfunctional process that seems far more determined to impose arbitrary and irrational "rules" rather than to improve navigation using categories. As clear arguments for retention were ignored, and as both should have been closed as "keep" or at worst "no consensus", deletion for both should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you chose to quote me, I'll respond. I see you are (again) just regurgitating from the CLN guideline instead of coming up with your own reason to overturn. Yes, the category and the list can coexist, but in this particular case, there is no reason for them to. Perhaps you could respond to the rest of what I brought up, which is how the list has 150 years of wranglers, whereas the category for second wranglers had 26 articles. Don't know what definition of "useful" you are using, but in my book, the category is indeed less useful than the list. --Kbdank71 19:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not only don't I care that you find the category "less useful" than the list, the relevant Wikipedia guideline insists that your argument is erroneous. The reason for them to co-exist is that those who prefer navigating using categories may have that option, even if your own personal biases insist that they not be given that choice. Will you respond to the fact that the overwhelming consensus at CfD was to keep? Taking a look at the most recent CfD might help you with your inability to see the same problems that the nominator and I clearly see. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This has nothing to do with my biases. A 26 article category vs a 150 member list. Are you so reliant on "because the guideline says so" that you can't see the flaws in your own argument? --Kbdank71 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see any flaw, because I always thought following policy was a good thing, as these policies are created to help prevent admins from inserting their arbitrary biases. Are you actually insisting that any category with fewer entries than a corresponding list must be deleted? Can you even point to any Wikipedia policy that might support this nonsense? Do you see the flaw in your own argument? Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • See, here you go again. My argument for this category does not translate to "every category", no matter how many times you try to twist it. Can you point to an actual policy? Because not only is CLN a guideline that states "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception", and also says "neither requires nor forbids" the use of categories and lists. So no, I don't see a flaw in my argument at all, but yours is on very shaky ground. --Kbdank71 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from first closer – Since a portion of this DRV essentially repeats claims expressed here, to which I replied but received no reply in turn, I am forced to repeat parts of my comment from there:
    1. The discussion for Category:Senior Wranglers stopped being just a renaming discussion when the first user suggested deletion. Once a category is nominated at WP:CFD, the course of the discussion rather than the initial nomination determines what will be done with it. By the way, the same is true of all deletion discussion processes. Demanding that discussion be limited only to the scope of the nomination (I'm not saying that this is suggested by the nomination, but it seems to be a target of complaint) is counterproductive process-obsession.
    2. My participation in the first discussion was limited to relisting the discussion and posting what was intended to be my closing rationale (I relisted it purely on procedure due to the fact that both categories were not tagged at the time), so as to hopefully stimulate additional discussion. It is a mistake to equate evaluation of the merits of the arguments in preparation for a close with the actual making of an argument one way or the other.
    3. The discussion was open for more than one month, including 23 days after the first relisting. There was ample opportunity to comment but virtually no response to the arguments for deletion.
Finally, in response to the nom's assertion that I should have allowed time to see whether my close would have been taken to DRV: in retrospect, I should have waited. However, in my defense, none of those advocating to keep the category had posted a single comment in over three weeks, and there was little reason for me to think that an extra day would make a difference. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist there is an argument that few people were aware of the cfd, which is often the case. A better discussion may be had in a second cfd. My personal preference is for the categories to stay deleted, List of Wranglers... does a fine job and I see no pressing need for a category, most mathematical awards do not have categories which I see as a good thing. --Salix (talk): 20:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't see procedural error, nor "new information" coming to light. The list should be fine in this case, as it allows for referencing to illustrate "definingness" (what a word) for each and every member, the lack of ability to annotate each member being a weak point in categorisation, per WP:CAT (and WP:CLS). - jc37 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ?There was a great deal of new information presented in the second wrangler debate. Considering the way that was closed, for consistency and disregarding that information, disallowing that new information here amounts to an Alice-In-Wonderland "review" process.John Z (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Great deal"? Not that I see. Please feel free to point out what you think I may be missing, for disucssion. - jc37 22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dominus's, Occuli's, C S's and my posts there have a lot of quotes and URLs. Black Falcon's "key question" in the first wrangler CfD was exactly to the point. : "What significance does graduating as Senior Wrangler have outside of the context of mathematics at the University of Cambridge? In other words, what factors make the status of 'Senior Wrangler' significantly different from that of 'valedictorian'? The main article claims that "[t]he examination was the most important in England at the time, and the results were given great publicity", but the claim is unfortunately unattributed." The second wrangler discussion, cf the posts alluded above, supported the claims, showing that it was much more significant than "valedictorian" - beating it to death, with nobody opposing, explicitly saying no, this was not a "most notable award" - because there are plenty of RS's out there that imply it was, and none that say it wasn't. There were people who built their whole lives around being and having been Senior Wrangler. It gave one entry to practically any profession. It had international publicity. What other valedictorian category can that be said about?John Z (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well first, categorisation of anything on Wikipedia is subjective. Categorisation is merely one form of navigational ability that we provide our readership. It isn't necessary, and no specific article, and no specific topic, "deserves" categorisation.
    And there are people who build their whole lives around being Napoleon. And being computer literate these days is an entry to nearly any choice of profession, and I doubt that we'd start categorising individuals based upon their proficiency with computers. So that particular argument doesn't exactly sway me : )
    No, being computer literate is not an entry to any choice of profession, that's not what the ref I cited meant. It's more like being literate back then. Being Senior Wrangler was infinitely more.John Z (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think you're confusing something about the phrase "comes to light". No new information (presumably) has come to light between the closure of the CfD and this DRV. Was there more information on the topic in the second CfD compared to the first one. Yes. Did it help in establishing how these didn't go contrary to WP:OC#AWARD (and the related discussion at WT:OC)? Not that I saw.
    I am not confused; I was criticizing the interaction of such arguments and closings as amounting to an absurd procedure. As there were several CfD's I think you should be clearer about which one you are referring to. In the 2nd Wrangler CfD, lots of new info came to light after the close of the recent first wrangler CfD. Disallowing this info as "not new" here is insane procedure, in light of the second wrangler close.
    Here is a parallel example: An Afd is closed, bizarrely, as KEEP for Lord Tweedledee whose claim to notability is that he is King of Earth. In the AfD for his twin, Lord Tweedledum, who says he is King of the Moon, people argue that the claims are nutty. The second AfD is closed as KEEP, " to be consistent". And then in the joint DRV, people say that the information that neither are King of Earth or King of the Moon is "not new info", so we must endorse keeping both. Is this reasonable procedure?John Z (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the commenters established well enough that a list based upon the information is "notable" (whatever that means these days). But as far as this being a category, all they showed was that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "But this one is better than those". Which still doesn't explain how this isn't overcat.
    It isn't overcategorization because this was proved to be a "most notable award" as much as one can prove this for any award, which no one has even disagreed with. Do you? If not, why do you disagree with WP:OC?John Z (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I'm not seeing how any new information has come to light between the closure of the CfDs and the opening of this DRV.
    Nobody is saying it has.John Z (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seemed to be. And if you're not saying it has, then you've removed that leg of your arguement for validity of this DRV.
    No one else interpreted my comments that way, as I explicitly denied it in my first sentence in this DRV.John Z (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now if you're arguing whether DRV in general should have different guidelines, please feel free to note that opinion at WT:DRV.
    And speaking of opinions, in looking over even this DRV "discussion", that's pretty much all I'm seeing: Opinions of whether this award is "notable enough" for categorisation. How is this any different than if several companies in the 1950s named a particular person "Salesman of the year"? That person could get any job in the sales field due to that statement about them by the several companies. Should we categorise such people? - jc37 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained as clearly as I could that it is you (and Good Ol'factory) who are inadvertently, but in effect proposing a novel, unrobust and Kafkaesque interpretation of deletion review, that basically eliminates it, and which would be very easy to manipulate to keep or delete any article or category according to a tiny minority's whims. Dominus made similar points above.John Z (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back to WP:DRV for the exact phrase. Currently it's: "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article."
    (With the latter part obviously applying to articles.)
    But I'm not seeing anywhere where you are saying that "new information has come to light since [the] deletion". What you seem to be saying is that new information has come to light since the most recent cfd of the senior category, and that information occurred during the cfd of the "second wranglers". What I'm saying is that no "new information has come to light since [the] deletion" of second wranglers. Something you have repeatedly agreed with.
    There have been several "problems". First is that several people tried to inappropriately use the second wrangler CfD as a DRV for the senior wrangler category. And now are "surprised, shocked, and aghast" that the closer didn't treat it that way.
    And so now, here you are, seemingly trying to say that the second nom should be treated as the "new information". As I said above, the best you'll likely get with that position might be a relisting. (But who knows, in the end we may all be "surprised and shocked"...) - jc37 06:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you see something different, please feel free to share it for further discussion. - jc37 06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to anyone trying to read the above, John Z has threaded his responses to my comments as indented within my initial responses. (Seemed easier to just note this than to try to refactor : ) - jc37 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My main point however was that not considering the second wrangler debate information as new for purpose of this DRV is a perfectly mad "review" process, that does not deserve the name "review".John Z (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, since both CfDs are being considered together. And let's say, for the sake of your argument that this DRV was only on the first CfD. You know what the result would be? Relist to discuss the new information. And that's seemingly what happened already, despite the best efforts of several commenters in the second CfD, the first CfD was constantly being discussed. And that "relisting" had the same result.
    And so now we're here. If you're claiming that new information has come to light, and therefore you want a relisting. Fine. Please bring forth your new information for everyone (and eventually the closer) to assess to determine if it is indeed "new" since the CfDs.
    In other words, new information won't get you a result of "keep", it'll get a result of "relist for discussion of the new information".
    Just remember that these discussions are determined based upon the weight of the arguments of those discussing and are not vote counts. So if this is relisted, you may wish to be ready with your solid arguments concerning this "new information", because (as I mention above), those who oppose will have literally years of examples where such categories are repeatedly and consistantly deleted. (See WT:OC for a rather large list. And by the way, note that that discussion started because I was wondering whether we should remove the AWARD section from WP:OC. So any accusations towards me are quite clearly unfounded. Not directed at you personally, or any specific thing you have said, just a general aside.) - jc37 06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained many times, the deletes are the ones who are contradicting WP:OC and practice and the examples of the WT:OC list, without even answering arguments that that is what they are doing. "Such categories" are not constantly, indeed never AFAIK deleted. We still have the Miss America, Heisman Trophy and Kentucky Derby winners categories.John Z (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn both Simply put, to anyone who knows the history of the 19th and early 20th century math in Great Britain, deleting these categories is simply ridiculous. I know DRV isn't supposed to be CfD round two, but this is more or less what I would have said if I had known these had been nominated for deletion. Seriously, this is just ridiculous. There doesn't seem like anything resembling a consensus for deletion and anyone who knows about this topic would almost certainly not have called for such deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both I missed this CfD, since nobody notified me, and I didn't have these categories on my watchlist. Regarding the latter, I thought the issue had been clearly decided in the February 2008 CfD, so didn't bother keeping them on my watchlist. In my view (out of courtesy, if nothing else), the CfD(2) nominator should have notified participants in the previous CfD. However, all that is not so important. What matters is that these two categories are definitely notable, right up there amongst the most significant you can get in 19th century mathematics. They also have a clear, well-defined criterion for inclusion. There is absolutely no justification for deletion according to Wikipedia policy. I agree with JoshuaZ that this is one of the most ridiculous deletion decisions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. NSH001 (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both Obviously improper as there was a biased close and no consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both: I understand the objections based on Valedictorian grounds, but being Senior or Second Wrangler in the 19th century was an extremely notable thing, and based on the CfD consensus and this fact the categories should be undeleted. Throwawayhack (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not convinced the closer was in error, because I believe he did close in accordance with the consensus available to him at that time, but the consensus was simply wrong.

    A point made above was that the purpose of DRV is to determine if the closer has made a mistake, and I take issue with that, because it implies that an "overturn" is a black mark against the closer. I think the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia better.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. At 09:51, 25 March 2009, User:C S re-created Category:Senior wranglers. It's possible the user's not aware of this process here, since he participated in the CfD but hasn't appeared here. Anyway, I've re-deleted it pending the outcome here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See this message on his talk page telling him about the DRV]. BencherliteTalk 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, so he was presumably aware of this process. How nice of him not to care. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, he left me a comment stating that he purposefully attempted to "circumvent ridiculous process". Even nicer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ol'factory does seem to be putting process ahead of the encyclopedia; but if no new trend emerges, these should be restored in a few days. Restoring them two days ago was precipitate, but harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If re-creating it was "harmless", then so too was re-deleting it. Whether even having the category is a good idea for the encyclopedia is a matter of vigorous debate, so I hardly think adhering to a process for resolving the issue is "putting process ahead of the encyclopedia". I will take your assessment with a grain of salt, though, because of your other comments above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • But this current process is not about resolving the issue of whether or not the category is a good idea for the encyclopedia. Instead, this DRV is a procedural discussion about whether specific guidelines were followed in the CfD process. If you truly believe that "having the category is a good idea for the encyclopedia is a matter of vigorous debate" then presumably you would want to "vote" "overturn" on this DRV so that everything can go back to a CfD where the merits of the category can be debated. Otherwise, you are "putting process ahead of encyclopedia" by saying that you don't care whether or not tonnes of people disagree with the original CfD because it already happened and broke no guidelines. Am I wrong? RobHar (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes. The vigorous debate already happened. Twice. Three times if we count much of the discussion here. In any case, we were referring to re-deleting the category when it was re-created during this DRV, not what the final decision here should be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am going to try to summarize what I see as the procedural failure here.
    1. In the CFD for Category:Senior Wranglers, certain arguments were made as to why the category should not be deleted. The closing admin said that these claims constituted "the key question", but disregarded them, not because they were erroneous, but because they were "unattributed"; that is, unsubstantiated.
    2. In the CFD for Category:Second Wranglers, the "key question" claims were extensively substantiated, but the closing admin again disgregarded them, saying that if the first category went, the second must too, and that the proper venue for addressing these claims would be a DRV of Category:Senior Wranglers.
    3. This is that DRV, but now many opponents of the category are again refusing to engage the issue on its merits, saying that the matter was thoroughly discussed during the second CFD, that the discussion has gone on too long, or that DRV is only appropriate to consider "new information [that] has come to light in the three hours between the close of the 2nd wranglers CFD and this DRV."

In short, there are significant issues of fact ("the key question", as the first closing admin put it) which, despite the vast discussion, have not been taken into account by the process. The closing admin in the second CFD promised a hearing of these issues during DRV. If the matter is rejected here on purely procedural grounds, because the issues brought up are not "new", then this promise was a bait-and-switch. —Dominus (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, and I think a certain degree of common sense needs to be injected into this debate: people advocating deletion should provide arguments as to why these categories should be deleted based on the categories themselves, not on technicalities to do with the deletion process. Only then will a proper debate be held and a proper consensus established.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for the closer of this review – If the outcome of this review is to recreate the categories and relist them for discussion (as opposed to endorsing the deletions or relisting without recreating), then please do so at Category:Senior Wranglers and Category:Second Wranglers (upper case) as there was consensus (among those who argued to keep the category) in the February 5 discussion that "Senior Wrangler" and "Second Wrangler" should be capitalized as titles. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both due to the lameness of the deletion discussion. Someone didn't like the capitalization of the category, and then some people began mumbling about valedictorians and decided to delete the whole thing. However, Cambridge university really is different from an American high school. It is easy to demonstrate that Senior Wranglers and Second Wranglers were a notable feature of British academics in the 19th and into the twentieth century. For example, have a look at the bottom of page 10 of this book. Cardamon (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both (with capitalisation of both words). Being the top or second graduate in Maths from the top British University is a notable distinction. Historically, Cambridge Iniversity was stronger than Oxford in Maths and the Sciences, going back to the time of Sir Isaac Newton. I cannot think of many equivalent awards (etc), so that this does not open the floodgates to a mass of categories for minor awards (somethign I would deplore). Having read the previous discussion, it seems to me that there is a strong consensus for restoring the categories. Procedural arguments should count for little. The question is whether we should or should not have the category, and I say we should. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And once again, DRV becomes XfD2:The New Batch. - jc37 12:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you remember it, but it was actually you who suggest we come here to appeal against the deletion of Senior Wranglers "I agree. Drv is that way... - jc37 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)" [25].--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the quote is accurate, though the context, not-so-much. I was suggesting to do an immediate DRV (at that time) on the senior wranglers nom, rather than try to re-argue the senior wrangler nom again at the "second wranglers" nom. And now, rather than try to re-argue it (again) here. DRV isn't XFD2. Maybe a re-read of WP:DRV might help? - jc37 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That answer makes no sense - why would deletion review have been appropriate then but suddenly inappropriate now? Looking over DRV, I can numerous indicators that this actually is the correct place to discuss this. In the intro: "This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." (this discussion is the former and the latter indicates that the Cfd on Senior Wranglers should have gone through here instead, given that it comfortably survived a Cfd less than a year earlier). In the box below it that explains the purpose of DRV: "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion" (yes, a large quantity of information has "become" available since Senior Wranglers was deleted). There are other examples, but I fail to see any reason listed on that page why this should be an inappropriate forum for this debate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what "this debate" is. Is it raising a question about the closure of the senior wranglers category? The second wranglers category? Both? Any of those are welcome to be discussed here. But as I was attempting to say with a bit of humour, DRV isn't XfD2. This isn't the venue for arguments concerning the categories themselves unless new information has come to light since the closure. The place where the confusion seems to be lying is that you are (presumably) arguing that the "new information" came to light in the second wrangler CfD. And so based upon that I would not necessarily argue that a DRV nomination of senior wranglers would be inappropriate. But that would only be if the second wrangler nom was closed as keep. It wasn't. Which pretty much extinguishes the hope that the "new information" was valid. So then the next step would be to nominate second wranglers for DRV first. And if that DRV overturns the second wranglers nom, then you might have a case for overturning senior wranglers, based upon the "new information". But as it stands right now, what we're seeing in this "discussion" is more opinion about the categories themselves and statements of "Well I would have voted x had I known about the nom". Such "votes" can be ignored by the closer here.
    So I'm not saying that you are or are not wrong about the cats, I'm saying (atm anyway) that you seem confused about process and venue, etc.
    I don't envy the closer of this. Due to the issues I just laid out above (both of process and of opining), they're likely going to need to do a bit of WP:IAR. Which is likely to not make anyone happy. - jc37 01:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand the problem - as was firmly established in the closers statement on the Second Wrangler's Cfd, these categories stand or fall together, and thus the new information that has emerged since the initial review is the important factor here because it applies to both categories equally. That Cfd was massively weighted towards keep and at the very least would have closed with a "no consensus" - the reason that it didn't was that Senior Wranglers had been erroneously deleted first and so Second Wranglers had (apparently) to follow suit. Why is there the need for two seperate DRVs to deal with what is effectively a single issue? I don't believe that there is any requirement for Second Wranglers to pass DRV before Senior Wranglers can be placed before one and I still don't understand why you told us to come here if it was the wrong place to address this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn mostly on the basis of closing a discusion one participated in. I think I understand the reasoning there and I certainly don't think harm was intended or there was a system being gamed, but procedurally it seems like a problem. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The comparison to Valedictorians which the deletion position is based on is totally spurious. As many people have pointed out this was a widely recognised and publicised achievement, and sources have been presented attesting to that. I should note that this had been left open a long time, and as a regular CfD closer and someone who hadn't !voted on the subject I was planning to close it myself. But after reading jc37's comments here I felt that he at least would not be happy with that - because I am a student at Cambridge (albeit one who is erm... ambivalent about its mathematicians :) Therefore I resolved to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest - and it gave me another reason to stay the hell away from this wasps' nest. the wub "?!" 01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made a comment on the subject of this discussion at my talk page. [26]. There must be a way of having XfD2, since its accepted that consensus can change, and obvious that mistakes can be made. If there is no formal provision for it, then, by IAR, any forum will serve. Any process, any venue, as long as we get it right. DGG (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What was that sound? Why, I do believe it was all the local deletionists having simultaneous infarctions.

A potential issue with that suggestion is that from the deletionist point of view, "DRV is not AfD round 2" is the magic mantra that ends what would otherwise be an infinite cycle. There has to be some final stopping point for repeated AfDs. With repeated nominations of articles that survive, it's WP:NOTAGAIN, and with repeated requests to undelete articles that don't, it's "DRV is not AfD round 2".

But on balance, since it's possible for someone to nominate an article for deletion as many times as they like, and we have articles that have survived four or more AfDs, surely it has to be possible for someone to bring an article back to DRV on the basis that the AfD consensus was simply wrong. So I think either remarks to the effect that "DRV is not AfD round 2" need to be disregarded, or we give WP:NOTAGAIN the force of policy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a broader issue than I raised here. I favor symmetry, and I favor closure. there should be some limits to repeated deletion attempts. There should be as many opportunities to reinsert material as to delete it, and at the same frequency. ? 4 months, then 12, then 24? --more only after a deletion review. DGG (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue here is narrower. there must be at least one possibility of appeal from all decisions. DGG (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given all of the problems that exist in the wild world of CfD, it is truly enlightening to see how this DRV is playing out. Every single vote here from those who do not spend the overwhelming majority of their time passing judgments on categories has been to overturn. The only endorsements of the admin's decision to delete in the face of the clearest possible consensus for retention have come from User:Carlossuarez46, User:Good Olfactory, User:Jc37 and User:Kbdank71 together with a bleat from User:Otto4711. That this group, which consists mostly of admins who have been overrepresented at CfD, are the only people who believe that the decision was in compliance with Wikipedia policy, while every other participant believes otherwise, should send a clear message that there is something deeply wrong at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an extremely wild assumption. That something is "deeply wrong at CFD" based upon this one DRV? I've heard some really wild accusations at wikipedia, but this tops them all. Do you have any other proof besides the opinions of five people at one DRV that things are wrong? I can easily list a few DRV's that were closed as endorsed when you not only wanted to overturn, but you nominated the DRV, does that make you "deeply wrong"? --Kbdank71 02:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, too many editors will give the benefit of the doubt to closing admins at DRV. The bar is set so high to overturn any decision, that even when there is clear evidence of questionable actions and personal bias creeping in editors will give the benefit of the doubt. This case, where there are four admins who regularly participate at and close CfDs, plus one bleater, differing with every single other Wikipedia editor on a basic question of how to determine consensus, ought to be sending a very strong message that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong at CfD. In far too many situations, the goal of making categories as useful as possible for navigation has been lost to the competing goal of deleting categories based on arbitrary personal biases. While a small lesson may be learned hear from the overwhelming consensus, the bigger question is how to address the problems at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the second time you have alleged problems at CFD and given no examples or proof. Perhaps someone can just move this thread to the talk page as being off-topic for this DRV. --Kbdank71 03:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't possibly offer any "proof" from this DRV as you've demanded, but it is clear that there is a fundamental difference in interpreting Wikipedia policy and consensus demonstrated here. What it proves is subject to interpretation, and I've offered mine. I'd love to hear your explanation for the discrepancy in understanding consensus between the five endorsers and every other editor who participated here. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to read WP:CON to get a better idea of what consensus is. Especially the part about "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the 'logic' (point of view) of the majority." It doesn't mean that the minority opinion is wrong, or that something is broken. --Kbdank71 14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, but it isn't unreasonable to suspect a problem given data like that. I don't know that there is a problem at CfD. I don't follow it. But the above discussion makes me suspect there is. Hobit (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kbdank71, I would suggest that you read WP:CON and then take a look at the CfD under discussion here, where the clearest possible consensus was for retention. I find it disturbing that you are pushing for a rigid interpretation of "strict logic", despite a complete lack of agreement on the part of any outside editor, to get a category deleted, and are disap pointed that your pedantic reading is not being accepted by others. I do enjoy the wikilawyering used at CfD and here to insist that consensus should be ignored to meet nitpicking interpretations of Wikipedia policy. The problem with RfC in dealing with the problems here is that it is structured primarily to deal with one problem at a time, and this goes far beyond that. The disinfecting light that has been shined on the problems at CfD might hopefully provide a small step in bringing in other editors and admins with a greater degree of respect for making the goal of the category system to make it an effective tool for navigation by readers, not a means of imposing arbitrary interpretations of unreasonably restrictive rules that clearly conflict with essential Wikipedia policies. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is any concern with the way CfD works, then it would be helpful if someone could point to some specific examples outside of this CfD/DRV to illustrate the point. This hasn't been done, I'm assuming because either it can't be, or because of space/time concerns, etc. In any case, this is not really what this forum is for. Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion awaits, however. But to allege that an editor's opinion in a DRV discussion is symptomatic of some overarching problem is mildly presumptuous at best, and an unnecessary attack against specific editors at worst. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If there is any concern with the way CfD works, then it would be helpful if someone could point to some specific examples outside of this CfD/DRV" At least we have agreement that this is one example of CfD gone bad. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Weak Relist - I've struck all my comments above, in simple protest and honestly disgust for the proceedings thus far. I don't envy the closer here whatsoever. To have to attempt to sift through a re-arguing of the XfD topic, a series of ad hominem attacks, arguments about the efficacy of categories, and of CFD itself, all of which have no place in a DRV discussion, per long, long, LONG, precedent. (Not to mention having to try to figure out what happened when...) I really would rather not see a relist, because it may be more of the same, but at least those who claim to not have had an opportunity to comment would have that opportunity, I suppose. And I suggest this with no slight or prejudice against the original closers. (As I said above, I still do not see a procedural error here. Just a heaping lot of confusion about a heaping lot of things.) - jc37 15:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'll join my fellow admins who are apparently off the rails at CfD and say this was a correct close. The most revealing exchange in the discussion was when Bduke said "Being a Wrangler is very defining and is always mentioned about the person in any summary of their life." and Carlos Suarez said, "So is procreation, divorce, and other life events, but we don't categorize those either." Wikipedia categorization is about making choices about how an article is defined. Some things are clearly in ("When was he born?") and some things are not ("When did he get married?"). For schooling, "Where did he go?" is potentially defining, and so we often have categories for that. But "What were his grades?" is not defining, and valedictory status is a sub-derivation of that, so it makes sense not to categorize by that fact wherever the person went to school. To do so specifically for one country or not another makes the case even less defining.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you offering an argument for CfD, because that already closed? The question here is the ability to read and interpret consensus, not how to best insert your own opinion to override and ignore consensus. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be your question. I'm making an argument for why I would have closed it the exact way it was closed, and that it thus was not improper to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was originally not going to involve myself in this discussion but I feel there are some things that still need to be said. Its obvious to most people who've done any sort of spot auditing of the CfD process that there have been issues with the way some CfDs have been conducted. While I'm not really surprised at the debate here and some of the stuff brought up here really probably needed to be said, the larger issues likely still need to be addressed with a proper RFC.
    One of the things I'm seeing in places here that I do not agree with is the "editors vs those mean admins who delete stuff". IMO an admin bit isn't anything special and someone with said bit isn't any different from another editor. Sure, that bit will give someone access to the delete link, deletion logs, etc, but other than that, the person with an admin bit is still just another editor. In this particular discussion there are editors, current admins, and former admins who disagree with the way the CfD was conducted and played out and there are editors, current admins, and former admins who agree with it. This is a disagreement and discussion between editors (with or without the admin bit) and not editors vs admins.
    In addressing the ever constant "DRV is not XfD round 2"— just stop. That argument might have worked 4 years ago but it is largely ignored now and its pretty much equivilant to WP:IDL, WP:JNN, WP:RUBBISH, etc depending on where in the discussion it is inserted. The "DRV is not ..." argument has been misused, abused, and overused so often in the past that most people don't even bother to pay attention to it now. DRV is the place to attempt to deal with issues that are left unresolved in XfD.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both Appears to be the case that the CfD discussion, as is often the case, failed to elicit responses from interested parties suited to addressing the notability issue with these categories- following a discussion that appears to have been initiated over capitalization??? There were at least three different discussions going on in the initial CfD- should the category exist, how should it be capitalized, and should it be replaced by a list. The second discussion concluded that the Second category should have the same fate as the Senior category, that the Second shouldn't be deleted, and that because Senior was Second would be. I'm quite enjoying this. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:29, 30 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.
  • Venetian people – Deletion endorsed. As many noted, there were no issues with the AfD. No prejudice against eventual recreation if proper sourcing can be found; failing that, no prejudice against creating Venetian people as a redirect to a more appropriate target. GlassCobra 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Venetian people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

e-ethnocide Bolivendarsen (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I just read the beginning of the deletion log for Venetian People. I imagine that there were other reasons in the rest of the text, but I need to correct the first statement. A Venetian ethnic group does indeed exist. The following link has the Articles of Regione Veneto's Statute. This is an official law of the Italian Republic. It states "il popolo veneto" (Venetian People). Within the Italian Republic, only Sardinian and Venetians have the status of people (even though I personally believe that others should as well). This is not trivial, because according to international law, a people has rights of self-determination and protection. This is only what has been recognized by the Italian government. Here is the link: http://www.consiglioveneto.it/crvportal/leggi/1971/71ls0340.html#Heading14 Then, as far as publications goes, the following is a book on European ethnic groups that clearly lists and describes (even somantically) Venetians: "i popoli della terra", Tom Stacey, vol. 18, pp. 130-133, Mondatori editore, 1972. I believe this is the link to the English version, but I am not sure because it has only 144 pages, while the Italian publication I am referring to has 20 volumes. Anyway, here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=EnQ7AAAACAAJ&dq="peoples+of+the+world"+"tom+stacey". Finally, even without official legal and bibliographical evidence, I find it very strong to state that an ethnic group does not exist. Especially in the case of a people who has an internationally recognized language, with dictionaries and literature. A people who had their own country for 1100 years. An ethnic group does not disappear in 150 years (6 generations), especially of this size. Please reconsider the deletion. If 99% of the content was not wikipedia worthy, I am fine with the decision, but deleting Venetians as a whole, as an ethnic group, is not appropriate. Thank you, Bolivendarsen (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I notice and appreciate that you contacted the deleting administrator, you made this listing here just 13 minutes later. Please be aware that Wikipedia users are (for the very large part) not online 24 hours a day, and it's courteous to give someone a reasonable time to reply to your request before going on to list here. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to correct errors made in not properly following the deletion process. It is not a place to re-argue matters which got a full airing at the deletion discussion. Nothing here suggests that the deletion process was not correctly followed. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and redirect to either Veneto or Venetian Republic. There WAS an error in the deletion process. According to policy, deletion should only be applied as a last resort. All the people who voted to delete, called the entire article OR in an indiscriminate. None of them, including the nominator, explained the sourced example of a mention of these people in the area's constitution (while not enough for an article, this supports the suggestion to merge elsewhere in the debate). Since the deletion votes did not explain why they thought the article's sources were unreliable, these delete arguments were not the strongest in the discussion. The article contained various bits of verifiable information that would be totally acceptable in another context and the first reference on the now-deleted article shows the article title was a likely search term for Veneto. - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored history I have restored the history so non-admins can see the article duringthe discussionDGG (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The arguments made by the person requesting the review were made in the AfD (including the bit about statute, but you can't create an ethnic group through legal action). I'm not sure this should be here. Bits of verifiable information acceptable in another context can of course be placed in those contexts, so I see no problem there. dougweller (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I am not happy about the 'e-ethnocide' bit, why is that there? dougweller (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore If there is a controversy over whether this is a distinct people we that can be covered in the article. There is a lot of notable content that is worth including and handling appropriately rather than throwing it all out instead of fixing properly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or Redirect to Venice and protect. One of the many problems with the article is that it is undecided whether the "Venetian people" also inhabit the Terrafirma, or just Venice.
The article is worthless. Its command of English, and the sources, may be seen here: Since the Romans and the Venetians were in good relations (except perhaps few marginal episodes) romans's integration in Veentian society was gradual and easy. The historian Tito Livio and the architect Vitruvio were Venetian, and the latter in particular had a influencial impact on architecture. Livy was from Padua; Vitruvius' birthplace is unknown, but he may have been connected with a family from Formiae, south of Rome.
The invective seen in this extract is also unsuitable: Venetians due to their strong identity were marginalized in the italian state. All public, political, military positions were magically taken by italians and Venetians had nothing left than work land or running abroad. It is very important to know that the knowledge of the italian language was the main feature required for any position in the italian public system; Venetians approached italian language as a foreign language and so were discriminated at school and in all governmnent positions. The same end happened to the people of south Tirol who were marginalized and pushed to a violent conflict with italians after the second world war That's enough; but a reference to Timisoara at the end of the paragraph suggests that this nationalism may be connected to the Italian Communist Party.
There may be an potential article on the Venetian people; but this is not it and makes no appreciable contribution to that article.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - consensus was roundly in favour of deletion, and no procedural error justifying restoration was made. I'll ignore the silly accusations of "e-ethnocide", but to respond to Mgm, I did in fact supply ample reason to ignore what Veneto's constitution says about the existence of a "Venetian people": "Do familiarise yourself with WP:PSTS, an official policy: 'Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation'." We need reliable secondary sources attesting to the existence of this group; mention in a primary-source document is not enough. - Biruitorul Talk 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse while I think that there could be an article on this subject, the Afd said otherwise; Venetian language may be the only language on Wikipedia where the community has stated that there is no equivalent "people" article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin I rather object to the comment that this is "e-ethnocide" to delete an article. This was a standard AFD open 117 hours where every participant supported merging or deletion to some degree. While admins interpret AFD discussions in light of policy, socking, etc, the idea of overturning such an overwhelming consensus on that OR-articles are salvageable seems rather odd. If I came across an article where everyone was claiming it was notable, but it had no sources, would I be bound to delete it on the grounds that the Right™ policy controls? I'm a bit confused by some of the above comments on how broad closers should act when closing. MBisanz talk 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The implication of the "e-ethnocide" comment seems to be that by deleting an article on en.wiki, we're excluding it from the Internet as a whole. Of course, 10,000 people would be perfectly free to start their own web pages (even wikis) on the subject tomorrow if they so wished, and we would have neither the power nor the inclination to stop them. They just can't push the idea here. It's the same as the people who cry "censorship!" when an article gets deleted: they ignore the fact that there's tons of bandwidth ready at their disposal for their ideas, just not here. - Biruitorul Talk 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect This article appears to have been deleted for lack of sources, NPOV, and Original Research. The latter two are not listed for reasons for deletion based on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although the first is mentioned by a majority of comments above. Because most the current general consensus leans more towards deletion, may I suggest at least a mention under the Venetian language/Venice article, or, if more reliable sources are presented in the future, a new AFD? Spring12 (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The "Venetian people" exists and it is recognized both by the constitution of the Veneto region and the Italian law. I'm a Venetian and, as I don't identify myself as an Italian, if the Venetian people doesn't exist (and doesn't need a Wikipedia page), who am I? The Venetian people article was poorly sourced and needed a lot of clean up, but the fact that the article needed improvement does not mean that Venetians, with their (our) culture, language and history, are not worth of an article, as Basques, Catalans and Scots do. Please restore the article. --Checco (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in your argument identifies procedural errors in the AfD result, which is what this discussion is for. Your constitutional/legal arguments violate WP:PSTS (an official policy): you need secondary sources attesting to the existence of this ethnic group, not your interpretation of primary sources. And as for what you are or know, see WP:IKNOWIT. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not the personal opinions and experiences of users. - Biruitorul Talk 01:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when is the Italian government a primary source? Anyway, my main argument still stands. I primary source isn't enough to support an entire article, but it is enough to support a minor mention elsewhere. And your comment on this DRV did not address the parroting in the AFD. You covered just one of the sources, but that isn't enough to call the entire article original research. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the whole ethnic thing is a strawman argument. The name would still apply to the historical people of Veneto or the Republic of Venice even if they're not an ethnic group but a georgraphical one. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Depends on what they issue. If the Italian government publishes a report on, say, vehicle safety, then sure, that's a secondary source. But a law or a constitution is a primary source. Or are you arguing that users' interpretations of, say, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or the Human Rights Act 1998 are valid for articles? 2) The article was structured to indicate the group as an ethnic group. Even if we drop that part, would you want redirects on Lancastrian people, Nebraskan people or Niçoise people? In general, the people of a sub-national entity (unless they're recognised as an ethnic group by reliable sources) don't get separate articles. - Biruitorul Talk 15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Per my arguments in the previous AfD. This request is a trick: nobody is disputing that Veneto is inhabited, and that those inhabitants may be referred to as "Venetian people" (as in "Parisian people", "Texan people", etc.) The claim that this attests a distinct ethnicity is bogus, and the path is that of original research and political advocacy. Dahn (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as a correct reading of the consensus, but with no prejucide against a fresh article on "Venetian people" being created, since I think it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article with this title. (Hopefully one that wasn't largely sourced from foreign-language Wikipedias.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore but perhaps merge -- This article seems to duplicate material that is (or should be) in Republic of Venice and/or Veneto. Rationalisation is needed between these three to create a tree of articles, from a general one down to specific ones on aspects of the subject. Venice was an independent republic for 1000 years. This creates a national identity, which is unlikely to have been lost be becoming an Austrian Province and then part of the Italy for 200 years. However, I have doubts as to whether we should have an article on the "people" as distinct from the state. I would suggest that Veneto should deal with the region today, including history after the end of the republic. Republic of Venice should be limited to its period, and the article (probably renamed) should provide an overview. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Are you challenging how the discussion was closed, per WP:DRV? That's what this process is for. 2) Sources claiming the existence of a Venetian national identity might, of course, be useful. - Biruitorul Talk 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion If every region in the world should constitute a group of people with distinct characteristics from other racial groups, without any evidence of the differencies, then each area in the world should have its own article. Such articles only serve dubious nationalistic purposes and my personal view is that they should be deleted. Pel thal (talk) 13:14, 27 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.

Administrator instructions

23 March 2009[edit]

  • Herold Goulon – Speedily recreated and redirected. A G4 deletion only applies to a recreation of material that was discussed in a deletion debate. A PROD does not meet those criteria. – Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Herold Goulon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The player was non-notable at the time of deletion, however he now qualifies for an article per footballer notability criteria. A new article exists on said player already at Hérold Goulon, however a redirect cannot be made from the original link due to it being protected from creation. Simmo676 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy overturn. The deletion of this article was not in accordance with policy as it was deleted twice by PROD and a further time by CSD:G4. The second and third deletions were not in order. However, recreating pages at a different title to get around create-protection is very poor form and should not be done in future. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 24 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.
Habari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

either Habari, in particular, is exempt from normal wikipedia policy or the afd was wrongly decided. if we are to believe the alleged consensus established in the afd, all non notable articles must be deleted simultaneously (regardless of how mammoth a task that would be) or none should be deleted, that unreliable sources can be cited as justification for keeping an article (even if they couldn't actually be cited in the article per WP:RS), and that some random award given away by sourceforge.net deserves its own wikipedia article because it's as notable as the Academy Awards (although i guess someone forgot to inform the tv executives of this since they don't air sourceforge.net awards on primetime tv). Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my keep closure as there was no other possible way of closing this discussion, where only the nominator recommended deletion. Furthermore, as the deletion discussion in question was closed over six months ago as a keep, it would seem more appropriate to renominate the article for deletion than to contest this closure. Suggest speedy close of this DRV with a recommendation to bring back to AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per WP:NOTVOTE, the votes to keep should have been ignored as they didn't cite any relevant wikipedia policy. what's next? say i nominate an article for deletion and three people vote to keep, one because "I like it", another because "It's interesting", and the last one because "It doesn't do any harm". despite being thoroughly discredited reasons, i suppose the consensus would have to be keep, because "only the nominator recommended deletion?". why not just delete WP:NOTVOTE while you're at it? Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTVOTE is a guideline and is trumped by Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Meanwhile, the other three links you provided are to an essay which is supported by a very limited number of people. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NOTVOTE and Wikipedia:Deletion policy seem to reenforce each other. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.. the reason i cited the essays that i did is to demonstrate that arguments that are without substance should not be considered. if you're going to just dismiss those out of hand, though, then what about an afd where the nominator is the only one who proposes deletion and all three other opinions are to keep. "WP:N is dumb!" one person might suggest, another might say "i hate you, Misterdiscreet, and propose keeping the article just because you nominated it!", and the final person might say "i'm watching boston public". none of the arguments are valid (just as the essays i linked to demonstrate invalid arguments) and yet you'd still close the afd suggesting the consensus was keep? Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see us agreeing on anything here, so I'm not going to continue a pointless discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • wikipedia policies are pretty black and white. either i'm right or i'm wrong. but instead of educating me as to what is what you just say you're not going to talk with me anymore about it. typical. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, it would almost certainly be more productive for you to renominate this for AFD. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really see the point when closing admins are going to ignore WP:NOTVOTE and just count votes. Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse not sure I would have argued for keeping in the AfD but the consensus is pretty clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse, but no objection to resending to AfD and suggest this be speedly closed per Stifle. I agree the arguments were weak at best, but it pretty clearly had to be closed as a keep. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or relist—either way, the consensus was pretty clear. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • i agree - the consensus is very clear if you treat afd's as polls. just tally up the votes and the majority decission wins. of course, that's in violation of WP:NOTVOTE. but i guess that's why WP:SNOW exists, isn't it? so the closing admin can have a cop out excuse for keeping even if keeping is in clear violation of the rules. after all, what would you rather have? three people disagreeing with your decission or one person disagreeing with it? it's easier to defend yourself against one person than it is against three. really, the outcome of an afd is all about the numbers - not about the arguments. really, i don't even know why i bother justifying afds, given that. what i say doesn't matter so why should i say anything? just nominate it for deletion and let the voting begin! you might want to get WP:NOTVOTE deleted while you're at it. that and these latest comments by me. since i'm not casting a vote, what i have to say doesn't matter. right? so let's just delete it! yay!
given this new realisation of what consensus is all about, i am forced to wonder if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyMOD should be reconsidered the closing admin ignored a vote "as it [was] incomprehensible". comprehensibility and relevancy mattered for that admin but not for Habari! apparently not all admins got the memo that WP:NOTVOTE was to be disregarded! Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop making random and baseless accusations without justification, shall we? –Juliancolton Talk · Review 13:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the suggestion that WP:NOTVOTE was ignored is not baseless as per my comments. either the policies were followed or they weren't. i quote policy and am told i'm wrong by people who can't be bothered to reciprocate and tell me what sections of policy mean i'm wrong.
but hey - why not just delete everything i say? obviously since wikipedia is just a poll the only thing my comments are doing are upsetting the peace. they're not doing any good and indeed they're causing strife so just delete them. show the world what wikipedia is all about: mob rule Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Proper procedure followed, close appropriate. MBisanz talk 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • really? how about you quote the policy that you believe makes this closure appropriate. from Wikipedia:Deletion policy: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.. since all the closing admin did here was a head count he violated Wikipedia:Deletion policy. disagree? how about you quote the wikipedia policy that says "wikipedia is a poll". i'm holding my breath in anticipation Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend speedy close due to the conduct of the nominator and the fact that it is preferable to renominate the article for AFD as the previous discussion was over half a year ago. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "conduct of the nominator". text book ad hominem right there. and as i've said, renominating is pointless. sockpuppets will score a keep each time with the criterion this afd has established Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily; I can say that I would !vote delete in an AFD discussion (based on the article's current state). Stifle (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sustain and renominate in 3 or 4 months is not improved. I think insisting on an overturn instead is a little pointy. The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per the majority and closing per the strongest argument. But when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, the closer is not to decide between them , but close according to what most people in the discussion say. If he has a strong view on the matter, he should join the argument instead of closing, and try to affect consensus that way. Both I and stifle have closed keep when we personally would have preferred delete, and vice-versa. The keep arguments were not absurd or irrelevant: there can be a genuine dispute over the strength of the sources, which is often a matter of judgment--and there's no way to settle that except to see what the community thinks. If I wanted a place where my view of proper content would prevail, I'd start a blog or become an editor of some conventional publication. DGG (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • if the closer is not to decide between the two POVs when there's a real dispute, the question is raised - what qualifies as a real dispute? arguments not based on wikipedia policy are essentially non arguments yet in this afd for example they're given as much weight as arguments that are based on wikipedia policy. and why is that people who clearly have no understanding of wikipedia policy are effectively dictating what admins do? why are they even allowed to comment on policies they know nothing about in the first place? a discussion between admins (and others who have demonstrated the requisite knowledge) as to how to interpret wikipedia policy would be interesting and insightful. and whatever the outcome was i would likely respect it since the arguments presented therein would be sound. but a discussion between admins (and other knowledgeable people) and complete dolts... i can't respect an outcome that was achieved by people who seem to think that the article in question is exempt from WP:N.
for example, consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaura (2nd nomination). guy suggests Daily Vault is a reliable source and is then debunked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily Vault. the guy then suggests some review in a local publication is a reliable source and is again debunked - this time at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Reviews?. yet the article gets closed with no consensus. what's the point of the RS noticeboard if afd's don't consider it? what's the point of wikipedia policy if afd's ignore it? Misterdiscreet (talk) 13:07, 28 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.
  • FUZE Meeting – Deletion endorsed – kurykh 06:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
FUZE Meeting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The FUZE Meeting page was deleted by MBisanz for no particular reason? There are many other pages which fall into the same category. FUZE Meeting is merely a resource for web conferencing. Instead of simply deleting my article I would have appreciated a modification of my article.

~FabulosWorld — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabulosWorld (talk • contribs) 2009-03-23 16:59:09

  • Weak endorse – This is not AFD round 2. Appropriate closure in regards of content. I would not, however, oppose a relist at AFD. I await a comment from the closing admin. MuZemike 17:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did try that, as you can see on MBisanz's talk page under the title "FUZE Meeting". But I didn't get any response. FabulosWorld (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)FabulosWorld FabulosWorld (talk)[reply]

Well according to the timestamps you did that about 5 minutes after listing it here, and that's only a couple of hours ago, so maybe they aren't available right now, remember everyone including administrators are volunteers comitting their free time to the project. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The normal process, as the instructions indicate, is that you contact the deleting admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin AFD was open 10 days, comments indicated delete, per WP:RELIST, relisting is discouraged a second time, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument if it had been made at the AFD IMO. MBisanz talk 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to see the changes that were made in those 10 days or just the fact that it was open for 10 days enough to delete it. The article was pretty neutral at the end of 10 days. If certain parts seem worth deletion, feel free to do so but not the entire article. FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Endorse deletion AFD was proper - even after the "improvement" it was advertising for a web service that still has not achieved significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Come up with the sources and you'll likely be able to recreate a neutral, non-advertversion of an article, but in the meantime - get notability first then create an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I woulrequest giving it a second chance. There is enough coverage including CNN Money, PCWorld and Reuters. You only have to look. Besides, the editors will only be able to improve it if live. You have to understand that the article was undergoing improvements.

Thanks FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 24 March(.

lpoint, brief list of places FUZE Meeting has got enough coverage: World Article CNN Article CNET Article I don't think its fair to delete an article just because something is new. FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • I change the above to a full endorse after the closing admin comment. In addition, overturning the deletion doesn't address the apparent advert tone the article took. With that said, I would permit recreation provided article can be rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone; the notability will take care of itself. MuZemike 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the deletion process was properly followed. I would have no objection to recreation as long as it addresses the issues raised at AFD and cites reliable sources. Indeed, if the creator would like the article userfied to work on some more, I'd be happy to do that too. However, please read WP:OWN. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks MuZeimke and Stifle. I think this is fair. I do not understand what you mean by userfied though. Do you mean letting everyone to edit the article. I have no problems with that since I understand that it's an open platform. However also please understand that it will take some time for the article to complete.

FabulosWorld (talk)

FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Endorse deletion FabulosWorld has been engaging in systematic promotion of this article and now CallWave, Inc., the commercial org., that owns this product, using external links and internal links on other WP articles. There is an apparent affiliation with this user and Callwave and its products. These articles lack unbiased, neutral perspective and are simply advertisements for this organization. Calltech (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting my statement above, the article CallWave (which is prior version of the article above) has been removed 3 times in the last few years as blatant advertisement. Calltech (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calltech is biased Please don't point fingers without a basis. I have used FUZE Meeting product and like it. I have no affiliation with its parent company. In fact Calltech certainly seem to have some vested interest in the conference call/voip chat industry as evident from his talk page Calltech (talk. Within the last one year this user has tried to delete several articles related to conference call and voip chat. Why are you doing that CallTech? Just because a user is inexperienced in Wikipedia you shouldn't boss them. You also put a delete tag on CallWave Inc just because it was deleted in past. That's not a valid argument in my opinion. I would encourage other seasoned admins to have an unbiased look at CallTech's history and make a decision.

Thank you. FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • In past Calltech has tried to delete articles on FreeSWITCH and CallWeaver which are all conference call and voip chat related products. Certainly shows some bias there.

FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Please provide feedback: I have recreated the FUZE Meeting article following your guidelines. It's currently on my user page here: FUZE Meeting article on my user page Once I get your feedback and approval I would like to put it under the title FUZE Meeting.

Thank you very much for all the help. FabulosWorld (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)FabulosWorld (talk)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Mike Colin – Deletion endorsed – kurykh 06:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mike Colin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Why did you delete my BIO of Mike Colin? There are numerous third party sources attainable from a simple Google search. I followed the style of other similar bio's, including citing the same sources used on their pages.

-Zeke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekeozuela (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you didn't. You cited only two sources, and one of them you flatly and explicitly contradicted with the article content that you wrote. Neither of them supported several parts of the article's content, such as the date of birth, for example. And the flat-out contradiction was on the subject of whether the person was alive or not. Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zekeozuela, it is not your bio. Nobody owns articles here. They can be (mercilessly) edited by others, provided it's within applicable policies and guidelines. MuZemike 18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the editor contacted me (the deleting admin) via email. I responded with my reasons for deletion, provided a link to WP:BAND and offered to recreate the article in the user's namespace if he thought he could include information which meets those standards. I got no response on my email. My reasons for deletion were the self-publishing nature of his released work and the lack of evidence of notability in the cited articles. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Endorse deletion as CSD:A7 properly applied (the article did not indicate how the artist was significant or important). If the nominator (or anyone else) can indicate how Mr. Colin meets WP:NMG, I'd be happy to reconsider. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this article seems to be not only A7, but a poorly sourced BLP attack on Mr. Colin's former manager. If and when Mr. Colin ever does pass WP:BAND and WP:BIO, someone had better have a darn good source for the little bit about the former manager or leave it out. You can also leave out the "please contact..." section which seems to violate WP:CSD#G11. For those latter 2 reasons, I would suggest that no userfication be done as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There's nothing to suggest the deletion process was not followed properly. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per Juliancolton above. Jd027 (talk) 19:37, 25 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.
  • Total Access Statistics – Deletion endorsed – kurykh 06:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Total Access Statistics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Attempts for feedback from User:Juliancolton on why this page was deleted have been unsuccessful.

I would appreciate clarification of why this software article was deleted for notability. The software package has existed for over 12 years and is in wide use. References for its use in online published scientific papers were given from the National Academy of Sciences and Oxford University (for simple verification). There are many other references to it in other online scientific papers and countless others in printed form. If this doesn't address notability, please advise what would.

A separate objection was made that those scientific references didn't review the product. That should not be a reason to delete it because those citations were provided to address the question of notability. The presumption is those scientists reviewed and liked Total Access Statistics before they selected it. Some online reviews of the product were in the original page, which should address the concern that the product was reviewed in industry journals.

Please clarify why the citations were not sufficient to address the concerns, and if additional issues need to be addressed to restore the page. The original page was descriptive in nature and was not advertising. References to software used in published scientific work from such distinguished journals should be listed in Wikipedia. DataAnalyzer (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What was unclear about the explanation already given? What is unclear about the difference between something that is about the software and something that simply names it in passing? You cited sources to address notability. But they didn't in fact do so. You claim that you addressed verifiability. But you didn't in fact do that, either. For something to address verifiability, it has to actually document the subject in some way, and be usable in order to verify content. A source that isn't about the subject at hand and doesn't even contain any information at all on the subject at hand isn't providing any way to verify information on the subject at hand. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing has been presented that shows that the deletion process was not correctly followed. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. 10 days of free web hosting at Wikipedia is sufficient. Afd was correctly closed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think that software used to generate results in scientific journals published by the National Academy of Sciences, Oxford University, and the NIH (to name just a few) would confirm the product is more than use in passing. It should be considered notable under the definition of having reliable independent sources. When a scientist references a resource used in their research, it should be findable in Wikipedia. Verifability should be confirmed by the reference to the product in those online papers which you can easily check. For additional sources to verify the product in more detail, here are a some independent online reviews which you can check and were originally cited in the posting:

What additional information do you need to verify this is a real product with substantial use that should be cited like the many other statistical analysis software products listed under Comparison of statistical packages? This is not some recent fly-by-night product. It's been around for 12 years. DataAnalyzer (talk) 22:41, 25 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.

Administrator instructions

22 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Verne E. Rupright (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Multiple reliable sources have verified notability at User:Ism schism/Verne E. Rupright. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion per recent expansion and multiple reliable sources verifing notablity concerning WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion per the post-AfD start addition of multiple reliable sources confirming adhering to WP:POLITICIAN. Additionally the nom claimed the population of Wasilla was around 5000 but was going by the 2000 census. The 2007 estimate is near 10,000.[27] --Oakshade (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per new sources found. MuZemike 02:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion as correct but now restore in the light of the revised sources. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot confirm the validity of the previous deletion as I never saw the page, but I would support recreation of the page based on new sources which allow it to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The userfied article has been expanded and now includes more reliable sources of which Rupright is the subject. These sources, along with the others, clearly verify his notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether the deletion is Overturned - or - Endorsed (with the clause of Restore per recent additions) - these options are very close to consensus. Both votes endorse the present state of the userfied version of the Rupright article. As such, there is consensus to restore and/or recreate the article based on the new sources in the userfied article that verify WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, and that decision will be implemented at the end of the standard five-day listing period. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 26 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.
Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am challenging the keep closure. One of the keep votes was a SPA. The keep votes were basically not on policy. But the most important thing is that I have discovered new information (I didn't know about the AfD). One of the basic sources was Catalogo De Ordenes Extranjeras En Espana, "by Jose Maria de Montells y Galan and Alfredo Escudero y Diaz Madronero, 2007, published by the Academia De Genealogia, Nobleza Y Armas Alfonso XIII en colaboracion con la Sociedad Heráldica Española, Madrid, Kingdom of Spain". It turns out that the Sociedad Heraldica Espanola has no official standing and is a private venture (and part of a network of similar private ventures). see[28] and [29]. The Spanish Heraldry Society was founded in the 1980s-"La Orden se reúne anualmente en el Alcázar de Segovia, España, lugar donde habitualmente se realizan los solemnes actos de investidura de nuevos miembros. Para su ingreso no se exige prueba de nobleza, aunque la condición de noble puede acriditarse por el pretendiente que la poese, pero sí y de forma muy estricta, se precisa ser persona honobrable y distinguida con méritos suficientes, a juicio de los órganos rectores del orden para integrarse al elenco de la misma. The Order meets annually at the Alcazar de Segovia, Spain, where they usually performed the solemn act of investiture of new members. For your income does not require proof of nobility, although the condition can acriditarse by the noble suitor that poetry but in a very strict and is honobrable person and needs to be distinguished with sufficient merit, in the opinion of the governing bodies of the order to join the cast of the same" from here [30]. It also appears that the claim in the article for humanitarian works is fraudulent. I think on the basis of this new information, the SPA, and the weight of the policy arguments that the Keep decision should be overturned. I have discussed this with the closing Administrator who is happy for this to go to DRV. dougweller (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. The keep !votes, DGG's excepted, were quite poor — Necrothesp freely admitted that his opinion was not grounded in any policy whatsoever, and the two keep !votes after the relist were from SPAs. As such, deletion would be the correct closure. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin I sent Doug here because even with the poor quality of the article, I as the closing admin couldn't discount the comments of the various SPAs to a Delete. But I agree that the quality of the article is so poor that deletion would be the best course of action. MBisanz talk 00:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. While I would probably vote to endorse a "delete' close of the AfD, I don't want to hobble admin discretion in such cases by overturing every close call that I might disagree with. On the other hand, dougweller has alleged that he has new evidence making an even clearer case for deletion than was present at the AfD. This evidence should probably be evaluated in a new AfD rather than at DRV in the first instance. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per above. I think it would benefit from some fresh eyes looking at it. MuZemike 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist if you like. It will be an interesting discussion, and here is not the place to have it. I have been removing listings of distinguished people whom this organization lists as their officers unless there is sufficient evidence that the people themselves acknowledge their membership in RSs, because i regard it as questionable BLP to assert that someone is a member of group like this. For similar groups, memberships are sometimes offered people, and they are then listed, regardless of whether or not they have actually accepted membership.DGG (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you, that is good and I think important work. We need to be aware of organisations like this (including some of the 'degree' granting ones). dougweller (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; note: the google translation is not particularly good; "ingreso" in this context means "admission" or "admittance", and that's just the first error, but I think you all get the gist of it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 24 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.

Administrator instructions

21 March 2009[edit]

Administrator instructions

20 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request that the page be undeleted, tagged {{historical}}, and permenantly protected to serve as a record of the infamous day-to-day chatter that went on there and was an important part of Esperanza's character.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose undeletion. I can't imagine how undeleting this would be useful; it's more likely to encourage Esperanza-like behavior. I also can't see anything that makes this urgent or relevant after 2+ years. If you want Esperanza's chattiness mentioned as a strike against it, get consensus to include that at Wikipedia:Esperanza; I don't see how you need this history to do that. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per "Messedrocker solution". From what I've heard from Bibliomaniac15, the pages were intentionally kept with their histories inaccessible to discourage future behavior like the Coffee Lounge used to be. That seems reasonable, and I see no reason why that has to change. The risks (future Esperanza-like behavior) outweigh any possible reward (people spend a lot of time reading chats). NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I have to ask myself "What positive good would the restoration of this page mean for the project?", and I can't come up with an answer. Better to leave this one in the ground. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Heck no per lack of reasoning how vomiting back up some years-old chitchat is going to help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in agreement with the above. The article isn't needed, and much less needed for protection. It won't bring anything positive to the project. --NewSinew (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation - This was removed for a reason. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm going to give a different voice here. In my opinion, it's going to have a better preventive effect if people know what was on the page. If they can see such discussion leads to deletion, they know exactly what not to do to avoid deletion. Keeping the history deleted does nothing to discourage any behavior. - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So essentially you disagree with the outcome of the deletion debate? Since DRV isn't xFD round 2 I can't see the relevance. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing against all the oppose votes above my comment. I can't see how deleting something has a preventive effect. That wasn't even discussed in the MFD at the time. - Mgm|(talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it would seem that if he did want to reargue it, on the basis of either change in consensus or new arguments, this would be the most available platform--one cannot in this instance simply recreate the article. How else would one proceed? This does not mean I am supporting that, but there has to be a a pathway.)DGG (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess we differ, I can't see why we wouldn't apply the same standards as we do for articles. If the community are now willing to accept it's worth, then the concept can be recreated if there is information of value in the old version that can be restored. But we expect people to present new evidence of the notability (community requirement/acceptance) in this instance. I don't believe anyone is arguing this point. The other reason we'd restore an article is presentation of new argument/evidence not available at the time of the deletion. In this case this could be something of the form that the outright deletion has led to copycat's failing the same problems, and an example would stem the flow. (Though quite why you'd not just use one of the copycat's as the example in a more recent "deletion" is another question.). That is the pathway to getting this restored, mere disagreement with the original decision is no more valid here that it is for articles. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NuclearWarfare and Gavia immer. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted--this was the clearest deletion debate among the various ones that accompanied Esperanza's decline. As for MGM's argument, I don't think the people most interested in turning WP into a chatroom are reading up on the site's ancient history. Things like this probably will turn up again, whether we advertise this one or not, and when they do, we'll delete them. Chick Bowen 18:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that keeping it won't be preventive either because they're unlikely to read it as Chick Bowen pretty much says is the soundest argument I've heard in this debate. - Mgm|(talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to look at MGM's statement. Esperanza died a long time ago. At the time we were all so horrified that we beat the group with a burning stick 1000 times because we didn't want them to ever come back. At this point however, I think we can all back away from the dead carcass and loosen some of the decisions of the messedrocker solution. First, esperanza is in such an out-of-the-way corner of wikipedia that you have to at least understand WP:NOTMYSPACE before you would ever get there. And as well, the idea of a chat room is not new, the page is unlikely to give any ideas to anyone. Please stop the anti-esperanza mania so we can all understand the site's history.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose undeletion. As I see it, the problem is not that restoring the page would give anyone any bad ideas. The problem is that it would just revive a lot of trivial discussion that took place a couple of years ago. I looked at the last version of this page with content (third-to-last overall) to consider whether it would be worthwhile to undelete it and tag it as historical. Among the discussions on the page at the time were the following:
    • "Who here thinks today (Thursday) feels like a Friday? It does to me."
    • "What specific articles are you working on? I'm starting work on Komodo dragon. How about everyone else?"
    • "Is a Wikipedia page your home page? Mine is Special:Userlogin."
    • "As of tonight, I officially have 1000 mainspace edits.  :) Yay. I've also got some like 2850 total edits...closer and closer to 3000..."
    • "Who's your favorite super hero (or simply hero), and who's your favorite supervillain? Mine are Ash from The Evil Dead, and my favorite villain is Venom from Spider-Man."
    • "An IP, 203.167.171.118 (talk · contribs), wanted to start a quick poll on who has piercings and who doesn't. So I'm reposting it, as it wasn't formatted right. I don't have any piercings."

These are all actual quotes from the starts of discussions in the coffee lounge near the end of its run. (And, yes, each of these statements/questions generated multiple responses.) They may have been interesting to the participants at the time, but I have no idea whether the participants would want to see them revived and saved for posterity. Furthermore, due to GFDL compliance, I don't know if we could restore the page without restoring all 5,789 edits. However, I would allow a page along the lines of Wikipedia:Esperanza to be created at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge to explain what the Coffee Lounge was when it existed, as opposed to restoring it to show the outdated discussions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 23 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.
AbsoluteTelnet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason cited for the deletion was "notability". I believe that over time, AbsoluteTelnet has increased in notability enough to warrant its own article. The measure applied in the deletion to determine notability are no longer true. In the deletion discusson, the notability argument was that a search for "AbsoluteTelnet ssh viewtopic" yielded only 74 results. However, the same query done on google today yields over 1,000 hits, which puts it on par with at least half of the remaining clients on the Comparison of SSH clients page, all of which have their own articles. Brian Pence (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion I get zero hits for "AbsoluteTelnet ssh viewtopic", and even if you were right 1000 google hits is pretty much nothing (see WP:BIGNUMBER. I also suggest a look at WP:COI as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, zero hits is just wrong. By my count, AbsoluteTelnet/SSH has more hits than plenty of the other clients on Comparison of SSH clients. For example, Penguinet has 217 hits for the same search. SftpPlus has 5. Lsh has 239. Why is AbsoluteTelnet/SSH singled out for deletion? Is it fair to compare AbsoluteTelnet's notability to Putty, the OpenSource FREE ssh client? WP:BIGNUMBER could also be used to invalidate the original deletion assertion that "AbsoluteTelnet's hits of X are below Putty's, which makes it non-notable". I know 1,000 is not a huge number, but even putty's number is down to 12,500 now. We're talking about a class of software that's used mostly by Unix system administrators. The numbers for any particular piece of software are not going to be huge. Open Source packages (openssh, putty) are obviously going to be higher. That doesn't make everything else non-notable. --Brian Pence (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I found the problem with your search. You included quotes around the phrase, which looks for an exact string match. The intent of the search is to look for forum articles that discuss both AbsoluteTelnet and SSH. Try AbsoluteTelnet ssh viewtopic instead. --Brian Pence (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting Google hits is not research. And that applies just as much to your counting here as it does to the original AFD discussion. Research involves actually reading what search engines turn up. The numbers that search engines display in the corners of search result pages indicate nothing about notability. Reading the found pages is what one has to do.

    Your purported counterargument here holds no water at all, because you've not addressed the original argument at all, merely a straw man argument of your own devising. The original argument made by Han-Kwang in the AFD discussion was that all that xyr Google Web searches turned up were random WWW discussion fora postings by unidentifiable people with no determinable reputations for fact checking and accuracy — i.e. things that were not reliable sources.

    You want to counter that argument and show that the AFD discussion came to the wrong conclusion? Then find sources that document the subject, in depth, that are written/published by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy who are independent from you the author/creator of the subject. That is what demonstrates notability, as Wikipedia:Notability tells you outright. That is what Han-Kwang argued in the AFD discussion that xe could not find. You've shown no evidence that the AFD discussion came to the wrong conclusion on that point. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. The reason given for challenging the deletion wouldn't even hold up in an AFD let alone at DRV. Otherwise I agree with those who have rebutted said WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE (as well as other logical fallacies included) argument. MuZemike 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MuZemike, perhaps my argument was not well stated. My reference to Google hits was only made because it directly contradicts arguments made in the AFD. What I really should have added was additional secondary sources (see my comment above). I would have made this argument in the original AFD if I had noticed it prior to deletion. Uncle G correctly notes that the search engine hit counts should not be considered in DRV, but also should not have been used to justify the deletion to begin with. --Brian Pence (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for clarifying that. It does help out. I would say that the last link provided above looks reliable and independent and does provide significant coverage. That is what we are looking for. I cannot find anything more like that from a basic Google search so far. Don't forget print sources, too. Surely there must be some review or something in print, no? I'll be willing to change to relist if additional reliable sources can be found and if it can be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. MuZemike 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Brian asked me to drop by and have a look after we discussed it at Talk:Comparison of SSH clients. The only thing I can see as possibly wrong with the AfD is that it might have merited relisting after only garnering two votes. That said, relisting is at the admin's discretion and it is not a reason to overturn. The real issue is whether AbsoluteTelnet has increased in notability to the point where it can have another go. What I am not seeing is much RS coverage that would justify this. Reviews on download sites like CNET are not RS. The best is the isp-planet article (not sure if it is RS but it looks encouraging). That is an article which is entirely about AbsoluteTelnet. I am not sure it is enough. I do feel a bit sorry for Brian. SSH clients are not the sort of sexy applications that get a lot of press or have people falling over themselves to write Wikipedia articles about. I would like to reassure him that, although a hell of a lot of perfectly good software is never going to make it to Wikipedia, this doesn't matter because Wikipedia is not a software directory anyway. People may well come here to learn about SSH or Telnet on a basic technical level but they will be looking elsewhere for lists of products to evaluate. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments Daniel. You're right in that ssh clients are a *very* *very* niche application and don't get a lot of press. Don't underestimate Talk:Comparison of SSH clients as a resource, though, for people researching client software. It's my belief that it is the most comprehensive unbiased feature-by-feature comparisson of ssh clients anywhere on the web. As such, I truly believe it would be a more valuable list to wikipedia users if my software were listed there. I keep getting told that wikipedia is not a software directory, but considering the amount of software listed here and articles like Talk:Comparison of SSH clients, it makes me wonder why Absolute keeps getting singled out for removal. I would like it if Absolute were un-deleted and I had the opportunity to complete the article with verifiable source information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpence (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change to relist per some new sources indicated that are coming up. I already mentioned above that at least one of the sources above are good. I was informed that there are indeed other print sources out there, as well. If they provide a decent amount of coverage, then I don't see a need to keep it deleted. MuZemike 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to examine the new sources fully. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 26 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.
File:Foo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[31]]|XfD|restore)

I worked for several hours adapting this article from my graduate work. I was returning this evening to continue working on references and add a bibliography when I found that it had been removed as "implausable". I was never contacted by the person doing this "R'n'B". I have written this person but also wanted to check with this site to inquire about return of the article. Weismantel (talk) 00:56, 20 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.

Picute was deleted although relevant permissions were there. It belongs to www [dot] swaminarayan [dot] org [dot] in and I took their permission before uploading it here. There was an issue with another pic from the same website, some time back: Mumbai Swaminarayan Temple.jpg and I forwarded an email giving me blanket permission to use all their information and pictures here under GDFL from their website to permissions-en [at] wikimedia [dot] org on 14 October 2008. I mentioned this on the deletion discussion - eve then this picture has been deleted. Someone mentioned that it should be deleted unless what I said could be verified - I think permissions-en could easily verify this!! Its exasperating having to go through this even after getting relevant permissions. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to This this image is not covered under the 'blanket' permission. Skier Dude (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iv just justified here. I was given a clean image when I requested for one - the only diff is the website logo on the one on the website. Its covered under the permission. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information. As far as I was aware, the image came from another, as yet unknown, site, and you were trying to use it under the permission from the original site. With this having been a real possibility, I tried to error on the side of safety. Now that I have further evidence that the image actually did come from the site in question, the formerly presumed absence of permission should no longer be an issue: This image has permission under OTRS Ticket 2008101410045759, and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or later. – ABCD✉ 06:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the confirmation, ABCD. I wld like to raise another point here. Iv uploaded loads of pictures (mayb close to or more than a 100) - not only from this website but also others, under the same permission (I think I have blanket permission from 3 websites whch hv been fwd to permissions) - now MOST of these do not hv OTRS tickets - how do v stop further problems like this? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image restored & talk page annotated correctly, image needs to be restored to article(s) by uploader as appropriate. Thanks :) Skier Dude (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Skier Dude - however my question still stands - any ways out? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:20, 26 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.

Administrator instructions

19 March 2009[edit]

  • Talk:List of minor state highways in Utah – Invalid speedy deletion quickly restored. The associated main namespace page exists (this link is blue), and existed at the time of deletion. The talk page did indeed contain useful prior discussion. – Uncle G (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:List of minor state highways in Utah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe there is a merge discussion (relevant to a current discussion on WT:USRD) in the history of this. The deleting admin is no longer active, so I didn't talk with him belore bringing it here. NE2 05:11, 19 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.
  • Mutoh Europe nv – Speedy deletion endorsed, both as spam and because the deleted text contained the disclaimer "All rights reserved Mutoh Europe nv". –  Sandstein  20:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mutoh Europe nv (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Why was this page deleted? Nobody had a problem with this page and now there seems to be a problem.. I fail to see why.. .IT (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The cached version contained "All rights reserved Mutoh Europe nv" which is of course completely incompatible with wikipedia's licence. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is it any different from the articles published about Mimaki, HP, .. It's solely stating the companies history and the like. The all rights can be deleted, but I fail to see what else is a problem. .IT (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can it be deleted, if they are claiming the rights then they claim the rights, you can't just delete it, that would be a viloation of there copyrights. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're mistaken, keeping a text to which the company claims the rights violates their copyright. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got in touch with the company because of this. After talking to one of their rep's, they don't mind the copyright to be removed as long it serves the purpose to be listed on Wikipedia. .IT (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well you'd need to get them to send an appropriate release to the wikimedia foundation anyway, my or your word for it is not good enough... --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not a proper reason--we are discussing the article, not the nominator. Stifle, when you & I agreed upon the wording of the message, I never thought you would use it in a way like this. We agreed upon "not mandatory" and here you are, treating it as mandatory. DGG (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing to do with treating the contact with the deleting admin as mandatory; as far as I am concerned, by not replying, the nominator is, to borrow a legal phrase, failing to prosecute his appeal. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the article as a clear G11, besides, it has a copyright tag on. I stay at my position. If anything, the article can be rewritten but in that form it is unacceptable for WP. --Tone 09:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I recommend for deletion Mutoh Holdings Co. Ltd. because of the same issue. WP is not a register of companies. --Tone 09:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet others are not attacked about it. Mimaki has a very similar page to Mutoh's and it has not been the subject of deletion. And I can mention others. Also it's a separate page, I didn't add Mutoh's name to other pages like I've seen HP bragging on the large format printer page. Where is there advertising on Mutoh's page, does it mention marketing terms, does it try to sell something? I only states the history of a company, one of the major companies in the Ostend area. I think it's not wrong to mention a major company that is active in Flanders. .IT (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – there are roughly 1000x more articles (even more) than active editors. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a number of articles to get overlooked. Combine that with the inherent nature of editors to congregate towards certain subjects (i.e. Barack Obama or Ayn Rand) more than others—what we call systemic bias—it should be expected that some articles become ignored. This, however, does not excuse the article from any and all community-imposed standards. Also, as mentioned above, the company's copyright would have been violated because once the edit button was hit creating the article, as it says between the edit box and edit summary, You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL; regular copyright is not compatible with the GFDL. User should have requested the appropriate permissions through OTRS to release the information from copyright. MuZemike 17:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unaware of this rule, considering this was my first Wikipedia page ever to be made, I expected a bit more leniency, but I can understand everyone is equal. I can also understand that others do the same is little for the sake of argument, but it does feel a bit discriminating when your pages are deleted where others equally good/bad remain untouched. I can understand that Wikipedia is a bit unmanned, but when the pages managed to get deleted twice feels a bit odd. Nevertheless I would like to know what the problem was with the site. Blatant advertising sounds a bit harsh. What content makes it so advertising, is the use of words in a commercial way? What is said to be wrong? Because that is the reason why it's deleted. The copyright became later on a topic, a topic which I discussed with a rep. of the company. He had no objections to releasing it from the copyright, if it serves the purpose of being listed on Wikipedia. Considering the position of the company, one of the most important companies in the niche of the sign industry, it should be listed on the world greatest encyclopedia. Wikipedia is there not to advertise companies, but the company is relevant to quite a few topic's. On it's page it just lists information about the company, it's history and it's products. Nothing like "we are the best" or "the nr1 in large format printing". So it's not really advertising. I would like some lines within the text that portray blatant advertising.. .IT (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article is a straight description of the company and not promotional. They may or may not be notable, but that would be for an Afd. I don't think all the people commenting can see the page, so I temporarily undeleted it for review. I know that I would never delete a straightforward page like this via speedy G11. DGG (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the copyright issue? I note the version you restored still has the All Rights Reserved text in it. At best This should be redeleted pending a formal release. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I removed the copyright statement and am anxiously awaiting the debate. .IT (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As above, you can't just remove it, if they are granting permission that must be suitably submitted to wikimedia. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:27, 25 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.

18 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
RentLaw.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The AfD should have been allowed to run considerably longer than 9 minutes. Juliancolton speedy deleted it as a G11, the article though did not read like irredeemable spam to me, it was at worst somewhat promotional. The article should be undeleted and a new AfD started. Forward planning failure (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user has been blocked indef as a sock of User:RMHED. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01
03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The AfD is relevant. I stumbled upon this page while working at WP:UAA, and when I went to speedy delete it, I happened to notice that it was being discussed there. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a side note, it most certainly was an attempt to advertise. Case in point: "RentLaw.com also encourages landlords, tenants and others to "join for free" and today has over 40,000 active members." –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite, which is the actual criterion. Blatant advertising has several markers that are not present in the above text. Blatant advertising is often written in the first person, and exhorts the reader in the second, for example. Blatant advertising would read something like "If you are a landlord or a tenant, we encourage you to join, as 40,000 members already have. It's free!". (This sort of text is regularly deleted under G11. My last G11 deletion was Fns dream homes, for example. That is blatant advertising. It has several distinctive features not present here.) The text that you are quoting, above, is, quite ironically, in a far less promotional form and is a lot closer to what an article would comprise after the very fundamental rewrite that the G11 criterion talks about. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I honestly can't see any legitimate information in the article, aside from perhaps the first sentence. Additionally, the user who created the article was most certainly a role account, judging by their username and behaviour. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist a presentation of the size of an organization is an indication of notability, not outright advertising. Saying that it's open to both sides, is relevant also. G11 is for articles that are so spammy they cannot be improved by normal editing, and this one is not in that class, though I have some doubts about notability. Julian, your closes are usually excellent, but this time you got impatient. DGG (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Let's give the AfD a chance to experience a full life, rather than having it aborted after nine minutes. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The article was clearly spam:

    History

    RentLaw.com was founded in 1998. The company was one of the first National Landlord Tenant Guides on the Internet.

    Much of RentLaw.com's early success was due to early direct marketing and newletters. The company also quickly became top among many search engines with little or no paid advetising. After first focusing on the New York / New Jersey markets the team at RentLaw.com quickly expanded the site to cover the entire US market.

    RentLaw.com has been featured in news articles both about Landlords and Tenants. With the guide now covering topics like Evictions, Security Depsosits and Section 8, the site contines to draw a diversified audience.

    RentLaw.com also encourages landlords, tenants and others to "join for free" and today has over 40,000 active members.

    Hispanic Edition

    In the winter of 2007, the team decided to expand its reach into the US Hispanic markets, one of the fastest gowing markets in the US

    NO objection to a non-spamy NPOV version of the article being written and that can be done now without the process wankery of a5 day DRV folloowed by a 5 day AFD. The article can just be writen today. Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no objection towards recreation provided rewritten article is in an encyclopedic (i.e. not promotional) tone. Spam is not allowed on Wikipedia, notable or not; the creator must understand that the article must meet the applicable policies, i.e. it cannot be a copyright infringement, advertisement, or anything else that would otherwise fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. MuZemike 07:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Of the external links 2 pointed to the website that is the subject of the article, 1 links to a trivial news mention. The amount of references is reversely proportionate to its spamminess. If the nominator can rewrite this with better sources, I'd be happy to reconsider - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, textbook G11. As with all speedy deletions, there is no bar to recreating the article as long as the problems which led to the speedy deletion are overcome. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I'm with DGG, this was potentially improvable and sourceable. I can't agree that it was "textbook" G11, though I do understand why an admin in a hurry might think so.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse per WP:BEFORE. The article wasn't improvable, so the speedy was within the realm of good-faith decision-making. That said, it couldn't have hurt too much to let the nomination sit for 24 hours and put an {{advertisement}} tag on the article. THF (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Note that Forward planning failure (talk · contribs)'s entire edit history consists of edit warring to remove db tags. "new" editor with an agenda. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "agenda" here seems to be to tell you that you are wrong. Sockpuppet or otherwise, xe was right about that. You were wrong, in treating the removal of a speedy deletion request as vandalism. You were wrong to edit war over the CSD notice, as you did here and at World Multiple Sclerosis Day. And you are wrong to be so determined to thwart the actions of one other person that you've completely lost sight of the issue to be determined here at Deletion Review — whether the deletion was correct or not — and are willing to argue that a deletion should stand with a rationale that is solely a xe-is-in-favour-so-I'm-therefore-against rationale. That's called wolf voting, by the way. The issue to address here is whether the speedy deletion criteria apply, whether to undelete the page, and whether to list the article at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and send to AfD Spammy, but not horrible. Speedy wasn't unreasonable, but this was below the threshold of what I'd like to see get speedied as a G11. That there is likely a CoI is annoying and should be dealt with separately. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need to more carefully delineate the use of G11 if any good people here think think falls into that category. I would never delete an article like this via speedy G11, and don't even consider it borderline. If it contains information that could be used for a better article, it's not a speedy. Referencing is not necessary to prevent a speedy. A single google news search does not prove non-notability, and non-notability isnt a reason for speedy either. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse probably not G11, but given the sockpuppetry and 3RR violations, a reasonable application of WP:IAR. Anyone who removes speedy tags from their own articles consents to the deletion in my view. Sockpuppet removed the tags, but my earlier comment stands. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allowing a speedy deletion to stand just because 3RR was violated by someone who wasn't even the article's creator is letting completely the wrong things affect one's judgement. There was pretty poor behaviour all around here, not least on the part of the editors who abused vandalism-rollback tools not only to reinstate a contested speedy deletion notice but also to remove subsequent talk page explanations of why that speedy deletion was contested as if they, too, were vandalism. That's a black mark against one administrator hopeful, but it's largely irrelevant to the issue to be decided at Deletion Review. The 3RR breaches of the editor who contested the speedy deletion are no more relevant than the abuses of vandalism rollback, talk page discourtesy, and tag teaming of the editors who were in favour of speedy deletion. What matters is whether any speedy deletion criteria apply. I wouldn't have speedily deleted the article, myself. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist per DGG. No harm in letting the AFD run and it was not a clear cut case of G11 (because it was also informative and not "(...) exclusively promot[ing] some entity (...)"). Regards SoWhy 14:09, 19 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.

About the deletion of the page Chromium_B.S.U., I (and i'm not alone I think) think that free software should not be considered with the same criteria than the commercial games, because even if Chromium is mainly well know in the freesoftware community, the fact that it is freesoftware makes that it is still there with lots of people playing with it 10 years after its first release, so I would like to be considered that it is more perennial than commercial games that have most often a short life. In this way this game is a little bit a part of the free software community's culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Prawn (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Chromium_B.S.U. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)[reply]

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

17 March 2009[edit]

  • Randy Rasputin Richards – Decline restoration. Consensus below is that the new draft does not address the basic problem (no notability verifiable from reliable, third-party sources) of the article deleted at DRV. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Randy Rasputin Richards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

A "return to mainspace" review of the proposed fixed version of User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Rasputin_Richards has been requested for the following reason(s):

  1. While local notability of the original article was achieved (barely), the article was requested to be cleaned up by editors.
  2. Article was requested by editors to be reduced to a stub. I have re-edited it to a bare bones of information and citations. Most details were removed.
  3. Original article was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Richards
  4. Original deletion review is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_11#Randy_Rasputin_Richards

Above unsigned is from Malakai Joe (talk) Quode (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse deletion we just endorsed this lass than a week ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, the previous DRV for this was only closed 2½ hours before this one was listed. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing that for now, as the previous DRV did tell him to come back when he had a draft. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. Look over other articles about similar people. Try to write just a few sentences about one or two things related to him (perhaps 3: acting/voice acting, writing, photography), each in their own section. Keep it short and keep it prose rather than a list. Leave things out rather than overload with trivia, but feel free to list unused sources as "other references" or somesuch.
I strongly disagree with the above !votes as time isn't important here. We told the author to come back with a better article, he tried. The issue isn't the time, it's that he's failed. Humm, take a look at Joel C. Rosenburg for a decent article about someone notable for more than one thing. Joel is a lot more notable than Randy, but same ideas apply. Given the sources I think there's an article here. I just think that at this point it needs to be written fairly well before it is placed in mainspace. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, sorry it was Joel C. Rosenberg. I'll look over the article shortly. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few changes to the structure and organization (mostly minor) which removed one reference (The library award). I just don't know that it is relevant to the anything. I certainly wouldn't lead the section with it. I think it is now a reasonably good article so I recommend moving to mainspace with no objection to another AfD if someone still has notability issues. I personally think the sources clear WP:N, but I could certainly see how this could be debatable. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help. How does this work if its a consensus? Do I have to do something, or does it automatically go back into mainspace? Malakai Joe (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We wait for this DrV to close (generally 4-5 days). After that it will either be moved to mainspace or not depending on the close. It also might go to mainspace and be sent back to AfD. Fun times. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of now, the sources need to be more highlighted throughout the article with reliable sources. The article, or should I say person, does not come across as notable enough according to Wikipedia standards. Come back later and then ask for allowance of recreation. Xandrus (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original did that. Hobit asked the article to be reduced, so a lot of the other sources went with it. The bar keeps moving. Last time I was told to come back when Randy Richards was the subject of a full page article in a magazine. I did. Now thats not enough? Malakai Joe (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So which is it? I removed most of the sources in order to cut it down to a stub, as asked. The original criticism (last year) was that it had too many sources, so then we added al buttloads of non-primary sources. This time we were asked to reduce the amount of sources to make it a stub, and now we have someone that wants more sources. Its round and round and round we go. Do you want me to put it back the way it was? Malakai Joe (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed a bit of stretching in the article in regards to some accomplishments. "Richards has appeared in local TV newscasts" Then examples one. "His nature photography has also won awards, the most recent..." again, only one example exists, no others can be noted. The Katrina event itself created three related events, the news cast, story and photo tour, but its spread over three locations. Voice acting is too new with no real body of work that has elevated the feat beyond a self reference. Randy archives each small achievement and parades them on his personally maintained web sites. Beyond that it’s hard to find mention of these things separate from Randy. If we understand that Randy is the focus of the article and drop all of his self promotion there is very little left. Quode (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (To Malakai Joe) I understand your frustration, but I never saw the article in its previous incarnations, so I'm only going off of what I see now and what I've seen in AFDs. An article that has mostly primary sources is more likely to be seen as advertising and less likely to survive a future AFD, in my opinion. So my advice would be not so much "go back to what the article was before", but rather "try to create an article that is more non-primary than primary sources". Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Randy, this is the first draft that was rejected multiple times over the years with a few minor edits. Raven has seen the second draft you created per Hobit and which this discussion is all about. Quode (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Teri, you weren't around for the very first draft review. Right now the article is more or less in its original stub form. The original reviewers wanted it expanded with more sources and citations. We've come full circle. Malakai Joe (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, anyone else, just review the article history page for clarification. The rejected article was first, then the stub revision. Now hes going back to the first rejected article and we now have two pages dedicated to Randy for no good reason. Quode (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave deleted. Article was and remains an indulgence by or on behalf of a non-notable subject. --65.1.63.123 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Revision as a stub article. Malakai Joe (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin. This is the nominator so should be ignored. Spartaz Humbug! 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the revision its a decent stub article. I would allow recreation but with some provisos. Randy Richards appears to meet notability as defined in WP:N. If you can work some of the secondary sources from the longer version of the article I would not object moving it to mainspace, provided this fix only adds a few sentences. Gerran (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominate a move to mainspace of revised article. Randy Richards's work is fairly popular in the UK. 94.76.196.63 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse we did this already and thre subject is still not notable Spartaz Humbug! 00:03, 23 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.
Egyptian yoga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DRV requested on MBisanz's talk page by user Neferhotep. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Yoga. Prodego talk 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that either somebody had vandalized this article or the committee who made the deletion review has not had time enough to look carefully at the sources I had provided. Someone writes about the sources : "none in English". If you consult the original bibliography and the references, you will see that there were several sources in English : a book by Hanish published in Chicago, a book by L. Hamilton published in the USA, 3 articles in English by G. and B. Khane, published in a UK serious yoga magazine, 2 books in English by Muata Ashby (it would be possible to add other books by this last author, but I didn't because it is just selfpublications, without any academic reference). Mr Gordon believes that I was alluding to the selfpublications by Muata Ashby when I wrote that some africanists lean about Khane's work, I ams sorry, I am afraid it is a confusion. The provided references were refering to several academic publications written by some University professors. I don't claim this article was perfect. Certainly not, and I would try to improve it if y had the possibiliity to do it. But some reproachs seem to me Neferhotep (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)unjustified.[reply]

  • Keep deleted, the consensus at the previous AFDs seems fine and nothing has been presented that suggests the deletion process wasn't properly followed. The lister is encouraged to write a properly-sourced userspace draft and return here with it. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll volunteer to have a look at these once I get a few other things off my plate. Tothwolf (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article did not suffer from vandalism but did suffer from an apparently novel synthesis of unrelated groups under the heading Egyption yoga. The AfD consensus for deletion is both clear and correct. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:37, 25 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.
The Arrogant Sons of Bitches (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am one of the deleting admins (will notify Fabrictramp and Nancy as soon as I've posted) and received this note from a user who has created this draft and asked me to unprotect. I was the third admin to delete and there was an AfD so I'm hesitant to overturn consensus, although I do think the article is much improved and appears to pass WP:MUSIC. So in that sense I endorse re-creation with the userspace draft although the original deletions were perfectly justified. Thoughts? StarM 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse re-creation - I wrote the new version of the article. I think that it now establishes notability: Frontman Jeff Rosenstock went on to found Quote Unquote Records and Bomb the Music Industry. ASOB has also been the subject of independent published works as are sourced. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse re-creation, no reflection on previous closers. That's a nice-looking article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse re-creation. The AfD participants expressed concern about the sources, which viewing the earlier version was clearly justified. Since those are addressed, recreation should be okay. (P.S. I don't think a blogspot reviewer is really significant or can that account be linked to a specific well-known person?) - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse move into mainspace. A great job creating a good, well sourced version of the article. Obviously this doesn't reflect poorly on the deleting admins who deleted a completely different page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse recreation/move to mainspace - new article addresses all the issues raised at the AFD. Good work! Nancy talk 16:51, 17 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.
  • uCoz – restore article with new sources. The Afd was closed correctly, but the new sources provided in this DRV have provided grounds for notability. The article can be renominated for deletion on other grounds in the future, or if other editors disagree that the sources show notability. – Aervanath (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
UCoz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

[Discussion] The article about uCoz has been deleted groundlessly.

First of all uCoz is not a software. It is a service (hosting and CMS). If you want to identify the notability of a service, you must know how many people use it. So, if you measure notability according to the number of press releases and high PR articles, you make a mistake. Because it is an indirect indication which depends on PR activity but not notability. You can see the number of uCoz users by the Alexa rank for the following domains: ucoz.com, ucoz.net, ucoz.org, ucoz.co.uk, ucoz.de, ucoz.es, ucoz.ru, ucoz.ua, ucoz.kz, ucoz.lv, ucoz.cn, at.ua, 3dn.ru, my1.ru, clan.su, moy.su, do.am. Now uCoz has 716189 active users (top.ucoz.com). So, isn't this number an indication of its being a mass service? Meskalyto (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion It was explained to you at the AfD that 'mass' doesn't mean notable by Wikipedia standards, which is how we should be deciding about articles. No one came up with reliable 3rd party sources showing notability then, you are just repeating what you said earlier. dougweller (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. It has already been explained in the AFD. Disagreeing with the general notability guideline, nor continuing to assert notability via alexa (this has also been beaten down into the ground at the AFD) is not grounds for challenging the deletion. If you want to demonstrate notaility, then you need to show significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. MuZemike 19:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse once you strip away the drama, we are left with a source-less article about a web service. To close such a discussion as delete is wholly appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the closer of the AFD interpreted consensus correctly and the outcome was an accurate application of WP:NOTE Nancy talk 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While I would have liked to have seen this AfD actually result in some discussion, I do not see anything improper with the close.
    That said, however, I think the editor who nominated this article for AfD may have nominated it prematurely.
    It is obvious that uCoz is an extremely popular service in Russia and I have little doubt that it will be possible to find sources for this subject that meet WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are not limited to English only subjects and I believe the only reason this article went to AfD is that the language barrier made it difficult to locate Russian sources that meet WP:RS.
    I would encourage Meskalyto to read WP:RS and create a list of sources (with links where possible) to any Russian publications such as books, magazines, reviews, etc of uCoz and then check with the reliable sources noticeboard. Once WP:RS can be satisfied I see absolutely no reason why an article about uCoz should not exist on Wikipedia.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn (struck endorse) Restore article due to reliable sources being available, even if they are non-English. Tothwolf (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I realized I should make this clear for the record that WP:N / notability is not the real issue for this article (even though that was the reason mentioned in many of the Delete "votes". It is easy to see that uCoz is extremely popular and has a large web presence and userbase. The only issue I see is the difficulty in finding sources that meet WP:RS due to the fact that most of the coverage of this subject is in Russian. Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to the extent that this is part of the reason, it would have been incorrectly deleted, as all languages are usable. Probably thousands of people of enWP can read Russian. DGG (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we can find a source that can be used for the article, I intend to strike my Endorse above. A Google search for uCoz and Runet Prize (as well as the Russian spelling) that Ekjon Lok mention below does seem to confirm what's in the Runet Prize article so there must be something that can be used to meet WP:RS. Tothwolf (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Open discussion page and uCoz page for further discussion of this issue and the possibility to give reliable sources.

Since the discussion has been stopped by the deletion of the article without the detailed examination of the issue, I adduce arguments about the hasty decision here.
Wikipedia articles must be corroborated by reliable secondary sources in cases when false information might be added. Corroboration is not necessary in other cases.
In Runet_Prize we can find uCoz in the nomination “People’s Ten” on the third place. By the way, Wikipedia participated in this nomination as well. You can hardly call this award not notable. TV broadcasting of the award presentation ceremony. uCoz has also taken the 3rd place in its nomination in another popular award Golden Site
If needed, I can give scanned copies of magazines where uCoz is mentioned as the service that covers 52% of Russian free hosting services.
If you type "ucoz" in Google you’ll see more than 10 millions of pages where it is mentioned. Wikipedia article about uCoz takes now the 4th place in Google by the search word "ucoz". Millions of people enter this word in search boxes, and Wikipedia could fulfill its direct mission in this case.Meskalyto (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, so many arguments above are just so wrong that one does not know where to begin.
  • "Wikipedia articles must be corroborated by reliable secondary sources in cases when false information might be added. Corroboration is not necessary in other cases." This is just plainly false.
  • "the service [that] covers 52% of Russian free hosting services" This does not invalidate the need for reliable sources.
  • "Wikipedia article about uCoz takes now the 4th place in Google by the search word 'ucoz'" So what?
  • "Millions of people enter this word in search boxes" What's your reference for "millions"? And in any case, what is this supposed to prove?
  • "Wikipedia could fulfill its direct mission in this case" What is in your opinion Wikipedia's mission? To help people when they type words in search boxes??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Just to clarify, this is not an argument for endorsing deletion; this is merely a reply to the post above. I am sure that if reliable source are found, even if they are not in English, a good case can be made for keeping this article; I have no opinion on that. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS I am sure that Runet Prize would definitely qualify as a reliable source and notability benchmark. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment - just so you know, I wasn't informed about this DRV, which is why I haven't commented. Filer appears to have misunderstood our notability guidelines, which were the basis for the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where should I give the reliable sources, here or on the uCoz delete page? Meskalyto (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the most appropriate venue. Let's see what you've got. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meskalyto, list them here. You may list Russian or English sources. An English translation for any Russian sources will be helpful. Tothwolf (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fritzpoll, I realize you were going by rough consensus in the AfD, but to be honest I don't think the filer got it wrong at all. I think he may have been premature to bring this to DRV but notability is not the issue. The issue is WP:RS. It seems that a couple people voted right at the very end of the AfD to delete claiming the subject lacked notability (going only by what the editor who nominated the article stated). The subject itself has already been proven notable, the problem is that reliable sources were not cited. It looks like people have also voted in the DRV before all the facts were made clear. I only happened across this DRV myself because I was checking on another on the same page. Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I based my comment on the fact that the filer seems to be saying that the fact it isn't cited in third-party reliable sources is irrelevant, and that we should rely on its traffic statistics. I think that's a misunderstanding of WP:N. I'm happy for the page to be recreated if RS can be found, and this DRV endorses such an action, but I can't be held responsible for not doing a thorough search myself Fritzpoll (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The filer is not a native English speaker and I believe there has been misunderstanding all around. Have a look at Runet Prize, I think that helps clarify why WP:N has already been established. Tothwolf (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really, and I'm not participating one way or the other here. I'm satisfied that my close was correct. I'll also be satisfied if you can convince folks here that WP:N has been met, but to do so, you might want to spell it out rather than relying on people to go look. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We'll see how it goes. Sources do seem to be available but the language barrier does tend to complicate the process. Tothwolf (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Endorse - As the original afd nominator the service/product made no claim of notability or reliable sources to back up the random spurts of OR. I was never informed about the DRV and it seems one editor would rather make uncivil claims then make useful discussion. 16x9 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I strongly advise you to take the person attacks elsewhere. You could have sourced this material yourself and I consider the way you treated Meskalyto to be very inappropriate. Tothwolf (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was referring to you. 16x9 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thanks for clarifying, however my comment and suggestion above still stands. Tothwolf (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative restore per this link, Runet Prize 2008. Runet Prize is the official and one of the most important Russian prizes for Internet-related services. Go down to "8. НАРОДНАЯ 10-КА", or "People's 10 nominations"; you'll see UcoZ listed at no. 3 (the same list includes, incidentally, Russian Wikipedia at No. 9, as well as Google.ru at No. 6, Yandex at No. 7, and other major players). I'd say that is sufficient as a guarantee of notability. More reliable sources won't come amiss, though. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment reading more about Runet Prize, it would appear to be the Russian version of the Webby Awards. We've used the Webby Awards for English articles so Runet Prize would certainly seem to be a WP:RS. Tothwolf (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can tell they the category this service won was more like the People's Voice Award [35] Also the Webby Awards are an international award while these is only for Russian sites. 16x9 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
  1. The Webby Awards are a people's choice type award.
  2. Sources are not required to be in English; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Nardoni case (and many, many others).
  3. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
--Tothwolf (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply you keep trying to insinuate that I have a problem with things being in Russian which is not true and needs to stop. The webby awards are by a panel of judges, while the people's choice are by popular vote. Again another fallacy in your comparison is that the webby awards are broad in scope while Runet is narrow. If we are randomly pulling pages to see visit m:DICK. 16x9 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I insinuate no such thing. I believe it is however readily apparent at this point that you seem to enjoy having articles deleted and would rather tag/nominate them for deletion using an automated utility instead of actually trying to add sources or improve them, even when sources are available (Yes, it usually takes work to find them). Furthermore, I find it disturbing that you then seem to attempt to discount any sources that are presented by others. I suggest you re-read WP:BEFORE before you tag or nominate any more articles for deletion. Had you done a "what links here" check for uCoz you would have seen the Runet Prize link before nominating uCoz for AfD.
This is the last time I will debate this with you here, if you want to go down this road again, take it to a talk page.
--Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Breaking here to try to separate this from the cluttered discussion above.
    WP:WEB#Criteria 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
    uCoz won an award in the 2008 Runet Prize which is the national award of the Russian Federation. This is non-trivial and shows that uCoz is very much a notable topic. The original AfD votes claiming uCoz was not notable did not account for this and are therefore invalid.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:WEB is about web content like blogs not the service or product. 16x9 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure, the original discussion was closed properly, and DRV is not AFD round two. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Are you implying that we don't have to follow WP:N (including WP:WEB) and WP:RS and as such that those guidelines and policies are invalid and do not apply to this article? You might want to re-read what has been discussed since the first round of endorse (I struck my own endorse after more information came to light). The problem here (and for the record, I have no editing involvement whatsoever with the article in question) is that at the time the article was nominated for AfD, the nominator claimed it didn't meet WP:N. We can now clearly establish that the topic does indeed meet WP:N. I'm unsure as to what exactly you think DRV is for if you think it isn't for correcting such mistakes? Tothwolf (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I have not attempted to follow all of this, but there seems to be some personal animosities involved. It would seem that if the site or service or whatever won an important prize, then it is notable, and that's the end of it. All that is necessary to do is to document the prize. DGG (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Re-reading that AfD discussion, that last remark is no longer effectively a "close" since reliable sources are on the table, and the penultimate remark should be discounted as a WP:JNN. That doesn't leave a consensus for "delete". No reflection on Fritzpoll because there's new information here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Here I give several independent sources which prove the notability of uCoz.
  • Should I give more sources to prove notability? Meskalyto (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse but relist DRV isn't really the place to have this discussion given how narrow our focus is. The question of notability needs to go back to the wider community for discussion due to the new sourcing but the original close was valid given the information and discussion at the time of closing. Spartaz Humbug! 23:50, 23 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.

Administrator instructions

16 March 2009[edit]

  • MyInfo – restore and relist to allow consideration of new sources. – Aervanath (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MyInfo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree that the article lacks notability. First, there is a false statement in the discussion page for the deletion of the article. The Softpedia article was mistakenly attributed to the software author. You can easily see that the review is written by SoftPedia's software review editor Ionut Ilascu. You can also see that the newest version of MyInfo has no editor's review yet and uses the software author description instead.

In addition, MyInfo has a number of additional sources, which were not found by the community, when discussing the deletion of the article:

There is a whole page devoted on this software in this book and there was an article and an interview with the software author in Wall Street Journal Online (which is available only to paid subscribers, I am afraid).

Although there are a large number of applications in the PIM software category, I think that the above sources are enough to qualify the article as notable. riot_starter (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin Standard deletion discussion open 9 days, standard close. MBisanz talk 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Relist – This should have been brought up during the 10+ 9 days at AFD. In any case, looks like there's enough there for notability. MuZemike 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to relist per DRV convention and proper closure prima facie of the AFD. MuZemike 15:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as correct, but now relist so that the additional sources can be considered. As MuZemike mentioned, these should properly have been brought up during the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Stifle. The additional awards mentioned here were clearly not considered in the AfD debate. The AfD was properly closed, but did not take into account all the information that was avaliable at the time. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed the the deletion discussion too late. If I did noticed it earlier, I would have provided these additional links and information, in order to save precious time for all involved in this case.riot_starter (talk) 13:31, 17 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.

I wish to recreate the redirect from List of songs to Category:Lists of songs which was deleted following this discussion. If it is wrong to redirect from a "list of" title to a category let me know because I have seen a large number of them which should all be deleted. An alternative would be to create a page called lists of songs (which would duplicate the function of the category but might be formatted more prettily) and redirect to that. Benefix (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not usual to have redirects from the main namespace to categories, and I would encourage you to nominate any such redirects for deletion. Endorse this deletion but no objection to the alternatives that Benefix suggested. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cross namespace redirects are best avoided so Endorse deletion. The discussion on lists vs categories is an old one and consensus (to the extent which it exists) is that it depends on circumstance. A page Lists of songs which kept track of all the specific lists might be a good idea and would follow precendent from Lists of people and Lists of places. List of songs could then redirect to that page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in practice " Lists of songs " is probably the best way to deal with it. DGG (talk) 18:19, 17 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.
Ashida Kim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (5th nomination) which was closed and requested that it be taken to DRV instead. I am bringing it here because the closure of AFD #4 was not compliant with policy. As pointed out by several commenters, the "Keep" arguments did not actually provide any justification within Wikipedia policy or practice for why the article should be retained. Even these individuals admitted that sourcing was "tricky." The closer should have weighed the arguments rather than just counting the votes. Time after time, material from Internet forums (most notably Bullshido) keeps finding its way into this article - and without this material there would be nothing left. This article even cited itself for a while. I'm asking that the previous closures be overturned and this article be deleted on the grounds that reliable third-party sourcing has been requested for years and never provided. This is especially unacceptable on a BLP. *** Crotalus *** 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Four successive keeps before that, over a 3 year period, last in December 08. Any additional nomination of the article would seem pointy. Certainly not a mere 2 or 3 months afterwards. Rationally, the progression of time needed should increase arithmetically, if not geometrically--come back in 2 years, and consensus might have changed. Even if you are sure you are right, accept that there is one inadequate article out of three million. DGG (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as a good reading of a consensus based on WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – questionable material in violation of BLP have been removed, making the AFD closure as a keep moot. MuZemike 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Crotalus in that most of the keep !votes in AFD4 were poor-quality. However, when such a critical mass of users support keeping an article in spite of policy, that is how consensus works. The most that we can do is ensure the article remains BLP-compliant, and that is achieved by strongly questioning and removing uncited material. Reluctant endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections of the article have been repeatedly re written after the AfD asking for input form various sides, the last time we waited a month before putting up the version on the talk page then it was deleted by Crotalus twice, without any comments on the talk page, plus no mention of this review on the talk page seems like a grudge. --Nate1481 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This being so I will now have a rant.. While I am not holding it up as a the the best source in existence, I would like to point out (for what seems like the 100th time) that the Bullshido refs are to articles on reporting investigations by member of the site that are then published there in an investigative journalism model These articles include some sources and the names of the authors. The fact that the investigation was conducted by volunteers and that the progress was reported on the forum should not be a flaw, especially where they are used as secondary sources of information available in primary source./rant
  • May I also point out that even if the Bullshido references cannot stay (and it's not like there hasn't been dialog on the talk page), then there was no need for Crotalus to remove other references at the same time. I echo the view that the naysayers have never stepped up to assist in improving this article. Several if us have made considerable effort to improve it, only to find it criticised out of the blue Thedarxide (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I would have !voted delete; the article is on a marginally notable person (at best) with crap sourcing, and presents several WP:REDFLAGSOFNONNOTABILITY. That said, there was no consensus to delete on the fifth attempt, which was only a few months after a prior Afd. This disruption is worse than having this article stink up the joint (a little more cynical paraphrase of DGG's comment). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said take it to DRV if you had a problem, I didn't mean hold AFD #6 at DRV. This may need another AFD, but AFD #5 was badly timed and mostly rehashed the same ground as AFD #4. Sometimes, the only effective plan is to sit on half an argument until you come up with the other half. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:24, 19 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.
Mitch Ratcliffe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was deleted over a U.S. holiday weekend after limited discussion and possibly irrational interpretation of notability of a widely published and quoted U.S. journalist. Davodd (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this international website, suggesting that deletion of pages should be suspended over a US holiday weekend is at best disingenuous and at worst patronizing. Now, it's usual (although not strictly mandatory) to discuss deletions with which you disagree with the administrator who deleted the page. Could the nominator please clarify:
  1. why he chose to omit that step, or if there was a discussion, point me to it?
  2. why this deletion review is being raised only now, over six months since the deletion took place?
Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not entirely without merit. A lot of US holidays mean family visits and no time for computer-related things. What the nom didn't mention was that the discussion was open for the full 5 days needed. - Mgm|(talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. In any case, the deletion process was properly followed. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a correct reading of the consensus. I think Stifle's right there, Mgm. Wikipedia doesn't stop for national holidays in India (which is the country with the most English speakers)—so expecting it to stop for the US national holidays seems misguided. And yes, that's why we have a five-day process.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I don't think there was anything wrong with the deletion discussion and the placement in your calender has nothing to do with me (if anything, don't people have more time to edit wiki when they're not busy working?). If anything, it attracted relatively much attention and discussion. The basic premise of the editors arguing delete was that the quoted sources were not about the subject but rather mentioned him, or a statement he had made, in another context. The fact that those sources considered him a valid source does not in and of itself make him notable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nothing out of process here. Valid arguments were made for deletion at AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Stifle. Challenge of deletion is US–centric at least and offends English–speaking Wikipedians from other countries (not to mention those American Wikipedians who choose not to follow such holidays) who do not follow said customs and traditions at most. Full disclosure: I am American. MuZemike 00:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The premise of this deletion review is incorrect. The AfD ran from September 7 through September 12, 2008. There was no U.S. holiday during that period. (Labor Day was on September 1, 2008.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing Admin's Comment As far as I recall this hadnt been discussed with me prior to the DRV being raised but, as always,I am open to reviewing any deletion on notability grounds if further sourcing is provided for discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I'm not sure that there isn't enough sourcing (it looks from the deletion discussion like the close was a reasonable interpretation based on the sourcing). The claim about an American holiday is interesting. Obviously, Wikipedia is not US centric. However, the individual biography is of someone living in the US and so US editors might be more interested in such an individual. However, that isn't terribly relevant because there were many editors commenting so there was enough to form a consensus anyways. (I'm only aware of one other discussion about timing issues and in that case it had to do with the timing of a DRV. See the discussion in the Seth Finkelstein DRV here.). The primary issue was lack of substantial sourcing. If someone wishes to have this restored they should present additional sourcing to so that Ratcliffe meets WP:BIO. Finally, since when is Sept 11 a holiday? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Dec. 18, 2001. — CharlotteWebb 07:10, 18 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.
Talk:The Political Quarterly (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deletion of The Political Quarterly was described in Dick Pountain's column in PC Pro -- here. This incident is described in various discussions on the wikipedia -- and perhaps off-wikipedia -- of how to prune cruft, without pruning perfectly valid material that the nominator and deleting administrator simply didn't understand. That is how I came to the article. But, after Pountain saw the speedy tag, and he placed his {{hangon}} notice, he placed an explanation on the talk page, explaining why he placed the {{hangon}}. When the deleting administrator had been talked into restoring the article he or she didn't restore the talk page. I think it is very important for the early edits to the talk page, prior to the deletion to be restored. I have been told that the deleting administrator is on a wikibreak. Geo Swan (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undeleting a talk page, unless there are attacks or other volatile content, seems pretty undramatic. Did you ask the restoring admin to do it before coming here and if so why didn't he want to? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears from his userpage that the user in question, User:Gonzo fan2007, is on Wikibreak. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I contacted the deleting administrator. A friend of theirs, another administrator, did say he or she was on a wikibreak. I am sure you are correct that the contents of talk pages like this one are usually undramatic. But if the talk pages of article that are speedy deleted are usually undramatic the circumstances surrounding this one definitely make it a very dramatic exception. The last three paragraphs of Pountain's column, if accurate, are a terribly damning indictment of excesses of the wikipedia's speedy deletion process. In his column Pountain wrote:

In the NYRB article Baker explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation by the retarded frat-boy BRAAAAAP! brigades, but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself.

The Political Quarterly article was Pountain's good-faith attempt to see for himself whether perfectly valid new material would be deleted "without mercy or insight". I think we can all now see that the wikipedia failed this test, that this article was tagged and deleted by two contributors who did not know that Leon Trotsky was the 20th century's third most important Bolshevik, and Benito Mussolini was the 20th century's second most important fascist dictator. Pountain was absolutely correct to criticize the wikipedia over the lapse of these two individuals. Not knowing who Trotsky and Mussolini is, is forgiveable. Some people are not good with names, or didn't pay attention in history class. But not clicking on the links Pountain provided to their names, prior to deletion? That is very hard to explain.
On the other hand Pountain did exaggerate. He wrote that the article was tagged within five minutes. The revision history says it was tagged seventeen minutes after creation. Pountain says he wrote an explanation of why the article shouldn't be deleted: "I was permitted an appeal, but it was disposed of in about two minutes and then the piece was gone." If I am reading the deletion log correctly the article wasn't deleted for another four hours or so after it was tagged. I think Pountain's defense of the article is extemely important. I'd like to read the defense Pountain offered after the article was tagged. I'd like to know whether someone discounted his explanation shortly thereafter. The deleting administrator was asked whether WP:CSD#A7 really applied. And they replied: I went back and reread the article and I realized I read it wrong, for some reason I thought it was about the man who created it. I went and restored the article as you are correct it doesn't meet A7, so of course feel free to go and improve. Sorry for the mix-up, Im an idiot sometimes :-) The deleting administrator's comment strongly suggests to me that they didn't notice Pountain's {{hangon}}, and didn't bother to read Pountain's explanation of the journal on Talk:The Political Quarterly.
I first went to look at the article after coming across a mention of it on another talk page that was discussing the need to reform how speedy deletions take place. I can see from the "what links here" that there are multiple talk pages where this embarrassing incident is discussed. I think it is important for Pountain's explanation to be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. A good rule of thumb about social breaching experiments such as Pountain's is that all of them succeed - simply keep trying until you achieve something you can describe as success (in this case, getting Wikipedia to delete something you can spin as obviously incorrect), then describe it as a success. In that sense, his explanation is probably not particularly important. However, if the subsequent discussion has been allowed to stand, with mere archiving tags, it's reasonable for the original talk page discussion to be undeleted. N.B., I can't see deleted revisions and have had no luck finding a cached version - if Pountain's original message is just a bunch incoherent attacks or similar content, the preceding of course does not apply. I trust someone will mention if that's true. meanwhile, it would be nice to have the contents for consideration. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:09, 16 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.
Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please take a look through the users that voted to delete this page and ask yourself if the page would be 'Non notable' if it the book had other subject matter. Some users were deleted as sockpuppets, others have a history of attempts to delete reasonable articles of topics that present a non-mainstream viewpoint. As a book this satisfies notability. Icmtk (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse two-and-a-half-year-old deletion - the AFD was conclusive in its consensus to delete, and making the debate about the editors who voted against it does nothing to change that. If you think an article will stand up to consideration at this point in time, then feel free to write one in a neutral manner, and ensure that it's backed up with reliable sources to affirm its notability. Note - I fixed the headings for this request.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I question 'conclusive consensus' due to the accounts that voted. Aside from that, the reason given for deletion was 'Non-notability'. If I were to take time (possibly waste time, depending upon the quality of the original article - which of course I cannot see!) to research and write a new article then that would not affect notability of the subject. I would like to determine whether people determine the article meets that standard first. To list a few sources that reference the book:
  • Amazon (states book has rank of 15,185) and has the category rankings:
  • 4 in Books > Nonfiction > Government > Public Affairs & Administration
  • 5 in Books > Nonfiction > Politics > Reference
  • 7 in Books > Nonfiction > Current Events > September 11
Additionally it has picked up a few references on wikipedia itself, Neoconservatism, Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report, CIA_drug_trafficking, 9/11_Truth_Movement, 9/11_conspiracy_theories. Icmtk (talk)
  • Deletion review is about the decision-making process, and you haven't given any indication of why you think the closing administrator made a mistake other than making vague claims about the other people who opined. It's two and a half years old. I really suggest writing a new article, based on the information you have here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an administrator you can see the contests of the deleted article. The rest of us can't. You seem willing to consider that the topic is worthy of coverage. What possible disadvantage could there be in userifying the article, and letting ICmtk determine what portion(s) of the first drafts is worth salvaging? Geo Swan (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I don't think the article is good. I will see if I can perhaps improve it tonight. Icmtk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment -- While the number of those advocating deletion overwhelmed those advocating keep, it seems to me almost all their arguments were some variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I thought part of the role of the closing administrator was to discount arguments that were counter to policy? Maybe the arguments for deletion were stronger, when one could read the article. But I don't find those arguments strong, on their face. How about someone temporarily restoring the article so those of us who aren't administrators can read it? Geo Swan (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD but allow recreation. There was no way that AfD could have been closed in any other way. But [[36]] makes it seem very very likely this is a notable book. The article, as it stood, has no redeeming value and should remain deleted. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most impressive thing about that search is that Ruppert managed to get Google News to index his newsletter. —Korath (Talk) 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - related and much more recent afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ruppert. —Korath (Talk) 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in responding. My laptop died this week. I see the Michael_C._Ruppert Michael C Ruppert article was deleted. I missed the Michael_Ruppert deletion log.
My bar is met for notability; I've been spending some time looking at Wikipedia:Notability_(books). I maintain this book meets Criteria 1 (see sources above). I think it also may meet 3 (as a contribution to a political movement). Without spending a lot of time searching for sources, I point out that it has remained on a reading list for its three main topics of concern Peak_oil , 9/11_conspiracy_theories, CIA_drug_trafficking (yes, its a very poorly focussed book, but that is irrelevant), and probably should be removed if it wasn't one of the notable books in those fields.
It also has meets the threshold standards (ISBN 0865715408, 9780865715400, many library links (not bothering to list), catalogued by loc.gov). It is not self published, and I'm even interested to see what appears to be a french translated version with another publisher.
Disregarding all that, I think I will drop this. I am starting to suspect any content I took the time to create would be deleted very quickly on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Icmtk (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. That AfD showed an overwhelming consensus of low-quality votes that mostly made no attempt to disclose their reasoning, so the closer's hands were tied; but I think Wikipedia could potentially support a decent article with this title.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:33, 21 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.

Administrator instructions

15 March 2009[edit]

  • Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama – no consensus to overturn deletion. A neutral version can be (and seems to be in the process of being) worked up in userspace. However, from the vitriolic comments below, it seems that the best way to avoid further controversy would be to merge any sourced criticism into the article currently located at Public image of Barack Obama. If that article then proceeded to the point where it needed to be split, a separate "Criticism" article might then be warranted, after discussion on the relevant talk page. Several editors have expressed the view that ALL "Crticism of" articles are inherently biased and therefore forbidden by WP:NPOV. However, that has not been the community consensus view up until now, and any ruling of that nature would need to be made in a much wider community discussion, not in this DRV. – Aervanath (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Closing admin suggested Deltion review if there was a disagreement with his closing. For one, the article was underconstruction and the Afd dialogue was ongoing. This article, an evolving article, was not even given a chance. There are many criticism articles on Wikipedia. To start with, the Speedy delete tag really defied AGF. Wikipedia articles about critism are not uncommon, and we should AGF that they are evolving towards constructive and informative articles. There are many articles about criticisms, this one has not even been given a chance - it was deleted in the middle of construction. Criticisms are not inherently negative, they are critiques from differing perspectives - and many of these perspectives are notable. I would continue to work on the article, edit it, and make it more presentable - but it has been speedy deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also important to note, there is a real bias to be acknowledged here, please see; Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) and Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 for one example. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes and comments
  • Endorse deletion - creation was disruption by User:Stevertigo. The Criticism of Barack Obama article has been deleted five times recently for G10, no reason why the sixth was different (and it wasn't). Sceptre (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and reconsider when there's a reasonably complete page to look at. I think there is a place on Wikipedia for "Criticism of" articles but they have to be handled carefully on a case-by-case basis.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy doesn't suggest userfication as an option on a page which is created with a disparaging slant, and I'm guessing the reason for~ that is that userpages are indexed, which means the defamatory material would immediately wind up on search engines and mirrors. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk)
    (ec) Well, Dan, that's why I added the "Noindex" magic word to the article the moment I saw it. I'm totally with you that we can't have unsourced defamatory material about a living person on Wikipedia anywhere where it might be indexed. That strikes me as a complete no-brainer.
    Equally, though, it's not unreasonable for established editors to be working on this article in an unindexed space.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked that the article be userfied so that I may edit out POV issues and develop the article in general - which I was in the middle of doing when the article got speedied. To date, there has yet to be any detail of what was POV in the article I was working on - if they do exist, they can be noted (on the talk page) and removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote WP:BLP: "Summary [speedy] deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard." To quote WP:Attack page: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." I have speedily deleted this page, and since it's already been speedily deleted under this and another name 6 times now, I have salted it (protected against recreation) for 1 month. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. This is perhaps the one policy that the Wikimedia Foundation feels the most strongly about, since Wikipedia is subject to the same laws on defamation that everyone else in the U.S. is.
  • That's the policy; now a personal note. I know that it's easy to feel "slapped down" when someone comes along and deletes an article you've put some work into. I didn't delete the article because there's anything wrong with your work, and Wikipedia does sometimes divide up biographical articles among separate pages, and some of the pages will slant in one direction while other pages slant in another direction. Keeping everything balanced is hard work, and I wish you the best of luck with making the points you'd like to make. But our policy is to delete pages which exist to disparage their subjects immediately; you can then continue your discussion in the obvious place, the talk page of Barack Obama, and if you can gain consensus to divide up the information among separate pages in the way you like, then you can proceed. Happy editing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Sceptre. Brothejr (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to Deletion decision and Userfy. The article wasn't ready for mainspace, but there's no reason to destroy work that can be fixed in the long run, and a neutral article on the subject is overdue. Of course, we don't need a DRV to userfy something: all that takes is a single admin. The cache version provides absolutely no basis for Speedy Deletion. THF (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration and editing in userspace The material as deleted had no obvious BLP violations (though I may have overlooked some); the argument would have to be that a criticism page was inherently a BLP violation, which I think nonsense. I would argue that BLP violations of a major politician can only apply to unsourced gossip or malicious abuse, though nPOV violation can occur due to to lack of balance. It was deleted it apparently on the basis of previous edits, not its own merits. It is appropriate to have such an article for major figures--and is no more a magnet for abuse than the main article. The article as deleted was clearly an outline under construction. DGG (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The point I made in the AFD is that even if we can have a neutral "criticism of..." article, it would be a duplicate of already-existing articles. Sceptre (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would mainly be people's opinions of the president, some might have reliable sources, most would not. Plus, as argued before, it would quickly become a honey pot for any editor who may not like the president and might even become a platform for editors to push their opinions into other articles. Finally, such an article would be hard to keep from violating NPOV and BLP. Brothejr (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think that's a judgment it's hard to make without seeing more final content.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as a POV fork and NPOV/BLP concerns. Grsz11 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • permit restoration and editing in userspace I have not seen the content of the article. The content itself was probably worthy of removal. However, to say that this subject is unacceptable content for wikipedia yet Criticism of George W. Bush is acceptable is blatant bias. We should work on creating a well sourced and compiled account of common criticisms of Barack Obama. -Drdisque (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, if you haven't noticed, is up for merging into Public perception of George W. Bush. Sceptre (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's hard for me to follow the discussion above. The first question is: should the article have been speedily deleted? Mike Godwin (the WMF attorney), Jimbo, the WMF board, and the entire Wikipedian community have weighed in on this question many times, and the relevant policy can be found at WP:Attack page and WP:BLP. The answer, to comply with U.S. defamation laws, is: shoot first, ask questions later. If a page is created to disparage, which means to make people think less of, its subject, it should be deleted on sight per WP:Attack page, unless there's a quick way to improve the page, a way that will last and will work. Does anyone think that "Criticism of Barack Obama" was created to give a neutral and balanced impression of Barack Obama? The key is the word "created"; in just a few cases, biographies have been split into pages that take various positions, after much heated discussion on the talk page. But that's after the discussion, not before. The second question is whether there should eventually be a page called "Criticism of Barack Obama", after discussions at Talk:Barack Obama; I have no position on this. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and bring back here before allowing mainpage creation- A legit NPOV article can be made from this topic, but the article as it was, wasn't it. I'd like to see a draft in userspace before considering allowing it. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy more or less per Umbral. Also note that while there are certainly BLP concerns if the main point of BLP is to do no harm than having draft articles about Obama in userspace are extremely unlikely to do any harm. Let's not forget that Obama is the president of the United States. Harm of that sort might occur to people of marginal notability. Harm is extremely unlikely in this sort of circumstance. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But it could affect re-election. We need to be careful with BLPs for sitting politicians and candidates, as we've got an obligation to be neutral, especially as we're a top ten site. If people see a negative article on Wikipedia, they may not vote for that candidate. Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything can effect anything. Reelection is 4 years from now. Wikipedia is influential but if you think Wikipedia will substantially alter who votes for whom that much... Moreover, if we write a neutral, well-sourced article then fine. All our articles can effect people. Criticism in an article could make someone vote against him also. The worry is unjustified harm. Finally, note that userspace is now NOINDEX so the probability of someone finding this article is very small. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see Mike Godwin's reply. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh do. And read my retort too; its not long, but it is a fairly complete summary of the deletionist argument. -Stevertigo 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration and editing in userspace per comments by DGG. His comments are some of the most constructive, practical, and rational in the discussion above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is potentially high-profile stuff. I've never set foot in the US and have no personal political axe to grind, but what concerns me about this is that we could wake up to a newspaper article about "Wikipedia deletes 'Criticisms of Barack Obama' after leaving 'Criticisms of George Bush' active for years." Things like that have happened before.
Yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I think we still have to be careful of blatant double standards in sensitive political BLP matters; this could actually be very damaging to Wikipedia.
If that's Mike's legal opinion then we can expect to see some office actions. If it's his view as an editor then I respectfully disagree with him.
I suggest a closer who's not from the US should handle this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge has already been suggested for one of the Bush subpages, but even if that doesn't go through: you're suggesting that it's difficult to understand the difference between splitting the content of an article on Bush into two articles vs. creating an article for the purpose of disparaging the subject without any prior consensus, which has always been prohibited by our WP:Attack page and WP:BLP policies quoted above. Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly; I'll watchlist those two policy pages just to see if our policy changes, but I don't think it will. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not from lack of trying that the Dubya article still exists, either. The notability reflex at AfD makes it impossible to enforce NPOV sometimes. Sceptre (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. There's nothing to restore but attacks and vague notes. If the originator wants to write an article in userspace, he should do so.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse restoration It's hypocritical to have a page of criticisms for one controversial politician but not another. Anyone suggesting that fair criticisms of Barack Obama cannot be found are foolish; hundreds of articles can be found by notable, varied news sources. It is editor bias that prevents this point of neutrality. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't hypocrisy. This is enforcement of our policies before creation makes it impossible. Sceptre (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - a few points:
  1. "Delete it before it actually gets a chance to develop" is in fact a violation of policy, not an enforcement of.
  2. Changing an AFD tag to speedy tag is a violation of policy.
  3. Speedy deleting when an AFD is in discussion and is about 50/50 in favor/opposed to deletion is also against policy.
  4. Closing a new and ongoing AFD discussion based on a POV claim of "attack page" is a violation of policy.
  5. A POV partisan (Sceptre) speedy-closing an ongoing AFD discussion is a violation of policy.
  • This one also pissed me off: I was in the middle of writing a detailed point by point refutation of the deletion arguments. I understand how my opponents seriously hate my point-by-points though. I make them look stupid, and sometimes take some enjoyment in it.
  • Scepter said: "This is enforcement of our policies before creation makes it impossible" - how does "creation make[] it [enforcement] impossible?" Ive heard this concept expressed several times, both on Talk:Obama and the AFD page (now, temporarily closed), and its logic essentially says something like: "Wikipedia can't possibly control all the anti-Obama POV trolls to allow such a thing to exist." Its really a baseless and irrational argument. Things get handled: if anything, the criticism page gets protected, and stays that way, and nobody cares, as long as its written neutrally. -Stevertigo 01:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You create an article and put a source in it, people will defend it at AfD because "it's notable". Otherwise, we'd be rid of the Dubya article too. And no, speedy deletion of attack pages isn't violation of any policy. If you keep saying it is just so you can push a POV, I will seek to have you topic banned. Sceptre (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone honestly believe that any criticism article was written without an intent to disparage? It's a criticism page. There certainly isn't anything positive or neutral in such articles, or they wouldn't be "criticisms". Either a criticism page for Obama should be created or every such article should be deleted. This is a double standard. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only course of action, therefore, is deletion of other criticism articles, as you can't write an article to disparage something. Also, you're wrong about criticism being inherently negative: what do you say Roger Ebert is when he gives a film a good review? Sceptre (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. What percentage of articles beginning with "criticism of..." are actually positive? Ejnogarb (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outside the arts articles? I say a single digit percentage. If that. Sceptre (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ejno, that's not accurate. People often make criticism pages because they say "Hey! We've got a lot of well-sourced criticism of this guy. It can't all fit in the article. Let's make a neutral child article discussing the criticism." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! We've got a lot of well-sourced criticism of Barack Obama. It can't all fit in his article. Let's make a neutral article discussing the criticism! Ejnogarb (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have a neutral criticism article outside the Arts pages, as they don't allow (or rather, people won't allow) positive opinions in them. The correct method of spinning out opinions is to spin them all out into a child article, not just one side. I don't see how people find that concept so difficult to understand. Sceptre (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree (with Ejnogarb). Does anyone here have a problem dealing with this issue at a policy level? Deletionists here have been quoting this nonexistent anti-criticism articles policy for days now, and that argument really needs to get slapped down once and for all. Whether the people pushing such a specious argument would likewise feel slapped down is their own personal business. And Josh, are you saying that newspaper reports of Senate level criticism is not "well sourced?" Or are you saying that the person who starts such an article must make sure its developed before its actually on the wiki (where other people can maybe edit it)-Stevertigo 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't claiming anything about the level of criticism in this situation. Simply observing that Edjo's claim that people inherently make criticism articles to be negative is inaccurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does anti-criticism article policy exist, it's also a fundamental cornerstone of Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sceptre, all that NPOV says on this topic is "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." How you get from there to no criticism articles isn't at all clear to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:UNDUE. Take Putin, for example? He's got an approval rating at around 75-80%. So why do we have a "criticism" article put not a "praise" article? Sceptre (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly because he's not a liberal. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is Noam Chomsky. Wait... Sceptre (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, did Sceptre just quote NPOV as the basis for his criticism of criticism sections? When NPOV in fact says nothing on criticism sections or articles? Did he also just switch from pointing to NPOV to pointing to UNDUE? Way to stand up for NPOV, Sceptre. We now see that your point is not actually based on policy either. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT maybe. -Stevertigo 02:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Undue weight" is a sub-section of NPOV. Sceptre (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don't see how that says no criticism articles either. Could you explain this please? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It effectively prohibits criticism articles (outside the arts) because they don't provide a "balanced view of the subject" (the subject being the parent article). What do you think would happen if Praise of Barack Obama was created? Of course, if the criticism itself is notable (for example, Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy), and the criticism isn't simply a synthesis of sources, then that may be acceptable. But that's the only one I can see out of the hundred or so articles. Sceptre (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the argument here. How does undue weight effectively prohibit criticism articles? If the subject of an article is criticism of X then that's balanced. I'd have no problem with article spinoffs of the form "Praise of X" although since humans are naturally critical and praise is generally boring you'll have trouble in general getting enough material for such an article. But if you did there wouldn't be any essential problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of a spun out article is the parent article. The daughter article can limit the content in any way it wishes as long as it affect the balance of its parent article: for example European Theater of World War II can limit its content to the war in Europe, but it can't limit viewpoints of the war itself. If an article has balance problems, it's shaky ground to split articles out before fixing the balance. In non-Criticism articles, however, this is rarely an issue. Sceptre (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple problems. First, the subject of a spun out article is not the parent article. That's simply wrong. The subject of a spun out article is the topic of the child article. Second of all, you confuse balance with neutrality. Neutrality does not mean we make an artificial balance between the positive and negative sources. Finally, note that if you were correct, all child articles would be unacceptable since they focus on one specific aspect of a subject of a larger article. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what summary style is supposed to do: focusing on one aspect of a specific article. And that's fine in most cases, as it doesn't affect the neutrality from its parent article. But criticisma articles rarely do not. Simply using negative viewpoints when positive sources exist is the very antithesis of neutrality as a concept, let alone our policy. Sceptre (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment would have some minimal validity if that's what a criticism article was. A well written criticism article contains the major criticisms and the responses to those critics, as well as relevant postive material. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well written criticism articles don't tend to exist. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite so sure this is actually true. It may in fact just be your opinion, in which case your expression of it here violates WP:NOT. Again, we suggest you take this opinion up higher, so as to make yourself useful to the whole project, as your opinion, if correct, is no doubt something that Wikipedia needs to deal with in every such article, not just this one. Will you do it? It doesn't seem like you want to help the project out this way.-Stevertigo 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a discussion at NPOV to validate something that already exists. And I'd love to get rid of the vast majority of "criticism" articles, but the overidealistic AFD and the (definitely codified against) "verifiability over NPOV" movements are major obstacles. Sceptre (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre's valid point
  • Sceptre summed up the deletionist argument quite nicely: "But it could affect re-election!" I love it. -Stevertigo 02:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can Wikipedia simultaneously have an anti-criticism policy and hundreds of criticism pages? Are you suggesting that such pages contain no criticisms? Or that they are balanced with an equal number of "positive criticisms"? Ejnogarb (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply? Because people are too idealistic at AfD. They see only non-notability as a reason to delete an article, and everything else is "fixable". Specifically, NPOV is seen as an editorial problem, rather than a reason for deletion (foolishly, in my opinion), so no-one will delete it for that reason. Sceptre (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy? Oh no! Note that Sceptre has hinted above that he personally will correct that problem too. Let's be encouraging to him; he appears to like quoting NPOV, let's see how he will convince hundreds of Wikipudlians that our common conventional way of handling/encapsulating notable criticism for years is wrong, and people have been less than NPOV (his concept) for doing so. Sceptre, go forth and stand on your principles. We will, in spirit anyway, support your noble efforts. -Stevertigo 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, cool down a bit ok? This isn't helpful. Sceptre, that is however what our deletion policy says. Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with an article we do let people edit it and see if the they can fix it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamental NPOV problems still aren't seen as deleteable. Sceptre (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy-- Articles about "criticism" are not uncommon on Wikipedia (Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt). I suggest to start a centralized discussion about policy. Not allowing "Criticism of Barack Obama" to be userfy without deleting others similar articles is bias and gives the wrong impression. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    {sigh} It's not about bias. It's about killing a weed before it roots itself into the ground. How many times must I say this? Sceptre (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, subpages aren't allowed in the mainspace. At a first look there seems to be some non-BLP-violating material there, and if someone's prepared to wade through and pick it out, I'd be happy with that being userfied. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I agree with Sceptre and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an arguement I'm going to take into account. "Criticism of" articles are fundamentally slanted in that they will always only contain a critical view (gives UNDUE weight to the critical view). Since userfication is requested, do so with an index blocker so it doesn't come up in search and a Template:Userpage at the top. However, if the article is to be reinstated, it should be done at Public perception of Barack Obama. And yes, I think that would be a good move for the vast majority of non arts "Criticism of" pages. Usrnme h8er (talk  contribs) 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have Public image of Barack Obama, which includes things like the fact people (esp. McCain and Clinton) criticised him for a lack of experience. Sceptre (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. We already have a Public image of George W. Bush as well. Why would we need a "criticism of" page as well? Ejnogarb (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and Endorse deletion and Endorse salting of any page titled "Criticism of..." particularly when a living person is involved. "Public reception..." is dubious but reasonable. "Controversies involving..." has similar potential problems but also doesn't poison the well. "Criticism of..." is an invitation to soapboxing, content forking, and all sorts of other problems. Editors love these articles because they're an accepted way to force their gripes about a topic into what would otherwise be a respected source of information, but criticism pages violate about 75% of the things that Wikipedia is not (i.e. soapbox, battleground, indiscriminate collection, original thought, webhost, etc...). SDY (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse recreation until such time as the deletion of all "Criticism of..." becomes policy. In the meantime, it seems to me that those users who endorse deletion, such as Sceptre for example, are unable to express their point of view without going OTT or starting an argument in breach of WP:CIVIL. C.U.T.K.D T | C 12:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also raised the objection (albeit not here) that the proposed criticism page will repeat information that is already adequately covered and is simply a condensation into a page with POV problems. There are all sorts of reasons not to have this page, and I've yet to see an argument for having this page other than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OSE. SDY (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Yet another attempt to manufacture controversy for a president who hasn't even had time to generate much genuine controversy. Wikipedia is not the place for disgruntled voters (WP:RECENTISM) to grasp at biographical straws (WP:BLP) in a thinly-veiled attempt at venting their frustration. The Ayers and Wright nonsense was a rhetorical attempt (WP:SOAP) by relatively few individuals (WP:UNDUE), some of whom received some sensationalist press coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), to establish guilt by association, which has had no demonstrable impact on Obama's career as a senator, president, or otherwise notable figure and is therefore not the slightest bit encyclopedic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No controversy has to be created, and dozens of potential cases exist. Don't you watch the news? There has been plenty of controversy. Obama is just as controversial as any other BLF. Either allow the creation of this page or allow editors to immediately delete every "criticism of" page for BLFs. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe caterwauling is not valid criticism. Birthergate, "OMG SOCIALIST", "OMG White Guilt!", etc...are simple points of view of those of opposing ideologies, and minor ones at that. Contrast that to the very wide-spread, years-long, global criticism of the previous president's handling of the Iraq war. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about a deal. If I can find 10 different articles from reputable sources about 10 different controversies, you'll endorse the creation of a criticisms page or the deletion of all others. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better idea would be to refrain from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS non sequiturs. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An easy way of inserting personal bias into article creation and ignoring others. You assume that valid documentation doesn't exist and you're not willing to entertain such an idea. According to you, how long must a politician be in office before his grace period ends and criticism becomes valid? Your assumption shows a blatant lack of NPOV. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion & salt Trolling BLP subjects, whether 500 people or 5 billion know of them in unacceptable; set consensus is the article is unwanted by how often it's been kicked; just another venue for a minority subset of the population with a minority viewpoint from a minority (by size) party to beat a long-dead horse that is made of fringe swiss cheese. rootology (C)(T) 13:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - This dead horse has been tried and deleted several times over now. Having been rebuffed at the main page, these types of people are simply probing the cracks and fissures to see if they can get their particular minority POV in via other means. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per BLP. --Kbdank71 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion echoing much of the above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-create and semi-protect indef. Of course it's likely to be a problem, but (at least one) version has decent citations. COI disclosure: I am a supporter of President Obama. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt - The primary reason given by those wanting the article to be recreated is that other similar articles exists, therefore this one should be allowed. I believe there is an essay out there about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and one of the arguments to avoid seems to have a similar ring to it. I don't think anyone can deny that there are "criticisms" of Obama out there, but the question I have is why can't those criticisms be worked into either the main article (if it is prominent enough) or into one of the sub-articles (if it isn't prominent enough for the main article, but prominent enough for inclusion in that article)? I have yet to run across a "Criticism of" article about a BLP that doesn't violate NPOV in some way, either by failing to handle the criticism in a neutral manner, and/or by giving undue weight to incredibly trivial criticisms. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the reasons to keeo them separate from the main article are 1/ because the extent and virulence of criticism in this particular instance is a major topic of its own right. and 2/in order to help keep the main article uncontaminated. Both reasons are similarly the case with most other valid uses of the "criticism: article type. DGG (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The desire to keep the main article "uncontaminated" is a perfect explanation as to why "Criticism of" articles are a violation of NPOV and FORK. I really couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, DGG, we already have Public image of Barack Obama, which does a better job at presenting criticism than this article did. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore This is just another way to whitewash this man, as if his crap doesn't stink. He is a polititian plane and simple and as such should be treated as one, ie Bush Bashing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: This is of course a very valid reason. BTW: Why didn't you sign your !vote? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you seem to be implying that I didn't sign for some sort of ominous reason, you can't be further from the truth. I must have just missed doing it.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or Userfy I didn't get to see the page and maybe it isn't ready for prime time but to delete this straight out the gate is the worst form of Whitewashing. If there is little confidence in the original creator I volunteer to have the page userfied to my account and would invite others to work on it until it becomes acceptable to the project's standards. - Schrandit (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy of course works, to a limited extent. But in reality few people collaborate on particular user subpages, and deleting an article draft subpage is really just a POV way to destroy the concept altogether, at least for the first 100 days or so. BLP of course needs to be updated to explain this newly-imagined 'honeymoon period' clause in the policy. -Stevertigo 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article. Clearly, that was a violation of procedure. AfD was closed in a few hours:[37]. People were not allowed to vote.Biophys (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Recreation of previously deleted material is a valid criteria for speedy deletion. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or allow recreation The POV and BLP issues can be taken care of by means other than a deletion LetsdrinkTea 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP issues are a reason for deletion. Sceptre (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a neutral administrator has fully protected the article as a redirect citing BLP and NPOV concerns. Right now, this is just a battlefield for either side and everybody should value the opinion of an editor willing to take a look and assess the situation. Grsz11 05:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an interim measure pending the establishment of a consensus at this DRV. An opinion belongs here, not as an act of admin fiat, so I can'd agree that the closer should take it into account unless the admin concerned actually contributes here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggestion
keep Criticism of Barack Obama deleted, but remove SALTing (Update: SALT has been removed effective end of Bush's AFD debate)

I don't understand why this article was created as a subset of Barack Obama, but the original Criticism of Barack Obama article should be kept deleted, but unsalted (semiprotected) for potential creation of encyclopedic article. I am also a Barack Obama voter. Barack Obama/Criticsm of Barack Obama should remain protected. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gotten an equitable solution. Maintain delete and protect of this subarticle and wait until March 23rd for end of SALT on Criticism of Barack Obama. JustGettingItRight (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore or Userfy There exists a good article on this topic somewhere. It can and should exist so as not to unbalance that BO main article. This is going to be a hard article to get into good shape and I think we'll get it there faster in mainspace. But baring that, userfication is the way to go here. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CFORK: "If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ". If it would disrupt the balance of Barack Obama, it would disrupt the balance of Criticism of Barack Obama. Therefore, the content wouldn't be admissable. Sceptre (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That clearly isn't the case when the policy/guildline is WP:WEIGHT. We have spinout articles on all sorts of topics (say list of characters) because organiationally having a huge section on that topic would be inappropriate given the nature of the rest of the article (same WP:WEIGHT as here). Hobit (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or it can stay salted and deleted until there's a consensus to recreate it. And note, consensus is not the same handful of users saying there is consensus to create it, no matter how many times they say it. rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, consensus isn't a small number of admins repeatedly deleting it, either.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt Dead horse, attempt to make a home for disgruntled voters, and what Somedumbyankee said.
  • Endorse deletion and salt 6 recreations has more than tried the community's patience. BLP applies in userspace and creating BLP violations or attack pages there will likely earn a block. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like someone's already gone there; User:THF/Obama. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the BLP violation or the attack here (User:THF/Obama)? This is legitimate use of userpace by an established user, we don't know what the outcome is going to be. No need to be paranoid and don't confuse BLP/attack violations to criticism of the actions by the President. Please, we are not in Nineteen Eighty-Four. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THF's use is totally valid and was done at my own suggestion, and I'm working with him on it, with Orangemike, and we're both pretty obviously on squarely the far other side of the political room from THF. rootology (C)(T) 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, and yet there is an article on Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's one for McCainocrats too. Those two articles should be dealt with in tandem (I'm not objectionable to a "Cross-ideology support in the 2008 presidential election" article). Sceptre (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a good idea, yet to only include cross-ideology support would also ignore every notable criticism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But cross-party criticism isn't notable at all. Have you ever heard of a political party that didn't slag off the other? Sceptre (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Restore until there is a Wikipedia-wide decision on whether to retain or remove all "Criticism of" articles. That's NPOV, not selective deletion. The closing did not allow for adequate time for comment. -- Noroton (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If other stuff exists, we should fix that as well instead of creating more soapboxes. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth just leaves Wikipedia as a partisan battleground. SDY (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible compromise at User:THF/Obama
  • Comment The above work seems to be a good route forward. It has my support as a work in progress as there are many editors working in good faith to construct a valuable article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose any criticism article about Obama. We already have Public perception of Barack Obama. This just creates two articles for the same purpose, except that one has a reasonable chance of neutrality. Sceptre (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have stated that about 15 times, I think people can see that you feel that way. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're creating some sort of straw poll to gauge user opinion on the matter, then you do not get to bellyache about anyone who chooses to weigh in, no matter what their position may be. Clear? Tarc (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Over and over and over and over again - yep, sure is clear. Thanks! Ism schism (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this WP:POVFORK of other articles, such as the main one or the Public Image one. This is a pointless exercise. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We shouldn't allow any criticism of Obama anywhere. We've done a good job keeping it out of the Barack Obama article, but now we have to keep it out of the rest of the encyclopedia. Criticism of Obama is inherently POV and can never be notable enough to be included in Wikipeida. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen. Ism schism (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The newest idea proposed - User:THF/Obama - is the most practical way forward. This is a very constructive way to proceed, the most productive avenue, and the most rational choice. It has my full support. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel like that, wouldn't it be simplest to withdraw this DRV? Nobody's actually deleted User:THF/Obama so this discussion appears moot.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are that this deletion should be reviewed. I support the recreation of the speedy deleted article. I also support ther userfied User:THF/Obama. There are many ideas, options, and comments left to be made - as this is not a quick process. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion on technical grounds (unfinished article in wrong place, being transcluded into talk space) but don't prejudge a recreated version in a sandbox or eventually article space. Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously much of what a president does will be controversial. The point of an article like this should be not what he does and says, but what is said about him. Much of this will have no great relationship to reality, and all of it will be strong POV. But what we should be doing in an article like this is reporting on it, and in particular on what is said about not him, but on the controversy about him. Usually this isn't worth separating, but once things get really partisan on an issue, it is. People comment on the commentators. If we report their views and the comments on them fairly, we are observing NPOV. Obviously such an article will be in large part a history of how people have abuse him. What of it? It happens. People do that. What they do that way is important. People write about how others abuse him. They intend this in some degree to be a defense of him, but it gets beyond that. The careers of the commentators become notable independently, and this article is in a sense of summary of the substance of those careers, not of his actions. It is better to have this separate from the main article because the nature of the sourcing and balance is different. To make an analogy, we're reporting on the coverage of a war, not on the war. We don;t defend him, or attack him. Other people do. We discuss that. THF's outline is a start that way, because its divided to some extent along the separate views. Let's face it: a large part of the role of a politician in a democratic country is to be attacked & they are expected to tolerate it. DGG (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The role of Wikipedia, however, does not include providing a vehicle for the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people (quoted from an Irishman, because it's that day). The criticism can and should be covered in context. If it's criticism about foreign policy, for example, we have a foreign policy article for El Presidente. If it's notable enough to be covered, it should be covered. A dedicated nattering from the nabobs of nefariously nasty noodling nebulous negativism page is what people's blogs are for, not Wikipedia. SDY (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly I would like to see a clear policy about whether "Criticism of [a living person]" articles are supposed to be kept or whether they should be merged into another article about the person. There may be arguments for either position but in order to have a neutral point of view, we need to be consistent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest (and have suggested before) that should be taken to RFC to establish a consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion It seems like many users who endorse deletion do not believe that an article based on "Criticism of..." any subject can be NPOV. However, given that such articles on Wikipedia are encyclopedic records of criticism that has been raised, as opposed to normative statements given by the criticism itself, is the question not compelled how users equate "Criticism of..." articles with POV? One imagines that facts, the not in the least unnotable facts of criticism raised of Obama, can be entertained by a neutral perspective. Furthermore, if the title of an article is "Criticism of Barack Obama", that is to say, if the article were about criticism of Barack Obama, it would include, presumably, not only ennumeration of faults that have been identified in his leadership, but also, information concerning the criticism itself. What comes to mind inevitably are the questions "who, where, when, why, how", in addition to "what", the inclusion of which seems to have not a small number of users so quite concerned. Therefore, I am in favour of keeping the article titled "Criticism of Barack Obama", or whatever the title was. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovanniCarestini (talk • contribs) 08:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bush merge
  • Comment: Wow, this thing hasn't been closed yet? Anyway, in case the closing admin is unfamiliar with the goings-on lately, I should point out that the same person who nominated the Obama-criticism article for restoration also nominated the Bush-criticism piece for deletion at an AfD that was closed as "pure disruption." Make of that what you will, but I'm surprised that this DRV has dragged on for so much longer than that AfD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:06, 21 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.
  • Non-imposition – speedy deletion overturned, though noting that this article is clearly rather "stubby" and could do with some sources and/or expansion. The consensus that it does not meet the speedy criteria is clear and appears correct however. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Non-imposition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I feel that this article was wrongfully deleted. It contains a legitimate definition from game theory that doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on wikipedia. The definition itself is short, so the article doesn't contain much text, but it still has value for people trying to understand the subject, for example someone reading Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which links to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostracize (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G1. If anything above is true, the article does not qualify for CSD, at least not G1. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this article, whilst not very clear to a non-specialist reader, was definitely not nonsense and should not have been speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Definitely not G1. I also doubt that A1 applies either. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn That it was judged nonsense was apparently to the unfamiliarity of both the editor and the admin involved.DGG (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. G1 does not apply and neither does A1 (though it's perhaps closer). Since this is just a definition, it is likely to be deleted under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY or perhpas merged, but speedy deletion was not appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn so it can correctly go through the process. Not a speedy candidate. Enigmamsg 02:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn sufficiently poorly written and devoid of context that someone might reasonably believe it G1. Send to Afd, so we can go through process, but since it's basically a WP:DICDEF now and the content seems already covered in the linked article, it may not survive Afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 17 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.
"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. WP:MUSIC says that albums by notable artists may be notable. This article was around for a few years before nominator claimed it was unnotable. The final vote was 4 to keep, 7 to delete, which is not a concensus.SPNic (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost 2 to 1 in favour of deletion. How can you say that was no concensus? Furthermore, there is no guidelines which state length of time an article is on wikipedia is a mandatory keep. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's 8 (delete) to 4 (keep), if you count my vote as well. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't count the original nomination; that was a mistake. But I still think this is a case of rampant deletionism and that there should be a statute of limitation.SPNic (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't a statue of limitations. This is only my third AfD nomination over a 2 year period btw. User:Hexachord, for example, nominates more in a week than I've done in my entire time here on wikipedia. So I don't know why this particular article is being single out when there have been far closer and less clear-cut results. No offence SPNic. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably because this is an article that I've actually read.SPNic (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should have been an easy read then. It was nothing more than a tracklist when nominated. If you've missed the content that was added later, that can be remedied with a visit to Jake Holmes or Dazed and Confused, where most of the content was duplicated from. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be stated clearly that I NEVER EVER nominated ANYTHING for deletion, besides blatant CSDs when on Huggle and one AfD per request. Oh, wait, some redirects, too. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, folks, that AfD isn't a vote. Thus, weak arguments are given less weight. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion since there is reliable 3rd party coverage that was not yet worked into the article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: 1) There was a clearcut consensus to delete 2) the AfD was on the album in question, not any song or artist 3) the sources used are not neutral and are thus not reliable. A-Kartoffel (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment interesting statement "WP:MUSIC says that albums by notable artists may be notable." isn't really a stunning revelation, something maybe notable. What WP:NALBUMS says is "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." which seems to be the primary reason for deletion. As to having been here for X, imposing a rule of such would be pretty much contrary to the project goals, to write a quality, free, npov encyclopedia. Why would we let stuff stay which is outside of that just because it's been here for too long? (And no I don't want to get into a debate about what quality means, I'll let our current content and inclusion guidelines define that.) --81.104.39.44 (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see that part, I thought the vote was close, and it wasn't clear who you were talking to.SPNic (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. Please note that the instructions are there for several reasons; I encourage you to follow them fully in future. Endorse deletion, clear consensus at the AFD and there is no indication that the deletion process wasn't properly followed. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin - There was a clear consensus at the AfD, and SPNic has provided no evidence to suggest the deletion process was not followed properly. I'm also rather disappointed that there was no attempt to contact me prior to this DRV. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about because WP:MUSIC says that album articles that are just track listings should be merged to a discography article (rather than being deleted outright)? I'd like to see the people who worked on the music notability guidelines see if this is notable.SPNic (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notability of a specific article is not for the closing admin to decide. It should be determined through the consensus of the community, and in this case, the result was clear. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What if consensus is wrong?SPNic (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MUSIC actually says "...they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" - no should about it and it's quite clear that albums should meet the general notability guideline. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm surprised it's reached review. It was a clear consensus to delete, more clearer than other AfD results I've seen lately. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion as in-process per the AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The AfD was correctly carried out. Not every album by every "notable" artist should get its own article, there's still other guidelines that have to be dealt with. ThemFromSpace 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion proponent of review misunderstands WP:MUSIC (specifically WP:NALBUMS). Let me quote: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [¶] In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (emphasis mine) As was demonstrated at the Afd, this album fails the first prong; and the second prong is phrased in the permissive, the album may be notable, which of course implies it may not, as here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 17 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.
Lord of This World (Black Sabbath Song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Killing Yourself to Live (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
After Forever (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Solitude (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD ended early, song has been covered by several notable artists [38] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just mention that in Master of Reality, as is typical for songs that never saw a single release? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire - past ops) 11:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: it's a rock (or if you want, metal) standard. Generations of younger bands have covered it. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the article (assuming the cached version is correct) makes absolutely no mention of that. You are essentially stating that this has some sort of standalone notablity because it's "a rock standard", is the covered in reliable sources? --81.104.39.44 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See link above. Plus, there are several book sources, see [39]. Would be easy to work into the article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the link above shows that a few others have covered it, that's not the same as a source stating it as a "rock standard", and indeed you couldn't just make such an assertion on that and that alone. From the snippets of the books I can see (or understand) I can't get enough context to see if they are useful e.g. some appear to be parts of lists and "and a Black Sabbath cover ('Lord of This World')" which seems to be the extent of the coverage. Perhaps the others contain more useful stuff. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention this information in Master of Reality, again? Generally, songs are treated as parts of their single or album, and you seem to have a bit of sourced info but nothing that can't fit in the MoR article. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire - past ops) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would of course accept a merge of all those four articles, but therefore they have to be undeleted first. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is bordering on the perverse. You want these articles undeleted, so you can add info that was never present in these articles to an entirely different article. Why don't you just edit Master of Reality to add the factual claims that you want to add? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire - past ops) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Several editors worked on the articles until their deletion, what would be a nice base for further development - either as articles in their own right or as sections of the album articles. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise the lyrics have even been analysed in several Christian theology books, which may be notable enough for an own article - together with lots of covers and some of them being released as singles. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 19:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, while the discussion was closed a day early, could you please clarify how you would expect one extra day to change anything in this AFD? Stifle (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion was not even added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs, leading to it dozing off after one day - which may be the reason for the early close. I would accept a relist, because at least a merge seems appropriate. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please be aware that deletion sorting and notifying parties who might be interested in an article are not required. I await your answer to my first question. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am waiting for a lottery win. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator failing to engage and answer reasonable questions in a non-frivolous manner. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin Deletion sorting is not a requirement of nominating an article for deletion. Was open 4 full days with all comments being to delete or redirect, with an emphasis on deletion. A protected redirect to the album might be a compromise here, but I believe the consensus was firmly that the article should not exist. MBisanz talk 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - a valid WP:SNOW delete and early close. Usrnme h8er (talk  contribs) 10:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now can add all three articles of
Killing Yourself to Live (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Discussion still ongoing, five days not yet over, articles much improved the past two days, consensus IMHO at least pointing to a merge to the respective album articles but now deleted and recreated as redirects. If only everything here would be as thorough... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored and yet again deleted, this time speedy. April 1 is still far away... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be a redirect to the album per WP:MUSIC. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion nothing amiss at the Afd, this isn't round 2. As for a redirect, I'm ambivalent about redirects from formulations that require the band's name in it - which is not specifically spelled out at WP:MUSIC. I think the link at Lord of This World to Master of Reality serves the purpose, why do we need to redirect other formulations of the song title with various capitalizations of "Song" perhaps as well? Redirects are cheap, but the only reason we'd be redirecting improper capitalizations here is because of its prior creation. Seems like perpetuating error rather - as I highly any user would type in Lord of This World (Black Sabbath Song) without first trying Lord of This World, and if such a user existed, the search function would no doubt guide him/her to the proper place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point on the redirect. I thought of that, but figured it couldn't hurt. But it probably won't help either. The only reason it might be useful is for folks to generate a link to the song (rather than the album) from other articles. Eh. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: AfD was a snowball delete and followed correct protocol. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion No matter your personal opinion of the notability of the song, I don't see how you can take issue with the closing of the AfD in question. Enigmamsg 02:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the funny thing is that I don't even know the song ("Lord...") and have absolutely no Sabbath record in my collection. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:28, 19 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.

Administrator instructions

14 March 2009[edit]

  • Sheree_Silver – restore and update based on new sources. Article can be renominated for AfD if new version is judged to still be inadequate. – Aervanath (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sheree_Silver (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

During the course of the discussion, I took steps necessary to correct the article by adding more independent sources and uncovered more accomplishments by this Doctor in Metaphysical Philosophy. My contentions for keeping the article were based upon provisions in WP:N...

Contention A: This article provides "significant coverage", because I did not mention any original research and addressed criticism in my revised entry. Contention B: The sources are "reliable" because information is taken from the source's website(s), local newspapers, and national outlets such as the Wife Swap website. Contention C: Regarding "Sources," 17 different are cited. Contention D: 15 of 17 sources are "Independent of the subject." Contention C: Regarding "Sources," with latest updates 32 are cited. Contention D: 20 of these 32 (not counting duplicates) are "Independent of the Subject." Contention E: There is no "presumed" of notability, because it is already official that Dr. Silver will appear on national television for a second time, and has fought to do her work in her county. Furthermore, based on my latest revisions, the statements originally made to prompt flagging this article for deletion are primarily now invalid (As mentioned in Contentions A, C, and D)...-Archive from AFD Discussion

I truly believe that Dr. Silver met general notability requirements by being shown on national television multiple times (if one counts the repeat airings and syndication on Lifetime), appeared on a variety of print media in her life, and even went on national talk shows like Good Morning America Now. Nonetheless, the consensus reached was deletion.

Since the article was deleted, I have continued gathering new sources not mentioned, and the admin MSBinz told me to bring my undeletion request here because he disagrees with admins. overturning consensuses.

I have almost over twenty additional sources (to the original 32 before the article was deleted) to lend to the notability of Dr. Silver, and will continue to update as they come along:

http://wfoynews.blogspot.com/2008/10/family-on-wife-swap.html

(local news interview)

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1014.html

(reference to criticizing "rumpology")

http://www.myhomelifemag.com/08winter/08winter_basics.aspx

(she gave information to Home Life Magazine which they published)

http://pastguests.edfurbee.com/

(Past guest on local radio)

http://www.folioweekly.com/documents/August12.pdf

(Magazine that serves in the Jacksonville, Fl area: she predicted Obama would win, as well as some guy running in an election)

http://carynday-suarez.com/2009powawards.php

(Proof that her book won an award. It's with an organization that went out of business a few months ago, I called the number for confirmation.)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-monitor8-2009mar08,0,4841840.story

(The LA Times did a piece on how the families in the episode were)

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/life/entertainment/news-article.aspx?storyid=133093&catid=19

(Jacksonville, FL News Broadcast "Good Morning Jacksonville" Interview about the last experience, this one, etc.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpEYXLpreA

(her kids give their side of the story in a YouTube video, to a First Coast News Producer)

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_11861966

(Wife Swap husband criticizes Dr. Silver)

March 12, 2009 - Variety features "Wife Swap," in several articles and the executive producer names the Silver's first episode among the ten most memorable wife swaps in the show's five years on air. (Digital Variety has it at www.variety.com/article/VR1118001147.html)

http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/goingthroughchannels/2009/03/friday-march-13-2009-wife-swap.php

(Blog on show predictions with a matchup of scientist/psychic)

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/03/12/2009-03-12_desperate_wife_agrees_to_return_visit_to.html

(NY Daily News Interviews Dr. Silver and Richard Heene, the other swap dad. Richard says she introduced him to the "psychic" realm, criticizes, and Dr. Silver admits one reason she did the show was the economy.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/mar/13/will-100th-wife-swap-be-different/

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090313/LIFE/903130336/-1/ENTERTAIN06

(Saying the wife Swap hundredth episode will be more of the same)

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=133615

(Latest Interview with the Jacksonville, Fl Broadcast "Good Morning Jacksonville", explains how she called the first kid an extraterrestrial, how UFOs are in this show, etc. This is on the day the hundredth episode will air).

http://www.coast933.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/player.html?redir=yes&mps=tadbrian.php&mid=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/30271/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/30271/2016/richmedia/0313WifeSwap.mp3?CCOMRRMID=26390776&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=PROVIDENCE-RI&NG_FORMAT=ac&NG_ID=wsne93fm&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=2016&SERVER_NAME=www.coast933.com&SITE_ID=2016&STATION_ID=WSNE-FM&TRACK=Wife_Swap

(part of a set of interviews in march with a bunch of radio shows in the states, she talks about the rumor of controlling weather, her swap husband, and responds to criticism of her field)

March 13, 2009 8:00 pm - Wife Swap Silver/Heene (Show airs. Message board users label the show as "abusive." http://abc.go.com/primetime/wifeswap/index?pn=mb&cat=71886

. One user commented, "It's the worst yet.")

http://abc.go.com/primetime/wifeswap/index?pn=recap#t=129325 (A manual, rules, and post-swap interviews with both families of the 100th episode)

According to http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20070605abc02, the first airing of the Silver's Wife Swap episode on May, 28, 2007 got 6.2 million views (taking 1st place for the 8:00 spot). The second show, which aired March 13th, 2009, received 4.5 million viewers according to http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63310451/m/828103591, 2nd Place in the 8:00 spot.

http://www.bigbigforums.com/rewardtv/615036-wife-swap-heene-silver-abc.html (Message board discussing the 100th episode)

http://mommysavers.com/boards/entertainment/116105-wife-swap.html (message board discussing the 100th episode)

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=50827451 (message board including 100th episode discussion)

http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID73/322.shtml (message boards about the first Wife Swap episode)

http://www.realitytvmagazine.com/blog/2007/05/28/silver-pitney-families-on-wife-swap/ (message board about the first wife swap episode, person proclaiming to be "Ashley Pitney" talks)

http://www.zerosec.ws/wife-swap-s05e15-pdtv-xvid-yestv-wife-swap-s05e16-pdtv-xvid-yestv/ (Person provides link to the full 100th episode online. I have not double-checked the download, however)

http://hartleychiropractic.com/ColdsandSinus.html (congratulating chiropractor for treating children without using "harmful drug therapy")

http://hartleychiropractic.com/EarInfections.html (congratulating chiropractor for treating son, "the more things that can be treated naturally the better")

http://www.maryhubley.com/staging.html (this artist provides images of the jewelry store Dr. Silver used to own.)

http://www.flogfolioweekly.com/?p=251 (Florida blogger comments on the 100th episode, feels sorry for Dr. Silver)

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/the_soup/index.html ("Poking fun" at Dr. Silver's comment March 19th The Soup)

  • Comment Spring12 please remove all the references to the motivations of other editors, personal criticisms of them and assumptions of bad faith you your nomination and stick to what is important - the sources. DRV is not a platform for attacking other users and DRVs that are substantially attacks on other editors will be closed out of hand. Thank you for your understanding, Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for advice, I've revised accordingly.Spring12 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin Referred user here because I don't think admins should decide on content and do not feel capable of judging if new sources meet WP standards, will leave it up to the community. MBisanz talk 07:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud that. Relist so the matter can be considered at AfD, no reflection on the closer because it's due to new information.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation, at least in user space on the basis of the references shown above, which would seem to provide foundation for an acceptable article. DGG (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The BIO issues raised in the AfD are not redressed by the above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebus, interviews for the New York Daily News/LA Times, having their episode named in the top 10 by an Executive Producer for ABC, published works in My Home Life Magazine, and proof of being an award-winning author should certainly address any remaining BIO issues from the first discussion. The 20+ references above bring the source count up to 50+. Please reconsider Spring12 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not worry too much about it. He !votes to delete pretty much everything. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and likely relist I didn't find a whole lot in any single one of the RSs I looked over, but as a whole there is clearly enough to write an article. Looks to pass ONEEVENT also as there were two different periods she was on. Plus a books, plus other stuff. I'd !vote to (perhaps weak) keep this in an AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 18 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.
Nicholas Chan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was done even with notability proven; deletion request by chase78 appears personally motivated. Ncknight (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article written was backed by credible secondary references, both online and in print meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people) with regards to published secondary source data such as newspapers like Today, The Strait Times and Bernama repeatedly on the areas of enterprise.

Meeting the criteria of topic specific relevance (enterprise and venture capital) is Nicholas Chan receipt of entrepreneurship related awards and nominations such as the Spirit of Enterprise 2005 (with reference) and the Fortis Heros 2008 on the area of Social Entrepreneurship in Singapore (not keyed in yet, but with PDF article on Fortis website) further reinforces the article.

New substantiation of the serial entrepreneur element via print articles, radio interviews and TV interviews has been discovered by me last week (8 new secondary sources) and 2 new print articles with reference to the venture capital aspects have been documented. Request undeletion of article so that I may be able to incorporate said secondary references.

Deletion request by chase78 appears personally motivated based on the mannerism of the request made particularly on issues like Army which was barely 1 sentence. Significance is because the result was the formation of 2 businesses with his former army friends which are referenced in secondary sources (company in point is Who Works Around You, secondary sources of which I just discovered this week and compiled but have not entered into Wikipedia) and relevant to the entrepreneurial aspect. Further comment on "lot more Singaporeans with much more notable achievements" has nothing to do with the lack of notability of article. Request review on personal motivation of chase78 against this article.

Deletion comment by FreeRangeFrog in incapability to find news on gnews; articles can be found directly via google of the newspaper sites in Singapore (example: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/technologynews/view/372488/1/.html , http://sgentrepreneurs.com/events/2009/02/05/bizasia-entrepreneurial-exchange-programme-2009/ , http://www.asiaone.com/print/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090126-117149.html , http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/SCE/achieves-news.asp#news2008-5 all sources which are new and not entered into the article as yet).

Further review of the article shows article vandalism as quoted:

Nicholas Chan was born on November 14, 1978 in Singapore then he moved to arizona and attended desert mountain high school where he was treated as an outkast because he looked different and couldn't speak english to Francis Chan and Susanna Kuan.

  • Closing admin Standard process followed, open longer than five days, all comments pointed to delete, will leave to the community to judge content. MBisanz talk 07:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the editor who initiated this DRV simply disagrees with the closure; no new evidence has been provided to justify overturning the article's deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closer didn't have many comments to go on despite (correctly) relisting it once. I'm not sure if anything would be gained by listing it again. Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against bringing this back to DRV if something new comes to light.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Juliancolton, justification on notability of article was given as above, including 3 new sample secondary reference evidence of relevance of Nicholas Chan as notable in the fields of enterprise and venture capital in Singapore. I can provide all new references directly in this DRV if required. Additionally, request advise on why article is not notable so that constructive editing can be done to refine article accordingly instead of being deleted even with present substantial factual research and justifications to article to date. Ncknight (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is definitely presenting all the new sources; so a revised consensus would take these into account.Spring12 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing has been presented to show that the deletion process wasn't properly followed. The time for presenting lists of sources and arguments was in the AFD. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not fair, Stifle, people have a life outside of Wikipedia. Just because they weren't at the AFD at the time, doesn't mean additional information cannot be presented. In fact, if crucial details were omitted from the previous AFD, DRV is the course of action to take. - Mgm|(talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those additional sources the nominator mentions are merely passing mentions and not the sort of detail required to contribute to someone's notability. - Mgm|(talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for another round of AFD. The original debate included mentions of unverifiable links, a comment of "poorly written," and mentions of the author's independence of the subject. I would have liked to see some national sources for this to meet Wikipedia standards, but I would need to see the original article in addition to this to provide a more accurate judgment of notability.Spring12 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mediacorp is the national broadcaster in Singapore, and Singapore Press Holdings is the national newspapers. All articles from these two are available selectively as they do not hold online archives for more than 7 days. All other articles sourced from the archives can be photocopied and scanned online should it be needed for verification. Ncknight (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This are the present cited sources for articles which I personally found in the Singapore National Library archives and online sources on Nicholas Chan as at 15 March 2009. Ncknight (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yadav, Surekha A. (10/01/2004) "Hard knocks within a sandbox", Today, Mediacorp
  • 9:00 News (03/29/2007), Dating agencies get funding to broaden services for singles, Channel U, Mediacorp
  • Singapore Tonight (03/29/2007), Dating agencies get funding to broaden services for singles, Channel News Asia, Mediacorp
  • 林佩碧, 四个"创意红娘" 获红线基金拔14万元 (03/30/2007) Lianhe Zaobao, p.15.
  • Ng, Kai Ling. (03/30/2007) "Need help to find a date? Call us". Straits Times Interactive Video News
  • Loh, Chee Kong. (03/30/2007) "Cupid just a click away". Today, Mediacorp
  • @1.45 (04/23/2007), Interview on Who Works Around You Pte Ltd, 938LIVE, Mediacorp Radio
  • Zhang, Cheryl (October 2008) "unsung heroes step into the limelight"

http://cherylzhang.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/revo-asia-15-citimex-fortis.pdf

  • Endorse deletion nothing wrong with process or decision, this is not AFD round 2. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion review is meant to relook into the deletion of the article due to reasons put against notability of subject; the present request for review is on notability and relevance of the article, I appreciate your review on that. Thank you. Ncknight (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Looking over the above (new) sources I'm not finding anything other than him being quoted. Is there a RS or two that are at least largely about him? If so, I'd be happy to change. The man appears notable in a sense, but there just isn't anything to write about him from RSes that I can see. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 18 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.

Administrator instructions

13 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Danny Galm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

played in a fully pro league meanwhile. 92.74.93.113 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great, any evidence to go along with that? - Mgm|(talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How did we get the rule that someone has to have played in a professional team rather than simply be part of one to be notable? Discussion probably. Does anyone know where that discussion is located? I think the Athlete guidelines are flawed and knowing how they came into existence would go a long way to get something better in place. (It's still possible for someone to be notable and still not get a separate article because there's too little to say. Inclusion guidelines need more nuances that give options for merging and stuff like that.) - Mgm|(talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
first pro league match was on Feb 5th 2009, where he played for Stuttgarter Kickers against Fortuna Duesseldorf. One other match followed. See German kicker magazine: [40] --94.216.100.170 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per the AFD closure saying that the deletion was until he started a match. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Stifle's reasoning.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per above. Note that the closing admin said "If he ever plays, drop me a message and I'll restore it", and since they are still actively editing it might be easier to leave a message on their talk page rather than coming here. Hut 8.5 16:26, 15 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.
  • File:Socotra Rock.png – closed as page nominated 1) is on Commons, not this project and 2) has never been on this project. This is likely an error in the nomination, but we can't review the intended page without knowing what it is. If the Commons page is intended, discussion needs to occur on Commons, not here. – GRBerry 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Socotra Rock.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

orphaned map image, no specific article provided Yeahsoo (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion.This map was just a cut and paste from some map, and marked with EEZ area with no resources provided.--Yeahsoo (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are we looking at the same image? When I looked at the page it contained the name of the original image showing exactly where it came from. As long as the original has a free license, it's perfectly okay to make something else from it. - Mgm|(talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the nominator please clarify this listing? The image mentioned is on Commons and has never existed here, the FFD discussion link goes to yesterday's log (which isn't closed yet) and the image isn't listed there, and it's unclear whether it is requested to delete or undelete an image. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the nominator has endorsed the deletion of whatever deleted image he presumably intended to nominate for DRV. Recommend closure of this DRV; the nominator can relist a valid one when he figures out what he wanted to list. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn We should keep the image as it obviously is not orphaned as per the "Used in" list referencing the Socotra Rock page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThymeCypher (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Originality of images is somewhat a slippery slope - aren't all photographs "original" to the photographer, drawings to the drawer, and maps to the mapmaker? There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 17 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.
The Fab Four (tribute) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This new page I put up was totally revamped from the previous one, and I added at least a dozen reliable sources and more information to show exactly why this notable band deserves to be on Wikipedia. My original page was deleted over a month ago and I understand why, but according to this page a user is allowed to put up a page again if they "find more evidence to prove the notability of your article," which is exactly what I did. I also had another admin look at the article before I posted it, and they said it was fine. The admin who deleted my page, Accounting4Taste stated that my page was deleted just because it had been deleted before. I feel like he/she didn't take any time to look and see how much different/improved this new article is. The new article had been up for almost a week with no complaints, so I really think that it should be restored. Thank you. LindsayG0430 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute, was essentially a snowball delete decision on the grounds of lack of notability. Several established editors took part and the decision, closed just over a month ago, was pretty much unanimous. Not everyone at DRV has access to deleted data and if you could provide the new sources which you feel establish that this subject meets requirements, it would do a great deal to help your case. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Restore In the original deletion debate the band was deemed non-notable because most of the sources pointed to the band's own website. Since that issue is handled in the recreation, I don't think G4 applies here. Either it should stand uncontested or it should be properly discussed again. - Mgm|(talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For reference, the sources in the new version are as follows: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. I haven't gone back and looked at these yet, just copied them out of the last edit of the new version so people can evaluate them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse my own closure of the previous AFD, but would overturn and relist this as the new page overcame the main issue in that AFD, which was the lack of third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why you haven't, then?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the most recent deletion was by Accounting4Taste. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that makes sense.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist. I don't think "overturn" is quite the right word because Accounting4Taste's deletion was correct but now we have new information.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about "overturn", but I don't see the need to relist either. - Mgm|(talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy per above and relist if desired. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging by the above, there is a desire to re-list this; I have no problem with that, and if we're getting a useful article out of the process, so much the better. I won't !vote here because my previous involvement leaves me less than impartial. I wanted to add that I took my role more seriously than might be thought; I actually examined the references in the article I found by going to some of them, read the previous AfD that noted that the references were not felt to be reliable sources and decided that the references were "substantially the same" as the ones in the AfD-deleted version. It wasn't just a question of seeing that there had been a previous AfD and zapping the new article, I tried to assess it as thoroughly as I believe I'm required to. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I felt that with the last article, people mostly had a problem with the fact that a lot of the sources linked back to the band's website, which I understood could definitely be viewed as a form of PR/Advertising. For the new article I found articles from news publications for a lot of my sources, and I thought those would be considered reliable. I am willing to continue to work on this article and do whatever needs to be done to make it better. LindsayG0430 (talk) 17:59, 18 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.
Palringo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reasons are no longer valid. ~

I have made a copy of a new version of the Palringo article in my namespace: User:ThymeCypher/Palringo I believe the article should be allowed to exist now, as the reasons for deletion are no longer valid.

One reason was that the product was non-notable, and that is no longer true as this product now has over 1,000,000 unique registered users all over the world. The second reason was that the article was written as an advert, and I have tried my best to make my copy not as such. ThymeCypher 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation but Not with that content, three of the sentences start with "Palringo is currently the most versatile instant messaging client available", "Palringo is unique in the fact that" and "Unique to Palringo, it also offers a technology called Palringo Local". The article with current content is not WP:NPOV and gives WP:UNDUE attention to what great functions it offers users. The sources are four links to the subject website and one to a month old custom computer website. Demonstrating WP:N in WP:RS shouldn't be hard though given articles on voip news and cnet. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with it given the rewrite. Move it on in. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Updated the article in my namespace to be hopefully more compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThymeCypher (talk • contribs)
  • Permit recreation Improved enough to stand. The CNET ref. in particular is a good source. DGG (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation (and undelete the history if relevant). Now improved enough. (I do think the article should explain it's a walkie-talkie concept perhaps compare it to Skype or something. - Mgm|(talk) 23:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - proposed article is well referenced using reliable sources, and written neutrally. Can't see a problem with it. waggers (talk) 22:54, 14 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.
Alexis Grace (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I would like you to restore the article Alexis Grace based on the discussions here Talk:American_Idol_(season_8)#Alexis Grace contestant page deletion. and here User talk:Fritzpoll#Alexis Grace. and here User talk:Fritzpoll#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination). and here User talk:Jauerback#Alexis Grace. Thank you. 23prootie (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination). No indication has been presented as to how the deletion process was not correctly followed. Note: this was at DRV on February 28th where the snow keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace was overturned. Fritzpoll's closure was correct. The nomination may misleadingly suggest that users are in general agreement that the article should be restored and this is a mere procedural rubber-stamping step, but this is not the case. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Gross mis-application of ONEEVENT. Most importantly, suitable sources exist, starting with http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/16/14idolweb/. There are no apparent grounds for BLP concerns. A season on american idol is not *one* event, but a season of events. Starring as a finalist on american idol is far beyond a mere "event". AfD1 and AfD2 are at extreme odds, and AfD looks more like a "no consensus", with the closer opining on policy (erroneously at least in part, WP:BIO is NOT policy), and without reference to the most important thing that guides our editing - the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Aspects (talk · contribs) has requested that this article be userfied (the request was made at yesterday's DRV). I am merging it with this request as it will be moot if this DRV undeletes the article. If it does not, the closing admin should consider the userfication request. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete history, retain redirect While it is perfectly acceptable and in fact common practice to redirect talent show contestants that haven't done anything outside the show, deleting the history was entirely unneccesary and only makes it harder to create a proper article in the event she does expand beyond the show. If repeated recreation is an issue, the redirect can be protected. - Mgm|(talk) 13:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question—Are we evaluating the totality of the discussions on this, or only the close of this particular AfD?—I think Fritzpoll's close was a correct reading of the consensus if we're taking into account all the relevant discussions (including particularly the 28th February DRV where good points were raised). I think it was not a correct reading of the consensus if we're only taking into account the second AfD. My preferred outcome is the one Mgm suggests.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose undeletion many anon users would recreate the article, in fact it is create protection. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment American Idol contestant pages tend to be stable. The only thing that struck a nerve was deleting the article.--23prootie (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anon users can't create articles. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, Fritzpoll has explained his closure of the AfD in a satisfactory way. The basic premise stands that a wikiproject cannot declare guidelines as overruling BLP policy, if there is going to be an exception to the BLP1E policy for American Idol contestants that needs to be discussed at WT:BLP specified in the policy itself. I don't object to an undeletion of the history, my only concern with that suggestion is that this might invite to 3RV wars. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the beauty of the article being create protected. No warring. Regular editors can't edit without first discussing it and admins stupid enough to wheelwar are easily dealt with. - Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only seeing one reference to BLP1E in the AfD on the delete side. I agree with your conclusion that wikiprojects don't set inclusion guidelines. But I think there were plenty of arguments about why this wasn't BLP1E that were never seriously addressed (1 event over 6 months seems to stretch the definition of 1 event). As discussed in the AfD that would eliminate a large number of professional athletes we otherwise include. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. :Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category."

I do believe that Alexis fulfills this criteria given that she is one of the front-runners currently still in the competition in a television show spanning more or less six months watched by at least 20 million people internationally, if the President of Malta has his own article then why not her. (likewise if some Prime Ministers of Italy, like Tommaso Tittoni, Luigi Facta, and Fernando Tambroni, have their own articles despite serving only a few months then why not her)--23prootie (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I looked at the AFD and I don't see anything resembling a consensus for deletion. I respect that the closing admin weighted the arguments and saw delete as more compelling, but at minimum the AFD should have been relisted for additional comment. Townlake (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The relist policy doesn't permit relisting discussions with more than one or two contibutors. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It should if discounting votes during your closure would leave you without any reasonable policy based comments. Also, if there are few comments, 1 votes can make a lot of difference to the outcome. It's quite reasonable to relist if the position isn't abundantly clear or if counting of the votes (after evaluation) doesn't give a clear consensus (and if the consensus is likely to change with additional comments) - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to my procedural question again, then. There have been a lot more than two contributors to the discussion if we include the first AFD and the Feb 28th DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle - your central point is well taken, though (as you know) policies and guidelines aren't the same thing. Townlake (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The first AFD was overwellingly to keep. So someone wasn't happy and forum shopped for a different result. I don't think that is how it is suppose to work.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and endorse Fritzpoll's reasoning in closing the discussion as Delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion as in-process and warranted. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to no consensous' Really a crazy situation. As described above, this isn't anything close to a ONEEVENT situation. One event doesn't happen over a period of months. Otherwise a whole lot of bands would be ONEEVENT as they are only being covered/reviewed for a single "hot" song and then fade away. IMO this is a case of TOOMAINSTREAMFORMYTASTES.Hobit (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, let me say "per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" as I think those comments do a better job of saying what I was trying to say. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This discussion pretty much moots the deletion of this article.--23prootie (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it matters, I'll be happy to take the article as a Userfy, and improve it according to any instructions the closing admin chooses to leave. (I can't see the article so I don't know if it was just poorly V/RS'd.) But yeah, with that all-contestants bundle-keep, it seems strange to have this singular deletion stand. Townlake (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion well reasoned close by the closer; no wikiproject can make notable that which the community as a whole considers otherwise, lest we have WikiProject Telephone Book determining that having a listing in a telephone directory makes you notable or other shenanigans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the closes mentioned by 23prootie do seem to indicate that we have a general sense of notability about these people. It would be very odd to claim that all of them have notability but this one doesn't. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That gets into an other stuff exists argument. At this point I'd rather concentrate on reintroducing a good article on this subject instead of just saying she gets one because everyone else did. It's a kinda bureaucratic point, but we have to be careful with BLPs; they really do merit individual consideration (as is alluded to in today's bundle keep). Townlake (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed on all points. But that said, if we chose to keep 7 of one type of article, we should have good reason not to keep the 8th. It's not that other stuff exists, it's that other AfD discussions in the last few days lead to a different conclusion with (in many cases) the exact same arguments. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Closer inappropriately discounted the comments of several editors, myself included, who pointed out amount of 3d-party press coverage which would be sufficient in almost any other context. Closer gave inappropriate weight to several editors' comments who only objected to Wikiproject criteria and made no effort to address compliance with GNG. Closer inappropriately discounted opinions of those who disagree with his reading of BLP1E -- it is one thing to discount comments not based on policy. But it is wrong to discount votes based on a reasonable policy interpretation held by many editors just because the closer has a different one. BLP1E is being turned into BLPIDONTLIKETHIS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well said on all points. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Per WP:BEFORE, obvious redirects and/or merge candidates should be discussed on the article's page. With the protected redirect in place, it is not possible to evaluate the former article on its merits. Repeatedly bringing articles like this to AFD when the search term is so obvious and WP:BEFORE is so clear amounts to forum shopping and should not be encouraged. Neier (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a further aside, WP:BLPDEL specifically says that Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed.. There are other tools in the box besides AFD; and perhaps it is time we started to use them the way they were meant to be used. Neier (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm definitely not seeing a consensus to delete here. The closing admin discounted two keep arguments as being based only on precedent, but more worrying are the delete/redirect !votes which completely fail to address what is important. Many people in this DRV/AfD cycle want to make the point (note, not the WP:POINT) that the guidelines of individual projects should not set a standard of notability that is incompatible with what we generally accept. This is a valid and important point, and has been well made at the DRV. However those obsessed with hammering home this point fail to account for the fact that this article may well be notable anyway, by any of our criteria. Evidence of this (in the form of significant media coverage) has been presented by those !voting to keep, and as far as I can see has not been refuted. the wub
  • Comment The comment was made that the keep !votes were poor. The delete !votes arguments seemed to be non-existent.
    • Adam Zel argues that a wikiproject's guidelines can't overcome WP:N. Certainly. But that's not a reason to delete. One could read a belief that WP:N isn't met, but that just plainly isn't true given the scads of news stories on the topic and cited in the article.
    • FreeRangeFrog says "If the person fails WP:BIO and/or WP:CREATIVE then the article must go." When asked how it is this person doesn't meet WP:BIO there was no response. Again, as WP:BIO defers to WP:N, I'm unsure how this isn't met.
    • Black Kite refers back to the DrV. But that was mostly about the issue of wikiproject guidelines as a reason to keep something. Perhaps he meant something else, but I'm unsure what.
    • Ejfetters provided no argument.
    • Eluchil404 argues one event quite well, but uses such a broad definition that (s)he agrees the definition used would put most professional athletes without an article.
So I see one ONEVENT argument and 2-3 that seem to be referring to WP:N without being clear how exactly the dozens of sources on this topic don't meet WP:N. The closer concludes that WP:BIO can't be overridden by local guidelines. But there was no real argument, after the DrV, that it could. Rather the question is if WP:BIO is met. No one put forward any argument about why it isn't either in this AfD or in the last one as far as I can tell. So while the closer reaches a valid conclusion based on this discussion and the DrV (local guidelines don't override WP:BIO) he doesn't explain why WP:BIO isn't met nor does anyone else. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the face of little clear explanation about why this should be deleted (other than Eluchil404) I'm unsure how the keep !votes could be anything other than "meets notability guidelines for an article". Hobit (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily un-retiring to say that this needs to be undeleted. The closing admin substituted his own interpretation of ONEEVENT for the previous consensus established at AFD#1, which was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it. ONEEVENT isn't some draconian policy to be wielded by deletionists looking to get rid of articles they don't like very much. H2O Shipper 02:24, 19 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.
  • FlatPress – Userfied as requested. – Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I would like the FlatPress article restored to my UserPage so I may improve it and reconcile the issues that resulted in its deletion.

DavidB64 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at User:DavidB64/FlatPress. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:08, 13 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.

The original deletion request is here. The result was delete, however, I think the deletion request should be reviewed by an administrator. -Axmann8 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Endorse deletion On the grounds that it was copyvio and is a non-notable "think tank" front for right wing causes against abortion and gay rights - a 1 employee one at that according to the Boston Globe. Additionally, please refer to this diatribe left by the requester of this review, User:Axmann8, on my talk page. It's obvious from this user's userpage - covered in nOBAMA and Sarah Palin images - that the user of course has issues with the fact that this conservative article has been deleted. Of course the user obviously felt I have an agenda as well but as I stated at the AFD discussion, it's a non-notable organization. It's not even a college as in "educational" college.. it's a college as in association. If it were a notable organization such as the American Family Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association or American Academy of Pediatrics (notice American Academy of Pediatrics versus American Academy of Pediatricians), then I'd be more than willing to support its inclusion in Wikipedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of employees is irrelevent. The group has several major court cases either active or pending (a quick review showed one before the WV Supreme Court and another in Florida.) It also has a number of people working for/with it. It may only have one "employee" but a lot of non-profit organzations have small staffs who coordinate other activities with groups of volunteers. When I was looking at this case, I was actually leaning towards keep, when I realized it was a copyvio.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I don't think copyvios should ever be undeleted (recreating a new page is preferable), but in this case i saw no proof of notability. The only sources were the organisation trying to get attention, nothing reliable and indepedant.YobMod 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Speedy deletion seems reasonable enough, although a little unwelcome. Hadn't had a chance to personally check the article for copyvio. The organization is pretty clearly notable, per gnews, gscholar, gbooks searches, and I had added one Boston Globe ref among others mainly on it, which is why I unprodded it prior to the AfD. This DR seems a bit premature, just needs to be restarted as a stub with no copyvio. Of course size and political stance is utterly irrelevant to deletion.John Z (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Size and political stance are irrelevant. Avoid the copy vio and make it less of an advert, and I have no problem with the recreation of the article. It might go through AfD after recreation, but as far as I am concerned, if it can be recreated without the copyvio then DRV is not necessary.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Comment as the closing admin, I have no problem with the recreation of the article... assuming that it avoids the copy vio material. IMHO, articles that are speedily deleted should be recreatable without much fuss---assuming the concern is addressed. The only time, IMO, that DRV of a speedy deleted article should be required is if the author believes the article should be recreated "as is." The problem with this article is that a huge section (40+%) of the article was definitely lifted directly from the College's website and 3 sentences from the intro were possibly lifted from another source. I say possibly because the intro was verbatim what an online dictionary used, but I couldn't determine if the online dictionary was cloning Wikipedia or not. But the entire tone of the article read as an advertisement and as something that was likely copyrighted. Again, my personal feeling is that an argument could be made for keeping the article, but as written, it needed to be deleted. My suggestion to Axmann is to recreate in his user space (or offline) avoid the copyvios/advertising and if it avoids the copyvio issue, I'll be happy to move it back to the mainspace myself. I am a supporter of keeping articles when people are willing to work on them and getting them to a condition worth keeping, but copyvios cannot be allowed. NOTE: This does not mean that the article won't go through AfD and get deleted that way. There were legitimate concerns about the tone, sources, and notability of the group. My speedy is not an indication that it is or isn't notable, but rather a copyvio/blatant advertisement. Fix those, and then we can proceed from there. Normally I would offer to Usify the text, but I can't do that with a copyvio.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for speedy closure. Axmann, the person contesting the deletion, has been blocked for a week for disruptive editing. I think it is pretty clear that we can't restore a COPYVIO and I'm fine with the article being recreated so long as it is not an obvious copyvio/advert. I think somebody ought to go ahead and close this DRV, this seems pretty straight forward to me. Axmann can recreate the article without the copyvio, but needs to be aware that unless he can establish independent notability, that the article might be sent to AfD.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I remember seeing this at AFD. Spartacus's actions here have been proper throughout. Nothing more to resolve here. Townlake (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Copyvio is pretty clear-cut. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as a copyvio. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as all above, but no objections to recreating a non-violating version. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 14 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.
Cassandra Whitehead (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I would like to restore Cassandra Whitehead article based on the discussion here. Actually, it was listed in AFD three times. I just want it to undelete the article and retain the redirect page. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The article has been deleted per the discussion you linked with a redirect in place that has also been discussed at an RfD initiated by you. Could you therefore clarify what you think is wrong with the AfD or what else you think has changed since? --Tikiwont (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that the nominator wants a history undelete, and I've no issues with that. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 15 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.

Administrator instructions

12 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gene Ray (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

User:JzG (who also deleted their own user page for some reason) deleted it [56], without consensus; the previous AfD was near-unanimous in saying that the article should be kept. Gene Ray is only a blue link above because has since been turned into a redirect to Time Cube. Clinkophonist (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and edit & optionally list at afd. Some of the wording in the lede paragraph is a POV problem, but otherwise it does not fit the speedy category of G10, attack page or negative unsourced BLP under which it was deleted. The admin. involved should have placed a 2nd afd--it's 21 months since the 1st one. I am not sure the keep will be quite as unanimous, but that's where we'll find out. DGG (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A somewhat disingenuous request: it wasn't since turned into a redirect, I created the redirect immediately. The article was a WP:CSD#G10 because there are no sources independent of Time Cube and the mocking thereof, it is basically impossible to have a WP:BLP compliant article on Gene Ray the man, but we do discuss time cube the concept. The redirect currently in place means that the encyclopaedic content is covered without violating policy. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were you aware that this had survived convincingly an AfD, albeit one that didn't address directly BLP concerns, when you speedied it? 68.249.6.0 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats actually irrelevant, the AFD was held at a time when we did not have a coherent BLP policy and therefore did not touch on the subject. All admins are required to immediately remove any content that is a BLP vio and it may not be restored unless there is a consensus to do so. This is completely outside the CSD process although we often use g1o for a rationale when we do that. Generally, redirecting to the encyclopedic content is the best way to handle cases like this. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of the context. The idea that this is somehow controversial is somewhat belied by the fact that it was nearly a year ago and nobody has even mentioned it since. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So too do many articles that are ultimately deleted—some speedied, even—sit for a year without anyone's raising an objection; you do not propose, I imagine, that we demand of everyone who nominates for deletion a longstanding article a justification for his/her having failed to act sooner. For that matter, pace Stifle, the version of BLP that prevailed (if only by edict of the Arbitration Committee) at the time of the AfD was one that would have permitted the summary deletion of an article that was fundamentally, irremediably inconsistent with BLP, and yet no one undertook to delete it in July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, or March. I appreciate your point, to be sure, but I can't say that I understand why one should be more bewildered by the challenging of a deletion that was ostensibly uncontroversial for a year than by the deletion of an article the existence of which was apparently uncontested for nine months (and so suppose that we shouldn't try to draw any inferences from the timing of the request, which is, by any fair measure, immaterial to the substance here). Joe 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While it is common for people who are only mentioned in a certain context to be redirected, it's certainly not uncontroversial all the time. Redirecting is perfectly acceptable, but there's no reason to delete the article before doing so. Controversial deletions shouldn't be a one man show. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Furthermore, this deletion took place nearly a year ago — can you please explain why you have waited until now to list this page at DRV? Stifle (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think the delay matters--we want to correct both old errors and new ones. DGG (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say the delay was necessarily bad, but I'd like to know the reasoning behind it. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's alleged failure is totally irrelevant to whether we keep an article or not. If lapse of time is an issue in one direction, it would be so in the other. Should we use this argument at AfD: "Why wasn't an AfD filed before now?" Nominator might drop off the face of the earth, the nominator has nominated and need not even be aware of continued discussion. Hence Stifle's !vote is based on considerations other than notability or BLP violation or other relevant issues, and will properly be disregarded. I would agree that proper procedure is to request a deleting admin to reverse, before going to DRV, and this would be grounds for speedy closure without prejudice (in my opinion). Except that it wasn't speedy closed, and insisting on that procedure now would not respect the effort and research of those who have commented. It is also clear from JzG's comment above that he would have refused, so it's moot. --Abd (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it really matters, but the nominator has not edited since 8 hours before Stifle asked his question, so we may suspect that the editor never even saw the question.--Abd (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DGG. While the reason he didn't take it up with the deletion admin is relevant, the time it took for this user to respond is not. Wikipedia is massive and it's quite easy for any editor to not notice something. There are several article I personally care about a lot, but I simply don't have the time to babysit them all 24/7. If it's a particularly obscure topic I could probably take a year to notice too. - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The Other Controversies section was a complete BLP vio with none of the data sources to independent third party sources. This violates UNDUE, V, RS and OR and does, in my mind justify deletion under BLP/G10. Spartaz Humbug! 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and edit if necessary per DGG. As a non-admin, I cannot see the article, but the closing admin can examine the article immediately and remove any BLP violations found. I would not make relisting at AfD a decided matter here, but would allow relisting as if there had been no speedy deletion. On a notability issue, the community should decide through normal process; this DRV only considers the speedy deletion, which was based on BLP concerns, and should endorse or overturn it, returning us to the status quo prior to the action overturned, excepting only that the closing admin should review for BLP violation immediately. If anyone disagrees on how the admin does this, there is then standard editorial process. --Abd (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist/restore per Abd and DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion as perfectly reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if WP:BLP has any meaning it must trump keeps like as happened at the Afd, where he was kept as notable for his "nuttiness". If being a nut in a very public way makes you notable, it better be sourced with exactitude otherwise it becomes a WP:COATRACK with WP:UNDUE weight on the nuttiness. Perhaps the afd predated the application of BLP, but I don't think that BLP violations are grandfathered anyway - I think such grandfathering would go against the basic precept of BLP (old lies are fine, but new ones are to be ripped out with a vengeance? doesn't seem right to me). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP violating material should be immediately removed. But that is not the same as deleting an article. The keep/delete decision is properly made on notability, not "BLP." Any admin closing this, tending to a "restore" decision, would review the article and would quite simply not allow BLP violating material, if there is any there, to stand; if there wasn't enough left, then the admin would make a different decision. Speedying the article itself was improper; if it were true that there was violating material there, the deleting admin should have removed it, not the article. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and list if desired not sure speedy was the right way to handle this. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We already have an article on Time Cube; there's absolutely no reason to have a detailed biography on somebody who is only notable for having created a cranky website, which has (meanwhile) become a bit of an internet meme. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Ekjon wants this (it could be correct, how can I tell if I can't read the article?), and if the article is undeleted, then the editor can blank the page and put in a redirect to Time Cube. There is no need to delete articles on arguments like this, deletion prevents decisions like this from being made by ordinary, less-disruptive editorial process. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 18 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.
List of airports capable of accommodating the Airbus A380 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was created by User:Einsteinbud. I deleted the article under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General (item #4) as a repost of the original, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft, and the user disputes this. Einsteinbud does not want to make the review post so I am posting it here for discussion. I have offered to either email or post the material in the users sandbox. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • page should not be deleted Einsteinbud (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, previous consensus has determined that this article isn't accepted. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWater deleted on a reckless way my article. What the hell is wrong with him? Is it forbidden to create an article that mentions wich airports are A380 ready? This is just mean, cruel and vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinbud (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's original research, among other things. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been deleted before you just recreated it as you see here Kyle1278 (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no reason to overturn AFD when standard procedure has been followed, when this clearly falls under the G4 criterion, and when ignoring rules wouldn't improve anything. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm seeing bad referencing, but that can be overcome by further editing. Where is the so-called OR? - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is essentially the same as the deleted article, only it's a table instead of a bulleted list, and it has a completely different random selection of airports that might fit this criterion. This is the sort of list that used to get deleted as an idiosyncratic non-topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see what's wrong with creating this article. Just because some admins have wrongly deleted similar articles doesn't mean that deleting this one is correct! If admins have made mistakes in the past, it doesn't mean that it is justified to reproduce the same mistake again because similar articles have been deleted in the past.... I didn't quote any references at that point. Please take in mind that Rome wasn't build in one day either. It will develop in further edits. My article was based on other wikipedia articles where mentioned is either about an airport that it can accommodate the A380, or an airline that uses the A380, according to the rputes they fly with the A380. Therefore, it is clear that I did not make that up.
    People have the right to know which airports are A380 ready. If a user or Admin believe that people should not be allowed to know about it, then what's the point of wikipedia? --Einsteinbud (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is establishing that whole "wrongly" bit. People have lots of rights, but that doesn't mean this project is obligated to provide them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse fair application. This has been through AfD and the close was fine. Please don't recreate it without coming here first. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 16 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.
Alexis Grace (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like this page userified so I can work on notability issues to try and restore this back to an article. I understand that another deletion review will be needed before this article could be brought back into the main space. Aspects (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, although a full restoration is much better.--23prootie (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A full restoration has been requested at today's DRV. I would recommend upmerging this discussion, and if that is closed without undeleting the article, userfication can be considered. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 13 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.
Intelligent Interweaving technology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I contacted the admin and he pointed out what I should follow to keep the page intact, I would like to have it reopend to alter it according with Wiki-rules. Thank you in advance. .IT (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note this is Wikipedia, not wiki. Keep deleted as the page was little more than an advert for a new technology. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there reliable sources not related to the company discussing this technology, .IT? If not, it would be impossible to make the article meet the rules. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not have deleted it as a speedy as promotional, because it gives information about the technology. But the article would very soon be deleted anyway, unless you can find at least one reference & much better more, from outside the company & not based on their press releases, that the product is important.If you can find it, recreate the article with it, making sure you don't copy from your ads or web site and that you give us copyright permission for any pictures. DGG (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your time. Does these count, they are article scans uploaded on the company website:

Sign Pro Europe: Intelligent Interweaving Technology too intelligent Specialist Printing Magazine: What is Intelligent Interweaving? Image Report: The eye of the beholder X-media: Das kann i² von Mutoh

Also I can lift copyright from all images but the logo of the technology. .IT (talk) 15:30, 12 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.

11 March 2009[edit]

  • Yvonne Bradley – Closure endorsed without prejudice, assumes reasonable work to improve article as userfied. If substantial delay appears, article should be moved back into mainspace, over the present redirect, and then redirected, to implement original close as a Merge. Otherwise, closure as No Consensus would have been appropriate. Non-admin closure. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Yvonne Bradley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

A deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley has been requested for the following reason(s):

  1. the closing admin Fritzpoll might have closed the discussion a little prematurely;
  2. there was not a clear consensus to delete and redirect; and,
  3. additional evidence is available on Yvonne Bradley's notability (eg the article she wrote for New Statesman magazine and Bradley's role in uncovering telegrams which point to MI5 'collusion' in the interrogation of Binyam Mohammed).

Also, Yvonne Bradley was mentioned in today's Prime Minister's Questions when Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, called for a judicial inquiry into her revelations of MI5 'collusion' in the interrogation of Binyam Mohammed.

Bradley might not be especially notable in the States but on this side of the pond she's a star!---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate that the discussion was closed prematurely, in that there were insufficient opinions expressed to establish consensus? Since you are the creator of this article, I understand that you might be unhappy at the outcome. The evaluation of consensus by an administrator is not a head-counting exercise, it is also an evaluation of the relative strength of the arguments. The arguments in the discussion by those who favoured retention largely fell into the category of WP:ITSNOTABLE - no justification was given as to how the individual satisfied WP:BIO in light of the WP:ONEEVENT clause of our living persons policy, that the deletion guidelines for administrators require me to evaluate in cases like these. Given this, there was suggestion of recourse to the general notability guidelines for notability, but such arguments did not indicate how this article was able to overrule the notability exemptions within the general guideline. This is not my opinion - I do not apply my opinions to closes - but was the valid point suggested by those favouring deletion. On the balance of arguments, therefore, there was (in my analysis) a consensus for deletion. The redirect was a courtesy for usability.
As regards undeletion, there is a small problem. I have moved the entire deleted history of the article to Geo Swan's subpage. He assured me that he could make an unambiguously notable entry, which can then be returned to article space. My strong suggestion to you is to focus your efforts on improving this userspace article to the point where it demonstrates her notability beyond this single event. Provided it is not substantially similar to the deleted copy, you can then safely overwrite the redirect at the article page - but you'll need an admin to do it for WP:GFDL reasons. If there are additional sources, then the article may be able to demonstrate notability, in which case there is nothing for a deletion review to do.
Finally, in the interests of disclosure, and not that it matters, but I am a British citizen, and I live in England - I have no systematic bias, as I fear you may believe from your latter statement. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your essay is wrong. According to WP:DGFA: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.. It isn't just about discounting sockpuppets and the like - there is a judgement call to be made. Otherwise we'd just count up the votes - the community is meant to appoint admins on the basis that they trust their judgement - if you want this changed, this is the wrong forum Fritzpoll (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My essay is perfectly correct: closers are supposed to implement the consensus, or if there's no consensus, close it as no consensus. The only judgment involved is deciding what the consensus is. In this case, the closer has mistakenly assessed as "delete" a discussion that was clearly not a consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I closed according to what I percieved was a consensus. Can you be more explicit as to how you feel I made a mistake, based on my commentary at the top of this AfD? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but it looks like I'm wasting my time, so I won't bother.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse closure. The decision was correct. No one has presented a single policy-based reason for keeping the article, and no one has presented a single policy-based reason for overturning the deletion. AFD closures are not supposed to count noses or the WP:ILIKEIT votes. There were no sources about Yvonne Bradley, who was one of several underling lawyers on a case, and whose role in the case was covered by half of a sentence in her client's article. Haseldine continues to WP:PUFF this subject; he hasn't shown anything that changes Bradley's lack of notability: he cites to one primary source written by the subject (and even there the host's URL title is telling: "Binyam Mohamed's lawyer" rather than "Yvonne Bradley"); and half of a sentence in a BBC article that does not support any claim that Bradley had any role in the revelation of MI5 telegrams, contrary to Haseldine's false claim to the contrary. How does adding the sentences "According to Mohamed's current lawyers, Bradley showed him some telegrams" and "Bradley wrote a 750-word article about her client" improve the article from Delete to Keep? I further note that Haseldine has already been disruptive with this article, including trying to overturn the deletion surreptitiously with edits like: [57] and [58]. THF (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to repeat a fundamental flaw I noticed in your original nomination, which you repeat here in this DRV. Nominating articles on notable topics due to perceived weaknesses in the current state of the article is counter-policy. If the topic itself merits coverage, but the article has problems, the recommended procedure is to state your concerns: state them on the talk page; apply a tag; or contact the contributor whose contributions triggered your concern. Policy recommends those with a concern over the article, rather than the topic, take these steps first, and reserve {{afd}} for a last resort, when these steps fail to bring an improvement. Most of your stated concerns are about the current state of the article. Maybe you did a good faith web search, so you could independently reach a conclusion as to the merits of the topic. But there is nothing in what you have written to indicate you did so. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I resent this repeated allegation of bad-faith nomination, which you know damn well not to be true. I systematically researched over 25 articles in the category that were alphabetized (often incorrectly) in the A-through-E range, nominated about half of them where there was nothing beyond the occasional passing quote or primary source available to every lawyer, tagged another eight or nine that looked like they could be salvaged, and left the others alone because they were passable. I even held off looking at other articles at your request so you could "userfy" and improve them, but if we're going to have bad-faith DRV lobbying and bad-faith accusations of bad faith instead of efforts to get articles up to par, I'm not sure why I am doing you the favor of avoiding nominating the other four dozen or so articles that flunk WP:BIO. THF (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not for the first time THF completely misrepresents Yvonne Bradley's role. The cited BBC article actually states: "The legal organisation Reprieve, which represents Mr Mohamed, said its client was shown the telegrams in Guantanamo Bay by his military lawyer Lieutenant Col Yvonne Bradley." It is clear from the BBC article that her role in uncovering the alleged MI5 collusion in the interrogation of Mohamed has been crucial. And her revelation has not only prompted calls by Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve for a judicial inquiry into the allegations and by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty for the matter to be referred to the police but, as stated above, she was mentioned at yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time. You can't get more notable than that!---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read the language you just copied and pasted before making a false accusation against me? How is "The legal organisation Reprieve, which represents Mr Mohamed, said its client was shown the telegrams in Guantanamo Bay by his military lawyer Lieutenant Col Yvonne Bradley." substantively different from "According to Mohamed's current lawyers, Bradley showed him some telegrams"? How is that a "critical role"? As for "You can't get more notable than that", well that's self-parody. THF (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious difference is that the BBC specified that these telegrams had revealed MI5 'collusion' and were not just "some" telegrams.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article doesn't say that Bradley had any role in the telegrams (which don't actually appear to show any wrongdoing, but WP:NOT#CHAT) beyond showing them to her client. THF (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but. No, but. It's OK, THF, you can have the last word.---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (1) Let's not split hairs about a close that is around 1.5 hours early. That could simply be the result of a time zone difference. (2) If I had closed I would've discounted the votes by JRP and Unionsoap for using invalid arguments. PJHaseldine's comments are borderline, since they assume meeting notable people confers notability and that being interviewed does as well (without going into the details of why they were interviewed. The combined assessments of TJRC and Freerangefrog and THF all supported coverage in context and in part this also supported keep arguments since it allows for her to still be covered. So I see no reason for the closing admin to do it any different than I would do it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn After the checking the page logs, it appears the closing admin first closed the debate as a redirect and later speedied the redirect as a G6. This meant that any history for a future merge of more material was lost (before he finally decided to userfy the history). Closing something as a redirect to an article where the subject is discussed in context so readers can find it is a fine close; deleting the resulting redirect outside your own decided close of a debate isn't. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of the redirect took place because I was moving the material to a user-subpage for Geo Swan to work on per a request to my talk page. To preserve the history, and given his promise to bring it up to scratch, I thought this was the best way round. The redirect had to be deleted for me to get at the history - you'll notice I restored the redirect shortly afterwards Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for doing so. My preference remains to take further time to make the enhancements we discussed, and then ask you if you agree that the article can be restored to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll shut up. I'm not awake enough to properly address this without messing up again. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD lasted the required time and close was a compromise close within discretion. History can be restored on request under the redirect as per the usual protocol. MBisanz talk 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD closed after reasonable time with a reasonable conclusion by the admin. The WP:BLP1E concern was never refuted and keep claims were based in "you are wrong" and "is notable" mentality. While I acknowledge that "not inherited" is an arguement to avoid, it is worthwhile to note that the subjects notability is entirely dependent on Benyam Mohammed and the associated trial. When the discussion on the subject in that article either strays from associated context or becomes a weight problem, this article should be recreated. "She's a star" is not an inclusion criteria in wikipedia, if it was, my niece would totally have an article. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Inherited" is an argument to avoid. "Not inherited" is a legitimate interpretation of the guideline. THF (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you're right. The phrasing confused me on AADD (not notable is not inherited either). My bad. I still don't really like it because notability can, of course, be inherited. It just doesn't confer notability in its own right. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. However, the AFD was left open for the legitimate amount of time. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing advisory - PJHaseldine's contributions suggest he has only notified those in the AfD who favoured retention at the time of writing. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two 'noes' also now notified.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Redirect: Article seems like a rather thin coat to me; individual, out-of-context notability wasn't asserted. AFD process was followed well and redirect was mentioned as nom's original intention. Only one Keep !vote gave good supporting comments, and even that succumbed to a contextual slant. onebravemonkey 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While arguments ("This lawyer is notable...", "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO...") were made in favor of keep they did not really explain the basis of their arguments. Good closure. The section it was redirected to seems to cover the facts anyways. Chillum 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus,' which is the actual state of the matter. Consensus is determined not by counting heads in a mechanical sense, but by what amounts to the process of counting the support of sensible people. Very few people participated in the AfD--fewer than are participating in this review. I didn't myself, because I was overwhelmed by the flood of afds of articles on lawyers--if one prefers, one could word it as us all being overwhelmed by the flood of articles on lawyers. Most of them are--quite reasonably-- now redirected or merged by the people writing them, and we can reconsider the more notable, and she is among the more notable. But even if we do not overturn, i expect Geo swan will improve the article enough that it becomes acceptable. You know, this is all going to look very silly a few years from now, when everyone involved has written books and they all become historically notable, for their work in destroying or attempting to rescue the reputation of a nation. DGG (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they have books written about them and they become historically notable then they will certainly have an article. I won't feel silly for waiting either. As before I support Geo and others bringing the article up to standards, I gave a keep opinion on the MfD for the userfied version of this article. Chillum 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Closure was not premature. Of the three editors suggesting "Keep" only one, PJHaseltine, gave any reasons, and those concerns were addressed. PJHaseltine was not swayed by the argument, which is understandable, seeing as he is the article's creator, but that's to be expected. The point is that his arguments, and those against them, received a fair airing. The other two "Keep" suggestions gave only conclusory statements, with no basis for them: "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO"; and "This lawyer is notable". In contrast, each of the three editors suggesting "Delete" provided bases for their positions. If this were an election, we wouldn't look at anything but the numbers; but it's not. With only the article's creator giving any reasoned basis for keeping, which was fully addressed, closure was appropriate. TJRC (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there have been no comments for more than a day and a half, a few hours don't matter. WP:BLP1E policy, and WP:BIO1E would both lead to a conclusion that we should not have an article - making FreeRangeFrog's argument contradict the support he claimed for it, and of zero to negative weight. Before the relevant AFD started content about Bradley was already in the appropriate merge target. So merging would not have been useful. Accordingly, endorse closure based on the strength of the arguments. I am aware that there is a userfied version, and if biographic sources about her appear we can consider again at that time - the "new evidence" above is not biographic sources, it is more evidence that BLP1E and BIO1E apply and that we should not have an article. GRBerry 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment immediately above seems to say no subject can have an article about them, that only covers their notable activities, when that article doesn't also include biographical material. By biographical material I assume GRBerry means details of the subject's birth, education, and career prior to and after their notable activities. This doesn't make sense to me. For some individuals who merit coverage those kinds of details may not be available. False Geber being an archetypical example of a very notable individual whose birth and education we know nothing about. I have encountered the argument that articles about individuals have to include details about the course of their lives. I wrote an essay in response: "False Geber" and what a biography should contain. When I wrote this essay we didn't even know, or have any meaningful guesses as to False Geber's name. FWIW I believe that the biographical details GRBerry asks for would be classified as "puffery" by THF's essay WP:PUFF. Geo Swan (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Geo Swan here -- the article was userified to my user space.
    • While I personally believe that the topic Yvonne Bradley merits coverage I thought it made sense to more fully incorporate the additional references I told the closing administrator about (...some of which are collected here...) into the article prior to considering moving it back to article space. Although I didn't agree with the closing administrator's conclusion I thought the approach that would be least likely to trigger controversy would be to incorporate more material into the article, and ask the closing administrator if they agreed that the article, with the enhancements could be restored to article space. This approach would also have saved the time and energy of everyone who has participated here. This remains my preferred choice, but I am going to offer arguments that this article belongs in article space, and that there were flaws in the nomination, because, if this DRV endorses the closure, and I then enhance the article, and the closing administrator authorizes restoration to article space, or there is a second DRV, I don't want anyone to question why I didn't advance arguments for the article's inclusion during its (first) DRV.
    • FWIW, I was not aware of the original {{afd}}.
    • My understanding of deletion policy is that if the closing administrator is satisfied that if a userified article has been sufficiently improved they can authorize its restoration to article space, without consuming the resources through a DRV.
    • My understanding of the deletion policy is that those weighing in at a deletion discussion should base their opinion on whether the topic merits coverage -- not on the state of the current article.
    • I have only participated in a few DRVs. In my first the discussion focused around whether a procedural error had been made. And when that disputed {{prod}} was overturned the administrator who closed the DRV promptly nominated the restored article for a full {{afd}}. I thought this meant that DRV was solely for reviewing whether {{afd}} had been conducted according to policy -- not to replay the discussion of the pros and cons whether the article merited inclusion. However subsequent DRV I have participated in have focused on the pros and cons of whether the article merited inclusion. So I am going to address both the procedural issues, and the merits of covering the topic.
    • I watch the BBC news at 6, and it provided extensive coverage of Ms Bradley, in the month or so preceding the recent release of her client back to the UK. She met with the Foreign Minister, and this was widely covered and discussed. I think that makes her notable.
    • Back in 2006 Ms Bradley faced a daunting catch-22. Binyam Mohammed didn't want the assistance of any US military lawyers. Yet she had been ordered to represent him, without regard to his wishes. If she obeyed orders she could lose her liscense to practice law. If she disobeyed her orders to represent him she faced contempt charges. This was extensively covered back in 2006. And some of this coverage focussed on Bradley -- not on her client or his military commission. I believe this establishes that WP:BLP1E does not apply.
    • FWIW I think the original nomination contained serious factual errors. They are, in order:
    1. As above, this is not "one event";
    2. The nomination cites WP:PUFF, an essay, drafted by the nominator, as if it represented a wide consensus. I don't see any attempt to establish consensus over some of the controversial claims in this essay, and I am mystified as to how it came to be place in WP space, as opposed to placement in the author's user space. This concerns me.
    3. As above, my understanding of deletion policy is that deletion discussions should not be about the flaws in the current state of the article, but rather on the merits of covering the topic. This nomination however is largely critical of the current state of the article. I regard this as a serious procedural problem.
    4. The nomination claims: "Bradley wasn't even the client's lead lawyer: that was Clive Stafford Smith." Bradley was the lead military attorney, I believe that this made her, officially, the lead attorney.
    5. The nomination makes comments about the Bradley's clients being barely notable. So what? Think Clarence Darrow or Alan Dershowitz -- some attorneys are more notable than their clients. Whether she merits coverage should be independent of the notability, or lack thereof, of her clients.
    6. The nomination contain criticisms based on claims of "redundancy", which I believe show a fundamental lack of understanding of how human beings find information. While duplicating paragraphs in related paragraphs is generally a mistake, due to maintenance burden, some small measure of redundancy is important, to provide context. We rely on that context/redundancy in order for us to determine which of the links in articles we need to follow. Without the context provided by a measured amount of redundancy we would have few or no clues as to which link lead to the information we were really interested in.
    • Returning to what I think is the best choice. I didn't agree with the closing administrator's conclusion, because I believe the available references show Bradley has independent notability, from multiple events. I didn't participate in the {{afd}}, so I directed some questions to the closing administrator, who agreed to userify the article for me. I would have preferred to add those additional references, then contact the closing administrator to see if they would agree to the article's restoration, and to have reserved DRV as a lsat resort if the closing adminstrator did not agree that the enhanced version merited restoration. I have placed arguments that this topic merits inclusion in the wikipedia because, if this DRV endorses the closure, and I then enhance the article, and the closing administrator authorizes restoration to article space, or there is a second DRV, I don't want anyone to question why I didn't advance arguments for the article's inclusion during its (first) DRV.
    • I haven't enhanced the userified article much. I haven't had the chance, because the person who nominated the Bradley article for deletion subsequently nominated for deletion a dozen articles I started shortly after the Bradley article was userified. Responding to a an {{afd}} can be time-consuming. Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and there is no deadline. I did try to encourage PJHaseldine to help you improve the userfied content, but he lamentably dimissed my comments, and brought it here. Let's see how it goes - I suspect we can sort this without another full-on DRV if this one endorses my close Fritzpoll (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete - Undelete - Until I read Geo Swan's contribution above, I might have accepted an overturn to no consensus as the best of a bad job. However, for all the reasons he has adduced, I'm fully persuaded that the Yvonne Bradley article must be restored.---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're the same basic result, so basically, your position hasn't changed at all :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've strengthened my vote to counterbalance THF's extreme position.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't determine or strengthen the weight of your argument by adding "strong" to it. Your position is no different, no more weighted, than it was before. ₳dam Zel 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I maintain that I have strengthened my position by voting Strong undelete to counterbalance THF's Strongly endorse closure, who are you to demur?---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The strength of a position is based on how strong it is, i.e., based on the merits of the arguments that support it; not by how the proponent labels it. You can maintain that you've strengthened your position by mere labeling, but don't expect those assessing the consensus to give it any additional weight from its label. TJRC (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • By the same token, those assessing the consensus can be expected to laugh up their sleeves at THF's Strongly endorse closure.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse having notable clients does not make their caterers, hairdressers, drivers, bankers and even lawyers notable. Being a witness or even a complaining witness to something that generate a criminal investigation also doesn't make you notable. Being a lieutenant colonel doesn't make you notable. OK, she's not notable. Nothing wrong with this close procedurally or substantively. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After meeting with her Foreign Secretary David Milliband issued a statement that read: "I met Binyam Mohamed's US military defence counsel Lt Col Yvonne Bradley today. I wanted to hear her views personally, particularly following her recent visit to Guantanamo. We have long been concerned by reports of Mr Mohamed's medical condition, and her account underlined those concerns." I agree, we shouldn't normally have articles on caterers, hairdressers, or White House interns. But if there is a press release, like: "I did not have sex with that woman..." -- or "I met with her because I wanted to hear her views personally..." can you please explain why this doesn't raise an individual up to our notability criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That someone of import talks to a person and issues some statement about it doesn't make the person notable. We can all watch various programs where Prince Charles or Queen Elizabeth is shown listening to their subjects and expressing concern for whatever is at issue: ugly architecture, loss of family farms, lack of an export market for British beef, and I even recall someone commenting on the BBC tracking the Queen's life about the rudeness of taxi drivers, and one to Philip about how squirrels were ruining his gardens but they couldn't be shot. Do all those subjects now get articles because the Queen said she was concerned about rude taxi drivers, Charles about farm issues, and Philip's lamentation over hunting restrictions? Hardly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Random members of the public who have conversations with public figures will turn out to be notable only in rare circumstances. I wouldn't suggest anything differently. Members of the public, chosen by the BBC, at random, to comment on some public stand of a public figure aren't going to be notable. Yvonne Bradley was not a random members of the public. She saw the Foreign Secretary by appointment. He said he wanted to "hear her views personally". He issued a statement following their meeting. And Binyam Mohammed was in fact repatriated shortly after Milliband's meeting with Bradley. I see this appointment as very different from an unscheduled meeting Milliband may have had with a random member of the public. Geo Swan (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I take a more cynical view, than no one's audience with the royals is random - they have likely all been vetted. None of people's gripes in these things include real issues that seem to have currency in Britain but would be embarassing for the royals to deal with random people asking about Charles' past infidelities, the Queen's immense fortune, Republicanism, the situation in Northern Ireland, and any of the religious issues tormenting the Anglican faith (of which the Queen is titular head): women bishops, gay clergy, divorce. Call my cyncial, but in all the coverage of these royal personages, not a single soul has remarked or questioned them on these issues. Random? hardly... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Without regard to whether the people Royals encounter on their walk-abouts are all pre-screened, (1) the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Bradley was by appointment -- not seemingly random; the Royals don't issue press-releases after they talk with random people -- or apparently random people. When the Royals talk with apparently ordinary people, and issue a press-release afterwards, those people probably are, arguably at least, notable. Those press-releases probably say stuff like: "Her majesty met with Nobby Clarke, who distinguished himself by rescuing...", or "Her majesty opened the Coventry homeless shelter for abandoned Corgis, and gave Nobby Clarke a personal donation of 100,000 pounds. Ms Clarke won a raffle to become the shelter's first director..." or "Her Majesty was happy to welcome Ms Ethel McGillicudy to the 100th birthday club." Or "On March 17th, 2009, while greeting well-wishers on a ropeline, Princess Anne's Corgi bit Nobby Clarke. HRH regrets the bite, and wishes Nobby a full recovery, and assures him Spot will be confined to her estate for the rest of his life." These are the kinds of individuals to whom you should be comparing Bradley, not random joes, or apparently random joes. FWIW there are incidents that demonstrate that those who meet the Royals aren't (always?) screened. There was an incident where Prince Charles toured a homeless center, and recognized one of the occupants as a former school chum, who had fallen on hard times. Geo Swan (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Instead of editing Binyam Mohamed#Allegations of MI5 'collusion' asking for no less than three four clarifications, Carlossuarez46 could have simply read the cited BBC article, which answers his queries.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as it was closed within policy, after the standard duration of AFDs. ₳dam Zel 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can anyone tell me why the former Yvonne Bradley article redirects to Binyam Mohamed#Release and not to Binyam Mohamed#Allegations of MI5 'collusion'?---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Closure - And no, I was not advised of this DRV. There was certainly a consensus - She's not notable. Those who opposed it did so on grounds that were unavailing. Put plainly, the subject was "notable" for representing her client, and notability is clearly not inherited. That is Wikipedia policy. The proper time was given for consideration, and the admin. made his choice based on the strength of the arguments presented, as well as those who opposed it. Further, meeting with an official to talk about one's client hardly makes one notable either as the meeting is about the client, not the barrister/lawyer/solicitor. I must also take this opportunity to gently remind PJHaseldine that voting in a DRV discussion that he nominated and wrote is not cricket. I have stricken through his vote as his position is well known at this point.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensous There wasn't any. And arguments that she's WP:JNN shouldn't be made in a closing statement. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They weren't - I was summarising the discussion. Such comments are often considered helpful in explaining the reasoning for a close. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 17 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.
International Association of Lighting Designers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)


This group is an international professional organization for architectural lighting designers and incorporated at a 501(c)6 as an association, akin to the American Medical Association for doctors and the American Library Association for library professionals, meeting the requirements for notability for non-commercial companies as defined by wikipedia.

U.S. Department of Energy and International Association of Lighting Designers Partner to Improve Energy Efficiency in Lighting Systems

IALD is an internationally recognized organization comprising independent and esteemed professionals dedicated to the very highest standards in lighting design. DOE's collaboration with IALD further strengthens its commitment to developing innovative, energy-efficient lighting solutions.

Associations & Organizations, National Lighting Bureau

International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) Founded in 1969 and based in Chicago, Illinois, USA, IALD is an internationally recognized organization dedicated solely to he concerns of independent, professional lighting designers. The IALD strives to set the global standard for lighting design excellence by promoting the advancement and recognition of professional lighting designers. Value Lighting designers are a tremendous resource of innovative, practical and economically viable lighting solutions. They understand the role of lighting in architectural and interior design and utilize their extensive experience and knowledge of lighting equipment and systems to enhance and strengthen design.

Quick Google search shows 11,400 references[4], including several from journals, trade press, and industry sites.

Full disclosure : I am a member of this association, and have been asked to try and reinstate this page - I have typically edited lighting design-related industry pages in the past. Layingblames (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the deleting admin...this was deleted back in September. At the time, it consisted of a single sentence and a weblink to the organization's website. Editor has been advised on my talk page that the article, as it stood, showed no evidence of notability. As it was, it was essentially a promo piece. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Permit recreation see below speedy as A7 is wholly inappropriate for an article on an national level professional association. The original text --although longstanding--was a previously undetected copyvio, which cannot be tolerated. The appropriate course was to ask them to license it or rewrite it as a stub. An ed. chose to remove the copyvio, lieaving a very minimal stub, reading only: "International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) was founded in 1969 in Chicago Illinois USA "to set the global standard for lighting design excellence." IALD.,, and, having done it, nominated it for A7. The admin should have examined the history, seen there was a reasonable likelihood that the association were notable, and left it to be rewritten further. DGG (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG, taking care to restore only the non-violating sections. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with permitting recreation without undeleting as well. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion which does not prevent recreation. Remember, we are only reviewing whether the deletion was proper, and it clearly was. The quoted language by DGG, which was the content at deletion, is absolutely no claim of anything - it doesn't claim to be a national organization, it just has "International Association" in its name. Big deal. Any dry cleaners with "International" in its corporate name has a claim to avoid speedy dleetion -- and it of course would be setting the global standard of stiff collar and stain-free blouse excellence. WP:BOLLOCKS. Recreate it, if you have claim to notability, the language above gives you a start, but as for the correctness of the deletion: 100%. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the relevance of the suggested analogy. But, re-examining, actually the original content,quite apart from copyvio, does come fairly close to what i would consider a G11, spam--as so often is the case for transplanted webpages . So the best course would be to simple rewrite a new article, this time according to our our FAQ on businesses and other organisations. DGG (talk) 02:54, 13 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.
  • Randy Rasputin Richards – Leave deleted, without prejudice regarding Randy Richards; subject may be notable, but the draft article shown would need to be stubbed before restoration to mainspace could be considered. Non-admin closure. --Abd (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Randy Rasputin Richards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  • The author is now notable, thanks to his interview in a printed magazine article of a major periodical in Louisiana, and his third appearance in a major newspaper (although more the former than the later - I only include it as part of the body of evidence that continues to accumulate). I was informed last time at least a full page interview was required for notability, and that when notability occurred I could put the article back. References are noted in the article, but I can paste them here for convenience: http://www.inregister.com:8080/rrserver/browser?title=/InRegister/InRegisterFeb09 and http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/38438679.html?index=1&c=y respectively. On the first link, be sure to wait until the magazine browser loads (it takes a minute) so you can page through the magazine. Randy Richards appears on page 20 in a full page article, and in the index in a photo on page 1. In case anyone asks, "Rasputin" is his middle name. Thank you. Malakai Joe (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting editor directed me here by saying "I would urge you to post a review at WP:DRV when you think that the article(s) is (are) finally ready for republication." and then after some discussion "However, it is indeed a full-page interview, so it may persuade some people in a DRV." In the interest of full disclosure, you can review the discusion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fram#Randy_Richards
  • Endorse deletion AfD was a mess, with pleny of badly-behaved socks/meats coming apparently from Richards himself, but it did reach a very form consensus to delete. The Advocate mention was actually considered at the AfD, so it isn't anything new, and the first is neither enough to build an article around nor enough to overturn a very solid AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm waiting for the meat puppets and sock puppets to show up any minute. Anyway, Starblind, are you saying that once an article has been deleted that its HARDER to get it reinstated? With all due respect, this latest magazine interview is EXACTLY the type of thing I was told would be required to get the article reinstated. Would you please outline the new standards so I can avoid this sort of thing in the future? I don't want to waste people's time with deletion review after deletion review, if the bar has been raised. Malakai Joe (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. The Advocate mention is new, it is from February 3rd of 2009. You're probably thinking of the other two Advocate newspaper articles about him. Apparently even three times in the newspaper is not enough. I hope he reaches a critical mass soon. Malakai Joe (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The book Dreadmire has lost its license as the D20 3.5 license was revoked. The author has failed to update many of the issues of slander and misdirection. The goal of the article is based on the need to maintain an advertising presence for continued sales. And the author has noted his happiness at having the article deleted as noted here at the D&D wikia site: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Randy_Richards. The article fails to clarify any points from the article and the photo op was an accident, he showed up uninvited and in uniform and happened to get his picture in the paper.Quode (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OGL is not revocable, although the new GSL is incompatible with it. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The d20 STL was published at the same time as the OGL, and was used to license WotC trademarked "d20 logo" in order to signify compatibility with other d20 System products, most notably D&D 3rd Edition. The license was revoked on June 6th 2008 upon the launch of the D&D 4th Edition Game System License (GSL), although publishers using the license were permitted a 6-month sell-off period for products in channel still bearing the logo. Quode (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but you can still use the 3rd and 3.5 SRD and other items, you just can't put the d20 logo on them. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, again you are correct.Its the existing backlog a publisher has that is the issue. Quode (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit a rewrite The original AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Richards. I would say relist, except a considerably more compact and less promotional article would have a better chance. DGG (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to do that. Recommendations are welcome. Malakai Joe (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Starblind. I have very little time for people who choose to recreate articles under a new title to get around deletion and/or salting. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any increase in notability here from the previous incarnations; the magazine article looks to be local color, and I don't actually see his name mentioned in that Advocate article linked above (and I read it three times to try and find it). Keep deleted, and suggest that if consensus doesn't emerge for a restore here that the submitting editor use userspace next time instead of pushing directly into article space with a new draft. And, as Stifle notes, using a new article name to get around previous deletions is not on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper article only mentions him in the photograph caption. I only included it for completeness. The jist of the notability is his appearance in a major local magazine in a full page interview. Are you saying notability has to be world wide? Malakai Joe (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a page in a local publication confers notability, I've created literally hundreds of notable people in my career. I may be in a minority (and get that sense lately), but I feel that a couple of local references aren't enough to prove that a person meets the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Local notability is much harder for non-locals to judge, than, say, vs. national-notability, or vs. worldwide-notability. A good example is Mr. Bingle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bingle. Mr. Bingle is not known very far outside of New Orleans, and barely known inside it anymore. Mr. Bingle is a local department store's marketing character. I'm not saying the character is not notable, but that he is notable only locally, like Randy Richards. How do you define local notability? I guess I am looking for numbers -- 5 newspaper/magazine articles? 10? 25? What size distribution does the newspaper/magazine have to possess? Etc. If I can get a solid number, I can come back when the threshold is reached. Malakai Joe (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, though, is that the character you reference has been discussed in other media, and described as a "New Orleans icon for 50 years" in other media - there are several stories in newspapers from around the country about how it was a centrepiece of New Orleans post-Katrina. (The article needs more references, mind you, but the character definitely shows notability out of that.) I really suggest just leaving it be for now, if this discussion comes out as endorsing the delete; if coverage extends outside of the local area, or if it continues for multiple articles over time in his local area, then resubmit. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is where things get vague and confusing for me. He's already had coverage outside his local area, and he's been in multiple articles over time (10+ years, not 50+ like Mr. Bingle). So how many more articles, and how much more time? Not trying to be difficult here, just seeking concrete information (annoying as it may be) to avoid future deletes. Thanks for your advice. Malakai Joe (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One point to consider is the Dreadmire/Spellbinder message board and web presence. If the book was as popular and widely distributed as claimed this board would be alive with fan comments, questions, stories and exploits. This type of outpouring of support is common for popular publishers. To date, after over 3 years there is very little traffic other than Randys lone posts that also get no support or comment. As an author he has created no material to expand the Dreadmire world or a Dreadmire website to support it. From the fan side, I cannot find any web sites where the world is expanded and new adventures written. Popular authors like Monty Cook stay in the game, are part of many web sites and contribute wildly to discussions and new material. There is no evidence that Randy is part of the RPG community within the web sphere beyond his small circle. 71.139.46.200 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the fans know this is going on. However the fans did show up the first time. Besides even if tons of real fans did show, they would be considered meat puppets anyway, so what's the point? Malakai Joe (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't intentionally use a new article name to get around previous deletions. Lately I've been including his middle name in Wiki articles when I learned there are other people named Randy Richards on the Internet. And yes, I tried using userspace, but the cyberstalker who commented above, Quode, continues to vandalize that userspace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Richards. There is no safe place to put the article from her. Malakai Joe (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you did rename the Dreadmire article as well, care to explain? Quode (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Dreadmire links in the article were from another wiki where its entry is "Dreadmire Book" and the text links still say "Dreadmire". I clicked one of those "Dreadmire" links to create the article without realizing I was bypassing anything. In the future I'll know not to do that. Malakai Joe (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - from the posts on my talk page, there's a definite off-Wiki battle that's being pursued here between User:Malakai Joe and User:Quode; I've asked both to stop interacting with one another here where possible. I'm keeping an eye on this page to ensure that heads remain cool. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SO MUCH. Malakai Joe (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but his notability expands beyond gaming. In Louisiana he is known for his gaming book, thats true, but also operating a science fiction convention, giving lectures on science, a TV personality, and award winning photography of hurricane Katrina and swamps. Malakai Joe (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd shoot for allowing recreation given the new source, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the old state of the article (seen in the cache) and parts of this discussion. I'd suggest that a proposed article be provided in user space before we allow recreation. Also the debate about the SRD/OGL etc. I think is irrelevant (though I'm surprised how many people understand it!) as notability isn't temporary.Hobit (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The recreated article, as it stood last week, exists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Richards. Please put any proposed changes for improving the article for Wikipedia on the Talk page of that User Space. Thanks! Malakai Joe (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article is focused on Randy and his few accomplishments and not for Randy and the thing he excelled in. As a photographer he has earned a single award after over 20 years of being a photographer. As an author he has released one major publication and a few minor ones spread over 10 years. As a celebrity he has earned a few interviews but again within a limited geographic area. The article maintains a list of his quotes and personal opinions in regards to his life events even when his opinion is tainted, inappropriate and biased. Many of the quotes are offered as if drawn from an interview but are really part of his self promotion efforts. He uses the article to address negative life events and even names one person as a liar, even though the public record supports her version. Striped of the minutia we have him publishing a book, a few interviews and a third place award. This might be enough for WIKI or not. Thank you. Quode (talk) 00:46, 18 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.
Magnus Aarbakke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After having people whine and complain about my "improper" closures of AFD's after 4.5 days, I present an improper closure after just two hours. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, discussion must ensue for five days, sans extreme cases, which this is not one of. This needs to be overturned and remain at AFD for at least five days, per policy, regardless of what the closing administrator cares is the outcome. seicer | talk | contribs 15:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I closed the AfD as Speedy keep following our standard guidelines. I don't know whether the nomination was a bad faith one, but the nominator, himself an admin, certainly should have known better. This is an article about a Supreme Court Justice, and the reference was his entry in a published encyclopedia. I'm not sure what point the nom was trying to make, but the question was not whether or not the article should be kept. The question was how much time do we need to waste collecting Keep votes for a first-tier national figure until this charade is closed. Two hours was more than enough. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should assume good faith. The article is a complete waste and has not been substantially improved upon since 2008. It does not establish notability outside of an official position, and the article requires either a rewrite, expansion and cleanup, or removal. That said, you have no authority to decide to close an AFD after two hours; if I can't get away with it after 4.5 days, then you shouldn't be able to, either. seicer | talk | contribs 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you being serious? "It does not establish notability outside of an official position"?? Wait, so.... no notability outside of the position that makes him clearly and obviously notable? Well, if that's your argument, Obama isn't notable outside of the fact that he's a major politician, so are you going to go tag that one for deletion too? The sky's blueness isn't blue outside of all the blue parts. If you ignore the parts that prove you wrong you can claim to never be wrong but you're still wrong just the same. Speedy Keeps are valid per WP:SNOWBALL. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Snowball does not trump policy. At least, that's what I was told when I closed several snowball'ed AFD's in the past. I love the wild interpretations of policies and guidelines every time this issue comes up. seicer | talk | contribs 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD should perhaps not have been closed so early, but keep is the right result and I endorse the result, although not the timing. Things are getting a little POINTy, I venture. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I opened up the discussion at WP:AN for consideration of an amendment to the policy and guideline pages that have conflicting closure dates. While policy mandates five days, the guideline does not, and that has caused conflict in the past. seicer | talk | contribs 16:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep closing it so quickly was probably bad form, but realistically speaking it could have been open a full week and the result was still inevitable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep We can quibble about the length of time it was open, but that AFD would never have turned into a delete close.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this is what SNOW is meant for. A bad faith nomination can be closed because it's bad faith, but a good faith nomination like this one which is simply misguided in terms of the motivation needs a SNOWBALL close to close it early. Agree that waiting for a few more !votes might have been a good idea but lets face it, a supreme court justice who served for eight years is pretty notable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep but I share the concerns above that this was closed far too quickly. If nothing else, allowing additional voices to be heard at AfD helps establish/reinforce consensus going forward and is useful as a test or reconfirmation of the community's notability standards, even in blindingly obvious instances such as this one. Eusebeus (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep per WP:COMMONSENSE, but with a gentle piscine caress for the closer for an inappropriately fast close and a horribly inadequate closure summary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. As previously stated, the gentleman's notability is pretty much without question. Keeping the afd open for a full 5 days would have been pointless. As an aside, I'd like to ask S Marshall to reimburse me for a new keyboard, since the current one is now ruined thanks to the phrase "gentle piscine caress". Umbralcorax (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Perhaps it should have run for a few addition hours, but there's no point in overturning Owen's close when the ultimate result was clear. WP:COMMON. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Member of the supreme court of Norway is so obviously notable that the close was correct. perfectly good use for speedy keep. The nomination said "No major notability established outside of a Supreme Court Justice". None is necessary, and I wonder at the nomination. But a speedy keep does normally need to have something more said in the deletion summary. DGG (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia should strive to at least equal the coverage of regular encyclopedias. Since the nominator's reasoning was based on a faulty premise and it was unlikely to get another result. Next time, however, a close like that needs a far more detailed rationale. = Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep but I think more care should have been made in closing. This may be hindsight talking, but a brief note to the nom explaining the early close may have been a better idea as it would have clarified the thought behind it, rather than leave the edit summary to bear the brunt. onebravemonkey 09:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy keep. Covered in a paper encyclopedia. We shouldn't need to go through nonsense like this again. If a person has an article in a print encyclopedia, they are encyclopedic. End of discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep. Personally, I'd have let it run a bit longer, but the right call was made. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse. This one was so obvious, I didn't even click the edit button when I saw the AFD come up, so I apologize for not providing that third speedy keep vote. I'll assume the nomination is in good faith, but at a minimum, it was a sloppy waste of other editors' time, and the early closure was a blessing, if one undone by this DRV. THF (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. There is no 5-day rule when commonsense dictates otherwise. For those who think otherwise, nominations such as these are the perfect counterpoint: a justice of the Norwegian Supreme Court not notable? yeah, right... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the article on a United States supreme court justice or ex justice were sent to AFD, it would likely be closed quicker. However, I suspect that almost all of them would be notable even if they were not supreme court justices. Maybe the question the nominator was trying to get answered was does the phrase "X is a supreme court justice" itself make somebody automatically notable? Perhaps he felt that this question was not answered by the speedy close of the discussion. If it had gone the distance and have been kept, then the answer would have been "yes" and he would have just shrugged and gone to do something else. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Common sense tells us that this judge had to have done something notable to get on the US Supreme Court. MuZemike 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...this seems like a valid AFD closure via the spirit of WP:IAR. MuZemike 03:25, 16 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.
  • Larry Schultz and It's Yoga – Relist both, this time together, to take account of the confusion between the two previous interdependent AfDs and assess the sources brought forward. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Larry Schultz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
It's Yoga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First I will apologize if I am a newbie. If I am not following protocol, please advise.

I feel these items were deleted without a current consensus at the time of deletion. Both of these articles were questioned on notability. Larry Schultz AfD was initially closed for lack of consensus by another editor, and then subsequently deleted. It's Yoga delete comments all came in long before i added proper citations.

After initial delete comments, I added more citations and it appears those citations at least exceed many of the other wikipedia pages. Schultz's article I think had 4 or more citations. These citations included San Francisco Chronicle and Yoga Journal. Yoga Journal is the primary yoga trade magazine and cites Schultz as the creator of Power Yoga, which right now is just forwarded to Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga. Personally I dont agree with that, but that is a whole separate issue. All of these citations were eventually added to the articles, but after a few people had already added delete comments.

In summary, this yoga guru and his school are very notable in the yoga world and outside. Schultz is quoted as the yoga teacher to celebrities like Grateful Dead and Christy Turlington, as the founder of power yoga, and head of a worldwide franchised yoga network. (All of this was hopefully cited properly at the time of deletion, but not at the time the initial delete comments came in.)

Comments?

PS- I object to the first comment by an admin that incorrectly listed me as an Single purpose account. Sorry I didnt read about SPA's before I created a username with yoga in it before i went on to create a page about one of my yoga teachers. I believe this comment, which appears intended to imply that both articles were biased, intentionally biased the discussion. Is there something in wiki's guidelines that states that a user cannot edit or create an article relating to a subject of which he has used their product before? Jtyoga (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there seems to be some confusion over the Larry Schultz deletion - I only read the one for It's Yoga, and if you read it, it appeared to me that the nominator was nominating both articles, and this seemed reflected in the discussion. I will comment on my close specifically in due course, but there may be a procedural point to discuss here as well Fritzpoll (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little bit messy here. Larry Schultz and It's Yoga were nominated separately by User:RHaworth, but because he said "also nominating (other article name)" in the AFD header, it appeared to AFD contributors that the one discussion applied to both articles. Subsequently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Schultz was closed as no consensus, and 11½ hours later, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Yoga was closed as delete, and Fritzpoll deleted both articles. Bearing in mind that citations were added the the AFD very late in the day, and that there was some confusion as to which article was nominated in which AFD, I would go for a no-fault relist of both articles in one listing to get a proper decision. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. Overturn and relist both, notifying prior participants. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist separately without blaming anyone. The frequency with which Stifle and i say essentially the same thing here should be a model for convergence upon a sensible position from initially very different sides. DGG (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist both. Based on the closing admin comment, it's likely Larry Schultz was deleted by mistake based on the comments of the wrong debate. The other debate didn't take into account late changes to the article and the outcome of that may well change when Larry is reevaluated. - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, an innocent enough mistake was made, relisting both of them in separate AFD discussions would seem the best way to go about fixing that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:47, 12 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.
  • Dana L. French – Restore as sufficiently different from the 2006 version to be inelegible for deletion per CSD G6. Doubts about the sources can be brought to AfD and editorial dipsutes elsewhere. – Tikiwont (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dana L. French (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I got into an editing war with User:Tedickey#Dana_L._French over his lack of reviewing additions and updates to the article before reverting to a previous version. Rather than actually reviewing the article an recognizing the improvments, sources, and references that were added, he simply reverted to a previous version and refused to review the modifications. Part of his argument is that I did not supply reliable sources. If he had actually reviewed the sources he would have seen they included the International Standards Organization (as in ISO9000) and IBM. I am not sure you can get any more reliable than these sources.

I am requesting the article be restored and that Tedickey be blocked from editing this page again. After reviewing his talk page, he seems to have a large number of problems where he has not actually reviewed the articles he edits.

Additionally, even if he did not like the updated article, it was far better than the previous version. Why would he revert to previous version? Why would he not comment on the updated article instead? It makes no sense, but then neither do any of his arguments. Dfrench (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously deleted at articles for deletion all be it some time ago, so it seems to have been deleted as a recreation of deleted material, that is it hasn't substantially addressed the reason for original deletion. Looking at the cached version the "sourceing" to IBM et al doesn't seem to be sourcing at all, it seems to be pointing to articles written by D French [59][60], The "ISO" page [61] which is just someones links to ISO standards and doesn't mention D French at all. Or another IBM page where [62] where D French is listed as a contact. I didn't see one which was about D French, so I guess there isn't that much interest to write about the person which would be the normal standard for biographical articles. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not strictly true. Sources need to be third party if they're used to establish notability, but selfpublished sources can be used for non-contentious material as long as the article doesn't rely on such sources entirely. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, the context of RS in AfD and DRV is mostly notability so that was the perspective I was adressing this from. I agree that it would be a bit weird, for example, to refuse self-published text used to source a statement about an opinion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as substantially different from what was previously deleted. We are not in a position to prohibit a user from editing the page, however; you may wish to look to WP:3O or WP:DR for that issue. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Stifles comments on content. If the content is substantially different from the deleted content then G4 (implicitly claimed) doesn't apply. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - clear consensus as a vanity page that does not aspire to the standard elaborated at WP:BIO or, relatedly, WP:CORP. The RS issues, while also suspiciously peacocky (as noted above), are in this case a canard. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ISO reference lists multiple references to Dana French and Mt Xia: Business Continuity Expert, Business Continuity Methodology. Dfrench (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been observed, the article was completely rewritten, reformatted, restyled, and referenced as was requested. The point of contention is why these updates were reverted? And then when a complaint was registered about the updates being reverted, the article was deleted. The whole thing reeks of some sort of power play by User:Tedickey to display his mighty power because someone dared to question his irrefutable editing decisions. I would recommend the wikipedia administrators review the User:Tedickey talk page to count the number of instances of this sort of thing. He/She seems to have a problem with this.Dfrench (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus by any wiki admins as a vanity page, you (Eusebeus) are the only one asserting this, and up to this point have had no input to the discussion. Dfrench (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and optionally list for AfD. I'm at not certain about the use of membership on a standards committee alone as sufficient notability, but I gather it's only one of several factors, so let's have it discussed again. DGG (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
For the sake of discussion purposes, it would be useful to have that "ISO" url here. Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it under -81.104.39.44's edits (agree - it only appears as an advert on some non-official collection of bookmarks that mentions ISO - not a reliable source) Tedickey (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what was deleted now was different than what was different then, and what was deleted now still fails WP:BIO, so while technically G4 may not apply, the article if restored cannot stand. I have particular issue with the COI of the author - for a biography this is skimpy on details, like where's the birthdate and birthplace of this supposedly notable individual? CEO of corporations is a weasel-worded claim to notability - pick up any newspaper and you can get a corporation for a few hundred bucks, for a few grand you can be the CEO of many. Does that mean that any one can buy notability here for a few grand? Andy Warhol would be pleased with that notion. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "corporations" indeed do appear to be small partnerships with no more than a handful of people involved (usually the same partner...). It's misleading. Tedickey (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way (responding to the comment about COI), this user also edits as two different anon-IPs: 12.171.225.24 and 65.203.91.35 Tedickey (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 206.227.128.10 (unlike the previous two mentioned, these are mostly only the dynamic IP edits from early 2006 - hth) Tedickey (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the comment made by User talk:Carlossuarez46, perhaps there is a technical problem. The first line of the updated article contains the birthyear and birthplace. So either he is not viewing the latest version of the article, or there is a technical problem where he cannot see the latest version. Either way, he has obviously not reviewed the latest version of the article and his comments do not reflect the content of the article. Dfrench (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Tedickey comments, many of the worlds largest organizations such as the ISO, IBM, BMC, and several others do not share your opinion of my companies. Again, had you actually reviewed the references and sources, you would have seen that. Dfrench (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a systemic problem with this particular article where the latest version is not being reviewed, not by Tedickey and possibly not by some of the admins in this discussion. I do not have access to the deleted article, so I cannot provide a date/time of the last update, but I think the latest update was made on March 8, 2009. If the version you are reviewing was not posted on or after that date, then you are not looking at the latest update. Dfrench (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can confirm that the last edit to this article was at 16:07 on 10th March. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the technical question of whether this merited a G4 deletion as a recreation of the thing deleted in the 2006 AfD, it's not the same article, so G4 wouldn't normally apply. On the substantive question of whether the article is likely to survive a new AfD, I would say no. The version now in the Google cache is not the one last edited by the subject, but his version suffered from WP:PEACOCK and seems quite unlikely to attract support. Even the version now in the cache still has him as a 'prominent computer scientist,' and he is 'credited with pioneering a methodology,' but not by any cited reference. Sometimes we allow articles to be improved in user space, but this editor doesn't seem to have absorbed our standards, so userfying would be unlikely to result in a keepable article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment by User talk:EdJohnston: The version of the article referenced in the google cache IS NOT THE LASTEST VERSION. Again, if you are going to make a decision as to whether or not to delete the article, at least reveiw the latest version. The version in the google cache is the old version reverted by Tedickey. The latest version has multiple sections including Early Life, Mt Xia, TriParadigm, Recognition, References, External Links, Sources. Dfrench (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can review a version of the article from March 6 or 7, 2009, this should be the latest version before Tedickey begain reverting to older versions. To determine if you are looking at the latest version, it should contain an "Early Life" section. If it does not contain an "Early Life" section, it is NOT based on the latest version. This is not the only update to the article, it is simply a way to identify whether or not you are looking at the latest version of the article. Dfrench (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion regarding whether or not the latest revision is being reviewed, reaffirms my entire argument at the beginning of this discussion. If Tedickey had concerns about the content of the updated article, he should have made comments regarding the content of the updated article, he should not have reverted to a previous version. This is the entire cause of this problem. When I complained about him reverting to an old version instead of commenting on the updated contents of the article, it was deleted. Dfrench (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Has anybody reviewed the latest version of the article? The latest version can be identified as having a date of March 6 or 7, 2009 and containing a section named "Early Life". This question is important because if nobody has the ability to review the latest version of the article, then this entire discussion is moot. Dfrench (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note - I have restored the page with a {{TempUndelete}} banner, to assist in this deletion review. This temporary restore has no effect on the ultimate fate of the page, which will be determined by the consensus of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored some of the content from the latest version of the article Dana L. French, I will restore the rest later today as I do not have access to it at this time. Dfrench (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"restore" doesn't appear to be accurate (and finding every google hit containing French's self-promotional texts probably wasn't intended). None of the edits, however, appear to be reliable third-party sources. Tedickey (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You (Tedickey) really don't have a lot of credibility here, my advice to you is to just keep quiet before you destroy whatever is left. Dfrench (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this discussion, personal opinions are largely irrelevant. We're looking for published opinions by well-known (reliable) sources on your notability. Tedickey (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dfrench, please review WP:CIVIL. TJRC (talk) 20:36, 16 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.

10 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sam Spiegel (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Tagged for speedying by an admin I totally trust, and deleted by another admin I totally trust, I still think there are sufficient claims of notability, or at least enough for an AfD. Here's an interview from Creativity, here's an article from LA Weekly, and here's one from the Boston Herald that was just published today; there are stories about his new project N.A.S.A. on plenty of music blogs, and here's a review in The Guardian and another short one from Rolling Stone (I'm sure I could find plenty more). Now, I know that these refs were not present in the article that was deleted, but I still believe that, even without them, it should've been AfDed. I could simply undelete and send it to AfD myself, but since I heavily contributed to the article (albeit like a year and a half ago), I figured it was best to bring it here first and not simply overrule two other admins. Mike (Kicking222) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reinstate based on the references now presented. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close? the deleting admin has now advocated reinstatement - off to afd land for this puppy? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it needs to be AfD'd. If Mike uses the sources above, it will meet the criteria for inclusion (IMO). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per refs presented. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore as the deleting admin now concurs in the restoration. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Restore as a big, white ball of crystalized water. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:23, 11 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.
  • Acharya S – No consensus to overturn or undelete exists at this time. As several people in this discussion say, the subject is borderline notable, and a draft that relied on neutral sources could probably pass muster here. The issue of the innacuracy of the list of previous AfDs has to do with the use of Special:Prefixindex in {{Afd2}}, and should be taken up at Template talk:Afd2. – Chick Bowen 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Acharya S (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original submission was for failure of WP:RS. Most everyone agreed that the article was about her theories and her books were a reliable source on her theories. However there was another argument about WP:N. She is rather well known but during the debate the people who wanted to keep the article were unable to provide examples of where she is cited outside of the web. She provided a long list User talk:Jclemens/Acharya_S#Acharya.27s_Response which I think meets WP:N clearly. In addition, since the time of the deletion debate she has been discussed for several pages in a book on view of Jesus (ISBN 0826449166 p 208) and is has an extended interview in another documentary entitled, "God in the Box". I think the original deletion was a mistake. The new evidence however I believe demands reconsideration. I can't view the deleted article but User:Jclemens/Acharya S is a tentative version of what the article will could look like. jbolden1517Talk 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This has nothing to do with the deletion review but... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya Sita Ram Chaturvedi is listed on her deletion page. These are two entirely different people and articles. Regardless of the outcome this should be corrected. jbolden1517Talk 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can someone clarify which article and which AFD are being appealed? Stifle (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acharya_S_(2nd_nomination) I voted for deletion due to lack of notability, but I now think there are enough sources. (Just barely.) I'm not sure the article is polished enough to go into mainspace yet, but then most of what's in mainspace isn't polished either... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close No new evidence - reliable sources and proof of notability - have been provided. As such, I endorse the close for the deletion of this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How does several pages in a academic book site and extended interview in a documentary not constitute new evidence of notability? jbolden1517Talk 03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no new evidence from reliable sources that establish notability - still not a notable subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that article, while I suspect that notability can be established, the sources currently in User:Jclemens/Acharya S are a mishmash of the subjects site, blogs, youtube, self publishings, examples of sites she is no longer listed on and vehement refutations (the best of the above). Where are the references in other academic works? the news articles? Pretty short in coming google new archive, google books but I am, by far and wide, not ruling this out as an article - just with better sources. Higher standards are rightly placed on BLP articles, both in terms of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The latter appears to have been accomplished quite well here, the former is still, imo, lacking. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So just to clarify you do believe notability has been established your concern is just with the current form of the article? The reason I'm asking is needs better sources from the pool of existing sources is generally not grounds for deletion but rather for editing. Now that we have the list of 65 3rd party cites its pretty easy to work some in. As far as WP:BLP the goal of this article is to document her work not her life, that's why the article is Acharya S (the pen name) and not D.M. Murdock (the author's real name). jbolden1517Talk 13:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If, as you suggest, "the goal of this article is to document her work not her life," then might I suggest you write an article on her books (if you feel her work is notable). That might be a better avenue than a biography of a living person. Just a thought. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with that as a resolution. "Theories of D.M. Murdock", "Writings of D.M. Murdock".... In some sense Acharya S is not a living person, D.M. Murdock is a living person. Acharya S is just a pen name. The goal was never a biography of Murdock but a descriptive article of Murdock's ideas. jbolden1517Talk 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to go in that direction you could go to a userfied version first, like the Acharya S article at User:Jclemens/Acharya S, and work on the content and sourcing. I would think this would be the best option. In addition, another option might be to start an article at either Theories of D.M. Murdock or Writings of D.M. Murdock. These are just suggestions, as I do not think the present BLP passes either notability or reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:08, 13 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.
Dog poop girl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing did not reflect the consensus or lack of one in this case. Multiple reliable sources were provided during the afd that disproved the assertions made by the closing editor that this was a 'news' article. --neon white talk 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) neon white talk 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (keep, merge and redirect). Decision firmly rooted in policy. The “incident” was a single event. No amount of news reporting justifies an article. Secondary source material is needed for such things to get their own articles, with none of the sources providing such material. The result of the merge, at Internet vigilantism is sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afds should be closed based on the consensus. As there wasn't one here it reverts to keep, it's not up to an individual closing editor to make a unilateral decision that goes against the wider consensus based solely on their views alone. If this were the case afd disucssion would be pointless. As i pointed out quite clearly, notability beyond a single event was established with multiple reliable sources in the afd including significant coverage in several books (3 or maybe 4 i think written some years after the event[63][64][65][66], this one [67] is published this year, 4 years after the event and it's news related coverage), a media journal, The Sociological Review (DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00793.x) and a paper written by Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear present at the NRC Annual Meeting. This clearly demostrating the event has lasting impact and significance within the academic community. nothing in the WP:NOT#NEWS guideline can be applied to this article. --neon white talk 06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, more than a superficial look is needed here. You are not a newbie complaining about the deletion of your poo article. You have good points. There is a historical perspective here. There are lots of news reports, but they go for far longer than a “short burst”. The subject received many mentions, brief, but not “trivial”. It seems to be used as an example in serious study, but is it really a subject in itself? Can you provide the paper written by Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear, presented at the NRC Annual Meeting? I want to see what these references say about the subject. Does a source actually say that this story has had lasting impact and significance? I’m still inclined to think that this story should be fleshed out as part of the encompassing subject, Internet vigilantism, but I’ll need to look into it later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking with original "Endorse (keep, merge and redirect)". Insufficient secondary source coverage of the subject in isolation. Subject should be treated as part of the larger subject only. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the GoogleBooks references you mention above discuss the incident as part of a wider issue - that of Internet vigilantism and related subjects - which is where the article was merged. Also see below. Black Kite 08:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant, anything can be part of a wider topic. You think all articles are sourced from books specifically about that subject? Refer to footnote 1 in WP:N policy. These are not trivial mentions within another subject. The detail the event as an example and in fact the major subject of the books is not Internet vigilantism as you wrongly suggest but socialology, internet privacy and internet memes which really suggests to me that you've made no effort to review them at all. --neon white talk 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All baseball players are discussed in the context of baseball. Your logic would lead us to merging all of those to one article also, so clearly there is a point where being part of a wider issue doesn't justify merger to that issue. So would you conclude that that all Internet vigilantism should be merged into that one article? If not, what would cause you to do otherwise? And shouldn't that decision rest with the community rather than the closing admin? Hobit (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. If practically none of the sources discuss the incident except as part of that subject, then you have no independent notability. Baseball players, however, although they are generally only notable for playing baseball, have separate notability guidelines (WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE). Black Kite 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was shooting for Reductio ad absurdum rather than a strawman. So you are arguing that only reason we don't merge all baseball players is that we have separate notability guidelines for them? Isn't WP:N the "catch all" guideline and isn't it met? Hobit (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe that it is - otherwise I would have closed as Keep. As I said above, practically none of the sources discuss the incident in isolation. The New York Times reference, which some editors claimed were a fantastic reliable source, is in fact a humorous piece on cats and dogs on the Internet! Black Kite 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to take a break from WP, but... I'm not seeing anything about a topic needing to be discussed in isolation. Is Hamlet (the character) discussed outside of Hamlet the play? Is the ideal gas law discussed outside of the context of gases? I think you are adding a requirement to WP:N which isn't there. That's not unreasonable in a discussion, but it is in a close (IMO). Hobit (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. WP:SBST is relevant here. The incident itself falls foul of this guideline, but a mention of it in the wider article is reasonable here, because the sources talk about it in that context. Black Kite 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your completely ignoring the points i made. The multiple reliable sources refer to the books, journals and papers not to the news sources, i thought that would be clear by linking to them. I think it has been conlusively proven that this is beyond a news event and has historical notability (if it's still being written about in 2009). Please explain what more can be done to individual establish notability other than provide multiple reliable academic sources? --neon white talk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find multiple reliable academic sources that talk about the event in its own right, rather than treating it as an example of Internet vigilantism? Black Kite 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As i pointed out above and yet again you have ignored 'the major subject of the books is not Internet vigilantism as you wrongly suggest but socialology, internet privacy and internet memes' notability does not required that works are exclusively about the subject this stated on the policy page which i think you need to revisit. --neon white talk 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS does not require academic sources that talk about an event in its own right. Or any sources that talk about it in its own right. That people were discussing the topic in books well after the fact is enough to show it wasn't just a news story and had lasting notability. everything is discussed in some context to require otherwise is, well, basically impossible and certainly an unreasonable hurdle. Even worse, it wasn't something discussed in the AfD so it shouldn't be an issue here. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except they weren't discussing the topic of "girl who lets her dog crap on a subway", were they? They were discussing Internet vigilantism and Internet memes and merely mentioned the event in passing. On a more serious point, is an article about a dog crapping on a subway train a suitable subject for a supposedly serious reference work? Or does it merely present Wikipedia's many enemies with an example of how risible this "encyclopedia" has become? I know which way I'd lean. Black Kite 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure. Few convincing Keep arguments were presented. There are 15 Keep !votes, many of those were variations on WP:ITSNOTABLE and thus given little weight. Of the rest, most tried to claim that because the incident has been discussed in reliable sources, it must stay. Being discussed in the Washington Post or other RS doesn't contradict it being in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS at all - because the Washington Post is after all a newspaper. Furthermore, I didn't go for Delete - though I was tempted - because the content actually sits better in the Internet vigilantism article (and improves that one) than it does on its own. And let's look at those sources in a bit more detail - "Multiple reliable sources" is misleading. The Post article is actually written from an Internet vigilantism angle (as does the Chosun piece), which makes the redirect more relevant than a keep; the New York Times only mentions the issue in passing in a piece about cats and dogs on the Internet, and most of the rest are either blogs or reference them. There is practically no secondary analysis of the incident or its significance, except in a discussion on Internet vigilantism. Thus, the obvious close was to move the content there. Black Kite 07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to beat a dead horse, but these comments on the sources are original arguments not found in the AfD (as far as I know). Shouldn't your close (and this DrV) be based on arguments in the AfD rather than novel ones? As everyone likes to remind us, this is DrV and not AfD2. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further question for closer — in this summary you don't address User:Mgm's point based on WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, i.e. that there had been three previous AfDs and nothing had changed since then. Did you discount this point of view, and if so, please could you explain why?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can change. And that's not just alphabet soup, it's actually demonstrated here - on the current AfD that at least one previous Keep voter switched to Delete, and another suggested a Merge. Black Kite 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can that apply to a decision that wasn't based on consensus but on your evaluation of the strength of the arguments?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends whether you evaluate consensus as vote-counting or strength of discussion. Black Kite 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop flogging this particular dead horse because you've taken more than enough crap from me and I'm not personally investing in this article (though I'm certainly personally invested on the point of principle). I need to take the wider question about sysops ignoring the consensus to RFC, I think.
I'll leave you with this: "evaluating the strength of discussion" is rather hard to distinguish from "closing admin's personal opinion", but "counting the votes" is a transparent and objectively-quantifiable criterion.
And I think the closer's job is to implement the "consensus", which I think is a fudge to allow the admin to discount questionable !votes in a system that's fundamentally closer to democracy than it is to autocracy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per consensus, per it is a wise decision, and per it is within discretion and no procedural faults occurred. MBisanz talk 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: I would've closed as 'delete,' but you fight the battles you can win here. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There seemed to be little consensus either way and the policies cited and examples given to keep were a bit more compelling than the converse reasons to remove. That all previous AfDs had also kept seems relevant as well. I would have gone with no consensus. -- Banjeboi 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete, so the closing admin was right not to delete the article. In addition, the article covers what amounts to a news story of brief interest in tabloids, so the editor Black Kite was right to merge it into a wider article to frame it in the proper context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A no consensus afd deafults to keep not redirect. Again, academic coverage has been provided, please read the above comments. Books arent news sources. --neon white talk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't books that cover the topic evidence of something other than a short burst of coverage? Hobit (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they don't cover it as an event in its own right - only as an example of Internet vigilantism - all the sources are about that topic, not this one. Black Kite 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you identify the part of policy/guidelines that require something to be covered "in it's own right". Not to mention a definition of that phrase. Hobit (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG says "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." - Practically all of those sources mention the event in passing whilst discussing a larger subject, rather than directly, and the few that do can be covered by WP:SBST. Black Kite 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus While arguments on both sides may have been weak, it is inappropriate to merge and redirect the article when it's clearly not supported by the community at large. It does have its downsides. People on AFD often think too much in black and white and rarely consider compromises which is why I would prefer such things to be handled my Wikipedia:Requested mergers with full-fledged AFD-like discussions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why would a "requested merger" attract comments any different from the AfD? Also, it could never be binding; merges are completely allowable under WP:BOLD. Admins cannot be vote-counting machines; otherwise we could set up a script to close all AfDs. Strength of argument has to be taken into account - see also this DRV where I discounted some Delete votes and closed as No Consensus. On this basis the two possible outcomes were redirect or delete - and I'd suggest that the merge/redirect into a more suitable article is the compromise that you mention. Black Kite 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • People go into a merge discussion with another mindset. In AFD they're more likely to look for reasons to delete something. As for my reasoning. I found the outcome no consensus best because the delete and keep arguments were both equally bad. Merging and redirecting may be allowable as an individual action, but we're talking about how the discussion should've been closed. A no consensus close wouldn't stop you from merging. As for a merge discussion not being binding, neither is a deletion discussion. The difference is that merge policy is a lot more vague. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'd have brought this here too, but NW beat me to the admin's talk page. The close, while not an unreasonable result, had nothing at all to do with the AfD. There was nothing resembling consensous for that action. If the closer felt that was the right outcome he should have commented in the AfD, not closed. I'd say no consensus, perhaps keep.Hobit (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a major point i was making. As you say it's not an unreasonable decision but it was the opinion of the closing and rendered the whole afd discussion pointless. If this is how afds are going to be closed why don't we just an admin make a quick yes or no decision. I'm not against developing the article at Internet vigilantism until it is enough to spin out which should happen considering the sources but i don't want to instigate an edit war when that happens because the afd said redirect. --neon white talk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you have rather I deleted it, then? Once I'd discarded the weak !votes there was certainly a consensus for that, but I tried to compromise. Black Kite 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes in fact. That outcome had significant arguments in in the AfD. It isn't the closer's job to find a compromise novel from the discussion, it is their job to identify consensous. I'd have disagreed with it as I don't think the AfD went that way, but it would have been a better close. If you felt consensous was for delete that's exactly what I think you should have done. Ideally you'd have suggested the redirect/merge as a participant. It isn't an unreasonable outcome, but not one that should be imposed by the closer unless it has consensus in the discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that would be reasonable had not the material already existed at Internet vigilantism. Since it does, and it fits well in that article (indeed, the sources in the article actually fit better in that article than a stand alone one, for the reasons I mentioned above) I would have thought that a redirect is entirely appropriate. Black Kite 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think there was no consensus. Solving by a compromise is always possible, but the objections to the article would not really be met by a merger. I didn't !vote in the AfD, because I couldn't decide about it.
more generally, we have a problem with the use of merge and redirect as closes in Afd. They are basically editing decisions, but they are also frequent AfD compromises. And they are also sometimes used after afd in order to in effect reverse the decision. for example, instead of appealing this, someone could have boldly reverted the merge. The closer would then have needed to defend it as an editing decision at the article talk page, and an admin has no special powers in editing decisions. This would be true in all such closings--if not immediately after, then any time later, possibly using the argument that consensus had changed. We have two alternatives: discuss contested merges and redirects in a public process like XfD--which is what we currently do for some of them, or discuss them at the talk page--which is also what we currently do for some of them. We have two competing processes that can yield contradictory results. DGG (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider a bold revert, using the new sources to create a longer more substantial article but considering the strength of some of the objections to the article, it would likely have caused an edit war so I decided to request a review the decision instead, i posted the academic sources quite late in the afd and I believe the outcome would have been an obvious keep if they were presented earlier which is something a closing admin should consider. I think there is more than enough info now for the article to be spun out from it's current place within Internet Vigilantism which makes a merge pointless. --neon white talk 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that your new sources have exactly the same problem as the previous ones - they only discuss the "event" in passing. Black Kite 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While I personally would have argued for the merge, we need to have a policy that deletions cannot occur without consensus and there wasn't consensus. If there isn't consensus then it should be recorded as no consensus. In the case of an article that has gone up 4 times, I'd say the consensus is keep. jbolden1517Talk 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No deletion has occurred. And consensus does not mean "no clear result" - it means "no clear result after strength of argument has been taken into account". Black Kite 14:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as solidly within process per our policies. Eusebeus (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Completely within guidelines. The redirect is entirely appropriate. Bastique demandez 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholly concur and endorse the merge and redirect. DS (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Absolutely the right thing was done. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, good, well-reasoned closure, completely within guidelines/policies. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators states that a closing should be based on a rough consensus. There was absolutely no consensus for a redirect, rough or otherwise. I think some people need to review the guidelines on closing afds and WP:CONSENSUS. This discussion is not a further afd but a review of the closing. What you think of the article is not up for discussion. Views need to be expressed based on whether you think the closing was a correct reflection of the afd regardless of what you would have contributed to the afd. --neon white talk 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, if you wish, I can withdraw this closure and re-close it as Delete. There was certainly a consensus for that once the strength of argument was considered (in fact, it was mostly unanimous). I only closed it as redirect in an attempt to place the material in a suitable location. Would re-closing it be a better course of action? Black Kite 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is also incorrect, there was no consensus and equally strong points for keep and deletion (are we ignoring the 14 or so editors who expressed that this was adequately covered in reliable sources, is that not a valid point rooted in notability policy?), the points for deletion based on the 'news event', that may have been valid when made, were disproven by the presentation of the academic sources. By the finish of the afd there were no longer any valid deletion points. This should haver been considered in the closing and why i believe it was done incorrectly. I admit i have no idea what this continuing denial of those sources is about to quote core policy "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". Sources like these are what the encyclopedia is based on. --neon white talk 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(condense for neatness) Except that there are at least 10 of those 14 Keep votes that are either WP:ITSNOTABLE, give no reason for Keeping at all, or are actually arguing for a merge. Now, I agree that some of the Delete votes were a bit thin as well, but that's how I got to where I am. And let's get this straight - no one is denying those sources exist - but they are not about this subject - they are passing mentions illustrating other issues such as Internet memes or Internet vigilantism. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this. Black Kite 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most were saying it's notable because it meets our guidelines and has plenty of RSes. That's not a weak argument, that's a strong one and shouldn't be discounted in any way. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, when I see a !vote like "strong keep, discussed in the New York Times" and then I read that source to see that it is a trivial mention of the event in an article about cats and dogs, one does tend to think that people are (a) not actually reading the sources, and (b) assuming that being mentioned in a RS makes something automatically notable. It doesn't. Black Kite 07:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so they said something based on policy and no one challenged it in the discussion. If you felt there was an issue there you should have brought it up in the discussion rather than as the closer. That would have given people the oppertunity to disagree with your reading of the material. Instead you are imposing your interpretation of the source on everyone else without a change to respond to that. See [[68]] specifically "The consensus is that, while the closer made good arguments, they were solely his own, and unsupported by the debate; they belonged within the debate, not as the close of it."Hobit (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not always the case, and has been especially highlighted by BLP deletions recently where even policy-based consensus was to Keep. I can only answer one question - through weighing up the arguments, and looking at the article (and thus its sources), should the article be Kept as a stand-alone, Deleted, or would the information be better placed elsewhere? As I've said, was there not a clear redirect target where the information already existed, then my close would have been Delete on strength of argument and quality of sources per WP:N. Black Kite 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To neon white: fine, if you think that "There was absolutely no consensus for a redirect", then my 2nd opinion would be "overturn, and re-close as delete". -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus for redirection. The closer just acted on his own opinion of the matter, making no reference to the discussion in the closing statement. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable and well-reasoned close. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was no consensus in that debate. Closer's discretion doesn't empower them to disregard that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I've said this before on DRV, but I'd like to see a clear guideline on exactly what proportion of well-reasoned arguments from established editors it's reasonable for a closer to ignore. When the process changed from VfD to AfD and sysops were given a certain amount of discretion, how much discretion did the community intend to provide? — I also deplore that it takes a real consensus at DRV to overturn a sysop who ignores the consensus at AfD. That makes the whole AfD process fairly pointless, you might as well refer deletions to a sysop for an arbitrary decision.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say a sysop has discretion to discount any number of !votes that they feel don't address the issues concerned. However, it's the WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAVOTE types which are easiest to discount - and here's my reasoning; if people can't be bothered to write a rationale for their case, why should the closing admin should be bothered to take note of their views? I mean, how long does it take to write "I believe source X,Y and Z are enough to establish notability" or similar? And I'll point out again, there was compromise here. If I'd votecounted after discarding the votes with little rationale, then the result would have been Delete.Black Kite 07:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree. I can see only two "keeps" that weren't grounded in policy. Admittedly some votes might not have cited the specific policy in which they were based, but I'm afraid it's reasonable to assume that the closer will know that. — Also, I don't agree at all that "a sysop has discretion to discount any number of !votes" and I challenge that very strongly indeed. I think the closer has discretion to discount any !vote if, and only if, the sysop has a good faith belief that the !voter is a sockpuppet or attempting to disrupt the discussion. I think the closer should otherwise take the !vote fully into account when closing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was the case, we might as well just count votes. If people just type in variations on "Keep, notable" or "Delete, not notable" without explaining why, then how is the closer supposed to know why they think that is the case? Similarly "Keep, sourced" or "Delete, unsourced" isn't helpful either - how good or bad or those sources? Have the commenters even read them? We can't tell. Black Kite 09:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that absent a response asking just that question you need to assume the statement they made was informed. If you suspect it wasn't then ask them. Are you really saying that in any discussion AfD discussion one should dive into details about each of the sources? By the same token, would you argue that those "endorse as reasonable close" !votes here should be discounted because it isn't clear that they've read the discussion? If not, could you explain the difference? Hobit (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are closing XfDs correctly, then you have to strength of argument into account. However, when you come to close a long AfD it would simply be ludicrous to attempt to contact dozens of editors to ask them to clarify their comments. All I am saying here is that a "Keep, mentioned in XYZ paper" !vote, when reading that XYZ source shows that it is a throwaway sentence in an irrelevant article (or for that matter, a "Delete, no reliable sources" !vote when reliable sources are clearly shown in the article) is definitely going to be discounted to some extent. Otherwise you are simply vote-counting. Black Kite 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly you need to take into account strength of argument. But you are replacing your own judgement about the value of the sources with what was concluded in the discussion. That isn't a closers role. If the closer's role was to evaluate the quality of sources, what would be the point of the AfD discussion? Why should anyone chime in if the closer can reach their own conclusion using arguments not found in the discussion? To me the issue is fundemental: what is the role of the closer vs. the role of those discussing. The admin bit should be used as a mop. Certainly you take strength of argument into account. But you don't discount policy-based arguments because you disagree with them. Otherwise we live in a land where whoever closes the discussion makes the call. And that's going to cause problems. Hobit (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I was hoping you could adress this question "would you argue that those "endorse as reasonable close" !votes here should be discounted because it isn't clear that they've read the discussion?". Thanks! Hobit (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To a certain extent, such an evaluation is required. Here is a hypothetical: You have an AfD, 3 keep !votes on the basis that the sources in the article are reliable per WP:RS, and three !votes for delete on the grounds that there is no coverage that they can find in WP:RS. The sources being referred to are self-published blogs - how do you close it? Do you no consensus it because you mustn't judge the sources and whether they meet the cited policies, or do you make the judgement that the sources don't meet WP:RS and close accordingly? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You close it as no consensus because there wasn't one, simple as that. If the sources were in dispute it needs to be done in the afd not by the closer. There is no hurry to delete an article, we should always look to keep if it is unclear that's why it defaults to that. Otherwise we risk damaging the project. --neon white talk 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - that's exactly what you don't do - you examine the sources. An AfD is not necessarily unclear because some people have voted in different ways. If the sources are good, you close Keep; if the sources are unreliable or otherwise poor, you close Delete; if it isn't clear, then you close No Consensus. Futhermore, keeping articles which should be deleted damages the project as much as deleting ones which shouldn't be.Black Kite 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your misunderstnading of Afd closing and consensus that you are demonstrating here is likely the reason why you closed this one wrongly in my opinion. It is not up to the closing editor to change the consensus. Closing is not an afd comment, it's a summary of the discussion, if you want to make a point about the sources it needs to be done in the discussion. Think of it like an admin/secetary taking minutes in a board room meeting, you summarise the discussion and note the decision made but you do not change them based on your own feelings or record a decison that wasnt made. That's get you fired! --neon white talk 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So - and this is a hypothetical example - you are saying that a closing admin should weigh a comment which says "Keep - well sourced" equally to one which says "Delete - no reliable sources" even if there aren't any reliable sources quoted? If that's what you're saying, I think the misunderstanding of how AfD works is yours. Black Kite 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you needed more sources, we could've found some of the massive coverage in the Korean media about this specific incident. Most people felt there was enough to warrant the article's existance. So, even when most people believe an article is notable, it doesn't matter, because its all about the opinion of the administrator. Everyone else is just wasting their time then. One editor's opinion should never outweight that of all others. If editors can not agree, then the ruling should be no consensus. Dream Focus 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) None of the above, that's a false dichotomy. What you do is express your view and let someone else close it later.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ding! exactly. And this is the problem here. If you have something to add to the discussion, add to the discussion, don't add to the discusison in the close. Hobit (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to agree with Black Kite here. Wikipedia is neither a democracy or a beurocracy and introducing more rules on the issue is just inviting to wikilawyerism. You want a list of what admins will almost instantly discount? Have a look at WP:AADD, a good overview of weak arguements - in both directions - but an essay, not even a guideline. Introducing a list of arguements/!votes ignored and making that exclusive would just go further towards the whole thing being a vote, which it isn't. If anything, I would prefer if '''Vote''' were the ignored part and ONLY discussion was taken into account. That way, people just posting "It's a notable event" or "sources are invalid" would barely even be noticed. I do however recognize that this is probably unrealistic. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm conscious of the large number of responses I'm making on this DRV, but it does raise issues I feel are important. — I certainly don't feel we need a "rule". I do think that if the "discussion" were the only deciding factor that would give undue emphasis to those who posted last in the debate. So the !vote count has to be one of the elements that informs the closer's assessment of the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but not the overriding one. Or else it would just be a vote. Black Kite 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do think that in the absence of socking or other attempts to disrupt/abuse the system, the consensus really does override sysop discretion. Because that's all that sysop discretion is for: it's a fudge of the original "Votes for Deletion" process to overcome disruption or abuse, not a license for the sysop to disregard the consensus.
This use of sysop discretion is very far from what the founders intended.——S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikipedia has changed since it was founded in many significiant ways and admins using their discretion in closing difficult or close AFDs is enshrined in our deletion policy. This looks like a good close by an experienced and clueful admin who made the best choice available. Reemember the consensus is judged by strenght of argument not headcount and the closer took account of BLP issues as well as the need to retain sourced content. You should given them a barnstar not berate them. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said I'd stopped replying to this, because it's not personal to Black Kite; it's symptomatic of the authoritarian approach to adminship which is the thing I'm disparaging. But I have to come back out of my shell to reply to this. Spartaz: I'll be the judge of what I should be doing. Clear?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, within admin discretion. The redirect outcome and target were not novel – they were suggested during the AfD. I am wary of what appears to be a trend of "compromise" closes coming to DRV, but this close is based on a reasonable interpretation of consensus rather than a naive average. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as nominator - I would have preferred deletion, clearly, but this close is consistent with the discussion that took place. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid close given the discussion and within reasonable discretion of the closing admin. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The editor did not have the right to go against consensus. Don't vote to endorse simply because you don't like the article. That isn't what this is about. The point of the AFD process is to form a consensus before taking any action, not for an administrator to ignore everything said, and do whatever he feels like it. Dream Focus 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn First off I think the inherit bias against these types of article is extreme which is an issue that needs to be address in wiki policy. Repeated nominations for AfD is not good and is in fact done mainly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not with the intention of improving an article. This event has had a profound impact Koeran culture and has had effects on Internet vigilantism which is well documented in the Washington Post and Cho Sun, both of which are reliable. The nomination also did not take into consideration the previous nominations. What I'm see here isn't a change in consensus but a change in editors and the hope that an admin would be more bias against the article. That is all this nomination achieve in doing. Valoem talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if you look at my comment within the AfD, you'll see that I did take it into account. I am dismayed at your lack of good faith in this matter - had you read the AfD fully, you would realise that I was most certainly not trying to mix it up and get the article deleted through participation bias. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment My lack of good faith? How could you even accuse me of this? Where did I attack you? I raised the concern that this article was nominated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT not that your nomination was done on bad faith. Just so you know I read the entire debate and my argument is legitmate in all ways. You have not brought any new information or consensus that was not covered in the previous AfD. Your reason for deletion was Contested PROD. Non-notable, single event internet meme., the previous reason was Per WP:ONEEVENT I believe this should be erased from Wikipedia, this was a small interest story for a short while in the internet community but beyond the dog poop incident she is without question not notable. Nothing new here. Finally the main point is that this DRV is contesting the improper merge. The debate clear showed no consensus or keep therefore this should be overturned regardless. Valoem talk 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD nom was on notability grounds, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Black Kite 16:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those grounds were already addressed in the previous debate. I believe there was more of a consensus in this debate to move to Dog poop incident than there was for a merge. Valoem talk 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)I was the nominator - you presumed a great deal of negativity on my part. That I hadn't looked at previous nominations, that I simply "don't like" the article, and that I was, in essence, forum-shopping to get a result that I desperately wanted. Such assertions do not appear to assume a great deal of good faith on my part, especially as I explain within the AfD (I didn't only comment in the nom) why I had renominated it. Have you read the AfD in full? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the nomination was in good faith, there should be no dispute about that. It had a valid point when made, however the afd provided sources that were not previously available that revealed the event was more than a single news event but the subject of academic writings some time after the event. I think these issues with afds and deletion reviews (considering some of the ill informed responses to this which i have no doubt are based on a certain amount of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other negative views of the article) being poorly excuted are bigger than this single case and probably required discussion elsewhere. --neon white talk 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the subject of any academic papers; in all of them it was mentioned in passing as an example of an Internet meme, vigilantism or Internet privacy. You are not helping by misrepresenting this, and your opinion that AfDs and DRVs are being "poorly executed" are only your opinion, not fact. Black Kite 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that there is any "misrepresentation" is merely your opinion, not a fact. That's the whole problem with this is that you are claiming as "fact" something that the discussion didn't agree with. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? He is claiming that the event is the subject of those papers. It clearly isn't. You only have to look at their titles ("The future of reputation", "Momentum - A new and empowering way of looking at and organizing social change", "New Literacies", "Global Privacy Protection", and "Memes and Affinities") to see that. Also, those papers weren't even discussed at the AFD - because the first mention of them is in this DRV. Black Kite 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consistent with discussion, AfD is not a vote. dougweller (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to any consensus for a redirect. Have you even looked at the afd? --neon white talk 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close was explained by admin and reasonable. No fault here.--Sloane (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per my comment above. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Although I also would have closed as delete. The reasoning was sound to me. Enigmamsg 05:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The admin's interpretation of consensus, !votes, and all the other AfD jazz was all within the proper procedure and the outcome was logically coherant from the debate. Themfromspace (talk) 20:30, 12 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.
Faith in Place (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears to me that this closure was a misreading of the AfD discussion. Although some editors changed their !votes after an infusion of dubiously relevant refs into the article, little opportunity was afforded them to rechange their opinions after those refs were called into question. Requesting either a reopening and relisting at AfD, or a reversal to a "delete" closure. Deor (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see that this is going nowhere. Nomination withdrawn; please close. Deor (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin WP:RELIST discourages relisting such debates where many comments have been made. That several users changed their comments from delete to keep and that several established users disagreed on keeping or deleting even after relisting is what pushed this to an NC. MBisanz talk 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse or weak overturn to keep I think 6 to 6 on delete !votes (if you count the nom and don't count the double vote). Objections to the references were made on the 8th, this was closed on the 10th. Given that many of the delete !votes came before improvement, keep would have been a slightly better close. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus as original nominator. This one appeared to be muddled enough to make a "no consensus" closure appropriate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep or endorse as no consensus. I voted on March 2 to delete. After work done on the 7th and 8th I voted to keep. I am note sure all discussants were aware of the late revisions. I think many deletes would change their votes upon review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The article has been significantly improved since it was put up for AfD and it meets WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there is nothing to prevent renomination after a suitable period, but an appeal of a non-consensus close always seems to me to border a little on the stubborn.DGG (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A relisting wouldn't have been a bad idea but I see no other problem with the closure.--Sloane (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I see nothing wrong with a no-consensus outcome for that AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse “no consensus”, meaning keep for now. The debate had already attracted sufficient participation. There was a mix of opinions. The ground moved during the debate, with continued editing of the article. The close was definitely appropriate. Leave it at least a month or two, and if the article stabilises in an unsatisfactory form, feel free to renominate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse “no consensus”, hard to see the discussion as a clear keep or delete. I'll also look to adding the google news refs and books but it will have to wait a day or two while I catch up on rl work and other wp duties. -- Banjeboi 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, couldn't have been closed any other way. Relisting is only permitted where no more than one or two editors have contributed, or where the contributions were lacking in policy-based arguments, and it's this way exactly because relisting articles over and over in the forlorn hope that the debate might swing one way rarely accomplishes anything. Anyone can feel free to renominate after a reasonable time if the article hasn't improved. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 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.

9 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Longest word in Turkish (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The result of the discussion was keep, most people voted so but somehow the page has been deleted. I see no point at deleting that page when Longest word in English and Longest word in Spanish still exists. Deleted page was much more better and longer than the Spanish page, and sourced. But somehow, Longest word in Spanish has been decided to be kept. This is discrimination, Longest word in Turkish should be revived.--Cfsenel (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Neutral. If I read and tabulate the AfD discussion correctly, it was either a keep or no consensus. According to my counts, there were 6 "keeps" (two of which weren't opposed to merging), 1 "merge", and 3 "deletes" in addition to the nominator. I realize these discussions aren't votes, but after reading the actual arguments for deletion or keeping, I fail to understand how this discussion was interpreted as "delete". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer: I recommended keeping this article in the AfD. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As David Fuchs pointed out on his talk, he disregarded (correctly, in my opinion), !votes not grounded in policy or guidelines. Such !votes included "it appears to be real, and might be useful" and "virtually anything of record-breaking reknown seems notable around here". Stifle (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment-Stifle has pointed out my comments, and for anyone interested my initial reply to the close is here. Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, another possible reason for the Longest word in Spanish to be kept is that it actually had significant sources; the only sources present in the Turkish articles were from questionable Turkish sources. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point David. Sources are a problem. But the fact that they are in Turkish shouldn't be a problem. Since I do not read Turkish, I cannot comment on the idea that they may or may not be questionable. I'm revising my recommendation to neutral for now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source cited in the article was "Yeni Mesaj", a Turkish newspaper affiliated with a political party, which evidently is common in Turkey; whether that makes it's linguistic articles untrustworthy is an interesting question - not addressed in our policies per se nor in the afd. We seem to divide sources into reliable ones and not reliable ones without discrimination with respect to topics. Just as I wouldn't necessarily take the US Govt as a reliable source regarding whether there were WMD's in Iraq, I think it safe to rely on the US Gov't as a source regarding whether Austin is the capital of Texas. But I don't think we need to go to such hair-splitting to figure out that a Turkish newspaper's articles on the Turkish language is probably reliable even if they may slant reporting of a political nature to favor their party. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there was no way to actually demonstrate that they were significant—merely using the word might prove it exists but doesn't help it prove notability. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was discussed in the newspaper article, are linguistic things such as longest words, most common words, etc. notable was never really addressed in the afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn nowhere in the deletion guidelines allow a closer to go against the community's views because his unilateral view that the sources were "questionable". If we are permitted to do so, I'd like that spelled out - and if the deletion here is OK'd, that'll be endoresement enough and all admins will be empowered to delete anything with questionable sources regardless of community input. Not particularly an attractive situation, but alas, where we may be headed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Nobody in the AfD discussion said that the Turkish language sources were "questionable", so the closing admin shouldn't use that as a reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing admin did not provide a rationale in their closure which is clearly required when going against the majority of votes so everything is transparent. Looking at the delete votes in the discussion. One said that it should be in the Turkish Wikipedia which would be a clear case of systemic bias. Another suggested a merge as an alternative and the third said this type of article was an indiscriminate collection of information without explaining how they thought that applied. Any claim the sources are questionable wasn't backed up with proof and there were at least two merge targets that could have been used as an alternative (Longest words (good target for all the articles Atmoz wanted to delete) and Turkish language). Overall I found the arguments weak on both sides, but it was clear there were merge alternatives to discuss and it was also clear that no good reasons for deletion were provided (which should result in a keep regardless of the keep rationales because that is the default decision when bad nominations are made) - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The AfD nominator's concerns were: "Unsourced. I don't speak Turkish so I'm not sure if this is a hoax or not. Can someone who is Turkish help us out?" I think these concerns have been answered; it is not a hoax, apparently, and sources have been added by User:Cfsenel. (I must admit that I do not speak Turkish and so cannot vouch for validity of these sources; more eyes are needed here, perhaps.) Moreover, some arguments for deletion in the above AfD are not very strong; e.g. "The longest word in Turkish may belong on the Turkish Wiki ... [b]ut there is no real point I see in having a longest-word article for an individual world langusge on the English wiki"; this is against the spirit of countering systemic bias -- if an article is notable enough for Turkish-speaking people, there is no reason not to have it here on English Wikipedia. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The argument for deletion, as cited by Ekjon Lok, was flimsy. The closing admin ignored consensus, which was opposed to deletion. This entire episode raises WP:CSB concerns. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Contrary to the closer's belief, there were no policy-based deletion arguments made in this discussion. WP:DICDEF wasn't even mentioned in the discussion, and simply stating "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is no more a valid argument to delete than it would be to simply state "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" as an argument to keep. It is not reasonable to expect those arguing to keep to "refute" arguments that weren't actually made. The consensus was clearly to keep. DHowell (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete the article. As Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, even !votes that are currently not in line with current policy should be given some weight in deletion discussions as possible evidence of changes in community consensus regarding the policy. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 11 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.
J Stalin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After comming about several Bay Area people related articles I ran into J-Stalin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin, were mared with sockpuppetry and interference in addition to bickering between editors, votes were never allowed to finish and there was never any consensus, the subject in question has what I consider to be significant notability and reliable sources issues. I believe it needs to go to AfD again or simply be deleted, there is only one source that has non-trivial coverage and its not really enough. Troyster87 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The instructions for listing a deletion review recommend attempting to resolve the matter with the closing admin (User:Davewild, in this case) prior to initiating a review. Did you make such an attempt? Also, please take care to notify the closer when listing a deletion review; the appropriate template for doing so is {{DRVNote}} (see Template:DRVNote#Usage for usage instructions). In this case, I have notified User:Davewild of this deletion review. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2nd AfD was closed on 2 March 2008? How'd I miss that...? Oh, well, speedy close and send to AfD. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and send to AfD if desired. It appears to have been an year since the last AfD, and those AfDs were a mess so no real reason you can't start one. Thus, no objection to an AfD from me, but I think you'll find the sources are enough to keep the article. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. The last AFD was over a year ago; renominate it for AFD if you think it should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry I didn't know how old it was, how can I relist it for AfD?Troyster87 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to passing admin Please close this, article is at AfD now. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 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.
Sibeam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

A previous version of the article, with which I was not involved was deleted several months ago. The current version of the article was in poor form when I spotted it and helped fix it. Then, the article was deleted without a prod, any form of notice or AfD. The article asserts the notability of the company and there was already the formation of a referenced start level article. The company has been covered in a variety of newspapers and is being funded by large , well-known venture capital firms. The original AfD does not apply as (i) the article under consideration was very different and (ii) the AfD discussion was minimal. To reassert the deletion from that AfD to this article does not seem appropriate. The deleting Admin did not seem willing to discuss / justify the decision to delete and suggested only a deltion review as a remedy.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, G4 only applies if the copy was "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." Assuming this was not the case and that there were no other egregious, speedy-deletable problems with the article it should at least have another AfD discussion. Perhaps an admin could confirm that there was indeed a substantial difference between the versions? ~ mazca t|c 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those with the actual ability to see the deleted content seem to be unanimous that it's not much of an improvement. ~ mazca t|c 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, with the sources provided I see no reason why another attempt at an article can't be undertaken, by all means restore and it can be relisted at AfD if the problems persist. ~ mazca t|c 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was previously deleted at the title SiBEAM, and the recreation under different capitalization seems like it could be an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the page. The two deleted pages, though somewhat different in wording, are about the same subject, and the newer version failed to cite any non-blog sources. I endorse the deletion and recommend protection of Sibeam and SiBEAM to prevent further recreation against consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (latest admin to speedily delete). The article about Sibeam wa deleted at AfD and then subsequently speedily deleted as re-created material three times—this is just the latest incident, making it the fourth overall deletion. Each deletion has been by a different admin. As the admin who performed the latest deletion, I did not find the version that was deleted at AfD and the version I deleted to have remedied any of the problems of the original—still no reliable sources, still sounds written like an advertisement, still no indication of notability. I recommended DRV to the complaining editor in an attempt to finally stop the cycle of deletion and re-creation that has been going on for some weeks now. Nominator is incorrect that the article was deleted without "any form of notice". It was tagged for speedy deletion by an editor, which in the circumstances was an entirely appropriate response to it being re-created for the third time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I seem to recall deleting some version of this along the way as well - it's popped up under numerous different capitalizations. Any article on a company that regurgitates the company's press releases and sources itself to its website has not overcome the AfD issues; and any repeated recreations like this over-and-over is gaming ths system and likely someone with a COI. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in favor of Restore) - To the point made by Stifle and the Deleting Admin a couple of quick observations:
(1) The article was recreated after an AfD delete, although not by me. If this had been all that happened I would potentially agree that the original AfD should stand and the deltion of the article makes sense per 64. However, at this point I noticed the article as the portfolio company of a venture capital firm I was working on and thought that the company was sufficiently notable to work through the issues in the article. My course of action was to help establish the company's notability first and also to make sure the article was clean enough for Wikipedia standards as this sector is not my primary area of expertise.
(2) the article is different enough that G4 should not apply. The article that was deleted did a poor job of establishing notability and was also not particularly well written or written by a user with significant familiarity with Wikipedia policies. As a result it probably should have been deleted. I would argue that the level of discussion in the AfD was also limited so it is not as though there was broad discussion and real concensus that the company is not notable (please note that the company is widely covered in its own sector, as well as in the venture capital industry and was written up in the New York Times among other general interest publications.
(3) My original intent was to fix the article where I had found it and then ultimately move to SiBEAM but the article was deleted before that occured. I redirected SiBEAM to Sibeam in the interest of transparency. I think a simple review of my work would justify my good intentions.
If there are still issues with the article these should be worked through in the proper fashion with the addition of new content and references. This is not a case of a spam article or a non-notable company - it is a notable portfolio company of two leading venture firms New Enterprise Associates and US Venture Partners. In my judgment the article should be restored so it can be further improved. and I think the suggestion that the space should be protected does not make much sense to me.

Looking at some of the Endorse comments, I think you are painting this version of the article with the same brush as previous ones. I would propose restoring the article, allowing time for edits and if you are not happy propose a new AfD discussion. Think that is a fair enough solution. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any items of substantial reliable source coverage about SiBEAM that you can point to? Your point is fair enough, but I can pretty much guarantee that if this goes back to AfD with blogs for sources then it's just going to get deleted again as comprehensively failing WP:N. I have no problem with you working the article up, but I haven't seen much evidence that it can be rebuilt in a policy-compliant way. ~ mazca t|c 23:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think notability can be established through material third party coverage of the company. Just as a start:
  • A real AfD was held; no one added these sources, some of which are still no more than parrotted press releases from the company (see the 2nd on the list above) and short articles without significant coverage (see the CNN, NYT Times Deal Book blog, and some of the others. I suggest that it be userfied to Urbanrenewal and see what he/she can make of it - without using blogs or tangential or short coverage. Most non-notable businesses get written up on occasion, that doesn't make then notable by WP standards; the 7-11 franchise in town has been written up a few paragraphs each time it's robbed or has the lowest gas prices around. Doesn't make it notable....or now does it? After 3 deletions, we shouldn't be forced to buy a pig in a poke. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed you nominated the article for its original deletion asserting "unreferenced article about a small company that has no indication of its significance; it is also written like an advertisement". I never saw that article but assume that was correct. The only other comments were "No indication of notability" and "A non-consumer tech business that contains no showing of importance". I am not sure why you are trying to diminish the articles I cited. There are tons more but the key items I see are that this is a company which has garnered large amounts of attention for its significant venture capital funding, it has been profiled in industry publications as an up and coming tech company and was profiled on CNN / Fortune. I don't see a lot of 7-11's with that kind of coverage. And these are the publications for its industry. There is no criteria that articles be long as long as the coverage is notable. I think you are establishing a criteria that is higher than for any other article. And I am not going to spend a lot of time on an article that is just going to get deleted without notice. The article should be restored to the main space for it to be edited. The article does not have a major fatal flaw that would require it go into my user space first. I am happy to do it that way but don't want to have this whole discussion again next week.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't an article for every 7-11. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore AfD was closed just fine, but sources have now been found. some of the above are press releases, but others have bi-lines from significant news sources in the field. (EEtimes in particular). Sending to AfD might be in order, but it's clear to me this company hits our notability guidelines. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration with the additional sources. per Stifle, he found two that he had access to that he considered reasonable, and that is sufficient. The others can also checked, many libraries have access & there is no prohibition in the least against using pay sources. As for the 7-11 comparison, the local 7-1's dont get written up by sources of national circulation and major importance in their industry. The company does, & it is notable. DGG (talk) 13:52, 10 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.

8 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hussein el gebaly (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments cogently stated that the article should be deleted, however due to a "tie" which is a no-no, it was found to be no consensus, however either it should have been given more time for more commentary or the arguments should have been measured and an outcome decidedTroyster87 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: An attempt was made (diff) to resolve the matter with the closing admin prior to initiating this review, as is recommended in the instructions for listing a deletion review. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete without prejudice to proper creation or relist for more discussion. The case made for deleting the article was stronger than the case made for keeping it. Both 'keep' comments focused on the point that the article asserts notability. While the article does indeed assert the notability of its subject, we should question the veracity of these assertions unless they can be corroborated by reliable sources. The standard at AfD is whether notability is proven, not just asserted, either in the article or in the AfD itself. I think we should assume good faith about the creator's motivations for creating the article (i.e. perhaps it was not intended to be promotional), but regardless of intentions the article is still essentially a resume. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus closure. Relisting was not in order as, per WP:RELIST, there were more than one or two contributors to the discussion. With two editors on each side of the debate, and no special policy-based reason to close the debate one way or the other, no consensus was the correct result. Those who suggest relisting would be correct are free to gather a consensus to support a change to the deletion process at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - weight of arguments on both sides was balanced. This was clearly a no-consensus close, and WP:RELIST indicated that relisting after this level of discussion is not appropriate Fritzpoll (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per WP:RELIST "and/or if it seems to the closer to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist the discussion". In this case, I don't think there were any solid arguments based on policy. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - seems fine. Strength of arguments & numbers both push towards "keep", but there's some discretion in how it's closed here (especially since the outcomes are very similar). WilyD 13:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I would have relisted this, but closing as "no consensus" is within closer's discretion. The article is abominable however, and if not cleaned up, expect to see this again at AfD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin Can we please work on the wording of WP:RELIST? I've been yelled at a good number of times for relisting articles with more than a couple of comments citing the current restrictive wording and taken to DRV several times for not relisting in cases like this. Rather than stick the closer in contradictory position of having to relist against policy to be DRV'd for following policy, can we just delete If a debate has already been relisted once, the closer should consider carefully if a no-consensus close would be more appropriate than a second relisting. If further discussion is unlikely to bring consensus, then the discussion should simply be closed. from the WP:RELIST page? MBisanz talk 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anything especially bad is happening; the closure is getting endorsed here. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, your closure seems fine. No matter what policies say, people will sometimes be unhappy with the way you close an XFD and try their luck at DRV. The only way to avoid this is to not close XFDs. WilyD 10:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was enough support for keeping to make it very unlikely that a relisting would result in deletion, and that support was policy based. The awards listed in the article may not be referenced, but they are verifiable in that it is possible to check with the awarding body that they are are true. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 9 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.

This page has indefinite protection for an invalid reason. The article was not the same and addressed AFD. The article was [re]marked for deletion by editor with interest in having the article removed, who previously nominated alternative versions of the article. Artparis (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As far as I can see, the newly deleted version of the article was practically identical to the version that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin John Callanan (2nd nomination). Thus it is technically a correct G4 deletion. Black Kite 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In situations where an article has been repeatedly deleted to the point where protection is necessary, it's usual to present a sourced userspace draft before requesting restoration. I would recommend this approach here. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as deleting admin). As Black Kite has already noted the article I removed was practically identical to the version deleted at the last AFD (and endorsed further at deletion review - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 7) and thus I believe my action to have been a perfectly valid application of G4. Nancy talk 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the review request again and realised that it is the protection that is being disputed not the deletion (I think, or is it both, seeing as this is DRV not PRV...) so my previous comment may not make a whole heap of sense in that context. I was also the protecting admin and the reason I gave in the protection log was Repeatedly recreated: Please create a draft in userspace before contacting an admin to uprotect this page. New article must address concerns raised in the AFDs which is factual, reasonable, provides a steer towards next steps and makes it clear that the protection is indefinite but not infinite. Nancy talk 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - under the circumstances, one could run a DRV requesting recreation (i. e. overturn the old deletion discussion), but protection is certainly appropriate in the meantime. WilyD 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone wants to write an article in userspace and present it here, I'm sure that - if it's properly sourced and encyclopedic - the protection can be removed. Until then, it's appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 9 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.

Cellebrum Technologies Limited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD was closed (somewhat reluctantly)'no consensus'. AfD discussion demonstrates that the vast majority believed that the article should be deleted. Notability is very borderline; the article author has admitted COI. Previous 'facts' had references which did not check out. Some facts are still only supported by co website. The closing admin used the WP:CSB argument, which was not discussed, but clearly location is a consideration in determining notability. Over all, I appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE, that the article is a) highly unlikely to be developed into anything useful, and b) if deleted, no true 'information' will be lost. Thank you for your time.  Chzz  ►  14:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed header template. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I misread the instructions; sorry, won't happen again. --  Chzz  ►  13:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (I moved this to the correct location.) Endorse no consensus closure, as there was indeed no consensus. If the article has not improved in a month or two, feel free to relist it. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin My issues were two-fold with this one. First, the WP:CSB issue; as I said at the AfD, would a US company of this size be deleted at AfD? Almost certainly not. Secondly, a number of the Delete !votes suggested that the article was spam; I don't see any particular evidence of that. Discarding those, we end up with a few Deletes and a few Weak Keeps. However, what swung it back to give the article a chance for me was looking at some reliable sources - Indian Television, Business Line - which persuades me the article should at least be given a chance. Yes, there are COI issues and I have tagged accordingly. I'm not particularly bothered if this is overturned and deleted, but I felt there was enough grey area in there. Black Kite 15:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure result, somewhat reluctantly. The article was substantially edited over the course of the AfD. The version that I read towards the beginning of the process indeed read like spam, with value added service provider and other patent nonsense phrases. The current version seems much more neutral. I have done some minor edits to the article since the AfD closed, getting rid of some "solution"-speak and minor grammar fixes. I generally think that non-consumer online, technology, or communications businesses need to meet VERY high standards of notability (I.e. if they only appear in newspapers in the business section, that isn't enough for that kind of business.) I still would not mind seeing this deleted, and don't see the nationality of the business making any difference. But the article has improved, and as such I would not quarrel with the closing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse when there is no consensus, that's the best close. Perfectly reasonable. I disagree though ith the above comment: there is no need for anything to meet a higher standard of notability than being notable. DGG (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There wasn't a consensus so the closer was correct.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - vote counting may lean towards delete, but strength of argument was entirely one-sided to keep. Sounds like "no consensus" to men. WilyD 13:38, 9 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.

It was my secret page, and an admin deleted it with the text:

o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less. Vinson 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page appears to have been restored, so there's nothing to discuss. My opinion: either we need a valid speedy criterion or a valid MFD discussion. A single admin making the call is not appropriate. There is also no minimum treshold of contribution for a secret page to be allowable. The user contributed plenty. - Mgm|(talk) 23:28, 8 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.

7 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michigan Flyer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contested prod, completing request on behalf of 99.147.171.120 (talk · contribs), but looks rather like G11 to me Tikiwont (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I agree it was speedily deletable under G11 as blatant advertising which could not easily be rewritten as an encyclopaedia entry. A regular coach service is unlikely to be notable unless it is really famous in itself, and I see no evidence that this one is. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For process' sake, restore as contested PROD then speedy delete as G11. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore as contested prod then assuming it meets G11, speedy delete per Stifle. Process is important. Hobit (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored and re-deleted as Stifle suggested. Much of the content was copyvio material anyway. No prejudice as to the notability of the company, but this article was clearly in the realm of speedy deletion. If it's notable it can be recreated from scratch. Public transport operators usually get articles, but I'm not sure what the status is for airport shuttle services. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 9 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.

6 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Attack Attack! (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A7'ed a billion times and salted a month ago. The group has charted on the Billboard 200. Requesting Unsalting. Would also like whatever the most advanced copy of the article was restored, if there was ever a decent stub put up; I will add this assertion of notability to the article upon restoration. Chubbles (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse recreation, I think the content should be limited to what can be confirmed with reliable sources, but it does seem to have some level of notability now. Chillum 21:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I went away and unsalted. There is nothing worth looking at from the history and there is a BLP vio in one or two revisions so I don#t want to undelete the history anyway so feel free to work your magic Chubbles. Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 6 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.
Pier_Solar_and_the_Great_Architects (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

While reading the latest issue of [M! Games] 04/2009 P. 116-117, a popular German vIdeo gaming magazine, I stumbled across Pier Solar. I decided to look up further information on the net and turned to wikipedia only to find out, that the article about this game had been deleted. The deletion discussion seems strongly biased to me. Internet sources were claimed as being unreliable and print media as unverifiable. Digging into the user User:Stifle deleted this page one will find, that he is a passionate deletionist trying to delete as many pages as possible with no constructive intent to contribute to the articles. Even during the time of the deletion talk there was solid proof for the games existence. It was by no means doubtful. Even if it is a hoax it is none the less worth mentioning due to the broad media coverage it received the past few months! I vote for a restore. PabloGS (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The logs for this page indicate it was deleted by Kurykh and Davewild, not Stifle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the last person to !vote in this deletion discussion, which I assume is how PabloGS connected it to me. Endorse deletion because of a clear consensus at the deletion debate, and strongly condemn the nominator for violating WP:NPA. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no failure in the deletion debate, a reasonable call by Kurykh. The concept of a Genesis release this long after product end of life is interesting and if released in a large print this game will almost certainly become notable. Thus: If this game is actually released and is covered in such a way in reliable sources as to establish notability then an article will be warranted. At the moment however, this is advertising and crystal ballery. Along with Stifle I remind the nominator to retain a civil tone in discussions and point out that personal attacks and accusations are more likely to hurt your case than help it (many editors will interpret it as a bad faith nomination). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as reasonable close based on clear consensus, and agree that the vicious personal attack in the nomination is completely inappropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as based on consensus, and I agree that the personal remarks about Stifle were a bit strong.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:06, 6 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.

5 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Fat Tail: The Power of Political Knowledge for Strategic Investing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was deleted before the book was published. The book has now been published, which can be verified on Amazon. It has been reviewed in multiple major newspapers. I would like the page to be undeleted and then I can add multiple book reviews etc. I’ve attempted to create the page separately as just The Fat Tail, but that triggers a delete as well. Please reconsider and advise. Wikibookreview (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

everything is fine in terms of notability. However, there will need to be some editing of the overdetailed content of the article One author, Bremmer is notable, I am not sure the coauthor Preston Keat is, but that will be considered elsewhere. DGG (talk) 20:22, 6 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.
  • Latin mnemonics – history restored. As this is in effect a disputed prod, there is no need for any discussion. The former versions are by no means as good as the current article, but they do no harm in the page history. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Latin mnemonics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An AfD keep in December 2007, so a history-only undeletion of prodded pre-November 2007 versions might be helpful. Rumping (talk) 10:20, 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.
Gail Trimble (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The consensus at the AFD was to not retain the article. A close of Keep therefore is incorrect. Given the conservative nature of BLPs and the fact the Keep arguments did not address the WP:BLP1E issue, this should be closed as either Merge/Redirect to University Challenge or given the subject's opposition to publicity, deleted under the default assumption of deleting BLPs when there is No Consensus on how to act and the subject is marginally notable. MBisanz talk 05:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Hoping that Stifle'll not mind my appropriating his question.) As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason you didn't? 68.249.4.183 (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hersfold plainly explained his reasoning at AFD so there was no confusion with his close. And if he had changed it per my request, someone else would have brought it here saying he was wishy-washy on the close. MBisanz talk 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite reasonable, and rather what I imagined. Thanks for the reply. 68.248.225.198 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I believe that the closing admin erred in not giving enough weight to the WP:BLP1E arguments, and that asserting that time would possibly help the BLP1E argument is false logic. Looking back in 6 months to say "Oh yes, she was not notable after all" would imply that notability can fade away. Kevin (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Disclosure - my AfD opinion was Delete. Kevin (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Nominator seemed to suggest that the delete vote were correct that the subject was only notable for one event. Hersford said that the article could be nominated again in a few months if the subject is (still) only notable for one event. Keeping the article at this stage therefore implies a prediction that subject will be notable over time, but this prediction should be given no weight according to WP:CRYSTAL. A better solution—one more compliant with WP:BLP—is deleting the article now, and re-creating it in a few months if and only if the subject demonstrates lasting notability. Wikipedia is not news, and we can and should wait until we have proper perspective on marginal BLP subjects. Cool Hand Luke 06:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Agree with those above. BLPs should not default to keep in no consensus results. In the case of this particular AFD, based on the validity of arguments, a delete and merge or redirect would have been the more appropriate close. Waiting for a subject to continue to not meet standards for inclusion is a poor reason to keep. Adam Zel (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin comments Admittedly, this was a very close debate. Both sides (keep and delete) were making valid points, and I feel as though this could just as easily have been closed as "no consensus" with the same result. What decided it for me was that (by my count, and I could have easily miscounted) over two-thirds of those commenting were in favor of keeping the content in some form, either by keeping the article or merging the content to the game show's article. I know, that's counting votes, and a Bad Thing. However, the fact still remains that a good number of people wanted to keep this content in some way; if it is merged elsewhere, then BLP1E is still upheld. Content cannot be merged if it is deleted; this breaks the attribution path. This is a controversial debate; that's a given, and nobody's going to be entirely happy either way. However, I do not believe my closure prevented BLP1E from being upheld as it was intended, nor do I believe it was discounting the weight of those arguments. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What your close prevented is easy enforcement of BLP1E. Now, instead of the article being merged or deleted and redirected, we've got this. Basically, the whole debate has been restarted on the talk page because it wasn't addressed in the close of the AFD. Adam Zel (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no consensus at the AfD to either delete or merge the article. I don't see why more discussion is such a bad thing; that's what we do here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "There was no consensus" == Default to delete. It's about time people started consistently applying that principle for BLPs. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closureMaintain keep What on earth is going on here? The nominator's argument has three flaws (at least). "The consensus at the AFD was to not retain the article." - not true. There was a split in opinion - by my count, 27 voted for keep, 18 for delete, and 9 for redirect or merge. Certainly not a "consensus" either way. "..the fact the Keep arguments did not address the WP:BLP1E issue" - again not true, and I suggest the arguments should be read. There is clear evidence of her notability and media coverage which is independent of the single (serial) event of her UC appearances - it derived from her appearances (in the same way, as perhaps, Joe the Plumber's notability derived from a single event), but then developed a life of its own, and demonstrable, referenced, notability, as a figure who was subject to very widespread serious media discussion. Thirdly, the reference to "the subject's opposition to publicity" is (to some extent) untrue - she appeared on national TV to discuss her performances, gave media interviews, etc. etc. Editors new to this discussion should not be swayed by the highly misleading and partial statements made here by nominator User:MBisanz, and should read the article, related articles (such as University Challenge 2009), and come to a properly informed view. There is the prospectus of consensus at Talk:Gail Trimble that, in due course, perhaps a few months, the position should be reviewed to assess whether her current, referenced, international notability has been maintained. For the meantime there is clear and unequivocal evidence for keeping the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per WP:BLP1E, with the option to merge into a controversies section of University Challenge or an article about this year's series. Of course there is going to be a lot of news coverage about her, because it's newsworthy. But Wikipedia is not the Evening Standard. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing admin just said that deleting the article would prevent any material from being merged. How do you still think it's possible to put delete and merge as equal possibilities when the one you bolded prevents the other from taking place. =- Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose I should have said merging was my second choice. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (perhaps I would have closed it as "no consensus", but the decision to not delete is correct). Like all policies, BLP1E is a policy which needs to be interpreted by whoever takes part in the discussion, and in while several reasonable participants said the article was a violation, there were also several reasonable people who argued that the article was fine. BLP1E has never been interpreted to mean that all cases of an individual reaching fame or notoriety due to one event must be unencyclopedic, in several cases that one event does give a person lasting fame (or notoriety), pushing it beyond a news story. Is the participation in the game show enough to give Ms. Trimble that? I'm skeptical, but debate should have given a clear deletion consensus before the closer deleted it. There are a few, exceptional, cases where it's right to delete even with a lack of consensus, or against consensus (e.g. copyvio cases, or if none of the keep voters addressing the concern that an article is a hoax), but with a well sourced article, I cannot see that this is a good case for such an exception. BLP in general was made to ensure that our living person bios are held to high standards in ensuring that they are factual and neutral, and with the article well-sourced and referenced, that policy is met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Even several people who recommended deletion said this was material that should be covered in the relevant University Challenge article. And again it is said here. Keeping or redirecting would facilitate such a merge while deletion wouldn't. As a compromise I suggest redirecting. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Some delete voters tried to stretch BLP1E to mean that we should not have an individual article when the persons fame can all be connected to one event. That is not what BLP1E means. The actual meaning was addressed by the keep voters. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, clearly notable due to press coverage. Everyking (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Why? 1) The closer has described it as "close" or "no consensus". No consensus == Default to Delete. The article should have been deleted unless there was an overwhelming consensus to keep. 2) Subject does not wish publicity. With marginally notable subjects, we need to defer to subjects wishes. 3) This is a clear BLP1E and oneshots do not notability make. Those of you arguing to "Keep" are forgetting that doing the right thing by BLP victims is more important than freedom of information. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was closed as "keep", and not a no-consensus "default to keep". I agree it is probably a BLP1E, and the policy for that suggests a merge or redirect which is still a possibility if the AFD is endorsed. —Snigbrook 12:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer called it "very close debate". That == "no consensus" in my book, regardless of whether the close is formally "keep" or not. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Subject does not wish publicity." Please provide some evidence which outweighs the fact that she appeared on national TV interviews and gave press interviews. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure although the result is unclear, it could be seen as either no consensus or keep, with more in favour of "keep" towards the end of the discussion (it was closed as "keep"). The discussion is continuing on the article's talk page about a possible merge, and if it isn't merged it is probably better to nominate again in a few weeks, when it can be determined whether this is a case of WP:BLP1E (which should be merged) or whether the notability is likely to continue. —Snigbrook 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as merge/redirect. This can be seen in two ways. There is clear consensus to keep at least some of the content, particularly as some users who supported deletion also recommended that the content should be merged (a process that would be made more difficult if the article was deleted). However, if the decision was purely based on whether Wikipedia should have an article about the subject, the AFD would have been closed as "no consensus" and default to delete. Redirecting the article would allow a merge, and also appears to be the most appropriate result according to BLP policy. —Snigbrook 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as a non deferrable 1E nomination The closer was in error, notability is not temporary, so you cannot on the one hand say the article does not fail 1E at this time (by saying consensus is to keep), and then in the same breath suggest a later Afd might be successful due to lack of lasting notability. No way is she a 'victim' as others constantly trot out, but if people actually debate the issue correctly as assessing the article against 1E in the here and now, then maybe the right decision will emerge. Otherwise, we might as well make wait and see an official Afd closure, perhaps with automatic renomination after 6 months. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - The closing statement of the admin was correct when they indirectly said that it might turn out later that this individual is of no historical significance. The thing is, if she isn't notable later on, then how can she be notable now, since notability isn't temporary? The closing statement was right, but the incorrect conclusion was clearly drawn. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no consensus to delete and the close was fully compliant with WP:DGFA. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE There is a debate about a merge going on here I would strongly urge people to debate there too. --DFS454 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- There was absolutely no consensus to delete in the AFD. While it might have been reasonably closed as a non-consensus (I disagree, but I can see how it could have been), the defaults is to keep the article, and therefore the outcome would remain unchanged. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse only possible closure Consensus to keep the article content in some form or another is indeed clear, so a delete outcome for that AFD should have been brought here and overturned. The strongest arguments by those who prefixed them with a bolded "delete" were the WP:BLP1E arguments, but those are not delete arguments, those are merge and rewrite arguments. With those properly evaluated, delete is simply not on the radar screen for that discussion or this subject. Several of the discussers here assert that our policy is or should be to delete biographies of living people in the lack of consensus. As to whether that is our policy they are clearly wrong; the furthest our policy on this goes is WP:DGFA#Biographies of living people which says only that when notability is ambiguous, the closer may take into account whether the subject has asked for deletion, and assign whatever weight they want (none to overriding) to the presence or absence of such a request. What WP:BLP#DELETION says is "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by summary deletion." WP:BLP gives no guidance as to how to close such an XFD. So it is clearly false to claim that our policy is to delete when there is a lack of consensus. I believe that we should delete BLPs if there is a lack of consensus, but even if that were the policy this XFD clearly had a consensus to keep. GRBerry 15:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as Keep, I can not see how this article should be deleted. Please note that WP:BLP1E arguments are not justified in this case (perhaps the policy should be clairfied). Gail Trimble has received endorsements and considerable coverage since the win including turning down an endorsement from Hyundai and has been featured in the The Independent and Daily Mail. Since notability is the question of this AfD a keep is most certainly appropriate. Valoem talk 16:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: has anyone noticed a problem with WP:BLP1E? Most people who just recently gained notability are notable for just one event. See Jerry Yang (poker player), Jamie Gold, and many "non professional" poker players. I'm sure we all feel that these articles are notable. Also see Seung-Hui Cho this is an extreme examples. Gail Trimble is no different. Valoem talk 16:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intent of the policy is to shift the location of the encyclopedia content not remove it. The reason that BLP1E exists is to put information about the person in an article about the event because of lack of quality information about the person now and later. The flurry of media coverage after the event in newspapers, magazine, and interviews do not provide us with information to write a balanced biography about the person. Most likely the article will grow stale as the original information gets dated since the media will not cover the rest of their life events. If people want to read about the person now, a newspaper or magazine is the appropriate place to do it. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as keep I think the consensus is to apply one event to only those cases where the event itself is intrinsically of borderline importance, (or one in which the person was merely a bystander or accidental victim, in, say, a notable crime). In the first type of instances, there is obviously some degree of importance for single events that does not prevent the person from having an article, and the question is how low or high to set it, The place where i would set it is where the material is of more than tabloid interest. This is over it, because , from the references, it is clearly being used as a social indicator. DGG (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Grouping the "merge" arguements with the "keep" arguements and closing as "keep" is not appropriate logic with BLP1E. The "merge" + "delete" form a consensus that this article should not exist as stand alone. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your starter for ten: 18 "delete" + 9 "merge" = ?? 27! - precisely the same number as supported "keep". Odd idea of "consensus", that... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge is a keep so far as AFD is concerned, as the process is just about whether to delete an article or not. The discussion had 2:1 against deletion and so the article was not deleted. We now have a separate process underway to discuss possible merger, per WP:MERGE. This DRV is quite redundant as the result was clear and there is no way that we are not keeping the Gail Trimble as this is clearly needed for navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild endorsement of closure. I think it would have been better closed as "no consensus," but the end result is the same. While Wikipedia is NOT#CRYSTAL, it's quite plain that Ms. Trimble is going to be the subject of continuing press coverage for years to come, which will moot the BLP1E issues, if they haven't been already by the press coverage of Ms. Trimble's engagement. THF (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn and delete. WP:BLP1E is quite clear on this matter. Having seen the information on the page it is clear that all information relating to notability just relates to one context. In the unlikely event she becomes more notable the article can be recreated. There is no need to merge as the University Challenge 2009 page conatins the relavent information .--DFS454 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought a redirect to University_Challenge_2009#Notable_events_and_press_coverage Would suffice also.--DFS454 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you need to read WP:BLP1E as it says the opposite of your interpretation. It says that the content is to be merged, and deletion is not compatible with merging and the GFDL. GRBerry 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There was no consensus in that debate. I mean, technically we could say "overturn to no consensus" but it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I do see all the fine-grained arguments here about how much weight to give which bit of alphabet soup, but it would far exceed the closer's latitude to disregard so high a proportion of reasoned "keep" arguments.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per WP:BLP. No consensus to keep or otherwise, and this is, per deletion policy, a BLP about a relatively unknown, likely non-public figure. Hence, this needs to default to delete to protect the image and reputation of this person. MuZemike 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this has been answered. The article does not harm either her image or her reputation. Among the sources is her own interviews. DGG (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge/redirect - I know this has been done to death, but she is notable only for one event and is therefore not notable enough for her own article. A redirect to University Challenge or University Challenge 2009 is useful since there are always going to be people who will search for specific names whenever looking for events, but any information on her can be comfortably incorporated into the articles relating to University Challenge. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for any confusion but my previous note against WP:BLP1E is simply an inconsistency I noticed and has nothing to do with this debate. Regardless, many people on wikipedia are notable for one event such as Jerry Yang (poker player) and Seung-Hui Cho. Futher converage seemed to be an issue that needs to be address in WP:BLP1E. Nonetheless Gail Trimble passes WP:BLP1E because she received futher coverage well beyond winning (see discussion above). Keep in mind wikipedia is not a vote WP:BLP1E should not a valid argument in this case. Valoem talk 14:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close The exact limits of when BLP1E applies are subject to community consensus (see for example John Hinkley as an extreme example). Moreover, there's no serious BLP concern here since the coverage in question is generally positive and she is willingly taking part in the publicity. Thus, if the logic of BLP and BLP1E is first do no harm then that's not a concern here. The close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse Closure. There was no consensus to delete, correct route would be to merge, IMHO, if WP:BLP1E is indeed violated -- M2Ys4U (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. There were no procedural irregularities, and the arguments on both sides of the debate were made in terms of established policy. The closing admin having correctly determined the consensus of the debate, his decision should be upheld. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure - Many keep "voters" actually did address BLP1E concerns. Not every user is going to use the same argument to keep/delete. Just because not every one spoke about BLP1E doesn't invalidate their opinions. --Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Said article has made Main Page feature via Did You Know?. No opinon on whether this swings for or against having a seperate article for the subject. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: There was no consensus to keep in the debate. We count not based on pure keep and delete tallies, but on comments and efforts. seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure; see no evidence that the closer didn't take everything into account and close based on all appropriate policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, my side was to go along with the mergists and redirectionists, but I consider now - given considerable media coverage of Gail Trimble - I would be happy to go along with those who wish to retain this article. As I have mentioned on the talk page on the article Gail Trimble, she has been interviewed on the Radio 4 programme Today, and has also been mentioned on Radio 4's

"A Point of View". She was even the subject of a song on The Now Show.

It seems to me that those who are campaigning for a deletion after largely falling back on the "Famous (or currently famous for only one event" argument, but there are other entries in Wikipedia where one could argue a similar case. Take, for example, Henry Allingham or Harry Patch - yes, there is a place in Wikipedia for these names, but would they really be here had it not been for their exceptional longevity? If one argues that these two figures are also distinguished for military service,what of other "oldest people" to whom this would not apply, such as Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper or Maria Capovilla?

A common argument for deletion has been that extensive media coverage does not, ipso facto,justify inclusion in Wikipedia,but what about the article on Madeleine McCann? Another argument has been that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but it does seem likely that in view of Trimble's academic credentials,she will go on to be a distinguished academic.Perceptive viewers of University Challenge may have heard her mention how she was in one on the ancient Greek dramas - she might become famous for acting in classical drama. Wikipedia can make reference to the future - if a new film is going to be out at a certain date, or a television or radio series will start broadcasts on a certain date, references to the future can go in the articles on these yet-to-be-accessed media.

My own views would fall in between the mergists/ redirectionists and the inclusionists on this one. However, the mergists have not been a totally homogeneous group. I would much prefer the article to be redirected to University_Challenge_2009 than to the general article on University Challenge, as I do think this popular programme deserves more than one entry in Wikipedia. One idea I read with a shudder is that the article should be redirected to one on "popular culture" - please, no, anything but that! Gail Trimble has been challenged on her ignorance of popular media subjects, and I am at a loss to see what the article has to do with "popular media" culture. You can find, if you do a Google search, a story about how Trimble did not know any answers to questions which a tabloid newspaper presented her with (not surpringly, given they were on popular and media culture) and was also interviewed about whether she knew about popular and media culture when she was doing her interview on "Today".I am at a loss to understand what the article has to do with "popular and media culture" - if it does get redirected, University_Challenge_2009 would seem a more sensible object of the redirection. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post script - there was a suggestion that this article be redirected to Celebrity culture on March 2, but that is certainly a redirect which I would quickly oppose. I am not sure the Wikipedian who suggested this took this idea seriously - I noticed that s/he did add that the article Celebrity culture is in "a pretty dire state". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Closing statement could use some love, and a merger isn't unreasonable (though I oppose it) but close was proper, though the "waiting to see" part could have been removed. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides reading the actual discussions, a quick scan of the AfD is enough to see that keep occurs far more than delete; in fact it does seem to occur as a clear consensus. Since the dispute here is only over what the consensus itself might have been, I can't see any reason for the conclusion of 'keep' to be discounted. Therefore I have to endorse the closure. Clinkophonist (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Besides reading the actual discussions, a quick scan of the AfD is enough to see that "keep" occurs far more often than 'delete'." Check out WP:CONSENSUS. Regardless of what the vote count is, it's the weight of arguments that matter. ₳dam Zel 15:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because the attack on the individual will continue to growth . There is nothing encyclopedic about bashing a person. Any useful information can be merge. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record the "attack" linked to is a note that a joke was made about her on a radio show. The joke in question if anything seems to be fairly positive or neutral, with a stand in impersonator of her running in to deliver punch lines. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, with a stronger leaning to keep almost every day, as per coverage in Reliable Sources. One of the leading British bookmakers is even offering a number of bets on whether she does certain things over the next few years. Easily passes WP:BIO, and the procedures appear to have been correctly followed in the AfD. - fchd (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. There was a keep consensus, and the BLP1E argument is becoming more and more of a stretch as the coverage of her continues. BLP1E doesn't apply to anyone who happens to be mainly notable for one event, see Rosa Parks or John Wilkes Booth; it's about people who are just fleetingly notable for one small thing. Just in the last day, she's been covered by media from Ireland to Taiwan. See [69] and [70]. Cool3 (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep per Cool just above and others. With the "merge" discussion on the talk page, this is the third go at removing this article. See also Gavrilo Princip. The "attack" line of argument is nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, there's no way you can really wring a delete consensus out of this debate. BLP1E concerns, while somewhat valid, clearly do not represent the opinion of the majority of contributors or the overall weight of the arguments - I fear that a "delete" close would really have involved the admin imposing his/her opinion on the article and on BLP1E rather than following the overall opinions of the debate. I'm really not seeing much evidence of this page being negative in tone or otherwise attacking the subject so as to cause BLP concerns beyond the normal for any high-profile article. I suspect that the next few months will result in a stronger consensus forming on exactly how much information really is necessary and how notable she really is once the media storm has died down, and a merge may well be decided upon on the talk page. Certainly I see no egregious BLP concerns with keeping the article as normal editorial processes continue about merging. ~ mazca t|c 09:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct closure based on the debate. There was certainly no consensus to delete in that AFD which is what is (and should be) required by policy for deletion (in almost all cases). Davewild (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Joe the Plumber argument above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 10 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.

4 March 2009[edit]

  • File:Canihavearideoctave.ogg – File restored and FU rationale added. If there are additional concerns they can be addressed by the normal editorial process and FfD if necessary. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Canihavearideoctave.ogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Missing FUR that can be included within a minute. File has been requested for undeletion more than three days ago by using the simple undelete image tag. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might help to explain the fair use rationale and/or describe what has been deleted. We're all a bit in the dark. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page that was deleted was a music sample with no fair use rationale. (The deletion summary referred to "image" unintentionally.) I'll undelete it now but unless the rationale is fixed and fully compliant within two days, it will be deleted again. It is requested that this DRV not be closed until the rationale is sorted. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 09:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rationale is sorted and looks good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Out of the dark?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 09:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rationale is not sorted, as it currently has "yes" for "portion used" and "low resolution", and doesn't address several of the points at WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 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.
YouTube cat abuse incident (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Inappropriate use of WP:NOTNEWS. This incident (if not the perpetrators) is without a shadow of a doubt notable, receiving extensive dedicated international print and television press coverage e.g. here, here, here and here, various petitions, significant grassroots action and remarkable backlash. Animal abuse happens all the time yes, but it's not every day it's filmed, published, (successfully) investigated by vigilantes and then proceeds to trial (which is ongoing).

In any case this deletion is clearly not supported by policy, which perhaps needs clarifying even if its intent seems perfectly clear (no routine coverage with examples given, notability doesn't transfer to individuals and breaking news treated like everything else). Editors need to remember that AfD debates are like mini-trials, for careful interpretation of existing policy, not sharing of opinions.

Normally I'm on the other side of the fence but this decision is very clearly wrong. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Good-faith decision by person closing debate recognizing that none of the !Keep discussion adequately refuted the WP:NOT#NEWS reasoning. WikiScrubber's argument doesn't either. THF (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From AfD: "It has been argued that WP:NOTNEWS provides a rationale to delete this article. That policy states that "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"; this is clearly not such a topic. It stresses that articles on individuals notable for one event are to be avoided; that is precisely what this article does, in lieu of an article on the perpetrator(s)...Let's be very clear on this point: Notability is not subjective. The Irish Times and The Telegraph are prominent broadsheet newspapers, and without doubt reliable sources independent of this topic. The coverage of this event in the two articles is not trivial, and unambiguously fulfills the significance criterion. In short, this topic clearly meets the encyclopaedia's threshold for inclusion, the general notability guideline. This discussion has thus far provided exceptionally poor rationales as to why this point ought to be ignored." WikiScrubber (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're cherrypicking. The same policy also talks about historic notability, something this five & dime incident lacks. Get over it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question: How can you tell? How can you tell whether an incident today lacks historical notability? I mean, Internet vigilantism is a pretty new phenomenon, so how can we tell which early instances of it are formative of cultural views, and which ones aren't? This is not a trick quesiton; I have not got an answer in mind. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once it's formative of cultural views, we'll treat it as such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's non-responsive, you know. I'm asking how will we tell when it's formative of cultural views. I'm asking that this subjective criterion be made somehow objective, and it's a reasonable question. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, different question then. In the general case? I don't know, I'm bad at writing policy. In the specific case? Nobody here is arguing that there's any historical impact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not a different question. "How can you tell whether something is historically significant?" is the question I asked both times. As for "Nobody here is arguing that there's any historical impact," that's simply false. Several people are arguing precisely that the event has historical significance. I don't agree that the significance is established, but I won't pretend that those arguing significance don't exist. There are two sides to this question, either of which a reasonable person may hold. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer would be, 'When reliable sources say so', otherwise it's a game of prediction. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I'm thinking about current events, some of which are significant without question, and some of which are utterly trivial. The ones that are significant beyond question, I don't think we look for a source saying "Event X is historically significant". We rely on our judgment in many of these cases. I'm trying to put my finger on what criteria we're applying when we do that. If anyone can help figure this out, I'd be grateful. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a time machine it is impossible to determine 'historical notability' so it seems both a weak basis for an argument and a poor metric for policy. I claim that it is historically significant, you claim that it's not, so then it's just a case of who has the loudest voice(s). WikiScrubber (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ready to give up on "historical notability" and say that it's impossible to measure. We found a reasonably good metric for "notability" when we hammered that concept into shape. Why don't we think about what criteria would have to be met to make something historically notable? We might even be able to come up with criteria that don't involve time machines! -GTBacchus(talk) 20:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most people would rely on published professional historians as being the proper arbiters of historical notability. Nevard (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you argue that historical notability can only be established for events far enough in the past that historians treat them? In that case, it seems that no current event could meet a standard for historical significance. How can that be the effective standard of WP:NOT#NEWS? What am I missing here? Does my question even make sense?

I'm not trying to be dense; I'm trying to pin down a more objective test of notability for recent events. Perhaps we should have a separate notability guideline for contemporary events, much as we do for businesses, people, bands, websites, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're thinking! What would it say? Starting at the very top level: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." WikiScrubber (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've got two reference points that come to mind. The Primary Notability Criterion (PNC) states that a topic that has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject is deemed to be notable. However, there is a suggested clarification of WP:NOT#NEWS that we could call the "Short Burst of Stories Test" (SBoST?). This test says something to the effect that one short burst of news reports of one event shall not be construed as satisfying the PNC. It's a sort of a WP:NOT#NEWS-based exception to the PNC.

I think we can confidently say that the PNC enjoys a broad consensus of support. I'd like to see what people think of the Short Burst of Stories Test in a setting apart from this particular event. Personally, I think it sounds reasonable and workable. Best, it's fairly precise, but with a margin of grey area that just about fits our style here. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like it a lot. It's easy to test and it should avoid 60k discussions like this one from wasting our most precious resource: editor time. It makes sense too... news tends to carry on for more than say 48-72 hours when something is really notable and we can't afford to cover everything that appears in two or more reliable sources. I was thinking too that dupes of articles (e.g. via newswires) shouldn't be counted twice - that is, at least two reliable sources must have independently written about it. WikiScrubber (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<--Well, there's a version of it already live at Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires objective evidence. It could maybe be edited, but the gist is there. As for duplicate articles, I think that's already assumed, per good sense. The only other caveat that comes to mind is that late-December "Dumbest(/worst/whatever superlative) stories of the year" articles shouldn't be construed as tipping the level of coverage past the SBoST threshold. That would just be painful. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have raised this issue on the WP:N talk page with a view to having policy updated to support your view, and yet you're telling me to "get over it". I don't even like cats but I do have a problem with (admittedly poor) policies being misused/misinterpreted. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone noticed a problem? I haven't read the article shouldnt this article be temporarily restored while undergoing DRV (as should all articles undergoing DRV)? How else can I make an assessment? It seems there were legitmate arguments from both sides. Valoem talk 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Closing admins should evaluate deletion debates in light of our policies, which have a much broader participation than the !votes of any AFD. In this case, the policy rationales cited in the debate leaned heavily in favor of deletion, and the closing admin made a good call. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per THF and per closing admin: AfD is not a ballot, and the losing side lost because they did not refute WP:NOT#NEWS which deals with historical notability. On the assumption that WikiScrubber is contacting everyone involved in the AfD debate, s/he can hardly expect a much different result than a whole bunch of keeps & deletes as last time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WikiScrubber should be commended however, for contacting everyone involved in the AfD, not just canvassing people who would have favored his challenge of the deletion. §FreeRangeFrog 21:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually a very good point - it's my first DR but I'll leave it to the DR reviewers in future for exactly that reason. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per THF and CHL. GlassCobra 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and deletion - I see nothing wrong with the sysop's closure or the deletion itself. The WP:NOTNEWS argument is quite valid and the potential BLP issues were made clearly and repeatedly in the discussion by a majority of editors, which in my opinion established consensus beyond doubt. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the event is significant, it's in the context of Internet vigilantism. Being significant in that regard is the only way to beat WP:NOTNEWS. Our Internet vigilantism article currently doesn't mention this incident, except as a redlink in the "See also" section. I would suggest that the sources are more than adequate to support a section in the 'Net vigilantism article. BLP issues mean that we have to be careful, not that we delete all content.

    Later, when the histories of the Internet are written, we can see which events were milestones in the development of Internet culture, and which ones were only of ephemeral interest. If this event lands int he former category, we can split it off then. For now, I think it should be covered in the more general article. Endorse deletion, recommend merge/redirect to Internet vigilantism. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a contradiction. You can't merge and redirect something that's deleted, so you're actually saying overturn deletion. Ty 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... I guess. The deleted versions of the page don't need to be restored. The content can be added to Internet vigilantism on those article's terms. Creating a new redirect at this location is easy. I don't care what you call it; it's what I think we ought to do. I'm sure whoever closes this discussion will read all the words, and understand. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, once it's merged, the redirect would be pretty useless, as it's an unlikely search term. I suppose what I'm really suggesting is that people forget about this as a separate article, and write about it in Internet vigilantism, where it can be put into perspective. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. The reason I choose Internet vigilantism over those other topics is because that's what the sources deemed to be notable about it. The Russian newspaper wasn't reporting that some kid in the US beat up a cat. They were reporting that anonymous Internet users worked together to identify and report the perpetrator. It's not a notable example of animal abuse. It is a notable example of Internet vigilantism. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per the clear logic of not news. Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Does not meet criteria for having an article. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there anything from anyone not involved in the AfD, per Tagishsimon's observation above? WikiScrubber (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't involved. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was involved, but I've changed my mind. Does that count? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you've suggested a merge which is essentially an overturn so you haven't really changed your mind now, have you... WikiScrubber (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. I have changed my mind. I disagree strongly that a merge is "essentially" an overturn. In the AfD, I thought this event should have its own article. Now I don't. That's a change. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me either. --Ali'i 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion- I was going to bring this to DRV myself quite frankly. NOTNEWS does not apply in this case, given the worldwide scope of the coverage. BLP1E also does not apply, since pains were taken to make sure the person was not identified by name, and no biography was attempted in the article. The remaining Delete votes boiled down to lots of I don't like it's, which is not a valid reason for deletion. While I disagreed with the deletion of Boxxy, I at least could see that deletion as being based in policy. This one, on the other hand, I think the deleting admin went against both consensus and policy when they deleted the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I see in your argument is failure to appreciate that you're trying to pitch a conclusion drawn from a set of guidelines - Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, against a policy set out at WP:NOT#NEWS. Unless or until you can mount a historic notability argument to refute WP:NOT#NEWS you are sunk. The fact that this was an interesting enough man-bites-dog story to be picked up widely as padding to sell advertising does not make it historically notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just observing, the way his argument is stated, he addresses the policy WP:NOTNEWS by claiming that it doesn't apply. To be fair, a policy that doesn't apply fails to outweigh anything. Thus, the argument is really over whether NOTNEWS applies to this incident or not. To claim that it doesn't apply, it is necessary - as you say - to argue historical notability. However, we can't yet view the evolution of the Internet and its relationship to our culture in an historical light. Someone in the future will do that. Since it's not clear at this time that this event is an historically significant one, we can't just assume that it is. That's how I'm seeing it, anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH you can't assume that it isn't either, which is what makes this a problematic/unenforceable policy. Without a time machine you have no way of knowing the historical significance, though this article (which touches on many issues outside of the vigilante aspect, such as privacy, animal abuse and justice) certainly seems to be. WikiScrubber (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor argument. Events are not assumed to be historically significant until shown to be otherwise. That would be insane. If we don't have an article now, and we add one after sources appear to demonstrate historical notability, that's just fine. We don't keep things around because they might turn out to be notable. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn For the following reasons: a) There is no consensus for deletion. If anything the consensus is in the other direction. b) The NOTNEWS issue was addressed by people in the discussion such as Skomorokh. c) This was not a single news event anyways but part of a continuing and still ongoing series of events d) the sources included comments from academics e) given the massive coverage this has recieved and is still receiving the BLP argument doesn't hold any water. BLP is about not doing harm. Obviously we need to be careful about that. But BLP isn't about deleting well-sourced, internationally content that has a negative element. Moreover, the continuing international coverage means that if anything a neutrally written, factually accurate Wikpedia article will if anything do the exact opposite of harm by providing a sane account of everything that has happened and continues to happen. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per all above. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the deletion without prejudice towards incorporating some elements of the article into Internet vigilantism per the rational arguments made by GTBacchus. Why we have administrators and not vote counters. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As previously uninvolved party, overturn to no consensus. I would've !voted "delete" on this, but I think it would be stretching things much too far to say there was a consensus to delete. I think the closer should not have disregarded such a large number of reasoned "keeps"; the admin tools are supposed to be a mop, not a gavel.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - It was reported in the news mostly as a "weird but true" story. This is where i'm critical of wikipedia - people don't seem to understand the difference between an encyclopedia article (wikipedia) and a news article (wikinews). Add it to wikinews. --Phil1988 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. This is very important; not everything that is news-worthy (and reported by news sources) is necessarily encyclopedia-worthy. A very, very important distinction, that many people here seem to ignore. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This is exactly the sort of thing BLP is about. Even the title is extremely in bad taste. MBisanz talk 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed out above, the BLP argument doesn't hold water as the policy does not apply to an article about an incident which doesn't even mention individual(s). WikiScrubber (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I voted reluctant keep last time, but I think the closure was proper. Firestorm Talk 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion It wasn't just the fact that it made international news, but it showed a moment in history, when a large number of people on a very popular and influential internet site, came together to do some good. Has that ever happened before, for a case like this? Please read the cache of the article, before voting one way or the other. Dream Focus 00:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people on websites such as 4chan have tipped off the authorities in previous incidents - generally shooting threats - so there was not even any novelty in this pathetic story. It's an almost daily occurrence. Here's today's. Please don't write an article about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what comes from 4chan is noise, as you say, but unlike the incident we're discussing (which has been covered internationally in many languages), this one about wikipedia vandalism is going to get the level of coverage it deserves: none. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per JoshuaZ. It's notable through the coverage it has received (which "today's" in the previous post has not received, thus proving the point). No objection to merge with Internet vigilantism and redirect, per GTBacchus above. Ty 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The closing of this AfD discussion was appropriately handled. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is false that "closing admins should evaluate deletion debates in light of our policies, which have a much broader participation than the !votes of any AFD." Admins do not get to judge policy. all they get to do is to use their knowledge of policy to discard arguments totally not based on it. The people at the discussion decide what the policy is, and t he admin just announces the results. He';s a moderator, with the moderator's power to disregard anything that's altogether irrelevant. If closers want to argue policy,they should join the discussion. If they can ignore the results of the afd, why bother to have them at all. Let whatever admin wants to delete an article delete it, on the basis of what he thinks the community will let him get away with. The purpose of having afd discussions is to get a manageable way of representing those interested in the community. For example, I might say that since it is my opinion that wrestling is not a notable profession, all people whose notability is derived from it should be removed. Myself, I do not think wp should have this article, but I think the majority is against me & I accept that. I may wish the majority had been different, but it was the majority. I don't get myself to write the rules, i don;t even get to interpret them, I just get to administer them the way the consensus wants me to. DGG (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the arguments of those above. Closure was sound. Adam Zel (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The AfD was closed improperly. The closing administrator made his own evaluation of the article, then closed the AfD according to his own personal conclusions - cherry picking the arguments he agreed with and ignoring the ones he didn't. If you actually read the debate, considering the both the number of votes and strength of the arguments, it is clear that there was no concensus to delete.
Furthermore, procedural mistakes aside, the article should really be kept. The editors advocating deletion based their argument on WP:NOT#NEWS. People seem to have some confusion about what this actually means, trying to use it where it doesn't apply, so I will quote the relevant section in it's entirety:
News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
Now let's take a look at our article, [71].
Is it Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism: No
Is the article about an individual?: No
Is the debate about content within an article (rather than the article itself)?: No
Therefore NOT:NEWS does not apply. The topic seen has extremely wide circulation, having recieved significant secondary source coverage in both national and international reliable sources including Russia Today, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, The Irish Times, KWSO channel 7 (local news), the Harvard Law blog [72]. Therefore the article should be kept. It's that simple. AfD hero (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence it has historical notability: No. Significant secondary source coverage does not equal historical notability. Until you understand this, all your thrashing around picking your own cherries is to no avail whatsoever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical notabilty" is a controvertial, vague, and subjective concept. This is why we have established real objective standards at WP:N, which this article clearly passes. AfD hero (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS is a policy. WP:N is guideline. We see things differently: I see WP:N as poorly written and without sufficient consideration for WP:NOT#NEWS, not least that it appears to lend a crutch to your argument. But while WP:NOT#NEWS continues as a policy, I have no compunction in asserting it and suggest that you need to deal with it, rather than wishing it was not in existence, for it is irrational to argue from a false premise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon, it's true that WP:NOT#NEWS is policy, as you've said. To meet the criteria there, historical notability is required. My question: How is historical notability determined? Have you got a concrete test, or is it just down to individual editors' judgment? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing WP:NOTNEWS (essay) with WP:NOT#NEWS (policy). The policy only deals with "historical significance" as explained specifically in the paragraph I quoted above, which this article passes. AfD hero (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me what I'm confusing. I've never read that essay, and have no intention of reading it. I know that I'm talking about our policy. You claim that your argument shows that this topic meets the historical significance criterion, but I disagree. "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," does not purport to be an exhaustive list of items that are not historically notable. Plenty of journalism lies outside of "announcements, sports and tabloid journalism" without attaining historical significance. Historical significance is a positive criterion that has to be met, and I'm asking whether anyone has got an objective way of testing for that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered the possibility that there is no such test? The only test I can think of is non-trivial, dedicated treatment of the subject in multiple reliable sources, which is what we have today (and which this incident clearly satisfies). International coverage should erase all doubt (as opposed to multiple local sources, regardless of how reliable). Sports results get repetitive coverage in reliable sources but they are rarely notable... a bomb blast on the other hand is by very definition an instantaneous event and if it's significant enough for multiple reliable sources to write about it and someone cares enough to write an encyclopedic article on the subject then there is little harm in letting them. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have I considered the possibility? Yes. Am I convinced that it's the reality? No. I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that there is no useful criterion we can apply to determine historical notability for our purposes. I'm not ready to give up on the concept yet.

As for your claim that this incident clearly satisfies your criteria for historical significance... do you realize there are people on this page claiming that you don't exist? The only thing "clear" to me is that it's not 100% clear whether or not this incident is historically notable, and anyone who claims to have certainty on that matter is either speaking carelessly, or they're hiding a lot. Again: If you say this is "obviously" historically significant - or if you say it's "obviously" not historically significant - then you're wrong. In particular, you're wrong to call it "obvious" or "clear". It's clearly murky. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exist, really... I just log in occasionally to clean up but you're right, "obviously" and "clearly" should probably be blacklisted from debates. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, by reference to a source which demonstrated the historic nature - something other than the flock of news stories triggered by the AP wire story which I presume was behind this flurry. So, for instance, Suicide of Megan Meier has extensive after the fact analysis; it passes a WP:DUCK type test. In the end, it is subjective; in this instance I see precisely nothing but the same story repeated for each locality, which for me is not duck shaped. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And on more closely reading WP:N, I see it says "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability". Yet what we have here is exactly that short burst of news reports. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, immediately before that comment is "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence". Is anybody game to argue that the incident is lacking in this regard? WikiScrubber (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even doom music can save this article now. Er, actually...
    This is within the closer's discretion, and it seems like most of the overturns are rehashing the arguments from the AFD. Endorse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - I'm not going to comment directly on the close since I have reviewed it several times in light of requests on my talkpage, but I would like to note that the material has been temporarily userfied to allow the editor who requested it to use the sources etc to add some mention to our existing articles on either Anonymous (group) or on internet vigilatism. I shall be deleting the userspace copy in due course, assuming that the editor in question has finished with it Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Well within closer discretion, especially since no real arguments overcame the ephemeral nature of this story. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I'm really not one to bring this up and normally disagree with it's usage but do no harm really applies in this case. The abuse was perpetrated by two minors (the oldest being 14 if I recall) with clear mental problems. Notability is not temporary, please think about that for a minute, by claiming this is notable you are saying it should remain an article forever. Do we really want to have an article documenting the crimes of two minors forever? How is that not causing harm? Please, think of the children. BJTalk 08:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - They were 14 and 16. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is talk of trying them as adults too and given some of the sensationalist news on the subject (which will stick around forever) they may be well served by a neutral article on the topic. WP:HARM or WP:BLP don't apply to an article about an incident which does not identify the perpetrators. WikiScrubber (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is turning into a 2nd AFD. Within closer's discretion. yandman 09:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a second AfD is what's required if this isn't the forum for such discussions. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we don't need a second AfD - the purpose here, as I understand it, is basically to decide whether or not I made an appropriate close. There was enough discussion to close the debate, it's just that you (and others apparently) think that I did something incorrectly. I'm sure yandman is just referring to the fact that we don't normally do the policy arguments per se in this venue, since they've been done at the AfD. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. As I said before I'm not so much concerned about the subject as policy related problems. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Good closure, properly assessing balance and relative strength of arguments. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, with caveats (NB: I supported deletion at AfD): The overturn !voters raise some interesting points. I would strongly suggest that this be taken to WT:NOTNEWS as a case study, and the wording of that essay clarified. Further, if people on both sides of the debate are going to cite it as if it were WP:POLICY, then it should be proposed for guideline designation, and subject to the normal debate process that a guideline goes through. That process would probably clean it up sufficiently that debates like this will be less frequent and heated in the future. As for the content in question, I don't find it objectionable, it's just this content being a stand-alone article. It's too hyper-specific, and I really doubt that anyone would ever search for it. Boiled down and recontextualized it would make a good section at Internet vigilantism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Major revision: WP:NOT#NEWS (note the "#"; I'm referring to the policy, not the essay) appears to be satisfied to me. Someone else here says it isn't because the article is not about "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", but those are simply examples, not an exhaustive list of what may fall within the purview of the policy (examples derived from common bad article forms; that this article is not one of the most common bad article types does not automagically make it a good one). To quote the relevant parts: "[N]ot all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage ... [is] not sufficient basis for an article. ... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Sounds to me like this article is an almost ideal example of what NOT#NEWS is referring to. I reiterate that I think that some form of this content is good material to recycle in the Internet vigilantism article. But it does not stand well on its own, since it is and almost certainly will remain orphaned. Furthermore, a section heading and/or {{anchor}} can be used to make the material linkable on the off chance that someone wants to refer to it directly. I.e., there is no actual problem here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that whilst people keep using WP:NOTNEWS as a link, the policy itself is at WP:NOT#NEWS Fritzpoll (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The essay promotes higher standard for inclusion of news events than the policy. Because they have the same name, people are confusing the two thinking that the essay is policy. AfD hero (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] - I think people can read the top of pages and work out which is an essay and which isn't. I find it more likely that people just miss out the extra keystroke, but neither of us can assert what it is people are definitely doing. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's exactly what happened here (in the request no less), as well as multiple times within the AfD. It's not at all obvious to non-regulars like myself and clearly is the source of great confusion. It's particularly disconcerting that this essay, which sets a significantly higher standard than the policy in force, has the more obvious shortcut (WP:NOTNEWS) than said policy (WP:NOT#NEWS). This needs to be fixed. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:NOT#NEWS would doesn't seem to apply. I don't think this is "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." which is the only thing I see that justifies deletion of an event. Its not anything like "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". So the delete arguments have to be taken with a serious grain of salt. Given that, correct outcome was keep. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the intention of the policy is very clear, that being the point of the review. Thanks for stating it succinctly. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was uninvolved prior to this review, but from viewing the AfD it appears clear that there was no consensus for the deletion of this article. This wouldn't be an easy AfD to close in any respect, however the closing admin's comments appear to weigh his personal views above those of the community. AfD is intended as a mediation procedure, not a judgment or binding arbitration. If there is no consensus in the community, the proper result is "no consensus". – 74  19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm intrigued as to how you know what my personal views on this article are?  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does appear from your comment that you "broke the tie" by offering your own judgment rather than declaring "no consensus" as you probably should have. Note that the article apparently only survived 5 hours before it was put up for deletion and likely would have improved significantly were it given a chance. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion This afd was properly closed.--Sloane (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Contrary to the assertions at the head of this deletion review, this was a perfectly appropriate use of WP:NOTNEWS to evaluate the weight of arguments at closing. Our articles should discuss material likely to be of continuing importance, rather than transient attention; numerical votes don't change that. If this proves to be an enduring topic of coverage outside of Youtube and 4chan, then the article can be rewritten in the context of that continued importance. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gavia immer, hi. I'm wondering what makes you decide that a topic is "likely to be of continuing importance". If we could somehow articulate the thought process leading so many people to that conclusion, then we might find something worth writing down. Can you say what made you decide, personally, that this event is likely to fail that standard? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of comparison to similar events, plus in my own case a rough numerical standard: if this is likely to be of interest on its own merits in ten years, it's certainly notable, if it's likely to be of interest in five years, it's probably notable, but if there's no evidence that it would be of interest on its own merits in one year, it is not notable. My judgement, based on other incidents of animal abuse that made the news, and based on other incidents of someone misbehaving on the internet that made the news, and based on other random protests that made the news, is that nobody (outside of Youtube, 4chan, and of course that one guy) will care about this one year from now, so I cannot see it as notable. Since I cannot see it as notable, I believe that a close based on transience of interest is correct given the discussion that preceded it. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your considered reply. That's good food for thought. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that the essay (before the link was fixed) or the policy (after)? They are two different standards - the former apparently a failed attempt to supersede the latter. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links have, as far as I'm aware, pointed to the same things all the way through this process, from the time of article creation to now. I personally think people just forget the "#", but I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was referring to WP:NOT#NEWS, but I copied WP:NOTNEWS as-is from the original nominator's post because I was responding to it. I foolishly assumed they were identical, but I can see the history here is a bit more interesting than that. Hope this helps. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Tagishsimon, after instructing me to "Get over it" above, proceeded to try to change the policy to support their view. That aside, there was an interesting response from User:SmokeyJoe regarding primary and secondary sources. I would suggest that the Harvard Law School treating the issue (even if in a blog) satisfies even this higher standard, as well as that of the article formerly known as NOTNEWS (which also suggests setting precedent as another way to gain notability/notoriety, which may well happen here too). WikiScrubber (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not tried to change policy, and I resent your careless attitude in making such an accusation. I asked at Wikipedia talk:Notability diff that mention should be made in WP:N of WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia tries to deal in verifiable fact. You have completely failed in this, wikiscrubber, and it is stupid and reprehensible of you to try to mount such an accusation given the evidence is but a click away. You do a gross disservice to yourself and the rest of us by seeking to smear those who disagree with you; such tactics disgust me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • "I should like to propose an amendment [because I] don't think that message is getting through" is crystal clear. If you don't like fellow editors being abrasive with you then don't be abrasive with them - telling me to "Get over [my] pathetic story" was hardly WP:CIVIL now, was it? I couldn't care less about the story - it's the policy [interpretation] problems I'd like to see fixed. Sorry for offending you. WikiScrubber (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to propose an amendment to a guidance page to remind people of policy. How is that "trying to change policy". I have no problem with abrasion. I have a problem with liars. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to an apology with a personal attack? Calm down, I doubt anyone here thinks any... different of you now than they did before this little outburst. WikiScrubber (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no apology, and I'm not here for the adulation so your second point it moot. You've accused me of seeking to change policy over this matter. I have in fact sought to remind users of policy in a guideline. Your arguments have lost. Your article is gone. It does only remain for you to get over it and we can all move on. --00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Guys, both of you calm down and AGF. You were both making cogent arguments. The policy wording is a mess and you're both interpreting it in your own way. Put yourselves in the other person's point of view and you'll realize they're not out to get you and be sneaky or snarky, just different words are popping out at them from the page than for you. Martinp (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion close. Closer should be commended for excellent job of separating the wheat from the chaff, recognizing that the truly relevant argument was about "did this have historical notability" and that the BLP issue was secondary. Then he(?) did a good job weighing the arguments of "this has been covered all over the place" versus "it's a meme and only transient news". Conclusions were within admin discretion and no new information has come to light. Martinp (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete BLP is not an issue since the name is censored from the artice (also, I doubt a wikipedia article would be anything compared to the shitstorm the person in question unleashed upon himself), and there was no consensus for deletion at the AfD. LetsdrinkTea 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a counter-argument to BLP anyway in that they will not get a more neutral treatment anywhere else on the Internet (if I were them I'd *want* an article for that reason alone). Also, as I just explained: "Editor time is the scarce resource... space and bandwidth are cheap commodities [and] there are a lot of people who know about the issue and will be surprised to find it isn't treated by Wikipedia". WikiScrubber (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you google said incident you can clearly see what the internet thinks about them. This wikipedia article is absolutely nothing compared to whats out there on the internet about said people. BLP is clearly not an issue in this case, and the things that BLP tries to prevent won't be caused by the article. LetsdrinkTea 01:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. This whole discussion is attracting a fair bit of community interest, both at the AfD and here, and I wonder if after the DrV is complete, it might be worth raising some questions at RfC? I'd like a clearer grasp of the consensus on how much discretion it's reasonable for a closing admin to exercise in contentious cases.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm. I think you're going to find that the answer, invariably, is "The right amount." I can't think of any way to generalize how much discretion a closing admin should use over the many different cases any closing admin will encounter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may recall that up until around 2005-2006 in Wikipedia's history, it was understood that the role of an admin was to simply judge concensus and not insert their own opinion into the decision. Then due to a series of extreme cases involving BLP, copyvio, and offsite votestacking, admins were given a bit more leeway. For example, there was a case where a forum of neo-nazis (nazis, literally) tried to game wikipedia and votestack some deletion debates. They only got about 20 or so of their forum members to vote, but the potential was seen (what if 1000 nazis from their forum voted), so opinion swayed to give admins more power to protect WP from these specific threats.
Now some admins are pushing the envelope, using this new leeway to make their own judgement, and ignoring people they disagree with. Well then what is the point of the discussion at AfD if the admin is just going to do his own thing anyways? This sort of close might have gotten you de-sysoped in earlier days. The only recourse is take the closes here to DelRev, where the barrier for overturning is much much much higher than the barrier for keeping in a regular debate. Except in extreme cases, if an admin thinks a particular article should be kept or deleted, he or she should explain why - down in the discussion, not at the top - then leave the close to an impartial admin who can properly judge concensus. AfD hero (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting characterization of the history. The neo-Nazi forum argument wasn't the only part of that change; the idea was to quash "Well, I think it's (not) important!" non-arguments at AFD. It wasn't just because of some extreme cases; people were arguing at the time that VFD was completely broken.
Now, where's your evidence of bad faith? You're throwing around a lot of accusations ("ignoring people they disagree with", "the admin is just going to do his own thing anyways") with no evidence other than the assumption that the admin forced their own view on the discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, exactly. That was another problem - tons of people just saying "I like it", "I don't like it" and so on without making a real argument. Thing is, there was none of that in this AfD, or many other recent AfD's that are closed against concensus. The majority of the participants here made real points, grounded in policy and guidelines, about why the article should be kept or not. AfD hero (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the important part. Where's your evidence that this was a bad faith close? Or any bad faith close? You're claiming a trend, and you haven't even established one data point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about good faith or bad faith. It's about good closes or bad closes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that. As for cases other than this, there have been several. A few that I remeber in the last month are the closes of Daniel Mulhern, Space Ghost episodes, and Camberwell baptist church done by admin David_Fuchs. Articles being deleted or merged when the vote is like 2+:1 keep with solid keep arguments from admins and other well-known and respected wikipedians. Now David_Fuchs seems like a good level-headed guy trying to do the best thing - I like him - but he just didn't understand what neutrally judging concensus is all about. Same thing with the admin who closed this article here. There have been other recent examples but I don't remember off the top of my head. AfD hero (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that the closing admin inserted their own opinion into the discussion?
This is a pretty serious accusation, and you've repeated it and repeated it and repeated it, and to date not offered a single bit of evidence other than the close you don't like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With 18 keeps vs 18 deletes there was definitely no consensus here, even if it's not a vote. There were solid arguments on both sides of the fence so the result should have been an uncontroversial "No Consensus". It's interesting to see the history behind this power creep though. WikiScrubber (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all certain that "power creep" is the most accurate characterization of what you're talking about. Allowing numbers to trump arguments is also power creep - towards the tyranny of the majority. The closer didn't feel there were solid arguments on both sides. Isn't that something on which reasonable people may differ? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but if one is not sure then a "no consensus" is a fail safe - the article can always be relisted. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Although I maintain that the result of the AfD should have been no consensus, for the sake of the greater good I am going to withdraw my nomination (assuming that's even possible) as it seems an objective test has emerged from this discussion: WP:SBST (Short Burst of Stories Test):

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage.

This article appears to fall on the 'fail' side of that test (especially since rumour has it that the parents knew the small town judge so the kids just got a slap on the wrist, which could prove to be too bad for them). WikiScrubber (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The depth, breadth, and focus of the coverage (many countries, academics discussing it as an interesting new phenomenon, etc), as well as the nature of the event (an internet "first"), take the article beyond the "short burst" phase. This was a major point in the original AfD. I also find it highly poor form to withdraw at this point, after several other people have weighed in agreeing with overturning. AfD hero (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites 6 stories - all bar one essentially the same - over a four day period, and a single blog entry by someone (could be a student) on a blog provided by Harvard. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:16, 6 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.

3 March 2009[edit]

  • Jeff Parker (guitarist) – Housekeeping. Turned into redirect to another article. – Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeff Parker (guitarist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Should be a simple fix; requesting that this be unprotected and redirected to Jeff Parker (musician). Not sure why it was protected. Chubbles (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, because it seems so simple. If I'm missing anything glaringly obvious, feel free to undo, but I cn't see what it might be. For "safety" sake, I re-protected the re-direct. Will ask Have asked OrangeMike who protected in June 2008. StarM 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was previously deleted twice and protected because a chatty, myspacey article which didn't assert notability was there. Everything's fine now; I think this can be closed. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:14, 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.
  • Fred M. Levin – Deletion Endorsed DRV is not a platform to attack other users and this nomination is based on bad faith assumptions. Since that has continued to an extent in the discussion and thers is already a very clear consensus we don't need to maintain this platfoirm any longer – Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fred M. Levin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion not justified based on WP:PROF, discussion was tainted by spite and hostility Mwalla (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

  • Endorse closure as delete, it seems to me a reasonable read of the consensus there. It simply doesn't look like there are sufficient sources to make a verifiable article, and any arguments that he passes the WP:PROF criteria seem to be borderline and disputed. Additionally, I have to say that most of the "spite and hostility" in the AfD seemed to be coming from you; considering the canvassing and unwarranted accusations of hounding/stalking. I cannot see much evidence that the close was incorrect or that anything underhanded was going on among those arguing to delete it. ~ mazca t|c 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was accused of canvassing, but that does not mean that I did canvas. If you say that it is borderline for WP:PROF, why would you not err on the side of keeping the page?Mwalla (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]
      • I have no idea if it was borderline for WP:PROF, I did not see the article. All I am gauging here is the statements made by people, and whether or not it meets WP:PROF seems disputed. ~ mazca t|c 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – I certainly see evidence of canvassing, but no evidence of spite and hostility (from anyone else but the article's creator; however, that may be expected as admins have the prerogative to know such information when deciding there is a rough consensus to delete) that would have altered the outcome of the deletion discussion. The reasons for deletion seem to be more guideline and policy-based and effectively outweighed the reasons for keeping. MuZemike 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse seems that the delete contingent had the better arguments - the primary notability arguments hinged on how many publications this PROF had at google scholar, which may be interesting, but is hardly a proxy for reliable third party sources that tell us about the PROF - his biography, not the card catalog index for him. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did try to contact the closing admin about the canvassing allegation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfold/t but I did not get a reply. I will try again. Please allow me to address some points:
    1. The article was deleted the first time because of a copyright infirngement. This was accurate as I copied some biographical information from the subject's amazon page. The deleting admin suggested that the page could be recreated as long as there was no copyright violation.
    2. I wanted the deletion discussion to focus on the article, so I tried not to bring up allegations of spite. But the initial editor who broght the page up for deletion due to the copyright violation has consistently reverted my edits in the past and has brought me up for other allegations, such as vandalism.
    3. It is unforunate that you can no longer see the page. Since it was only in existence for a couple of weeks, it did not have much of a chance to improve from other editors. What was called canvasing, was my attempt to get other interested parties to contribute to the page or suggest how I could improve it. I only contacted about 5 people and did not try to bias them.
    4. I feel strongly the Fred Levin's page was just as usefull as any other page on psychotherapits. I examined other pages in the category psychotherapists.
    Perhaps he should be judged in that light rather than under the heading of an acedemic. Mwalla (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]
    I see. Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the community consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin comment Mwalla, I'm sorry, I only just noticed the message you'd left me the other day. I'm not as active as I once was due to college work, and at times when I receive several messages at once I tend to miss replying to some. Anyway, when reviewing the AfD, there was not only a strong majority in favor of deletion, but also a strong consensus in that direction. Those comments that were in favor of keeping the article were well countered; while the subject does have a fair number of hits on Google Scholar, he is not cited often, nor is there a considerable amount of work about him. The issue of the canvassing also was concerning; Mwalla, I'm not sure how you can say you didn't think you were canvassing after the fact when you stated no less than twice within the AfD that you were; also, your contributions clearly show that you left several uninvolved editors requests to opine at the AfD. You made no requests that I can find to make improvements to the article itself. This is what we call canvassing. I would also echo Mazca's comment that the hostility in this debate was coming from Mwalla, not from the other editors. I would further note that no attempt was made to contact me specifically relating to the deletion of the article until after this DRV had begun. That said, I feel that the consensus here was more than strong enough to support the deletion of the article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold, your response above is mainly about me and not about the article. If you read the definition of canvassing, I am sure you will agree that I did not canvass. I did joke about canvassing in the page, but even you admitted that that was sarcasm. In terms of the worth of a page, why not just rely entirely on google scholar?Mwalla (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

I'm pretty sure I just said earlier that you were canvassing; I usually mean what I say, and this is indeed one of those times. However, the discussion had a strong consensus in favor of deleting the article; a good number of different users all looked at Google Scholar and came to the same conclusion; this person is not notable. For me to insert my own personal opinion (of which I really have none) into this closure against a strong consensus would be highly inappropriate. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time you looked at the definition of canvassing? I meet none of those requirements. Could you address the points I raised above? Perhaps google scholar is not the appropriate lens with which to view wikipedia. Instead of trying to defend your own actions, why don't you think about what would benefit wikipedia. Mwalla (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

This is getting a bit ridiculous at this point, especially since by your own admission the canvassed editors were more in favor of deleting the article than keeping it, but: This is what we call blatant canvassing. I don't know how you can call it anything else. You messaged a good number of people who had nothing to do with that particular article and had a clear bias in doing so. Quit trying to make a point and move on. I don't mind the canvassing a whole lot this time since it had little impact on the outcome, just so long as it stops. As for your other arguments, I don't see how they are particularly relevant here. The community has said delete. They're in the process of doing so again. You need to demonstrate that this person is notable per the established guidelines. The loss of one article about a non-notable psychotherapist is not going to cause undue harm to Wikipedia, so don't even waste your time trying to make that argument. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Canvassing clearly happened and the closing admin properly adjusted for it. MBisanz talk 05:53, 6 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.
  • Illegal number – overturn as no consensus. Discussions as to redirection or merging can take place on the article's talk page. – Aervanath (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Illegal number (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Improper closing. There was no consensus on a redirect,but Yandman, however, then updated the page saying closed as redirect to Digital AACS encryption key controversy). Oddly, the Digital AACS encryption key controversy does not exist. I do not believe that the proper AFD procedure was followed, or somehow, human error came into play. Smallman12q (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a redirect for Digital AACS encryption key controversy, but I still believe that the Afd was not handled properly.Smallman12q (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, I would support relisting as no consensus was reached.Smallman12q (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I seem to have made a mistake, apparrently Yandman placed the wrong AFD discussion link on the Talk:Illegal number page. However, I still disagree with his redirect closure as no consensus was reached for a redirect.Smallman12q (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to say it, but Yandman's close is very much against the community opinions put forward in the most recent AFD; I saw one suggestion for a merge, and the rest were either "keep" or "delete" opinions; his argument that the "keep" opinions didn't address the (voluminous, leaning towards tl;dr territory) nomination doesn't address that most of them pointed out the article was sourced properly and well written. There was definitely not any consensus for a redirect - matter of fact, I don't see a consensus there at all. Overturn and, optionally, reopen for further discussion to try and find a consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I did not. I forgot. 0.o. I have notified him of this DRV now though. (My apologies on not first asking the closing admin.)Smallman12q (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; we all make mistakes. Overturn to no consensus, per S Marshall's reasoning. Whether to merge, redirect, or otherwise can be hashed out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, notification of the closer should be a requirement here, but it isn't. That said, I'll await comments from the closing admin to further elucidate his/her rationale, but from the bare record it seems as if an overturn may well be warranted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Based on the comments by the close, the close was reasonably within his/her discretion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Many additional sources were listed in the AfD. This topic thus meets the primary notability criterion. That notability claim was in no way rebutted. (Also incidentally, this is mentioned in a number of dead tree compilations as well such as some of Paulo Ribenboim's books. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel need to point out this blatant falsehood: "Many additional sources were listed in the AFD." Indeed, I imagine a reason for the closing decision was that I asked for these supposedly "many additional sources" but nobody listed them. By the way, I'm well familiar with Ribenboim's books, and they do not support the topic as you imagine. People in discussion get confused over patenting of numbers and then confuse that with "illegal numbers" or "illegal primes". That's one reason for the long nom: the apparent willingness of people to confuse themselves on the merits of the topic based on vague recollections of "similar" or irrelevant topics and references. This kind of speculation is dear to a certain kind of geek that edits Wikipedia, reads Slashdot, etc....but it is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. --C S (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action (which is not quite the same as endorse closure). Rationales: (1) A "redirect" is a de facto keep. The redirect page is not protected, and any user could change its content per WP:BRD. Discussion could then be taken to the article's talk page, so the DRV seems unnecessary to me. (2) I don't feel "overturn to keep" is appropriate or that anything useful would be gained from "relist", but I don't feel able to "endorse closure" because I think the closer disregarded the consensus.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comments. I am aware that a simple head count would have given a decision to keep, but if you read carefully through the whole discussion, a pattern emerges. The vast majority of keep !votes were, well, votes. I don't think it would have been fair to close as no-consensus just because of a flood of rationales such as: "Keep. Nomination is WP:TLDR", "Strong Keep. What an interesting topic. The subject is encyclopedic", "Keep for same reasons others mentioned", "Strong Keep. The arguments for deletion are very complex. If it takes an essay to explain them then they can't be very sound".
    Yes, I know that some editors try to game the system by spamming replies to every oppose !vote in order to make it look like they're winning the debate, but it would hardly be fair to put CS in this category.
    Only two editors (in my opinion, Colonel Warden and JulesH) took the time to explain their position and discuss the issue. In both cases, CS gave constructive, rational, replies, that weren't rebutted. In the former case, the editor even went on to agree (in part) with the nominator, and proposed a merge. This is what I wanted to achieve with a redirect: the content isn't burnt, it can always be recreated if the Harvard Law Review writes something on "illegal numbers", and in the mean time, any useful content can easily be merged into other articles without difficulty.
    As a (tongue in cheek) recap: I believe the "deletes" trumped the debate by having more coherent arguments and taking the time to discuss them, but then again they were in numerical inferiority, so I decided to go half way and follow the editors asking for merge/redirects. If it can make people feel better, I'm more than willing to modify the page so it says "merge/redirect" instead of redirect (there's so little content that a "classic" merge would have been superfluous). yandman 08:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There wasn't a consensus for a redirect. And the argument of WP:OR is faulty because it is mentioned outside of Wikipedia.Smallman12q (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This will be the last time I point this out to anyone, but "mentioned outside of Wikipedia" does not mean it's not OR. Rather than utilize misleading oversimplifications of WP:NOR, I suggest reading carefully the sections on what kind of sourcing is appropriate to rule out OR. --C S (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you look at Illegal numbers#References you will see there are indeed references. There has also been an article at Columbia. See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bb/oldstuff/bb0417.19.html .Smallman12q (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surprisingly, I have looked at them, although now I wonder if you have, and how carefully. As for that "article at Columbia", it's about illegal numbers rackets, which are a completely different topic (although I imagine you can find it easily enough using a Google search).

            In any case, perhaps in my earlier response I should have pointed out this is not the place to re-argue your case. This is about whether or not process was followed properly by the closing admin. It was his/her judgment that the references you mention in the article were not sufficient to counter the charge of OR. It is also up to him/her to discount frivolous keep remarks that do not appear to address relevant issues or arguments. The only thing under discussion here is whether somehow the closer, even after discounting such frivolous remarks, saw a consensus based on policy that was not there. --C S (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and possible Merge with Illegal prime. Citations and arugments presented at this articles AfD clearly point to a no consensus not redirect. There are enough non trivial sources showing this is not original research. I revert the redirect until consensus has been reached at DRV. Valoem talk 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus and perhaps merge per Valoem. There seems to be no consensous on the quality of sources. I find the arguments against the Register to be poor at best (I don't like it) while Slashdot does clearly count as a reasonable source for articles posted by the folks who work there at least for notability. So no clear argument that the keep !votes were bogus. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, to no-consensus. When there is in fact no consensus, it is best to simply say so. The closer doesn't have to choose between just keep and delete,; when the community has no consensus, he shouldn't try to make one for it. If he does have a personal opinion on the matter, he should joint the debate and express it there, instead of closing according to it. DGG (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the closer's comments. I haven't read the article but I have read the AFD, a lot of the "keep" !votes were frivolous (i.e. the TL;DR), I agree with him regarding Colonel Warden and JulesH. I would however say his "compromise" of a redirect could be construed as unorthodox. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - it seems as if the closing admin imposed their own view when the consensus seems to be to keep the article. And where did that redirect come from, I really don't see that being the consensus - that's just the closing admin's personal opinion. Its really overstepping the boundary - its a pity de-adminship is seen as extreme; we have plenty of admins, so this closing admin should have their adminship revoked, on the grounds that power seems to have gone to their head. Clinkophonist (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since xe didn't exercise that power in this case, as you can see and would have seen if you had looked at the handy "log" link given at the start of this very discussion, your argument falls apart. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as "no consensus". There is certainly OR here, but at heart the article is description of others' speculation (either quoting knowledgeable people directly or reported in viable sources), not our OR about a topic. It can be incredibly easy to mix those up, but only the latter is at all a deletion criterion. I fear the closer has conflated "delete" comments regarding no reliable cite that this idea has any actual validity (lack of legal proof, etc.) with "keep" comments that remind that there are sources that do discuss the idea. El Reg might not be a RS for legal issues themselves (though that itself feels like WP-editors' POV, since it is indeed a mainstream news source?), but regardless, it seems like a mainstream news source's choice to discuss a topic makes the topic notable. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A closing administrator has one primary task to perform based upon an AFD discussion: to decide whether to hit the delete button or not. In this case, in case anyone is confused on this issue (and DMacks certainly seems to be from what is written above), the closing administrator here chose not to do so in this case. This article was not deleted. There are zero entries in its deletion log. Whether the article should be a redirect or not is an editorial decision, implemented with ordinary editing tools that everyone has. This editorial decision has been made, and un-made, 1 2 3 4 5 times before, has been discussed on the article's talk page (which I have just reverted Yandman's blanking of), and will no doubt be discussed again. Yandman even went so far as to explicitly point out in the closing rationale that the redirect was editable.

    This is not an issue for AFD, nor an issue for Deletion Review. No deletion has occurred. There is no administrator tool use to be undone. And there's no need to perform the un-performed administrator action, and delete the article, as even if there were no article here a redirect as an alternative name would be in order. A reversal of the closing administrator's action in regard to xyr administrator tools, which (make no mistake) would be to delete the article where xe did not, isn't even being requested. And there's are existing long-standing discussions on the article's talk page to participate in if people wish to discuss mergers, redirects, bad sources, original research, and other problems.

    There is no deletion to review, and this is not the correct forum for continuing a discussion that has been ongoing on the article's talk page, amongst many of the very same editors who are now here, for 16 months. (Those editors know where Wikipedia:Requests for comments and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics are, should they want to request third-party input.) There is no substantive action to be taken, here. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Closed as redirect" is not the consensus any more than "delete" or "do nothing" is. Therefore, I agree with others who dispute that this was the correct action to take as closing. I'm fine if closer as an editor would boldly redirect and then others dispute and undo it at an editorial level. However, to add the weight of redirect as the result of the AfD (and therefore undoing that would be going against AfD decision) is where my concern lies. The fact that closer simply edited the content to replace with delete isn't philosophically different (as an AfD close result) than using the delete button and then recreating as the redirect. And the article text was explicitly brought back for purposes of this DRV (and therefore one would assume be reverted to the redirect should DRV fail to overturn the "replace with redirect" closure action). "Is anything other than delete--yes or no?" a valid AfD decision? That's a wider debate obviously:) DMacks (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus as I could not find one if the AFD. If a redirect or merge is the correct action then let a discussion take place on the talk page and reach consensus for that action. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 10 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.
  • African Americans in Davenport, Iowa – The verdict is a cautious overturn. I considered overturning and relisting, as many people have suggested, but I think enough new information has been provided here that we should give the authors the benefit of the doubt and give them some time to work on the article first. If they can improve the references on the subject, as I expect they will, then it may warrant an article. If the article sits in its current status, then I can very easily see this article back at AfD in a month or so. But for the time being, let's AGF and give the authors the benefit of the doubt. Also, depending on the course of the article, you might want to revisit the name of the article---but that depends on how it evolves. I do, however, want to mention that I think the "recall" on Mbiz was out of hand and driven more by bad faith assumptions than any real need. I also think it is a fallacy, as was proposed on Mbiz's recall page that special sensitivity should be given to articles dealing with African Americans to make the process appear fair. If the article deserves to be deleted, it deserves to be deleted, people's feelings are often hurt when articles are deleted.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) – ---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Response: Spartacus linked to my comment on MBisanz' recall page and is presenting it inaccurately. I didn't say that different standards should be used in deletion decisions. I said administrators should explain themselves in making surprising decisions and take into account how the circumstances in a given situation may cause unnecessary anger, one of those circumstances being race-related subjects. It wasn't presented as a reason to overturn MBisanz' original close, which a reader of Spartacus' comment here would assume. -- Noroton (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Administrator mbisanz did not, in my opinion, consider the compromises put forth by more than one participant in the deletion discussion page. Personally, I would be more comfortable with someone other than this administrator making the decision. Having reviewed his contributions -- one of which is an advertising blurb for a bowling alley -- I don't think he is the person to decide notability. That was a central argument in the deletion discussion. Brrryce (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The number of arguments for and against deletion was roughly equal, and in such cases the admin closing the discussion should look to see whether significantly more of the arguments on one side of the debate than those on the other were based in policy. In this case, the arguments for deletion cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research, and none of the arguments to keep successfully refuted that point. Finally, ad hominem attacks against administrators or requests to recall admins who make one decision you don't agree with rarely get you anywhere. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The grounds of appeal appear to be alleged bias of the closer. I have had several dealings with this closer and while we often disagree on things, nothing - nothing - seems to evidence bias. Accusations are cheap and easily made, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence to back them up and this editor has fallen way short. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Closer was (correctly) influenced by WP:BURDEN which I think has considerable force.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I am expressly not questioning the closing admin's good faith or competence, and I wish the requester had not raised such issues. However, the discussion was a close enough call that this could have been a "no consensus", and the article did have some legitimate sources, at least by the time it was deleted. I think it would be appropriate to give the article another chance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Apart from a few links to unreferenced Wikipedia articles, the references appear to be solid and no one made it clear exactly how WP:OR or WP:SYNTH applied. For it to be synthesis it has to promote a point otherwise we can delete all our articles since they're a combined work from different sources which some people take synthesis to mean. Also, the 90000 non-notables argument is faulty. Just because the majority of African Americans in the town are not notable doesn't mean there aren't any notable individuals or that the group as a whole isn't notable. This was clearly a misapplication of policy. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - while I am confident MBisanz was just being sloppy, the article very clearly cites reliable sources. Applying "weight of argument" when closing a discussion, one should more or less toss out those arguments that rely on demonstratably false assertions. WilyD 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin First, I have no connection to any part of the topic, either pro or anti bias. Second, many established editors cited WP:SYN and WP:OR as reasons to delete the article. I did consider the 2 IP comments and weighed them appropriately in determining the final outcome. I also noted the several keep arguments citing Notability, but as of the last Keep comment by Omarcheeseboro, editors still contended there was a lack of Reliable Sources in the article. Their good faith belief of the lack of sources and the presence of OR (which should be insurmountable OR if they are citing it as a deletion reason), is why I closed as such. MBisanz talk 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that the sourcing appears to have been improved during the AfD period. Some of the editors who noted a lack of sources may have been looking at the article before that improvement occurred. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – First off, no reason, unless anyone considers baseless attacking and undermining the credibility of an admin (and initiating a recall because of one deletion you didn't like), to overturn. Perhaps it could be userfied so that the author can keep working on it, but I see no problem with the closure of the AFD. MuZemike 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as there were no adequate arguments that defended the claims of original research. Themfromspace (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Too much original research and synthesis. Seems to be a good faith close based on arguments for deletion citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Completely correct close, article full of WP:OR and unconvincing comments to keep. Black Kite 22:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist as it appears the article was significantly improved during the AfD period and a significant number of the pro-deletion comments were made before the additional sources and such were added to the article. This is not to imply that MBisanz made the wrong call, just that I believe a new discussion based on the current state of the article (which does clearly still need some work) would likely result in a keep or, at worst, no-consensus decision. - Dravecky (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the keep arguments were extremely weak, offering a supposed compromise of adding a few tags, using a variant of WP:INHERITED, and the generic WP:NOTPAPER rationale. The central problem is there aren't references that show the overall subject is notable. Neither the keep arguments, or the article improvements addressed this problem. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion: I haven't seen the article only the AFD, I don't feel the synthesis argument was sufficiently countered. Also note Brrryce's attempt at recall as bad faith. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or Overturn (since I've also made the argument below that there are more sources out there, WP:Deletion review says I should vote "Relist"; my fallback position would be "Overturn") When either notability or reliable sourcing is at issue, you don't take a no-consensus result and delete unless you can overcome this point: There are at leset four recent articles in the Quad City paper on the history of the African American community here. They are referenced in the article now. T L Miles (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC) [73] I haven't seen and now can't read the deleted article, but T L Miles appears to have made a crucial point that no one countered, so there doesn't appear to be a policy-based reason to delete, and there doesn't appear to be a consensus to delete. If there were sources that met the requirements of WP:N and WP:RS, where exactly is the justification for MBisanz to delete? Also note that the sources were apparently added to the article during the deletion discussion, and doing that is supposed to discount prior objections on reliable sourcing and notability. Even if the closing admin were correct in finding for delete, T L Miles' argument should have been addressed in the closing comment with enough detail. The complete closing statement, The result was delete. The arguments over the necessity to produce reliable sources to prevent original research were convincing is inadequate. See WP:DGFA#Rough consensus: A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy. I see no evidence that MBiSanz made this determination. T L Miles' unrefuted point seems to indicate the opposite. -- Noroton (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ((edited to add "relist" at beginning of this comment -- Noroton (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)))[reply]
    • Comment - three of the Quad City paper articles are still available online: [74] [75] [76]. In my humble opinion, these references don't show the overall subject is notable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I see lack of notability as a reason to delete is by determining that the sources (both the ones you've linked to and others that I quickly found online) fall short of the first criterion at WP:N#General notability guideline: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive The first source you provide only has a sentence or two specific to Davenport, and I'd call that "trivial" in the special, WP:N sense of the term (although the information itself -- on population and on some of the reasons why the black population is growing in the area -- is actually important to the WP article); the second and third QC articles treat the subject directly and in detail, so that we learn important facts about this community's history and about Davenport's historic role in African American history. The local museum's project in gathering resources also indicates that more sourcing can be found in Davenport, offline, right now, and the second source ("... Wrecking Ball" article) mentions:
  • Dred Scott as a resident,
  • a record existing of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech in Davenport [elsewhere online I've seen that he was there to accept the "Pacem in Terris" award in '65, also given to Desmond Tutu decades later),
  • the poor treatment of African American historic preservation by the overall community (in the 1980s and 1990s in particular) and by African Americans themselves,
  • the fact that there was a thriving black entertainment district at 5th St. off of Bradley,
  • devastation from urban renewal in the '60s,
  • the fact that very many African Americans in Davenport have no long family histories in this very longstanding community (with a history stretching back before the Civil War).
This is from just one source, which should be considered "significant coverage" treating the subject "directly in detail". A similar (perhaps even better) list could be made from the third source, which shows that we have multiple sources providing significant coverage. I've written a number of articles focused on neighborhoods and small communities, articles that can easily withstand AfD challenges, and I consider this kind of information pure gold.
DRV is also a forum for providing new information, according to WP:DRV#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates (#3). Here are other sources that either directly meet WP:N's General notability guideline for significant sourcing or (as noted) indicate how suitable a topic is for its own article. Please note (from WP:N, emphasis added): it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. [...] If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.:
  • This source from a book published in the 1920s, full of every racial stereotype imaginable, is a collection of columns from the local newspaper up to the early 1920s. Despite its attitude, the "Old Time Cullud Folks" chapter has plenty of information about African Americans in Davenport in the late 19th/early 20th century: there were many ex-slaves, black-owned businesses (barber shops, janitorial services, a foot doctor) who catered to both whites and blacks, and examples of resilience in the face of racism ("Couldn't make the Busey boys mad by callin' 'em coons. No sah! They'd just laugh at you." And with mock solemnity sing a racist song for you. Jake Busey was identified as the first member of the community to graduate from public schools, and "had a style of his own in jugglin' hard words that made the cullid folks gasp.")
  • Many lesser sources are often used to establish WP:N. Here are some: article on the local "Semper Fidelis" organization; a "mass convention" of black soldiers met in Davenport in 1865, petitioning the state for the right to vote, apparently this was one of the initial steps that eventually led to an Iowa referendum granting that right in 1868; young men's cotillion balls were started in this community in the '90s; Davenport was part of the circuit for jazz bands -- with visits from Louis Armstrong (who mentions getting his end-of-season bonus there) [77], perhaps the (white) Davenport native and Jazz great Bix Biederbecke heard him there [78] (some say he did), the Creole Band [79]; the "Mississippi Valley Blues Festival" is held annually in Davenport [80] (in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act was celebrated there [81]), Armstrong played in Davenport both on a riverboat and at the Coloseum Ballroom as did Bix and "the greatest names in jazz and blues", including Duke Ellington [82]; another prominent venue was Jazzland, according to this non-Davenport source; Armstrong was in Davenport again in the 1950s, when he sent a telegram to Eisenhower about the integration fight in Little Rock, Arkansas [83]; a local high school football stadium was named after the first African-American public school teacher in Davenport [84]; Davenport was one of the places where Huckleberry Finn was opposed (by a black student) as a reading requirement [85]; Jackie Robinson, after a minor but stinging racist incident, talked about it with Davenporter Gene Baker, the other black player on the Chicago Cubs team, who told Robinson, "Here I'm born in Davenport, Iowa, and you come from Texas, and you know less about the South than I do." [86] It's not worth including in this article, but it's hard not to think Baker didn't learn something in Davenport.
  • It doesn't take any original research to get significant information about the concentration of black businesses around 5th St. in the late 19th century from this section of a book about Davenport's prostitution ("Mattie Burke", starting at page 95).
  • An online abstract of a 2006 paper presented to the Law Society Association indicates that further sourcing can be found, and the published abstract itself could even be used for some rudimentary sourcing (boldface added): This paper examines forty years of racial violence, real and threatened, in Davenport, Iowa. [...] from the Civil War to the early 20th century. Despite the relative lack of open violence in Davenport during this period, several high-profile events – including a race riot, waves of hysteria following alleged rapes of white women by black men, a near lynching, and legal harassment of African American activists – show that even the threat of violence was a tool of social control to maintain class and racial privilege. The interaction of southern, Midwestern, foreign-born, wealthy and poor whites with the established middle class black community and more recently arrived southern migrants (especially in the wharfs, bars and illegal enterprises along the waterfront, where interaction between the races was often greatest) [...]
There's quite a lot to say about the African American community in Davenport, and certainly enough reliably sourced information online to fill out at least a short article. And there's every reason to believe that someone in Davenport can get much more information offline. Note also that the three Quad Cities newspaper reports available online are all very recent, indicating that access to the newspaper's archive should yield a truckload of well-sourced facts. The case that this subject is inherently flawed has yet to be made. Come to think of it, I've actually done enough research now that, whatever happens with this DRV, I can just create a new article from scratch as soon as this discussion is over -- unless there is enough comment from this point forward showing there's a consensus against doing so. Correct? Consider it fair warning. -- Noroton (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - from reading the AfD it strongly appears as if the actual situation was no consensus. That the closing admin wrote '...were strongly convincing' suggests that they ignored consensus and allowed their own opinion to rule; this is inappropriate behaviour by an admin. Clinkophonist (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the closer wrote that the "arguments over the necessity to produce reliable sources to prevent original research were convincing" (I don't see where he used the word "strongly") suggests nothing of the kind. The role of closers—admin or non-admin—is to evaluate the quality of arguments presented in discussions based on their knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So, to write that a particular argument was "convincing" means nothing more than that the particular argument had a solid grounding in relevant policy and/or guideline. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that it's clear that the WP:OR delete argument had no solid grounding in fact or policy at all, and the closing admin obviously made a mistake in finding it convincing. This is not hard to demonstrate: Look at the fifth paragraph of the text of WP:OR (emphasis added): If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic. (This is the only part of WP:OR that addresses article deletion.) To make a convincing OR deletion argument you need to demonstrate that no reliable sources can be found on the topic of the article -- that doesn't require you to prove a negative, just show that a search was done or otherwise make a convincing argument that it doesn't look like reliable sources will ever be found (I'm actually doing that right now in another AfD). WP:DGFA says it's the closer's job to determine where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy (emphasis added). The decision on whether to delete on policy grounds, in cases like this one, is about the possibility of reliably sourcing the topic, not on whether the article conformed to various policies. This was pointed out in the AfD by T L Miles, at 17:27, 25 Feb" The question, is the _topic_ (not the existing article) something which _can_ be referenced" (boldface added to T L Miles' emphasis). It's clear that WP policy favored the Keep side and the Delete side here didn't have as good a grasp of policy, as shown by the plain words of even the policies cited by the Delete side. A mistake was made. Let's recognize it, correct it, learn from it and move on. -- Noroton (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's one thing to say that a closer made a mistake and another to suggest that he ignored consensus and imposed his preference on the discussion. My comment to Clinkophonist was intended to highlight this distinction.
          As for the quality of the arguments... Once an article is taken to AfD, the burden of proof lies on those who seek to keep it to show that the topic of the article is notable. Moreover, the role of the closer is to evaluate consensus based on information that is provided during the deletion discussion rather than to close the discussion based on his own research. In this case, sufficient proof—in the form of coverage of the topic in reliable sources—was not offered during the deletion discussion or in the article to show that the topic of "African Americans in Davenport, Iowa" is a distinct subject of academic/scientific or popular/cultural interest.
          That being said, I agree with you—in light of the results of the research you carried out—that a mistake was made (not by the closer, but by the discussants) and that it should be corrected (i.e. the article should be undeleted or recreated). Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our difference of opinion on this is becoming pretty narrow, and I realize I've taken up a lot of space here, so this will be my last comment on this aspect. I agree that there's nothing here to call into question MBisanz' motives. There was no clear consensus here for the closer to either support or contradict, a situation that defaults to Keep unless policy is clearly on the Delete side. But there was no overwhelming, obvious, policy-conforming Delete argument. If MBisanz found one, he needed to explain it clearly. WP:N clearly states the burden of proof is on the Delete side for determining whether the subject of an article is notable. For WP:N, WP:OR, WP:RS, all cited by MBisanz in the close or on this page, objections are clearly removed from consideration once sources are put on the page, as WP:DGFA clearly states. If MBisanz found the sources inadequate, he needed to say so, because they appear to be obviously adequate (PhilKnight, above, disagrees about notability). I think the sources I found were just icing on the cake. DGFA also clearly puts the responsibility for following policy on the shoulders of the closing admin, not the participants in the discussion. The AfD system relies on closing admins to follow policy and to follow consensus only for judgment calls that policy doesn't cover. -- Noroton (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the arguments of PhilKnight. Chillum 07:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While I agree that Brrryce didn't seem to be exercising WP:AGF with his recall attempt, I can't see this AfD as being anything other than no consensus. I didn't get to see the article in question before it was deleted, but in reading both the AfD and DRV its pretty clear to me that there are sources to establish and address both WP:N and WP:RS. While the article may have a lack of what some editors would consider reliable sources at the time of the AfD (and the deletion comments aren't convincing IMO), this still does not discount the fact that reliable sources do appear to exist. Put simply, it seems to me the problems raised are editorial issues and are not something that can or should have been "fixed" with an administrative option such as deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and perhaps move: This Article has problems and needs work. BUT, the original argument for deleting this article was put forward by an editor who remarked that since there was no article on the San Francisco Gay community, this article should not exist. Then several red herrings about size of this community were put forward. Finally, the argument that positing the existence of an African American community in this place was "Original research" given that we only have references for historic African American centered events and demographic data for an African American population, and therefore we are inventing the concept of an African American "Community". Prior to deletion, I had proposed moving this to African American History of Davenport Iowa, (which would exactly match the title of a couple of articles) and at least one supporter of deletion had accepted this as a compromise. A couple of hours later the article was deleted. I hate to say this, but I really believe this whole thing was a political argument brought by folks who don't want articles of African American communities, and in their defense, believe that such articles would be political acts: that all coverage should be subsumed into the race neutral articles on Davenport, Iowa and History of Davenport, Iowa. Problem being, neither of these articles (worked on extensively by a couple of the people proposing deletion) even mention Black folks, let alone the Dred Scott thing, the importance and a destination in the Great Migration, the fact that the schools were only integrated by State and Federal enforcement in 1977, etc. Ignoring this context, while par for Wikipedia, explains the pile on of passionate and ever changing deletion arguments, I believe. Given this, I must question the motivation for deletion of this article, as opposed to a good edit which would cut out unreferenced material: something which would have taken an hour, rather than days of deletion debates. T L Miles (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In these kinds of cases, I try to avoid questioning the motivation of particular editors when evidence isn't clear. There can be a hundred reasons for making a mistake, and it's impossible to sort them out without getting into the head of the other person -- and here on Wikipedia all we have to go on is online conduct. I think it's better to point out that some actions, done even with the best intentions, could make reasonable people concerned. Someone who has good motivations and doesn't want to offend will take that message to heart (or refute it); someone with bad motivations or who doesn't care about offending others will eventually get tripped up, and there will be a WP record of your statement. And in the meantime we can all work together. You've already made a convincing case that WP policies allow for articles on topics that can be reliably sourced, and it's been proven that the reliable sources are available. As far as I can tell, there's nothing, not even DRV, to prevent Wikipedia from having a policy-compliant article on this topic now that we've got new sources. I'm sure all well-motivated Wikipedians will be happy with that. -- Noroton (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, undelete or recreate, relist – In a discussion populated on both sides by many arguments that are irrelevant to the notability of the topic (see e.g. WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING on the "keep" side and WP:JNN, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH on the "delete" side), the decision was within the closer's discretion. However, in light of the new information provided by Noroton, the article definitely should have another chance. So, I endorse the closer's evaluation of the consensus in the AfD, but think that the article should be recreated from scratch or undeleted and relisted for discussion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Personally I am not convinced there was a consensus to delete in the AFD, but regardless considering the evidence produced by Noroton above to me it certainly no longer seems to be the correct closure so think it should be overturned and let the community decide based on the new evidence. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 10 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.
Template:Welcomeunclesam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At the least, this is no consensus; if vote counting (yes, I know, evil, but for discussion...) there were 5 keeps to 3 opposes. I don't think that is a consensus to delete. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - I feel that JPG-GR made the correct call here. One of those keep votes does not even provide a rationale and so can be summarily dismissed. After looking at the discussion, it is clear that no one could respond to Black Falcon's argument of "What if it were a Hamas recruitment picture?" Perhaps this could be modified for something for WP:USA though. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template was aimed at anons in particular which is not exactly the best group to recruit into a project. The image still survives, so if the project wants to make a template aimed at the general public who show interest in their project, it's fine with me. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleting admin None of the arguments for "keep" are convincing. And, as NW said, Black Falcon's Hamas argument was damning. JPG-GR (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Relist - Yes, I know that the keep !votes were unconvincing to some or most, but there is still the issue of consensus, which, at least from my point of view, was not reached. For the sake of an uncontroversial deletion, let's just relist it so that we can reach consensus.--Res2216firestar 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-close. Out of respect to the participants, and to help the casual and future observers, close again with a decent rationale, explaining why the keep votes are to be discounted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse though the template was not intended as an expression of American militarism, the image certainly was, and its original significance is still widely known. Correct decision, but needs to be replaced. DGG (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as delete, though I do agree with SmokeyJoe that a closing statement should have been provided. This does, on first glance, look like a close-run discussion due to the large number of keep votes; but the fact is not a single compelling or policy-based argument was provided to support keeping this template, and several very good reasons to delete it were. Hence, the outcome definitely looks to me like the correct one, but as with any discussion that could be interpreted as a different outcome I think it would have been best to elaborate on the reasons behind the close. ~ mazca t|c 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse only because I probably would have leaned towards "no consensus" myself. However, the arguments to delete the template were highly convincing, and the arguments to keep were, in order: valid argument, WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL/too much work, and WP:NOHARM. Four of the arguments were invalid per WP:ATA, and the one remaining was well contested by the delete arguments. It's a valid closure. Add a rationale if you really care, but I think a link to this discussion would serve as sufficient explanation. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per above argument.Smallman12q (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment certainly less offensive that various userboxes that have been kept around here; I think that people were just upset about how this template was being used - if it were used as a userbox, which it could be, I'd assume that everyone advocating deletion would maintain their position (WP:AGF), and we now have a new stake in the ground as to what should or should not be allowed in user expressions of opinion. When this deletion review closes as endorse, as it will, we should re-evaluate all potentially offensive or militaristic expressions of opinion and delete them - one about the death penalty being used more often being tops on the list. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a massive difference between a userbox (which is an expression of the opinion of the user, viewable only to those who choose to look up that user) and this, which was a Welcome template; intended specifically to be sent to other, new users. I'm not sure how you can expect to form a precedent about userboxes from this DRV. ~ mazca t|c 22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, you don't seem to object to this content only on how it's used; is that a valid reason to delete something? That's a surprising expansion of WP:DELETE, that ought to be documented somewhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is not that the template has a picture of Uncle Sam (with its implicit endorsement of the United States) but rather that the picture was coupled with a message welcoming a new user to Wikipedia. It was not a userbox and couldn't have been used as such. Eluchil404 (talk)
  • Endorse At TFD I would have said keep, but DRV isn't XFD_2 and the closing admin followed proper process. MBisanz talk 05:54, 6 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.

2 March 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Becky Altringer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Gmatsuda (talk · contribs) was recently caught using multiple IP addresses to stack votes on dozens of AfDs (mostly those that Gmatsuda had started)...I have attempted to locate the discussions that may have had a different outcome had there been no such activity.
In this case, remove the three separate suspicious IP votes and the AfD is at 1 weak keep & 1 merge after Gmatsuda's nom. I suggest restoring the article and relisting. — Scientizzle 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Temporarily undeleted so it can be examined. DGG (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist borderline, some non-sock views should be solicited. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know. Mildly notable? Pretty weak AfD. Delete and block User:Becky Altringer, this account impersonates a real person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn, that was a horrendous closure by me, socking or not. I must have been asleep. :( Stifle (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete per closing admin. If someone wishes to relist it, that's fine. - Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 3 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.
T. Love (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Gmatsuda (talk · contribs) was recently caught using multiple IP addresses to stack votes on dozens of AfDs (mostly those that Gmatsuda had started)...I have attempted to locate the discussions that may have had a different outcome had there been no such activity.
In this case, remove the three separate suspicious IP votes and the AfD has no input after Gmatsuda's nom. I suggest restoring the article and relisting. — Scientizzle 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Temporarily undeleted so it can be examined. DGG (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist seems borderline and more non-sock input would be helpful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to get a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for proper, unspammed, AfD discussion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin I was unaware of the sockpuppetry that had occured and took in good faith the IP comments, I agree this process should be restarted or voided. MBisanz talk 22:29, 6 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.
Jordan Johnson (Singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Gmatsuda (talk · contribs) was recently caught using multiple IP addresses to stack votes on dozens of AfDs (mostly those that Gmatsuda had started)...I have attempted to locate the discussions that may have had a different outcome had there been no such activity.
In this case, remove the two separate suspicious IP votes and it's 1 delete vs. 1 keep/userify after Gmatsuda's nom. I suggest restoring the article and relisting. — Scientizzle 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Temporarily undeleted so it can be examined. DGG (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the result, not the methodology - subject does not appear to pass relevant notability guidelines. Regardless of any vote-stacking no reliable sources were offered in support of notability. Regardless of any difficulty in sorting out Ghits, one would think that tours with several notable acts would lead to at least one hit in which both names appeared but that doesn't appear to be the case. Otto4711 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist borderline, some non-sock views should be solicited. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to get a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The deletion might be proper, but we need need the opinion of trustworthy editors to determine that. If all suspicious votes are discounted in this debate, the outcome should've been no consensus, so it should've been automatically relisted at the time. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin I was unaware of the sockpuppetry that had occured and took in good faith the IP comments, I agree this process should be restarted or voided. MBisanz talk 22:30, 6 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.
Brad Friedman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(I sent the following to X!, the administrator who seems to have deleted the page. Hope I've created this deletion review thing correctly, as I don't know how to use Wiki very well, and didn't create the original page, now deleted, in question! - BF)

As I'm not a Wikipedian (or whatever the proper word is for those who know what they're doing at Wikipedia), I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Would have preferred to contact you via email, but looks like that's not an option?


I was notified by a bunch of readers over the weekend that the Wiki entry for myself (Brad Friedman of The BRAD BLOG) had been removed for some reason. In trying to figure out why, I was able to figure out that any such "deletion review" should begin with contacting whoever seemed to delete it, which seems to have been you. Hope I'm right (as mentioned, not a Wikepedian!)


Anyway, as they were flummoxed, so was I. In trying to figure out why that entry was deleted, I checked other colleagues of mine, who do similar work (Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Mike Malloy of The Mike Malloy Show, Cenk Uyger of The Young Turks Show, for example) and find them all still listed. So not clear why the article describing me had been removed.


As mentioned, I don't know much about Wiki or Wiki editing, etc., but I do know that a number of articles which concerned me, or stories that I either broke or was personally involved in, were among those that were edited by a number of the corporations and individuals found to have been gaming the Wikipedia a year or so ago. I'll hope that had nothing to do with whatever effort was taken to remove my entry, but I don't know.


There are many articles around Wiki which still link to "my" now-deleted page, as they refer to various stories that I was either personally involved in, broke in the media (on a blog, in a magazine, on TV or radio etc.), and yet the entry is now deleted for some reason.


If you are able to either explain the reasons for that, or walk me through/towards the "deletion review" process which, as I read it, is supposed to start with you first, I'd very much appreciate it.


All easier for me via email, if you're able, at [email protected]. If not, I can try to come back here to see if I can make heads and/or tails of things.


Appreciate your help and/or consideration (if only so that I can answer all the email I now seem to be getting about the entry where I was listed having been deleted for whatever reason. I'm sure it's no conspiracy, I'm just not sure why or what to tell folks about it, particulary, as I said, since it seems that many of my fellow colleagues -- journalists, media folks, etc. -- remain listed.) For the record, my own personal brief "bio" and testimonials from many well known media folks and public officials, if that's useful, is at http://www.bradblog.com/bio, and should, I think, speak well enough for my credentials.


Thanks again for your help here! Brad F.


P.S. I don't whether its appropriate for a person who is the subject of an article, to ask about such things him/herself but, well, see above. Hope it is!

68.3.209.254 (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To find out why an entry got deleted, the easiest answer is to check Special:Log/Delete which would tell you it was deleted as the result of an AfD discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: This wasn't clear by any stretch of the imagination. Additional references were provided after the nominator and one other person commented and the anon who posted afterwards said "Clearly the notability bar for "Creative professionals" is high and not reached by Friedman. Lot's of quotes from CourtTV don't make it a notable article." Focusing on one potential negative without providing any evidence they actually tried to find good references. This would benefit from a wide discussion and based on the [Clearly the notability bar for "Creative professionals" is high and not reached by Friedman. Lot's of quotes from CourtTV don't make it a notable article. listing at Brad's own site] which includes links such as this and this. A specific effort should be made to check those for potential sources and the addition after the last comment of an established user in the AFD also warrant a closer look. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're going to bite new users about terminology then this is the English Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or you can just slap on a pic of Wikipe-tan scolding (not as bitey IMO) new users not to abbreviate as Wiki (for usability reasons, I am just providing the link and not posting the image). The image is also in different languages. MuZemike 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Inadequate discussion, and should not have been closed, but continued. DGG (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Afd has no quorum requirement and it appears that the comments by the participants were unanimous and correct - well within the closer's discretion to not wait for Godot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just my point, I don't think the commenters were well-informed. The commenters commented on the article being unverified rather than unverifiable and they did not have the chance to cosider the additional information. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - nothing out of process here; a clear delete per WP:BIO, not to mention the COI and PUFF issues raised in the original nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for further discussion and a concerted effort to find sources - which does not appear to have been done. It's hard to find sources about the subject mostly because the prolific content by the subject clouds up the google search. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: Although I agree there is nothing out of the ordinary about this deletion, it does appear to have not reached many viewers. Can't see the harm in relisting it, to draw in a bigger consensus, but I'm not prepared to fight tooth n nail over it. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:51, 7 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.

1 March 2009[edit]

  • P$C – Automatically restored as a contested PROD. – Stifle (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
P$C (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting PROD. This article was both A7'ed and prodded last year despite this rapper's landing a top ten album in the US in 2005 ([87]). I'd call it unbelievable, but I see editing this irresponsible all the time. Chubbles (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete a top-ten album in the US is definitely a very strongindicator of notability. Would pass AfD easily. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of war crimes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

In 2006 there was a first attempt to delete this article, which was rejected on the grounds that the article would be improved significantly. This has not happened, and I believe the reason to be a systematic fault of the article, not being sufficiently narrowed down according to precise criteria.

The development of this article does not follow any editorial process. It seems to be just an accumulation of random events, often seemingly added by people with a patriotic or political motivation. This criticism has been voiced on the discussion page for a long time, but still many authors seem to have had a rather intuitive idea about what should be added here, or seem to follow a patriotic agenda, sources or citations are often missing. Often "minor" events are treated in relative depth blurring a more global picture, while killings of hundreds of thousands are mentioned with a single sentence or not at all.

I apologize for not following the precise deletion criteria of wikipedia, but I believe that looking at the article, and seeing that little improvement has happened will convince others (Tags Citecheck and Refimprove are here since 1 1/2 year. I think the introduction, and some parts of the text on WW II war crimes are interesting to read. In my opinion, they still do not save the article, because the information contained in these parts can also be found in the individual articles covering the corresponding topics. User:KlausN —Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 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.
  • Template:White supremacist organizations – Keep deleted as neither in the TfD nor here an actual reason has been given why there should be such a template. As for the nominators request for clarification, there is agreement here that such early closures are not appropriate and not covered by WP:IAR. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:White supremacist organizations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There's a discussion on my talk page about whether I should have closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_24#Template:White_supremacist_organizations as delete after approximately 4-1/2 days and removed all instances of the template from articles. Against this closure, it is argued that per Wikipedia:DPR#Templates_for_deletion_page TFD discussions are closed after seven days, instead of the usual five for many other XFDs, and that "due process" is important (there is apparently no objection to the deletion of the template per se.) In favor of my closure, I argue that the TFD discussion provided significant and unanimous support for the deletion, and was of adequate length to give reasonable assurance that no opposition to the deletion was likely to be expressed, justifying a closure after approximately 4-1/2 days per WP:IAR. I am listing my own discussion closure here to determine whether the community would support similar closures in the future. If this DRV is closed as "overturn", I will restore the template to all articles in which it appeared (though it is highly likely to be re-removed in the near future). Erik9 (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't feel it's neccesary to overturn this particular deletion, but I definitely DO NOT support similar closures in the future. 4-5 comments is too few to snowball close any deletion debate. - Mgm|(talk) 20:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Erik9 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't overturn, but... I agree there's no real need to overturn the action in this case. But—I find it a bit troubling that the user has closed this discussion early, if only because he has done similar "early" closings at CfD, so I sense a bit of a pattern developing. I believe the user has only good intentions and is not attempting to be disruptive, but I don't understand the logic of a non-admin choosing to close discussions early in these cases. It's a rare enough occurrence for an admin to perform, and in general such early closes are just unnecessary unless there is some semi-urgent BLP or other issue that should be dealt with more expeditiously. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closing and relist. There's no need to restore the template to the articles it was removed from, but I do feel very strongly that the TFD should have been allowed to run for the full 7 days that are specified, in the interest of full adherence to due process, which is of crucial importance when it comes to highly consequential decisions like deletion or blocking.
It particularly concerns me that Erik9 continues to invoke WP:IAR as justification, as though it gives editors carte blanche to ignore rules that strike them as inconvenient. As the supplementary essay for IAR wisely counsels: "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule."
Furthermore, since Erik9 is not an administrator, his closing did not comply with the following provisions of WP:DPR#NAC:
  • "Non-administrators should not close even unanimous 'delete' decisions...."
  • "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision."
While the latter is not in itself grounds for overturning, I am noting it because it may well have obscured the impropriety of the closing. Cgingold (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Further discussion is warranted. IAR is for when the existing rules won't reach a reasonable result, not just when you prefer to do otherwise. DGG (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KD but echo the mistakes made in this non-admin closure noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, as no one has advanced an argument that it should not be, and I cannot imagine one--it's quite clearly an inappropriate navigation template. However, I'd request the closer of this DRV to make clear that the closure was deemed inappropriate, and perhaps even to leave a message on Erik9's talk page reminding him of what is appropriate for non-admin closures and for the invocation of IAR. These early closures have been more frequent lately, and are becoming a serious problem. Chick Bowen 03:41, 7 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.
  1. ^ County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, No. H031658 (2009), at 31. "At issue here is how California’s public records law treats the County’s copyright claim. That is a question of first impression in this state."
  2. ^ County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, No. H031658 (2009), at 34. "As a matter of first impression in California, we conclude that end user restrictions are incompatible with the purposes and operation of the CPRA."
  3. ^ County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, No. H031658 (2009), at 35. "'This mandate overrides a government agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption.'"
  4. ^ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS289US289&q=%22international+association+of+Lighting+Designers%22&btnG=Search
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March&oldid=420277947"