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 ([1]). 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.
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]
Endorse, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of war crimes was closed correctly. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, you can renominate it for deletion at AFD, with due consideration to the fact that, except in the case of WP:VAND, WP:SPAM, WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO problems, articles are only deleted if it is believed that they cannot be improved. A lack of editorial effort does not, by itself, justify the deletion of an article. Erik9 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. There was a clear consensus.--S MarshallTalk/Cont 14:54, 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.
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]
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.
