Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 May 12
2009 May 14 >

13 May 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paraguay–Switzerland relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted prior to seven days. Please relist. -- User:Docu 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I withdraw this request. -- User:Docu 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Relist per Docu, discussion closed too early. Additional discussion might have yielded more sources such as this Swiss government webpage detailing the bilateral relations with Paraguay. There is also this article from a publication of the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches about "decade-long" close connections between Swiss and Paraguayan churches. This bibliography by the Swiss Federal Archives lists four publications as relating to the diplomatic relationship between the two countries (see the heading "Paraguay"). The AfD will have to determine whether these and similar sources findable through Google suffice for notability.  Sandstein  16:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - While I found these blind x-y relations AfDs with scant or no regard to WP:BEFORE disruptive, consensus seemed unanimous here, perhaps WP:SNOW, and the AfD was in fact just about three hours under seven days. Not worth relisting.--Oakshade (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it one day too early? -- User:Docu 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it was just under three hours early.

    I think it's got to be an endorse, because the error of process involved was minuscule and could not possibly have changed the result. But the closer gets a gentle piscine caress from me for deleting after 165 hours instead of waiting the full 168.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem with the discussion is that several participants paste more or less the same comment into numerous other discussions and some of the arguments are contradicted by the article itself. This can partially be excused by the mere number of AfD someone started (apparently there is a barnstar for them in this field). As Sandstein said, a quick research finds additional resources. -- User:Docu
  • Comment from closing admin: Essentially I agree with Oakshade (talk · contribs). However, I will defer to the consensus of the outcome of this DRV discussion. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Another three hours wasn't going to make a difference here. The consensus was overwhelmingly towards delete, to the point where the spirit WP:SNOW would easily apply. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it ran for 6 days and 21 hours, with no keep arguments made, about 7 or so calls for deletion, and no improvements to the unsourced stub in that period.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a bit odd that other encyclopedias have entries on this topic and we deleted it. -- User:Docu
  • That would be a strong argument, if sourced. Which encyclopaedias precisely, please?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Too early is a reason to relist, but three hours is not substantial enough to be a concern; it would have closed just the same. I would certain !vote here to relist any AfD closed more than one day early unless explicitly closed as speedy or snow. For anything still being debated, I might vote the same for more than 12 hours. As we get familiar with 7d, there should smaller tolerances. 3 hours though can be a time-zone error.
as for the article, in practice we do not seem to be keeping articles with just that amount of minimal information. Personally, I think that we should, and so I will continue to say, but the consensus is beginning to seem pretty clear otherwise, and we might as well admit it. Thething to do is to find some more sources and then write an improved and longer article. DGG (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion instructions seem to suggest that it has to be a full seven days. Accordingly, this shouldn't have been deleted before May 14. As the deletion was made based on notability, I'm not entirely convinced that your approach is acceptable. -- User:Docu
    • there is such a concept a harmless error. I was one of the people who pushed the hardest for the change to 7 days, and I've been pushing it for over two years before it finally was adopted. Yes, it really does mean the full number of hours, and I will certainly criticize anyone who closes consistently before that, but using a three hour difference to reverse a closing when the consensus is clear is not in proportion. I've also been one of the people supporting these bilateral articles, & one of the first people to join ARS, but this article is not of high enuough quality to make a deletion review case based on it. It is not productivde to make a point of an issue when the underlying material is this weak. DGG (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The article was closed before ARS had a chance to work on it. The articles that ARS has worked on have all been voted to keep or as no consensus after the work was done. With 5 articles up for deletion in this class each day, it is much easier to add the delete tag then add in the required references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the ARS is a succesful AFD vote canvassing machine and brings in votes to afds (which often end in "no consensus" closes on completely unimproved articles as a consequence) is not a reason to reopen an AFD closed three hours early.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic: Two things I'd challenge about this comment. (1) Criticism of the ARS as a whole, whether or not it's justified (on which I have no opinion), doesn't belong at DRV. (2) Improving articles is everyone's responsibility, not just the ARS's; you don't get to bring something to AfD and insist that it's improved (by someone else) within seven days or get deleted. Per WP:BEFORE the nominator's job is to make sure the article couldn't be improved in the first place before it even comes to AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ARS does not have an inalieable (sp) right to have access to articles or prevent their deletion, despite its best efforts. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, there are plenty of administrators willing to userfy deleted articles if you can show you can improve them.- Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:SNOW. C'mon, three hours? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with that solid a consensus in favour of deletion, this request is nothing short of wikilawyering. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After reviewing the comments of the same people at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switzerland–Uruguay relations, we researched that topic and expanded the corresponding article. If this is possible in one day for Uruguay, it's easily done for Paraguay, as other encyclopedias have articles on the relation between Switzerland and Paraguay. If we decided that five days are too short, then we should stick to that. -- User:Docu
there is nothing to prevent people from writing a better article if you can really find sources. DGG (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close This could not have been closed any other way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close No other outcome possible, and I don't see how three hours would have made a difference. Nja247 09:25, 16 May 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.
Half-Life: Uplink (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Though the film didn't amount to much I still think it garnered enough reliably sourced attention, as evidenced on the article before it got re-directed, to make it a notable film. Earlier another user tried to restore the article from its re-direct, but that got reversed, so I though to take it here. Cheers. 86.149.60.116 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closing admin: The IP editor does not make clear how I erred in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life: Uplink (film) as a redirect. In that discussion, no contributor argued for keeping this as a stand-alone article. It does not appear that new sources providing notability for this film have appeared since the time of the AfD.  Sandstein  15:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take it to the article's talk page, is my suggestion. Redirect is a "keep" outcome, because the article wasn't deleted in the sense that its text is still accessible through the history, and sufficient consensus on the talk page would empower you to restore the article.

    In DRV jargon this would have to be endorse from me because the closure was fully in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Closing admin assessed consensus and closed the AfD appropriately. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Since the article history is still available and the anon isn't arguing for deletion, there's nothing for DRV to do here. If you want to discuss whether a merge should be done or undone, the article talk page or WP:MRFD are the correct location to do this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 15 May 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.
Hoshino Fuuta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed as keep in the words of the closing admin, "Based solely on the disruptive block drama." In short the original nominator made a personal attack against one of the commentators in the discussion and was indefinitely blocked for it. This is not a valid close because the nominator was blocked partway through the discussion and there is no indication that the article was nominated in bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a valid close. Bad maybe, but valid ;) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and continue AFD discussion – Despite the reason behind the nom, other reasons have popped by other users for deletion, which should not at the least be discarded. MuZemike 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin comments Guilty as charged. When an article is nominated by a new editor as his 2nd edit ever, and the editor manages to make threats to an editor in good standing during the discussion, resulting in an indefinite block, it seems to me to be the sort of disruption that is inconsistent with a proper discussion of the merits of the article. I also mentioned in my close that under the circumstances the article could be immediately relisted at AfD. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and close this DRV as unnecessary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per S Marshall. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - However, I would strongly suggest this not be continued from the old AfD page, but a new AfD started for the discussion. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- Since the closer of the previous AFD stated in their close that the article could be re-nominated, why are we here? Umbralcorax (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This DRV should be closed, with a procedural relist and a new AfD discussion page started for it. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the new AfD will be immediately closed under WP:NOTAGAIN. The reason for WP:DRV is to determine if the closing is valid. In this case, I don't think it is. Especially when the closing admin suggests to relist the AfD. --Farix (Talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just say "Per DRV, WP:NOTAGAIN does not apply here" in the nomination.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with that DGG (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist As the target of the threat mentioned, I think Vondell was blocked prematurely. It would've been more appropriate if he continued after having the link to WP:TROUT pointed out to him. That said, if it is relisted, it should be done with a reason that is in line with deletion policy, so doing so in a new nomination that points to this DRV is probably a good idea. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 15 May 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.
Mark Howard producer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

this is an award winning record producer. he has won grammy awards. this should not have been deleted. Charliedylan (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as moot – article already restored by deleting admin. Two words of advice: first, ask the deleting admin next time before coming to DRV, and second, it doesn't matter how notable it is—if it's a clear copyright violation of another source, it's gone. MuZemike 03:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_13&oldid=1086354971"