Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2010 Deletion review archives March 2010 >

28 February 2010[edit]

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

I am 7shaquan and not to long ago a posted an article about the American Actress Ciara Bravo who is known as Katie on the nick show big time rush. Sadly my post was delted by an admin Cirt and he has also been deleting other articles of this name at a constant rate without a firm foundation on why he is doing so. I have asked him nicely to repost, but he continues to deny. He says that the article does not meet the notary standards, but I have managed more than once to prove this statement wrong to him, but he continues to be stubborn and so i ask you to please repost my article and show me that wiki is the civilized community it is thought to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion deleted by AFD just days ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ciara_Bravo Pretty unlikely the situation has significantly changed since then. The nominator is well aware of this, and even posted an obscenity-filled tirade in that very discussion (see this diff). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there is no evidence that the AFD contained any defects, nor does it appear there is any material change in circumstance with regards to the issues noted in said AFD. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse While I understand that the user is upset after having spent time working on the page, it seems clear that the individual does not as yet currently meet our inclusion standards. I'm willing to change that opinion if we are presented with multiple, independent reliable sources about the individual. Until then, there's not much for us to do here. Consensus seemed clear and no new data has been presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn How Do I add new content to a deleted page--7shaquan (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't want to endorse above. You may want to look up what that word means. In this case, an endorsement is a confirmation of the deletion. Also, what you want to ask now shouldn't be adding content to deleted pages, since that's not going to happen unless you get this past DRV (this discussion). What you should be doing now is seeing if you can find other [[WP:|RS|reliable sources]] about the Ciara Bravo. If you can, then the deletion may be overturned. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • oh didnt know what it meant, but anyways everyone im really asking that you really reconsider I have 2 links for you to view about ciara bravo:[1][2]

Something else you can look at to determine the notary of the person is of coarse their twitter account, look at all of her followers:[3] If thats not enough for you then just look at the youtube vids being created for her:[4] [5] [6] And last but not least to show some of the media she has starred in: [7] [8] [9] Now Will you reconsider, are those enough references for you--7shaquan (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may help for you to read our reliable sourcing policy. What we need are sources (like newspapers and magazines) that talk about Ciara Bravo. Blogs are not reliable sources. Having lots of twitter followers don't help us either. And IMDB is not in general a reliable source. Do you have say newspapers or magazines that talk about her? The Cincinnati source is getting towards what we need. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another link that mentions her as a main character on big time rush [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another article[11][12]--7shaquan (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok. That may be enough. My recommendation then is in your userspace to make a version of the article using these sources and that is wrll-written and demonstrates notability and then come back to us when that's done. If you need assistance with this, don't hesitate to ask me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If you haven't already gotten a copy userified, my recommended course of action would be for you to create a userspace draft, incorporating reliable, independent sources and bring it back here once you've gotten it up to our sourcing and notability standards. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and echo Jclemens's comments above mine. Orderinchaos 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please dont endorse if you look at my user page you will see I have constructed a draft version of the article, thanks Im sure it will change you mind go to User:7shaquan and check it out--7shaquan (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion consensus reached in AFD and correctly closed. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Accurate close that reflected the consensus in the AfD. The userspace draft has not rectified the concerns at the AfD; the sources in the draft are either passing mentions or unreliable sources. When this young actress gets some significant coverage in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2010 (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:Australasia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While the arguments given at the CfD were quite reasonable, two important aspects were omitted:
1.) It is that we have categories for every single of the 22 sub-continental regions defined by the United Nations geoscheme except for "Australasia" resp. "Australia and New Zealand" (even though we use the most common rule for naming and don't stick exactly to the UN's region names.
2.) We also need to consider that Australasia has its own article in which – apart from the Australasia ecozone – it is cited that "Australasia has been used as a name for combined Australia/New Zealand sporting teams". This is reason enough to warrant an own category because otherwise there's no correct place to put the respective articles.
To further elaborate on the former aspect: It is not easy to implement a somewhat consistent category scheme for geopolitical regions, which is why supranational categorization is mostly limited to continents and still fragmentary. The best way we can go is using an acknowledged scheme like the United Nations geoscheme, and this requires this one category to exist, either as "Australasia" or as "Australia and New Zealand". I personally prefer the former.
PanchoS (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hate Cat discussions because I frankly am never sure I fully understand the arguments. That said, it appears as if PanchoS has made a very strong point about the UN geoscheme that wasn't brought up in the cfd. So relist to get a reaction to this. No real objection to an overturn either, but my sense is this deserves further discussion. Also, is there a deletion sorting or wikiproject that should be notified about this? It seems this type of cat really needs subject-area folks. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. "Australasia" is not a region defined by the UN geoscheme. "Oceania" is, and as was brought up at the CFD, we have Category:Oceania. If there are concerns as to where Australasia should be categorized, Cat:Oceania seems to be a good fit. --Kbdank71 15:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. So let me get this straight—the UN geoscheme uses a subregion it refers to as "Australia and New Zealand", which is referred to as "Australasia" by ICANN, and because of that we want to have a category for it called "Australasia"? To me, that makes little sense, for the following reason. In common parlance, "Australasia" ≠ "Australia + New Zealand", as the article Australasia readily indicates. (Australasia almost always includes the island of New Guinea and the other smaller islands of Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia.) This is not new information that needs to be reconsidered in a relisting. If you want a category for the geoscheme, obviously it would have to be called Category:Australasia (geoscheme), since you would be adopting a usage of the terminology that differs from the definition given in the main WP article. There were no other problems with the discussion or the close, and it still seems reasonable to me to use Category:Oceania for anything that would otherwise be placed in a non-disambiguated Category:Australasia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant to the discussion, but I disagree with you regarding common parlance, in Australia anyway. Australasia is an old term, in dwindling usage, meaning Australia + New Zealand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED cites 1940's Chamber's Technical Dictionary in stating that it includes "Australia, New Guinea, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the islands south and east of Wallace's line." Clearly, not all would agree that it's meaning is limited to AUS+NZ. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The limits of the usage is a different question. I have heard educated old people assert quite varied usages as proper. I think the term was never well defined. The citation you mention is in reference to fauna, and when speaking of fauna it is particularly difficult to draw a line between Cape York and the Territory of Papua but not between Australia and New Zealand. The common parlance that I commonly heard long ago was, with hindsight, a non blatantly-racist way to describe the predominantly white, British, English speaking nations of that region of the globe. In the 1970s, following half hearted regional paternalism, New Guinea was granted independence, and "Australasia" shifted to Australia + New Zealand. Looking up these things now I see that both terms Australasia and Oceania have been variably and poorly defined according to the writer's desired usage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Australasia is too broad and not clearly defined - the original AfD came to the correct conclusion on this. I don't believe the UN geoscheme is a suitable basis for resolving age-old discussions about continents and subcontinents, simply, because noone uses it. (I mean "Northern America"? "Middle Africa"? come on...) I mean, its definition for Eastern Europe leaves out several Warsaw Pact countries, its definition of Southern Europe is vague at best, East Africa in its schema can be extended to include Egypt and Sudan, and its definition of Melanesia includes Norfolk Island which is an Australian territory whose only Islander populations have been Polynesian. Where it does coincide with a commonly understood term (eg South and South-East Asia) it uses non-standard terms for them. This is *not* a reliable or useful categorisation system. Orderinchaos 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable discussion. Reasonable reading of consensus. If this were CfD2, I would say "While Oceania and Australasia are different terms, and each has and should have its own article, this differentness doesn't mean that there should be two categories. The overlap is too great. Overlapping categories confuse the category system". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was a reasonable interpretation of the actual consensus at CfD. The arguments for retention were made and rejected by those who participated in the CfD, and the new material raised here doesn't appear to merit overturning the consensus established. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw — partly convinced, partly overwhelmed by the unambiguous reactions. — PanchoS (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2010 (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.
Simple Instant Messenger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted under false assumptions by a disputed ex-admin!

  1. While Simple Instant Messenger has been used to find sources, the correct lemma would be Sim-IM (or SIM Instant Messenger)!
  2. Simple Instant Messenger is only used as description of the client, the name used is Sim-IM!
  3. There are only three "Delete"-votes, all founded on low coverage. I get more than 600k hits...

Restore Simple Instant Messenger and move it to Sim-IM! Don't restore Serverless Instant Messenger!

--phobie (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the prior review. I stroke out the unrelated facts. --phobie (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the opinions expressed by the proponents of "endorse" at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14#Simple Instant Messenger, especially A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs)'s argument. Nothing new has surfaced to indicate that this software is now notable. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How charming. I am not a disputed ex-admin, I am most certainly an ex-admin there is no dispute about that. Beyond that, there is no suggestion that I had the bit removed involuntarily and, in fact, I am specifically able to resume the role when I feel there are no longer any worries about my impulse control and anger flashes. These have absolutely nothing to do with wikipedia but reflect my real life situation which is extremely stressful and emotionally heated at the moment. So, thank you for the charmless and factually inaccurate nomination, but I'm not seeing any reason here for reversing the close. I suggest the nominator would be better placed reading This Essay and then going away to identify some proper sources that a decent article can be based upon. see I'm making progress on the impulse control - I managed to delete the whole section after this before pressing save Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean to offend you. Some of your admin-action were a bit moot and I wanted users to have a close look. --phobie (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as settled by the last DrV. Userfy to Phobie if he wants it. As A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs) indicated in the last DrV, there may be enough sources to write an article that meets WP:N. I'd suggest the best way forward is to withdraw this DrV, apologize to Spartaz, and then write the article in userspace. Ask Spartaz or A Stop at Willoughby or someone else who hangs around DrV for feedback on your work and bring it back to DrV when either they think it's in reasonable shape. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. DRV is not a platform to attack other editors. Oh, and endorse per the last DRV. Tim Song (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and suggest speedy closure. DRV is not a platform to attack/insult other editors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed view Had I noticed this during the first DRV, I think i would have opined to overturn. The analysis supporting the close depends on discounting the opinions of several !voters. One as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and several as having given weak reasons. But the entire issue here was notability, and in particular the sufficiency of the the cited sources to establish notability. It is conceded that there was coverage in an independent reliable source, the question was if that coverage was "substantial" enough. That is always a judgment call, there is no rule about how many words or sentences are required for substantial coverage. Therefore, the posters who opined "It meets notability requirements" and "Seems notable enough to have a mention somewhere" (after the question of the sources had been raised and disputed) should IMO be taken as finding the supplied sources sufficient to support notability, IMO that would mean that policy-based non-discounted views were 4 deletes to 3 keeps, with the strength of arguments reasonably closely balanced, not counting the sock and three more or less ILikeIt keeps. That sounds like a non-consensus close to me. All that said, however, the first FRV had a clear consensus to endorse the AfD close, and I see no gross error in it although I would have opined otherwise. For the matter of that, toe original AfD close, although incorrect IMO, was not wildly out of bounds. Thefore, the best way forward at this point, IMO, is to userfy or perhaps better Incubate the deleted articel, and allow improvement with the additional sources that Phobie writes of above or that Pcap wrote of in the first DRV. And I fully agree with the others here that starting a DRV by attacking the closer on an unrelated issue is uncivil and unhelpful. I also feel that running a second DRV on a given AfD discussion is not a practice that should be encouraged or rewarded. DES (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. In the face of majority Keep arguments composed of mostly unsupported assertions and bad-faith accusations, this was a good closure. I would encourage an interested editor to temporarily keep this article in userspace if they wish to preserve and develop this article until such a time as notability can be demonstrated. This happened with CyanogenMod, deleted decisively for non-notability in its 2nd AfD, but kept unanimously in its 3rd AfD after a short stay in user space. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no objections to userfication, same as my comments in the last DRV. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed I have to agree with DESiegel above. While I !voted overturn in the first DRV and I certainly didn't agree with how Spartaz closed the AfD, I'm really not sure a second DRV will accomplish much. I certainly saw enough coverage where I felt the AfD close was wrong, but as others have said above the best way to address this will likely be to userfy the article and add the missing references. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and last DRV, and a trout slap for the OP. Orderinchaos 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this was a completely appropriate closure well within policy. JBsupreme (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. Providing links to searches is not enough. Attacking the closing admin is even worse. Pcap ping 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus The close did not reflect the consensus of the actual participants and appears to be a supervote cast by the closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, proper weighing of the arguments. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 February 2010[edit]

26 February 2010[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:People born on February 29 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closure of this page was not the result of a discussion but that of a poll as the closing admin based the closure on the numbers and not the weight of arguements presented. After requesting a review based on the arguements the admin responded that the consensus was to delete. Firstly the category meest the requirements of WP:CATEGORY and does not meet the requirement of WP:OC#Trivia but is actually reafirmed as an appropriate category by that guideline as its defines overcategorization as something can easily be left out of a biography, which it isnt. WP:CATEGORY requiures that categories be what readers would most likely use to look for articles, this category had 400~600 hits per month Jan 10(691),Dec 09(446),Nov 09(537)(Feb 10 had 697 but that would have been partially inflated by the CfD[16] and partially deflated as it only 3/4 of the month). According to all the arguements raised this category meets all of WP guidelines in deciding the suitability of the category. The only argument for deletion was that its not a defining trate but triva as prescribe by WP:OC#Trivia, none of the proponents supported this positions with any facts or sources as such its these arguements should have ignored as WP:OR. Gnangarra 01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I'm not sure how User:Gnangarra has come to the conclusion that the closure was based on vote counting as opposed the contents of the discussion. I think the closure is reasonably reflective of the discussion that took place. Gnangarra was opposed to deletion in the discussion, but that doesn't mean that the closer's interpretation of the overall discussion was flawed. (Note: I participated in the discussion and was in favour of deletion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its simple the contents of the discussion were ignored, the category meets all community requirements. The closing admin has not explain what policy/guideline is the basis for deletion, even after a request therefore the only conclusion is the number of votes. Gnangarra 03:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even if true that doesn't amount to the close being a pure vote count, which is what is sounds like to me you're suggesting. If you re-read the discussion, I think you'll find that there was discussion of applicable policies that would justify deletion. You can criticise other participants in the discussion for not focusing on the issues you thought were most relevant, but I don't think you can say that the closer did a vote count and ignored the contents of the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Clearly the discussion and comments make it clear that this was the proper action in this case. Now if we were into vote counting then maybe there would be a reason to review the decision. I don't see where the contents of the discussion were ignored. Rather the soundness of the arguments were evaluated and a decision was made based on that. Remember that the precedent is to not classify user articles by birth day. In many person articles there are simply too many categories so you need to make a strong case as to why an exception should have been granted in this case. That case was not made. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What precendent surely you dont mean the decision that was made not to link birth dates in articles. As 400-600(700) readers accessing the category each month is not enough for a category that is compliant with WP:CATEGORY, what then is the number that must be obtained? Gnangarra 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The precedent is all of the other birth date categories that do not exist. This has nothing to do with the article date linking issue. I don't even understand how that got dragged into this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable close. I can't find clear error. Tim Song (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the closure was a good reflection of the balance of the arguments presented by participants in the debate. BencherliteTalk 07:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The best way of proceeding from here would be to have a general discussion on making 366 categories, automatically populated from the persondata. Plus 12 for the months. These no longer take maintaining. It's time we started taking advantage of what semantic features we do have. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that would not work, for two reasons. First, as of July 2009, only slightly more than 8% of biographies contained {{persondata}} (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata#Goals). Second, consensus seems to be against categorizing individuals by date of birth or month of birth; the only reason that there was any real disagreement regarding the February 29 category is due to the fact that the date February 29 only comes around once every four years. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    there's no novality factor in wanting the category ,what I see is 1) its being used regularly 2)birth day is defining in many societies particularly to those who are interested in Astrology, 3) significantly the most valuable piece of real estate on the internet devotes a section to events on a day including births categories are the best way collate the articles(including new articles) rather than incomplete lists especially now we no longer link to date pages from articles where such lists are found. Gnangarra 12:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Date of birth categories are not "used regularly"; to my knowledge, the Feb. 29 category was the only one that still existed. (2) Your argument seems to make no distinction between the concepts of "defining" and "interesting", yet "interesting" does not necessarily equate with defining. Date of birth is interesting for those who are interested in astrology, but that fact alone does not make it defining for the actual subjects of articles. (3) The purpose of the Main Page is to serve as a gateway to Wikipedia, and to highlight quality, new, or interesting content. The purpose of categories is to group related articles for the purposes of navigation. Given these vastly different functions, it is to be expected that all of the same principles do not apply to both. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I could find no indication, either in the closing statement or in the thread on the closer's page, to suggest that the closer merely counted !votes and ignored arguments. The "400-600 views per month" argument is not convincing as a "big number" has nothing to do with the suitability of a category to convey this type of information (e.g., Category:Russia (~550–850 hits) is not somehow more valid because it receives more pageviews than Category:Brunei (~250–300)). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The category of 200+ is now a list of about 80, I'm convinced now that a category isnt a good way to convey this information. The 400~600 people using the category will just have to go elsewhere for the information. Well done folks, you can close this DRV anytime you want and can the last person to leave please turn off the lights... Gnangarra 12:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose Gnangarra's request to close the DRV. It appears to be based on "the numbers and not the weight of arguments presented", because it offers no explanation of how Gnangarra has been persuaded, or of which arguments were persuasive. Furthermore, I oppose turning off the lights, because it's really hard to edit in the dark. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion While I voted Keep, consensus here from the usual suspects was for deletion. I support DGG's suggestion that we take advantage of persondata to categorize on a broader basis as a goal for categorization. Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closed accurately and in accordance with consensus. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion – per Alansohn, all of whose remarks above are sagacious. Occuli (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (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.
Thomas Kuzhinapurath (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)


Kindly review the delition of this page. Because the person concerned is a notable figure. See the following webpages:

Karukayil (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malformed DRV fixed. Endorse closure. As I've seen no reliable sources in the list above, keep salted. Tim Song (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Consensus was clear at AFD. No coverage in reliable, secondary sources have been brought forward. Jujutacular T · C 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 February 2010[edit]

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

Company who delivers online news. I think the Pobble page should be recreated following the launch of the new company in March. The company will be writing online PDF files and distributing them on the web. Despite previous reports the article is unnecessary, this new Pobble has nothing to do with the previous article. Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Although for future reference, Wp:RFPP is thataway. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 February 2010[edit]

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

The AFD discussion appears to have been closed prematurely by the closing editor. I suggested on the admin's talk page that there didn't appear to be clear consensus to delete the page and that the discussion was still on-going - to which the admin simply replied with "consensus was to delete". The original AFD poster stated that there were a lack of proper citable references that proved the article was more than WP:OR. Other editors pointed out a number of acceptable references that disproved the opinion that the article was original research, as well as pointing out comments from various Pixar staff members pointing out that such references were deliberately placed.... which is where we were when the discussion stopped and the page was deleted. Would adding an "improve references" tag have been more appropriate over an AFD? Thanks for your review and opinions. SpikeJones (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to "No Consensus" or relist. While there certainly are more Delete than Keep "votes", several of the Deletes are quite week. The strongest is TenPoundHammer's concerns about OR but the citation of secondary sources goes a long way to putting that to rest. User:Ginsengbomb's concerns in particular seem to be met in large part. Therefore I don't see that the (brief) relisting had garnered enough consensus to justify closure as delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- clearly within the limits of administrator discretion. Reyk YO! 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spent some time thinking about it. I agree that the close is within admin discretion (if just) as Reyk says. But a number of things about it bother me. #1 I think that the majority of closers would have gone with no consensus, and more would have chosen keep than delete. #2 It had just been relisted and there was no rush. This is anything but a clear discussion and waiting a bit longer might have cleared things up. #3 As a spin out article a "merge" result back to the parent almost certainly would make more sense than the delete (though not suggested by anyone in the discussion). #4 I find the argument that an existent specialized encyclopedia (even not independent) covers this material to be a very strong argument for keeping (probably more than most would). All that said weak endorse as I find the close to be within the bounds of admin discretion (though the lack of a closing statement or willing to clarify the issue is troubling) but I think the ideal thing would be if Cirt were to undo the close and let discussion continue. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as it looks like a no consensus and I do not see a compelling need to have redlinked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse although not clear enough consensus at first, after the relist there was really no doubt. Certainly within admin discretion in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn there does not seem to have been any consensus. When there is no consensus, the admin is supposed to say so. The admin is not supposed to take that as an opportunity to close according to his own view of the matter. If he wants to express his view, he should join the discussion and let someone else close. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse- honestly, I have to agree with a lot of Hobit's reasoning. The close was certainly within admin discretion (although to be fair, if I were an admin and I was tasked with closing that afd, I would have run away screaming). That said, there were some sources provided in the AFD that could be used to create a properly sourced article that overcomes the concerns of those who were on the side of deletion. Therefore I'm thinking that, while Cirt's close is certainly reasonable, perhaps we should allow either incubation or userfication to allow someone to work on the article and bring it up to standards, with the caveat that it be brought back here for approval before going back to main space. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's fair. Not the right outcome in this case (we delete things because the topic doesn't meet our requirements, not because the article doesn't), but given where we are an acceptable one. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Cirt's failure to provide a closing rationale. It looks a lot more like no consensus to me, and Cirt doesn't make a case for his closing, hence it should be overturned and remanded for further discussion. Note that this should have been DELSORT'ed appropriately in order to increase relevant participation. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn decision per nominator comments, I see a no consensus. PamelaBMX (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary:
TenPoundHammer Delete changed to improve. (1-0, Keep)
Ginsengbomb: Weak delete/improve. (1-1)
Pontificalibus: Delete. (1-2)
SpikeJones: An obvious improve. (2-2)
Pejorative.majeure: Keep and improve (3-2)
WesleyDodds:Delete. (3-3)
Andromedabluesphere. Keep. (4-3)
Robofish: Delete/merge. (4-4)
IMHO, Cirt acted prematurely. There's no clear consensus and if there is one, it's clearly in the favor of improving the article, not arbitrarily removing it.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bad faith part you should strike. You can disagree with his conclusion without attacking the person... Hobit (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that the bad faith comments and the attacking of individual contributors is inappropriate. I have restored the page to its original location. I have relisted it back at AFD for additional discussion. This deletion review discussion can now be closed. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jose Velez – Deletion endorsed. There is no deleted content about the person the nominator is concerned with. As an editorial action I have redirect the page to José Vélez as a likely search term, but it can be split or disambiguated as needed if a new article is written. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jose Velez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  • 17:41, 4 November 2005 Bradeos Graphon (talk | contribs) deleted "Jose Velez" ‎ (Patent nonsense)
  • 17:43, 2 November 2005 Mirv (talk | contribs) deleted "Jose Velez" ‎ (nonsense)
  • 18:42, 31 October 2005 Dvyost (talk | contribs) deleted "Jose Velez" ‎ (nonsense--user previously blocked for vandalism)

Hi, I have no idea if I'm doing this correctly. The instructions seem geared for a software designer, not a casual user of Wikipedia. The above contributors (not Admins) are well known students of the Vee Jitsu system of martial arts whom apparently have a problem with certain official heirs of Professor Visitation and block attempts by said designated heirs (in this case, Professor Jose Velez--one of the official Senior Instructors of previously mentioned students) to publish factual information.

I want an official Wikipedia Admin to retrieve the page in question for me and supply it to me for review/revision/republication and/or show just cause why this information has been censored.

Thank you, David at [email protected] -- 99.16.0.21 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I am a Wikipedia admin, and I have just now looked at the page as the content was before it was deleted back in 2005. There was no mention of Vee Jitsu, martial arts, a Professor Visitation (I assume this is Florendo Visitacion), or Jose Velez being a professor in the article. Rather, the article was apparently meant as a ridiculous version of a biography of some unrelated person. "Jose Velez" is not a rare name; in fact, Wikipedia also has an article about yet another José Vélez, who is a singer. If you want to write an article about a different Jose Velez who is a martial arts teacher, please feel free to do so (in accordance with Wikipedia biographical standards), although you will have to register a Wikipedia account and be logged in to create the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, I don't know who you mean when you refer to the "above contributors (not Admins)". User:Bradeos Graphon, User:Mirv, and User:Dvyost are all administrators on the English Wikipedia, and they were admins back in 2005 when they deleted the prior versions of the page (as they would have to have been; non-admins can't delete pages). I have no idea whether they are involved in any martial arts, but that would not have influenced their decision to delete the page anyway, because, as indicated above, the versions they were deleting had no martial arts-related content. The page itself was created by an IP user whose IP address appears to be from a school district -- in other words, probably some teenager making fun of a classmate by posting a fake biography of him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article must have been about a different Jose Velez than the one the nominator has in mind. That said, I think Jose Velez should redirect to the José Vélez article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 February 2010[edit]

  • Mark Dearey – Restored - goalposts have moved and the original discussion is no longer relevant – Peripitus (Talk) 06:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Dearey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Mark Dearey has been elected to the upper house of the Irish National legislature. He was a local politician but now has ascended. Many references in national news and TV.[21] [22] [23] zero=>hero[24] MoyrossLADY (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was deleted because as a local councillor he did not meet WP:Politician. Now as a (appointed not elected) member of Seanad Éireann (upper house of the Irish Parliament), he automatically meets WP:Politician. Snappy (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Restore article .The deleted article has information that could be used as the base of the new one., though of course the new notability should be emphasized. I think we could close this now. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this and next passing admin to do the needful If I were still an admin I would have voided the AFD and restored the article on the basis of new information but since I'm not it just needs any passing admin to do this for me please. DGG - I think no-one would object to you doing this as my proxy even though you voted. Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Keyontyli Goffney – new version that addresses the reasons why it was deleted at AfD now moved to the article namespace. Nothing more for DRV to do. – Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Keyontyli Goffney (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am the principal author of this entry, which was deleted essentially because of lack of notability of the subject. Not agreeing with the decision to delete, I have done further work to provide evidence that the subject is indeed notable. A new version of the article currently resides at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GBataille/Keyontyli_Goffney. Goffney has received significant coverage in the mainstream media, not only in connection with his crime spree but also for his life-story and career in general. (The article in Details, in particular, covers Goffney's entire career.) Sometimes LGBT- and, in particular, porn-related articles receive particular scrutiny by the Wikipedia community. That is understandable; on the other hand, such scrutiny should not prevent the legitimate documentation of these issues. I submit that anyone who has been featured several times in television newscasts, on Saturday Night Live (even if only in a minor role), in ads of companies such as Nike, in a national mainstream magazine, AND in numerous gay pornographic publications is indeed notable. GBataille (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're confident your new version addresses the details as set out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyontyli Goffney, then just move your current version to the mainspace. I don't think there's anything for DRV to look at here. (I've corrected the article title). GedUK  16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I voted for deletion before, but I think in view of the present sources, it would be a clear keep. I see you already followed Ged's good advice, so the case here is moot. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 February 2010[edit]

21 February 2010[edit]

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

Closed as "keep" with no closing rationale. While there was a numerical landslide in favour of keeping the article, polling is not a substitute for discussion. The main reason for people arguing for keeping were "notability", although no argument seemed to successfully argue that said "fringe theories" were notable (just asserted that they were "notable" without explanation), and, indeed, held by enough people to qualify for coverage per WP:FRINGE; indeed, one of the sections covers a "fringe theory" that is quite wide held! Additionally, there was no argument on why the most "sourced" (read: linked to religious demagogues and satire) section, the section on divine retribution, was acceptable for an article about a natural phenomenon; indeed, one of the keep !voters argued that the section had weak sourcing. Thus, I believe the close was wrongly judged—I assume the article was kept simply because of the numerical strength of the keep arguments—and should be overturned. Sceptre (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - might you consider discussing this first with the closing administrator? I can assure you that he would be more than willing to talk about it and would likely make proper amends :) -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close- A closing statement might have been nice, but the consensus was accurately read. And yet again I should point out that DRV is still not AFD round 2. 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse though a closing statement, even retroactively placed, wouldn't hurt. I'd say consensus and policy were on the side of keeping. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but probably this would not have been necessary if a full closing explanation had been given in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close the consensus at AfD leaned strongly towards keep and the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy a claim of notability. No evidence that the close violated policy. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. The material is somewhat sourced (could use more inline refs). The arguments in the AfD were if the collection of all info is worthy of an article or not. Both pro and con arguments were brought. Closing outcome was within admin discretion. Pcap ping 09:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's saddening to see people just endorsing the close just because of the abundances of "keep" votes. As I said when listing this review: no argument in the AfD really argued that the theories were notable; they just said that they were. I even argued that the vast majority were not! Neither did anyone argue that the theories hence covered were "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Thus, the article should have been deleted despite the abundance of "keep" votes because the arguments for deleting were really the only ones given. Sceptre (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; I think that participants in the discussion evaluated the claims made by Sceptre and judged them to be lacking; while Sceptre characterizes the people cited in the "divine retribution" section as "religious demogogues", the participants in the discussion disagreed. I would describe the AFD as an effective discussion in which the nominator's claims about the article were addressed head-on and rejected by the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that, no, that's not what happened at all. Two of the "keep"s were kneejerk "it's notable" votes which were shown to by specious; that reduces the headcount to three-all. BD2412's argument does not reflect current policy regarding fringe theories: his argument can be reduced quite easily to "better here than there". Umbralcorax's vote made assumptions that the sourcing of the article was acceptable, and I showed that it wasn't. Infrogmation's "keep" vote... was actually quite a good argument. He argued for an retooling of the article to make it more acceptable for Wikipedia. It's a shame that no-one else followed him up on that. And, in fact, the AfD actually doesn't really touch on the "divine retribution" section, and where it did, reactions to the section were universally negative. Sceptre (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have any opinion on the deletion discussion, but it looks like Sceptre has removed all content from the article, which doesn't seem appropriate to me. Calathan (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted those changes per WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the talk page; I removed the content by applying policy fairly to it. Sceptre (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it's pretty clear that you disagree with the consensus about this article, I'd suggest it would be wisest not to apply your interpretation of policy to it unilaterally. It's pretty clear that you are a bit out-of-sink with everyone else on this topic. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this is an indication that the AfD process is out-of-sync with policy than anything else. It's nearly impossible to get articles like this, which shouldn't exist, but do, and carry problems which everyone cries "will be fixed because there's no deadline" but never do get fixed, deleted at AfD because of the poisonous ultra-inclusionist culture there which would probably keep libel on the site if it had half the chance. Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spectre, I accept that I'm an inclusionist in general, (though hardly an ultra- one, considering I've done almost 10,000 speedy deletions), but I do not think this could be said of everyone else here, or everyone who said keep during the afd. Personally, I think we have a deletionist culture, though not an ultra-deletionist one. while most deletionists think the opposite. . In general, when each of two sides are dissatisfied with the balance, the balance is likely to be pretty fair. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD shows that people do not look at an article before electing to keep, and neither do the people who close the AfD. That, and silly maxims such as "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". And really, DGG? You're an inclusionist I would prefer to work with on someone; you seem to be pragmatic and accept that some articles just can't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs more inclusionists like you, not the inclusionists that run the show and don't even admit Wikipedia has problematic content. So, basically, you're the Olympia Snowe of inclusionism :) Sceptre (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Correct read and determination of consensus (which was keep). –MuZemike 22:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse I'm not convinced that I would have argued for keeping if I had seen the original AfD but the consensus here seems pretty clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2010 (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.
United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello all. This page was speedied under criterion A10; see the user talk page discussion. In my opinion, it is good to have an article covering 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241–4248 and related Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (e.g. Rule 12.2) and case law (which includes several notable U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Washington v. Harper.) Note that, although much of the material in articles such as United States also appears in other articles (e.g. Geography of the United States, History of the United States, etc.), we find it useful to summarize them in one broad-scoped article. The same is true with this subject matter, especially in light of the fact that the procedures for dealing with incompetence to stand trial, insanity pleas, civil commitment, involuntary medication, etc. are all interconnected in the federal statutory framework. I should also point out that procedures under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 are not adequately covered under other articles. If the deletion is allowed to stand, please restore to my userspace for reworking. Thank you for your consideration. Tisane (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy and list at AfD. The speedy deletion template used does not say which article this supposedly duplicates, but it seems that Title 18 of the United States Code and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are what are linked to in discussions. Looking at these articles and the deleted article, it doesn't seem obvious to me that the latter duplicates either. The argument raised by the nominator is that it is good to have a general overview article for these related topics, which on the face of it seems like a good idea to me, and really needs to be seriously considered. In cases like this, speedy deletion is never appropriate and so this should be taken to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD, or userfy as a reasonable request. The deletion summary "‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, [[:{{{article}}}]])" is unclear on what the existing article is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD if desired. Not a clear A10 and the deleting admin's response wasn't helpful in clarifying it. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and optionally list at AfD. This is the sort of use of A10 that I and the others opposing it anticipated would happen; fortunately, such misinterpretation is rare--the overall results using it have been much better that I thought they would be. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the article it supposedly duplicates? Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. No indication what article it duplicates. It's sufficiently non-obvious that an AfD should have been opened instead to allow discussion. Pcap ping 09:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – I also am not seeing how A10 was properly applied here. If the CSD-tagger wishes to further pursue deletion, then AFD would be the way to go here. –MuZemike 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn not clear which article this material was copied from, the deleting admin hasn't said despite being given a chance to do so. Even if the material is covered in another article this one was sufficiently detailed that the "does not expand upon, detail or improve information" part of A10 probably won't apply. This is not what A10 was intended for and another process should be used. Hut 8.5 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn The edit summery of the application of the A10 tag says "Material covered elsewhere across many other articles". That alone should mark it as not a valid A10 apeedy. A10 is intended for exact copies of existing articles, and for attempts to create an article at a new name when there is an existing article on the same subject. It is not for summery style articles, or other cases where new articles overlap with existing articles, but cover a different range of information or from a different aspect. An A10 speedy tag ought to indicate a single specific article that the tagged article is redundant to, and in the absence of such an indication (or the ability of the reviewing admin to find and indicate such an article) should be declined. DES (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2010 (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.
User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedy deleted by Nyttend as a G4 after JBsupreme initiated a MfD. I attempted to discuss this with Nyttend before bringing this to DRV [25] without resolution. [26] If Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wishes to maintain his biography in his own userspace it is his prerogative to do so. While I think someone should have offered to userfy the David Mertz article for Lulu during or after the third AfD, a G4 deletion was improper. As I understand it, Lulu largely wrote the David Mertz article so there is also not a GFDL licensing/attribution issue here since he was the original author (and if Nyttend disagreed then a simple userfication/history merge would have resolved it). Considering this AN/I discussion regarding the third AfD, the reasoning JBsupreme used as justification for initiating a MfD for the bio page in Lulu's userspace is also questionable at best. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why should G4 not be considered to apply to userspace? "Should have offered" is insufficient reason to say that we can repost content that was deleted by consensus. There was never an attempt to userfy this page, so this was a clear example of reposting deleted content; and regardless of the motives of JBsupreme (about which I have no opinion), this would properly have been tagged for deletion by any other editor. I'm totally uninvolved in any controversies involving JBsupreme: it had been a long time since I had last run across JBsupreme, and I'd never heard of User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters or of David Mertz until this came up. Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Editors matter --Tothwolf (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy trumps essays. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think your comment of "Policy trumps essays." is rather uncalled for here. It is also somewhat ironic given Wikipedia:Editors matter#Policy is not a trump card. The reality of it is that there is no "trumping" to be had here. While WP:EM may in fact currently be marked as an essay, you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with the spirit and principles behind it. CSD G4 simply was and is not intended to delete a bio page someone creates in their userspace. G4 is intended for pages recreated in the same namespace. While this particular case may have in the past been somewhat rare/unique, given this incident and the issues surrounding BLP articles as of late, perhaps this is something that should clarified on WP:CSD?
          As I mentioned previously, Lulu largely wrote the David Mertz article anyway, so there are no attribution or GFDL issues here either. Lulu has been an extremely active contributor and if he wishes to have his bio in his userspace, then there is no reason for him not to have it there. While WP:BITE is a guideline intended mainly for newcomers, deleting Lulu's bio in his userspace is akin to biting a well established editor. This sort of thing could very well alienate someone who has otherwise been an excellent contributor to a point where they walk away from the project in disgust. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Comment/Whatever- How is this user posting this page any different from having a previously deleted article userfied for the purpose of bringing it up to Wiki standards? If this was G4 eligible, why aren't those? And if those aren't, why was this? Umbralcorax (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and OVERTURN- Let me actually add a vote based on comments after mine. A whale shark sized troutslap to both the admin and the nominator. The admin for their boneheaded lack of judgment, and the nominator for what seems almost certainly (I use "almost" because I'm trying really really hard to assume good faith, difficult as it may be) vindictive tagging for deletion, even though they had practically zero grounds for it. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from the personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Boneheaded" refers to your deccision, not you. I phrased it that way for that very reason. And while I'm sorry if you take offense at it, I stand by my feeling that the decision was a downright bad one. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (relist at MfD) Improper speedy. An AfD doesn't authorise a userspace G4. These improper speedies are damaging to the project, and there is no harm in letting an MfD run its course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). (mine emphasized)" The only part of G4 that could justify speedy deletion is that which I have bolded. Having seen Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs)'s work here on Wikipedia, I do not believe that he created the page to circumvent the deletion policy. The GFDL attribution concerns are valid though, so a resolution to this would be to restore all of the revisions of David Mertz and userfy it to User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kindly observe that the content was not moved: it was recreated after deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the content was recreated after deletion, so speedy deletion could be justifiable under {{db-copyvio}} but a way to resolve the GFDL attribution concerns, is, as I said above, to undelete David Mertz and userfy it. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the copyvio/GFDL "concern" is pretty nonsensical here. Despite the misunderstanding above, I did not write very much of the bio (the bit that I did was before the guidelines on autobiography existed. But whoever wrote it, it is entirely material contributed to WP under GFDL; there is no conceivable copyright issue in using the same content on a different namespace on WP that falls under exactly the same license tersm. Moreover, even if I write some brand new content (on whatever topic, not necessarily biographical) on my user page, that material is itself GFDL licensed, and equally usable in any Wikipedia namespace (assuming it is relevant, of course... but user-space might be used for drafts, or to collect quotes, or to work out formatting, or whatever). LotLE×talk 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a concern exactly because it was GFDL-licensed and you did not write it. GFDL requires attribution for everyone who edited the page, which is normally in the page history. Since you reposted the material without the page history, there is a GFDL violation. QED. Tim Song (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The fact that the text is in a different means that it is almost per se a page "to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies", because most policies and guidelines have different force in different namespaces. Tim Song (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn of course. This is a userspace bio that a Wikistalker nominated purely out of malice (and perhaps because JBsupreme noticed LotLE was offline for the week, and might not notice the speedy... as proved the case). LotLE×talk 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Userification of the deleted article space bio is probably better. I copied over the text, being a non-admin, but having the history is obviously cleaner. LotLE×talk 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn. This bio is within the bounds of what is permissible. Tisane (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy the originally deleted article to keep history for licensing purposes. Certainly within the realm of reasonable to have your own bio in your userspace. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy the originally deleted article to keep history for licensing purposes. (I just broke GFLD by copying the above line from Hobit, lol.) Seriously, we allow other editors to keep a lot more personal info in their user space. Just look the subpages of User:Charles_Matthews for instance. Let the MfD run its course. I don't think Lulu posted excessive material about himself in his user space, but others are free to disagree. Compare with Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MaynardClark, and look that user page history; he did get useful feedback from the MfD. Pcap ping 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, restore and userfy, and reopen/relist MfD. It seems that a number of participants here should review WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore and userfy deleted article, and merge history. Many wikipedias have more or less extansive nis on their user pages, I see no objection to this as similar even if never readied for the article namespace, and if the author wants to try to fix it up so that it would be acceptable for mainspace, why not? the usual practice is that any admin may restore and userfy and deleted page on request that is not a copyvio, attack page, or other content that is improper even in userspace. DES (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Userspace is not mainspace, nor are userspace essays required to neet mainspace requirements. Collect (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The rationale used would be sufficient to delete any userified content at any time, which is silly. Restart the MfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Mindful Eating – While the provided rationale isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion, the article has been restored for improvement to user space. For further guidance see below. – Tikiwont (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mindful Eating (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

"(cited sources do not support article)" Rturtle (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle The article Mindful Eating was deleted without discussion by DragonflySixtyseven for the reason "(cited sources do not support article)". I have discussed the issue with DragonflySixtyseven but am unable to get a clear statement of why this would qualify for speedy deletion without discussion. The admin suggested I discuss the matter with other admins. Then later suggested he would, but has yet to resolve or explain the issue. I have made repeated offers to provide additional references for any subject matter in the article and made an effort to clarify book references, included in the article, that were possibly overlooked by the admin.[reply]

Doing way too many things at once, sorry. I'll put it back in his userspace right now. DS (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring it to my userspace, but I am unclear as to what the next step is. I realize this article needs some work and better references, but is it my responsibility to do this before it can be put back in main, or can it be put back in main now to allow others to collaborate on improving the article? Rturtle (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle[reply]
comment. In your userspace it is generally your responsibility to do the main work on an article. Inubation is a relatively new process that is more focused on collaborative improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that doesn't really clear it up for me. I realize the article could benefit from more work, but is it acceptable to move it back into main as is? Am I to understand that this is at my discretion now? If that is the case then this DRV can be closed. If that is not the case, can anyone give me some guidance on what specifically needs to happen before it can be moved back to the main? Thank you.Rturtle (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle[reply]
Before you move it back, you need to deal with the problems that caused it to be deleted in the first place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point in restoring it until it has been further improved, as I do not see how it could pass AfD at present , but the deletion rationale is clearly wrong. I note that the admin who deleted it has a reluctance to use the standard reasons -- from the log "silliness" "homework" "Notability is based on unsourced claims, and on claims from unreliable sources" DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't understand what I mean by "cited sources do not support article" ? DS (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, mostly per DGG. No point to engage in further process wonkery. Tim Song (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfication is, of course, permitted as a matter of course, and I see no reason why this is one of the rare exception. Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation in user space I am very reluctant to specifically endorse a clearly erroneous administrative active--it sends the wrong message. A close such as i suggested fulfills both the end of sending the right message about deletion process, and about the article, which is not ready for mainspace--I think it would be possible to make an article on this, though I do not plan to try myself , at least not immediately. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
  • overturn as a clearly improper speedy. However, since it has been userfied, let it stay there until the creator has done enough work to allow this to be rather more likely to survive an AfD. Were this moved back to mainspace today, and put up for Afd at once, it might well be deleted unless improved during the AfD. Oh, and to Rturtle, my advice would be to add what you think are sufficient sources, and then to ask for advice on requests for feedback, or from one or more experienced editors, such as DGG. DES (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2010 (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 Only Exception (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the page entitled "The Only Exception". While the single is just released, it has significant notability because it's been confirmed as a third single, it's released a music video, also I've written what I considered to be a good enough article for the song (which can be viewed here from my user sandbox). In my opinion I think this page should be allowed to be made (I made one before under the title "The Only Exception (song)" but it was deleted and I was told to contest it's deletion here. In the articles deletion discussion page in January 2010, it stated that the reason the page was deleted was because there were no reliable sources, in February reliable sources confirmed that the song would be released as a single, among other things about the song, so seeing as though that was the main factor in the page being deleted I think that it should be allowed to be remade. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse:Original decision was correct. Proposer needs to read WP:NSONG, as that is the test that the article has to pass.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Having looked at the sandboxed article, it appears to have sufficient content to be larger than a stub, as well as sufficient coverage in reliable sources (Spin Magazine, Boston Globe, etc.) to merit inclusion per WP:NSONG. Tisane (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O Rly? Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article.... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Given that this song has not been released yet, it would appear that the above cannot apply. No objection to recreating the article when the single gets into the Top Ten. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the song itself had significant coverage I'd say meeting WP:N would be enough. At a fairly quick glance the coverage is mostly about the album, with minimal significant coverage of the song itself. So I disagree about the general case, but agree in the specific. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy snuff. I can't deny that the next single by Elvis will be way notable enough well before it's released :) but in this case, I don't think it quite makes it. Crystal Clear should hang on to the userspace draft - if it charts significantly, there shouldn't be a problem.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a moot point, but if WP:N were met for a single, an article would be justified by policy... Hobit (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, if the single has become notable for reasons other than WP:NSONG, then an article would be justified. WP:NOTNEWS is a consideration - record companies always want to generate buzz before a single is released, and this promotion of itself does not indicate notability - but there are other ways to achieve notability. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This topic has been salted due to recreation about 10 times (not by Crystal Clear) since the AfD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The debate was closed correctly. There is no indication that the song passes WP:NSONGS. It has not received independent coverage of the album. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cfcuk – Closure endorsed. The possibility of a redirect and history restoration would depend on whether consensus to include some material at the club's article can be developed, possibly starting out from a more general 'Support' section. Userfy on request. – Tikiwont (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
cfcuk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi

I am writing to request an undeletion for the page I entered about the English football fanzine cfcuk. It seem (I think) that I made the initial mistake of saying that the cfcuk fanzine was ‘notable’, not realising that ‘notability’ is an extremely important Wikipedia term.

The page consisted of a brief history about the cfcuk football fanzine and a review of whom it has interviewed, it’s ‘standing’ amongst the Chelsea support by way of personalities visiting the matchday stall from where it is sold (prior to and after Chelsea home matches) and also some information concerning the ‘special editions’ that have been published and also its relevance to both the club itself and the supporters.

Whilst I understand that I cannot ask why fanzines from other football clubs are allowed to stay within the Wikipedia website and the cfcuk one isn’t, I must say that I feel it is, nevertheless, somewhat unfair considering I feel that all the reasons that were cited for the deletion were answered with reasonable sources and explanations quoted each time.

I hope that, after reading this, you will reconsider your decision and reinstate the afore mentioned and now deleted cfcuk page.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You allowed just 12 minutes from asking the closing admin to reconsider the decision before listing here. What chance did he have of looking at your request in that amount of time?
Notwithstanding that, deletion review is a venue to indicate where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a chance for a de novo hearing, nor for a second bite at the cherry in the hope of getting a different opinion. WP:WAX is generally, and properly, not considered a strong argument, and the debate closed with strong support for deletion. Endorse closure. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The consensus at the AfD was clear that the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the fanzine does not meet the general notability guidelines. The only apprent claims to notability presented in the AfD were 1. archival at the British Library - as noted, the British Library archive a copy of all publications, regardless of notability. This is not therefore an indicator of whether a publication is notable or not. 2. uniquely low cover price - this claim was not only a very weak (as noted) but it was also refuted. Could not have been closed any other way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I only put the submission here because I thought that I had put it in the wrong place - not because I thought that the decision wasn't quick enough.

As I said when replying to the AfD debate, the cfcuk fanzine has been mentioned in plenty of other articles and publications. The cfcuk fanzine is well known amongst Chelsea supporters clubs around the world including the UK, Europe and the USA.

As was stated in the now deleted article, the fanzine has been 'endorsed' by several current and ex-Chelsea footballers and celebrities who support the side by way of their appearances within the fanzine in interviews and meeting Chelsea supporters at the cfcuk matchday stall.

I would still like to have a page about the fanzine considered for the Wikipedia website and would, if allowed, rewrite and re-present another article.

Other than that, would I be able to retrieve the now deleted article for my own use?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (Merge and redirect to Chelsea F.C.) per ChrisTheDude at AfD, a good and valid !vote not considered by any of the "delete" !voters. As this novel !vote was the last, the closer should have considered it and commented on it explicitly, if it should be dismissed. The notability guidelines do not state that material judged to fail should be deleted, just that it shouldn't be an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cache version contains a reference and a link to the primary source, easily sparing it from mandatory deletion per WP:V, and there is no barrier to merging the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the correction. I did not notice the book reference which provides the verifiability needed. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The closer accurately assessed the consensus in the discussion. However, undelete and redirect to Chelsea F.C. if a willing editor can find reliable sources to verify the content in the article. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus in the discussion was to delete but a merge is acceptable per WP:PRESERVE. I endorse JForget's close as an acceptable reading of the consensus but support an undelete and redirect to Chelsea F.C. so the content can be merged. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. No objections to a redirect. Tim Song (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete close, but allow userfication and/or creating a redirect. I don't agree that one merge recommendation based on WP:PRESERVE should trump all the deletes. If a consensus for merging is formed at Talk:Chelsea F.C., the Cfcuk page history can be restored in article space. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close the consensus was clearly to delete and that consensus was well within policy. However there is no reason not to permit userfication. (Indeed as one of the admins willing to userfy on request, I'll do it once this DRV closes if asked, unless the DRV develops a consensus to prohibit userfication in this case.) If the author can find additional evidence of notability, it can always be moved back to article space later. A merge (following an undelete and redir) would also be an acceptable outcome. DES (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flatscan, certainly no !vote trumps, but here it looks like none of the "delete"rs considered the merge option, possibly they were unaware of the suggested target. The closer should have at least made some comment. I would not point people to WP:PRESERVE, but to WP:BEFORE/4, which can be done without additional sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That none of the deletes mentioned a possible merge target is a fair point. As an example, I would endorse a merge close for 3 deletes versus 3 merges, if the deletes came first and failed to argue against merging. It's nice when closers include possible ways forward in their statements, but I did not expect that here. Since there was a consensus to delete, I would prefer that a consensus for the merger be developed before implementing it. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DES, consensus is clear in the AfD that the article should not exist as a stand alone article. Based on existing sources, it would be wrong to allow it back as a stand alone article, but reasonable to userfy for new sources, or to to undelete the history for a merge and redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe, I think we are in violent agreement here. I said "endorse close" which means endorsing that the consensus was to delete. I never suggested allowing it to be recreated as a standalone article in the form deleted. In case i wasn't clear, i suggested that it could either be a) userfied for the creator to attempt to find citations to reliable sources that would establish notability. If, and only if, the creator finds such sources and adds them to a draft, the article could be moved back to mainspace. b) Alternatively, the article could be restored and promptly converted to a redirect, and any useful and verifiable content merged with the redirect serving to preserve attributions (along with a use of {{copied}}). Was it not clear from my comments that those were the options, and the only options, I was suggesting? DES (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't remember what the point of my post was, I think my head was fuzzy. I agree with Flatscan and and DES. I agree with Flatscan that a consensus at Talk:Chelsea F.C. could be sought before undeleting so as to merge, and Blueblagger (talk · contribs) would be well encouraged to do this, because no, this article should not be restored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 February 2010[edit]

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

The redirect Craig hoffman → Craig Hoffman was speedily deleted under CSD R3 ("Implausible typos") by Bwilkins. I do not believe typing an article's name in lowercase is implausible, and WP:R specifies that "likely alternative capitalizations" is a valid use of a redirect. I tried to contact the deleting admin, but their response was, "No, not the way the search engine works. We don't do redirects from lowercase." I don't feel this was a valid deletion, much less a valid speedy deletion under CSD R3. A precedent is extremely well set in terms of other redirects of the same kind. --Swarm(Talk) 22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted Precedent for BLP names is, indeed, well set. R3 was tagged by another user, the article had been recently moved from an improper name (small case second) to a properly capitalized version. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, RfD if desired. It may be useless, but it is not implausible, and therefore not speediable. Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Tim Song, redirects from titles that are entirely lowercase (apart from the case insensitive initial letter) are never implausible, so they are never speedy deletable under criterion WP:CSD#R3. RfD at editorial discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. All lowercase is an obvious case for a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (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.
Sacred microdistillery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello - this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beefeaterdrinker/Sandbox has had a substantial rewrite including the addition of 13 inline citations, linking to 2 BBC pieces, competition wins, high scores in blind tastings etc. In a previous incarnation, the reasons for deletion were due to notability, and I would appreciate guidance as to whether this article can now be relisted, and any further work that needs to be done, relisted or not. I am not sure where to get a copyright free picture for the infobox, for example. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to mainspace I'd not seen previous drafts, and in the last DrV others claimed a COI issue. The current version, while somewhat promotional, is perfectly fine and I find it to be very well sourced indeed. Hotel and Caterer, Financial News, Imbibe, and Wired all seem to have coverage in some detail (though the Wired is the UK edition and quite short). Hobit (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace. I've been coaching Beefeaterdrinker on what the article needs to make it notable—and to get it improved enough that it's no longer a substantial copy of the article deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin (2nd nomination). The breadth of the covering sources (even though some of them, like the Wired story, aren't deep enough to support the article on their own, they play supporting roles and show the company is getting widespread attention) suggests to me that the article now meets WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace The userspace draft demonstrates that the subject has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. A few of the sources are this article from Caterer and Hotelkeeper, this article from the magazine Imbibe, and this article from Wired. I have given the article a few tweaks and believe that it passes WP:NPOV. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace. (I previously deleted this as a reposting of an article that failed AfD and advised deletion review.) I haven't traced the links but if these editors are satisfied, I am too; thanks are due to the individuals who gave us a useful article after a few false starts. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for your positive comments. Is it too early to "Move to mainspace"? Or does this process continue for a while? Given that Accounting4Taste was the deleting Administrator, is it his/her responsibility to do this? thanks Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This process lasts seven days, so the userspace draft will be moved to mainspace no later than that time. An administrator could, however, restore this article immediately because WP:CSD#G4 no longer applies. Cunard (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 February 2010[edit]

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

Deleted with only five !votes? Doesn't sound like much in the way of consensus to me. Also, bear in mind that delete !votes were in the minority. jgpTC 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - the opinions in favour of deleting made sound arguments in line with deletion policy and notability guidelines. The basic argument that there is a lack of independent coverage was not answered by the users who thought the article should be kept, one of whom in fact stated "It is probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active devellopment" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In all I think the decision to delete was a fair reading of the discussion and within administrative discretion. Guest9999 (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had nominated this article for deletion, so I'm not going to !vote here. I suggest a userspace draft if you think it's going to pass WP:N shortly, but do not move it to mainspace before that happens. You could also merge some of the information to WebKit, the engine on which this browser is based on, as suggested by some during the AfD. Pcap ping 02:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article's sources were either not independent or didn't help establish notability. They were [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32]. Thus, the "delete" recommenders, who said there were no sources that established notability, seem to have had the better argument in the AfD discussion. However, the article should be allowed to be re-created if notability can be established at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It's not the number of !votes which count; it's the arguments presented. The arguments to delete may have been in the minority, but they all pointed to the lack of reliable, independent sources establishing notability. The arguments to keep the article were mostly along the lines of, "But look at how many pretty features it has!" —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - three editors quoting policy to explain why it's notable vs two editors who think the features are really cool and that it might be notable someday. I can't see how the closing admin could have judged the consensus differently, A userspace draft is probably the way to go - I've had some hopefuls in my userspace for months waiting for that notability barrier to be broken . . . --otherlleft 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge/redirect To be clear: I agree with all of the above commenters regarding the substance of the debate in this AfD. The arguments presented in the debate by those seeking deletion were indeed stronger, as they were rooted in policies such as WP:DEL and WP:CRYSTAL and in our notability guidelines. Meanwhile, one of the "keep" votes essentially amounted to a listing of the subject's features and WP:ILIKEIT, while the other admitted that the subject was "probably not very notable yet." However, the latter vote should not be completely discarded, as it made a valid point: The subject may achieve notability rather soon, and there is a reasonable merge/redirect target. It is Wikipedia policy to preserve information that "might have some discussion value" and to consider alternatives to deletion. In this AfD, Honeyman recognized that this subject have its own article was inappropriate, but also realized the value of merging or redirecting to preserve information and the revision history of the article. Therefore, while there was a consensus to no longer have an article about Rekonq, it would have been most pragmatic (and policy-compliant) for the closing admin to have taken Honeyman's suggestion and merged or redirected. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin. Just to clarify, User:jgp' s statement that "delete !votes were in the minority" is incorrect. There were three delete !votes, two keep votes, and one "Merge/redirect to WebKit?" Those arguing for deletion made guideline-based arguments. One of the two arguing to keep said "It is probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active devellopment." That's not an argument that an article should currently exist. The other basically said it has lots of neat features, so should be kept. That's not a strong argument to keep it either. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the delete !votes were stronger. I've done some looking and I found a few sources that would help a little, but not enough to keep an article in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. When deletion and keeping "votes" are roughly balanced, there is a duty on the closing administrator to investigate whether arguments were based in policy, and give higher weight to those that are. Bzhb's argument, in particular, was a good argument for deletion despite that it was prefixed with a bold "keep". Stifle (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2010 (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.
Individual server rules in Four Square (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

temporary review so we can copy content to community website I would like to request a temporary review of Individual server rules in Four Square. I am a member of Squarefour, a Four square league that meets in Boston, and we would love to have the 300 or so deleted rules and variations on our website. I have tried in vain to recover the material from Google Cache and Archive.org's Wayback Machine. The material and work that went into it is otherwise lost.

We would really appreciate it if someone could either have the article restored to my userspace, or emailed to me at my username at gmail, whichever is easier for you.

As a fellow contributor, thank you for your attention, time, and continued service. -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Super Obama World – Closed; disputed keep closure was made over a year ago, so renomination at AFD is the correct step rather than listing here. – Stifle (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Super Obama World (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Game is non-notable. According to WP:VG/GL, "Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry." This article does not do that. Yes, it did get some coverage from the BBC and a few other places around election time, but what makes this Flash game more notable than the hundreds of other Flash games about Obama? Yekrats (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per default since the request does not argue why the AfD closer assessed consensus incorrectly. DRV is not AfD round two.  Sandstein  14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion was ended prematurely. I don't know if that carries any weight. -- Yekrats (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was clearly to keep. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, the AfD was closed after only one day, I suggest you ask the closing admin to reopen the discussion to allow more time for other views. J04n(talk page) 14:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On third thought...I was a bit of a bonehead on my last response forgetting what year it is. Agree with Metropolitan90 below on bringing it back to Afd. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep but allow re-nomination at AfD. The AfD was more than a year ago, so there would be no point in re-opening that particular AfD. However, if User:Yekrats believes that there is a good reason to delete the article, they should feel free to re-nominate it, providing a detailed explanation as to why the decision in the prior AfD was wrong and why the sources in the article are inadequate to establish notability, even though they may appear to do so. (Keep in mind that the hundreds of other Flash games about Obama may not have received as much coverage in reliable independent sources as this one did. I don't pay that much attention to Flash games myself, so I wouldn't know from personal knowledge.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist In hindsight, the closing was irregularly premature despite the obvious non-notability of this article and time has made this article even less notable.--The lorax (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just renominate it and close this DRV. Tim Song (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried, but User:Guest9999 said I must list it here. Sorry, I don't fully understand Wikipedia protocol. -- Yekrats (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what User:Guest9999 said. The issue was that you tried to use the WP:PROD process which is for uncontested deletions, since it's been through AFD before it would seem unlikely it would be uncontested. What User:Guest9999 suggested was to bring it here or relist it at AFD by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Many here are suggesting the latter also as being the best and quickest way forward, since it is extremely unlikely that this process will overturn the old decision and the only two other options are to either endorse the original keep or to relist it at AFD, if it's that relisting which occurs it will be after 7 days here. You don't need to wait that 7 days follow those instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion and list it now. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, guys, I'm not familiar with some of the TLAs! I thought this was what I was supposed to do. I don't mind rescinding this process and relisting as AFD! -- Yekrats (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a separate note, if you do list it you may want to consider your deletion rationale. The WP:VG/GL isn't an inclusion criteria it's more about trying to reflect the content scope of the article, it's also wikiproject based and wikiprojects don't get to set/override the rules for the encyclopedia. The likely inclusion criteria to be used is the general notability guideline, if it meets that then inclusion is almost certainly warranted in one form or another. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. DRV is not AFD round 2. jgpTC 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Open a new AfD if you think it fails WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NTEMP. The AfD challenged here was over a year ago. Pointless DRV. Pcap ping 02:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse previous close- its been a year, go ahead and re-nominate if it bugs you that much. Just let me know, Based on the sources from Time Magazine and The Economist, two pretty reliable sources, I'll be voting to keep based on meeting the WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There was a clear consensus to keep the article at the AfD. However, the fact that the use of the snowball clause has been contested means that this was probably not a great candidate for early closure under that clause. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (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.
User talk:Spartaz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Following what appears to be a dispute with others, Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted and protected his user talk page. I undid this deletion as out of policy. Spartaz has re-deleted it and labeled himself as retired. Since people do not own their talk page or any other page, I ask that the page be undeleted and unprotected. If Spartaz feels that it ought to be deleted, he may nominate it for WP:MfD. WP:RTV#How to leave states that user talk pages "are generally not deleted unless there is a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient. This specific reason needs to be established by nominating it via Miscellany for Deletion."  Sandstein  07:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow deletion. It seems odd to comment here for something like this, but if a user truly wants to retire from Wikipedia for some reason, any reason, they should be able to delete their talk page. RTV. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, the RTV policy explicitly does not extend to talk pages. Talk pages are required to communicate with users. They may also contain content of relevance to other users.  Sandstein  08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, but there isn't much to talk about if the person has legitimately left the project. Ideally, we should delete this talk page (leaving it as it is) and remove the administrative privileges from the account. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the deletion history of his talkpage, he's misused deletion in this way before. He gets mad, "retires", deletes his talkpage, and comes back. It's not an acceptable use of the delete button, and it needs to stop. Scottaka UnitAnode 08:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. The delete button isn't to be used in a fit of anger, as it was here, and deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion of usertalk without extenuating circumstances. Scottaka UnitAnode 08:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see what purpose this DRV serves, and what positive effects it may achieve. Without voicing an opinion on the merits of the deletion, speedy close. Let's drop this for now. When everyone involved is no longer caught in the heat of the moment, it may well be the case that a DRV would be unnecessary. Tim Song (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Tim Song. The 1st person to !vote here for an overturn is the guy whose block caused all this kerfuffle. Not a good idea. Pcap ping 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and unprotect (note that I have reversed my speedy closure as the admin in question has now escalated matters by protecting their talk page). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Spartaz has now undeleted and unprotected the page (thanks!), I think this can now be closed as moot.  Sandstein  13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 February 2010[edit]

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

My Name is Ben Blum. I have been working as a QA manager and would like to contribute from my experience to Wikipedia's readers. my first article "BugUp Tracker" was deleted claiming that the software presented was not notable enough. I requested some aids with regards to what proof is needed to show notability? I have reviewed several other bug tracking software that do exist in Wikipedia (Action Request System,StarTeam and others. Are these bug tracking systems considered to be more notable than BugUp Tracker because of the fact that they are connected to BMC/Borland? is this the only reason? it should have no bearings when the competence of Bug tracking systems is being discussed and compared, yet both of them appear in Wikipedia and in the bug tracking systems comparison page (Comparison of issue tracking systems). I am working on a series of articles that compare below the radar bug tracking systems, other than the more notable ones, such as JIRA or Bugzilla and more in the neighborhood of the aforementioned Action Request System and StarTeam. since i am planning more comparison articles, it would generate more reference material with Wikipedia to BugUp Tracker. If acclaiming notability resides within links outside of Wikipedia, feel free to google BugUp Tracker, for reviews. I can understand the scrutiny required from Wikipedia's editors to judge the material inserted into the database, yet with that being said, they should also keep an open mind for newcomers and data that is of interest to Wikipedia's readers. If there is no significant difference between the likes of Action Request System and StarTeam to BugUp Tracker, I request that my info page regarding this software to be reinstated. If there are actions needed for me to prove notability, please let me know what they are, instead of just answering that all the editors agreed that the software is not notable enough, with no response to my questions and arguments. thanks Benblum1 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Cirt's close, could not be closed any other way. Benblum1: WP:GNG applies here. Notability is demonstrated by showing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Tim Song (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD could not have been closed any differently. If someone can provide independent sources that cover this software, it should be userfied for further work. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is generally a bad argument to make. I'm going to note that Action Request System appears quite notable [33], even if no independent sources have been added to that article; the same goes for StarTeam [34]. Not so for BugUp Tracker [35] [36]. Pcap ping 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice Ben, we're not a reviewing medium. Our purpose is not to evaluate the quality of software, of books, or music, or scientific theories, or political ideas. That takes place in the outside world, and is best done in more conventional ways by people who take responsibility for their opinions by using their true name and staking their reputation, edited by people who take responsibility for choosing their reviews , and who stand behind the work they select to publish. What we do is summarize and distribute the information that such outside reliable sources publish, on the assumption that what they review and write about will be of sufficient interest. we reply on things being already judged important by others first, and described here second. When you have such sources, there can be an article. There are unfortunately quite a number of articles about programs and other things that have gotten into Wikipedia without such sources--some might in fact have them, and those can and will be fixed; some do not, and those can and will be deleted. People tend to judge us by our worst articles, and it our job to improve or remove them. What we certainly try to avoid is to add additional ones that people will question. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: so, if i understand your comment DGG, if i can locate reliable sources(sites with internet reputation??), that have reviewed a software (BugUp Tracker in this case), i can re-post my article, and add these sources as references, could appease the wiki editors as sufficient notability? 2-3 sources? quality of review? I am just trying to understand how decisions are being made. Thanks 79.176.57.29 (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm not sure what you'd mean by "internet reputation", Wikipedia itself could be described as having internet reputation but it wouldn't meet the standard required for sources. Take a look at the general notability guidline, neutral point of view and reliable sources. They'll give some pointers. If you aren't sure if a source is considered reliable there is the reliable sources noticeboard where people will look at the sources you provide and advise. You can also use the helpdesk to ask for advice and various other mechanisms. You can also write up an article in your private userspace with the sources you intend to use, then come back here and people will often advise if it's suitable, though bringing it back here can sometimes be a more adversarial experience. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, could not realistically have been closed any other way. WP:WAX is not considered a strong argument. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 February 2010[edit]

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

It would be beneficial to the completion of List of ethnic slurs article for this to redirect to List of ethnic slurs#N. I fixed the redirects to most of the other terms on that article but this one has been deleted. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak restore as redirect. Assuming that the term stays on the list a redirect is appropriate. However, I see that the citation for this entry in Urban Dictionary. Is that generally considered reliable enough to support a listing? Eluchil404 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe so, Urban Dictionary is used by many ISPs and companys for abuse and language filters. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment the sources mentioned below address my concerns. My feeling is that to the extent the RfD relied on WP:IDONTLIKEIT it is invalid and to the extent it relied on the term not being in the target article it has been superseded. As such the deletion should be overturned and the redirect restored. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and oppose restoration. Anyone can add a definition to Urband Dictionary; it is most definitely not a reliable source. I'm removing the term from the list until it is cited to a reliable source. As for the redirect, there was a clear consensus that it was harmful, useless, and/or WP:MADEUP and should be deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's a really poor source which I doubt would be accepted within any other article. It merely tells of existance of the term as used by one person in one context, expands none of the greater understanding of the term, doesn't give and indication of prevelance of use etc. that's pretty much WP:OR it's mentioned here and I fully understand it as X so I can include it as X --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced it with a better source. That said, I am still reluctant to overturn a unanimous RfD consensus that a redirect is harmful. If the redirect is restored, it should be immediately listed at RfD to develop a full consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urban Dictionary is the textbook definition of an unreliable source. Endorse deletion and keep salted, until we have at least some significant coverage in reliable sources. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objections to a redirect, per Tarc. Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Taking into account that the term is potentially offensive, it's presence in Wikipedia requires really a good source to demonstrate that the term is notable. By the way, you could discuss this with me, before going straight to DRV. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create redirect and restore entry to article. - Usage in a major motion picture[37], noted in the book "White out: the Continuing Significance of Racism" [38], and Chris Rock's Niglet SNL sketch [39]. That should be enough to establish that it exists beyond the confines of urbandictionary. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion, but now restore redirect per nom and Tarc. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Stop at Willoughby restated his argument above on my talk page, and I have to admit, I really don't like the idea of overturning the discussion as the consensus was clear. That said, the discussion made it fairly plain (as one of the originally nommed redirects was withdrawn) that if there was solid sourcing, keeping the redirect would be acceptable. I think new information has gotten us there and we are meeting the spirit of the discussion. But no objection to a relist so it can be discussed more completely. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I respect that argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Updated bolded part to make it plain I think the admin's deletion was a good and proper close given the information available at the time. Hobit (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore redirect based on Tarc's references. --Stormie (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but permit restoration. The consensus in the RfD was clear, and so the closure was proper. However Tarc provides information not considered in that discussion that shows the redirect is warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2010 (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:Melody maker-cover-april-8th-1995.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe I had adequately addressed the issues raised at the deletion debate by editing Richey Edwards appropriately and adding relevant secondary sourcing, actions which, given the limited rationale of the closer, I have no idea if they were seen or taken note of. Since I have contacted the closing admin previously regarding a different deletion and received no response, I am coming straight here. Hiding T 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I think you should have talked to the deleting admin about this first. If you're not sure of whether he saw your comments, then you should have asked him. In any case, a closing rationale from Fastily would be much appreciated. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to have misread me. I already contacted Fastily on another deletion and received no reply, therefore saw I'd be better served coming here first. The point of this debate is to discuss the close, not the protocol. Is it a good close? Given that the reasons for deletion were addressed? Hiding T 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not misread you; rather, I merely wish to note that you should have raised this with Fastily first, regardless of your prior experience, and asked him whether he took your latter comment into account. I personally would have closed the debate as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Fastily's deletion was a poor decision. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist so that Hiding's argument, raised late in the FfD, may be fully considered. Tim Song (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no explanation for the close has shown up and the reasons to keep seem at least as strong as the arguments for deletion. It may be that the closer saw something else, but if so he's not sharing. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I did look at this at the time, but didn't get round to commenting on it or closing it. For me, Hiding's changes to the Richey Edwards article didn't go far enough to meet NFCC #8, and I have trouble seeing how they ever could have done. I see magazine covers as generally being replaceable by text where the message boils down to "X appeared on the cover of magazine Y". To have a good case under NFCC #8, it should be something more like the use of a Vogue cover in the Anna Wintour article which was debated (see here) some days before this case. Your mileage may vary. That's why we have deletion review. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Angusmclellan's arguments are compelling but a relist so that the new arguments by Hiding can be considered would not be unreasonable. Cunard (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • NetWrix Corporation – Request declined a userspace draft, preferably written by someone without a conflict of interest is probably required here. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NetWrix Corporation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'd like to review the former NetWrix Corporation page to find out why it was deleted. The page is no longer accessible, but if possible, I'd like to have the former page sent to my account (SMschimmel) in order to find out what was wrong with it and edit/improve it for future submission. SMschimmel (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined, write a userspace draft. The page content was a single paragraph that was pure marketing speak. It was rightly speedy deleted as spam (WP:CSD#G11) and then repeatedly recreated several times, all on a single day in August 2007. The content was very likely a copyright violation of the company's website and/or marketing material so I am not going to restore it as it would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopaedic and free from copyright issues. Given this, it would be much better for you to create a userspace draft from a source that is not 2½ years out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn salting The relevant policy is at WP:SALT, which designates creation-protection ("salting") as a purely preventative measure. This title was apparently salted by the deleting admin, Beetstra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and subsequently converted to cascading protection by another admin. While salting this title made sense as a preventative measure at the time (to stop further spamming), this is no longer clearly the case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose re-creation per JzG. So much for "no longer clearly the case" that spamming will occur if the title is unsalted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show us a userspace draft and we can discuss unsalting. Tim Song (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. "Stephen Schimmel, Product Manager, NetWrix Corporation." See WP:COI and WP:BAI. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deny request, as per Thryduuly and Tim Song. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 February 2010[edit]

  • File:Robert M. Isaac.jpg – overturn. Consensus is that this meets the WP:NFCC#1 criteria, and that deletion under any other criterion needs to be discussed. A second FFD discussion is left to the discretion of interested users. – Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Robert M. Isaac.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Colorado_Springs_mayor_Robert_M._Isaac, please restore. This image was offhandedly deleted under the assumption that photos of this deceased politician were readily available. They are not, and I am 5000 miles away. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore WP:NFCC#1 states, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Robert M. Isaac is deceased, so no free image can be created now. However, there is a question of whether one can be obtained. Given the good-faith (unsuccessful) efforts to find a free image, it is perhaps unreasonable to keep deleted under WP:NFCC#1 when finding a free image proves so difficult. The closing admin weighed the arguments correctly back in December, so in that sense I endorse, but now that it's February I would not object to restoring the image, albeit in very close compliance with WP:F and WP:IUP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peripitus makes a compelling argument that the image might fail WP:NFCC#2 as well; however, I think the image should be restored and relisted so a more thorough consensus can be achieved at FfD regarding the image's NFCC compliance, or lack thereof. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as the deleting administrator - based on the weight of the arguments presented I still think this was the correct closure. The reason I don't agree with A Stop at Willoughby's restoration note is that the image was sourced from a news site (see here) and it is strongly arguable that the image use here fails NFCC#2. Restoring this and rerunning FfD is, I think, going to see the image deleted on NFCC#2 grounds alone - Peripitus (Talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That section reads "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." How would that image's use here, in a single article, at reduced size, replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A search here in Japan yields a second image here. Would this image, trimmed down to the mayor himself, (and this one including all of his head and so on), be acceptable? I don't care which image is used, but the biography should have a photo. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per A Stop at Willoughby, except that I voice no opinion on the close itself, an issue that is unnecessary to the resolution of the matter at hand. The NFCC#2 question is not unambiguously added, 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC) raised in the original FfD, and should be addressed by a new FfD if necessary on restoration. Tim Song (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not quite correct - see the nominators statement "apparently copied from a news source" - this is also a matter I took into account on the closure - Peripitus (Talk) 02:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per A Stop at Willoughby and Tim Song. No objection if someone relists due to NFCC#2, though I personally think that's a stretch. Also a WP:FISH for the rudeness of the FfD nom. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#2 a stretch ? We have an image taken from a commercial news site, and image that we are using at a resolution that is for sale (such res images are often licenced for web use)...That seems a casebook example of being "used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". News photos are sold for exactly the use this image was put to - illustrating an article on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 05:57, 25 February 2010 (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:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This is not a non-free image as recorded in wiki guidelines 129.96.113.84 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is incorrect as I am not a member. The production image was deleted from Once Upon a Midnight on the grounds that it was a non-free image and/or that it could be replaced. See: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 24#File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg. Both statements are false as the image is not under copyright and has appeared in conjunction with the production's publicity. For proof, this image accompanied all the articles listed on the bottom of the wiki page and is publically available. It cannot be replaced as cameras and video cameras are not permitted in theatrical performances. It is relevent to the article as it conveys the costume, style and Mise-en-scène of this unique Japanese/Australian performance, which is unlikely to be repeated. Other articles on musical theatre include a production image. See [[40]], [[41]], and[[42]] please advise (129.96.113.84 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Endorse closure of the FfD as "delete." During the debate, the copyrighted status of the image was not contested by any of the participants. As such, WP:NFCC was the primary policy being considered. The nominator put forth a strong argument – that the image might be replaceable by a free image, thus failing WP:NFCC#1. The other participant in the discussion was unsure of whether the image was replaceable; however, both participants expressed an opinion that the image was not needed to enhance reader understanding of the text, thus failing WP:NFCC#8. The only reason to overturn this FfD result would be the revelation that the image was, in fact, in the public domain. However, I do not see any evidence that this is the case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, copyright is presumed unless shown otherwise. Tim Song (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • week endorse not really happy with the closing admin !voting (in effect) and closing, but the final result seems correct and proper. Hobit (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • VK Bosna – Speedy deletion overturned article restored without prejudice to an immediate listing at AfD. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
VK Bosna (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

VK Bosna is a sports team that is part of the USD Bosna sports society. I ask that the waterpolo club article be brought back. There was everything there that was necessary. There were references - the official team's website. There was another website. If more is needed, I can provide more. What really bothers me is that there are many other sport team/club articles that had significantly less content - yet they are not deleted. I can give a a list of a number of such articles if you guys want. The bottom line is that this is the best waterpolo club in the entire country, it is an established club in a recently formed new league, and there really is no reason why it should be deleted. LAz17 (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Also, do check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarajevo#Sports , as you guys can see it is missing a link among the sport clubs in the city. (LAz17 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment, can someone please make it possible for me to see the AfD on this, as well as the article itself as was before deletion? Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment It was deleted directly via speedy deletion, under "Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a group or club that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" tice, by two different administrators, User:Tbsdy lives , and User:Sandahl. Looking at the article, I see it did not have any references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party sources, just a link to its own web page, facebook page, web site, and the web page for the university sports association. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was in the process of building and expanding the page. Yet I do not get this opportunity. This page for example, HK Spartak Subotica has less information yet it is not deleted. The website itself of this mighty organization should be enough reason for it to stay, but I can and will provide third party sources documenting their existence, their success, and their happenings. (LAz17 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Done, they're listed towards the bottom - as of right now. (LAz17 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. This article met A7 because it was about an organization and it did not assert that organization's notability adequately. Describing it as "the strongest" club in its league is not an adequate assertion of notability, particularly when that league does not appear to be notable itself. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we will often keep an article on a league, but not the individual teams, just as we will often keep an article on a team, but not the individual players. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, DGG, we have the NBA, but no Chicago Bulls or Michael Jordan.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, if you want an obscure league, one where you can destroy/delete all the teams from - no better place to start than here... Bosnia and Herzegovina Hockey League. Three teams, all ready to be whipped off. Let me know if you need any more articles that could be great candidates for slaughtering. What is going on is institutionalizing vandalism on wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
LAz17, DGG is an inclusionist, an intelligent man and pretty fair. Feel free to disagree with him but please do not be agressive or mean. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LAz17, you're correct about the league. I saw that Bosnia-Herzegovina Waterpolo League was a redlink and mistakenly assumed that the article did not exist; I certainly don't have any feelings one way or another about deleting it. However, like DGG said, the notability of the league does not guarantee the notability of the team. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps userfication or incubation would be appropriate here. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. I do not know how I would vote at an AfD of this article, but I believe it deserves community opinion.

This is a newly formed waterpolo league in the city of Sarajevo. It is a "canton" league (meaning something like regional, a canton is a small administrative division of a country). This is due to the fact that Bosnia as a country is still greatly influenced from the war that is long over, life is centralized into large cities. This is as close as it gets to a national league, and the effort should be applauded. Instead of speedy deleting articles they know nothing about, editors should first do a little research, and if unfamiliar with the language, seek help. LAz17, please find additional sources on the team, anything on the internet that is a reputable reliable source (e.g. newspaper websites, news, etc.), so that you may appease the nay sayers (being nice here, I would have rather said the uninformed ignorants who nevertheless stick noses in where they know nothing about). Turqoise127 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is what I can find...
The official site - http://www.vkbosna.ba/loc/
News from the society's website - http://www.usdbosna.org/content.php?fid=e2a66d19ddadb5fbe9bbe0186fac90eb
News article - http://www.nezavisne.com/sport/ostali/32910/Vaterpolo-klub-Bosna-danas-pocinje-sa-radom.html
Club organizing a recent international tournament - http://www.olimpijskibazensarajevo.ba/pocetna/133-vk-primorac-pobjednik-turnira-sarajevo-champions-challenge2009.html
Another news article - http://www.centar.ba/?jezik=bos&n=821
Another article about sarajevo city's support for the club and the big achievements that the club has attained in a very short time... http://www.sarajevo.ba/ba/stream.php?sta=3&pid=6062&kat=2
(LAz17 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Excellent pint about uninformed ignorants. The best example is here, [43] HS Olimpija Ljubljana. They wanted to delete that page too! And the VK Bosna page had much more than what this hockey team page has. (LAz17 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Comment, I believe the sources listed above here by LAz17 are sufficient to establish notability via reliable verifiable sources. If some disagree, please address why the sources are not sufficient. Please restore and keep the article. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. I see only one reliable source [44] in the pile above, but if my memory of the contents of the cached article is correct, the A7 was very borderline already. Coupled with the source (and I admit I'm no Bosnia expert), I think there's enough here to require a discussion. Tim Song (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD exactly per Tim Song. More sources will be needed that contribute to WP:N. But not a speedy candidate at this point. Other option is to recreate the article from scratch with the source (which should make it immune to any speedy) which will result in even more time wasted. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what now? It's still deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
    • In general there will be a 7 day discussion. So we wait until then unless it's really clear (see WP:SNOW) what the outcome will be. My best guess is that at that time it will get restored and then sent to AfD where it will be discussed for yet another 7 day period. And unless sourcing improves in that time (and it may, that's part of why we spend 7 days on it) it will likely get deleted for not meeting WP:N. Yes, it's a long process, and sometimes needlessly so (I'd favor snowing this and moving on). But it helps to insure that when we do delete something it was a good and reasonable thing to do. See WP:DEL for yet more details. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD or Incubate in the light of the newly-presented sources. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 February 2010[edit]

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

Article has been speedily deleted for reasons of non-notability. However there are at least indications of notability (author translated to 3 other languages; article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia; wikilinked by another article) meaning that this is no Speedy-candidate. Please undelete temporarily, so we can discuss its notability or non-notability. PanchoS (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2010 (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.
Worker Communism Unity Party of Iran (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article has been speedily deleted for reasons of non-notability. However there are at least indications of notability (> 6000 Google hits) meaning that this is no Speedy-candidate. Please undelete temporarily, so we can discuss its notability or non-notability. PanchoS (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (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.
Paul Carrigan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (1st AfD)

The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator with the condition that the article was deleted/userfied. Effectively this was a speedy deletion when all the comments were to keep or withdraw (none was to delete). The admin's decision to delete the article over-rode the consensus view. I recommend that the article is re-created. If necessary, the AfD can run to completion to make sure there is an established consensus to delete/userfy or keep.

Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Nominating a page for AFD while tagged with construction was raised by user:Cirt which dealt with user:Epbr123's inappropriate timing of the nomination to delete for an article with a construction tag and undergoing active improvement. Both users are admins. This is a separate issue to the article being deleted/userfied.

The userfied version was made available at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. Ash (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request for DRV. I verify that Ash's assessment is factual and correct. The nominator for both Afd's (User:Epbr123) has shown a pattern of nominating at least one gay porn bio a day for deletion and while this may, or may not, be against any written policy, it is unfair toward the whole Wikipedia community as there is little time, or energy to deal with the onslaught of deletion reviews. Editors like Ash and myself who are interested in creating and improving articles are instead spending the majority of our time vainly attempting to keep valuable information from being lost forever. -Stillwaterising (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave in userspace - The page is currently in userspace, at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. The article is a WP:BLP, and as a WP:BLP, it should not be simply moved back into article mainspace until sourcing issues are addressed. As for the matter of the page itself, I personally think it is notable enough for an article, and other editors are free to create a different version than the one in Ash (talk · contribs)'s userspace that is well-sourced, but this particular version is not yet and should not be moved back into article mainspace in its form. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that during the AfD no specific BLP concerns were raised for the sources or facts mentioned in the article. The only time BLP was mentioned was by me as an aside. DRV discussions are not intended to pre-empt an adequate AfD (the guidelines state "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question."), these new points raised are why we should have an AfD or alternatives to deletion so that the article can be improved instead of deleted. Ash (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and one of the alternatives to deletion is something called Incubation, much akin to having the article in userspace as long as its quality is poor. Cirt (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incubation is a suggestion that can be made during AfD. The point here is that the article was deleted when the documented consensus was to keep, you have not addressed that matter. Ash (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you have failed to explain why Wikipedia should selectively choose to go against the policy of WP:BLP in this particular instance and move a poorly sourced page into article mainspace. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note: Information on incubation can be found at WP:Incubation - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I failed to do no such thing; the AfD made no mention of BLP violations. This DRV is not the place to start an AfD discussion. The article was deleted when the documented consensus was to keep. Pointing out my faults does not change that fact. Ash (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave in userspace until at least the article is properly sourced. In my opinion, the subject doesn't appear to be notable and it is inevitable that someone will begin another AfD if the article is restored without additional evidence to notability. Epbr123 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I have worked on the page Paul Carrigan, in a subpage of my userspace at User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. This version is sourced with citations after every single sentence in the page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore Cirt's version. I don't see how there can be objections to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore Cirt's version. I was the one who originally suggested returning the article to userspace, because it wasn't adequately sourced. Cirt's version is sourced well enough to answer my objections. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Cirt's version and speedy close this unnecessary DRV. This case once again illustrates why filing a DRV over every hypertechnical dispute on where an article should be in the few hours, or days, when it is being sourced before it goes into mainspace is pointless and wasteful. Tim Song (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is Internet Adult Film Database a reliable source? The name suggest similarity with IMDB... Pcap ping 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This might be relevant in an AfD, not for a DRV. Try WP:RSN where this was last discussed two years ago with the conclusion that it was okay for non-controversial items, such as credibly confirming films acted in but cannot be assumed to be an exhaustive listing. Hm, I note that Epbr123 asked the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Reliability_of_IAFD a very short time before you asked this question here. Ash (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral although consensus does seem to be for restoring Cirt's version. Thanks and apologies to Cirt for commendable work on the article and unwarranted accusations respectively. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If Cirt's userfied verson is moved to main space then the revision history of the orginal article which is including in Ash's userfied version would be lost. Propose moving Ash's version to main space and applying the final version of Cirt's edits. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That will be done in any regard, to preserve the history of the page. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not sure how my above comment could have be misunderstood to mean I prefer Ash's versions over Cirt's. I'm for restoring Cirt's version as long as the original revision history is preserved (which is currently associated with Ash's version). - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave in userspace until the article can be corrected. JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of this DRV is that the AfD never reached any conclusion to userfy in the first place, discussion was halted by a non-consensus deletion. A DRV is not the place to have the AfD discussion that should have been allowed to complete. Ash (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I have no problem with a problematic BLP being expeditiously moved out of mainspace. That's my position if we're going to discuss things in theory. I see now though that the version Cirt has looks promising so perhaps it can be moved back now. JBsupreme (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks very much, Cirt (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • JB, I'm surprised that in theory you think it's okay to close an ongoing AfD where the consensus was to keep, on the basis that in your opinion there may be a BLP problem and yet you would not discuss any issues you identified in the AfD. I would have thought you would propose a userfy in the AfD rather than believing that personal viewpoint carries more weight that anyone else who contributes in an AfD discussion. Ash (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Cirt's version without prejudice for another AfD. It's substantially different in terms of sourcing than the userfied/deleted version. If some editors still think it's improperly sourced, they can open another AfD as there seems to be no consensus on the reliability of IAFD. Pcap ping 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Cirt's version; while I'm no fan of the way this AfD went, Cirt's version is a substantial improvement, meets WP:PORNBIO; and is well-sourced to boot. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This DRV has been open for more than 7 days now and I see that consensus has been reached. Can it be closed now? - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2010 (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.
Over You (Girlicious song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was originally deleted per discussion from another author stating lack of proper citations,they are an American band but had no American citations and was a non charting single. I agree with why it was ORIGINALLY deleted, HOWEVER i am a new creator and would love to be able to create the page. The song now is currently on the billboard and more information has become available, i have American citations that meet with wiki standards and believe it originally complies with WP:NSONG standards. So i am requesting a chance to undelete the article so i can improve the page. Please share your thoughts. thank you (L-l-CLK-l-l (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • The Canadian references thing was a distraction - the editor who raised it was mistaken and later retracted on that point. Notability is notability, whether it be in Canada or the US - but at the time of the AfD there was no real notability anywhere. According to Billboard, "Over You" is currently 62 on the Canadian Hot 100 so that does change the perspective. There is no point recreating the article if it says nothing about the song that is not already covered at Girlicious, but otherwise I would support restoration. I42 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, without prejudice to another AfD at editorial discretion. There is a significant change in the circumstances, and the song seems to pass WP:NSONGS. Tim Song (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, restore as now it seems to meets our inclusion requirements. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 February 2010[edit]

  • Color symbolism and psychology – Closing this discussion already since i) declared unproductive by the requester themselves, ii) not finding any procedural problem with the deletion and iii) unlikely to shed further light on the meanwhile attempted rewrite or the potential of this topic in general. Given that some editors here affirm or at least won't rule out such potential, I'll move this to the incubator where interested editors can work on it, if they see fit. – Tikiwont (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Let me also note that in parallel separate stubs for Color symbolism and Color psychology have been created.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Color symbolism and psychology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted after minimal discussion (just five votes) on grounds of insufficient sourcing and citation, as well as being unauthoritative within its subject matter (psychology). Request review and possible undelete on grounds that this article is not actually a "hard science" artice despite the "psychology" association; the "connections" and "moods" discussed on the page have been well known for many years, and are not exclusively anglo-centric as asserted in the discussion. Accordingly, arguing from a "citation needed" and strict-constructionist WP Policy mentality on this particular article is well-intentioned, but entirely misplaced. Requesting review rather than working through deleting admin not out of disrespect, but just out of not having time for prolonged discussion today. Ender78 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article has already been extensively reworked and additional citations added. Additionally, the article has been flagged for further attention within the Visual Arts WikiProject. I notice that there are still certain parties who are attempting to (ab)use policy as a blunt instrument to tell other people how it's going to be, but if the purpose here is to promote quality content, I believe I am taking the right actions and going in the right direction. I welcome those who disagree to provide logical arguments on the page's talk. Ender78 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion There was overwhelming consensus to delete the article. This could not have been closed any other way. Cunard (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were five votes total. That's not overwhelming by any standard of which I am aware. Ender78 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many votes would be required for an article to be deleted? Five seems to be enough. Cunard (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen votes that went on for months, so long that the vote itself had to be restarted just to bring the matter to an actual resolution. That's the opposite extreme. I would simply say that a fair hearing requires more than five people. Ender78 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The debate went on for over seven days. No one opposed deletion. This is a good close that reflected the consensus of the community. Again, how many votes would be required for a fair hearing? Six? Cunard (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think the fact that you're sustaining the action purely on the basis of process, and trying to bait me into a flamewar with your belligerent and unilateral tone is unfortunate, and precisely what I hoped to avoid by putting it through review rather than trying to work it at a lower level. The article in question is not a very high-traffic page, hence it is no surprise that discussion developed slowly and that it needs more time for a proper discussion to unfold. As a reductio ad absurdum, what would you say if I managed to rope together five people and a rogue admin and deleted Jimbo's page? Would six votes be sufficient in that case? Ender78 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continued endorse deletion, do not restore Having read the comments below, I am convinced that the AfD participants were correct that the article was unacceptable in that it failed the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that the best you've got? I can regurgitate policy, too. In any case, here's nine different citations I've added to the article, which I have already restored, because talking to some of you people is like conversing with a brick wall.[45]|[46]|[47]|[48]|[49]|[50]|[51]|[52]|[53]
  • Endorse closure What, exactly, is supposed to be procedurally incorrect about this AfD discussion? Five participants supporting deletion is plenty, especially when no significant objections were raised, and AfDs should never be left open "for months." The closest thing to a vote to keep was a comment that "throwing it all away would be a waste," and even that user did not disagree with the assertion that the article was unacceptable in its current state. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you actually read my comment, I specifically state that "for months" is the opposite extreme, intended to illustrate the opposite end of the timeframes under which AfDs have been conducted in the past. I do not advocate leaving one open that long; I am only saying that five votes on a site as large and authoritative as WP does not constitute anything near a plurality. Ender78 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll further note that speedy deletes aside, seven days is the shortest vote I've personally witnessed, and five votes the smallest number of voters. I note that the admin relisted the article, so that actually underscores the extent to which the article in question is slow-traffic and should've been given a little more time. (better yet, a little TLC.) Ender78 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a vote and 7 days is the current standard, it used to be 5 days and there is no quorum (nor has there ever been one) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Seven days is the standard, and plenty of AfDs are closed after seven days. Three !votes on one side with no opposition is normally sufficient; five !votes, as here, is way more than sufficient. Tim Song (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd point out that seven days, for a more general-interest article, would normally result in more than five votes. The very fact that "the standard" is not necessarily "the hard rule" is to allow some leeway for situations just like this. As for opposition, I missed the close of the vote by mere hours, or there'd be at least one vote against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender78 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted, mostly per Cunard. Having examined the article and purported sources, I concur with his assessment. And speedy close. DRV is not a platform to attack other editors. Period. Tim Song (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I don't see any departure from correct handling here. Maybe putting a delsort or two on it would have garnered a few more votes but who is to say it wouldn't just have been another bunch of "delete"s? The five voters were not "roped together" and the admin was not "rogue" so I don't see any reason to invoke such empty spectres. Rather than waste time arguing about this I would like to suggest that Ender78 adopts an alternative approach which is more likely to be productive, i.e. to request a copy of the deleted article to be put in his user space so it is available for reference and then start a pair of stub articles for the two subjects that the deleted article was conflating, (e.g. Colour symbolism and Psychology of colour). It will be important to add the appropriate WikiProjects so that the articles are worked on collaboratively and then I recommend to gently start building the articles up trying to avoid the problems with the original one. Some elements of the original article could be reused with appropriate caution. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's precisely what I was trying to avoid. I simply think the article should be restored and re-tagged if quality is deemed lacking. Personally, I found --and find-- it to be a good quick-read on the topics covered, with no deeper scholarly analysis really necessary. I don't understand why you would scrap an entire article that isn't a hard-science article to begin with, on the basis that it needs to be rewritten from scratch to include more scholarly citations. Shouldn't it have been done the other way around, and tag it to the various related WikiProjects first? We both know if I restarted the article, it'd be stubbed within seconds and speedied within minutes, precisely on account of what's already happened. Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, your invokation of my "five voters and an admin deleting Jimbo" example misses the actual argument and point being put forth, which was explicitly acknowledged to be reductio ad absurdum. (Please read the actual argument before inaccurately attempting to debunk it.) Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, I can't help but notice --and mention-- that this article is getting railroaded without anyone actually reading the arguments in favor of reconsidering or examining the AfD discussion's flawed arguments, while "Fishsticks" and "Gay Fish" is a cause celebre being mentioned for restoration and protection. That's.....profoundly disappointing, and indicative of the flaws created on WP by "the process" becoming the tail that wags the dog. Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But you've brought this issue to DRV, which is all about analyzing whether process was followed. If you think the accepted process is wrong, you need to obtain consensus to change it elsewhere. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's flexibility in the AfD process precisely because it's not a one-size-fits-all thing. Ender78 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure I understand your argument here. In what way is AfD "not a one-size-fits-all thing"? What sort of extant flexibility in the process do you believe this article was denied? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • AfDs do not automatically close themselves, yes? They're left to thinking human beings, then, for a reason, which would seem to be so that that person could determine if the action proposed truly fits the consensus model at hand. Another interesting factoid: Snied, DanielRigal, and Smocking are all from the UK, all participated in the AfD, and all have participated in this discussion, along with two IPs that have either edited or reblanked the article in question, or participated in the AfD. Ender78 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the history for discussion I think Endor attempted this, but I did it the right way. The article as it was deleted is visible in the page history. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you; I simply tagged the page as being reviewed, because I didn't want to get into a 3RR kind of situation. Ender78 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and improve. The participants got it wrong. We shouldn't delete articles due to their poor state if they are about real subjects, as was this. Whether "psychology is an actual science" and whether "the rest is just contestable mysticism" are points worthy of coverage in a good article. The nominator even suggests move [some of the content], which means that deletion is not a preferred outcome due to WP:Copyrights. See also WP:BEFORE. The connections between colour, symbolism and psychology and real, historical and academic; the subject is notable, even if the title was confused, and it will likely be recreated in some form, and to best respect our licensing and the importance of attribution, the article should be at least userfied for any interested editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse, but restore I do not see what else a closing admin could have done, and I like others here am not willing to criticize him in the least, as would be implied by overturning. Rather, the discussion reflects the defects of our AfD system, because it did not have sufficient attention form anyone prepared to improve the article: sources can be added, and the article further clarified to indicate the extent to which it represents popular tradition and the extent it represents science. If someone wants to extend it to non-Western traditions that would be good also. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for the notion that perhaps seven days in this specific context was a touch hastier than it would be in a busier article, no criticism of JForget was in any way intended or implied. I made sure to mention it as such on his talk. Ender78 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse, but restore per DGG's reasoning. I was shocked to see this article go and at the meager participation in the AfD discussion. I unfortunately did not become aware of it until after the fact. __meco (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (Disclaimer: It was me who originally nominated the article for deletion). Color symbolism (essentially beliefs) doesn't mate with psychology. The few scraps of content that are valid Wikipedia content (sourcing, original research and notability being key issues in this particular case) should be moved to appropriate existing articles, or new articles if somebody can muster some accompanying content. It seems wrong to me that a fatally flawed article would be restored for the sake of keeping it its own article. Snied (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I was one of the five people who voted for deletion, but as I mentioned on the vote there is some peer-reviewed scientific research into the subject. Therefore SmokeyJoe has a valid point: if an article about a valid subject can be improved we shouldn't delete it. Unfortunately the content of the article relied almost entirely on original research, some books with titles like Life Colors: What the Colors in Your Aura Reveal and Color Healing Therapy, new-age websites and unsourced blogs. Perhaps the best source in the article was an unpublished paper by an independent researcher who in turn cited mostly unreliable sources, but it seems to be have been removed in later revisions. I think it would be an all-but-empty article if you'd remove all the content with major issues. If a few people who are more familiar with the area can come up with better content and have the sources to back it up (e.g. the Journal of Sports Sciences article on t-shirt color on match outcome), that would be great; but they might as well start from scratch. Perhaps "Color psychology" would be a better title for that article, while "Color symbolism" would be a better place to describe the more cultural aspects. Smocking (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I genuinely mean no offense by this, but both yours and Snied's comments indicate that you really don't understand the topic very well. It's not a topic where you're going to get a great deal of hard-science scholarly papers on the subject, and I'd argue that the example provided in the AfD, that of "Red being associated with success in English Soccer Leagues" is hardly better: is the association created by the color red alone? Or is that association being magnified by other culture-specific elements, that being England's national identity and it's love affair with Football? The point of this article, from my perspective, is to attempt to cover the topic without exhaustively introducing other factors that cannot fully be quantified. I can't say it enough: this is one of those situations where a hard-enforcement take on WP policy is not constructive to the article or the audience. Ender78 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've said several times you think that you think this shouldn't be required to meet the same standards as other science articles. Which particular standards are you meaning? verifiability, no original research etc. are not really negotiable. You speak of the point of the article from your perspective, which tends to suggest that it isn't really based on any real world perspective. i.e. is a set of things bought together which would almost certainly fall into the realms of WP:SYNTH. Psychology itself is well studied and understood, is there any study of this from a psychology point of view or not? If there is, then it surely should have academic coverage, if there isn't then we shouldn't be trying to make such a connection. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In turn, shouldn't you be using your username, Smocking? Or are you Mr. Rigal? Curious that I'm getting anonymously flamed by an UK IP when there's two UK editors with a seemingly vested interest in this article. Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of the belligerent tone being directed at me for daring to say that maybe an article should be RfD. Some of you folks really need to stop and consider that the reason WP:POLICY exists is not simply for its own sake, not so that an admin can talk of his flawless, never-overturned AfD record. You want your perspective? Ask ANY GRAPHIC DESIGNER AND/OR ARTIST ON PLANET EARTH ABOUT THE TOPIC. USE THE GOOGLE. THERE'S PAGES AN PAGES AND PAGES out there on this basic topic that live under many different names, but all discuss the basic emotions and reactions experienced by people in response to certain colors. Again, your insistence that it be treated in the same manner within the psychology topic as, say, Antisocial Personality Disorder suggests very strongly that you DO NOT understand the subject matter and its context, and where it diverges and merges with the more scientific subtopics within psychology. As for the article, call it "Color Symbology", "Color Psychology", call it whatever you want, but the information in question even in the present form is well-known amongst certain professional circles, and can stand on its own even with the minimal citations in the initial article. This isn't to say that there hard-science papers on the subject do not exist at all, but only that they aren't anywhere near as necessary to properly covering this topic as they would be for the aforementioned Antisocial Personality Disorder. Ender78 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please try to remain civil. Please try to refrain from making unsubstantiated allegations or insinuations against other editors. Please reread this discussion and ask yourself who is most likely to be described as "belligerent" or "flaming" by an uninvolved reader. I don't think you are helping your case. For the record, I am not the IP editor above and I am not sure what possible "vested interest" I could have in this matter or what my being in the UK has to do with anything. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has nothing to do with any admin's AfD record. I listed this article for deletion; I am not an admin, and my "record" such as it is would consist of this article only! You'll be able to make a better case if you don't resort to ad hominem attacks and instead concentrate on the issues. I would personally follow Daniel's advice and move the article content over to your user space, invite editors to help improve it and boost it up to the standards required for a standalone article and then create a new one with a more focused name (surely there is some sense of achievement to be had from that process?) Snied (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • All respect, but bull. If, as you say, you're not personally vested in this decision, you would be considering the arguments presented, rather than sticking to narrow policy definitions that have already been demonstrated --repeatedly-- to be less applicable to this subject matter than you have continued to assert. As for "belligerence".....how would YOU interpret the phrase "You speak of the point of the article from your perspective, which tends to suggest that it isn't really based on any real world perspective."? In any case, I don't care: neither of you, nor your probable IP doppleganger, have a right to smug sarcasm. I have provided nine additional links to authoritative sources, in addition to the eleven in the original article, yet you continue to argue on the basis of policies that simply do not apply. What conclusions should your fellow editors draw from that? Ender78 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The policies are as applicable to this article as they are to any other article, due to being the policies. Putting the article in your user space and improving it would be a positive step towards keeping the content. Being rude and throwing around baseless accusations wouldn't. 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snied (talk • contribs)
                • I suppose you require citations to prove that trees are made of wood, then? Please do not communicate with me again. As to rudeness, I give as I get, and if that's not to your liking, tough. I didn't initiate the rudeness. Ender78 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's what a five-minute Google search turned up on the topic, under the keywords "color association", "color psychology", and "color symbolism": [54] [55]

[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] You'll notice that amongst these links you'll find not only your cherished academic credentials, but also commercial art experts and authorities on color such as Pantone. And these nine links are in addition to the eleven already cited in the article. Still not convinced? In the amount of time it takes you to log out so you can flame me with your IP rather than your handle, you could already have duplicated the search in question. Ender78 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • Wikipedia doesn't require me to login and I don't have an account to login to, so your comments are misplaced. Sorry if asking you to expand on your meaning is in someway offensive to you. If finding the sources is so trivially easy, why do you believe there is a need to suspend the requirement for reliable sourcing? Some of the links there would certainly seem to fail as reliable sources, others not, if they support the content of the article is however a different question. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In regards to usernames, I don't believe you. It's that simple. If you can't read a sarcastic tone in your own words, I cannot help you, and I'm sorry, but I'm simply not part of the "turn the other cheek" crowd. If you're rude with me, I'll be rude with you, without apology. My only interest in this matter is preserving an article that is perfectly relevant within the actual context it would most commonly be searched for, not with any administrator's "win/loss" record as has been asserted by others. I informed JForget that it was not personal, and no disrespect was intended, but that I simply wanted to put the article through additional process as I did not believe that the people participating in the AfD truly understood the subject matter and why the seemingly-applicable WP policies were less pertinent, in context, than was being asserted. As for sourcing, I am not saying that the article should have ZERO citations, only that academic sourcing is both less pertinent AND less crucial to this article than is the norm elsewhere. As it was, the article had ELEVEN cites, and NOT all of them were "new agey", even though what people have called "new agey", again, is simply the nebulous norm in this subject matter, particularly inasmuch as the connotations of each culture can, as already noted, be different in differing cultures. Ender78 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You can believe or not believe whatever you want regarding me, it's really more fool you if you can't differentiate based on freely available information about such matters. I don't believe my comments to be rude and certainly not the intent. As for your comment here ...I did not believe that the people participating in the AfD truly understood the subject matter..., well where might one go to understand the subject? Of course if they didn't understand the issue then the article was lacking. Regarding having ELEVEN cites as with the list above a number on it's own is meaningless, I've seen plenty of articles deleted with far more than that because they are still basically works of WP:OR bringing together lots of disparate sources to present the artivle authors point of view on a subject something none of the individual sources support, not that I'm saying that is occurring here since I haven't gone off and read the article or all the sources in detail, my first comment is trying to actually get you to expand on why you think the sourcing requirements appropriate in this case, something I still don't understand your reasoning on. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse, but restore. This article has been around for nearly seven years. Why the great rush to delete instead of fix? Agree with DGG. The AfD process appears not to have worked effectively here, but everyone needs to keep WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL in mind. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (already voted). Okay, I'll just forget about Ender78's accusations as (s)he already apologized elsewhere. What bugs me though is that this page is still mostly composed of sections like

    "Orange is energy, enthusiasm, 'get-it-done' attitude, and balance. It typically symbolizes Hinduism, Buddhism (monks wear orange because this vibrant yet soothing color aids in renunciation and spiritual focus), cheer, happiness, energy, balance, heat, fire, enthusiasm, nourishment, flamboyance, playfulness, autumn, desire, Sagittarius (star sign), and September. Orange has less intensity or aggression than red and is calmed by the cheerfulness of yellow. Orange is symbolic of the Royal family of the Netherlands. As such, in the Netherlands, Orange symbolizes royalty, and as William of Orange was the Calvinist color, orange symbolizes protestantism, particularly in Ireland (Orange Order)."

    This is not even the worst one. Stuff like that on Wikipedia just makes me sad, because I really believe in working together to create good articles that people can take seriously. You (as in: an editor in general, not anyone in particular) just can't talk like that without damn good sources, say it's science and put it in the psychology category. I don't really care that much about using scholarly articles, as long as the phrasing and claims match the reliability of the sources. The main articles (compare: Orange) of the colors are much more objective and they didn't need any peer-reviewed sources either. Some parts of the page are somewhat okay now, but can't we at least delete the "Common Associations and Connotations of Color" section? That part really makes my eyes bleed and it makes up most of the article. As little as I've contributed to Wikipedia, I've always paid a lot of attention to backing up what I write. To see people apparently making stuff up, googling the words, then listing the hits as sources (even though they are mostly and obviously fringe webpages) and having that material go unchecked for years is just sad. Smocking (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll tell you what makes me sad, pal: People who don't have any exposure to the subject matter regurgitating WP:POLICY to further some silly ideology. If you'd just stop trying to make it conform to your interpretation of policy long enough to think, --or to do some research-- you'd see the material is NOT as bad as is being asserted. But, I'm not going to fight this any further, because it's simply become a battleground for people who look at WP as a big club with sooper-seekrit handshakes than a place where the content is the highest calling. For what you people have wasted trying to tear this article down, you could've fixed it, or failing that, stayed the hell out of my way as I tried to fix it. You're all continuing, because 1.) You want to have "your" way, and 2.) Because at this point, some of you are far more angry at my failure to "Respect Your Authoritah" than anything else.' So, congratulations: An online encyclopedia with thousands of articles that will never be quality now has one less article that could be. Ender78 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article needs much work, but I don't see how that work will be possible unless the article (and on going changes to it) is kept visible to all editors and unless such work is treated as a good faith effort. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2010 (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.
Gay fish (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Redirect to Fishsticks (South Park) as a plausible search term, and protect to prevent retargeting to Kanye West; see Fish dicks → Fishsticks (South Park), Manatee gag → Criticism of Family Guy, and Naggers → With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. Sceptre (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the above proposal. In August and October 2007 this was speedily deleted twice, once per WP:CSD#A7 as an article about an non-notable band, and then per WP:CSD#G1 "nonsense". In April 2009 it was recreated as a redirect to Kayne West and retargetted to Fishsticks (South Park) 3 hours later. The targets swapped a further four times over the next 24 hours in a series of vandalism and reversion. Between the 10 April and 19 September 2009 this was stable as a redirect to the South Park episode. On the 19th it was vandalised to again point at Kayne West. 18 hours later an anonymous user blanked the page without leaving an edit summary, possibly trying to remove the vandalistic redirect. The anon's blanking was reverted by a bot less than a minute later, unwittingly restoring the vandalised version. Still less than a minute after the blanking, user:Vancouver Outlaw tagged it for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#G3 (Vandalism), which ignoring the history was clearly correct. Eleven minutes later user:Kinu deleted it under WP:CSD#R3 as a recently created implausible redirect, a criterion that technically did not apply as the redirect page was not recently created (although the retargetting was recent) and not implausible given that 4 different users (assuming no sockpuppetry) thought it plausible enough. Given this history, a protected redirect seems appropriate to me. As neither user:Vancouver Outlaw nor user:Kinu have been made aware of this discussion I will put a note on their userpage now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the above proposal as entirely logical. The Fishsticks article mentions the term enough to justify this redirect. Also, indefinite protect to keep it from being vandalized and pointed back to Kanye West. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion and retarget to Fishsticks (South Park). WP:CSD#R3 applies only to "recently created" redirects, and redirects with useful page histories are not eligible for speedy deletion. As discussed above, the redirect had a useful page history, and I fail to see how it could've been construed as "recently created." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy recreate and protect per nom. No point keeping this open for 7 days. Tim Song (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate and protect as a reasonable search term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homosexuality in animals. Oh wait, that article doesn't contain any mention of fish. OK, retarget to Fishsticks (South Park) it is then. Robofish (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (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.
User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Spjayswal67 (talk · contribs) has worked on his userspace draft at User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava, rectifying the concerns at the AfD. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 11, I asked him to withdraw the nomination so that he could make it fully compliant by adding inline citations to the article. After a couple days of hard work, the article is fully referenced, and I believe that it fulfills the requirements at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (persons).

The newspaper clips posted here indicate that there is significant coverage about the subject, including this, this, this, etc. Move the userspace draft to Ambarish Srivastava. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted Having read through the draft and the cited sources, I don't think the subject meets the WP:ARTIST standard of notability, either as a poet or as an architectural engineer. As far as I can tell, Srivastava has no poetry book/anthology published, and the only non-online publications cited are in a Surat college magazine. As an architectural engineer, I could not find any scholarly publications or notable projects. None of the listed awards are really notable; a couple are simply honor certificates accorded during a function (Sarasvati Puja) organized by a local school, and at an inter-college debate. The current draft is bloated with self-published citations, and exaggerated import of the awards and associations with various organizations of which Srivastava is a member. The newspapers citations are mainly from the the Sitapur supplement of Lucknow based newspapers, and the coverage is ultra-local (for example, residents of a housing colony in Sitapur organized an event to honour local parents and military-men [63], [64], [65]). I have no doubt that the subject is active in the civil life in Sitapur and is well-known in the community, but he doesn't satisfy wikipedia's notability criterion. Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD. I agree with A Stop at Willoughby that that would be a better venue to judge the notability of the draft article, with wider visibility and participation. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned in the previous DRV, the sources available are local, city supplements of regional papers, not the regional newspapers themselves. He's active in local social circles and has presided over local events, but that's not something unique or a proof of notability. The Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Prize doesn't appear to be a claim of notability either, the award itself doesn't appear to have any criteria and doesn't receive coverage except in the context of "notable people" having this listed in their many awards. As far as the poetry listing goes, none of it is sourced to our standards. The article continues to read like an inflated resume. Given that, I'm going to stick with the keep deleted position. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a relist at AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed to both Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff: does the subject pass WP:GNG? Cunard (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about that but I don't think so because: (1) all coverage, except for the Priyadarshini award, is trivial, (2) all the sources are very week. I can expend of this, if/when the article is relisted at AFD. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said above, the coverage doesn't, IMO, pass WP:GNG, but given the disagreement here, I think that's better addressed through a relist at AfD as an alternative I'd suggested earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD. First of all, with only two participants, the original AfD did not really form a binding consensus and could conceivably be treated like a contested PROD. That said, the current userspace draft has been changed substantially since it was deleted at AfD; as such, WP:CSD#G4 would not apply upon a move to the mainspace. The rewritten article's sourcing (and whether it establishes notability) should be considered in a new AfD discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the low traffic of the AfD, and the apparent disagreement over the notability of the subject, which should be addressed by AfD, I'll go with relist. Tim Song (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clearly mentioned about Indira Gandhi Award at the article User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava, line 2-3 of Awards paragraph that "Ambarish Srivastava could not attend that award ceremoney because he got injured in a road accident at December 2007, so he was honored this award at his home through post office Sitapur" so how his coverage about it was possible in national or regional newspapers? although glimpse of this award is available here at reference no.-8 at above article. Photograph of Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award, Certificate of award, Approval Letterof the award and letter for delivery also could be viewed all above three images are included in The newspaper clips posted here, It also proves that he was honored with this award. these above scanned images can bee also added separately as citation at User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava if allowed.Seemavibhaji (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • work on it a little further, then restore and relist The closing admin should not have closed after the minimal discussion, but should have relisted; however, I think the result would have been the same. There are still some serious concerns with the article. The award would better be proven by 5 newspaper articles already cited, not by photographs of the award, but it would help if English translations were added, at least to the talk page. It would also help if the citation on the award were given so we could tell for which of his rather diverse "outstanding services, achievements and contributions " it was awarded for--I assume it was construction engineering. It would further help if English translations of the names of the various other awards were added, with some indication of their significance. It is possible that President of the Indian Institute of Building Designers Association "IIBD" is notable, but that article was deleted after a minimum discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Building Designers Association). I think that Looking at it,it had no external references of any sort--if it could be shown to be the leading national professional body, it would be sufficient. I presume the subject did the engineering design of various prominent buildings, and this information should be added--it supports notability of architects, and it might do so here also. I cannot figure out the significance of the poetry --in the absence of some source that it is actually considered notable , that section of detailed listings should be deleted. I do not see the point of relisting it in its present form, because unless it were improved along the lines I tried to indicate, it would probably be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambarish Srivastava has honored many Senior persons over 60 years old, and he had organised a Deep yagya (pooja) for their good health as well as long life. Mr. Mohan Verma of Danik jagran has witten a special report on this great work and he treated it as a notable work in that report, see here and hear. Six Nos of poems of Ambarish Srivastava were published at Poems of Ambarish Srivastava at 'Anubhuti' of UAE , and twenty one nos. poems at Swargvibha which are prestigious websites. whether these are not online publications which can prove notability. Spjayswal67 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank Mr. DGG. As per your suggestion i must work on it.Spjayswal67 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very long comment with copies of sources
  • Here is translation of some news related to article Ambarish Srivastava.Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. This  News Title : Ambarish Indira Gamdhi Priyadarshini Award se Sammanit [Ambarish honored to Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award]: p. 04. 2007-12-07.


Name of Newspaper :“Dainik Jagran” , Lucknow , 07 December 2007 | Page 4| Sitapur


Ambarish honored to Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award (Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award to Amberish)


Sitapur, 6 December Here's Architectural engineer Ambarish Srivastava have been awarded the Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award. The honor of Award on behalf of National Unity Conference has been posted to him. Mr. Srivastava was not found to receive honor at Delhi due to became Injured. He was invited by the National Unity Conference to receive this award at constitutional club Rafi Marg, New Delhi, he was to be provided this award the same day in the award ceremony but he was injured in a road accident on 11 October 2007 . He received the award recently by mail. Resistant to Sitapur ,Architectural engineer Ambarish Srivastava, particularly work in the field of earthquake resistant construction and design than work for the welfare of workers. For these actions he received this honor.Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • 2 This News by Hindustan, Reporter (4 December 2007). News title: "Shramikon ke kalyan ka kaayta karna hee uddeshya [He intent to labour welfare only]"


Name of Newspaper Hindustan Lucknow , Tuesday 04 Dec, 2007 page 13 Sitapur


He intent to labour welfare only. (His Aim: work to welfare of workers:)


Having Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award, Ambarish have to proud himself.


Sitapur (Hindustan Reporter): Architectural engineer Ambarish Srivastava has been awarded Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award. Award is honored to have it himself. This information was given in the press conference at Sitapur, Mr Srivastava said that the conference held in New Delhi 'India off Indiraj Dream' Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award was announced. He said that he was injured in a road accident, had both hands tied in the plaster was why he could not take the award there. He received this award through mail due to not reaching in this function. He said he is particularly work for earthquake resistant building construction and design. He said that his aim is to work for the welfare of workers. He said that Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award are honored because it found itself in various areas important services award, for outstanding services ,achievements and contributions and is given on the birthday of the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by National Unity Conference in Delhi. "This honor is special for him because even as Mother Teresa, Birju Mhraj, Pandit Hariprasad Chaurasia, Russee Modi, M. P. Navjot Singh Siddhhu and Deepak Nayar like figure has been honored with this award. Being honored engineer Ambarish Srivastava his associates are very happy. Colleagues say that the Ambarish has increased distinction of Sitapur . In press conference Hari Narain Srivastava, Raj Kumar Srivastava, Sanjeev Saxena, Anil Kumar Dwivedi and others were present there. Photo Award winner Ambarish Srivastava:Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • 3.This News title "Ambarish Srivastava Indira Gamdhi Priyadarshini Award se Sammanit kiye gaye [Ambarish Srivastava honored with Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award]”


Name of Newspaper : Rashtriya Sahara, Lucknow. Monday, December 3rd, 2007 Page -2 Sitapur.


Ambarish Srivastava honored with Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award.


Sitapur, December 2: Earthquake resistant building construction experts Ambarish Srivastava of the district is extremely happy being honored with India Gandhi Priyadarshini Award in conference named India of Indira’s dream held in Delhi at last month. In a press conference held at city hotel Melroj He said receiving the award fully marks to their parents, teachers as well as colleagues too. Expert Srivastava is resident of Kaysthan Srayan near Guria Jhal at Laharpur route. He told journalists in 1993 he had started his career he had designed the first earthquake resistant Regency Public Degree College , then he constructed a guest house as well as other buildings. He said he obtained the seismic design education in 2004-2005 from IIT Kanpur, Mr Srivastava joined Indian Institute of off-Building Association as a Member now he became president of the association have reached today. Mainly in the press conference Former Minister Buniyad Hussain Ansari, Anil Dwivedi, Pappu Bhatnagar, Ranjit Saxena, Hrinarayn, Kuldeep, Sudhir and Sharad Srivastava were present.Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • 4. This News By Mohan Verma (4 January 2009). "Samman pakar phoole nahee samaye Chhavinath [Being honored Chhavinath was to much happy]" (in Hindi). Danik Jagran (Lucknow): p. Front page of Jagran City.

Name of Newspaper :Danik Jagran Lucknow (Jagran City)Jan 04, 2009, page 1st


(Special report at Sunday)


Being honored Chhavinath was to much happy (Extremely happy to have respect Chavinath)


Sitapur, 3 January: Poor Chavinath of Aga Colony is very much pleased being honored by the people through neighborhood. he say, the last stage of life such a joy in having received honors from others, as life has become meaningful. Live by a cottage near river Srayan Chavinath, who do not get to eat everyday properly. His son arranges his bread by pulling Thelia (Rickshaw or goods) any way (cereal Jugadh). Spent in these circumstances - to live in any old gift, then, of course if he 'beg' the will, one way to meet someone on honor got him a valuable commodity. Similar in concept to have respect not only Chavinath minds of colony, but keep the assumption is even older neighborhood close to 35. Yes, people who own and others' mothers - fathers do not have respect, they should learn from Agha Colony, these enthusiastic young people.


Even without any discrimination by some young men of great honor elders have put a new tradition. Architectural engineer Ambarish Srivastava and Kuldeep Saxena, of the neighborhood by adding its foundation. Points out that, families are spread Ambarish reportedly that the aim of the felicitation ceremony held to remove segregation in families. The more than sixty years of age by honoring their elders wished to have better health and viva. He now says that it has been awarded to only the neighborhood elder elders, then to district-level program is planned. To support that the Ambarish, Kuldeep says at the felicitation ceremony was awarded to the first Cvinath's poorest neighborhood ignoring the poverty and wealth. All homes for one – contribution was one rupee only and lamps (maid of soil) for lightning were sent to their homes. Then they were told that they have some stored in their home and rest brought to the venue.


This type of sacrifice was held in the form of ‘Deep Yagya’ (pray to god by lightning lamps) and this tradition has begun. This (event of this work )was staged in the rupee 3089 which was collected from people in the neighborhood. He says that the committee need not.Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • 5. This News by Jagran Karyalaya (19 January 2009). "Shikshak evam Kaviyon ka Hua Samman [Poets and teachers were honored]" (in Hindi). Danik Jagran (Lucknow): p. Front page of Jagran City.


Name of Newspaper : Danik Jagran (Lucknow):dated 19 January 2009, p. Front page of Jagran City.


Poets and teachers were honored.


Sitapur, 18 January: Youths of the Aga Colony Civil Line awarded to poet and litterateurs Swami Vivekananda Jayanti to mark Swami Vivekananda Jayanti at Saturday. This mark Hindi Ratna (Gems of Hindi which is name of a honor) Ganitagya (mathematician) and Kawysri (Rich in poetry) honor were awarded those persons. Mr. Ambarish Srivastava, Kuldeep Saxena, Mukesh Gupta, Ashish Srivastava, Ajay Dixit, Avdesh Pal, Santosh Bajpai, Shiv Kumar Pal etc were organized this event with the help of ‘Vivekanand Seva Sansthan’ (name of a society), ‘Sahitya Utthan Parishad’ (society of litterateurs) and ‘Akhil Bharteey Chitransh Mahasabha’(society). Program was conference at Vivekananda Public School at in late night in a kavi sammelan (Conference of Poets). Dr. Gneshdutt Saraswat and Niranjan Lal Agnihotri have bee awarded Hindi Ratna (Gems of Hindi which is name of a honor) and Pankaj Srivastava, a teacher of sacred heart Inter College was awarded with mathematician and Som Dikshit, Mukteshwar Baksh Srivastava, Dinesh Mishra Rahi, Gopal Sagar, Ram Sagar Shukla, Mehfooj Rahmani, Mujeeb Sitapuri, Raj Kumar Srivastava, Shacheerani Saxena, Vinodni Rastogi, Gyanvati Dixit, Balendu Dutt Tripathi, Maya Prakash Awasthi, Pratap Narain Mishra, Shanti Sharan Mishra, Akhilesh, Rajneesh Mishra, Pankaj Pandey, Rajan Pandey, Ambarish Srivastava, Shyam Bihari Lal Srivastava, Chandra Gupta Srivastava Diwakar Pratap, Brijkant Vajpayee, Kuldeep Saxena, Neal Srivastava, Bhupendra Dixit, and three dozen poets, including Rajesh Akela the 'Kawysri’ (name of honor) awarded by the manager of school Jai Prakash Verma. Program was presided by Maya Prakash Awasthi.Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • following citations were also added.

This Scanned Image: of Indira Gandhi Priydarshine Award This Scanned image: Certificate of Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award This Scanned image: Letter of approval for the Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award This Scanned image: Letter to delivery of that award This Scanned image: of the registration of the Indian Institute of Building Designers Association.Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am still doing work for more citations. i will post here as soon as my work be finished.Spjayswal67 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I strongly suggest the folks working to improve this clearly identify a handful of sources that meet WP:RS for this purpose. The massive number of fairly trivial cites will actually end up hurting the chances of this article. Hobit (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is translation of a news related to article Ambarish Srivastava and some citations were also added which are mentioned as bellow. Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This News by Hindustan Reporter (29 April 2004). "Building Designers Association gathit [Building Designers Association constituted]" (in Hindi). 'Aaj' (Lucknow): p. 6.


Name of Newspaper : 'Hindustan" (Lucknow): dated 29 April 2004 p. 6.

Hindustan, Lucknow dated 29 April 2004, page 6 Building Designers Association constituted " Sitapur (Hindustan Reporter). Indian Institute of off-Building Designers Association Meeting held in local hotel Melroj where officials were selected by consensus of the committee, the president Er. Ambarish Srivastava has been elected as president while the General Secretary Syed Murtaza Hussain Rizvi has been elected . Newly appointed president Er. Ambarish Srivastava said the Er. Ajay Srivastava & Er. Anupam Srivastava have been elected as vice-president, Umesh Prakash Srivastava & Desh Deepak Srivastava as Joint Secretary and as a treasurer Er. Akhilesh Srivastava (nominated).


  • This News by Aaj Reporter (05 April 2005). "Building Designers Association ne kee baithak [Annual Meeting of the Building Designers Association]" (in Hindi). 'Aaj' (Lucknow): p. 10.


Name of Newspaper : 'Aaj" (Lucknow):dated 05 April 2005, p. 10.

Sitapur (Aaj Reporter). Annual meeting of all members and officials of the Indian Institute of Building Designers Association held at in local hotels Melroj under the chairmanship of Er. Ambarish Srivastava. In this meeting all one decided to constitute a Professional Building Designers Registration board at the national level and execute a committee of three members was set up for it. As well as providing this information the general secretary of the ‘Indian Institute of Building designers Association’ announced that this registration board of IIBD will hold an examination for the registration of professional building designers (PBD) on June 30 on the basis of which a register will be formed and a certificate of registration of Professional Building Designers will be provided to successfully passed candidates that will display his technical competence, quality and excellence. Mr Hussain also declared that it have been decided by all members that they have to set up IIBD welfare fund to assist the building designers as well as construction workers in their causalities. Beside, It has also appealed that all building designers must have inspire to others building designers and construction workers for taking their accidental insurance policies and to open Public provident fund account. along with them. Mainly Er. Anupam Srivastava, Er. Vivek Kapoor, Er. Akhilesh Srivastava, Er. Anil Verma, Umesh Prakash Prakash Srivastava, and Mohammed Rehan Khan etc. have participated in this annual meeting.

  • Translation of

"Saraswati-Ratn" Honor (Translation: Gem of Goddess Saraswatee) in 2009 by Hindi Sahitya Parishad (Translation: Hindi Literature Council) in the field of Hindi poetry. Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Translation of

"Abhiyantran-Shree" honor (Translation: Rich in engineering)in 2007 by Bhartiya Manvadhikar Association (Translation: Indian Human-right Association) in the field of architectural EngineeringSpjayswal67 (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • English Translation: of This poem "Ek Mazdoor ka dansh"

-A labor's bite-

Something we all suffer silently

We never afraid of hard work

Our labor is precious, brother

Why work for free made

Why do say ugly abuse

Why do we say slacker

Half the bread in our home

All the meat in your part

Destined to poverty but enjoying fast

Our death is cheapest

Until our exploitation will

Until then you must nurture

Your right to education

No one supported us

Whenever we must educate

All your organs must cry.Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • following more citations were also added.

This scanned image 1 of a designed project name: Regency Degree college Reseora This scanned image 2 of a designed project name: Regency Degree college Reseora This scanned image 3 of a designed project name: Regency Degree college Reseora (during construction) This scanned image 4 of a designed project name: Regency Degree college Reseora (during construction) This scanned image 5 of a designed project name: Regency Degree college Reseora (during construction) This scanned image 6 of a designed project name: Regency Degree college Reseora (landscape work) This scanned image 7 of a designed project name: Regency Degree college Reseora (landscape work) This scanned image 8 of a designed project name: Regency Degree college Reseora (landscape work) This scanned image of residence of Mr. Anis Mirza at Tareen pur This scanned image of residence of Mr. Anis Mirza at Tareen pur (during construction) This scanned image of redidence of Mr. Avadhesh Verma at Civil Lines This scanned image of redidence of Mr. Anoop Agrawal at agrawal colony near 2 Bn. PAC This scanned image of redidence of Mr. Suraj Verma at Naimish Puram (during construction) This scanned image 1 of redidence of Mr. Suraj Verma at Naimish Puram (during construction) This scanned image of building of Jaswir Singh at civil lines This Scanned Image News: A Seminar on concrete roads projests This Professional website of Ambarish Srivastava This Blog of Ambarish srivastava This specialization page at website of Ambarish Srivastava This popularity of web site oa Ambarish Srivastava This Scanned Image of 'Abhiyantran Shree' Honor This Scanned image of the certificate of 'Abhiyantran Sree' Honor This Scanned image of 'Saraswatee Ratn' Honor This Scanned image of certificate of Saraswatee Ratn Honor This Ambarish Srivastava on rancor.com in the list of notable poets on sl. no.-41 This Scanned image of American Society of Civil Engineers 'ASCE' membership certificate This Scanned image of Architectural Engineering Institute 'AEI' membership certificate This Scanned image of Indian Roads Congress membership letter This Scanned image of Indian Buildings Congress membership letter This Scanned image of the Indian Society for Technical Education Membership certificate This Scanned image of the Indian Institution of Bridge Engineers Certificate of Fellowship This Scanned news 'Building Designers Association constituted' This Scanned news 'Annual Meeting of the Building Designers Association' This Scanned news 'meeting of IIBD members' This Scanned image of the certificate of course on the seismic design of steel structures from IIT Kanpur This Scanned image of the certificate of course on the seismic design of bridges from IIT Kanpur This Scanned image of the certificate of course on the seismic evaluation and strengthening of buildings from IIT Kanpur This Scanned image of the certificate of course on the seismic design of masonry buildings from IIT Kanpur This Published poems of Ambarish Srivastava at Anubhuti of (UAE) This Published poems of Ambarish Srivastava at Swargvibha (Mumbai) This Introduction of Ambarish Srivastava at Sahitya Shilpee Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now this article is ready for review so please take a necessary action.Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • acceptable for user main space now, with another AfD optional. I looked at the article, and made some further edits. I removed the detailed listing of each poem, some of the material on the social work--I do not understand what the presented awards are about,or what is the notability in presenting them--and the photos of certificates of membership, of attending courses, and so on. I left in some links to photos of the buildings, but there need for third party sources about them. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the article be moved to the WP:Incubator instead, so that there is defined process for it being reviewed before it is moved to mainspace ? As I mentioned above, I think the subject does not meet our notability guidelines - but am not sure what is the right forum to have that discussion. Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, my typo-- I meant acceptable for main space. I apologize for the resulting confusion. I think it's good enough to meet the previous objections. There are 3rd party sources for the awards. If anyone still wants to nominate for AfD they can, but in my opinion the article is improved thoroughly enough that an AfD is likely to result in a keep. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, agree with restoring the article to the mainspace due to the addition of multiple reliable sources, including the ones I mentioned in this DRV nomination. I believe that the subject pass Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (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.
2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi, i would like this article to be reviewed. I believe there have been violations to the time and procedure of consensus reaching oriented work typical of Wikipedia. The article by itself suffers of a lot of problems. Is not notable, they are trying to make it notable by linking it to some yellow journalism websites. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Cirt's close of the first AfD as reasonable, and endorse Fences&Windows' close of the second AfD as clearly correct. DRV is not AfD round 2 (or 3, in this case). Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both- I might have gone with a keep for the first, but I'm not an admin, so take that with whatever sized grain of salt you prefer. The second AFD was also closed correctly in my eyes.Umbralcorax (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: we're seriously not considering keeping this shit on Wikipedia? The section about causation is as bullshit (it's a fucking earthquake!) and the belief is held about as much as the belief that <insert activity here> causes cancer (hey, maybe HAARP causes cancer too!), and the section about Israeli organ harvesting is classic anti-Semitism that is, again, held by very few people. As these conspiracy theories only gained minimal coverage and the theories are not held by anyone with either a) more than three braincells and/or b) a political point to parrot, FRINGE mandates its deletion. Yes, I know DRV is not AfD round 2, but the closure of AFD#1 is so misguided this needs to be said. Sceptre (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Sceptre, is that they are a lot of people with "less than three braincells" or that have "a political point to parrot", enough people to make these theories notable. A theory can be as idiotic as it can be, yet it can be notable. --Cyclopiatalk 12:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original AfD should have been closed as delete. Arguments for deletion were stronger and part of the early "keep" votes were based on a now-debunked rumour about Chavez. I have little hope that this DRV will make any difference but I still think this article makes Wikipedia look amateurish, unable to filter substance from noise and happy to report on just about anything so long as it can be tracked to a url. It's being maintained by people who want it deleted but don't want it to turn into something even more ridiculous and embarrassing for the project. It's a liability for Wikpedia's credibility and I'm not going to waste any more time caring: there are better things to do around here. Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish everyone saw it like you. Not only is this article a collection of gossip but it is very detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia..in paper, this article wouldn't exist in a real encyclopedia, I care so much for the quality of Wikipedia and articles like this really add to the reasons why people see Wikipedia as an amateur encyclopedia. In fact there is basically a flooding of articles about conspiracies of pretty much everything. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the second AfD. The article had undergone a total revision since the first AfD. Regardless of the nominator's reasoning, it was entirely appropriate for another AfD to take place given that most of the content that the keep votes were based on in the original AfD had been moved to other articles or revised. Fences&Windows focused only on the nominator's argument and didn't take this substantial revision into consideration. Following that logic, it would be therefore be acceptable to open a third AfD with this revision as the stated reason for renomination. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the first AfD as "no consensus." Very lengthy debate on whether the article's existence gave its subject undue weight and on whether WP:FRINGE resulted in strong arguments from both sides but did not lead to a consensus. One problem which arose was caused by participants who could not evaluate the article for WP:NPOV and WP:V (as opposed to evaluating the fringe theories themselves); the validity of these arguments was questionable, but they did have some good points as well. Many participants in the debate felt that the subject either should not have its own separate article or should not be at its present, possibly misleading title, so at this point a requested move or proposed merger might be a good idea. However, there was no consensus to outright delete this article, so the closing admin made a proper call.

    Endorse closure of the second AfD as "speedy keep." WP:SK criterion 2.1 allows for speedily keeping articles when the deletion nomination is "obviously frivolous or vexatious." This renomination was not frivolous, but it was vexatious. Renominating an article for deletion just days after the previous AfD – which included lengthy and exhaustive debate – was closed can certainly be considered vexatious. So can filing a new AfD instead of a DRV to challenge a closing admin's decision. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lengthy and exhaustive debate" that is mostly now meaningless given the significant changes to the article that have taken place since. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but presumably the article has only been improved since then. If it has declined in quality, then it follows that you should revert to its previous form. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say it is vexatious?? It would be vexatious if there was no one saying that the deletion was necessary, most editors said it should be deleted. Vexatious is applied only when there is an obvious consensus, when everything points out that the nomination makes no sense..in this case there is a reason there is a why..and is not like i am nominating a well established article, i am nominating a mockery of an article that is shameful to Wikipedia standards.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not to insult you by calling it "vexatious," nor do I mean to imply bad faith on your part. But put yourself in the shoes of those defending the article. From their perspective, returning the article to AfD so quickly must certainly seem vexatious. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse keep. The reason for deletion (expressed more clearly in the second AfD as : "The scientific grounds on tectonic plates are very clear. The so called theories are nothing but not notable gossip invented by some yellow-journalism newspapers in Europe. " ) is totally incorrect within the general patten of Wikipedia. We include notable nonsense. That something is contradicted by science and reason does not mean we do not include information about it. I'd add back the section on Robertson, and by now there's probably some more also. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm absolutely floored that we have this article, based on a bunch of lunatic fringe theories, and that we still have the ability to call ourselves a serious encyclopedia. The arguments for keeping this in the first AfD were not sufficient in my read, and I would overturn the no consensus decision in the first AfD and delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the author of Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti argued on the AfD for that article that the AfD of that isn't being decided on encyclopedic grounds; instead, it's getting "keeps" because the people believe the theory. Seeing as the article is a POV fork of this, we may need to look over AfD#1 to see if there are any people who wanted it kept ostensibly because they believe in the organ-harvesting rumour and/or the HAARP theory. Sceptre (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse keep The claim that these aricle is based only on fringe sources is clearly false. These theories, (while anti-semitic and stupid) are endorsed not only by racists and white supremacists, but also from the national media in the Iran and Syria. Even a senior member of Iran's government has expressed support for the theory. It is certainly notable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • The same Iranian government that demanded that Israel be wiped off the map? I said the same thing during the "Claims of Israeli organ harvesting" AfD: these people would jump on Israel for destroying the Palestinian rocket industry if a peace plan was ever worked out. It's still a fringe theory, as it's not accepted by anyone who a) has more than three braincells, or b) doesn't have a need to criticise Israel's every action because, dang nabbit, they just don't like them Jews. Sceptre (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I would like to see the article gone, because I feel it gives far more attention to baloney theories than what they deserve due to media being drawn to outrageous utterances. Unfortunately, consensus did not support deletion at this point, but hoping that it will change a year from now when it is clear that the coverage is fleeting and fails WP:NOT#NEWS. For the moment I will acquiesce to not reading the article again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A year?! The article has changed so much since the first AfD that the second one should have been allowed to continue. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep The theories are crackpot theories, but they are backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and this is what the keep close was properly based upon. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 2nd speedy close? Look how different the article was from the first nomination. Don't you think that's a sufficient reason to allow the second AfD to run its course? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense. Assuming, arguendo, that the second version was deletable, surely the appropriate response is to revert it to the first, nondeletable, version? If we go by your argument, anyone can edit an article and then renominate it if the first AfD did not reach a result they like, and the new nomination could not be speedily closed. Tim Song (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a one-off edit we are talking about, the article was substantially revised and has remained so. Sure, if the revisions were spurious and designed to enable another quick AfD, then the reviewing admin would rightly go with a speedy close. But that is the whole point of having a reviewing admin. In this case they should have reviewed the 2nd AfD and decided that as the article had been substantially changed by a number of editors was in a new and different stable format, then the AfD should remain open. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the early closure. It may have been soon, but I don't think it should be a speedy keep. It should have been allowed to run its course. The first one should have been closed as a delete anyway. The arguments for delete were more persuasive. And no, I didn't !vote in either one. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, the consensus was pretty clear and renominating an article after six days allows for procedural keeping for WP:NOTAGAIN. Such theories are obviously nonsensical, but they're notable nonsense. --Cyclopiatalk 12:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Although the subject is distasteful, the supporting sources seem reliable, and it looks like the closing Admin came to the correct conclusion in the AfD(s). --Noleander (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist the first AfD. Although it assessed consensus correctly, it was closed before the minimum discussion period of seven days had elapsed.  Sandstein  14:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep but permit a new AfD, which should be allowed to run the full 7 days no matter how snowy things look. I would have !voted keep in in the first AfD, on the grounds that the existence of and belief in crackpot theories is itself a fact, but that isn't the relevant point here. DES (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why let another one run a full seven days? The first one did, and the second one was opened only because the nominator didn't like the outcome of the first, and opened a new discussion less than a week later. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 1st close as no consensus and endorse second close as SNOW keep First close could have gone keep, delete or no consensus so no consensus was almost certainly the best close. The second one was right after the first and closing early (and referring to DrV as the closer did) seems quite reasonable given the !votes at that time. I'm not a big fan of WP:SNOW in many cases, but I'm fine with it when you're probably in the wrong venue. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Talk:Imput – History restored under pre-existing redirect, which I've left in place. Troutslaps to everyone for not just finding some resolution to this a long time ago. – Chick Bowen 02:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Imput (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Reason given by deleter (housekeeping) was erroneous. This page was deleted as housekeeping, on the basis that there was no Imput page. In fact, there is such a page (and there was at the time of deletion). I asked the deleter on his talk page to undo the deletion; he replied on my talk page; I followed up back on his and he did not respond. I accept that the content of the talk page might have been minimal or useless, as he says, but that's not a reason for deleting a talk page. Matchups 04:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opposition. I'll go along with whatever the community thinks. I did not respond because I was so busy with other things on- and off-wiki. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we now spending 7 days arguing over the deletion of a useless page? What a productive use of time. Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--the problem here is that it is obvious that this page used to exist and any editor with interest in this is going to wonder what the heck was going on. My concern is not so much with the junk itself, but with reducing confusion. Matchups 12:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were exactly two edits to the page. The first was a message asking not to delete the page, totaling 46 bytes. The second was a user adding a CSD tag to the page. Bearian is correct that these are not useful edits. Regardless of whether or not it needed to be deleted, it is not worth our time to restore it. Endorse. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No, it didn't strictly fit the CSD criterion G8. However, it was totally useless, to the point of a redlink being better than what it contained, so I'll endorse as a valid exercise of admin discretion under CSD G6. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion, even though it hardly matters. WP:CSD#G8 did not apply because Imput was redirected, not deleted. As for WP:CSD#G6, I see no reason at all why an admin would bother to delete this under that criterion. I went through WP:DEL#REASON to be sure. Copyvio? No. Vandalism? No. Spam? No. BLP problems? No. WP:TPG tells us to archive talk pages rather than deleting them, and WP:CSD tells us that admins should speedily delete only in the most obvious cases. Well, there was no legitimate reason to delete this talk page, and it certainly wasn't an obvious case. Although this may be much ado about nothing, the deletion was improper. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been discussions as to whether or not G8 applies to pages such as this, actually. There isn't really consensus on the point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, that only bolsters the argument that G8 should not have been used here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy, take it to MfD, , but the alternative is to merge the content into the talk page for "Input". DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, is there more content than what Lifebaka reported above? If there wasn't, what point is there in merging a request not to delete the page or a CSD tag into Talk:Input, which clearly is not in danger of going anywhere? Assuming those two edits are all that were there, would restoring this to be ran through MfD not be just process for process' sake? Someone PROD'ded the Imput article, which someone else contested; and I'd reasonably suspect also added the "do not delete" message to the talk page. The Imput page was, one minute later, converted into a redirect, an action the de-prodder was informed of. In the end analysis, if someone wants to go through the process of history merging the old edits with the current talk-redirect, then, so be it, but what do we gain in the process? (And a MfD would be overkill in the extreme here. If this is restored, hopefully someone will either restore the talk-redirect (a practice I don't care for) or tag it with some WikiProject tag and call it a day.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. We need to stop wasting time on things like this. JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy deletion is not the place for "creative solutions". Sincw it bypasses discussion and consensus, it shou;ld be used only for the most obvious and clearcut cases, and only for things strictly within the letter of the WP:CSD IMO. No onw would have bothered with a deletion discussion of this, nor, i hope, would such a hypothetical discussion have resulted in a delete. Plenty of talk pages have very little content, but that is not a reason to delete them. DES (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the hell are we even discussing this? The deleted edits are of no use whatsoever. Process-wonkery at its worst. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'd ask "why the heck it ever got deleted and why it wasn't restored by the closing admin on request once it was found to be deleted in error?" Hobit (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore I can't see any valid speedy here. Mistakes get made, but I don't understand why it wasn't just undeleted on request. Hobit (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and give the deleting admin a slap for suggesting to bring it here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 February 2010[edit]

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

Category:Pederastic films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors Tonalone (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you requesting? If you're nominating that category for deletion, you're in the wrong place; that needs to be done over at WP:CFD. If you are wanting the AfD reviewed, that can be done, but the category needs to be discussed in the proper venue, which is not Deletion Review at this point in time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 February 2010[edit]

  • Anandita Dutta Tamuly – Overturn closure to "No Consensus" without prejudice against an immediate relisting at AFD. There is no clear consensus below as to what the proper fate of this article is. However, there is consensus that there was "no consensus" at the prior AfD. Without a clear policy violation, not cited here, "No Consensus" defaults to keep per Wikipedia:Deletion Policy#Deletion discussion. Therefore, I am restoring the article. This is without prejudice towards a new AfD listing if concerned editors think that that has a reasonable chance of determining a clear consensus. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anandita Dutta Tamuly (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Rough consensus is not evident from the deletion discussion. We have a single delete vote from the nominator, and one keep vote, both supported with policy arguments. We have one comment from the article's author who should be counted as a strong keep and who edited the article to address some of the concerns that were brought up. In addition we have two comments that could be interpreted as deletes. The closing administrator claims that the article in its final form violated BLP without providing supporting arguments or evidence.

Moving from procedural to substantive arguments: the article's subject is not notable for a single event, but for a singular skill; this skill has been documented by several reliable sources. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not overturn to keep, There was not much consensus for any course of action in the AfD, but I'm not convinced that overturning this to a no consensus (default to keep) would be a satisfactory outcome. Equally, I'm not sure that userfication would produce much benefit as pretty much all the sources that currently exist seem to be in the article already, and there is no indication of when Guinness will come back with a definitive answer, even then it might be that they do not wish to maintain a record for this (which would not be definitive either way for notability purposes). The AfD was already resisted once, and that didn't attract a significant number of commenters. I really am not sure what outcome I think would be best here, so I would not object to any outcome other than an overturn to keep (as this was clearly not supported by the AfD). Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I can say about the AfD is that there's absolutely no consensus to do anything whatsoever. Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the proper close here was a finding of no consensus which, despite what some would like, still defaults to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as delete. First of all, the debate probably should've been relisted again – mainly because the first "relisting" was actually its first listing, period. The majority of the debate occurred between January 19 and January 27, when it was not listed on any AfD log page. A bot listed it on the January 27 log page for a week, but that only generated one vote, which in my mind ought to have led to a relist. In any case, arguments to delete presented during the debate included WP:BLP1E (or, as one commenter put it, BLP-zero-E) based on the problem of the article's subject being a living person notable for zero-to-one events which weren't themselves notable. As our WP:BLP policy states, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The chief argument to keep was that the subject met WP:BIO and that BLP1E was not an issue because the subject was known for one skill, not one event. Two sources were offered to prove this; however, those sources were "human interest" pieces and did not demonstrate significant coverage by most standards. In the absence of proof of notability in general, the subject must be notable for no events whatsoever, therefore making BLP1E a perfectly valid argument. Moreover, taking Abductive's vote to userfy into consideration, there was a decent consensus that this article did not belong in the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the article was listed properly. [66]. The bot's edit was probably due to a failure of Cirt's relist script. So basically the AfD was not listed between Cirt's relist and the bot's listing it on the log where it should have gone.

    You may consider the sources provided to be insufficient, and I may well agree, but that is beside the point. The question is whether there is a consensus that this is a BLP1E, and from the debate I cannot say there is anything of that sort. To say that two editors arguing that it's a BLP1E, with two others arguing against it, somehow creates a "consensus" would distort the word's meaning beyond all recognition. We ask the closer to evaluate the consensus on how to apply BLP1E, not to apply their own interpretation of it.

    That said, I'm quite unsure on how to proceed here. I'm not really convinced that this subject warrants inclusion, and the BLP status of the article further complicates the issue. I'll go with a relist here, I think, so that the article may be deleted properly, in accordance with a valid community consensus. Tim Song (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, good catch. I looked at Special:WhatLinksHere, but I forgot that relisted discussions are removed from the original log page. My mistake. As for the substance of the debate, it is true that there was little debate on the sources presented. However, we can assume that surely JBSupreme (the nominator) and Abductive (who later voted to incubate) rejected the idea that the sources presented by WineGuy conferred notability. This is in addition to PFHLai concurring with JBSupreme's BLP1E concerns. Ultimately, only WineGuy made policy-based arguments to keep. I don't think Xeteli's argument that this passes BLP1E should be given much weight, since it isn't policy-based and does not address notability concerns. I'm okay with a relist, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist I'm not seeing any real consensus either way with that. Further discussion seems necessary. Claims that this is a BLP1E deserve more detailed discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky one; first, I'm going to count noses. JBSupreme nominated- delete. Zeteli's comments, while not a !vote, are a keep. PFHLai recommends userfication, so I'll take the liberty to count that as a delete; Wine Guy clearly !votes keep; and Abductive suggests userfication/incubation. A strict count gives us two for maintaining the article in mainspace; and three for some form of removing it. Not quite the 1-1 !vote the counter spits out; but we don't do nose counting. In the policy field, Wine Guy's point that coverage of this woman extended for a period of four years over multiple media outlets, and that this satisfied WP:BLP1E went unanswered and unchallenged. I'm not seeing any consensus either way I look at this one, so relist for more discussion. (Might be better to just overturn this one to no consensus and immediately re-nominate to generate fresh discussion, but that's trivial) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to no consensus as there wasn't any (as commenters above have made clear). I don't object to a relist... Hobit (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2010 (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 IWW union shops (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have a number of concerns about this deletion, both in terms of the substance of the arguments involved in the discussion and in terms of the process involved in closing it. I had asked User:Spartaz, who closed the debate, to review it, and Spartaz stands by his original decision. My concerns are as follows:

Relating to the Debate -
  • This article, as a list, is a substantively different type of article from most other articles in the project. Spartaz' stated reason for deletion is that independent notability can't be established. There are relatively few lists on wikipedia where the list itself has an independent academic notability. This is because the vast majority of our lists are in the nature of an almanac, rather than an encyclopedia. However, virtually any source which covered the IWW as a whole will mention many of their shops, and therefore would be a reliable source for the list as well as the main article. Thus, there are in fact numerous sources for the list. The core problems, then, are lack of in-line citation to these sources and short length of an incomplete article, neither of which, so far as I am aware, is cause for article deletion.
  • The very real issue of the length of the parent article, and the need for further information to be added to separate articles rather than the main one, was not in any was addressed by those who supported deletion. If we assume, as we must, that a reader of the parent article might be interested in learning more about the union and its affiliates, than this list should be included in either the parent article or a separate list. If consensus holds that the parent article is already too long... well... I think the point is obvious there.
Relating to the Process -
  • First, as to the original nomination, an issue was brought up about the nominator's motivation for putting this article up for AfD. Apparently the original creator of the article, User:SmashTheState, and the nominator, User:Nefariousski, had a previous argument on another page which became heated, and almost immediately afterwards this deletion nomination appeared. It is admittedly possible that this was a pure coincidence. However, the situation is suspect and SmashTheState's concern that this was retribution should have been addressed in some way, rather than being brushed off by the nominator and ignored by others. If the AfD process is allowed to appear as if it can be used as punishment for disagreement or dissent elsewhere in the project, then it undermines AfD's legitimacy in the wider community.
  • Second, when the nomination was closed a number of valid arguments in favor of keeping it were completely ignored in the closure explanation. Now, if Spartaz does not find the arguments valid, that's valid, but to the six editors who argued in favor of keeping it (as opposed to the two who wanted it deleted), ignoring their arguments completely makes it seem like their opinions don't matter. Wikipedia has enough trouble keeping good editors engaged without them being made to feel like their opinions are invalid. Marylanderz (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep' The consensus at the discussion was keep, despite the obvious problems with the article. If the closer thought otherwise, he should have joined the discussion and given his view. The closing admin does not get to decide what the community ought to think. The two reason he gave are both wrong: the lack of sourcing for something like this can be overcome through any of the printed histories of the union, so it is not unsourceable. The notability for a list of this sort for things which are not individually notable is not clearly defined, and is the before subject to interpretation by the community. Not an individual admin , or we'd have even more erratic decisions. It's not that I think decisions by the community that shows up at an AfD is always that representative, but relying on individuals would be not just worse, but wildly inconsistent. Using myself as the nearest example at hand, Spartaz and I have different views on notability, and I expect to debate them with him frequently, and the community can judge who to follow, which is very often him--a situation I accept, just as he accepts when they follow me. But if we could decide on our own and just use the discussion as information for our decision, we would be racing each other to close. But if both of us make what a decision about what the community feels, he and I will almost always come to the same conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. The best reading of consensus I can make out of the AfD is that yes there are problems but they are fixable by editing. I am not sure that I agree (or that I don't for that matter) but I don't see how a consensus to delete can be gotten out of the discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if you wish I have opened an admin review at User:Spartaz/Admin Review as I can see that some of my recent closes have been poor and I'm not sure that I have this one right either. I should say that standalone lists need to have some basis for existance that is independantly verifiable - ie that someone has written about them generally otherwise its just indescriminate information but I can see that I erred in applying the GNG directly to a list. For information, I have decided to stand back from AFDs for a few days to give me time to review the recent conversation linked from the admin review and rething my general approach to adminship. Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. With respect, there is simply no consensus to delete. Tim Song (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep There was a consensus in this discussion, and it was to keep the list in question. The issues raised could have been fixed through editing rather than through deletion, and the arguments that the list's subject was noteworthy and that it was discriminate were strong ones. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per comments from both DGG and Spartaz. The original consensus appears to have been to keep the list. Gobonobo T C 01:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as Keep when consensus from actual editors is so blatantly ignored, we have a real problem. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - With the comical amount of contradicting policies and guidelines Wikipedia has, the community uses times like AfDs to flesh out their interpretations of them and apply them to these individual cases. The participants in this AfD came to a consensus, but the closing admin decided in their own interpretations and ignored consensus. The closing nom simply gave their opinion which would've been useful as an AfD participant, but not appropriate as a closer.--Oakshade (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 February 2010[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joy to the World, Our Teacher's Dead (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I did not even create that page. It was there for a long time, and I just added to it. Also, I was not banned when I edited it, and that was the only account I had. The instructions said to place the unblock thing on my talk page, but it didn't work. Devildevil1 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ambarish Srivastava – Userfied, and will be brought back to DRV upon the draft's completion. Nothing more for DRV to do at the moment. NAC. – Tim Song (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ambarish Srivastava (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

References (reliable source) about Awards and other things including necessary newspaper cuttings

The above link is although a blog still it consists photographs of original award, award certificate, and pics of original news paper cuttings related to this award (coverage through print media). Unfortunately perhaps it was not visited by you being a blog but i request you please visit it and enlarge all related pics two times, i hope that you will be satisfied to visit it, you can also download all related pics for the record. Or please show me any email address so that these all certificates and coverage through print media can be sent to you. I have visited above link which is related to article ambarish srivastava, i have seen all references also after two times enlarging, i found there that all sources are reliable which i read in newspapers previously, it appears this article was deleted unfortunately. so it is requested here that it should be restored after reviewing above link. Seemavibhaji (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural listing. Found this on this page's talk page, so fixing the formatting and location issues and listing here for discussion. No opinion at the moment.Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those of us that don't read Hindi it would be extremely useful if someone who does could briefly summarise the nature of the sources provided and the context of the mentions, but there looks like lots of solid coverage here. Sources do not need to be in English... Perhaps something for wikiproject India to look at? Spartaz Humbug! 12:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the AfD nom said they did search in both English and Hindi for reliable sources and couldn't find anything. Article was standard non-notable self-promo stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry! it appears that some one has edited my previous request without his signature while i was busy to create this summery so that edited work should be deleted so i am deleting that above edited material.

Here is a summery of reliable sources so it is requested here that please review it.Seemavibhaji (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India Gandhi Priydarshini Award confer to Ambarish Srivastava.

Award Cirtificate of Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award confer to Ambarish Srivastava.

Approval letter of Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award.

Letter with Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award.

Award coverage thorough “Danik Jagran” daily newspaper dated Dec. 07 , 2004 on page no.-4.

Award Coverage through “Rashtreey Sahara” daily newspaper dated Dec. 03, 2007 on page no. -2.

Award coverage through “Aaj” daily newspaper dated Dec. 03 2007 on page no.-10 which was also confer to “Mother Teresa” and other prestigious people of world.

Award coverage through “Hindustan” daily newspaper on dated December 04, 2007 on page no.-13. “Abhiyantran Shree” Honor.

Certificate of “Abhiyantran Shree”. Honor

Coverage of above honor through “Hindustan” daily newspaper dated Dec. 11, 2007 on page no.-5.

“Sarasvatee Ratn” Honor.

Certificate of “Sarasvatee Ratn” Honor.

Coverage of “Sarasvatee Ratn” Honor through “Voice of Lucknow” daily news paper dated Feb, 02, 2009 on page 13.

Coverage of “Sarasvatee Ratn” Honor through “Amar Ujala” daily newspaper dated Feb 02, 2009 on page no.- III.

Coverage of “Sarasvatee Ratn” Honor through “Daily News Activist” daily newspaper dated Feb. 02, 2009 on page no.-11.

Coverage of “honer of senior persons” (above 60 years old ) through “Amar Ujala” daily newspaper dated Dec. 15, 2008 on front page of My City of Amar Ujala which was organized by Ambarish Srivastava with the help of others by a ‘Deep Yagya’ for the health and long life of those senior persons.

Coverage of “honer of senior persons” (above 60 years old ) through “Voice of Lucknow” daily newspaper dated Dec. 16, 2008 on page no.-14 which was organized by Ambarish Srivastava with the help of others by a ‘Deep Yagya’ for the health and long life of those senior persons.

Coverage of “honer of senior persons” (above 60 years old ) through “Danik Jagaran” daily newspaper dated Jan. 04, 2009 on front page of Jagran City of Daink Jagran. in a special report on it which was organized by Ambarish Srivastava with the help of others by a ‘Deep Yagya’ for the health and long life of those senior persons.

Coverage of “honer of “Ex. servicemans” (Poorva Sanik ) through “Amar Ujala” daily news paper dated Jan. 01, 2009 on front page of ‘My City’ of ‘Amar Ujala’ which was organized by Ambarish Srivastava with the help of others by a ‘Deep Yagya’ for the health and long life of those Ex. Service mans.

Coverage of “honer of “Ex. Service mans” (Poorva Sanik ) through “Hindustan” daily news paper dated Jan. 03, 2009 on page 9 which was organized by Ambarish Srivastava with the help of others by a ‘Deep Yagya’ for the health and long life of those Ex. Service mans

Coverage of a “honer of “Teachers and Poets” through “Dainik jagran” daily news paper dated Jan. 19, 2009 on front page of Jagran city of “Danik jagran”, which was organized by Ambarish Srivastava with the help of others.

Coverage of Flag hoisting Ceremony on ‘Republic Day’ of India by Ambarish Srivastava, President, of ‘Indian Institute of Building Designers Association’

Directory of “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam”

Name of Ambarish Srivastava added in directory of “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam” on page 18 , line 1 to 8.

Coverage about “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam” through “Rashtreey Sahara” daily news paper on dated Jan. 07 2010 on page 8. Ambarish Srivastava has been participated in this seminar from Sitapur.

Coverage about ‘Seminar on concrete road projects, by ‘Confederation of Indian Industry’under the ‘Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India. Ambarish Srivastava has actively participated in it with about two dozen architects of whole India and two hundred chief engineers of different government departments. Seemavibhaji (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by AfD nominator I nominated the article after searching for sources both in English and Hindi. However, subsequently the article creator came to me with these offline sources that had been scanned, but the article was deleted prior to my being able to look at them. I haven't looked through all of them yet, but they appear to be credible reproductions. But point to be noted here is that these sources are mostly the city supplement (Sitapur supplement) to regional newspapers (published in Lucknow). Neither the Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award (not the Indira Gandhi Prize) nor the awarding org have an article here and my searches for that particular award show that there's coverage in the context of recipients only (s/he also won this award among others kinda coverage) and not about the award itself. The coverage in the city supplements is primarily related to this award, and a couple of other local ones. In addition he appears to have presided over some events for senior citizens. It's my opinion that the awards don't really confer notability and the subject doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR (the article was about him as a poet), but if we consider the local coverage as sufficient, WP:GNG is a possibility. I'm not sure which of the alternatives of endorse deletion or return to AfD is better at this point. —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have search the website of "All India National Unity Conference" who confer the "Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award". As per this website Some of the eminent personalities who have received “Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award” are Field Marshel Gen. Cariappa, Ritu Kumar (Fashion Designer), Sallu Jindal (Women Entrepreneur), Ambssador of Tanzania, Botswana and Belgium , Deepak Nayyar (Vice Chancellor, Delhi University), Manpreet Brar, Rita Bahuguna Joshi (President, All India Mahilla Congress), B.S Sail (Commissioner of Police, Karnataka), G Nizamuddin (Member of Parliament), Jayaprada (Member of Parliament and Filmstar), Shamshad Husain (Artist), beside others. As per above mentioned newspaper cuttings Ambarish Srivastava got fractured in his both hands in a road accident at December 2007, so he could not attend that award Conference and he got this award at his home through post office Sitapur. Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All India National Unity Conference" who who confer the "Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award". Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a poet the name of Ambarish Srivastava is also includeded directory of 'Rashtreey kavi sangam' Delhi India as per references which are shown as bellow. which proves that he is a notable poet. !Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Directory of “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam” Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Ambarish Srivastava added in directory of “Rashtreey Kavi Sangam” on page 18 , line 1 to 8.Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link is also shown here about Ambarish Srivastava (As a writer)Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Srivastava as a writer Seemavibhaji (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not completely clear on this, but am I right in summarising the above discucsion thus:
  • The article about Ambarish Srivastava, a poet who writes in Hindi, was nominated at AfD by SpacemanSpiff because it was an unreferenced biography of a living person (WP:BLP), and that there was apparently no coverage of the subject in reliable sources.
  • The article was deleted following the low participation AfD during which nobody advanced any arguments for keeping the article.
  • After the article was deleted on 8 February, user:Seemavibhaji, the author of the article, forwarded to SpacemanSpiff scans of a number of offline sources that they (Seemavibhaji) assert are reliable sources that include sufficient coverage to show the subject is notable.
  • Between receiving the scans and this DRV being opened SpacemanSpiff has looked at some, but not all (due to time constraints), of the scans provided.
  • During the DRV Seemavibhaji has provided a large number of links to sources, some, all or none of which are the ones sent to SpacemanSpiff.
  • SpacemanSpiff's assessment of the sources they been able to look at is that they are not sufficient to meet the specific notability guidelines applicable to poets (WP:AUTHOR), but that it is unclear whether they would be sufficient to meet the general notability guidelines.
If this is correct, then I would encourage Seemavibhaji to write a userspace or incubator draft based on these sources, which can be moved to mainspace when it is ready (without prejudice to a future afd at editorial discretion). In any case the AfD closure was completely correct, but userfication (or incubation) of the deleted content should be done on request. To summarise therefore: endorse deletion but encourage writing of draft article based on newly provided sources. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, but am in favor or userification: Admin could have relisted, but close was appropriate.--Milowent (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found some other useful reliable sources about Ambarish Srivastava which are mentioned bellow. I feel that there are sufficient reliable sources about this article so this article should be restored! Seemavibhaji (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poems of Ambarish Srivastava at 'Anubhuti' of UAE

Website of Ambarish Srivastava

Ambarish Srivastava in list of notable poets at sl no.-41

Ambarish Srivastava

Introduction of Ambarish Srivastava on sahityashilpi

Ambarish srivastava on Rankar

Ambarish Srivastava at kavita section of Swargvibha where 21 poems of Ambarish Srivastava are published Seemavibhaji (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Mr. Cunard to encourage me. I had already made a request before about 24 hours of the deletion of article Ambarish Srivastava during AFD process that the article Ambarish Srivastava should not be deleted, i had provided the reliable source on 08-Feb. 2010. After about one hour when i provided that source i have visited it again, i found there that the article was deleted yet. it appears that the reliable source which i have provided was not inspected or considered properly during AFD, by which cause, i was discouraged. Now there are many reliable sources so please restore the Article Ambarish Srivastava.Spjayswal67 (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 February 2010[edit]

9 February 2010[edit]

  • Lindsay rosenwald – original closure endorsed, new version moved to article space. In addition to nominator and others, two out of people endorsing the original "delete" closure have explicitly supported restoring the userspace draft to article space. While the AFD closure was supported by consensus, consensus also supports the improved version. I assume that "Rosenwald" is a proper noun, and will therefore move the article to the capitalized title Lindsay Rosenwald. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lindsay rosenwald (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I've done a research and added several references that I believe are trusted and independent resources and left the comment on [[67]], but I'm not sure if my comment was noticed and the article was re-checked after my changes. If there's anything I else I can do to restore the article, please let me know. Thank you. J.D. (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- Can you provide a link to a new draft? Umbralcorax (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - That's the problem. I was so stupid not to save my changes locally. If there's any archive or a temporary restoration feature, I will copy the content and enhance it. This might be helpful for other resources, too. J.D. (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note: the last saved version of the article is now at User:Healthycare/Lindsay rosenwald. J04n(talk page) 20:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The reasons for deletion were a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and a self-promotional nature, based partly on the presence of peacock terms in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. These are strong arguments for deletion, and based on their strength combined with a head-count, closing as "delete" was the right call. The rewrite of the article improved it, no doubt, but it did not resolve the concerns raised by any means, so leaving the debate open longer would not have changed the consensus in the discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh To be perfectly clear, I would have preferred this be re-listed. The article as it was nominated and the article as of 8 February have very little to do with each other, rendering the !votes (3 of 4 in total) from before 8 Feb's re-write as less persuasive. The last vote came in at 18:35 UTC 8 Feb, after which there were six more edits made to the article before it was deleted. No !voter ever actually discussed the article as it existed at deletion. I find Cirt's close entirely reasonable, and yet disagree with making it. I'll go with endorse, and urge Healthycare to make the article in their userspace better and then think about restoring it to the articlespace. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Thank you, Bradjamesbrown. You are right. I've spent my time to find verifiable resources and when I found them, the article was still deleted. Is there any estimation time for me to improve the article? I'm not sure if I can do this within the next couple of days, but the next week will be just great. J.D. (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no real deadline. As long as you keep working on it, it should be fine. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a practical matter this DRV discussion is scheduled to be closed on February 18th. If you're not done by then it will presumably close as Keep Deleted/Userfy and you can file a new request once you have a draft ready. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your replies, guys. I believe I'll have something to show till February 18th. Hope this works. J.D. (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Cirt's close as appropriate given the AfD consensus. I took a look at the userspace draft and am not convinced that the changes would have affected the outcome. Tim Song (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full Rewrite Hi all. I've just spent the last couple of hours to find new material and put it to the article. Well, that's a tough thing, I'd say, but this is just a matter of principle. I think this guy deserves staying here. If other changes must be done or more info must be found, please let me know and I will try to do this asap. J.D. (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The userspace draft at User:Healthycare/Lindsay rosenwald has been rewritten and now clearly establishes that the subject is notable. Lindsay Rosenwald is the main subject of this article and this article from The New York Times. He easily passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore with a new AfD at editorial discretion; this article now, I believe, passes WP:BIO. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 February 2010[edit]

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

The internet meme Pedobear has now gained notability in reliable sources, finally. The Telegraph. Some others can be found in Google News! Time for either an article, or a redirect to List of internet memes with a short note there.--Heyya91919 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 8#Pedobear → 4chan#/b. lifebaka++ 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted. At the time of my writing this, the word "Pedobear" appears exactly three times in the articlespace in three separate articles:
Until such time as there is a section, with sourced content, on a suitable article any standalone article or even redirect is, imo, not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • update If the section at 4chan remains stable then I would have no objection to a redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no significant discussion of the meme on WP at this time (that I can find), and this should change. I don't know which page is most appropriate for discussion of the meme, and that's not really up to DRV to decide. Given the new source, it seems clear that a redirect is necessary because a redlink is considerably worse than what we have now. Until we have a more detailed and sourced section on a page determined by general editorial process, I think the most appropriate redirect target is 4chan#Memes. So I suggest that a protected redirect to that anchor be created, and any future discussion about the target can be had on the talk page. ÷seresin 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I created Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Pedobear for you to work on. When you have finished working on the draft, relist it here again linking to that page.--Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So just what level of notability/sourcing do we have in mind for a redirect to be created and 4chan to have a sub-section on this? Looking through the past RfDs, the prevailing delete rationale appears to have been "if it is unworthy of article inclusion, then it is unworthy of a redirect". What's the bar to meet here? Tarc (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure where you get the impression that that is the prevailing consensus. In my experience (and opinion), it seems to me that a redirect is deemed worthy if it is a likely (or not unlikely) search term that doesn't have an article, has a logical target and there is coverage of the term on the target. In this case, I would be happy with a redirect when there is some coverage of the topic, whether at 4chan or elsewhere. Inclusion on the target article is per the consensus of editors there - as this does not include me, I can't offer specific advice. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that impression from the past RfDs, as I said above. The point is, a redirect to 4chan is dependent on there actually being a mention of it in the article, something that is routinely edit-warred over. Right now, there is 4chan#Pedobear a section, but it is hard to say how long it will last. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted nothing substantial enough is written about it anywhere that a redirect might make sense, and it's certainly not notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I note above, at the moment there is a section on it at 4chan. If that is stabilized and retained, would that change your opinion? Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation and point to 4chan#Pedobear, if that sub-section remains. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Appears that Pedobear recently got some more mainstream attention. A person did a photoshop job to put Pedobear into an image of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics mascots... and a Polish newspaper accidentally used that image on their front page.[68] As they say on FARK, hilarity ensued. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the same incident that lead to the coverage described in the nomination statement. Although you cite coverage in a different source, so you should probably make the people at the 4chan article aware of it if they aren't already. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I don't see any strong need to have anything other than a redirect to 4chan#Pedobear. There is barely enough to justify a separate article at this point. So allow recreation but would recommend merging. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The section at the 4chan article has been renamed, and so if there is a consensus for a redirect the target should be 4chan#"Pedobear". Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 February 2010[edit]

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

I hear a lot about something called "Cricut" that's apparently popular in scrapbooking, so I decided to create an article for people to build on. I created a stub consisting of the sentence: "The Cricut Personal Electronic Cutter is a die-cutting machine used in scrapbooking." Someone immediately put a speedy-delete tag on it, which I contested, and then someone else deleted it. I don't see how my one sentence could be construed as "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". - Brian Kendig (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the last version, with the most information, reads like an entry in a product brochure designed to sell die cutters, not an encyclopaedia article. The single sentence was even less encyclopaedic and could arguably have been deleted under WP:CSD#A3 as well (although the longer version couldn't). Even though this is less spammy than some of the versions from 2006, it doesn't even attempt to show what makes it notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; that's reasonable criticism that I can do something with. I still don't agree that my original one-sentence article was so irredeemably spammy that speedy deletion was the proper recourse, nor do I agree that it qualified as "no content" (see WP:NOTCSD #9), but at any rate the stub isn't significant enough to bother with a deletion review. I withdraw the deletion review request and I will re-create the article from scratch with more information so as to establish notability. - Brian Kendig (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2010 (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.
Five Dollar Refund (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article for the band Five Dollar Refund was deleted unfairly, and should be brought back. They fit the requirements listed on wikipedia for a band to have a wiki page. 75.66.236.230 (talk · contribs). 15:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed nomination. Article talk page has further comments.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion as deleting admin. I took a second look at the deleted article, and stand by my decision, as there is no claim to notability, or anything else to differentiate them from all the other Myspace bands out there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse "unfair" is an awfully big word to throw around without providing some evidence that that was indeed the case. Nominator further provides no reason for the article to be undeleted, nor provides any elaboration on the apparently baseless claim that this "fits the requirements". For what it's worth I have looked at the deleted article and agree that it is a valid A7 speedy as written. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid application of WP:CSD#A7, no new information presented in this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questiont Does the individual wanting this overturned have evidence to back up the claim that they now meet the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion for a musical group? What are they covered under in WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND? Simply asserting they meet it isn't very helpful. We are not psychics. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2010 (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.
Electric Retard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In January 2010 I made an attempt to write an article on the controversial webcomic Electric Retard on Wikipedia. Despite the fact that previous attempts by other users had been deleted, I had a go at writing the article because the webcomic's notability status seems to have increased over the last year or two, especially here in Australia. I've also noticed that while Electric Retard's notability status has been debated on by other Wikipedia editors, many other webcomic articles which are a lot less notable have not been challenged or removed. If they have to get the chop, why does Electric Retard have to? I have diplomatically discussed this matter with the Wikipedia user who removed the article. Hoping to hear a response soon. Cheers. LoofNeZorf (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this version is a significant improvement over the one deleted at the AfD debate, I would not object to overturning the G4 deletion and listing at AfD. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- Okay, so the wiki and blog website links may not be regarded as reliable sources, but how come a student newspaper website isn't? --LoofNeZorf (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Student newspapers have not received the reliable fact-checking and editorial control that reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines have received. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is complicated. Student newspapers can be used as reliable sources. Like all sources, there is leeway and hard and fast rules can be problematic. Some student newspapers will be more reliable than some actual newspapers, while many student newspapers will have zero oversight. In general, as I understand it, student newspapers at a university level can be used to source statements that are not severely controversial. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "blog" isn't a fan's livejournal, but a webmagazine with multiple contributors and editorial control over its content, what would be considered a reliable source per WP:N. Like the Huffington Post, many blogs are reliable sources. But these are AfD arguments anyway. The point of this DRV is that this shouldn't have been deleted per CSD G4, the stated reason. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion and send to AfD the most recent version shared little similarity with the version deleted at AfD, including citing independent sources which the earlier version didn't, and actually reading like a proper article rather than a quick attempt at a fan page, so WP:CSD#G4 was no appropriate. It should be for the community to discus the reliability of these sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an admin, when considering G4 deletions, I don't just look at how many words have been replaced or how the article is formatted, but at the greater concerns brought up at AfD discussions, like subject notability, sourcing, etc. The community has already discussed the subject, insisting on community adjudication on every questionable source is a myopic exercise when the information itself is non-controversial. If this was an article on a notable subject, I would not necessarily argue against the inclusion of sources of a similar caliber among others that clearly support notability. But that's not the case. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Cunard's assessment of the "sources", above. Absolutely zero chances that would pass an AFD. If the nominator is really interested in restoring this then a well-written userspace draft backed up with rock-solid reliable independent sources is the only way to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a disgreement over the reliability of at least one of the sources, indicating that it not a foregone conclusion that this would be deleted at AfD. So per the letter and spirit of WP:CSD#G4 this should get a full hearing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tone of the blog does not read like that of a reliable source. A glance at the blog's homepage (http://www.readplatform.com/) confirms that the website is not reliable. If other editors disagree with this interpretation, we should list this at AfD, but I do not see the point, as none of the sources are close to being reliable. Because none of the sources address the notability concerns raised at the AfD, I believe that this should remain deleted until sufficient sources surface. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that these are all AfD judgements. WP:CSD#G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." The second version, other than being about the same subject, was nowhere near "sufficiently identical" or "substantially identical" to the first version. The first version cited no independent sources, was badly written and did not contain most of the information that the second version did. All these factors mean that the article was significantly different and substantially improved, whether the improvement was sufficient is a job for the community to decide at AfD. DRV is not a second AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • "[P]ages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" - see? I can selectively quote policy too! Yay! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed you can, and the snippet of policy you quote supports my argument. The reason for deletion was that it had no sources. There are now sources, therefore the reason for deleting no longer exists. (talk) (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • At the AfD, HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs) wrote, "I don't see any reliable sources from a Google search, just mainly blogs and forums." This recreation has not rectified the sourcing concerns brought up at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The AfD was just over 2 years ago in January 2008. The most recently deleted version contains information about what happened during 2008 (although it doesn't say when in 2008, it's likely to be after January) and 2009, for which sources could not possibly exist at the time of the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You say it does, yet unless you read minds you don't know the reason for deletion. Again, as an admin, you have to look at the substantive basis behind the editorial judgments to delete beyond an either-or sourcing scenario. There's a real topic behind the discussion, one that was not proven notable through coverage. The sources were insufficient because they were obscure (as in difficult to find) and referred to an even more obscure topic. Currently, the topic and the new sources don't address the notability concerns, regardless of the re-arrangement of the text. The obvious counterpoint is that we're here for DRV, a forum which doesn't require a substantive basis beyond mere policy interpretation, which means that a legalistic argument could conceivably be made to support any interpretation of deletion criteria. Which leaves us with the self-serving bullshit of quoting policy snippets to support a context du jour. When I consider your argument in view of the pragmatism of even having an RS/N/AfD policy, it falls apart. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wow, harsh. But you can't blame user Thryduulf for trying. --LoofNeZorf (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I actually do not have an opinion about whether the sources do actually show notability or not. That is not for deletion review to judge. The only question at deletion review of a speedy deletion is "Was the deletion correct?". The speedy deletion criteria states that the article must be both (1) substantially/significantly the same and (2) unimproved, and (3) that the reason for deletion must still apply. I have explained above that 1. The article was significantly different, 2. the article was substantially improved, and 3. the reason for deletion does not still apply. I am continuing to argue this case because I believe it is important that incorrect speedy deletions are not allowed to stand, as otherwise there is no point in having the strict criteria that we do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD, as it is clear from the comments here that there is disagreement among established editors on the sourcing provided. Where there's a legitimate disagreement, AfD is the correct venue. Tim Song (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD was the correct venue, now DRV is. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Detailed discussion about the reliability of new sources does not belong here, but at AfD. Some sources were added since original version was deleted. One of the sources appears to be an online magazine noted in the mainstream media, see readplatform.com "about us". As for homepageDAILY, although labels itself "the world first global student newspaper", it's pretty clear it is not a student newspaper in the traditional sense of the term. Normally we deny student newspaper sources for WP:N purposes to avoid filling Wikipedia with issues of interest only to a school or university. But this is an on-line publication not related to any school, and at least one of the publishers is the well-known Richard Neville (writer); see [69] [70]. I would venture a guess that this is a reliable source about cultural matters, like comics. "Testing" for new sources is normally done at AfD not here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination) for example. Pcap ping 10:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD, following WP:CSD#G4. It is different enough to warrant an AfD (as mentioned hpd is by Richard Neville and is used as a source on Roxy Jezel and Abbywinters.com, so does need longer discussion) but it is still very poor any editors interested in keeping this article need to do a lot more work on it quickly. (Emperor (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD per Thryduulf. This discussion is not about the sources, but about whether or not the speedy deletion of this article was in keeping with the guidelines. I cannot see the old version of the article, but I trust the analysis of Thryduulf and Emperor and I think it is better to err on the side of more community discussion, not less. AFD is the correct venue for that discussion. (Disclosure: I was directed to this discussion by a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.) Cerebellum (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In preparation for the AfD, I have asked Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to review the reliability of the sources. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Readplatform_and_Homepagedaily
  • Encourage userfication, and give User:LoofNeZorf a fair chance to build something before testing it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be the ideal option, it looks very shaky and restoring it and then deleting it if it isn't improved) seems an odd exercise. Better to leave it deleted until it can be improved enough to stand an AfD. Is this an option or would it be seen as second-guessing the AfD and we need to let the process run its course? (Emperor (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • I'm all for the idea of letting it get tested at the AfD. --LoofNeZorf (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2010 (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.
Crescent (tools) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article on the Crescent Tool Company founded in 1907 was deleted by User:Tbsdy lives for "[duplicating] an existing topic, Adjustable spanner." Following this logic, the article on Chevrolet should also be deleted for duplicating an existing topic, Car.

It's not clear to me why this article was deleted without any discussion, since it wasn't obvious spam or a copyright violation, but I suppose it's not my site and the rules don't have to be sensible.

The article I was "duplicating" was not even mentioned until the summary line in the deletion log, which, as you can imagine, is a bit too late to be constructive. typhoon (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I used the deletion reason proposed, that probably was a bit silly for a reason, if you'd just asked me to I would have restored and taken to AFD. We might as well go through a DRV now though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy Deletion and perhaps rename Crescent Tool Company. This article topic is not duplicating an existing article topic, which wouldn't be a speedy deletion criteria anyway and redirect would've been more appropriate. --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close The article has been restored by the deleting admin, and I have added sources to the article and expanded its scope. In the future, the nominator, Typhoon (talk · contribs) should consult with the deleting admin before going to DRV (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions). Cunard (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 February 2010[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Scandals with -gate suffix (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was deleted because it was a recreation of a category that was previously deleted. It has been previously deleted four times: 1 2 3 and 4. There is a list that covers -gate constructions at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I want to bring this to deletion review because in all of the CFD discussions there was no mention of -gate constructions as a linguistic phenomenon (specifically snowclones). I think this category is most well understood and utilized in that context. There is precedent for categorization by rhetorical technique as seen in Category:Figures of speech. Gobonobo T C 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, you are not challenging the deletion as a recreation of previously deleted categories with a similar name? You are proposing that the category be allowed to exist as a snowclone collection. If that was the case, wouldn't the category be properly titled Category:Snowclones which already exists? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider it a separate sub-category of category:snowclones. Since there are around 70 pages that would fit into the -gate category, I thought it would clutter up the snowclones category to put them all there. I brought this to Deletion Review to reexamine the creation of the category because there is significant information pertinent to the debate that was unavailable at the time the debate took place. Perhaps I should have brought one of the previous CFD deletions up for review? I'm not very familiar with DRV procedures or the best way to go about this. Gobonobo T C 00:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is what is meant, as I read your example "categorization by rhetorical technique as seen in Category:Figures of speech", is actually categerization of the technique themselves, not of articles which are titled according to that technique. If there is an encylopedia article to be written about -gate, then that would be added to the snowclones category, but not every article which in some way has a snowclone relation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was referring to the subcategories of category:figures of speech. Just as category:onomatopoeias is a collection of onomatopoeias and category:euphemisms is a collection of euphemisms. Gobonobo T C 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand, though I personally thing some of those are overcats the categorised articles. In the case pf category:onomatopoeias it doesn't contain articles which happen to contain onomatopeia in the title likewise If there were an article about the use -gate, that would fit in the snowclones category, not every article about something dubbed -gate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can't see what extra is being added here, this isn't CFD round X. We don't have precedents on wikipedia, so something which you see as similar doesn't mean a lot, as above that category is a category of articles about the techniques themselves, not every article which could conceivably related to the techniques. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation now that there is a parent structure to organize this ctageory, there's a great reason to allow the category to be recreated despite the prior deletion of categories with vaguely similar names. Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow re-creation Consensus can change. In general if there is a category there should be a list, and vice versa. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    less than a month ago the last CFD had 5 deletes vs 1 keep. Ok it was only open a couple of hours, but given the poor turn out many CFDs get, it would certainly seem to point one way. Just stating consensus can change is pretty meaningless, especially when the most recent discussion tends to point to an underlying state that consensus hasn't. --82.7.40.7 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.40.7 (talk) [reply]
  • Allow recreation It's useful to readers. Usefulness may not be a good reason to keep an article, but it's an excellent reason to keep a category. A reader trying to figure out a name can find this category from any of the "-gate" articles it covers, then search out the article the reader wants. Very convenient. You couldn't find the list article that fast unless you already knew the exact name. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my experience, WP:USEFUL is referred to just as much in CFD as AFD. Wherever the argument "it's useful" is cited, it is never accorded much weight. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The language you linked to: There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion. There's also some language in there about explaining the usefulness of a page, which I also did. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Additional reasons for allowing recreation: The last CfD closing [71] referred to this CfD [72] for "Category -gate", didn't take into account the name change to "scandals with -gate", the current category name. Vegaswikian, in closing the last CfD, went against G4 policy [73] because the name change created a substantially different category, for which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. The name change was significant and showed that the category is about scandals (a subject), not all words with "gate" at the end of them. Policy clearly allows subject-related categories, and this is a subject-related (as opposed to "word-related") category. The close was against deletion policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that's right. This is not a subject-related category, because the articles that would be included are not about the abstract concept of a snowclone. The articles are about a variety of scandals which are otherwise unconnected to each other. Your argument would suggest that as long as the name of something is a pun, we could categorize it in Category:Puns. That's clearly not correct. We wouldn't categorize a bunch of articles together just because they were called "the mother of all X", but that too is a snowclone. This has been discussed many times and the categories have been repeatedly rejected. You might also want to be a tad careful in stating without any equivocation that users violated policy when that opinion rests upon an interpretation that not everyone agrees with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse repeated deletion. Having this category would directly contradict the long-standing guideline that says we don't categorize unrelated subjects by shared name. There is a guideline and three or four past CFD discussions that have come to the same conclusion. Yes, consensus can change, but where is the evidence that it has? If re-creation is allowed, it will just be subjected to yet another full CFD, and it is very likely that it would be deleted again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • These threats just go to show how little "consensus" at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. I'm glad that this issue has been taken to a broader set of editors than the cloistered few who participate at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that you (who reguarly participates at CFD) + two other editors (one of whom regularly participates at CFD and appears to have a non-consensus-based personal policy of allowing the existence of any category if a list also exists; and another who argues WP:USEFUL) represents "the community as a whole", but whatever. By the way, I was not making a "threat"; I was predicting what would happen if it were re-created. I would appreciate it if you retracted that part of your comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not only can WP:USEFUL be an excellent argument for keeping a category (see my response to you above, at 23:28), it gets to the very heart of why we have categories in the first place -- helping our readers. And that trumps the principle that we shouldn't have categories about shared names, because that guideline section, which you may want to consult on the subject of usefulness, assumes that a name-based category is, ah, useless unless the subjects of the articles themselves are related. Well ... they're related. The suffix is NOT a non-defining characteristic of the subject because they're all about modern-day scandals, and that's why they're named "-gate". This "-gate" naming happens so often that it's useful to have an easily-accessable page (even more accesable than a list page, because the category link is at the bottom of every "-gate" page). Note that this isn't simply a category for names with "-gate" at the end of their names -- only scandals. So Stargate, for example, won't fit. Olfactory, please read the guidelines you link to. It would save time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • JohnWBarber, please assume that users have read the guidelines that they refer to. It would save you assuming bad faith and from assuming that your own interpretation of the guideline is the only correct one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why I was assuming good faith, Good Ol'. The two pages you linked to both clearly state the exact opposite of what you said they stated (it's obvious and isn't open to interpretation: "usefulness" is a criterion; "-gate" is not just a linguistic commonality but indicates something essential about the subject of each article in the category). A lot of editors link to guideline and policy pages they haven't read in a while and they often forget that those pages have statements that actually eviscerate the arguments the editors are making. I've probably done it, too. This time, for whatever reason, you've done it. Happens to the best of us. Nevertheless, I'm crossing out the sentences that offended you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree that they say "the exact opposite of what [I] said they stated". I think you need to review what I said. (You are the only user here who has ascribed a particular meaning to WP:USEFUL, by the way.) You've completely misunderstood me or you haven't read the entire guideline. I assume the former. You're free to interpret guidelines in your own way, but don't try to tell other users what they mean or how they must interpret the guideline in context. Anyone can read and quote guidelines; the key is that I disagree with your assessment of the applicability of guidelines in this context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Try to avoid personalizing this and look on this as an argument about the subject at hand ("you" below, means "anybody"): You must interpret WP:USEFUL as "usefulness" being a criterion for categories. You must. In fact, it's not really interpretation: It's simple reading. If you want to interpret WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES as saying "-gate" is more like anybody named Jones (the example given there), then you would call "-gate" a "non-defining characteristic", but if it's more like "a particular family named Jones", then it's a "defining characteristic" that can be worthy of a category. It falls in-between those two Jones examples, but it certainly isn't as empty of meaning as any old Jones last name, and whenever it's applied to a new subject, the intent is to call that subject a scandal. WP:USEFUL (an essay) states An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". A non-trivial number of people would remember that a scandal they vaguely remember or have heard about ended in "-gate". It's an easy-to-remember thing. In the real, common-sense world, which Wikipedia is supposed to try to cater to, a category would be an easy way for those people to find their "-gate" article. I'm trying to think of how this category might hurt the encyclopedia, by setting a bad example, for instance, and I can't. We have an opportunity to help our readers and do it within the guideline. Even if you insist it violates the guideline, look at what the guideline itself says: common sense should be used and occasional exceptions are fine; "useful" is the fourth word in the Overcategorization guideline, and "ease of navigation" is in the first sentence. Just below the lead, there is a section on "Non-defining or trivial characteristic", which distinguishes trivial elements from the rest by asking whether or not the information is useful: "Such things may be interesting information for an article, but not useful for categorization." It all boils down to usefulness. Even "category clutter", the problem WP:OC is meant to solve, is defined as something that gets in the way of usefulness. Is category clutter a problem with more than a few of these articles? I guess the most famous are these, and there's no clutter: [74] [75] [76] [77] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As I've said above, I disagree with your interpretation of the guideline as it applies to this situation. You can't force others to agree with your approach. I'm personalizing only to the extent that you are the only one advancing this interpretation and application. Thus, I refer to it as "your" approach. If you prefer to de-personalize: I disagree with the interpretation of the guideline as it applies to this situation that you have advanced. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus can change. I don't see that it has. --Kbdank71 02:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No evidence of any change in the long-standing consensus against categorisation by shared name, either generally or in this specific case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Entirely appropriate closure in light of widely accepted guidelines and in light of consensus as expressed in a long line of past Cfd discussions. --Xdamrtalk 08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse repeated deletion – I can't think of any instance when categorisation by a random feature of the name of an article has been supported. Should French scandals ending in portail be included? If not, what is the French equivalent? Occuli (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse repeated deletion. The prior rationales for deletion remain strong and convincing. The use of the -gate suffix doesn't point to any underlying, categorical relationship between the scandals, other than that they all occurred in American politics after Watergate. Note also that there are no instances of Category:Snowclones categorizing instances of snowclone use, but rather articles on and about snowclones, such as List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, so that category does not alone provide justification for recreating this one. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) other than that they all occurred in American politics after Watergate, sounds like this is NOT a "characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself" (2) Is deleting this category making the encyclopedia more useful for our readers or less? (3) Why would any other factor override the previous two points? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I was just incorrectly assuming that "-gate" pertains only to American politics, when in fact List of scandals with "-gate" suffix (and the category name itself) have no such limitation, being applied to non-political as well as non-American scandals (I'm coming back to comment here further after noticing a recent issue of Glamour referring to the Tiger Woods infidelity scandal as "Tigergate"). So "-gate" is just media shorthand for scandal, and that suffix originated with Watergate, so obviously all scandals named in such a way occurred after it...but that date is otherwise arbitrary as a categorical relationship. So, 1) yes, it is just categorization based on shared name, 2) no, it does not make the encyclopedia more useful because it clutters articles with trivial categorization, and 3) is another point necessary? Category:Scandals and its various subcategories already exist; Category:Scandals by shared naming scheme is not a useful addition. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Referring to (1) if they've all been called scandals, they've got more in common than unrelated people named "Jones" (the example used at WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES); it's an essential "characterization of the subject itself", not some random, trivial word or part of a word, like Westfield-Middlefield-Suffield or Billingsgate-Stargate-Aldersgate (2) What's not useful in helping the many readers who will easily remember that a scandal ended in "-gate" but can't remember the name of the scandal to find it by using the category? And where's the clutter? Not here: [78] [79] [80] [81] We have the opportunity to make the search process as simple as possible for readers. What if you were trying to find that British political scandal from years back. You remember it ended in "-gate" and began with a woman's name. Was it Dianagate? No. Irisgate? Nope, that's not it. Noemigate? Nah. Oh, there it is: Betsygate. How would you find that, otherwise? How fast? And if you found your way to the category, you'd find the "List of" article quickly (you likely wouldn't have known it exists) and then be able to quickly distinguish the various soccer, car racing and other scandals. It's subject-related, does no harm and does much good in a common-sensical way. It's what we're here for. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the points in this case against WP:CCC as noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse repeated deletion. I am commenting here following an invitation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Most of the scandals ending in "gate" are completely independent of each other; I can see no reason to group a random selection of articles based on their name. You could probably write an article explaining how the name traces back to some older scandal (Watergate?), but there is no reason to add every article to the same category. Road Wizard (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list article helps explain how the practice got started. They're all scandals, and there's a rather limited number of them. As for "no reason", that's been answered above. As for "random", guess what Herbert Hoover and John Kerry have in common (a category fully in compliance with WP:OC). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said "I can see no reason". Whether you can see a reason or not does not concern me; I am here to put forward my position on the issue, which seems to be shared by a number of other editors. I don't know what your point is with the family category, but if two people are related then that isn't random. What is random is trying to link Corngate with Flakegate or Noemigate simply because they have gate in the article name. Road Wizard (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the relevant policy: a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related—for example, a category grouping subarticles directly related to a specific Jones family. Corngate and Flakegate have a lot more in common than Herbert Hoover and John Kerry, whatever family they have in common. Whether you can see a reason or not does not concern me It's a discussion, RW. Rather than be concerned about the finer points of just how related two things that are both scandals are, it would be better to think in a common-sense way about how we make ourselves useful to our readers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, I don't understand your example of using those two people, primarily because I know very little about them. If you believe they are incorrectly categorised then you should argue for the category's removal from those pages. Just because other articles are set up one way is no excuse to create similar problems here. I would also ask you to avoid assuming that other editors are operating without common sense; common sense is open to interpretation and my common sense says grouping unrelated articles solely for having a similar name will not help the readers. As you believe the two articles have a lot in common, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how genetically modified corn in New Zealand relates to using wedding photos to promote a chocolate bar in the UK? From the same policy that you quoted; "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." Road Wizard (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please avoid assuming what I might be thinking. I never said and didn't assume that editors were operating without common sense, I saw that their approach, including your approach, didn't emphasize it as much as the top of every policy and guideline page suggests that we do. The focus of the comments has been on rules, references to past consensus and past practice, but not enough on how we can consult our common sense to do what's most useful for readers. You write, grouping unrelated articles solely for having a similar name will not help the readers, but I've already made the point that the articles have at least as much in common as the articles in Category:Scandals, so they're not unrelated, nor is this category about scandals any more a "non-defining characteristic" than Category:Dudley-Winthrop family. And I've shown how the category would help readers. And I've pointed out that helping the readers is the point of WP:OC. And I've pointed out that even if you think the category violates the language, it either doesn't violate the spirit or is one of the common-sense exceptions that the guideline encourages, or it's both. To "enlighten" you: the scandals you refer to are both scandals that have been named according to a longstanding journalistic naming convention, a complex not-entirely-language-related convention (as [[List of scandals with "-gate" suffix makes clear). As Tarc's and Orderinchaos's comments indicate, naming something "-gate" is a controversial practice itself. If we can save readers time and distraction in finding the article on the "-gate" subject they're interested in, they can concentrate on the subject itself, perhaps including whether or not "-gate" is useful in naming scandals about tuna, political funds or call girls. That last quote of yours from the guideline had a purpose to it: to help the reader by avoiding clutter. But the category doesn't result in clutter, or confusion, or distraction, or anything else that hurts the reader or the encyclopedia, and I've shown that it can help. That's a common-sense approach that avoids abstractions of policy that interfere with helping readers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not assuming what you are thinking, I am responding to what you are writing. Quote, "Rather than be concerned about the finer points... it would be better to think in a common-sense way". If you did not mean to respond to my comment by asking me (and perhaps others) to start thinking in a common sense way, then perhaps you should not have written that sentence? I also disagree with the points you have raised; the only thing you have proven so far is that you are passionate about this subject. One of the reasons we operate by consensus is to judge the correct interpretation of a policy or guideline. Rather than accusing other people of trolling as you have done below, you should perhaps ask yourself why so many established editors disagree with your interpretation. Road Wizard (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse repeated deletion Following from a general invitation at WP:AUSPOL - Aside from the consensus issue, which I agree with, I can only speak for my country but most of the ones here are a product of lazy journalism rather than common naming, are utterly unrelated to each other and it would probably not be difficult to find a more encyclopaedic name for the articles which would reflect the low public usage of the names. I don't know anyone who calls our involvement in the oil-for-food program "Wheatgate" (it's generally called "the AWB affair" or the "AWB scandal"), although both "Utegate" and "Iguanagate" got a run in the press. Orderinchaos 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we know that some of these names are the most common ones used for certain scandals, it's irrelevant to this discussion that others aren't. It isn't our job to "find a more encyclopaedic name", it's policy to use the common name. As for "utterly unrelated", see my comment just a little below with the same timestamp. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt if necessary. Those wishing to restore have been unable to articulate just why the WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES guideline should be set aside. Tarc (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is Category:Scandals next on the chopping block? After all, there isn't any more connection between articles in that category than there would be in this one. How is one a collection of "random" or "unrelated" articles and not the other? Lot's of talk here about trivial points like former consensus, but nobody else here has addressed the most important issue, usefulness to readers — what we're supposed to be about here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Being able to navigate from one contrived "-gate" controversy to the next doesn't seem particularly useful to the overall reading audience. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, apart from being graced with a cliched and catchy title by the drive-by media. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're ignoring every point I made, starting with this one [82] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rejecting your points does not mean I ignored your points. You already waltzed this pedantic dance with Good Ol’factory earlier; we don't need to see Round 2, thanks. Tarc (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Commenting as if points hadn't already been addressed (about policy[83], or usefulness [84]) is ignoring them. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Explaining an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus. [85] And you're trolling, both on the page and in your last edit summary.[86] You've done this before. This is my last off-topic comment to you on this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are interpreting a guideline one way, and nearly everyone else seems to be interpreting it another way. You aren't being ignored, Noroton, your point of view is simply being rejected. There is quite a difference, and it would do you some good to learn that rather than make personal attacks and call other users trolls. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've provided me with no evidence that you're even thinking about the guideline (hardly anyone else has, either), much less interpreting it. Still trolling, I see. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Use of "-gate" isn't an irrelevant coincidence that some scandals happen to share. Ever since William Safire started using it for scandals after Watergate, it's been used in developing controversies, usually with the pattern of (1) a partisan, enemy or commentator coining the word to show that some allegation or revelation is scandalous -- in some way akin to previous "-gate" scandals; (2) there's a period where some people use the word and some don't, depending on whether they want to characterize it as a scandal -- responsible news organizations hold off until there are enough facts that the situation can be reliably called a scandal or something very worthy of suspicion; (3) when enough facts come out to establish that it's a scandal or very suspicious, most news organizations use the term, and it's later picked up by historians and others, even those sympathetic to the people charged in the scandal. So when it becomes the name of an event, it tells the reader something about how that event is widely perceived. This isn't the only thing going on -- scandals can be hard to name in a brief way, and lazy journalism can certainly be involved. The best way for our readers to consider any of this in relation to the subject they're interested in is to have a category for the "-gate" articles, or at least to the list article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of a controversy is not a defining characteristic. So far you have been unable/unwilling to address this point. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid not, no, and I'm sad to say that you're on the verge of WP:IDHT territory. Pundits coining a controversy by what is arguably the nation's oldest meme does not mean that any one of the controversies has something to do with another. It's just a name. The "list of..." article is fine, as it is more of a commentary on the "-gate" phenomenon itself rather than trying to concoct some sort of over-reaching, inclusive bond between them all. Categorization would be veering into WP:SYNTH territory. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse repeated deletion - particularly because the "-gate" suffix and the word "scandals" violate WP:WTA and so such constructs should be discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - not only does this seem to be well-covered by WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, but just because "*-gate" has become a linguistic phenomenon isn't a reason to use it as a categorization. Not all scandals are -gates, after all. -- Bfigura (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the long standing consensus is that categories based on shared name are deleted, which was correctly applied here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad question for DRV. It's a hard question. DRV doesn't help resolve hard questions. Suggest fleshing out a parent article, incorporating a list, for such a category before again making a case for a category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I would say that these are not random events sharing the same name, they are scandals that reach a certain level of notability to get the moniker. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what exactly is that level of notability? If it is not objective then it should not be used for a category. I'd argue that it is entirely arbitary in that the level of notability has nothing to do with he use of the ending. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per Xdamr: "appropriate closure in light of widely accepted guidelines and in light of consensus as expressed in a long line of past Cfd discussions". Simply asserting that consensus can change means little in the absence of any evidence that it has and the presence of evidence pointing to a consistent history of rejection of this type of category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (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.
Sceabhar na dheasa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Currently doing post graduate research in Irish history and would like to see a temporary review of what this article contained. Just briefly. Many thanks Ian Pender (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable email on your account then an admin can email you the article's contents. Hut 8.5 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something's a bit strange here - the article was created by you, was two sentences in length, included your name, and was deleted as a hoax. While I could send you the contents at your talk page, I'm inclined to conclude this request too is a hoax. Orderinchaos 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Email it to Ian Pender. Point out to Ian Pender that he can enable email, and receive emails, without any risk of anyone discovering his email address. Email addresses are only revealed when you send. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 February 2010[edit]

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

This AfD went for roughly 6 days and 8 hours with extensive arguments made by very established editors. On the seventh day of the AfD, it was a unanimous "keep". However, the nominator, User:Niteshift36, withdrew the nomination at this late time. This closure would make sense if the closer/nom felt they erred in their nomination, but instead this appears to be a WP:POINT closure with the closer/nom simply not agreeing with the outcome and withdrawing it just before an administrator could close it, likely as a "Keep."

An attempt to get a good faith explanation from the closer/nom ended with the nom feeling they didn't have to give an explanation. [87] (I wasn't "even involved" was apparently the reason.)

This AfD should either be allowed to finish out the final 16 hours or closed with the designation Keep, but preferably the latter as any other close is unlikely.--Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't withdrawn by nominator, when there are no delete opinions, mean the same as keep? I don't see what the issue is here. Surely it's better for a nominator to withdraw when he or she realises that the consensus is in favour of keeping rather than to prolong the discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It won't go on record as the community deciding on Keep, as what appears the case is here. I think the nom didn't want some kind of precedent being set. It's hard to say since they refuse to discuss it. Clearly the nom doesn't feel it should be kept, they just withdrew the nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't even be here. What is being contested? That the article was kept? Oakshade, who had no involvement in the AfD whatsoever, simply refuses to AGF with me on anything. He made remarks questioning my motives for nominating another article that he supported keeping. That article was deleted yesterday. Then all of the sudden, he becomes interested in the closure of this one, when he showed no interest in it for the past 6 days. If there is anything WP:POINTY here, I'd submit that it is his actions. And yes, he did ask my reasoning and yes, I did decline to answer him. I acted within the rules. The article was kept. So what is being reviewed here? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to point out that Oakshade failed to notify me of this review.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after 2 edit conflicts) I would think that a withdrawn by nominator is even stronger than a keep, as it shows that the consensus for keeping is unanimous. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely Phil. Something that 2 editors whose opinions I respect said something that changed my mind. But that's the difference between AGF and someone who refuses to. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Phil. Accurate close that reflected that the nominator no longer supported deletion. A "keep" close would not have been unanimous, as the nominator would be the sole "delete" vote. However, a close with "nomination withdrawn" indicates that all editors believe that the article should be retained. There was no need to take this debate to DRV. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, okay. If the withdrawing nominator simply doesn't like how an AfD is going instead of honestly believing the article should be kept after community say at almost 7 days is okay with Wikipedia, then I'll respect consensus. Don't agree with it, but I'll respect it. --Oakshade (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that sounds real respectful. You essentially withdraw your DRV by insulting me and again, questioning my motives. But this time you don't bother to pretend that it's a thought. You state it as a fact. If you bothered to read, I stated above why I withdrew it. Too bad your dislike of me clouds your vision. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After repeatedly accusing me of acting in bad faith, you want to talk about WP:CIVIL? Perhaps you should start respecting our policy on that and WP:AGF as well. Yes, I did withdraw that other nomination. I still disagree. But it was clear that my interpretation was the minority and I respected the consensus view, even though it differed from my own. A nominator can withdraw a nomination at any time. Show me a policy the prohibits it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- What exactly are you trying to achieve here, Oakshade? Quibbling over sixteen hours in an uncontroversial AfD. You say Niteshift36 should not have withdrawn the nomination because, though consensus was clear, he didn't agree with it. No. No, we have to reopen the debate and drag Niteshift publicly over the coals, rubbing it in to the max, because it's super duper mega important that the close says "The consensus was keep" rather than "withdrawn by nom". Do you have any idea how petty and vindictive this behaviour looks? Reyk YO! 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. Consensus was Keep and I think it's important that AfDs that run their full course should go on record as what community consensus decided. And vindictive? I wasn't even in the debate. You don't need to get testy about it. --Oakshade (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, you weren't in the debate. It's just a big coincidence that the day after an AfD I nominated and you fought hard to keep (and made bad faith allegations in) closed as a delete, you just happened across this and decided to make some more allegations and make an issue over....what is it that was actually wrong? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for following WP:AGF. For the record, I had to check my history to find the AfD you were talking about and a majority of the times I've debated (or "fought hard") with you in AfDs, they've ended with my preference. --Oakshade (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? There were only 14 edits between your last comments on the AfD about the Alrosa (which closed yesterday) and you taking up this cause. But you had to go back to find it? And now you're keeping score? No, that doesn't make it sound the least bit like you have an axe to grind. You're welcome about AGF, especially since you've totally abandoned is on your end. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes really. I wasn't even aware that debate closed. I lost interest in that debate 5 days ago (I guess you didn't notice that's when my last comment there was). It's clear you won't assume good faith and it's pointless to continue this. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My friend, this entire discussion is because you wouldn't AGF in the first place. You opened it with allegations of bad faith conduct and stuck with it, even after I specifically said why I withdrew the nom. Please don't play the victim and don't insult everyone here by pretending that you've been following AGF all along. And yes, I noticed your absence for the 4 days between your last comment and your crusade here. Just find it an odd coincidence that this happened the day after the other closing. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we are friends, I'm sure you'll by happy to answer what your motivations were next time you are politely asked as you were before this DRV [88], which likely would have avoided it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had you not just days before made allegations of bad faith on my part and had actually been involved in this AfD, I probably would have. But to be blunt, since you weren't involved and had been antagonistic towards me within the past few days, I didn't feel the need to explain myself to you, especially when my actions were completely within policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- A withdrawal by the nominator and a close with no outstanding delete arguments, I see nothing wrong with it this afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Forgot to make my !vote official. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse this is one of the ways we decide on articles--when everyone but the nom agrees to keep, and the nom accepts that consensus. In fact, I would strongly encourage noms to do just that. Niteshift should be commended for his good judgment in this. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing because consensus is clear. In case there's any charge of hypocrisy, I'm happy to advocate this DRV being closed as Endorse closure.--Oakshade (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just pointing out that withdrawn falls under WP:Speedy keep, criterion 1. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That actually does seem more appropriate and I'll make that specification next time I see a "withdrawn nomination" closure, but as consensus is going with "endorse closure", I'll still go with that. --Oakshade (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (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.
Alec Powers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was recreated 7 months after the previous deletion being far better sourced than the orginal and in the opinion of the previously deleting admin "Looks fine to me; notability seems to be fairly clear now. The article that was deleted was pretty bad and didn't show any of the awards or coverage your new version does; so it doesn't surprise me it did get deleted - perhaps nobody with knowledge of the subject matter happened to notice the AfD. Nice work, anyway." (see diff). Though nobody else requested it, User:Viridae has chosen to speedy delete on the basis that the article was recreated and in his/her opinion must be deleted as it may fail WP:PORNBIO (see diff). This was the meat of the discussion that s/he has halted early, that the guidance of WP:PORNBIO is not an excuse to blindly delete, does not override the general notability criteria and this biographic article happens to pass WP:ENT and WP:ARTIST criteria. This is sufficient grounds for discussion in order to reach a consensus on the matter and that discussion has been halted less than half a day after the AfD was raised. I believe the article should be restored to enable a suitable consensus to be reached. It should be noted that similar articles for pornographic actors have been retained after consensus building discussion.

The deletion discussion that terminated early is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Powers (2nd nomination). Ash (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note that as Viridae (talk · contribs) refused to userfy a copy of the article and, so far, has failed to email me a copy, the above DRV was based on my recollection of the article as I am unable to check the original version. Ash (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I emailed you a copy within 10 minutes of saying I would. Check your email again.ViridaeTalk 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take your word for it, never arrived and not in my spam filter. Surprising it disappeared as I have had 3 other emails sent to me via Wikipedia in the last two weeks and I've just sent a test message which got redirected back to my main email account without incident. Ash (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and at least list for the full period at AfD. I was the closer of the first AfD, and the admin that had a quick look at his recreated version. While the length of prose in the first and second versions was similar, the level of sourcing was completely incomparable: the original version was deleted quite rightly as a wholly unsourced BLP, while I felt the recreated version had ample sourcing and demonstrated notability fairly well despite being a very short stub with a list of appearances. Not being in any way interested in gay porn I can't really evaluate the sources all that well, but articles and features in various printed magazines were listed. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the individual easily satisfies the general notability guideline through coverage in reliable sources - and I don't think closing the AfD early was appropriate. There's a valid argument to be made here between WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG, and the listed article was enormously better-sourced than the previous version, making for a fairly dubious G4 deletion in my view. ~ mazca talk 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted of course. Before deleting it I compared the two side by side. The main reason given by voters in the original deletion discussion was lack of notability, specifically it fails the notability criteria for pornstars (which as I explained to Ash on my talk page is more stringent than the general notability guideline fir other entertainers because a pornstar can pump out almost a film a week if they can find the work, and the adience size for porn movies is far far smaller than the audience for mainstream movies. These different notability criteria are listed at WP:PORNBIO. Now the new article, when compared side by side was essentially the same beast as the old. The old one was a 2 line opener stating he is a pornstar, the same for the new one. The old one had a list of selected titles in which he appeared, as did the new ( thigh the new had more listed). So while not word for word the same, in essence these articles were identical. Certainly, the failure if the notability criteria, the reason for the first deletion, was not changed, because the content was basically the same ( albeit better referenced). Now ash has elsewhere referenced awards. None of those were awarded to the performer, and awards were not mentioned in the body of the article (if they had been it wouldnt have qualified for the speedy). The awards websites in a couple of cases were used as references to establish the fact that he appeared in certain films at certain times. Summing up, I deleted this under CSD G4 because it had substantially the same content as the original and no effort had been made to address the failure of the notability guideline for pornstars as in the first afd. ViridaeTalk 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the argument that there were details of awards won in the AfD discussion (this is the "elsewhere" that Viridae references) and if Viridae had seen these in the article rather than the discussion s/he would not have deleted a puzzling argument. I would have thought it a basic responsibility of anyone speedily closing an AfD to actually read the discussion to come to a conclusion, and if there is a prospect of reliable sources being added to the article in the near future then that is an obvious reason to not speedy delete. Have I misunderstood the process here? Ash (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AfD per the fact that the closing admin of the previous AfD believes that the subject now passes WP:GNG and that a good argument can be made for keeping this article. Sources were added to a previously unreferenced (or badly referenced) article so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it does, it is substantially the same article, and WP:PORNBIO still hasnt been adressed. ViridaeTalk 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lack of reliable sources in the previous version has been addressed in this one. Whether or not this establishes notability should be determined in a full AfD discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist to AfD - This wasn't just a cun'n paste of the original version as there was valid sourcing in the new one. There are valid arguments for keeping.--Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for the full 7 days- I'm assuming good faith that sources were in fact added to the article. With this in mind, the creator made a good faith effort to fix the problems with the previous version, and the article should have been allowed to stand or fall on its own merits, not be deleted by G4. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - I doubt it will make any difference to the outcome, but there's no harm in letting the AfD run its full course. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for full 7 days. The version deleted at the first AfD was an unsourced BLP. The version speedy deleted recently was fully sourced. Whether the sources are reliable and whether they confer notability is for the community to decide. WP:CSD#G4 was not applicable here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for full AfD period. I haven't seen the article prior to deletion, but it seems the notability issue is more in question than a simple "recreation of deleted material" speedy would cover. The deleting admin himself said above that the article was "basically the same (albeit better referenced)", but seems to not realize that being better referenced is exactly why it might not be "the same", and why the notability issue needs to be discussed at AfD. Equazcion (talk) 12:24, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Note I have userfied the history of the article and its talkpage to User:Ash/Alec Powers (talk). This is the version deleted at AfD; this is the version speedily deleted.  Skomorokh  12:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. CSD G4 justified when the awards listing did not address the notability issue that caused the previous article to be deleted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not for the admin to decide unilaterally whether the new changes/references properly addressed notability. G4 is only for a more-or-less straight recreation of the same material, where the article issues couldn't have been addressed because the article is still identical to the deleted version. If an attempt was made to address notability this time around, and the article changed significantly, it needs an AFD. Equazcion (talk) 17:33, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
There the content was almost exactly the same. References reference, they never add notability. ViridaeTalk 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If references reference sources that weren't referenced before then they can add proof of notability. Whether or not they did is a question for AfD. Equazcion (talk) 20:51, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Proof og notability wasn't the reason it was deleted. Lack of it was, and references do not add notability. ViridaeTalk 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you keep saying that, but of course they do, in a sense, and insofar as they technically don't exactly add notability is a pedantic nitpicky argument that's not really helpful here. We deduce whether or not something is notable based on whether its references prove notability. That's what we mean by "notability", generally -- has notability been proven thus far through references? So basically, yes references can add notability, in the vernacular we generally use here, or establish it, if that word makes you more comfortable. If you're saying the subject isn't notable because you've decided such proof can not exist, either because you haven't found it yet or the present references don't qualify, or whatever, then that's a valid opinion but still not one on which you can base a speedy. Equazcion (talk) 23:20, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say either of those things. There is no technically about it, references can be used to support claims of notability, but are not a claim of notability in and of themselves. The content of the article is the source of your notability claims, and that content is unchanged. Rewritten, yes. But it is still the same information presented in a slightly different format. The notability issues from the original afd therefore cannot and have not been addressed because no "content" has been added. ViridaeTalk 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content in itself doesn't establish notability. References do. If you add a reference to an existing statement that comes from a reliable third-party source, that can establish notability for an article. Just because no content was added to the article body doesn't mean notability wasn't established. Equazcion (talk) 23:58, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
On that I call bullshit. References back up claims to notability, of which there were none in either version. ViridaeTalk 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:N mentions anything about content requirements, only reference requirements. I'm not sure which encyclopedia you've been editing, but I've never heard of your camp before. Equazcion (talk) 00:04, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Also: I think you might be confused about "claims of notability". The claim is the article's existence. That in and of itself is a claim to notability, and the proof is in the references. No explicit claim has to exist in the article body. Equazcion (talk) 00:27, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, by that logic nothing would ever be deleted under CSD A7, because article existence implies notability. ViridaeTalk 01:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. Article existence implies a claim to notability, not proof of notability. Again, where in WP:N does it say anything about an explicit claim to notability being required within the article's content? PS I know you must be pissed off because everyone thinks you made the wrong decision, and all, but try not to take it out on me with the whole "ridiculous" and "bullshit" stuff. It's getting on my nerves. Equazcion (talk) 02:18, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Actually that is exactly what you said, as A7 only requires a claim to notability, not proof. Furthermore you are going off on a tangent. I said the article hadn't changed because the content was the same, just written differently. The first afd, which deleted it on notability grounds, therefore should be respected which is why I deleted it under that speedy deletion criteria. The article content didn't change, because a reference xcan only support a claim of notability, not in and of itself provide it. If that were the case, an article could consist entirely of external links. Clearly not the case. ViridaeTalk 05:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a reference xcan only support a claim of notability, not in and of itself provide it. If that were the case, an article could consist entirely of external links." Not a logical conclusion, since notability isn't the only requirement in order for an article to exist. Still, if there were reliable third-party sources showing notability, and an article did consist only of those, the potential for an article would be apparent and someone would write something soon enough, if given the chance without someone speedy-deleting it. Regarding A7, it's is "a lower standard than notability" (exact words of CSD), not notability in itself. Notability trumps it, and is about references. In other words, if you read the A7 criteria carefully, it basically says that an article can be speedy-deleted if it's in such bad shape that not only doesn't it have references that prove notability, but it doesn't even say anything in the text that would show the subject is significantly important. If notability is present through references, A7 no longer applies, by default, since it is an even lower standard. Equazcion (talk) 13:39, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The changes made since the last deletion didn't go anyway to addressing WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PORNBIO: "1. Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards." The actor appears to have won a Gay Erotic Video Awards, two GayVN Award, and an AVN award, which are all in Category:Pornographic film awards. That would seem to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Equazcion (talk) 23:47, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • He hasn't won anything, as I stated earlier. Those awards were for films in which he was an actor. ViridaeTalk 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • One was for "best erotic scene", according to the reference. I'm not sure if that could be interpreted as the actor winning the award, or if that still goes to the director/film? I'm not really knowledgeable enough in this field to make that call. If there was an awards ceremony, I wonder who received actual statuettes, and whether there's a place to look that up online. Anyway I think these are questions for AFD rather than DRV. Equazcion (talk) 02:57, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)
          • To clarify, none of the sources available specifically names him as recipient, several awards were for the film in which he was a lead and his acting would have helped win the award. Yes, this is a discussion for the AfD, not a DRV, especially in order to discuss the applicability of PORNBIO when in common-sense terms his body of work (being composed of multiple performances in demonstrably notable films) is impressive enough to be notable. Ash (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted per viridae.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 February 2010[edit]

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

This page is far too broad, with no encyclopedic purpose. There was no legitimate reason given for it to be kept, but the discussion still wound up at "no consensus". There is no reliable source that defines the notability of a list of random vehicles from basically every work of fiction. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you consulted at all with the closing administrator? If you have, could you please link to your conversation with him. If not, why not? NW (Talk) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closer is actually Scott MacDonald—it appears that Zxcvbnm linked initially linked to an incorrect nomination. That being said, I too would like his perspective on the matter, so I have notified him using Template:DRVNote. –Black Falcon (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer's comments This is the first I've heard of this when Black Falcon contacted me. Had the appellant come to me, I'd have explained this and perhaps avoided a DRV. Closing is not all about numbers, it is also about arguments and policy. There is not policy violation in this article (there may be a guideline breach - but that's not certain, and guidelines are not policy), and so it is a matter of whether the deletion argument has been made and accepted. It was obvious to me that that there was no consensus here, and some validity (and bad arguments) on both sides. Another AfD in a few months is probably the best way to go. Personally, I think the article needs to be more defigned as it is over-broad, but I's unsure that's a reason to delete rather than improve, and certainly it isn't a reason to close as delete without clear consensus.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure You failed to provided adequate reason for it to be deleted. And you linked to the wrong AFD. It was the third nomination [89] that ended recently. If there is no consensus to delete, then it defaults to keep. And if you bothered discussing things on the talk page, you'd could see we discussed criteria for inclusion. Dream Focus 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No attempt made to discuss the closure with the closing admins, though it'd have been good if they'd explained the reasoning behind their close. I only see sour grapes here, not a reason why the close was incorrect. Deletion review is not AfD round 2. (I've fixed the link to point to the correct AfD debate). Fences&Windows 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's getting narrower, and now it has a lead paragraph that makes it a *little* more exclusive. There are a great number of "Lists of fictional <foo>" that need attention. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it's pretty hard not to endorse a non-consensus close on a sharply divided discussion, where the different views on articles such as this have been persistently opposed on many articles for a number of years. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close, since there was none. And DRV is still not AFD 2: Deletion Boogaloo.Umbralcorax (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there were valid arguments on both sides, so I believe that this was within the closer's discretion. I do want to comment on two particular arguments:
    1. The criterion of notability (delete argument) does not really apply (or, at least, it doesn't apply well) to a page that exists primarily for the purpose of facilitating navigation.
    2. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, so the existence of one is not automatically a reason to delete the other (keep argument); that being said, in many cases one or the other presents a clearly superior means of organizing information (delete argument). So, just as we should not always treat lists and categories from an "either/or" perspective, we also should not always treat them in an "and" context. Several comments, primarily on the "keep" side, seemed to veer toward the extremes on this issue.
    The rest of the arguments were either of the AADD sort, and should have been weighted appropriately, or involved valid disagreements about a gray area of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (a useful thing to have, in my opinion, because it provides flexibility to editors). –Black Falcon (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely concur with Black Falcon, and would point out (as Black Falcon does) that according to WP:CLN, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. Arguments suggesting they are mutually exclusive should have been given no weight in the close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, AFD is not DRV round 2. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would have closed as keep, but the close of "no consensus" is well within the realm of a closing admin's judgment in this case. Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Alansohn. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG. The real objection seems to be a "no consensus" defaulting to keep, in my observation. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus, although I strongly disagree with interpretations of CLN that blur the distinction between categories and lists. There is a distinction between the two; and some groups of information are only suited for a category, some are only suited for a list, and some are suited for both. I myself believe that this goes beyond the scope of a list article, but there was a suitable opposition in the AfD. Hopefully consensus here will change in the future. ThemFromSpace 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Re: CLN) Well put! –Black Falcon (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Barring a blatant breach of content policies, a consensus is required for deletion, and that was not present here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 February 2010[edit]

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

First I have to say that I'm not sure if this is the correct page for my request. The article has been deleted by User:Cirt on the basis of non-notability. I've rewritten it in my user space (see User:Siechfred/Barad (band)) and think that the band passes WP:BAND. Their album was one of the top ten albums in Iran 2003 and they appeared on a Rough Guides sampler about the music of Iran. I think, that my draft can be moved to NS0. Siech•Fred Home 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am failing to see significant coverage enough to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken this comment, see below. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as above. Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, and the claims to notability are weak, vague, and unspecific. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per sources: [90][91][92][93][94]. That's plenty more sourcing than was offered at the AfD, so, if anyone thinks that it's not enough, it should be re-evaluated. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation reliable and verifiable sources provided in the userspace article and available elsewhere support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: No objections to recreation, per Phil Bridger (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Cirt's "delete" closure of the uncontested deletion nomination, but allow recreation per Phil Bridger (and do not procedurally relist at AfD). –Black Falcon (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn automatically, relist if desired. Only two editors commented in the AfD; that's not really a binding consensus. This should be treated like a contested WP:PROD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Northwestern University Dance Marathon – Closure endorsed. Consensus is that the "keep" close was accurate and/or within the closer's discretion and is, therefore, against overturning to "no consensus", especially since that outcome too would result in the article being kept. – Black Falcon (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Northwestern University Dance Marathon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed as keep despite the fact that there appeared to be no consensus and a small number of commenters. The discussion should have been relisted or at least closed as "no consensus" instead. User:Ruslik0 closed the AfD stating simply, "The result was Keep. Chicago Sun Times is a good source." After I inquired about the closure, Ruslik0 stated that the article was verifiable and the close was based on the strength of the keep arguments. However, the article was originally nominated on the basis of non-notablity, and the pro-deletion arguments were not weaker than the keep arguments. OCNative (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- I see nothing wrong with that close. Consensus in the afd was for keeping the article, and that was how it was decided. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping this article. Reyk YO! 06:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus was to keep. In my analysis of the debate, Edison's "delete" vote should be accorded less weight because he voted before sources were found. Racepacket's "delete" vote and OCNative's nomination are valid opinions but consensus was not with them in the debate. Mandsford, TonyTheTiger, Bearian, and CastAStone all had strong arguments as to why the article should be retained. Because the "keeps" had a slight numerical majority, and because their arguments were reasonable, a "keep" close is reasonable. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not agree that there was "a small number of commenters". This number was actually quite high, and relisting did not make sense. Ruslik_Zero 10:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have tended towards a no-consensus closure myself, but that comes out the same ultimately. There was certainly a sufficient number of contributors. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, looks fine to me. A no consensus close would have been okay too, but honestly if it had been me closing it I'd have called that one a "keep" too. ~ mazca talk 12:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; I'd be fine with either keep or no consensus; and the difference between those two closes is so slim to be barely worth a DRV. (Unless someone wishes to immediately re-nominate it) I'm not seeing anything in the AfD debate to justify an overturn to deleting the article, so endorse the close as within admin discretion between keeping and no consensus. Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close was a reasonable interpretation of the AfD discussion. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Keep and no consensus were both open to the admin here; delete most certainly wasn't. In any case, overturning to "no consensus" would be pointless procedure. Even a "keep" can be renominated after a reasonable period of time. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The consensus in the discussion was to keep the article. Strong arguments were made in favor of keeping on the basis of the existent of reliable sources covering the subject. Two votes to delete (based on the issue of "local" coverage) were valid but outweighed. The other vote to delete deserved given little weight due to the subsequent location of sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 February 2010[edit]

1 February 2010[edit]

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

The outcome of the discussion was not clear. Also, music competitions are not prizes and do not fall into WP:OC#Award-winners. Karljoos (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1&action=edit&section=T-2[reply]

  • Having decided that Category:Operalia prize-winners was overcategorisation, that left two items in this category: the eponymous one and one about the founder, Plácido Domingo, a man who is already categorised in a great many ways. Short of recategorising the winners into this category, a bad idea that, there is seemingly no room for growth so that this too is overcategorisation (WP:OCAT#SMALL refers). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will need to be expanded in view of the requester's clarification of the scope of the request below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Both categories were included in the same CfD. I am not so concern about Category:Operalia though.--Karljoos (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus). The close is not evident from the discussion. The closer's rationale is particularly poor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus and restore both categories. It does not appear that consensus was reached in the discussion. Most participants were apathetic, "leaning" one way or another without declaring a position. There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, even if there was a quasi-consensus that the categories were less than useful. Relist at editorial discretion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as No Consensus closing admin cast a very clever vote, but the close had nothing to do with the actual particpation by real editors at the CfD in question. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Closer appears to have closed based on his own opinion, which would best have been expressed as a !vote. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. In my view, a close as delete was not open to be made here. There weren't many firm keeps, but nor were there sufficiently strong arguments to delete to outweigh the many well-considered "neutral" and "weak keep" positions. The text of the closing admin's rationale leaves it reasonably open to the suggestion that the close was influenced more by the admin's own views than a reading of the debate as a whole with a view to determining whether a consensus had been reached. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for more discussion; the discussion was so weak as to opinions that I think this is one case where more discussion would be really helpful. Or change to no consensus and someone can renominate. The closer correctly determined pre-existing consensus with respect to other similar categories, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. This one didn't get many strong opinions either way, and the close was closer to a casting vote than a gauge of consensus, which I'm not seeing in that discussion. (In full disclosure, I participated in the original debate.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2010 (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.
Sket Dance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the AfD, the manga series has one won the 55th annual Shogakukan Manga Award,[95] which now allows it to pass WP:BK. Request the article and talk page be restored. —Farix (t | c) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Additionally there is also an "import" review in the Anime News Network's Right Turn Only column. --KrebMarkt 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Digging further, here is a helium-inhalation incident that the publisher later apologize for.[96] —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per comments made by nom and KrebMarkt. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks like this falls under a new development that esstablishes notability. I can't see what the previous article looks like, but unless there's a reason not too I'd suggest restoring so the new info can be added.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as situation has changed, but I'm a bit suprised that a manga from Weekly Shōnen Jump was deleted in the first place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Being serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump doesn't make a manga series notable. Though series that run in Weekly Shōnen Jump do have a higher tendency to receive coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 14:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Jump has an average circulation of almost 3 million (compared with a top-tier US comic like X-Men which sells around 80,000) and manga has a much higher media profile in Japan than US comics do, including numerous publications which cover manga exclusively. It's nearly impossible to imagine that anything published in Jump wouldn't have existing sources, at least Japanese ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • They also have a throw it at the wall and keep what sticks approach to new series; most titles only run for a couple of months, and are resoundingly ignores. I think current consensus is probably a little too strict; once a title gets past a year or two, it's pretty much an established hit, but the project tends to wait for awards or anime or translation. Doceirias (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore One of the editors seeking deletion in the AfD now seeks restoration, noting that notability has been achieved in the time since the debate. WP:CRYSTAL was a concern at the time but for obvious reasons no longer is. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comment in the AfD, that last piece or two to push this series firmly into notability has materialized. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Vid Belec – Endorsed. It's clear from the discussion here that the outcome of the AfD was clear, and was based in policy, and the close was perfectly sound. – (X! · talk)  · @226  ·  04:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vid Belec (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Vid Belec is a young player of Italian Serie A club Inter, he's in the first team as you can see from the official Inter website, the article is definitely notable. Ekerazha (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion If you could link to this site, and any other source you night have, it might help.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true that he still hasn't actually played at that top level I'd have to agree that he still doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. We'd need a source that he'd actually competed at that level, not just that he was on a roster.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant. It's not notable because he meets WP:ATHLETE, it's notable because he's listed as professional player of the first team (1st or 4th goalkeeper is also not relevant at all, he's a team player, stop) of one of the most prestigious football clubs in the world... that's very notable, WP:ATHLETE is not relevant here. Ekerazha (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks the link helps. I do think the issue we run into is appearances. According to the stats section of that website he hasn't made one. Consensus has been that an actual appearance is needed. Without this, even if it were recreated it's likely fail to pass an AFD again. Unless there's more in the way of newspaper/magazine articles or the like I'd suggest waiting for him to make an appearance.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this is the first team page from the official F.C. Internazionale website [97] Ekerazha (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion doesn't matter if he is listed in the first team (as a fourth choice goalkeeper, btw), the only relevant thing is that the player has never appeared in a competitive game at all with any first team, including Inter, so failing WP:ATHLETE. This is the rule of thumb that has always been agreed in plenty of AfD cases, so contesting it for a lone case makes little sense. --Angelo (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete, based on the properly formed view that the subject failed WP:ATHLETE. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was before he joined the first team, things are changed now. Ekerazha (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was actually already listed in the list of first team goalkeepers at the time of the nomination, so your remark is just wrong. --Angelo (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was not, you are plain wrong. Ekerazha (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - longstanding consensus over hundreds of AfDs is that a sportsman has to have actually played at a fully professional level to satisfy the requirements of WP:ATHLETE, not merely been added to the squad list on the club's website. Nom seems to be claiming that WP:ATHLETE can be ignored in this case as being named as Inter's fourth-choice goalie makes the subject inherently notable by that fact alone. Sorry, I don't agree at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and improve to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE before coming back here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the long standing consensus that a player must have made at least 1 appearance in a competitive match before they meet WP:ATHLETE. This person has not done so yet and no compelling reason for notability on other grounds has been made. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it, as I've already said it is notable because he's listed as a professional player of the first team. I never said it is notable because he meets WP:ATHLETE. As I've already said, WP:ATHLETE is not very relevant here, something very simple to understand but nobody seem to understand it because everybody still talk about WP:ATHLETE. Ekerazha (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion WP:ATHLETE is easily the most lax of our major notability standards, and anyone who can't clear even that very low bar is patently unsuitable for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletions per WP:CSD#G4, and endorse closure of the AfD as "delete" given the strength of the arguments for deletion. The consensus at AfD was that the subject failed WP:ATHLETE; there is no evidence that he now does. Ekerazha, WP:ATHLETE is very relevant here because it was the primary reason for deletion. You've admitted that he doesn't meet that guideline for notability; if he meets any other Wikipedia notability guideline (including the general notability guideline), an article may be appropriate. Otherwise, do not expect the speedy deletion to be overturned anytime soon. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was because everybody used WP:ATHLETE as a notability requirement, while I'm saying (as I've already said so many times) it isn't notable because of WP:ATHLETE, as I've already said, now WP:ATHLETE is not relevant at all. My call for notability: "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources", "Independent of the subject": YES. We have a large coverage from many sources, there are 286,000 hits on Google for "vid+belec" with pages on reliable sources like the F.C. Internazionale official site (he's in the first team), the Gazzetta dello Sport site (site of the most popular sports newspaper in Italy) etc. Ekerazha (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide specific links which represent in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources (the club's official website is not independent) then please do so and it may help. Personally, all I've found via Google are some passing mentions in reports on non-competitive matches (not in-depth), blog postings (not reliable) and "player profile" type pages (not in-depth) Repeatedly claiming that he is inherently notable just for being added to the club's squad list clearly won't get the deletion overturned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "player profile" pages you have found are definitely relevant as they are specific pages on the subject. Also, the club's official website is independent: it's not the Vid Belec blog or personal website, it's the official site of a 3rd subject, the F.C. Internazionale. Ekerazha (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all of the Inter youth team goalkeeper turned as a professional footballer, in although Belec had a long career in Slovenia youth teams. Matthew_hk tc 10:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inter often awarded number to youth team players, let them trained with first team, but not equal to they will play first team "competitive" match, even as unused bench. Matthew_hk tc 10:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Belec has also been added to the first team list, that's different from most other situations. Also, if you know what football is, you know it's difficult for substitute goalkeepers to play, because you only have 1 goalkeeper on 11 players. This is why Belec still didn't play an official match (only friendly matches, still high profile, vs Chelsea etc.), but he's ready to play if needed, so he's definitely a team member. Ekerazha (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He may be a team member, but that is irrelevant. The consensus is that the only football players who merit a Wikipedia article just by virtue of being a football player are those who meet the criteria set out in WP:ATHLETE. The consensus, here and everywhere else that it has been discussed, is that players are required to compete in a fully competitive match before they meet point 1 of the criteria. Vid Belec has not competed in a fully competitive match, and therefore does not meet the criteria. If you feel this is unfair to goalkeepers, then start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) (the WP:ATHLETE talk page). Iff that discussion results in a consensus that a different standard should apply to goalkeepers then the wP:ATHLETE guidelines will be changed. At that point, you can ask for this article to be reevaluated against the revised criteria if Vid Belec hasn't played in a competitive match by that point. Continuing your arguments here will achieve nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny after 6 days there's still people like you who still talk about WP:ATHLETE when I've already clearly said, many times, WP:ATHLETE is not the point here. I'm applying the general notability guideline (as I've already exaplained), not WP:ATHLETE. However, adjusting WP:ATHLETE makes sense too. Ekerazha (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Judicial Shamanism – This is such an obvious and overwheloming deletion endorsed, I am closing this early but per suggestion in the DRV, if the nominator would like to register an account and drop me a note on my talk page, I will happily usefy this for them to work on in userspace. – Spartaz Humbug! 11:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Judicial Shamanism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Ok, so the same without remarks about the educational background:

I would like to request to undelete the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism was not factual. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, and did not provide any serious reason for deletion. I'd like to provide some substantial arguments for undeletion. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people:

1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139

2) There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html

3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris.

4) A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234

5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24

6) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge.

7) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra.

8) Professor Fred Rodell from Yale dedicated all his academic career to comparing law to Voodoo.

Moreover, the deletion was not unanimous - there were two for and one vote against.

Dear The Hand That Feeds You, my point is not an appeal to authority. The admin who deleted the article ignored the 8 reliable sources that I gave without explaining why, according to him, they are not acceptable. Each my point is supported with a link. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Straightforward endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - the debate would end differently - there are many sources. Fred Rodell uses the concept of judge=medicine-man/shaman, and law as Voodoo. See, for instance his book "Woe onto you lawyers". The AFD discussion would end differently if within those 7 days an expert on postmodern jurisprudence took a look at this. The problem is that most experts have jobs in the real world and come to the virtual one only from time to time. Nonetheless, the mistakes may be corrected later.158.64.52.114 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The consensus was pretty clear. Reyk YO! 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UndeleteComment Read this from "Deletion Review": "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." According to this rule it does not matter whether there was a consensus of two persons or not. I have material that was not discussed and it is a place here to discuss it. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed your bolded statement here to "Comment" because each person only gets to make one such recommendation in a debate, and you have already expressed your desire above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse After discounting the non-policy vote made by the vandalism-only account, there was unanimous consensus among the established editors to delete this article. A core policy, Wikipedia:No original research, was not adequately refuted by the sole "keep" vote. Cunard (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The IP editor has this idea that I am (somehow) the admin deleted the article (I'm not an admin, I didn't even tag the article for deletion!). I have pointed out that passing mentions of Judicial Shamanism (see ref 1) do not meet WP:RS standards and explained that he needs sources specifically about judicial shamanism, despite his claims that I've been dismissive of his attempted contributions. He has refused to look at any site guidelines offered to him. The IP editor has demonstrated through behavior such voting multiple times and editing the archived deletion discussion for this article (and other stuff) that he has no idea what he is doing on this site. He has demonstrated elsewhere that it isn't willing to learn. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on Ian.thomson - the admin never participated in the debate - Ian.thomson is instead of him - possibly simply has two accounts. Why do you ignore the links that I post? http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1#Judicial_Shamanism_II - these are published works and there is no manner you can deny this.83.99.24.80 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not accuse a long-standing editor of sock puppetry without some good evidence to back it up. Consider this a gentle warning. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • More seriously, do not edit signatures to appear from a different IP. That undermines this argument badly. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didn't understand what I did - I tried to merge two IP adresses into one in order to facilitate my identity - not to split it. The second IP I used is in use by about 100 people 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woe Unto You Lawyers does not explicitly mention Judicial Shamanism, so using it as a source (especially without a source that specifically says "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism") qualifies as original research. Not that you're going to bother reading the guidelines for that either. This site is not an academic site, this site is just a bunch of monkeys on keyboards slapping together sources that speak for themselves, sources that are explicitly about the subject and explain the subject well enough that they do not need to be cross referenced or interpretted. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Ian.thomson - First, professor Fred Rodell uses the words "mumbo-jumbo" and "VOODOO", which are two forms of "shamanism". Mumbo-jumbo is a form of shamanism in Congo, and "voodoo" is a form of shamanism in Haiti. Second I gave the following references that use the term "shamanism":
          • Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139 - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
          • There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
          • There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris. "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
          • A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234 - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
          • There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24 - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
          • The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge. - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
          • The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
        • What's wrong? There is also a number of people using the word "totemism" which is also the same as "shamanism" 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, Wikipedia does not accept original research, which interpretation qualifies as. Mumbo-Jumbo is actually a white construct to make fun of African religious traditions that white people didn't bother to understand. That you are submitting Mumbo-Jumbo as an example of shamanism is a bit of a demonstration that you may not know all that much about Shamanism. I mean, saying Mumbo-Jumbo is an example of Shamanism is a bit like saying Aleister Crowley's Gnostic Mass is an example of Catholicism. And again, you need to quit bringing up sources like "In the fortress of double standards" that are not specifically about explaining Judicial Shamanism, but only mention the concept. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (delete). Tell closer to look up "unanimous" and chide him gently. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the consensus was very clear, and nothing the nominator has brought up is likely to change that. In addition, the poor conduct of the nominator both here and in the previous now-closed DRV hardly makes a compelling case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure An admin doesn't have to be an expert on an article's subject to interpret the consensus in a deletion debate on article. There was a near-unanimous consensus to delete the article at the AfD based on WP:NOR, a core policy and a strong reason for deletion in this case. The sole "keep" vote was by a vandalism-only account and constituted a argument to avoid – either WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:NOHARM, take your pick. If you think you can create a new article establishing notability and avoiding original research, go ahead and register an account. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse due to excessive WP:BLUDGEONing of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Judicial Shamanism – Closed due to offensive and inappropriate nomination. The nominator is free to renominate in neutral language that discusses the deletion in the context of wikipedia policies and guidelines but categorically not in the context of the background of the editors involved in the discussion and the administrator closing the discussion – Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hallo, I would like to request to undelete the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism is completely uncompetent. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, but a student of English at a second-class American college who does not speak any foreign language. I would consider as an exprert only a lawyer who is familiar with postmodernism of law and with critical legal studies. In a normal world a student of English would never be considered as an expert on the subject. I'd like to provide some substantial arguments for undeletion. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people:

1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139

2) There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html

3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris.

4) A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234

5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24

6) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge.

7) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra. (The admin who deleted the article never heard about postmodernism).

8) Professor Fred Rodell from Yale dedicated all his academic career to comparing law to Voodoo.

Moreover, the deletion was not unanimous - there were two for and one vote against. Even more so - the article was previously undeleted but the admin ignored the previous discussion.

Finally, I would like the admins to disclose their degree level. I hold a German PhD degree in postmodern jurisprudence. The admin who deleted the article is a college student of English who does not speak foreign languages. In a normal world our arguments would never be considered at the same level. The very right of such admins to delete articles shall be considered as vandalism.

This is why the article shall be undeleted. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but appeals to authority don't work here. Your personal credentials are not relevant. What is relevant are reliable, verifiable sources on the subject. Some of what you mention above may qualify; if so, I suggest you create an account so you can write a factual, sourced article on the subject. Finally, you should really be aware of our policy against personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • T:cite news – Deletion endorsed. The opinions raised here are enough to create a good consensus that the closing admin made a reasonable close. – (X! · talk)  · @224  ·  04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T:cite news (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(1) Main argument given for deletion, WP:CROSS, gives specific exception for intended use. Redirect was created in accordance to WP:namespace article: WP:namespace#pseudo-namespaces indicates "T:" as the correct shortcut. (2) Closing admin Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) says it was based on consensus. Vote that was based on 3 total votes 2 to 1. Not enough for consensus, relisting for more input in order, or no consensus. I also contend RfD should not be reduced to a vote in this instance.

Related deleted pages are T:cite web, T:cite paper, and T:cite book. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without opining, those interested may find this discussion relevant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me; RfDs often get fairly weak participation and the consensus there seems comfortable enough. I wouldn't object to relisting the discussion for more opinions if it really is this contentious, but I don't personally buy the argument that just because one single person finds a cross-namespace redirect useful we should keep it. I'd probably have closed this the same way, and hence I endorse the closure as sensible. ~ mazca talk 13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nominator comment) In my opinion, recently created cross-namespace redirects should default to delete unless shown to be beneficial for the project. For example, I find Speedy Delete beneficial since new users presumably type that into the search box. I believe this to be the community consensus as well, so to keep an XNR from main space there would need to be an explicit case for inclusion.
    The only reason you gave is convenience. I've given you an alternative in the form of browser bookmarks. If you prefer using the keyboard, you can add keywords to most browsers that you can type into the address bar that would bring you straight to your desired targets; you also have my blessing to create shortcuts in project space, eg. at WP:T:cite news. But for mainspace, we'd need to have a better argument for inclusion, and I don't see that it could be made for those targets. Amalthea 16:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you against the CAT pseudo namespace as well? What rationale? How can one be for one but not the other? How does deletion help? This is a case of demolishing the house before it is built. There is a problem and a solution given as prescribed by WP:Namespace. You would delete the remedy and leave the problem without a solution. You feel the redirect should not be there; I feel it should. The difference is the deficiency I'm addressing is pretty clear. Typing out template in full is an inconvenience. I don't know what deficiency your deletion action is supposed to address. This is a case of WP:Overzealous deletion. You say this is consensus? Default to delete for a redirect? Point to the Wikipedia policy that says so. BLPs are extremely contentious but even they are default to keep. Lambanog (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I personally am opposed to any new cross-namespace redirects from mainspace, yes, since they are blurring the lines between the encyclopedic content and the maintainance frame, and since it's absurd that a reader searching for e.g. dyk is left with T:DYK, Saints/DYK/8, T:DYK/Q, T:DYK/C, P:AU/DYK, T:DYK/Q2, T:DYK/Q4, T:DYK/NN, T:DYK/P1, T:DYK/N, T:DYK/Q1, T:DYK/Q3, T:DYK/Q5, T:DYK/Q6, T:DYK/P2, T:DYK/P, T:DYK/Q7, T:DYK/N/C, and more. Deletion helps with that. I've given you three ways to have shortcuts to citation templates that don't pollute main space. There are even more ways. If you're still not happy, find consensus to establish a proper namespace alias, I'd welcome and support that. Amalthea 17:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't get what your point is with that list. I did not come up with "T:" out of a hat. That is what is indicated in WP:Namespace which I was merely following when creating the redirects. You are claiming consensus to support your view and point to WP:CROSS—but WP:CROSS is ambiguous at best for your position. I can even claim it supports my stand over yours and if that is the case that leaves you with no guideline supporting your position. Lambanog (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reasonable close that reflected the consensus in the discussion. The arguments for deletion were more compelling than the arguments for retention in that the redirects interfere with the mainspace. Lambanog (talk · contribs)'s argument for retaining this as a useful shortcut is significantly weakened by Amalthea's proposal of creating shortcuts in the WP namespace instead. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The closing admin interpreted the consensus in the debate reasonably. Only Lambanog argued for keeping the redirects, and his arguments were largely refuted. A relist may have been better, but there's no error with this close. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, there was reasonable consensus to delete in that debate, as the delete points were well argued and countered those to keep. --Taelus (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable close, certainly within the closer's discretion. However, I am reluctant to support the idea of using project-namespace redirects, for three reasons: first, the formulation WP:T:cite news is somewhat inelegant; second, having multiple colons in the page title will probably result in more typing errors; third, there is an option that does not involve cross-namespace redirects and does not require more characters than a cross-namespace redirect from the project namespace. I would like to suggest creating redirects within the template namespace; for example, instead of trying to use T:cite book (11 characters) or WP:T:cite book (14 characters), how about Template:cbook or Template:citeb (14 characters)? –Black Falcon (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DRV nominator: Everyone is saying it is a reasonable close but has not cited any WP article to support the claim. In addition to WP:Namespace and WP:CNR itself which literally interpreted prescribe and allow said shortcuts, close reading of WP:RfD#The guiding principles of RfD and WP:RfD#Keep would seem to indicate this closure as against the spirit of RfDs. RfDs are supposed to be a space of greater leniency than AfD or other deletion areas. WP:CSD#Redirects specifically R2 further supports my stand. If closure of this was proper I'm having difficulty understanding why Template: is explicitly mentioned there and AFD necessary and simply CSD not adopted. What would the exception be? From what I can tell general but undocumented practice at XfDs is the sole reason for endorsing this close even if it conflicts with a whole line of WP articles. This is a conflicting and schizophrenic state of affairs. 2 people in an obscure XfD misinterpreting or misrepresenting the contents of WP:CNR in this instance overturned consensus as stated in more than one WP article. As someone who has so far not generally hung out at XfDs except when articles I've directly worked on have been challenged I would like to call attention to the discrepancy between what is said in articles for the benefit of the general Wikipedian community and the actual practice at XfDs of specialists. Lambanog (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • The Sword of Truth universe – No consensus. While it is hardly ideal for a review of a "no consensus" closure to itself end in "no consensus" this is the only way the below discussion can be summed up. The discussion contains quite a bit of discussion that would fit in an AfD better than here, on both sides, and were I summing up an AfD of just these comments then again I would have to close as "no consensus" suggesting that there truly is no community consensus about this. Perhaps it will be best therefore if everybody leaves this for a good few months before any further discussion, so as not to just attract the same comments from the same users as I strongly suspect that only another lack of consensus lies that way. This is the reason I'm not relisting this discussion. – Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Sword of Truth universe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as "no consensus" by Kurykh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). However, I believe there was a consensus to delete, largely because the arguments to keep were exceptionally weak and should have been ascribed less weight. The arguments for deletion were grounded in policy. The main argument to delete was the lack of evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources; those arguing to keep failed to refute this argument. One "keep" voter contended that third-party coverage was not necessary, an argument that conflicts with the guidelines at WP:N and WP:WAF. Another argument to keep was that sources might exist – an assertion that was not backed up with any evidence. The remainder of the arguments to keep were arguments to avoid, including WP:WAX, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:BHTT, and WP:USEFUL. In contrast, votes for deletion were rooted in policies like WP:NOT and WP:V (in addition to the notability guideline). All things considered, the article should've been deleted; however, Kurykh stands by his close. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to delete- I firmly believe consensus should be determined by strength of argument and not solely by strength of numbers, and that the stronger arguments were on the "delete" side. Reyk YO! 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - I really don't see an overwhelming consensus to delete this page, and simply listing off abbreviated policies/guidelines/essays gives the impression of an AFD take 2, which is not what DRV is to be used for. Deletion should occur if the page is completely non-salvageable, and I don't see that upon even a cursory look at the article.--WaltCip (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-read the nomination. I'm not re-arguing the AfD; I'm arguing that the closing admin weighed the arguments in the debate incorrectly. That falls squarely within DRV's purview. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made a point earlier about how deletions should not be left purely to the discretion of admins, but allow me to qualify my own point: an admin may make a discretion based on the consensus, or attempts to reach consensus, found within the deletion. Discretion is the key word here, and thus the concept of "weighing" the strength of arguments seems entirely subjective to me. Also bear in mind that the arguments to avoid cited above are based on the viewpoint put forth in an essay, not a policy (and I am aware of WP:ONLYESSAY, which is a tautology in and of itself). Because of this, admins are therefore not forced to give some arguments more credence than others based on a policy mandate. Viewing the correspondence between you and the closing admin, I note that he viewed the arguments with close enough strength that justifies the no consensus close. As it turns out, a sizable portion of those participating in deletion review are in agreement or at least accepting of his use of his discretion. There was no error here. I maintain my position.--WaltCip (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Very few of the keep arguments addressed the nomination of to a lack of secondary sources discussing the article's topic. Without such sources it was argued that the article fails any number of policies (verifiability, reliable sourcing, notability) and I do not think that these arguments were given sufficient weight, especially against keep arguments that inadequately address these concerns. While it was asserted by Nefariousski that these sources exist, no reliable secondary ones were provided during the debate. By a nose count this is a non-consensus debate, by strength of the arguments it should have been closed as delete - Peripitus (Talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as "No Consensus". DGG's argument, that as a sub-article this does need to have the independent sources called or by WP:N and can be reasonably sourced to the primary material is not so unreasonable that it should be discounted. Guidelines are just that, not inflexible rules that must be obeyed in all situations. As such there are reasonable keep and delete arguments balanced in number so that No Consensus is a reasonable close. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete DGGs arguments were so weak (and these were backed up by Edward321) I can only assume that he had not analysed the debate or studied the article in sufficient detail. To create a separate article because the primary article did not have enough space to incorporate the "in-universe" stuff is a terrible precedent because in doing so wikipedia can no longer be an encyclopedic account of the external world and it turns it into a collection of indiscriminate information or fancruft which is lamentable per WP:NOT. Not a single one of the keep voters managed to refute the deletion rationales which were based on policy such as WP:NOT. Therefore this is a poor close. The argument seems to be partly based on the fact that spin off articles do not need to meet notability guidelines and that sources could be found in the future. This is so weak all keep votes could be ignored. Moreover the debate was still very active at the close with a significant amount of information coming very late with no chance for editors to respond. With keep votes lacking any arguments based on policy this should have been a clear delete or a relist pending any keep votes that could be based on policy. Polargeo (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not surprisingly, I think my view , so far from being absurd, is now mainstream here, as the reasonable compromise. It is not common sense nor is it policy nor is it a guideline to think that everything mentioned in an article must be notable. We need some way of dividing a long article. Or do you oppose any mention of things in a fictional universe? that;s a very extreme position indeed. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even setting aside WP:N, the guideline at WP:WAF explicitly requires articles on fictional worlds to establish real-world notability. No one is saying that "everything mentioned in an article must be notable" independently, but I think most editors would agree that the subjects of articles must be notable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure was not deleteThere was no consensus. Consensus means most people are appeased, not that most arguements are most legitimate within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Besides, it remains just as prominent as any other fictional world, it just needs more work. Simply deleting a page because it is not "there yet" seems a little ridiculous. What about articles like List of Forgotten Realms characters? should we automatically delete a page, or should we put a in universe style template at the top and allow for change to come. Or look at Middle Earth even, they establish the real world briefly before going into a much broader in world perspective. Leave the page. The tag has only been on it since October, give people a little time. 4 months is not enough. Sadads (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also the head of the Sword of Truth Task force. I will spend some time estabilishing real world content in the coming future.Sadads (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to Sadads but this is a taste of the AfD keep arguments all over again. Mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "it can get better" and "give us some more time and we will prove the notability by finding the sources." Clearly not based on policy unlike the deletion rationales. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To this, I bluntly cite WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again in Wikipedia "policy" = guidelines subject to consensus, not "policy" = consensus subject to guidelines. This is a judgement call, and the judgement call by the consensus was that it is too rash of a move. Sadads (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but in AfD admins are urged to give less (or no) weight to arguments that are not based on policy. In this debate I count 6 for deletion (including nom) and 4 keep. However, I see no keep argument based on sound policy guidelines and no clear refute of the deletion arguments. When there are more for delete than keep and the keep rationales are this weak no consensus is an incorrect close. In this case WP:IAR is overruled by the fact that there are more editors voting delete. We should certainly not ignore the rules in a case when it is clear that there are more people who don't want to ignore the rules than those who do. Polargeo (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse NC Closing this as no consensus seems well within admin discression. Some admins may have closed this differently, however it doesn't look so out of process that it should be overturned. Allow some time for article improvement. At a later date if you still feel it merits deletion see if a second AFD can gather a stronger consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than a third of the debate came within the last 24 hours of the AfD. To close as no consensus, defaulting to keep, when the keep arguments were so weak and in the minority seems wrong anyway but this was a highly active AfD. If the admin had wanted to give the keepers more time to find some policy, or a source to hang their arguments on a simple relist would have done this. Polargeo (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also using "within admin discression" as an argument to maintain a judgement is not fair as it makes individual admins more powerful than they should be. This is a place where there should be unbiased judging of what is the correct close for this debate. Not whether the admin was within some poorly defined bounds of their discression Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe admin discression is the heart of what DRV is and DRV is not. Some afd's are clear cut, others fall into gray areas where admins must make a judgement. DRV is used when the close was against policy, not just because you disagree with it. I look at this AFD discussion and see a discussion that could reasonably called no consensus. Others may see it different, but that doesn't mean that no consensus was clearly wrong. It doesn't mean biased vs unbiased, just that there's not always clear black/white yes/no decisions. It falls into that area where we have to respect the close, and move on. As I said, after a respectable period of time you can try again.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it was a correct close or not? I believe it was not. Shutting down the argument by saying it is "within admin discression" "we have to respect this and move on" without reviewing why you think it is within this discression means little. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you think the keep arguments have some limited merit based on policy? This would be a possible reason for a no consensus to be within admin discression. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not AFD2. That means that endorsing a close is not the same as adding a keep arguement. AFD analyses the article, DRV analyses the AFD. That said commenting on the afd I don't feel that the keep arguements fall into a category of completly ignorable. These aren't SPA's saying "PLX KEEP MY BAND. I NEEDS WIKI". I don't think it's unreasonable to give them enough weight to call this no consensus, even if not enough to call it a straight keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as "no consensus". If we went by strength of arguments, I suppose, we wold go with a "keep" close, because there does not appear to be any actual reason to delete in this case, but a fair conclusion would be "no consensus" and as such, there is no reason to challenge that. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While I can see another admin closing this as delete, there was no clear consensus either way and there are probably too few no consensus closes. A child article on an in-universe piece is a reasonable fork that will be less likely to have real-world sources and is something accepted as a rule. There was no policy violation here that justifies overturning the decision. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not clear error. Tim Song (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could it have been closed another way? Yes. Was the "no consensus" closure within the administrator's discretion? Yes. A "no consensus" more than allows for this to be nominated again in the not too distant future. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was astonished at the no consensus close, which seemed to be vote counting. The Keep arguments were not based in policy nor consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i think you mean, that you did not agree with them personally. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG that is a poor shot. Polargeo (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many "spinoff" articles, such as Fictional universe in Avatar, which I would wholeheartedly notvote to keep in an AfD, because there is plenty of sourcing. This Sword of Truth universe article is utterly lacking in secondary sources. I always notvote in AfDs based on the sourcing; in fact, as far as I can see I am the only editor on Wikipedia who does so. Abductive (reasoning) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Within administrative discretion. Respectable arguments were offered for keeping. It is much better and less dangerous to err on the side of "vote-counting", which gets criticized too much, than to err on the side of substituting one's own judgement instead of reading consensus.John Z (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As has been remarked above several times, the keep arguments were not found in policy whereas those favouring deletion were. A majority vote by "a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" according to Wikipedia:Consensus, which is why counting heads is never the right thing to do at AfD. There clearly was an error in closing this debate as policy, rather than mere opinion, clearly was not given its due weight. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no policy based reason for deletion. Community consensus is overwhelmingly in support of these articles. Far more editors create, edit, and come here to read these articles than the extreme minority that hover around AfDs and even then, they still could not overwhelm the policy based reasons for keeping. All we are left with is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is invalid. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? That hardly represents those arguments accurately. The arguments for deletion were based on (a) the lack of sources (WP:N, a guideline), (b) the lack of verifiability (WP:V, a policy), (c) failure to establish real-world coverage (WP:WAF, a guideline), and (d) failure to establish suitability for an encyclopedia (WP:NOT, a policy). Moreover, your claim that the reasons for keeping were based in policy hold little weight unless you can somehow identify in which policies they were rooted. And your claim that "community consensus is overwhelmingly in support of these articles" is, so far as I can tell, speculation. To which consensus, exactly, are you referring? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Far more editors create, work on, come here to read, and defend these sorts of articles than the handful that keep trying to delete them. The series gets over 200 hits on Google Books. After the initial page of results of the books themselves, you start getting into analysis of the characters as seen all over this page of a secondary source. Information that is verifiable through multiple reliable published sources is notable per the Wikipedic definition of the term. When secondary source authors devote several paragraphs discussing the plot elements of a franchise we have a basis to work with to improve an article. The reality of the available sources on Google Books alone is that it has undeniable potential for further improvement and per the policies of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, that is the path we take instead of redlinking. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the series gets over 200 google books hits. We have an article on the series, an article on all eleven books within the series and an article on the author. The importance of the series has nothing to do with the close of this AfD in this case there were no keep votes based on policy and the article was not a viable encyclopedic article. Polargeo (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And further, redlinking is not an issue because anyone wanting to find The Sword of Truth will not find a redlink. anyone searching for The Sword of Truth .... may unfortunately find a redlink. In this case a redlink is in no way detrimetal to wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the article is not detrimental to Wikipedia. By contrast, it provides greater detail of verifiable information of interest to our readership and serves as sort of overview or table of contents to various aspects of the series and is thus more localized and convenient for our readers instead of sifting through the individual novel articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't mean there can't be any discussion on the issue, otherwise going by pure policy, every deletion would be at the discretion of literally any admin. There'd be DRV backlogs for miles. Even if there was policy error in keeping this article, Wikipedia's integrity isn't compromised; this is as good as any other fictional universe article. Furthermore, if WP:BEGIN is to be followed and the burden of proof is on the deleter, I haven't seen any attempt to even assist in the creation of a Wikipedia article, and instead beyond anything else hostile intentions, which - as pointed out above - enters into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable call within discretion of closer and DRV is not a defacto eightball we keep shaking til we get the answer we want. -- Banjeboi 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another dismissive endorse with no proper analysis. This is quite wrong this deletion review was called on grounds of incorrect closure and not "didn't get what was wanted" please actually examine the keep arguments against policy. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standards for what and how items should be included remains a moving target and subjective. I feel the keep discussion spelled out reasonably well why the article should be kept and the closer was within their discretion to weigh those as being enough to discount the delete points. This remains not Afd 2.0 that we battleground away driving away people who are less interested in the dramatics. No consensus means it stays for now. -- Banjeboi 00:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure No sign of clear error, serious and respected editors in disagreement in the discussion, no clear trend in arguments. RayTalk 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but serious and respected editors (such as DGG in this case) seem to be reading and examining AfDs less and less and voting with their gut feeling rather than any proper analysis of the situation. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sorry DGG I respect you but I do not respect your arguments in this particular case and I believe that an endorse based on "respected editors in disagreement" is extremely poor and goes against all of our principles. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo, DRV is not AfD round 2. DRV is for blatant errors in closing admin's judgment, or significant new facts that would change the light of the discussion entirely (usually a good while after the original discussion). No new facts have come to light, so we are reviewing only whether the closing admin made a blatant error. His job is to evaluate the sentiments of the community in the matter, and not impose his own judgment. In a discussion of this kind, the closing admin has a good bit of discretion, and this does not fall outside it. RayTalk 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good bit of discretion is exactly where I have an issue. I think this was an incorrect close. Experienced editors seem to be constantly putting down less experienced editors rather than judging the actual close. Polargeo (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely more delete votes than keep with no keep arguments based on policy is an error to close as no consensus no matter how experienced those editors are. For the deletion review to be so lame as to say we endorse it because an admin has lots of discretion is not a good way to go. Polargeo (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also experienced editors rattle through lots of AfDs throwing keeps and deletes in everywhere. If their keeps are not based on policy or show they have not looked at the issue then those keeps should be disregarded in the same way as any IP's comments would be. Polargeo (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; closure was not in error. The article is a reasonable spinoff of the parent, per summary style. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "spinoff" notion never achieved consensus. Nevertheless, I have seen many spinoff articles, such as Fictional universe in Avatar, which I would wholeheartedly notvote to keep in an AfD, because there is plenty of sourcing. This Sword of Truth universe article is utterly lacking in secondary sources, and should have been deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Summary_style_approach; I'm not sure what you mean by this notion not achieving consensus as it is critical to the very longstanding guideline WP:SUMMARY. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • When the spinoff idea was proposed, it was not agreed to by everyone, and quite a few editors wanted to restrict it. For example, "List of characters in..." articles were supposed to avoid excessive plot descriptions, and have at least some secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you saying WP:SUMMARY doesn't reflect consensus? I'm not quite following you. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • When people claim in AfDs that an article is a spinoff and should therefore be kept, other people say that it should not be kept because it lacks sources, or that spinoff status is not a magic way to avoid deletion. I have never seen anybody claim it is not a spinoff. Sometimes these spinoff articles are deleted. Therefore I conclude that being a spinoff is not a magic way to avoid deletion, and does not have consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 20:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. As I noted in the AfD, the article cites no sources, thereby failing WP:V, a core policy. Clear core policy violations must be given more weight by closers than any consensus (or lack thereof).  Sandstein  21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete: I wasn't involved in the original AFD. This seems like a clear !vote count to me, the delete arguments were far more compelling and went unchallenged. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The point to delete was that references were lacking, and none of the keep arguments even offered a rebuttal against this, nor did the few references that were added show notability of the topic as a whole (they mostly referenced small points of the article). There were 7 days to find sources and even a "rescue" tag asking for help. ThemFromSpace 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as "no consensus" that was how the consensus should have been tabulated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete: There is no sourcing or out of universe information. It is an unverifiable page entirely composed of plot summary.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no consensus in the prior discussion, and the closer correctly assessed it as such. Despite protests to the contrary, this indeed has become AFD2. The "strength of argument" claim really is a short hand way of indicating that our macro consensus (as reflected in policy) should override the micro consensus as reflected a in a (presumably faulty) AfD discussion. But as has been proved in RfCs, Arbcom cases and countless AfDs, there this is an area with little macro consensus to start with. If one accepts the spinout notability argument, there is no problem with this existing as a separate article. If one doesn't, it should be deleted. Don't get me wrong, the article is fancruft through and through. However, neither position gained traction in the AfD, and I am unwilling to overturn a closer who did nothing more than recognize that clearly evident fact. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - The concept of notability does not apply to information within an article, but it definitely applies to the topic of an article and it must be supported by verifiable evidence. The article did not (and still does not) prove the notability of its topic by citing independent, reliable sources which provide non-trivial coverage of its subject. This concern was never adequately addressed in the AfD.
    • 122.57.0.252 pointed to the actual works in which the Sword of Truth universe exists, but those works are not independent of the subject.
    • Sadads indicated that there might be significant coverage of the topic due to "how the TV show Legend of the Seeker has seriously changed the construction of the universe", but did not provide a concrete example of such coverage and did not object to merging the content.
    • Nefariousski pointed to the existence of other articles about fictional universes; Nefariousski's second comment, in response to OrangeDog's comment that "those articles have sources establishing the notability of the fictional universe in the real world", called for improvement of the article and additional sourcing and highlighted the notability of the book (and TV) series. Regarding the first point: while improving an article by adding additional sourcing is appropriate when such sources are available, none of the participants in the discussion offered any such sources. Regarding the second point: no one disputes that the book series is notable, but a separate article about the fictional universe should exist only if the fictional universe is notable as well.
    • DGG argued that it is not necessary to (more specifically, that "there is no agreement on the need to...") prove the notability of the fictional aspect of works of fiction. While this is true in general (e.g., it is perfectly acceptable to write a plot summary using only primary sources), it does not apply when the issue at hand is a separate article. "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works," and articles should not be "plot-only description of fictional works".
    • Edward321 essentially repeated the arguments of Nefariousski and DGG (i.e., that the article is a "legitimate spinout article" and that "needing improvement is not a reason for deletion").
    Overall, the argument that the article is a plot-only description that fails to prove the notability of its topic was not successfully rebutted, since article size issues do not justify bypassing WP:NOT and the notability guidelines. In my opinion, the strongest argument for keeping the article came from Nefariousski, who pointed out that "just because the sources aren't on the page doesn't mean the sources don't exist". Deleting an article about a notable topic merely because it is currently unsourced is generally counterproductive (unless the unsourced content is potentially harmful or there is no useful content at all); see Wikipedia:Editing policy. However, it has been a long-standing principle of our verifiability policy that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". None of the participants in the discussion, including those who argued to keep the article, offered concrete evidence that the topic of The Sword of Truth universe has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. –Black Falcon (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Major series like this often have articles for their Universe. Those who don't like these articles always argue to delete them. It provides useful information for those who wish a complete encyclopedic view of a series. And every key component of the universe does NOT a thousand references from someone who commented on it, knowing very well reviewers don't go into detail about every single thing, so many things won't be mentioned at all. Dream Focus 12:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant thesis. No one disputes that reviewers don't cover every single detail of a fictional universe, and no one is asking for a reference for "every single" detail of the fictional universe. The standard for notability has generally been accepted as "significant coverage of the topic in two or more independent, reliable sources", and it is this standard which still has not been met. Many references would be a good thing, but at this time no one is asking for a thousand, hundred, or even ten references. –Black Falcon (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as no consensus. The series is popular enough that this could serve as a spinoff article. I've seen this series criticized by fantasy enthusiasts on a number of levels including criticism based on its world building. If the main article gets too big such criticism could fit in this subarticle. Lambanog (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "could fit"? At the moment there are still NO sources for an "in-universe" spin off sub article. Even now, this far into the DRV, no significant (or any) sources are forthcomming. Also you are endorsing the close based on an AfD keep argument rather than evaluating the strength of actual AfD keeps. As a keep argument your endorse would also fall short, where are these sources you claim to have seen? This has been a common pattern amongst endorsers, to add very weak keep arguments rather than evaluate the close. Polargeo (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (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/2010_February&oldid=420278462"