Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 July 14
2010 July 16 >

15 July 2010[edit]

  • Mohsen Emadi – Overturn to relist. Consensus here is that further discussion is required to reach a clear consensus. – SoWhy 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mohsen Emadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is no clear reason for deleting the page while two users were opposing deletion and also there were 35 reliable reference for this subject. I invite Wikipedia editors to have a look on this page and give a reasonable statement for deletion or undelete the page.--Transcelan (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist There was one comment that made a pretty good case for deletion and two (or likely one) person arguing to keep. With no !votes to delete and no pressing BLP need to delete, a relist probably was the best bet. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, IMO the nom itself counts for 1 delete vote. After that, there's a Wall o' Text from the suspected socks to wade through, so no other opinion at this time. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well written nomination not refuted in the debate. User:Farhikht's reads as supportive of the nomination. All other comments read as the author and socks. Advise User:Transcelan to gain some experience contributing to wikipedia on other subjects, and that if he establishes himself as a an experienced editor in good standing, the community will give him more trust. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Not enough participation to judge a consensus here. If there was a serious BLP issue to consider I would think differently, but I can't see one. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would relist here. Technically, the close is defendable but a more proper debate about the sources should really occur. NW (Talk) 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the start point of afd I tried to find some more references about the subject, the creator of the article also tried the same, I think the references must be traced out by an editor to decide about them.I am searching on internet to find more proper references, I think Persian references are useless because there are many of them, but I try to find just Euro-American references in this case.--Transcelan (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with NW, that more discussion would be good, but it was open long enough and AfD is overloaded already overloaded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there is no quorum at AFD and the keep side have produced no sources. What is a relist going to achieve. Source it and it can be undeleted immediately. What's the point of the process wanking? Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the fact is that the article has 15 more sources from the beginning of AFD, I invite the editors to check them, also a simple Google search would be useful in Persian or English. . I think they are enough, but I am still searching for more sources.--Transcelan (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist If anything, reading through the AfD discussion the consensus seems to be in favour of the "keep" argument... DubZog (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • temporarily restored for the purpose of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to BLP, an article must be NPOV, V and NOR. It seems the first author of the article used Adamar Literary Journal, published in September 2002 as the start point. This text also appears in Barcelona Review in May 2008; other sources about the subject uses almost the same information(NOR). The article also uses a neutral point of view (NPOV). neglecting four references(self-published online websites) other source of the article have acceptable ranges of verifiability like Olifante, El Periodico de aragon or Radio Farda (V). Another question about the article could be the question of notability and this question is tight to the situation and the ground of notability. If the editors are interested they can just have a look in report on censorship p.34-p.39 to know more about the situation of modern poetry inside Iran. The subject belong to the very first generation of Iranian poets after Islamic revolution that Euro-American society heard their voice and translated them. The censorship inside Iran also restricted western media to know more about a generation of poets and writers who appeared after the revolution. Iran student protests, July 1999 had important role to announce new voices of the country out of the country. The fist book of the subject in Spanish translation by Clara Janes appears in 2003 and the website for National Award for Work of a translator is verifiable enough to approve the book. Notes like Gizonak sugeari written by Kirmen Uribe in Berria and interviews like Iran en Trasmoz in El Periodico de aragon speak about a good coverage about his works. Also his presence in international ground of poetry festivals hold by Olifante or Imac founded by Ernest Benach bring some degrees of significance; the referenced talks of the subject in research and academic ground as in international symposium of Rumi hold by Tukish Government and UNESCO or International Nietzsche Symposium could also support the idea. Also he won the translation grant of FILI hold by Finnish Literature Society that approves his other mentioned activity as translator. While I was searching I found another reference speaking about his presence[1] in Semana Poética hold by Dickinson College, USA. Therefore, I think the article has all the conditions of being restored. --Transcelan (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can only !vote once, and the nomination counts as one, so I've struck the "Restore" portion of your comment. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    actually I did not vote, I opened the discussion. but I change your struck to a comment. my purpose was to clarify some sorts of references.--Transcelan (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Debrahlee Lorenzana – Endorse. BLP1E covers this pretty neatly, and the evidence given below doesn't point to sustained coverage (or more importantly, some coverage apart from the solitary event). I'm happy to userify the content or email it to anyone as needed. – Protonk (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Debrahlee Lorenzana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the close of the AfD (on a close call where the closer said he exercised his judgment based on his opinion of the weight of the arguments related to BLP 1-E and not news, since the keep and delete votes were balanced numerically), this woman and her case have continued to receive a great deal of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources [2]. I would like to see the article restored so that it can be expanded with the additional coverage and sources it has received. If it was a close call before, I don't see how it can still be considered so now. Thanks for your consideration. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and censure nominator, as these frequent and frivolous challenges are becoming disruptive. We have a policy of WP:ONEEVENT that is as clear as day here and easily and correctly applied to a woman whose only claim to fame is being fired for having a nice rack. That is all. DRVs are to correct administrator mistakes and errors; "I don't like the decision" wastes everyone's time. Tarc (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had recreated without permission you would be bitching and moaning. This is the correct process as far as I am aware to try and recreate an article that was deleted in a close call before getting lots more coverage. You are the one who should be censured for your misrepresentations of what policy says and your aggressively antagonistic behavior. I posted the one event policy once already for you, so please read it. The extent of the coverage makes clear that the event and the woman rise above the policy threshold. Whether you think she's insignificant and what you make of her "rack" is entirely irrelevant, and always has been. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't "nice rack" = nice BLP violation under the new Herostratus standards? Anyhoo, this DRV is completely legit, I'll write more about it later as I've previously discussed this close with the closing admin but it appears its archived already.--Milowent (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh darn, I got my "let's delete attractive chicks!" Afds confused, as this one has already been to DRV, and lukewarmly endorsed, I guess.-- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_14.--Milowent (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought I'd seen it before. Perhaps it's time to update WP:HOTTIE to indicate that being an attractive female is actually a reason to delete :-) Hobit (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, deja vu all over again...I even made the same rack observation a month ago. Well, that makes this DRV even more ill-advised than previously thought. We've already been over this ground before, there is nothing new about this woman's case that warrants a second review, just a basic, inept understanding of BLP policy, particularly 1E. Close up this waste of time and move on. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Number 1, one issue in the AfD was that it wasn't clear if coverage would be sustained. It clearly has been... Hobit (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore Leaving aside the question of the close of the AfD itself (which I'd say was boarderline at best), it's clear that coverage of her continues to exist and we are past BLP1E. I'm finding news coverage as recently as 18 minutes ago according to Google News and an article pretty much focused on her from last week. [3]. As this was deleted more than a month ago, I think we are seeing sustained coverage. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable DRV nomination. I think I am not seeing good new sources, just repetition of the original story, with no discussion of the person herself. Recommend userfication and improvement in userspace before reconsideration at DRV, to clearly show what new content new sources actually provide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per SmokeyJoe. Fair nomination, and there are new sources to consider, but they aren't enough for a speedy recreation. So let's try userfying it and see what happens. We might get a decent article out at the end... Alzarian16 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore-There is sufficient coverage that it exceeds WP:BLP1E. She was also featured on msn's front page several times in July and has a short msn popular searches article. She is still mentioned in reliable sources. Smallman12q (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Restore as there was no consensus for deletion in the face of reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn The earlier deletion endorsement might have made sense when this was arguably a BLP1E. The ongoing coverage makes this no longer a BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and Restore which was the apparent consensus--and according to the further coverage. I think Tarc should be careful about trying to impede or discourage reasonable appeals carried out according to perfectly normal of Wikipedia process. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Restore - There wasn't a consensus to delete this and there were valid arguments on how this was not a BLP1E case. And as for Tarc's comments in this DRV, this was a perfectly valid discussion opening. --Oakshade (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse the status quo as the June DRV closer (I was just notified of this discussion). I think my previous DRV closure was correct in stating that there was no consensus to overturn the article in June (and the weight of that discussion should be considered by the closer of this DRV). Looking at this new July DRV, the line of discussion does not seem to be any referendum on the June DRV that I closed—but is instead reviewing the AfD that the June DRV reviewed. Although I appreciate not being raked over the coals for my DRV closure, I am kind of annoyed that the stare decisis that it represents is being ignored here. Although I see some vague hand-waving about continued coverage that somehow allows this article to pass BLP1E, there is really no convincing evidence that anything substantial has changed since June. Although consensus can change, this feels like repeatedly forum shopping DRV in an effort to get a more inclusionist sample of participants. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of July 23, she is still being referenced by reliable sources such as this Huffington Post blog post Just How Good Is Too Good Looking in the Workplace?. She has had sustained coverage for almost 2 months...well beyond that of BLP1E. (Sorry that you weren't notified earlier, I had believed that the nominator had followed procedure...).Smallman12q (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two months of one events is still...wait for it...one event. Big breasts and lawsuits don't move one to the John Hinckley standard, the actual example cited at WP:BLP1E. The problem here boils down to WP:HOTTIE which is IMO a variation of missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Hinckley is undoubtedly notable for one event. The same cannot be said for Shirley Sherrod, Alvin Greene or Debrahlee Lorenzana, only one of whom is white. Unsure on their respective breast size, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alvin Greene is notable both for being a Senate candidate, for a felony sexual assault, and for being a bit...unready for public office, to put it mildly. I count 3 events there. For Sherrod, the article is actually about the event, Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, not the person. Any more red herrings you care to serve up? Tarc (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore: same thing as Oakshade and DGG. For what its worth, I have the article watchlisted and will keep an eye on it for any BLP concerns.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore The individual is not a non-public figure, coverage has been ongoing, and the original close should have been at most a no-consensus to begin with. The fact that it's been to DRV twice is disappointing, because it clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Wp:CCC is the WP equivalent of stare decisis, BTW. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly polling DRV until you get the result you want is not consensus changing. It's forum shopping. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per my argument last time round. Spartaz Humbug! 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- one event is still one event, even though some members of the media still are covering her, it doesn't consist of a different notable event. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't tell if you are arguing WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, so I'll respond to both. "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" (emphasis mine). The continued coverage is more than enough to show she isn't a low-profile individual and is unlikely to remain so. Of course her doing things (her stuff with lawyers, going on TV shows etc.) also add to that. The second is there to help resolve "unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both". If you are making that argument then I'd expect a rename and rewrite would make more sense than a delete as many of the sources and sections would be really useful in an article on the event in question. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put Hobit. Essentially the delete arguments amount to "I Don't Like It", because the substantial coverage overwhelmingly establishes notability and it just keeps growing. For example we have more international coverage from the last few days including from India [4], Germany [5] and Thailand [6]. The legal case is also progressing with representation from Gloria Allred, and the latest edition of Newsweek (July 17) also reports on the issues involved. Individuals' biases against covering subjects related to beauty, discrimination against attractive women, and white people with breasts should be ignored as so much foolishness. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except no one is actually saying "i don't like it". They are saying that continuing coverage does not make the singular event notable enough for an article in this particular case. Arguing against positions that none here are actually advocating is a bit of a strawman on your part. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E states The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is appears clear that with persistent coverage for over a month in dozens of reputable sources that this should serve as indication that the individual is indeed notable for the event(s).Smallman12q (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV day 10? Why is it when a BLP about a female like this is concerned, when its fairly obvious that the article should be restored, the deletion review stays open so long?--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • because its a tough call and most passing admins probably don't agree with the consensus here... Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's silly, we have 3.36 million articles and this is no Brian Peppers drama fest.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it is fairly obvious, IMO, that it should stay deleted. If these "obvious" opinions are that disparate, then closing is no easy task. Tarc (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - See what people think now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/keep deleted. WP:BLP1E applies. @Hobit et al., BLP1E says "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, ..." (emphasis mine). The word "otherwise" indicates that the "low-profileness" is to be assessed without regard to said event; for otherwise by definition any person to whom BLP1E applies would not be low-profile precisely due to that event and that event alone. One event is one event, even if the event is long in duration. There's nothing that suggests that she would not remain low-profile, once we remove this single event - her firing from Citibank and its aftermath - from the calculus. No objections to userfication, because, after all, I could have missed something... T. Canens (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good point. I see that otherwise as "other than that flash-in-the-pan coverage", but it can certainly be read as you are doing. I think that your reading allows for an "event" to be stretched to cover a wide variety of events. In fact, extended coverage usually isn't over the one event per se; it is about things that happen past the one event. In this case: She was fired. She sued. She prompted (and continues to prompt) discussion about appropriate clothing for work. Each of these things prompted new coverage. Even in some cases coverage about the coverage. Even if your reading is right, the thing we should do is move the article, not delete it. BLP1E states: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." I'm fine with renaming the article. As I recall the article was mostly about the event anyways. But BLP1E doesn't direct us to _delete_ the article... Hobit (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, not a particularly good point. One "event" is just one "event"--ongoing coverage is not the same event. See WP:WI1E. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A reasonable close that had proper regard to policy, the rationale for which still applies. Agree with Tim Song's explanation of BLP1E. There may be occasions on which coverage of a BLP1E is so extensive that the subject is no longer a BLP1E but that is just not the case here.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:38, 29 July 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.
Saul Farber (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

meets general notability requirements as per 3 sources: (1),http://www.nysun.com/opinion/new-yorks-rising-sarah-palin/86036/ (2), http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/albany/20081101/204/2730 (3), http://www.observer.com/lydiadepillis/344/swimming-against-tides-young-republican-challenges-gottfried. Saul Farber is the main subject in all sources and all sources are secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Saul Farber is also included as more than a trivial mention in several other articles and Saul Farber has received the republican nomination in the November 2010 state senate race.

I spoke with the admin but he is busy/on vacation and unable to address it. Thank you! 69.193.146.42 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - The notability guideline was correctly interpreted by the closing admin. Purely local coverage...an online tabloid (NY Sun), an online newsletter of a nonprofit watchdog group (Gotham Gazatte) and a borough paper (Observer)...falls short of the GNG. Tarc (talk)
  • Does any of the substantial coverage relate to anything other than the 2008 election race? Freakshownerd (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. An uncontroversial consensus-based close. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the !vote was pretty clear, but the topic met WP:N with a bit of room to spare (2 good articles and 4-5 minor ones) and BLP1E is a stretch at best IMO. But others felt that BLP1E did apply and there you are. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • UEFA Euro 2020 – No consensus to overturn and userfy to User:Avala/UEFA Euro 2020. This was a tricky discussion to consider. After discounting !votes focused on the procedure of this DRV (as opposed to the procedure of the AfD this DRV reviews), there is still a significant debate regarding whether the closing administrator was right to apply policy-based arguments (WP:CRYSTAL) when appeals to that particular policy were disputed in the course of the discussion. Administrators should be cautious to defer to the judgment of the community and not overly bias closures with their own judgments when it is ambiguous what does and does not follow policy. This deference does not, however, extend to cases when there is prima face evidence that an article fails a particular policy (in the face of insubstantial arguments that it passes said policy). After inspecting the DRV and the AfD, appeals to WP:CRYSTAL are particularly concrete and analogous to the examples offered in policy (e.g., United States presidential election, 2020) where a known event will occur but all information regarding that event is speculative (cf. 2016 referencing of UEFA Euro 2020). Consequently, there is not conclusive evidence raised in the DRV that deletion guidelines for administrators were breached. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
UEFA Euro 2020 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

By a simple count we see that there is nothing clear about the result, seven users said delete, seven said keep and a few users on both sides suggested alternatively for the article to be userfied. As for the arguments, administrator that deleted the article, chose to go with the argument on violation of WP:CRYSTAL which was not accepted but widely argued in the discussion and the issues raised were not addressed by the user who filed a request. The problem with this view is that 1) the UEFA European Football Championship takes part regularly, every four years, since 1960, and the assumption that it wont take place for whatever reason in 2020 can be seen as the violation of WP:CRYSTAL and not vice versa and 2) the acronym UEFA stands for the "Union of European Football Associations" and the fact that its member Associations are talking about the EURO 2020 means that there is no reason to believe that this tournament will not take place, the fact that the technical meeting of all Associations hasn't taken place in UEFA headquarters where the dates will be set and the official bidding open doesn't mean that the article should be erased as plenty of national Associations and national Governments have already announced their plans to file a bid (they haven't done so yet because the official bid filing process isn't open yet - and it will be some time before UEFA opens it - and not because there is some doubt over whether the EURO 2020 competition will take place which is the main argument for deletion). So I would like to request for the deletion to be overturned based on the fact that there was no consensus on the AfD. If there are open arguments and if there is not even a simple number majority (although it's arguments that count which is where we go to point one as we don't have consensus on any argument) then the closing decision cannot be deletion, it can only be a constatation of no consensus. Avala (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have we stopped asking admins to look at the arguments again or is the policy now to just haul them in front of DRV if you don't like the outcome? I'm always dubious about any nomination here that starts with a nose count cos it shows the argument isn't going to be based on consensus in the way that wikipedia does it. So Endorse my own close because I read the arguments and this was a clear violation of crystal. Spartaz Humbug! 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Striking because I'm tired and forgetful and I actually directed people to DRV in my edit notice. Apologies for needlessly being mean Avala Spartaz Humbug! 20:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your page says "I'm on holiday until 27 August" so why should I question that? As for reading it through, why are you focusing on vote count when I mentioned it only to show that not even there is any consensus on deletion while I discussed the issue with arguments with much more detail and quite clearly said that it's the arguments that count. Admin is to assess how the users expressed their will, not to choose which one he personally likes more. You are stating here how you deleted because "this was a clear violation of crystal" but this is not right, it's against the rules for you to delete because you chose in a tied no consensus situation which side you like more, you can only delete if you found "that there is consensus among the users to delete because this was a clear violation of crystal" but you couldn't do that as there is no consensus on arguments in that AfD (nor the numbers), it's the only fact and that is my point, this needs to be closed as no consensus.--Avala (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as original nominator. AfD discussions are not a simple matter of counting "votes", they are based on who presents a better argument through knowledge of Wikipedia policy. The subject of UEFA Euro 2020 is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, there is no doubt about that. Just because a country has announced its intention to bid to host an event does not mean that event will take place. But I'm repeating myself. I completely agree with the decision taken by the closing admin. – PeeJay 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • However this is only your view, but the matter in discussion here is that this was not a consensus view as there was no consensus while a decision was made by an admin to take action which is not in line with the fact that there was no consensus so that was supposed to be a conclusion. As for the argument on CRYSTAL, you can read below in a comment by another user why it simply doesn't stand here.--Avala (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn sources found in the cache appear to be plenty to overcome any kind of WP:CRYSTAL issues. From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." this is almost certain to take place and speculation about it is very very well documented from what I can tell. The !vote isn't strong enough to overcome the guideline policy. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse by default—the initiator of this DRV failed to discuss the XfD closure with the relevant admin, which is a required prelimanary step. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey TT, per the above, the admin's standard message had directed them not to (if I'm understanding the discussion correctly). Hobit (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I didn't contact the closing admin as his talk page notice says that he is on vacation until the August 27, not because I didn't want to. Please reconsider your vote in light of this information. Thanks,--Avala (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: There was no consensus to delete this article. The closing admin's opinion that deletion was appropriate is a valid opinion, but the sum of good faith editor contributions to the discussion did not approve deletion. And no BLP or contentious materials concerns to support extra scrutiny arguments.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Al Fand training camp – Overturn to delete. The consensus is that the consensus was in favor of deletion, so this DRV can only be closed as such. That Iqinn nominated the article again after a short while and that they did not notify the creator were reasons for concerns but can be reasons to {{trout}} Iqinn but does not change the consensus - even most of those who raised those concerns still agreed that the AFD should have been closed as "delete". – SoWhy 06:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Al Fand training camp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This one is a bit of a long story. The first AfD was back in Aug 2009 by User:Anthony Appleyard as "casting keep". The second Afd, from May 2010, received basically no participation even after two relistings and got a NAC. The third one was closed as "no consensus" earlier this July, after two relistings and only two !votes. After that, it was AfD-ed again, by the same nominator, Iquinn. That was a mistake, IMO. I thin k there was a case to be made for a delete closure in the 3d AfD and I think that one should have been taken to DRV rather than submitted to AfD again. However, the 4th AfD received a substantial degree of participation. There was, IMO, a substantial policy-based consensus for delete in this 4th AfD. It was clearly demonstrated that there was a single source for the camp (a long judicial transcript of the Guantanamo Combatant Review report) that contain a single sentence with a single mention of the camp. A pdf copy of the report was also posted at the NYT site. Even if one takes the view, that that posting constitutes a separate source, this is stlll two one-sentence mentions. Barely passes WP:V and far far far below any reasonable interpretation of WP:N. These points were made at length during the AfD and no convincing counter-arguments were presented. If evaluated on the merits of policy-based arguments, the 4th AfD should have clearly been closed as delete. The article's creator commented in the AfD that he would have preferred to see that AfD extended for another week(since he was not notified of the last AfD). Even that would have been fine, IMO. Instead, the AfD was closed, again by User:Anthony Appleyard, as "The result was Keep as no concensus; this article has been under AfD almost continuously since 23 May 2010 over this and 2 previous AfD's all started by the same user." That is, it was closed on procedural grounds. I tried contacting User:Anthony Appleyard, but he did not really elaborate on his reasons and instead referred to the merge discussion that he started at the article's talk page. I feel that this AfD should have been closed on its merits, in view of its fairly substantial participation, and since the article so obviously does not satisfy our inclusion criteria. I request overturn and relist or overturn and delete. Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn and delete - Fact: This here is the only know information in the universe about this camp and therefore it fails WP:GNG WP:V. The arguments and !votes clearly supported nothing else than delete. There was little participation in the first three discussions even after multiple re-listings only the 4th discussion finally had a good participation and discussion. I am not a wiki lawyer and i can not say if my re-listing violated any wiki laws. That what i can say is that it was done in good faith with the intention to have a good discussion and to improve Wikipedia and to get rid of an article that violated our own basic quality rules. I do not have any objection against relisting at Afd, if somebody expresses that he wants to further argue that this one sentence in one source would be "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - I have no idea how this could have reasonably been closed as a keep. Every keep vote (all 3 of them) was based on a debunked argument saying that a single mention in a single transcript of a single detainee's hearing is "significant coverage". nableezy - 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I can't !vote to overturn because I think a NC close was inside of admin discretion (if just barely) and I think merging would still be a reasonable outcome. But given the horrible sourcing, I'll treat this a AfDx (where x is a large number) and claim we should just delete this. Frankly there were no solid arguments to keep. 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
  • Overturn to delete - There was one primary "keep" by ANowlin, with 2 "per ANowlin" follow-ups. It does not seem that the closing admin took into account how weak this sole opinion was, and how easily it was rebutted. Two reliable sources hosting a PDF of an interrogation, during which the camp is name-dropped isn't even in the ballpark of "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I interpreted the closure as a procedural close, an appropriate one, given that how marred by irregularities the {{afd}} had been.
    • Your characterization of the OARDEC allegation memo as the "PDF of an interrogation" is not accurate. The Supreme Court forced the DoD to prepare these memos in its 2004 ruling in Rasul v. Bush. OARDEC was a separate agency from JTF-GTMO that ran the camps. The officers who prepared these memos did so after reviewing intelligence reports from at least six agencies, the FBI, CIA, State Department, the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, and JTF-GTMO. They independently reviewed, collated, analyzed dozens, sometimes hundreds of documents per captives. If the Al Fand camp made it into the final memo summarizing those dozens or hundreds of secret reports then it has far more significance than your characterization that it was "name-dropped" implies. It was not a passing mention. I suggested merge in my proposal of late March. I suggested merge in the 3rd {{afd}}, and in all the other recent {{afd}}s our nominator instantiated. I think an important question that should have been considered at all these similar {{afd}} is whether there were sufficient WP:RS to support a paragraph, sentence, or list entry in a broader article. I request you give fair consideration to this question. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There where no irregularities in Afd's and there i nothing wrong with the description "PDF of an interrogation" and as said this is all information on the planet we have about the camp. One source one sentence. See the second document. It is the PDF of the controversial tribunal where the detainees had the opportunity to reply to allegations without given the right to see the evidence or sources for the allegations. Uuuuhhh... the State Department, the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, and JTF-GTMO, the FBI the CIA... Maybe it was even the MI6 or Mossad... Only the habeas corpus Judges had the opportunity to have a closer look at the source of the allegations. Just read some of there opinions how often the allegation were just based on the false statements of other detainees they made under torture or intelligence errors. Fact: All the talk about the original source here are speculations and waste of time. We do not know. Merge? This one sentence allegation against Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr? I agree this should be on Wikipedia. I have suggest to merge the allegation against him into Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr and i have pointed out that the one sentence information is already in that article. So there is nothing to merge. Time to get rid of the article here that always was nothing more than a Wikipedia:Coatrack of Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr. You created the article in 2006 with insufficient sources in the hope that more information would appear. But it did not happen. Time is up let's get this deleted now before it harms out reputation as an reliable encyclopedia. Just my opinion. IQinn (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Taking this AfD on its merits I cannot see how, on the basis of the arguments presented, it can possibly have lacked consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain The information as reported by major internationally known secondary sources is sufficient for an article and meets WP:V. I note the extraordinarily close timing of three of the comments above. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, which three of the above comments were, in your opinion, extraordinarily close in time? And which major internationally known sources actually reported the information in question? Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no information being reported, it is a one-line mention in the part of a prisoner interrogation. And just what the hell is that "close timing of three of the comments above" comment supposed to mean? If you're going to make bad-faith accusations, at least man up and make them clearer. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No "major internationally known secondary source" has said one word about this camp. Two "major internationally known secondary sources" host the same public domain document that makes exactly one mention of this camp. Would you also like to note the close timings in the three responses to your comment? nableezy - 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who has seen significant off-site canvassing, I understand the concern, but there was, and has been, no communication with me about this DrV other than the text here. Also, there seems to be only one source that indicates this camp exists and given the lack of anything else, I don't see how we can claim that camp _does_ exist. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to say, the "extraordinarily close timing" remark was an unexpectedly low blow from DGG and I feel somewhat offended. DGG knows me reasonably well as we often comment in the AfDs listed in the academics&educators delsort list, and we also collaborated a couple of years ago on revamping the WP:PROF guideline. After I filed this DRV listing, I notified the closing admin, put a note at the top of the Al Fand training camp page and a note at the talk page of the last AfD. That was it, the grand total of my actions. I did not try to notify anyone else about this DRV in any way, shape or form, on or off wiki, or in the form of psychic signals or whatever. Nsk92 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The close timing, NSK, foes not refer to your appeal--how could it? yours was the first comment--it refers to the timing of the comments after that DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you are repeating your peculiar slur. That is not an acceptable behaviour. Since I am obviously one of those to who you refer, come out and make your accusation in public. As I have said below, much earlier, it is offensive. Your equivocal comment abive simply adds weight to the slur. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Close timing? Better get off the fence and say what you mean, DGG. That was offensive. I dropped by the AfD page and thought the closure was disgraceful. Now what exactly are you accusing me of? What happened to civility and assuming good faith? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi DGG could you just confirm that this is the information you mean by "The information as reported by major internationally known secondary sources" or to provide a link to the information. All previous discussions have shown that there are no other information. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - there was a clear consensus to delete, and there's no evidence whatsoever that the camp meets WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Claritas § 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete I looked at this and was going to close as delete but then got distracted. This clearly has no sources so we should not keep it and the closing rational has no basis in policy. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin on 3rd AFD – I stand by my close on the 3rd AFD, as there was no consensus for deletion there, with one person favoring deletion aside from the nom and two others for merging; there was no headway made since the 2nd AFD, and I made that clear in my closing rationale. That being said consensus can surely change, so I have no comment as to the 4th AFD close at the moment. –MuZemike 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- I believe there are very strong arguments that this article should be merged, which I was not able to express in a timely manner because of several factors that left the {{afd}} disrupted to the point of being compromised. I believe that a procedural closure was one of the appropriate choices open to the closing administrator. I believe the relisting I requested, and which the the contributor who initiated this DRV endorsed would also have been appropriate. I do not believe deletion was appropriate because the nominator's behavior left the {{afd}} too compromised.

    Full disclosure: (1) I started this article, and about two dozen similar related articles, as I described in this proposal. (2) User:Iqinn, the first contributor to weigh in on this DRV, is also the contributor who, in a series of consecutive nominations kept this article at {{afd}} for 52 days.

    Several of the contributors who have voiced "overturn" or "delete" opinions hav commented that no strong counter-arguments were offered at the {{afd}}. Well, if I had been informed of the {{afd}} I would have offered what I regard as strong arguments for merge.

    On the wikipedia we are supposed to make our decision through trying to establish a true consensus through collegial, informed discussion. Iqinn chose not to inform the individual who started the article of the {{afd}}. It is not a true consensus when a nominator chooses not to invite those he or she knows will disagree with them. For it to be a true attempt to arrive at a real consensus, those who hold a differing view need to have a fair opportunity to present their counter-arguments to the nominator's arguments.

    Further, I believe a nominator has an obligation to be collegial, not partisan. Nominators shouldn't withhold important information from the others interested in an {{afd}}. Iqinn chose not to inform those participating in the {{afd}} that I had drafted a good faith proposal to merge the less well documented training camps.

    Nominators should present misleading information in a misleading light in order to "win" arguments. Good faith contributors work to build a better encyclopedia, not to "win" battles. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a battleground". I have a serious concerns about this "request for eyes" at User talk:Jimbo Wales "...clearly fails WP:N WP:GNG since many years but continues pushing against policy makes a deletion impossible." This request inaccurately implies the article has been abandoned, for years, when the nominator is well aware I recently requested discussion about merging articles like this one. The comment unfairly implies I am a POV-pusher. The comment inappropriately implies bad faith on my part.

    A closing administrator can't say how many of those who voiced a "delete" in the {{afd}} would have been convinced that a merge was an acceptable alternative, if Iqinn hadn't chosen to withhold this informmation.

    Let me briefly explain why I think merge is more appropriate than delete. While there aren't sufficient WP:RS to support individual articles for most of these training camps, there are sufficient WP:RS to support a paragraph, or a sentence, or a list entry, in a broader article on the general phenomenon. Well over a third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified, at least in part, based on the allegation that they attended a training camp. Close to one hundred of the captives were alleged to have attended the Al Farouq training camp. The 9-11 hijackers were alleged to have trained here, as were the Buffalo Six. Dozen were alleged to have attended the Khalden training camp. Ahmed Ressam, the millenium bomber trained there. I suggest that the general approach favored by User:Iqinn, that the only coverage of the less well documented training camps should be in the articles on the individual captives alleged to have attended them, is a serious dis-service to readers who want to study the general phenomenon that over a third of the Guantanamo captives had their detention justified based on an allegation they attended a camp. Readers who look up a camp here on the wikipedia, because they read in the MSM that a certain individual attended a particular camp, they should be able to count on us to help them see who else was alleged to have attended that camp. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you several times in AfD3, a merge as a form of AfD closure is only appropriate if the article to be merged is fairly long and contains a significant amount of verifiable material. This particular article is extremely short, and contains about one sentence worth of verifiable material. If you want to briefly mention the Al Fand camp in some other article, with a ref, there is nothing that prevents you from doing that right now. You don't need a merge for that. Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on Jimbo's talk page does not suggest that you are a POV pusher nor did i suggest that you act in bad faith. That is simply wrong. Hmmm he was busy with Wikimania but maybe soon he will have more time and i am still interested to hear his opinion. Let's see.
Correct me if i am wrong. So basically your argument is hey look User:Iqinn is acting in bad faith. How dare can he keep trying to delete one of my articles. I strongly reject this and your claims are simply false. As your recent personal attack on me that my User-Id had been used by multiple users is simply wrong. All this could have been fixed already if you would be willing to work with the community and please once again stop your personal attacks and withdraw your bogus accusations.
Facts: You had the opportunity to merge or delete your article or moved it to your user space since more than three years. It had a notability tag since a very long time. The first Afd already left little doubt that it fails WP:V, WP:GNG. You vigorously rejected any attempt by the community to improve on this issue with any solution that did not meet your POV. Uninvolved people from the community in truly good faith took even the time and came to your user page to work with you and offered their advise and help with these articles that you have created. As far as i can remember you did not even answer him. Right?
In your merge proposal here you basically justify it with the argument that many bad guys attended the Al Farouq training camp and Khalden training camp. That might be true and both of these camps have a lot of reliable sources. On contrast we know nothing about the al Fand camp. We do not even know if it existed. Where it was. Who run it. What happen there. Uuuuuhh...maybe even Osama bin Laden was running it in his basement? Maybe? Maybe not? Pure speculations. There are also no other detainees accused to have attended the camp. That is wrong. No verifiable information apart from this one sentence what is the allegation against Khalid al-Asmr and this information belongs and is already in his article and can be found by any Wikipedia user - once again there are no other verified information. Nothing is lost in deleting this article and you are free to move it to your user space. Regards IQinn (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep result: has multiple reliable sources, there's nothing here indicating an abuse of administrator discretion. Dedicated campaign against this one article is troubling--what exactly is it hurting, even if verifiable but non-notable, to draw such a dedicated opposition? Seriously... why? Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just what exactly are the multiple reliable sources here that cover this camp? I have only participated in AfD4 and AfD3, and I find it shocking that an article with such dearth of coverage and so manifestly failing WP:N has been kept. Nsk92 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Because if we do not care about our own basic quality standards than we loose our status as a reliable encyclopedia. IMO one even more important issue is that this one sentence is an allegation against Khalid al-Asmr and to have just visit an al Qaeda related training camp once is enough justification to keep somebody in Guantanamo without charges until the rest of his life.
    • This one sentence allegation is covered in the detainees article Khalid al-Asmr and there is absolutely nothing else known about the allegation or the camp. Nothing else than this one sentence.
    • Nevertheless we have this article here that has been online for almost four years as a WP:Coatrack most of the time with the claim that this camp was run by al Qaeda what is not verified at all. I have remove this misinformation here, it was re-added and i remove this misleading information again.
    • We have to be careful with some articles. If this article stays on or would be merged into an article that suggest something that is not verified than we are losing all trust of our readers.
    • Bottom line: I would like to ask you to have another look at the sources and to provide us with links to the multiple reliable sources. This here is everything we have so far.
    • If you can not provide us with multiple reliable sources or you do not reconsider your !vote than i highly suggest that your !vote and argument should be discounted by the closing administrator. Why? Because i care about Wikipedia and i sure you also do. IQinn (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Accurate reading of lack of consensus by closing admin, especially if the comments at what has essentially been a continuously running discussion over multiple AFDs is taken into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not even the creator of the article argued for keep since the 3th discussion and all keep arguments were debunked in the 4th. The closing admin did not really explain so far how he valued the strength of the arguments. Could you please just comment on the given arguments and policies. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete I was going to DRV this myself. I don't know the story behind, but no way the consensus was to keep. The only keep argument was rejected clearly in the AfD, by showing that the article cannot be based on more than a bare mention in a single source. --Cyclopiatalk 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and Merge as was suggested in the AfD and by the closer. No sense in losing the history. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What history is there that is worth saving? There is about one sentence worth of verifiable material in this three-sentence article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good start to me. Why lose the history of that content and its creation? Freakshownerd (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What valuable content would we be losing? If the article's creator wants to add a sentence about the camp to another article, there is nothing that prevents him from doing that now. No merge is needed for that. Merges are for cases where a significant amount of verifiable information may get lost. This is not one of those cases. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, as I can see, somebody has already added such a mention to Afghan training camp. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a huge issue in this particular instance, but especially for a subject where there's some disagreement over whether it's independently notable, it seems to me especially prudent to preserve the history in case substantial coverage emerges and it is appropriate to break the content back out. One of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is the way that changes can be preserved so that the history of an article can investigated. I don't see any advantage to losing those tidbits however small may appear to be now. Amnesia and alzheimers are diseases of the memory, and similar afflictions have a tendency to corrupt our history. Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my book, having a single one-sentence mention in a single document is as far as the subject can be from being notable without failing WP:V. That sort of thing ordinarily does not even warrant a redirect, since redirects are meant for likely search terms. This one certainly isn't a likely search term. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this: Khalid al-Asmr the article you want to merge to. I suggested this before and explained why above. Could you please clarify what article you mean. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete I never, ever, ever agree with overturning Admin decisions in a DRV -- not because Admins are infallible, but because because up until now I've never actually seen one where I find myself completely flummoxed as to how the Admin at issue came to the conclusion he/she did. I've seen plenty where I've disagreed with the outcome, but that's not the salient issue at a DRV. Here, I see absolutely no evidence that there is anything like consensus to Keep or "Keep as no consensus" (I'm not sure what that means -- which is not to say it's meaningless, this is actually a request for clarity if someone cares to offer). The one keep vote that actually offered an argument (the two others merely agreed) had their argument pretty thoroughly rebutted, in my view, and the snout count is 7 - 3 in favor of deletion (with one of the 3 keep votes qualified as a "weak" keep). Yes, I am perfectly aware that snout counts are not the be-all-end-all, but I'm not sure how you take a 7-3 count in favor of deletion, where only 1 of the 3 keep votes actually offered an actual argument, and where that 1 argument was subjected to a very policy-based rebuttal... I don't know how that amounts to a Keep consensus. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and Merge (per Freakshownerd). I'm a little concerned with the "veracity" of the attempts made in trying to delete this article; and what damage its existence actually does to the project. Option "B", please... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:NOHARM - a classic example of a bad AfD argument. As for "veracity", just what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that the arguments for deletion lack veracity? If yes, in what way? As for merging, the point has been already discussed above, in fact below Freakshownerd's comment. There is nothing to merge here and nothing of value in the article's history log that hasn't already been mentioned in another article. Plus, like I said above, a single source having a one-sentence mention of something does not usually merit even a redirect - redirects are meant for likely search terms. Nsk92 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the pointers! "Veracity" (headslap) - poor choice of words on my part, I guess. I'll comment further on this as it develops (or maybe I won't). We'll see... Doc9871 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. Not only were there more delete !votes, they were also far better grounded in policy. I have great respect for Anthony but it looks to me like he's misjudged this one. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without regard to the vote count, I believe the closing admin had the authority to close the {{afd}} on procedural gounds, because it had been disrupted. (1) Isn't a single nominator unhappy with previous {{afc}} closrures, keeping an article at {{afd}} for 52 days, is, I believe, unprecedented? (2) Aren't nominators obliged to offer collegial nominaions? Isn't the withholding of key information, like the original article creator asking for feedback on how best to merge the article information that should have been offered to participants in the {{afd}}? (3) Shouldn't nominators refrain from implying bad faith on the part of article creators, when asking for more input, as our nominator did at User talk:Jimbo Wales? (4) Aren't our decisions supposed to be made though a collegial discussion, where all the policy-based views are laid out? And is this process disrupted when the nominator chooses not to inform the article creator? I learned of the deletion when there were just hours before it closed. At that time I suggested relisting. I believe close as no-consensus due to disruption or relisting would have been appropriate choices. In my opinion, due to the diruption, neither a delete close of the 4th {{afd}}, or an overturn and delete conclusion here, are appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) Wrong. As explained above there where simply not enough participation in the first Afd's and in addition our article creator did not show any sign to work towards any consensus that did not meet his personal POV. His reluctance to fix the problem that he had created is unprecedented.
      • (2) Wrong. No information were withhold in the 4th discussion. All arguments where on the table including the one of the previous 3 Afd's. One sentence in one source and an article creator who is unwilling to follow the rules and to listen to the community.
      • (3) Wrong. My question to User talk:Jimbo Wales did not imply bad faith on your part. As i already have explained and clarified above.
      • (4) No. there was no disruption just our creator who had the opportunity to work with the community and towards consensus in all these discussions but did not do so. Like he did not show any will to work towards consensus in similar discussions. He should have agreed do move these articles to his user space long time ago. His behavior is in my opinion disruptive. IQinn (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Delete- Consensus was to delete. There is no room for administrator discretion here: the weight of numbers and weight of argument leaves no doubt what the consensus is. Reyk YO! 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Per the reasons articulately stated by JClemens. Accurate reading of lack of consensus by closing admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JClemens reason is based on his claim that there are multiple reliable sources but all the discussions and search over years have shown that there are no multiple reliable sources. Just one sentence in one source. I suggest the same as i have suggested under JClemens !vote. Please provide us with links to this sources as this is a highly doubtful claim or otherwise your !votes should be discounted by the closing admin as the basis for your argument is simply wrong. IQinn (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. The numerical count was clearly in favor of deletion, although in a range normally within the range of closing admin's discretion. Nonetheless, I respectfully disagree with the discretion of the closer in this case. The article's sourcing is not up to scratch, only one trivial mention of a camp which might have existed. All the "keep" votes seem to rely on a very thin foundation. The information on this supposed camp is so thin that there is absolutely no way a reasonable article, even a stub article, can be written. Nothing on the supposed location. Nothing on which people were a member. The camp is simply "too secret". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per the clear consensus in the AfD debate to delete the article. The "delete" votes were well-grounded in policy, whereas the "keep" votes and their assertions were not. It appears that a merge to Afghan training camp is not viable per this edit summary (rv - it is not verified by any source that the camp was in Afghanistan nor that it was used for militant training so i remove it per WP:V), so I support overturning to delete instead of overturning to merge. Cunard (talk) 18:33, 22 July 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 Black Hollies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting CSD. The group features three members of Rye Coalition and has three full-lengths out on Ernest Jenning; see [7] and [8]. Requesting Undeletion as the article is not a clear A7 target. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can't see the deleted version, but if Chubbles is willing to commit to sourcing and expanding this in a reasonable time frame, I'd support undeletion. Otherwise I've no opinion on the A7 as I can't see the article. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'll fix her up if she's in trouble. Chubbles (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would a time frame of say 7 days after this DrV closes be something you think you could manage? I just think people are more likely to support the restoration if someone says they will fix it in a certain period of time... Hobit (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or we could just userify it now for him to work on... Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Certainly, either works, but you're more likely to get more folks involved if it's in mainspace. Having it there for another week (assuming nothing actually happens) is an extremely minor cost. I can live with either... Hobit (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I can add a couple of references in this week. Chubbles (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate Any disputed speedy arguing for notability based on a willingness to add sources and expand the article should be respected (unless there is a BLP issue or some other supremacy clause involved. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse by default—the initiator of this DRV failed to discuss the XfD closure with the relevant admin, which is a required prelimanary step. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The deleting admin does not appear to be active right now. In any case, to keep the link red just for that reason is a bit lawyerly... Chubbles (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DRV clearly states, "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first," (bolding copied from the original). That seems very clear to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting Speedy Close. Ugh. I'll just recreate it. Chubbles (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't speedy-close if other editors have expressed multiple viewpoints. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Rachael Faye Hill – Close endorsed - with no objections to recreate the article if the subject achieves notability for more than one event. – SoWhy 06:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rachael Faye Hill (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi. I believe that this article should be un-deleted because there were relevant arguments that the topic met notability requirements WP:NOTABILITY and that other articles exist that have passed previous AfD's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rachael Faye Hill (the articles topic) was also featured on the Granada News channel today speaking about the book that she is currently writing which means that the article can no longer be described as WP:BLP1E. All of the sources are also WP:VerifiableCrazyMiner (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Sourcing is not the issue when deciding a one-event BLP. Policy was interpreted correctly in this case, nothing to overturn or review. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own Close Firstly, you are supposed to discuss concerns with the closing admin before listing a deletion review. Secondly this was deleted under BLP1E not notability so the question is whether the subject is notable for more then one event. The consensus was that she wasn't so under policy that was the correct close. Spartaz Humbug! 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse A reasonable close given the discussion, but NC would have been fine too. We have football players whose "one event" was doing well at sports. We have actors whose one event might be winning an Academy Award and then fading from view. Why not a record setting academic? Well, that would have been a great AfD argument, but as far as DrV goes, there was a reasonable belief that this had a BLP1E problem and no solid arguments to the contrary. So acceptable close. If and when her book comes out, I think we'd be past BLP1E though... Certainly not trying to maintain a low profile at that point and we'd perhaps have more than one event. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse classic one event; the counterexamples listed are for significant achievements, not merely graduating from medical school. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say getting a medical degree at 21 is a more significant achievement by nearly any measure than playing professional football. But more so, we use coverage, rather than our own opinions, to determine what is worthy of note. The coverage is there. Now is this one event? The AfD pretty much concluded yes, and so the closer correctly went that way. Do I think it qualifies as one event? No, not really, no more than winning a major prize or playing one season of a professional sport. It is a culmination of a lot of work and effort over an extended period of time and the coverage makes that really plain. Still more of an argument for AfD though, so I'll shut up. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The articles topic (Rachael Faye Hill) was on BBC news again today discussing her book along with additional sources emerging from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-10637958). I think that this article is moving past BLP1E due to the fact that there is increasing activity around her book. As such, I believe that notability outweighs the previous BLP1E argument that closed the AfD. CrazyMiner (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing a book about being the youngest doctor ever doesn't really advance the notability much. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recall notability isn't the issue, BLP1E is. No one, as far as I know, has contested her meeting WP:N. The question is if she violates BLP1E. And if she writes a book and that gets coverage I'd say A) we have more than one event and B) she's not maintaining a low profile so BLP1E wouldn't apply for 2 different reasons.
  • Advance the notability beyond BLP1E, I meant. She is not going to suddenly be known as an author now though, she still has nothing going for her, encyclopedia-wise, other than being a young doctor. We need to resist the urge to write articles about every insipid flavor-of-the-week news story. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty crazy slippery-slope. X is one event. Y only happened because of X. Z only happened because of Y. You could argue that a Einstein's one event was being smart and everything followed from that... In any case, the low profile part would be blown to heck if she goes on a book tour. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's why we have these sorts of discussions, to determine what is an actual event and what is not, or even if the event itself is so notable (e.g. John Hinckley) that it is an exception. 1E isn't a one-size-fits-all policy. Einstein is orders of magnitude more significant than big-breasted unemployed women and twenty-something doctors, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn to No Concensus. About an equal number of editors commented on both sides with concrete comments, some better-some worse. In my opinion that is the definition of NC. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a vote, look at the arguments not the headcount. See comment below the next vote. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As above, no concensus was achieved - there were the same number of votes for keep as delete. As per the requirements of closing an AfD, if no concensus is achieved then the article is to be kept. By applying this principle, the admin who closed the AfD as delete did so incorrectly and went against WP:Articles for Deletion. Due to this, the article should be reinstated. MartinManson (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not a vote you know. Consensus is judged by measuring arguments against policy and guidelines, not by counting snouts. N/GNG is a guideline which means its subordinate to BLP1E which is part of a policy. So, if there are not well founded arguments that this is not a BLP1E, which there were not, then the policy will trump a guideline every time. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware that it is not simply a vote, however there were sound arguments on both sides and so this is where the main lack of consensus lies. There were many arguments that the article was not simply a BLP1E in that Dr Hill has been featured on the news many times, most recently last night which is around 3 to 4 weeks since she first made the news. The fact that a book has also been discussed on the news etc means that BLP1E no longer really applies as there is more to the topic than one sole event. MartinManson (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse—a well-reasoned decision from an administrator faced with what was anyway a rough consensus to delete. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus; the vote was even and there were strong arguments on both sides to both keep and delete the article. CrazyMiner (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note—a query has been left for the initiator on their talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Ongoing news coverage suggests subject is notable beyond one event. If improvements in sourcing are still insufficient another AfD is also an option. At the very least userfy the thing and give it some time so the author can work it up. Cheers. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utterly illogical. There is nothing to work on; more work cannot make a "one event" event magically morph into one+. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. 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. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." If she is still being interviewed on television news, is writing a book, and still receiving coverage, those are good indications that she is not likely to remain a low profile individual and/ or that the event itself is notable. If the recent news coverage mentioned (that occured since the close of the AfD) isn't yet enough, then userfy, as I suggested, and allow the author time to see if additional coverage emerges. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, illogical. Articles are userfied because work could be done on them now, not to let it sit around and wait to see if things happen. If the situation changes down the road, undeletion can be requested. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot just constantly say that people's arguments are illogical. Some good points are being made here. Due to the fact that there is on-going coverage of the story 4 weeks after it originally emerged shows the fact that the topic is trying to gain wide spread notability. The fact that a book is being produced on medical education, not about herself, removes the BLP1E argument from the situation. MartinManson (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can constantly say whatever I please, it is up to him to refute it. This person is known for no other reason than being 21 and graduating form medical school. If she does something more with her life, great, come back in a few years and write an article. As long as it is just this "young doctor" angle, there is simply nothing to work with. Keep deleted, find something worthwhile to do elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can indeed say whatever you please, as can we all - I refute it. There have been just as many arguments for keeping this article as there have from you and a few others to delete it. In this regard no consensus was made as the arguments for deletion were just as strong as those to keep it. The story is still being discussed in the media; it was on the news today that Rachael Hill is going to appear on GMTV which is a UK daytime chat show as well as appearing live on Channel 7 news in Australia tomorrow night. THIS IS NOT A BLP1E - the topic has been constantly discussed over the past 4 weeks and is evolving all the time. To be honest I don't like your tone, as others haven't, which is evident by the fact that someone has recently created a complaint discussion about your attitude. MartinManson (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is still being discussed is largely irrelevant, if it still about the same young-doctor story. Encyclopedias are not a repository for every nicey-nice, feel-good headline story of the day; this is still nothing more special than one smart woman who graduated early, a real-life Doogie Howser. WP:BLP1E, textbook. And please, I know it's hard, but try a bit less discussion of me, and a bit more about the topic. Your arguments will come across as more credible that way. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On-going coverage of an article reinforces its suitability to be included in Wikipedia. Multiple, on-going new sources mean that the article should be included to support further research on the subject which yes, is a public interest article at the moment, but is prompting discussions of ethical and morale issues in relation to entering advanced education at an earlier age than others. Believe us all, it isn't hard to ignore you, but the way you are dealing with some other issues, including this one, at times borders on WP:UNCIVIL. CrazyMiner (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stop frothing at the mouth over me, please, it is quite unbecoming. There is little "on-going coverage", per Google news. That is not a whole lot of hits; what it is is exactly what you just admitted to, "a public interest article at the moment". Despite what you and some ardent supporters try to push other wise, it is no more than that. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ardent supports? No, just those who can see two sides of an argument. Google News is not the be all and end all of citation sources... for a start it does not include the Daily Mail which has the 2nd highest circulation in the UK at 2.2 million papers per day - this paper did a full page spread of Rachael Faye Hill on page 5. MartinManson (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The decision seems reasonable. If she becomes notable for her book, that's a different story, but it may never get written, who knows? And she isn't the youngest, as was made clear in her article, just the youngest in about 200 years (which is nice, but there's always going to be a youngest). Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - there will always be a youngest, but the fact that she is the youngest now is highly notable. Wikipedia is full of articles about people who have, for example, played professional football for a short while and then never really done anything else again, yet they have wikipedia articles about them. I put it to you all that this topic is a lot more notable than a short term athlete. MartinManson (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw with this argument is that WP:ATHLETE is a well-established and widely-accepted notability guideline, created to address athlete inclusion that may not meet the WP:GNG. Sadly, there is no WP:YOUNGESTDOCTOREVER to cover this specific topic, so the GNG and 1E are the measuring sticks that we use. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, she is not the youngest doctor ever, that so far as I can see goes to John William Polidori who received his degree as a doctor of physik, which was the 19th Century equivilant of a medical degree on 1 August 1815 "at the unusually early age of 19". Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow recreation No consensus was reached - strong arguments were made to both delete and keep the article. As such, I believe WP:NC applies here. The on-going coverage means that BLP1E is no longer relevant as the topic is not just a "news of the day" story. I also saw the news article about her appearing on GMTV which shows a strong, on going interest from the mainstream media. I also feel that deleting this article would be unjust as there are many different wiki entries about one-off celebrities that have attracted much less notability and a distinct lack of verifiable sources which goes against WP:verifiable. As such, I believe this decision should be overturned and the article recreated. CrazyMiner (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please strike this vote, you already voted by nominating and you don't get two votes when everyone else has one. Spartaz Humbug! 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF is rarely a valid argument. If there are other problematic articles that you know of, feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is infact a very valid argument - it is a mechanism for finding out whether an article has grounding to exist as a wikipedia article. Obviously another article of a similar topic does exist, WP:HEENAL RAICHURA to be exact. As such, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good argument that this article should be reinstated. CrazyMiner (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note—I now have reason to believe that the initiation of this DRV was wholly disruptive – ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 10:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you link to the right diff? That's a comment by you asking a question and him blanking it. Can't really get to where you are based on that. People can control their own talk page. Rude yes, but also allowed. Hobit (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Er—did you read the material he deleted? I asked if they would link to where they discussed with the closing admin before filing for DRV (as is required), and they removed my question without reply. From which one concludes that they did not fulfil the requirement, and will not even apologise for it, which is disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm, all he did was link to the DRV that he had already started. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a REQUIREMENT, it is SUGGESTED that the closing editor be contacted. I chose not to contact you which I am allowed to do. CrazyMiner (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first," (bolding copied from the original at WP:DRV) – you think that that's completely optional and just a suggestion? And if so, perhaps you could explain your reasons for choosing not to. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and people ignore or miss it all the time. Stifle and DGG even negotiated a standard question for that situation at some point I think and some folks !vote against those who bring DrVs here without contacting the admin first as a procedural thing. But it's not a sign of bad faith, just people who can't/don't read or choose to believe that doing so won't help (which it almost never does...) Hobit (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I overturned an afd close after reps on my userpage only the other day. Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Humm, first for everything :-). That one was a bit more open-and-shut however. Let's say I've never seen a request for an overturn happen when things weren't quite so black-and-white... Hobit (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody cheek! More seriously, if you check my talk page archives, you see multiple occasions where I spend a lot of time explaining and helping users over closes and it not irregular for me to restore or relist stuff for further discussion. I think its a good time saver for everyone if users check with the deleting admin first. I'm sure I'm not the only one willing to review closing arguments. However, in this case I have specifically indicated that I'm not entirely around right now (been to sisters for dinner tonight!) so I did invite editors to bother DRV regulars or come straight for DRV so by definition this DRV isn't disruptive. Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closing editors talk page said that he was on holiday from 25th July and so due to the timeframe involved I did not want to get into a conversation with him/her about reinstated the article to then find that he/she disappeared before a result was reached. Also Tarc, you seem to be taking a bit of a detective stance here - Constant questioning of my motives is getting a bit weary to be honest. I suggest that you take a bit more of a relaxed attitude to discussions on Wikipedia as it just puts everyone at ease. MartinManson (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not realized who the closing editor was (I knew he had that notice up). Hobit (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable rough consensus close. Userfy on request. This is a very new story. In time, less newsy material might arise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously strong arguments to both overturn and endorse the deletion. Can we have an admin to decide on this matter as I have additional references to add to this article from yesterdays newspapers - shows that interest has carried on and that the article topic (Rachael Hill) is actively seeking further notability even though I feel that the sources already present are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. MartinManson (talk) 00:21, 21 July 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_July_15&oldid=1150995462"