Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October

31 October 2010

Tarpaulin (fish) – DRV initiated by sock of banned user, now blocked. –  Sandstein  07:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tarpaulin (fish) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Deleting a page because you don't like my handle or don't know basic biology is not really reasonable. Or perhaps you can visit the Australian Museum and warn them of their "hoax" display. Sock Q. Faunce (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Blatant hoax, utter nonsense, waste of time. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Been to the Australian Museum lately? I think they may have some news for you. Sock Q. Faunce (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Comment Could someone block this account for the really obvious username violation? This is either a reincarnation or (more likely) an impersonation of a banned user, User:Cy Q. Faunce. This has languished for hours at UAA, and needs to be dealt with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Comment I resent the implication that I am impersonating anyone. I am not sure what to think about reincarnation. I do not really believe in it, but my sister says I said the same thing in my previous life. Sock Q. Faunce (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I find that to be an amazing coincidence, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Well, if you read my comment above with a very literal mind, you may discover its true meaning. I am not am impersonator, and I stand by that. Sock Q. Faunce (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 October 2010

Chris Scott (actor) – Opinions are mixed about whether the article should have been speedily deleted, but the nominator is working on a userspace copy to remedy the notability and COI issues. Nothing else for DRV to do here. – Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chris Scott (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Page was deleted as per WP:A7. Admin User:Toddst1 tagged it for speedy deletion, but I removed the template on the grounds that the article did assert the subject's importance, and I brought the matter up on the admin's talk page. Instead of trying to reach an agreement, however, the admin went ahead and deleted the article without consensus. Attempts at negotiation have been fruitless (see the talk page link above). Guoguo12--Talk--  00:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Could we see the article under consideration, please? It strikes me that A7's not a difficult criterion to comply with and the deleting admin's talk page responses don't appear to demonstrate approachability or a willingness to discuss.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. Even though its a BLP, it is not at all negative or controversial DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Restore and send to afdIt is almost always not a good idea to speedy delete an article after the tag was removed by an established editor, such as Guoguo12 certainly is. Speedy is for articles that can not be reasonably disputed; if an established editor disputes it, the assumption is that it was reasonable, and AfD is the place to decide. Unfortunately, it will almost certainly be deleted there unless additional information is added and sourced. todd is right that it is wholly inadequate, but if challenged in a case like this I let the community decide. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted Todd evidently applied WP:IAR here - there isn't a cat's chance in hell of this article surviving AfD. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.136.174 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC) At least there's a chance. In my opinion, the admin was not justified in going ahead with the delete without further discussion. Should the article be restored, at least we (whoever "we" are, since it's probably just me) might have a few days to gather reliable sources for verification. Is it okay if I copy the deleted material onto a temporary construction page in my userspace, or is that not allowed? Guoguo12--Talk--  03:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Hey guys, I understand that the content wasn't complete, however it didn't seem to stand a chance of further edit as it was deleted mere hours after it went up. I AM the actor concerned and hoped to complete the page now... I do understand I should have completed it in my sandbox first, however I am new to this. Well I guess I shall wait for someone else to create an (incorrect) page of me. For those interested you can see some of my credits at IMDb. Bluefreesia (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Bluefressia please read WP:COI. With regard to the article I am not seeing any claim to notability there and its an unsourced BLP. Guoguo12. exactly how did this assert notability? I can't see how this is an unreasonable decision and we certainly do not need to spend 7 days on process on a page that self evidently does not meet our inclusion criteria. If there are sources the page can be immediately recreated with sources. There are sources are there not? Spartaz Humbug! 03:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, my point is that, according to WP:A7, "the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The deletion was done as if the article had already been through AfD. Wikipedia is a work in progress, right? Had the article not been deleted by the admnin and simply tagged for AfD deletion, I could have at least tried to fix any problems. However, the COI is a major problem, a problem that probably certifies a rewrite. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC) You still haven't explained what the assertion of notability was. I'm not seeing it myself. Please can you clarify this point. Spartaz Humbug! 17:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Being in several movies and hosting a TV program. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC) That's not an assertion of notability that I recognise and, in the absence of any reliable sources whatsoever this clearly isn't worth listing at AFD as it can be restored instantly sources come up. Spartaz Humbug! 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Hence, I am working on sourcing here. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Note I suggest the appellant simply pick up the article, fix it such that it has a claim of notability such that A7 clearly does not apply, and continue editing it. DRV is not needed to recreate a version of an article which no longer meets the reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Again, what chance does it stand of further edit and inclusion of sources if it is deleted hours after it is put up? Perhaps it should be made explicit to new users that it is not acceptable to post information with a view to providing sources a few hours later - or else all information will be deleted in haste. I wish I had completed the article in its entirety before leaving the house to run errands. Exactly how did the article prove to be a COI? It provided information that is similar to all other actors bios (ie Personal Life background, Acting Career) and would have contained more had it been allowed to stand. Further information on Chris Scott can be found at www.chris-scott.info Bluefreesia (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Whoever claimed that the article was the result of a COI was right; most of the article was WP:OR. However, it still should not have been deleted via speedy deletion. It should have been tagged with {{or1}}, or at most sent to AfD. Speedy deletion should be used with caution for articles recently created. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Action taken: I have userfied this article per Guoguo12's request so that the article can be either gotten into shape or left deleted. The article can be found at User:Guoguo12/Chris Scott (actor). I apologize for my lack of process knowledge here, but I'll leave it to someone who knows DRV closing procedures better than I to tidy this up. Toddst1 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks, but I think I'll rewrite the article completely to eliminate the COI problem. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for giving me a chance to tidy things up. I have edited and taken a minimalist approach and only included info found on the website as noted in my post above. Not sure if this is the place to notify you I have done this. If this edit is still deemed inappropriate for inclusion here then so be it. It is heartening to know that Wikipedia is tightly controlled. As it should be. Bluefreesia (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC) What you need now is a reliable source that is independent of the subject and covers the topic in reasonable depth.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion From CSD to DRV in 1 step? Nobody looked at WP:REFUND? Nothing at all notable about the individual was asserted, and ref's show they do not meet WP:ACTOR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC) The article in question was controversially deleted, so I came here. Anyway, like I said above, speedy deletion is not for articles that don't meet notability inclusion criteria like WP:NACTOR (assuming that's what you meant); that's what AfD and Prod are for. If you read WP:A7, you'll find that significance/importance is a lower standard than notability. Being an actor in more than one significant movie (like The Matrix) is notability enough, in my opinion, to meet the guidelines at WP:NACTOR; however, that's something that should be discussed at AfD. Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "Being an actor in" and "having a significant role in" are 2 different things. Cops were not important in the Matrix - and almost every movie has a few of them. Kinda like the expendable crew member on any given Star Trek episode. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC) However, this is a notability issue, which is different from significance, and should be dealt with in an AfD discussion or tagged with {{Notable}}. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted but I'll stop short of endorsing. I just had a look at the version that was deleted and I can't fault the deleting admin much. Aside from a blurb at the end about the minor matrix role, the article looks like one of the typical "Joe Shmoe" vanity articles we get firehosed with and regularly delete under CSD A7. This is also one of the reasons we discourage autobiographies. Someone writing about themselves will understandably write about what they know about themselves whether or not there are sources while a third party will be more likely to build the article from already available sources. Also, an informal indication that a subject might be notable is if a third party who doesn't know the subject personally elects to write an article. At this point I would suggest allowing the current userspace draft to develope and if/when it's moved to article space, we can discuss it at AFD if there is still doubt about the subject's notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) At this point, this actually sounds fair because the userspace draft I am working on (here) is just about completely different from the originally deleted article. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion, the original article didn't assert notability, and I also don't see any substantive sources in the userspace draft specified. Name drops, such as credits, are not sources that demonstrate any notability, nor is having a minor film role. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 October 2010

Chris Molitor – There are really two issues here: 1. Was the article properly closed as "no consensus"? The notability arguments here demonstrate that consensus for either retention or deletion was not reached during the discussion, and the no consensus close is endorsed. 2. On the other hand, a minority of the commentators here opine that a no-consensus BLP should default to delete. That interpretation is Overturned: The article shall be retained for now, but it can be renominated for a fresh discussion in a sufficient period of time. – Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chris Molitor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This AfD was closed as no consensus, default to delete, which appears to be a misinterpretation of consensus. I refer to the following points below, as well as the discussion with the closing administrator. The closing administrator discounts the three keep arguments as merely being guideline based, but relies on the two delete arguments which cite no guidelines/policies and only use phrases such as "common sense" and "foolishness". To wit, the guideline cited is WP:ATHLETE, which is consensus based, whereas the deletion arguments revolve around nothing indicated in policy or guidelines. In his expanded rationale, the closing administrator states "Deleters made a case for ignoring the guideline in question, and the Keepers didn't demonstrate that we should follow it in this instance." However, because the notability of the subject was agreed upon by most participants (even those arguing to delete agree that notability exists, albeit possibly marginally) and WP:V was met (through the addition of sources), the burden of proof should be on those recommending deletion to clearly state (i.e., through guideline/policy) why the established consensus guidelines/policies should be ignored. To say that an unjustified argument of "common sense"/WP:IAR trumps one that is based in other policy/guidelines is questionable and leads to a misinterpreted closure; given the lack of such justification, the closing administrator appears to have given undue weight to those arguments. The closing administrator also states that BLP issues existed in the article and pushed the closure toward a deletion, and concurred with delete voters stating that the article is a magnet for vandalism. WP:BLPDEL indicates that [b]iographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed and that [p]age deletion is normally a last resort. While AfD is not cleanup, the WP:BLP concerns were appropriately addressed during the course of the discussion through cleanup of the article, addition of reliable sources, and oversighting of necessary diffs, meeting this aspect of the policy and not necessitating the given last resort. It appears that closure ignored the fact that the BLP issues were cleared up, albeit not in the most efficient way possible. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and to remove ostensibly legitimate content because of previous BLP issues and the hypothetical fear of future BLP issues is unjustifiable and is a slippery slope that could theoretically apply to all BLPs, and seems to contravene WP:BLPDEL. Further, while vandalism is a cited reason for deletion at WP:DEL, it is also clearly stated that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page. Given this, the weight given to the "magnet for vandalism" argument and its citation in closure appears to be unjustifiable. While a closure as no consensus could still be justified, albeit weakly, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, [i]n any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep. There is no precedent for a no consensus closure to default to delete, even in a WP:BLP setting. The closing administrator states that "the article had BLP issues, there is a precedent for defaulting to delete in the absence of a clear consensus" in his extended rationale. However, as indicated above, the BLP issues were taken care of, invalidating this clause of the rationale. Likewise, he attempts to cite precedent by indicating a previous case and its DRV in the extended rationale on his talk page; however, that case (due to its subject/nature) had significantly different issues than an article with a few diffs that had to be oversighted for hit-and-run vandalism, and appears irrelevant here. -- Kinu t/c 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse I'm glad this has come to DRV because it is certainly a DRV-worthy case. Regarding WP:ATH, I don't think the delete !votes (I was one) should be in any way discounted because of their conscious disregard of the guideline. The fact is that less people probably had input into the basketball element of WP:ATH than had input into this AfD. It was a borderline case on WP:ATH so the delete !voters were entitled to set aside the presumption (not guarantee) of notability created by the guideline (not policy). Admittedly, I could have done that in more comprehensive language. I endorse the "no consensus defaults to delete". It was a bold call that doesn't get explicit support in current policy, but the current policy should be changed to reflect it. It was the right call because it was a perfect example of us having no adequate mechanisms to prevent serious vandalism on marginally notable articles. Our protection policy doesn't allow us to deal with it properly. The BLP issues here were not "taken care of" - the problems were edited out, but there was no guarantee of an ongoing solution other than volunteering to watchlist the article. I think if there is firm evidence to suspect serious harm to a living person being caused by an article - as there was here - the default in a no consensus case should be to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Could you clarify as to why you feel the delete !voters were "entitled" (as you put it) to ignore the guideline? The fact that the notability was "marginal" appears irrelevant to that line of thought. --Kinu t/c 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I said "set aside" not "ignore". Anyone is entitled to argue with reason that a presumption of notability (or a presumption against notability) created by a guideline should be set aside; doing so is merely giving effect to the meaning of presumption (as opposed to guarantee). My reason was that the subject's appearances in the league were so brief, and the league - as compared with the other basketball leagues mentioned in NSPORT - is failing and not really professional any more. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC) To see that the league "is failing and not really professional any more" is an opinion that is better addressed (with evidence) in an overhaul of the criteria to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, not in its application/choice to ignore ("set it aside"... semantics). --Kinu t/c 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Likewise, "if there is firm evidence to suspect serious harm to a living person being caused by an article... the default in a no consensus case should be to delete". However, this is purely hypothetical (and is an opinion unsupported by policy), especially when the vandalism looked to be a case of hit-and-run. As indicated above, merely being vandalized once, even if it did warrant oversighting, in no way justifies paranoia as to possible future BLP vandalism as a reason for outright deletion. I'm sure there are many more popular BLPs that have been oversighted in their day... just because more editors tend to watchlist those doesn't mean they should be more protected from outright deletion. We may more easily revert/oversight that vandalism by virtue of the articles' popularity/visibility, and thus certain niche BLPs might be more prone, but the popularity/visibility of an article should in no way influence whether a previously-vandalized BLP should be kept or deleted. Similarly, you say the BLP issues were not "taken care of"... to have them oversight them removes them from public (and even private) viewing, and for the sake of the article's history it is as if they never existed. What else is there beyond that? Deletion accomplishes nothing that has already been implemented, hence it has been "taken care of." --Kinu t/c 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC) It is completely evident that WP:ATHLETE needs a major overhaul. I would go into further detail, but it would be a waste of server space to simply duplicate what Mkativerata says. Endorse for the exact same reason. NW (Talk) 20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC) While WP:ATHLETE may need a major overhaul, WP:DRV isn't the place to proselytize about what WP:ATHLETE or any other notability guideline should be, which as indicated is precisely the problem that occurred at the AfD and its closure. It may be far from perfect, but as it exists in its current form should be the way that it is applied, and to ignore it without proper justification seems to be grossly negligent and subjective. --Kinu t/c 20:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC) If the policies have failed us for providing quality articles that follow content policy, we are perfectly entitled to set them aside. This instance has shown us a clear case where the notability policies have failed. NW (Talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I do not see it as being a "clear" failure, as you indicate. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are met in the article. WP:BLP was met through correction of the issues. WP:ATHLETE is supported. To say that policies or guidelines do not apply in this case without further elaboration is quite vague, as has been the problem with this AfD situation in general. Please elaborate. --Kinu t/c 23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC) If we cannot assert that our biographies of living, breathing persons will be fine with a fair degree of certainty, then somewhere along the line we have failed. And we have failed in this regard, as a hundred thousand different things over the past several years have shown. Therefore, despite the fact that it does not provide us with a standard set of specific notability criteria to follow as we blindly have for far too long, we must learn to reembrace WP:IAR, something that I think has been forgotten for far too long. My two cents. NW (Talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I'm aware of a couple of occasions in the past where admins have decided that a no consensus outcome with a BLP defaults to delete. It's always a blatant act of sysop fiat. There's been no discussion that led to a consensus that such a close is permissible. And admins are elected to enforce the community's rules. Not their personal rules—those of the community. A good closer is one who can suppress their own opinion and implement the outcome of a discussion. If they personally disagree with that outcome, then the proper thing to do is to !vote. The closer justifies himself in the talk page discussion by pointing out that the article has been vandalised in the past, and I'm not impressed with that as a reason for deletion. I'm open to further discussion on this if there's some aspect that I've missed, but for the moment my position is very strongly and definitely overturn to "no consensus, defaulting to keep".—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC) It wasn't so much past vandalism, but BLP violations so bad they had to be oversighted (unfortunately I can't remember what they were). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Sure, Mkativerata, I accept that there are oversighted revisions. There are such revisions in other articles as well, many of which haven't been deleted. I also agree that there's a general problem with articles that aren't on anyone's watchlist, in that someone might slip a dubious revision past the new pages patrollers. (BLPs are hardly special cases in this respect, by the way; the worst problem I ever saw was in an article about a school. Someone had accused a teacher of being a paedophile and posted his name and the location of his house in the article. My point is that it doesn't have to be a BLP to have a risk of harm to living people.) But although I accept that there's a problem, I don't accept that the answer is for admins to go about inventing novel closes. The fact is that while our admins are by and large entirely well-meaning, there are children and self-confessed drug users among our admin corps; admins definitely don't have a monopoly on good judgment. That's why they don't get a free pass to disregard the community consensus. I mean, if the closer can ignore the discussion, or invent his own interpretation of it, then why do we bother bringing BLPs to AfD at all? We might as well move BLPs onto a new board called BLPfD, where a random admin looks at the article and decides what to do with it without any community input. No?—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I take your point but I'm not sure this an "admin judgment" case. It merely shifts the default to "delete" if serious BLP violations have not been addressed. The only way in which the admin can be said to have gone against the community's consensus here is that there is no clear policy to support "default to delete" in these cases. But such policy shifts come best from being bold in individual cases like this and testing the community's views at DRV, not proposing changes on deletion policy talk pages.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC) First, don't we normally prefer to fix things than to delete them? Second, how is it not a case of admin judgment if the admin is the one deciding what the default for "no consensus" is? And third, aren't admins elected by the community on the basis that they can be trusted with the tools?—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (1) Our protection policies don't allow for this problem to be fixed through protection; (2) what I mean is that the admin didn't supervote - it was a no consensus and he/she called it as such; (3) well, yes. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (1) The closer's already decided to disregard the normal rules. But, stipulating for a moment that the normal rules could reasonably have been suspended, protection would be less extreme than deletion, wouldn't it? (2) With respect, a close as "no consensus, defaulting to delete" seems to me to be a very clear supervote; and (3) Wouldn't you agree that "trusted with the tools" means only using them in ways the community expects?—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) You say "policy shifts come best from being bold in individual cases like this and testing the community's views"... does this not violate WP:POINT? Administrators are entrusted to read consensus at AfDs based on what policy/guidelines are, not to use a closure to put forth an argument about what policy/guidelines should be. --Kinu t/c 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. "No consensus, default to delete" is not only contrary to policy; it represents a position that has repeatedly failed to garner community support despite prolonged and extensive efforts. Administrative authority is used only to implement community and Foundation decisions, not to enforce what an administrator believes the decision should have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Obvious overturn No consensus might be right, default to delete isn't. That's against policy. It's been discussed many times and it's clear there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that such closes should not be made. Finally, the reason for going against policy is bogus. Yes, there was a significant BLP issue for a long time. But having people add it to their watchlist solves the problem. Deletion is not needed, so violating policy in this way doesn't even serve a useful purpose. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse In the case of barely or non-notable BLPs no consensus should always default to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC) But you'd agree that isn't supported by policy or guideline yes? Hobit (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Policy is descriptive not proscriptive so I'm sure that at some point in the near future practise and written policy will reflect this point of view. Spartaz Humbug! 11:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Nah. While I'm sure that the usual suspects will be along shortly to support you in this, the fact is that there's fundamentally no consensus on this issue. This means the "BLPs default to delete" camp won't manage to push through the necessary RFC, so it won't be a valid decision by the rules. However, DRV is set up so that a "no consensus" outcome protects the closing admin's out-of-policy decision, as you will see from the many times this has been discussed before. It's annoying that a minority group persists in getting away with this, but they're admins with tenure, so what can you do?—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC) This comment reeks of bad faith S,Marshall. Spartaz Humbug! 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC) But I'm not wrong, am I?—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC) S Marshall, you know better than this. Despite the fact that we often disagree, I respect your editing. You know just as well as I that one cannot just make implications of canvassing or whatever else without something to back the statement up. NW (Talk) 03:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I'd thought it was established a closed site had been set up for people to discuss the BLP issue? I could go back and hunt down those discussions from a while back, but I didn't think the people involved had denied it. The URL was even posted a few times. Am I misremembering? Hobit (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I must say that, while what I said is my genuine opinion and has been for a long time now, and I do stand by it, I put it less delicately than I usually would. There were unrelated reasons why I was in a very bad temper yesterday. For the avoidance of doubt, I did not suggest canvassing. I did imply (and I'm now saying outright) that there is a substantial pressure group of established editors who have strong opinions about BLPs, who regularly say that BLPs should default to delete at AfD, who usually show up at DRVs on the subject, and who can often be found talking about the subject on- and off-wiki. I view these editors as resembling the article rescue squadron in that they genuinely believe in what they're doing, but they're attempting to work in ways that aren't the community norm and in ways that I occasionally find irritating (as in this case).—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry but I want to be very clear whether S Marshall is accusing me of off-wiki collusion without evidence? Please can you clarify this? Spartaz Humbug! 12:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I said "there is a substantial pressure group". I didn't say "Spartaz is doing this". My remarks were in response to yours but not aimed at you personally, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't think Spartaz is active on the BLP noticeboard on the Wikipedia Review. However, it's easy to identify others who are, including quite a few with mops.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep- This shouldn't even be an issue. Notability was established, and several editors pointed this out in the AFD. There is no way that should have been deleted on notability grounds. Also, it has been long established that no consensus=default to keep, BLP or not. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Marginal BLP, a finding of delete is within admin discretion. I would also note that an admin Kinu (talk · contribs) who participated in the AfD to keep also restored the article pending this DRV. That seems highly improper, not only as a deletion discussion participant...and one on the other side of the final finding...but also if it was deleted then it should stay deleted pending this DRV. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC) There is hardly anything improper about temporarily restoring the content and history of the article so that DRV participants can make a judgment about whether the concerns leading to deletion were properly addressed and weighed by the closing administrator during the course of the AfD. Likewise, my keep !vote at the AfD and choice to DRV are not related, per se; anyone can see that the former was based on my interpretation of policy/guidelines regarding article content, and the latter is based on my interpretation of policy/guidelines regarding AfD closures. I have no investment in this article beyond that. --Kinu t/c 17:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Eh, I don't see the issue with it. It's standard practice to restore the article while it is at DRV, and someone would have done it. Better sooner than later. NW (Talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse (as original AfD nom) - opinions at the AfD clearly show that notability is marginal at best, and the taking into account of long standing damaging material and closing as delete is easily within the closing admin's discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC) overturn If anything consensus supports notability. The fact that there have been BLP problems that have since been corrected doesn't mean that this article as it stands has any BLP problem so arguing that it should somehow be pushed over to delete simply doesn't hold water. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Overturn to Keep consensus was for retention and directly addressed the issue of notability. Deletion by the closing admin is contrary to community consensus on handling "no consensus" cases, even if there was indeed justification to close as "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus defaulting to keep. I would support "no consensus" defaulting to "delete" in rare situations such as the subject requesting deletion through OTRS but not in this case. The issue is WP:NSPORT which applies whether or not the subject is alive or dead. Also, on S Marshal's semi-sarcastic mention of WP:BLPFD, I suggested something very similar to that a few years ago on the Wikien mailing list (BLPs for discussion). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Overturn (keep/no consensus). There was no consensus to delete. "No consensus defaults to delete" has been proposed before and soundly rejected. The finality of a deletion decision requires a consensus. If it should be deleted, you should be able to convince the community. There were no serious BLP concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, default to keep. No consensus, default to delete has never had community support. The article as it stands isn't a BLP violation. Nowhere in BLP policy does it say that past vandalism is a valid reason to delete a BLP-compliant article. The Keep arguments make valid guideline-based arguments regarding notability; the delete arguments fail to explain why [{WP:NSPORT]] should be ignored in this case. The AfD was relisted a week before closure and the only opinion since then was Keep, so why is the consensus to delete stronger now than it was then? This looks like an obvious overturn. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, default to keep. It is DRV decisions that ultimately refine and change deletion policy. When there are sufficient consistent decisions, these should lead to any required changes in policy and guideline statements. It seems to me me that community consensus remains that "no consensus" leads to "keep" even for BLPs. The present discussion (and my own personal view) supports that. The closure was contrary to policy. Thincat (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion, it's long past time to get past the idea that "passing ATHLETE" (or any subguideline) excuses an article from actually having sufficient sourcing to sustain it. Subguidelines only can note where substantive sourcing is more likely. They may never supplant the requirement that it actually exist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Overturn: we have three separate issue here: 1) Should BLPs default to delete; 2) Is WP:ATHLETE or WP:NSPORT still a "brightline" rules 3) should vandalism in an article have any impact on AfD decisions. I think that generally BLPs should default to delete, but WP:ATHLETE should be followed and vandalism is not a case for deletion. I actually saw the vandalism before it was oversighted (was unable to edit it out myself at the time, and it was oversighted before I got back to it, but remember thinking "Why didn't Kevin, the defender of all things BLP, delete the vandalism when he nominated it for deletion?"). It also wasn't subtle, hard to detect, easy to believe, defamatory vandalism, it was mindless drive-by obvious vandalism, by a single post user (who, incidently hasn't edited since, but also hasn't been blocked, so could return and edit/vandalise more). The thinking behind the WP:ATHLETE guideline is that if you've played professional sport, even only 4 games, there is probably, somewhere, online or offline, some significant coverage. We just haven't found it yet. The long-term vandalism indicates that it probably wasn't on many watchlists, something that is being worked on by some people - see User_talk:Scott_MacDonald/Pragmatic_BLP. So all up, there is nothing special about this case that shouldn't be covered by the WP:ATHLETE guideline and an improvement in BLP watching. The-Pope (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Coy Stewart – No opposition to recreation was raised, article has been recreated by the appellant. Any editor is free to AfD this new article again should concerns persist – Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Coy Stewart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Coy Stewart is in American child actor who currently co-stars in the TBS sitcom Are We There Yet?. The series was renewed for 90 additional episodes in August [1] [2] and is currently on hiatus. I know the reason for the deletion fell under under WP:TOOSOON at the time, but I am requesting that I have permission to re-create this page with a few of this references that I found: [3] [4] [5] QuasyBoy 17:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation without prejudice to a future AfD. The 2nd and 3rd sources listed are enough to believe . Please be aware that you need to be very careful with the BLP of a minor. Also, you might want to notify the folks from the AfD of this DrV as I think their input would be especially useful here. Do note though that if you notify any of them, you need to notify all of them (See WP:CANVAS) Hobit (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for understanding I will notify the nominator now. :) QuasyBoy 19:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation as the primary reasons for deletion appear to have been addressed due to the show being aired and the providing of at least a few reliable sources. Per Hobit, WP:BLP applies, and no prejudice to a future AfD if appropriate. --Kinu t/c 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Laura Massey – Deletion endorsed; recreation not permitted. – T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 5#Laura Massey|Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 5 § Laura Massey]] Laura Massey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Laura Massey is a major part of the Microsoft's Xbox "public face". Her deleted Wikipedia article is more of a paragraph, which is badly written and sources no content I don't blame anyone for deleting this article. However we need to move past that and look at Laura's history of accomplishments as she does deserve to be fully documented on Wikipedia. On January 13, 2010 Laura Massey created a new Engineering Blog for Microsoft "Xbox Engineering Blog" http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/engineeringblog and she wrote the very first article "Welcome to the New Blog Post" http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/011310-Welcome which was then later sourced on news site CVG in their article "MS launches Xbox Engineering Blog" http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=231769?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-News-RSS On March 27th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned on gaming news site joystiq in their article "PAX East: Tour Microsoft's N.E.R.D. Cambridge office with us" http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/27/pax-east-tour-microsofts-n-e-r-d-cambridge-office-with-us/ showing the Microsoft's New England Research & Development Center at Cambridge On April 30th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned on news site Platform Nation in their article "Free Code Friday: Are You Missing Out?" http://www.platformnation.com/2010/04/30/free-code-friday-are-you-missing-out/ describing the challenging giveaways that Laura Massey does over her twitter account http://twitter.com/lauralollipop on select Fridays On June 14th, 2010 Laura Massey was the keynote speaker at the 2010 E3 Xbox 360 Media Briefing for Microsoft Electronic Entertainment Expo 2010 debuting a revolutionary motion controlled video chat system named Kinect chat. Kinect Laura appears in this video at 02:03 http://cnettv.cnet.com/e3-2010-microsoft-kinect-xbox-360/9742-1_53-50088986.htmln This is one of if not the most significant gaming events to happen every year and Laura was live onstage being broadcasted over the internet and television (G4TV coverage). Laura is an inspiration to many other girls in the technology industry, as noted in this aspiring student's blog "My sickness and “fanboy” moment" http://blogs.utexas.edu/cs/2010/09/23/my-sickness-and-fangirl-moment/ Many news outlets picked up Laura's E3 2010 coverage and wrote their own articles about her, which I will list below. "Microsoft E3 Press Conference Details" http://www.worldofmeh.com/2010/06/microsoft-e3-press-conference-details/ "E3 2010: Microsoft Press Conference" http://www.slowdown.vg/2010/06/17/e3-2010-microsoft-press-conference/ "Microsoft Kinects with Dallas from E3" http://www.leadershell.com/2010/06/14/microsoft-kinects-with-dallas-from-e3/ "Avatar: The Last Airbender – The Burning Earth" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Burning_Earth "PsEG's E3 Ramblings: June 14th, 2010" http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/pseg/psegs-e3-ramblings-june-14th-2010/30-52998/ On September 5th, 2010 Laura Massey was on the first Podcast to ever record a show in the famous Benaroya Hall Benaroya Hall Major Nelsons Podcast entitled "PAX Prime 2010 LIVE Show" http://majornelson.com/archive/2010/09/05/pax-prime-2010-live-show.aspx On this podcast Laura was also the first ever to perform at Benaroya Hall using a Livescribe pen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002DJV83Y/amazon0b53-20/ as a musical instrument (piano). As such Laura Massey joins the long list of musician's to preform at Benaroya Hall in front of a large live audience. On October 7th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned in the famous Wired UK magazine by her first name Laura as "Kinect engineer" http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2010/11/features/the-game-changer On October 8th, 2010 Laura Massey was coined in a definition at urban dictionary "Codist" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=codist Bawitdaba1337 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Analysing each of those sources in turn against the actual criteria of WP:N to see if they really are reliable independent sources that provide in-depth coverage, I see that the hit rate isn't very good. 1) The xbox.com material is by Laura herself, hence is not independent. 2) The computerandvideogames.com material is not an independent analysis, it simply reports what she said. 3) The joystiq.com material is a passing mention of Laura's name, not in-depth coverage. 4) The platformnation.com material is a passing mention of Laura's name. 5) Twitter is user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source. 6) Wikipedia is user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source. 7) The cnet.tv source can't immediately be ruled out. 8) The blogs.utexas.edu is a blog, hence user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source. 9) The worldofmeh.com source analyses the content on the cnet.tv, and also can't immediately be ruled out. 10) The slowdown.vg source disparages the cnet.tv material, but that actually enhances the case for notability (because it implies it's receiving attention from sources not associated with the subject). 11) The leadershell.vg source is in exactly the same category as 9. 12) The giantbomb.com source destroys its own credibility with the words: I wonder if Laura's presenting this as part of (Hi I'm Larry Hryb, Xbox Live's) Major Nelson's attempt to get her Wikipedia article back from the pits of deletion and can safely be ignored. 13) The amazon.com source doesn't mention Laura Massey. 14) Wired.com would be an excellent source if it had anything substantial to say about Laura Massey, but unfortunately it's only a passing mention of her name. 15) Urbandictionary.com is user-submitted content and hence not a reliable source. It follows that of the many links in the nomination, the four worth following up are cnet.tv, worldofmeh.com, slowdown.vg and leadershell.vg. I'll leave it to others to make a detailed analysis of those sources.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I would say the cnet.tv source can be directly ruled out. The requirement is that the source is non-trivial coverage, to qutoe the WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The cnet.tv source is not about Massey, it does not address the subject of Laura Massey. The sources analysing that fall into the same category, the coverage is not because or about Massey, it's about the event, it could have been anyone doing the presentation on kinect and they would have written the same commentary--82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse and speedy close. The nominator concedes that the deletion was appropriate and in-process, and provides no reliable sources with nontrivial content. This article was being recreated ad nauseam, despite the clear consensus at the original AFD and the first DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion and salting. The DRV rationale concedes that consensus to delete was appropriately ascertained. None of the sources above indicate any significant coverage beyond trivial mentions that would have swung the AfD consensus in the other direction or warrant recreation. --Kinu t/c 00:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted. We're told above that Laura Massey is a major part of the Microsoft's Xbox "public face". I don't know what this means. As I read on, I learn that she created a blog and that she was the keynote speaker at the 2010 E3 Xbox 360 Media Briefing for Microsoft. Now, being the keynote speaker at an academic conference is something at which my ears would prick up. But at a PR event by one company for one of its products? No. My own requirements for "notability" have sunk over the years here -- and I'll accept that she is a genuine human (in contrast to all the ingredients of fictional "universes" that get articles hereabouts) -- but I see nothing. Quite aside from the quality or quantity of the evidence proffered for it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review so the non admins can see it DGG ( talk ) 12:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Deletion Having the article restored only provides confirmation that the subject is not notable. While the close could have been a "no consensus", the close was justifiable. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alex Biega – No consensus. Yet another case involving different interpretations of the phrase "substantially identical" in CSD G4. And once again, we have trouble coming to a consensus in borderline cases such as this one. There's the "address the reason for deletion" camp, which favors reading G4 broadly to touch upon questions normally within AfD territory as long as they were considered in the previous AfD , and those who favor a more literal reading, so that articles not "substantially identical" - in the literal sense - are excluded. There is no consensus here for either of the two interpretations, and since several of the overturn !voters suggested that this will not be kept at AfD, I am disinclined to list this at AfD on closer's discretion. Accordingly, the deletion is endorsed by default. – T. Canens (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alex Biega (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I was referred here by the deleting editor (see here). The article was originally deleted after a discussion (I was not involved in) on 15 December 2009, however that discussion did not consider that the subject had been selected as a member of the 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team, thereby meeting the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY of achieving preeminent honours. I created from scratch a new article (different from the deleted version), but this was speedy deleted by Jayjg (as both nominator and executioner) without discussion as a “G4 Speedy Delete”. I think that G4 does not apply because the page deleted is not "substantially identical to the deleted version" and further, "the reason for the deletion no longer applies" because the article now highlights that the subject meets the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. I request that my version of the Alex Biega article be restored. If a deletion discussion is again warranted it can then be brought to a new AfD where the notability of 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team selection can be discussed. Dolovis (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC) G4 reads: 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 (emphasis mine). Jayjg has misapplied G4. Overturn and restore without prejudice to a subsequent AfD.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse The content of the two articles are substantially the same, the wording might be different but there is no additional content (other than listing some acheivments) that wasn't on the original for the most part which is what the G4 wording in my opinion is intending to convey. G4 most certainly applies here. The fact that he won the 2007 ECAC all-rookie team was known at the time of his articles deletion. Remember that WP:NHOCKEY does not guarantee an article, it is only a guideline as to when sources are likely to exist. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC) It may have been "known", but it wasn't in the version which was considered and deleted. I'm not seeing a mention of it in the AfD or the article. It may have existed, but it's not clear it was taken into account. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn Not substantially identical, AfD discussion is warranted, and a year may have provided more coverage. The propriety of an original AfD closing administrator subsequently G4'ing a recreation (on other than obvious copyvio, hoax, or defamation grounds) is problematic--one suspects Jayjg might be too close to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Is it not common for a closing admin to watch to ensure discussions they closed aren't recreated? I thought that was expected of a closing admin. I have no problem with it going to Afd if thats where consensus is. But I don't think Jayjg acted in bad faith as your comment suggests. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Your understanding of the role of the closing admin accords with my own, Djsasso. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I watch plenty of things I've deleted, too. But when G4 does not apply, as it did not here, I don't go about deleted things myself without tagging them. Administrators should always seek a second opinion in cases where they might appear to be biased, and deleting an article as G4 which had not been tagged by any other user smacks of acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Except that G4 does apply here, which is why I deleted it in the first place, and G4s aren't a special class of speedies that must be tagged before being deleted. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'm simply the closing admin here, and there's no rational claim of "bias". Jayjg (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I get that you think it applies--but you are wrong. It's not the same article, and "same claims of notability", even if it were correct (it's not), isn't grounds for a G4. Really, the best thing for you to do is admit that most of the people commenting here agree that it wasn't a G4 and that your deletion was out of policy, and agree not to do it again. Furthermore, WP:INVOLVED doesn't require actual bias, just the appearance of bias, as I know well from personal experience. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I would hardly say most people here have said it doesn't apply. 5 out of 12 have agreed with his deletion, so nearly half. So nowhere near what I would call most have said he was wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Endorse: I would think so as well. As the original author of the WP:NHOCKEY guideline, I'm not remotely sold on Dolovis' premise - there was no intent then, and has been no consensus subsequently, to consider an All-Rookie citation a "preeminent" honor in the same breath as "all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American," the examples given. Rather than overturn for an article bound straight for AfD out of process worship, perhaps Dolovis should consider going to the hockey project talk page and test his premise that such a citation would be so regarded.  Ravenswing  19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn for the reason it is not a G4. Besides the All-Rookie honor (among others) some things have changed since 2009 and it's probably worthy of another look. Biega is out of college and really impressed the Sabres at Camp a few months ago. I believe he's considered one of their top D prospects. Also he's signed a 2-way contract with the Sabres and currently playing on their AHL affiliate now. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC) None of which is relevant to WP:NHOCKEY, which states he should have played at least 100 games with in the AHL before being considered notable. So far he's played 1 game. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC) It's worth an AfD not a speedy deletion being that it is different from past versions. Oh and btw, he's played 7 AHL games, so just 93 more, lol. A more useful fact than the awards and honors is that he's not just a college hockey player that's drafted (Afd in Dec 2009). He's a pro hockey player signed by the Sabres currently assigned to the AHL affiliate (speedy in Oct 2010). Bhockey10 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC) NSPORTS was created a few months ago for the specific purpose of helping to weed out players like this who have barely played pro. It is no longer good enough to just be a pro. That stopped being the case months ago. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. I rarely participate on the rare occasions my deletions go to DRV, but I'll make an exception here. The new article was a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" because it contained nothing new in it that overcame the unanimous objections of the editors involved in the original AfD, specifically that the individual failed WP:ATHLETE and WP:NHOCKEY. As for being "a member of the 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team", that happened two years before the AfD, so it wasn't something new that happened to the individual since the time of the AfD. In addition, as pointed out by the original author of WP:NHOCKEY, it's not a "preeminent honor" anyway. Jayjg(talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Here is a recent Afd on another player who was an all-rookie team member himself who had it mentioned in the afd itself and it was said that wasn't preeminent. As such nothing substantial has changed. -DJSasso (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Your example is not even close to being comparable to the current situation: [Frank Pallotta] played a grand total of 49 games in the OPJHL, which is several steps below the USHL. Dolovis (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Except that his All Rookie came from college hockey not the OPJHL, and the OPJHL is the same level as the USHL anyways. I would also note that the hockeydb is missing a number of years of his stats. hockeydb is very often not updated as well as it could be for junior and minor league seasons because the information is harder for the site owner to find. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Overturn: By Jayjg's above logic, once a unanimous AfD discussion has concluded, then it must never again be revisted. That is (hopefully) not true. My argument is that this article should be discussed at a new AfD, and not unilaterally 'Speedy Deleted' under G4 (which does not apply). At the next AfD, these other "awards and honours" (which were not discussed in 2009) will also be considered when determining notability: 2006-07: Won the George Percy Award as the Crimson's top rookie (shared with Doug Rogers)[6] 2006-07: Named to ECAC Hockey League All-Rookie team[7][8][9] 2008-09: Awarded the John Tudor Memorial Cup as the Crimson's most valuable player[10] 2008-09: Selected to the New England All-Star team and All-Ivy League first team[11] 2009-10: Named the 116th captain of Harvard men's hockey[12] Dolovis (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Teams and conferences generally dole out honors and awards, and most teams do indeed elect captains. There is a reason I used the term preeminent honor. Biega was not an All-American, he did not win the ECAC scoring title, he is not in the NCAA's all-time top ten scorers, and the direct intent from the start - supported by consensus thereafter - was for the bar for low minor leagues, junior hockey and college hockey to be exactly that high. Once again, if you want to change consensus and water down the standards, this isn't the place for it.  Ravenswing  23:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC) You may make that argument at the next AfD. the point of this discussion is whether or not the article was a candidate for G4 Speedy delete, and if the nominating editor should also be the deleting editor. Dolovis (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I think DRV is addressing speedies recently in an entirely wrong-headed manner: unless there's clear harm for restoring an article, (G10, G11, G12) any contested speedy should simply be restored and listed at AfD. Dragging out notability arguments here that belong in an AfD is unhelpful. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC) And it has never been the case that contested speedy's go to AFD. Feel free to gain some consensus beyond your own view to change this long standing position, but this DRV isn't the right place. Given the vast quantity of crap which is created and deleted which doesn't fall into your limited list I can't imagine stuffing AFD with them is going to be useful. PROD was designed to fit the gap, those things which aren't by consensus immediately deletable and those things where AFD is possibly too heavyweight. FWIW I'll agree that going too far off no a notability isn't relevant for DRV, but I'd expect whoever closes it to ignore the irrelevant discussion.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Dolovis, it's not at all "my logic" that "once a unanimous AfD discussion has concluded, then it must never again be revisted." - that's just some odd straw man you've invented. My logic is, once an AfD discussion has concluded with a delete decision, a new article on the topic should not be created unless it addresses in some substantial way the reasons for the deletion - i.e. the article is no longer "substantially identical to the deleted version" and further, "the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Also, we can't really "discuss" whether "the nominating editor should also be the deleting editor", since I'm not the "nominating editor", I'm just the "deleting administrator". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and speedy deletes do not all need to be "nominated" before they are deleted. Jayjg (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Overturn Not a G4 unless I'm missing something about the awards in the article or AfD. Certainly think this should go to AfD (again) though where I suspect it won't make it. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC) At this rate by the time we get consensus if it should be recreated and go back to AfD he'll have played an NHL game and that'll solve the issue (which likely will come in the next few months anyway). Bhockey10 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. On balance, given the passage of time, it is not an obvious G4. It'll probably get deleted at AfD again, but that's a discussion for there, not here. QU TalkQu 09:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Tacking on another award or two is not substantively different IMO, this is still a notability failure. If this kid is such a hot prospect, just wait a few months until he laces up for an NHL game. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) One thing an AfD would be good for is that since he signed with the Sabres there looks to be quite a bit of independent, reliable sources written so it's worth an AfD look because he might pass GNG without playing his first NHL game yet. The whole point of this discussion is that it's not a speedy deletion candidate, and esp for the reason given. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, clearly not a G4, if for no other reason than that the original AFD (and in particular the original close) stressed that the subject had zero professional experience, while the article version that was supposedly identical discusses his (so far brief) post-AFD professional career. The article might not survive another AFD, but that's the process called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion, as there is still no provision of substantive sources capable of sustaining the article. Subguidelines on notability never override that requirement, only note where it is more likely to be met. Subjects which do not in fact meet it still must go. If he's really that good, maybe he'll have sufficient coverage for an article someday. We can write it after that happens. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 October 2010

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game – Overturn deletions without prejudice for future listing(s) at MfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) More specifically I'm requesting the reinstatement of Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Fixed Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Radial Ultra Cross Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Radial Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game and all other pages linked from Template:Word Association The word association subpages were not nominated, tagged nor discussed in the linked MfD discussion, nor were regular contributors notified. Several precedents have shown support for keeping the word association games. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandbox/Word Association (speedy keep, August 2005) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (3rd nomination) (keep, March 2007) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (2nd nomination) (no consensus November 2006) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games (Word Association kept, January 2007) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 4 (keep undeleted) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (4th nomination) (no consensus, July 2007) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (5th nomination) (speedy keep, August 2007) I can't find the other, more recent, discussions I know that I have resulted in "keep" outcomes, nor the 2nd nomination at MfD the outcome of which I presume was "keep" or "non consensus"), nor at least one other DRV that I remember commenting on. Given that no discussion to date has resulted in a consensus to delete the word association games, to delete them with no discussion seems wrong to me. To be clear, although I favour keeping these pages I have no prejudice against anyone who wishes to discuss their deletion again, but only if all parties are informed about the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: The discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test was relisted. It lasted longer than usual MFD discussions. But it was still unanimous consensus to delete. This is also as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is for writing encyclopedia articles, not playing silly games like this. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The nominated page was actually Wikipedia:Sandbox/Test, which was not the word association game or any of its variants. The users of the Word Association pages were not notified of the discussion (none of the pages were tagged, none of the regular players were notified), and if you read the above linked discussions (and others I'm still searching for) there has never been consensus that WP:NOTWEBHOST applies to community pages and other such pages have been regularly kept at MfD and other discussions that included reasons advanced for why they beneift Wikipedia. See for example the third comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun (3rd nomination) (several of the deletion discussions about the Department for Fun, that have all ended in Keep outcomes, mention Word Association specifically. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun (4th nomination) for links to them all). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to restore Word Association games only to be honest, I wasn't aware that anything useful was hosted under Wikipedia:Sandbox/ subpages when I commented on the MfD. The few pages I glanced at looked like test pages. Games that have an encyclopedic purpose are acceptable. Gigs (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC) What is the encyclopedic purpose for these pages? -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) As stated on the page, helping people learn how to make blue links and find articles they are interested in editing. I admit it's not earth shattering, but there's a fundamental difference between an encyclopedic game and someone hosting fantasy football or a collaborative vampire story in userspace. The focus here is on the encyclopedia itself. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Relist at MfD - Despite the fact that these pages are utterly silly and clearly not useful in any way towards building an encyclopedia, the nominator has a point that they were technically not deleted correctly (although in Cirt's defense, I would have done the exact same thing if I were closing the MfD). The MfD started out with a nomination only for Wikipedia:Sandbox/test. The !voters noticed that there were other useless subpages and suggested that they also be deleted, and everyone agreed. However, the subpages were never tagged for deletion, so editors who are watching those pages would have never known about the discussion and didn't have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. It truly would be a complete waste of everyone's time if these were relisted, but if we're going to do this right, then let's do it right. In my opinion, these should all be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#GAMES, the latter of which I realize is not technically applicable in this case, but the spirit of the policy is clear. If this page were in userspace, it would be deleted per WP:UP#GAMES, but it certainly has no place in the WP namespace either. SnottyWong spout 14:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion per WP:IAR. I changed my mind, this is too stupid. It's just not worth wasting everyone's time with another MfD just to be able to say, "We followed the rules." SnottyWong spill the beans 14:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse game deletion - If we need to get a little IAR'ish to finally overcome the "keep, its a fun harmless game" nonsense that infests these sorts of attachments, then so be it. This sort of thing is stripped out of userspace routinely; there's no reason to keep one under the Sandbox of all places. Admin discretion here is correct. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding the location, yes the sandbox is not ideal. If I'd have thought of it before the out of process deletions today I'd have proposed moving them to subpages of the Department of Fun (and will do if they're reinstated). Given that they've been discussed as part of the endless attempts to delete the dept of fun, and formed part of the repeated conensus to keep, it would make sense. Just because something is not in the correct location though does not mean it's ok to delete it without discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The location is a minor point, and moving it elsewhere would not alter my opinion. If you want to play games, login to facebook and join Farmville. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Which unlike the word association games does nothing to promote or develop the encyclopaedia and does nothing to facilitate the Wikimedia community that makes Wikipedia what it is and has been valued time and time again in every discussion that touches on it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I suppose learning new articles means nothing? And also stress-relief? Simply south (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Not sure what you mean "learning new articles", if you mean finding new stuff Special:Random is pretty good, WP:THERAPY, if people are stressed because of wikipedia the best relief is to go elsewhere for the relief. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Learning about different articles and learning some links between articles. As for doctor's prescription, that is a bit extreme and i'm meaning a place to unwind but still be encyclopaedic. Simply south (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) RESTORE. Why was nothing posted on the Word Association page? I was on there just a couple of days ago and no notice was on the page. I believe a notice on discussion is required on the relevant page. Squad51 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) comment If consensus here is to keep the pages deleted, then Category:Wikipedia Word Association and Template:Word Association (both currently nominated for deletion, but both discussions not unlikely to be closed pending the outcome of this DRV) can probably be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G8 (pages dependent on a deleted page). Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Restore and move per the lack of notice to the involved parties, the history of previous retention, and the fact that these games aren't anywhere near as stupid as "secret pages". Language games aren't the same as Farmville. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion of these games per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a game server for pages that do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. Per the MfD process, pages nominated for deletion should be notified of their impending doom. This was not done, so process was not followed. Most of the arguments above could then, properly, be aired when the pages are listed for deletion in the correct way. Bigger digger (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) List at MfD I shall probably to delete these in the end, but they have not yet had a proper discussion. I agree with Jclemens that more can be said for them than for some of the game pages that have recently been deleted. There has not been a consensus to delete all games automatically, and the XfD cited was not sufficient warrant to do so. They need individual or related-group specific discussions--however, the keeps of all such games several years ago are unlikely to represent the present consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Restore. The affected pages weren't tagged, and there was minimal participation in the vote, accordingly. Whether or not you are in favor of keeping the pages, you shouldn't deny them the process any other page would get. —Kymacpherson (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Restore, apparently out of process, but list at MFD where I would be minded to delete. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Relist at MfD for further discussion, as is clearly desired. --SmokeyJoe (talk) Restore with no prejudice against listing at MfD. I see no reason why it was necessary to ignore the rules in this case, so the process ought to be followed.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Relist IAR is not an end-run-around discussion and process. There appears to be enough controversy that a (real) discussion is warranted. The original decision was flawed because it did not consider renaming as a possibility and deleted because of the name/location, not the content. --NYKevin @915, i.e. 20:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Restore per S Marshall. I see no reason to ignore process here. This isn't a good case for IAR. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Restore and list at MfD. This shouldn't have been bundled with the other deletions; in fact, it wasn't but somehow happened anyway. If the pages need deleting, there's no harm in waiting a week or two for them to go through the process normally. --ais523 13:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore Word Association games only. Out of process deletion. These games are a great way for readers to navigate Wikipedia and find interesting articles. -- œ™ 01:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore Word Association pages. Proper notification and procedure was not followed under the guidelines for MfD. <edit> Also, there are more than a dozen other similar activities still valid under "Games" at WP:FUN — Michael J 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Al Gore III – Delete, keep deleted, deletion endorsed, and salt. – -- Cirt (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Al Gore III (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) An editor recreated the same content as the deleted version, and said on the talk page that he was unable to use DRV for some reason. So this is a nomination on his behalf.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted - This editor has not actually articulated a reason to overturn the last AfD, nor evidence provided that this person's notability issues have changed since then. Simply "I think it's time it is reconsidered" is not a valid reason. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Move to userspace Prior consensus was that the article as it existed should be deleted and nothing appears to have been added to the article to better support a claim of notability. Article should be expanded in userspace with additional reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability and a move to mainspace should be considered based on any expansion. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse & Salt We have a clear consensus and the recreated article is not that of someone notable enough for their own article. Spartaz Humbug! 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC) My view is that we should actually delete the article and redirect, which was never done (it was just redirected). If there is information that the subject has done something new to increase his notability then that would be an appropriate time to revisit the issue.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion - I'm not seeing any recent news or links which move this BLP forward. If the only events we have documented are traffic citations and personal injuries, there's just not enough material to justify its own article. BusterD (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Emily Schooley – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emily Schooley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn Ms. Schooley has a significant fanbase, as can be demonstrated by her Twitter and Facebook followers: http://www.facebook.com/EmilySchooley https://twitter.com/the_emi Note that her Facebook page has more fans than that of fellow Canadian actress, Kate Hewlett, who has an established niche fanbase for her work in sci-fi shows. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kate-Hewlett/11899401858 Ms Schooley's page was submitted for deletion by someone from Frozen North Productions as a spiteful move. She is a Toronto actress with a rising film career chronicled in WP:N sites like Fangoria, as well as reputable newspapers such as the Kitchener-Waterloo Record (see: http://news.therecord.com/printArticle/225554). She is a featured speaker and guest at known conventions such as Polaris (formerly Toronto Trek) and Notacon, and several of her films have screened internationally (Orange Girl, a short film has screened in Canada, the USA, and Britain, for example.) Her article should not have been deleted in the first place, and myself and other fans are willing to lobby to have it kept. Her films that we believe meet WP:NACTOR are: 'Black Eve' (principal role) http://www.fangoria.com/?option=com_content&view=article&id=187:first-comments-and-exclusive-pic-from-black-eve&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=167&reset-settings http://www.bigdaddyhorrorreviews.com/2010/09/interview-with-ryan-m-andrews-black-eve.html http://www.28dayslateranalysis.com/2010/03/black-eve-lives-in-your-nightmares.html 'One Week in Windchocombe' (lead role) http://horrornews.net/6994/one-week-in-windchocombe-new-indie-scare/ http://www.fatally-yours.com/news/indie-haunted-house-tale-one-week-in-windchocombe-begins-shooting-directed-by-f-y-contributor-jeffery-j-timbrell/ http://www.28dayslateranalysis.com/2010/08/indie-horror-alert-one-week-in.html '140' (principal role - segment) http://www.seattleweekly.com/movies/140-962899/ http://www.denverfilm.org/filmcenter/detail.aspx?id=23209 http://events.nbc13.com/movies/show/148765-140 'Small Town Murder Songs' (more minor role, but screened at Toronto International Film Festival) http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/smalltownmurdersongs She has also been directly interviewed by independent film sites, such as: http://www.ferntv.ca/FERN_TV/Schooley_and_Jovey.html http://filmsnobbery.com/interviews/emily-schooley-interview/ These are sites that regularly cover notable independent film news. As was said by another Canadian wikipedia user: The sad reality is that the current rules defining "notability" are strongly skewed against the Canadian entertainment industry. If Toronto was Los Angeles or New York, an actress of equal notability as Emily would have significantly more online references, put online by the promotional "machines" that exist within those cities. But it simply doesn't work that way on Canada (or most of the world, for that matter). Despite the fact that Emily is known for her film and (national) television appearances here in Canada as well for as her acting classes and workshops, those appearances and works aren't plastered all over the internet in the same way that similar work on New York or Los Angeles would be. This simple imbalance is, in my humble opinion, causing a mass extermination of articles about Canadian talent (actors, models, musicians,etc.) across wikipidia, not to mention articles about other aspects of the Canadian entertainment industry (e.g. awards such as The Constellation Awards having their articles deleted because of lack of "notability" internationally). This has got to stop. Wikipedia should be a balanced, INTERNATIONAL reference, and we as Canadians should be able to look up and research elements of our entertainment culture here as easily and readily as Americans. I therefore ask that we support a KEEP for this article, and furthermore consider ways that this imbalance around "notability" might be resolved so that we can put a stop to the slow disappearance of Canadian entertainment industry information from Wikipedia. (As a side note, the simple fact that Emily has been a "notable guest" at events such as Polaris (http://www.tcon.ca/polaris/modules/content/index.php?id=291) should, imo, convey her notability in this country. But again, it appears that Wikipedia's guidelines do not give reasonable weight to local indicators such as being honoured in such a manner at major events outside of the USA, sadly). --guru (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC) There was NOT a general consensus to delete - many non-sis also came along and voted to keep. Bytemeh (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) There's a reason that the Deletion Review instructions say to visit the talk page of the deleting administrator first, you know. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Worth noting that Kate Hewlett is an actual actress with roles in legitimate TV series like Kevin Hill (UPN), Psych (USA), Flashpoint (CBS), Stargate: Atlantis - what difference does it make how many facebook fans she has? I'll refrain from commenting any further since I feel like enough people's time is continuing to be wasted on this topic. Deepsix66 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66 Comment: Ms. Schooley has also been on television - recently on This Movie Sucks! - as well as in films that some Wikipedia regular contributors felt were notable. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: There is no comparison between what is essentially a cable access show on a Hamilton local station and shows that have aired on national US networks like UPN/CBS/USA etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsix66 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: Not going to bother arguing the other specialty channels it screens on - you seem to have an unhealthy bias against anything to do with Emily and my efforts would be wasted. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Deletion review. First, you need to alert the closing administrator. Second, Deletion review is for pages you believe the administrator closed unfairly. It's clear that you're looking to restart the deletion discussion. Deletion review is not AfD round two, it's for when you believe an administrator misinterpreted the consensus. The deletion review page clearly states: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. I'm endorsing because there was a consensus to delete. GorillaWarfare(talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) signature added by Bigger digger (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I feel differently - there was not a sweeping consensus to delete. Completely aside from SPAs, there were several strong arguments to keep that were posted by established Wikipedia users. I'm not trying to re-open the AfD debate, I'm saying that I do not think equal weight was given to the arguments to keep vs delete. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse as noted above, DRV is not AFD round 2, specifically, in big bold letters at the top it states very clearly: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". The consensus was clear and the debate was flooded by sockpuppets/SPAs voting keep, which is never a good sign. Also, while not related to this DRV I did read the first few posts on your blog and every single one of them was an angry feud against people you've worked with, one of whom even took you to a collections agency! I know DRV isn't a good place to give anyone career advice but damn, it has to be said that it comes off as very unprofessional and may be a clue to why you haven't been able to find work significant enough to pass our guidelines for actors and entertainers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I'm not Emily, sorry. She probably won't ever see your message. However, if you'd bothered to actually read rather than skim her blog, you'd see that she's taking the time to stand up to a man who scams and harasses artists, nevermind that she's also brave enough to speak out against harassment from a former employer, which is who submitted her article for deletion in the first place. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per the above two. Deletion review is available where deletion process has been violated. When a deletion review relates to the outcome of a deletion discussion, I would apply the Wednesbury test to see whether deletion review should interfere — did the closing administrator give weight to something to which he should not have given weight, did he omit to give weight to something to which he should have given weight, or did he arrive at a decision at which no reasonable administrator could have arrived? Only if one of these three criteria applies is it appropriate for deletion review to substitute its judgment for that of the closer. For the purpose of clarity, this unreasonability test applies to deletions after a discussion — speedy deletions etc. should not be encompassed. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I believe the closing admin did not give equal weight to the valid keep arguments by established Wikipedia users. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I see an unpleasant irregularity in the discussion that complicates this. I definitely do not approve of Jrtayloriv's re-organisation of the debate to filter new users' contributions to a separate section; there are good reasons why that's not okay. I suspect that whatever Jrtayloriv's intention might have been, his re-organisation had a chilling effect on the discussion and may well have stopped some users from contributing. I'm not thrilled: problems like this is why the number of active wikipedians is declining. I'm also of the view that whether or not Cirt's conclusion in this case was correct, what we've failed to do is show FairProcess. Further, I'm mindful that the discussion was disrupted by legal threats, personal attacks, implications of sockpuppetry and other implied insults in the text of the discussion, direct accusations of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries, and in fact a truly deplorable amount of sanctionable behaviour. I have not seen the text of the original article but at the moment I'm definitely leaning towards overturn and discuss it properly.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: The version that was deleted is substantially the same as the version currently userified at User:Misssinformative/Emily Schooley DGG ( talk ) Comment: When orginally submitted for deletion, the article was in this state: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Misssinformative/Emily_Schooley&oldid=379231342 Much work had been done between that version and the one that was deleted. I am only speculating, but it would seem the article's original creation, many subsequent edits, and deletion were a source of discouragement to the original creator, who wanted to contribute to getting the Toronto arts scene more recognition, something I am wholly in favour of. Many of the WP: NPA edits on the original AfD discussion took out some valid points, and edits to Delete votes were done much later than edits to Keep. The whole discussion, imo, was a mess and did fail FairProcess. Prior to deletion of said comment, Jrtayloriv posted a PA regarding Emily's demo reel. Aside from other judgments, his, Deepsix66, and several others' comments were not in line with WP:NPOV; Deepsix66 also failed to WP:AGF in his original PROD request, stating that the article was submitted by Emily herself when the user creating it had already stated otherwise. Addionne, who bothered to spend some time researching Schooley, changed his vote from delete to keep upon the discovery of additional information. That should be fairly telling. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, we understand that. Particularly the part about "getting the Toronto arts scene more recognition"—and indeed getting more recognition for Emily herself. These were clearly the purposes of the article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It's not the case that you can add a Wikipedia article in the hope of becoming more notable. Instead, you must become notable in your own right before you get a Wikipedia article. The behaviour of the "keep" side in this, with the threats, the large number of new accounts, and the many attempted rebuttals that don't show an understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is very familiar to us at DRV and I would normally disapprove. You will definitely not help your side by responding to every single remark at this DRV. In this case, however, the behaviour of the "keep" side has been counterbalanced by what I see as equally deplorable behaviour on the "delete" side. There were those who sank quite low in their attempts to see this article deleted and as a matter of principle, those people should not get what they want. Also, we need to show that our processes are transparent, intelligible and fair. Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. What will help you now is not further argument, but further reliable sources. One piece of evidence is worth a hundred wordy rebuttals.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse The close was correct, I do not see how any other close was possible. There is no way she meets the usual guidelines, either those specifically for performers or the GNG. Nor does she meet a level of apparent importance, shown however informally, that one would be justified in keeping the article as an exception. The lack of understanding of our standards is shown by the fact that the lead sentence of even the currently revised userspace article continues to call her an " up-and-coming " actress. That this still needs to be said even by her most active proponents indicates the inevitable judgment of not yet notable. The reorganization of the article should not have been done: admins are not (usually) idiots and know how to discount !votes from spas. Speaking of which, I am quite aware that the user who initiated the AfD did so only to remove the article. That is irrelevant to the merits, and no reasonable admin such as Cirt would be influenced by it one way or another. though I must admit that the unreasonable animus expressed does see to put the equally unreasonable support in perspective.I suggest at the end of the discussion deleting the user space draft and blanking this discussion and the AfD, in order to protect the subject, by not making she and her fans look unnecessarily ridiculous on a very public site. That someone claiming to be her--and whom, based on the arguments, might well be--joined the discussion, is still no reason not to protect her, in the BLP spirit of doing no harm. Should she eventually become notable this need not be on her public record. I also note the exceptionally nasty done of the discussions, and some formal warnings -- at the least -- are in order once the matter is concluded here. Normally I would endorse S Marshall's suggestion of relisting a dispute as contaminated as this one, but I think it will just lead to the further embarrassment of all concerned. If it does take place, it would be best if none of the people contributing to the original debate took part, and I would be prepared to invoke IAR and topic-ban if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: It be in good faith to contact her to confirm, and perhaps get more details about why this is all happening. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I think we have been trying to tell you that the question is whether the notability of the subject meets the standard, not why someone has proposed the article be deleted. Neither is it relevant to the question of meeting our standards whether the person commenting under her name is actually the subject. That would be relevant only if she herself were requesting deletion, which seems to be the opposite of the case--we give in some circumstances respect to a marginally notable subject's request not to have an article. We do not give any attention to a subject's request to have one. The proper way to deal with complaints that Wikipedia is being used for harassment is through WP:OTRS. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I'd meant to ask that as a question, not a comment. And that is fair - I am trying to find additional sources that show she does meet WP:NACTOR, as well as point out some of the ways in which the original AfD could have been better-handled. Bytemeh (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - This was a good close that reflected consensus from a convoluted AfD. I agree with others that the "sorting" was unnecessarily polarizing. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The sorting was not a good idea, but any "chilling effect" is probably only for SPAs whose comments would have been discounted anyway. Thus I don't see a reasonable probability that, but for the sorting, the result would have been different. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. As per argument above listing notable projects, speaker credentials, and valid WP:RS sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.188.217 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: To the person above: you might want to sign-in if your IP is shared. The IP has been used very recently for vandalism and personal attacks related to this situation. Your points might be better accepted if you are not associated with it. Puffinpencil (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse: For pity's sake, DRV isn't "You should overturn it because I don't like the result." Leaving aside complete irrelevancies such as how many friends she has on Facebook (I've a 19 year old friend who has half again as many) or the fairness of the situation that obscure Toronto actresses don't gain as much press attention as prominent New York actresses, there are two premises I'd like to attack. To wit: the knee-jerk assumption that the only reason an editor would propose an article for deletion is out of malice, and that Wikipedia has some duty to promote a particular country's (city, school, region) people and institutions out of "balance" or "fairness." Neither are supported by Wikipedia policy or guideline, and both are nonsense.  Ravenswing  20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. Several film projects she has done are notable, as outlined above (140 was covered in Wired.com) - not to mention that she is an invited/notable guest at conventions. That should say something. Edfan77 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) — Edfan77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment: I've been an invited guest at conventions; that doesn't make me notable. In any event, notability is not inherited, and one doesn't pass WP:BIO through association with a film. Beyond that, consensus has already ruled on whether or not Ms. Schooley was notable, as Wikipedia guidelines define "notability." DRV is for judging whether the deletion debate was improperly closed. Do you have any valid policy grounds upon which to claim that it was?  Ravenswing  13:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion; allow restoration to userspace or incubator. While I do not consider the segregation of !votes from new editors to be good practice, neither do I consider it to have tainted the AfD. That said, I call out this quote from the editor who opened the review: "myself and other fans are willing to lobby to have [the article] kept." This is not AfD revisited. However, if the fans think the article can be improved to overcome the concerns raised at AfD, then working on the article in userspace or the WP:Article Incubator may be an appropriate next step. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 October 2010

MediaWiki:History short – Overturn and delete. The consensus seems to be that the page should have been deleted. So, I will delete it. However, I continue to think that the question of when MediaWiki pages can be nominated for deletion warrants a further discussion. Ruslik_Zero 12:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC) – Ruslik_Zero 12:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MediaWiki:History short (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrative_disruption_at_Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FMediaWiki:History_short and the MfD. I think that the admin should not have protected the page so quickly; rather, he should have talked with other editors about it first. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, blatantly inconsistent with consensus. If wider participation is needed, the discussion could be listed at template:centralized discussion or wikipedia:village pump, but not simply closed against the wishes of every participant. Technical note: deletion of the page will restore the default setting, and will not break the site interface. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: On October 10, the closing admin, Ruslik0 (talk · contribs) wrote in the first close of the MfD: MfD is not a right place to propose MediaWiki pages for deletion. They are part of the software that runs this site and changes to them are cite-wide changes (which may have unintended consequences). If you think that a MediaPage should be edited or deleted go to a Village Pump. The closure was then undone by Gavia immer (talk · contribs) on the same day with the edit summary "With all due respect, please see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/MediaWiki:". On October 18, I relisted the debate to allow for more discussion, whereupon three editors opined to delete. On October 18, Ruslik0 closed the discussion and protected the page. I believe that the protection of the page is an acceptable use of the administrative tools to prevent edit warring over the close. As to whether this closure, should be overturned, I am unsure. Site-wide changes should have more discussion. Perhaps the MfD could be relisted and then listed at WP:CENT and/or the village pump to allow for further discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Protection alone, perhaps, but the fact that the admin closed the MfD again immediately after the protection makes it seem a little more authoritative and unilateral than it has to be. Since he tried to close it before, and it was controversial as someone objected to the decision and reverted him, the best way for him to deal with it would have been to ask another admin who hasn’t participated in the discussion to close it for him. Specifically speaking, closing the MfD right after he decided to protect it is basically the same as trying to revert to the version he considered right, when he himself has participated in the “edit war” per se. (By the way, thank you for notifying everyone who participated in the MfD; I forgot to do that.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I re-closed MfD before protection, not after it. Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn I see no reason that MediaWiki space pages can't be discussed at MfD. Since the deletion of this is particularly uncontroversial, this really is process for the sake of process. Gigs (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Discussion on closing admin's talk page: I can understand if your hesitant to delete anything in the MediaWiki namespace (fear or otherwise), but it states in the instruction at WP:MfD that namespace is eligible and as User:Gavia immer has pointed it has been done before. So I don't see why the previous closure would still be valid. Nor protecting the discussion from further editing. — Dispenser 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Gavia immer is not an administrator, but undid an administrative closure, without even bothering to notify me. So, protection is appropriate. As to the discussion itself. What you actually want to do is to change the first letter in the word "history" to "H". For such discussions there exists a special board. That this change can be accomplished by deleting the page instead of simply editing it is only a technicality. The deletion will replace it with a default message. So, I can say that it is not possible, in fact, to delete a MediaWiki message—it is only possible to replace it with the default. I am also worried about the level of participations. Can really 3 editors decide what many thousands of others will see? Such a discussion needs a wider forum, where more people can participate. I suspect that only few editors knew that this discussion was taking place on an obscure MfD page. MediaWiki namespace contains such page as MediaWiki:Common.js, which I do not think should deleted via MfD. The instructions on MfD page concern only MediaWiki pages that are not system pages. (It is possible to create a MW page with an arbitrary name.) The past examples you mentioned above were mainly about such pages. Ruslik_Zero 17:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I wanted to undo the unilateral change by User:Patrick when he recreated the message with the lowercase "h". However, digging through discussion reveals he was actually doing it with two other editors. So yes, three editors can decide what many thousands of others will see ;-). Anyway, it would be helpful if you included that rationale in addition to your closing. Since the edit protected request let me MfD we should probably also address that somewhere, like the MfD instructions. — Dispenser 00:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC) You did not mentioned before that it was discussed on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). In this case it is even less appropriate to use MfD. You should raise this question on the same board where it was decided. Otherwise we will be going in loops: a change decided on Village pump is undone on MfD. In addition, the decision requires some expertise in CSS, which may be lacking in ordinary MfD participants. Or, you can simply ask User:Patrick to undo the change—I noticed that he was not even notified about the MfD! Ruslik_Zero 09:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrative disruption at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:History short. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Cunard (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Comment of the closing admin. The initial change was made after a discussion on a Village pump. I believe it is not appropriate to use one process to undo results of another. In addition, none of participants of the earlier discussion were notified, including the administrator who made the change. So, I think the problem should be discussed on on the Village pump, where the initial change was made. Ruslik_Zero 08:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC) IAR endorse it isn't clear to me if this is a good idea, bad idea or irrelevant. It also isn't clear if MfD is the right place for this "on paper" or not. But I agree with the closing admin that there is probably a better way forward than MfD and that's to discuss with those you disagree with per WP:BRD. If _that_ doesn't resolve it, maybe MfD is the right place to go, I'll leave it for people more policy-wonky than I. Hobit (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, of course. As Ruslik0 says, "I think" - he had an opinion on deletion - and he used administrative buttons to enforce it. As to whether MfD is the right place - it's been used before, and will be used again, for this sort of thing. In actual practice, it's a letter "h" that basically nobody will ever see. It should be G6, not Village Pump-MfD-DrV-Whatever. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn - I voted in the original thing. This MfD wasn't overturning Village Pump policy, as that had already happended in earlier MfD(s). This is simply completing a process that was already started and as such would have been appropriate for WP:G6. Failing that, MfD was the appropriate forum to complete the implementation of a policy already established by the earlier MfD(s). --Philosopher Let us reason together. via alternate account 03:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn - Closed completely against consensus. The protection only strengthens the argument against the closing admin. Plus, it says on the MfD page that MediaWiki is one of the namespaces usable with that process.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and delete. There is no policy that I am aware of prohibiting nominating MediaWiki pages at MFD. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jennifer Fitzgerald – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jennifer Fitzgerald (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Many cites with in depth coverage from major sources UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC) You should probably try to address the arguments raised in the AFD concerning WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, etc. (And make it clear if you are contesting the original deletion, or my more recent G4 deletion). –xenotalk 15:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC) You should probably try to address the fact that she is notable according to basic wiki policy on notability rather then linking to an editors essay which is considered to be "advice or opinion." Also, the undue claims could be dealt with through editing and is no means for deletion, it is a means for editing.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Also it should be noted that in the original AFD, after what appeared to have been significant editing to the article by the Article Rescue Squadron, most editors voted to keep the article. Then, a few days later, after it was relisted the few who were still following the article voted to delete.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC) As per User Frank this hearing is only about whether the AFD was flawed. Looking only at the AfD, it was a procedural nightmare, it was very unfair and seemed like a mild conspiracy. Could someone point me in the direction of wiki policy of what determines whether an AfD was flawed? --UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC) You're already in the right place.  Frank  |  talk  17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Notability is a guideline too so matching N doesn't automatically mean an article if there are compelling arguments against the article. That appears to have been the overwhelming consensus of the AFD. The deleted article failed to address the "undue" & Coatrack issues identified in the discussion which clearly mandated that we do not carry a BLP as unbalanced as this. I'm tempted to add in a dash of BLP1E here as well but that is unnecessary. The nominator would be best served by writing a balanced article in userspace that addresses the material he wants to add in a balanced way in the context of the subjects entire life, works and achievements. This can then be brought here for review. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Please point me to the policy that matches your agrument. Also, in addressing the undue issues, isn't that what editing is for? Concerning coatrack, actual policy overrides "opinion or advice." As Fitzgerald is clearly notable (I believe), coatrack is not a valid reason to delete. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS; WP:BLP; WP:IAR; WP:N; WP:GNG; WP:UNDUE & WP:COATRACK. We already know that you think we should host an article but the last time we discussed it, there was a very clear consensus on why we wouldn't host that particular version and your deleted version failed to address that consensus Spartaz Humbug! 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC) OK, consensus appeared to be leaning toward keep til it was relisted days later. Aren't most of the other policies you point to (other then notability obviously) concerned with the editing of the article rather then whether the article should be deleted or not? In other words point me to the policy that says because an article is poorly written it should be deleted even though the subject meets notability. Also, I can't see the earlier version so I don't really know what the problem was then. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per clear consensus to delete. Also noting that I think the consensus was to delete before the AfD was relisted, although less clear. -Atmoz (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn original afd to no consensus and restore the version deleted at that time. The AfD was very improperly closed, irrespective of the arguments. It was first closed as keep (probably should have been no-consensus), and was relisted by the closing admin after a discussion on his talk p. at [13]. There then followed 6 immediate delete !votes over the next 4 hours and it was then reclosed as delete without further discussion or a chance for rebuttal. Actually there were not 6 votes, since 4 of the people simply voted a second time. --there were only 2 new people. Of course it's OK to offer a comment after a relisting, but not a second !vote. No matter how long the debate goes on, every gets one !vote. However, the last version of the article that was G4'd was not really adequate, and omitted some of the better references. Another try might be appropriate. See the DailyKos version. It's CC_BY_SA, so it can just be copied over--it comes from one of our previous versions in any case. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn per DGG. The original close (or at least its outcome) was probably sound enough, given the extensive improvements to the article while the AFD was pending, but the precipitous second close was clearly inappropriate -- it appears to take duplicate !votes into account, and failed to provide an adequate opportunity for participation by other !voters after the duplicate blitzkreig. The Google-cached version of the article does not reflect the state of the article at the time of deletion; the Daily Kos version appears to represent the text adequately, although it did not pick up the references Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse, noting solely that the reason of interest comes from rumours of an affair about living people, and of the subject it is written: "Fitzgerald has never spoken to the media. She has retired and lives a secluded life." Undelete when those involved are no longer living. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - within admin discretion. I agree the whole closing, re-opening and then closing again wasn't handled especially well, however the overall result reflected the consensus of the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse I don't think we should assume the final close took into account "duplicate votes". Frequently when an AfD is re-listed, contributors come back to reverse, modify, or affirm their views. Here, a number of contributors affirmed their delete views. 3 new delete !votes came in with no keeps. The closer was thus more than entitled to close as delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Not without allowing proponents of differing views to respond. As DGG points out, after having been closed as keep for nearly two days, the discussion was reopened and reclosed after less than 4 hours. That's inadequate on its face. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC) But it's the first close that was misconceived, as demonstrated by by the discussion on the deleting admin's talk page. Another admin comes along, finds a consensus in the re-listed debate, and acts upon it. I don't see a problem with that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Even if the first close was misconceived that does not excuse or justify the later open and close which is clearly inadequate per se.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse- two key concerns were that the article relied heavily on stuff written by Kitty Kelley, who is not regarded as particularly reliable, and that the article was basically one big rumour regarding the subject's alleged relationship with a US president- not an actual biography. Those are pretty relevant concerns and the people advocating keep did not in any way address them from what I can see, so I think deletion is within the closing admin's discretion. Reyk YO! 23:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC) relist as the AfD was certainly flawed. We've got multiple !votes from the same people, a close, 4 hour reopen, and close again. And I think it's not unfair to suspect the some type of canvassing, legit or otherwise, was done to get those 6 !voters to all show up in the same 4 hour block and to get 4 of them to !vote for a second time. Net effect--a highly-flawed AfD and a new listing is the only reasonable way forward. The case isn't so clear that we should IAR delete this and the AfD is so flawed it cannot possibly be taken at face value.Hobit (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - The arguments to overturn are little more than wiki-lawyering, honestly. Despite the closing and re-opening and whatnot, the consensus to delete was abundantly clear. Salve your wounded egos and move onto the next one. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Could you expand on your egos line? In any case, I personally see a highly flawed discussion (that I wasn't involved in so I don't see ego playing a role) that resulted in the deletion of an article that easily met WP:N. [14] is a very detailed source (in Time magazine) that covers her role as gatekeeper. [15] (People), [16] (newsmax) [17] (NYT) all touch on the rumors of an affair. That's some pretty serious coverage of what is generally agreed to be a person who wielded a lot of influence (main gatekeeper...) Hobit (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It is entirely within in policy to have an Afd to talk about an article about a person with marginal notability from off the record rumors about their relationship with a famous person and decades old gossip column style coverage of the person. The recent rewrite shows again that the interest is not about "her" but her relationship with Bush. Lack of significant coverage about her her work shows that "she" is not notable and the information belongs in Bush's article where it can be put into proper context of his life and his accomplishments. An article about her can not give a fair presentation of her life's work since no one thought it significant to write about her in detail. All of her true life accomplishments (not covered by the media) would be overshadowed by the allegations of an affair with Bush. Real people have the right to expect a Wikipedia article on them to give a fair representation of their life or not to exist at all. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC) The point is, even without the affair she's clearly notable, both in terms of WP:N and in terms of the common use of the word. Gatekeeper to the Vice-president of the US is a heck of an important job--more so than 99% of those we do have bios on. And there is plenty of coverage on her for that. The Time magazine article would be an obvious starting point. To _not_ have an article because there are rumors of an affair? Odd at best, insulting at worse. Hobit (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, do take a look at [18]. We've got sources from the NYT from 2009, etc. How can you consider her to be marginally notable when there are articles on her (or mostly on her) in the NYT, Time, People? Let alone the NYT (again) almost 2 decades later? There is nothing "marginal" here about her notability by any definition of the word. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Which NYT cite is from 2009? And which article is primarily about Fitzgerald, as opposed to being partially about a main Bush advisor (among several)?  Frank  |  talk  13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC) The reason that we need to have individual deletion discussions is to work out how to handle individual articles in specific situations. Her situation is unique in that the coverage about her is related to her alleged affair with Bush and not about her. So, after careful review of the sources, it was decided by many editors that the best way to present the available information would be in the Bush article since her coverage is all related to rumors related to him instead of her actual accomplishments. An article that does not cover her real accomplishments but instead dwells on how people writing about Bush see her, is not really a NPOV article about her. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) If by "relationship" you mean "works for" certainly, that's what she's notable for. And please don't claim that the AfD was in any ways reasonable. The open, duplicate !vote, close in 4 hours routine certainly looks like an out-of-process railroad. If a discussion is the right way to handle this type of thing, let's have an in-process discussion. Of a certainly new sources exist so it's not outrageous to have that discussion yes? Hobit (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Allow userspace re-creation and review what really can be done on this. While this was a long time ago, the double !votes from editors who clearly should have known better poison the presumption of a good close. Having said that, I do not see a need to rush a bad bio back into mainspace. What else has gone on with her since the first article was deleted? If nothing, then maybe a footnote in another article is more than sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I've created a user space with copies of Fitzgerald's page from the day of deletion and a copy of the article when it was at its largest.User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse close The article was rewritten at the time with available sources and still violated undue weight since she is covered narrowly in the media in connection to "rumors" that she had a relationship with Bush. Sound close. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Have you looked at the version before it was deleted? It doesn't even mention the rumors of the affair.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC) The point of deletion discussions is for people to make calls about where the best place is to present information if it is presented in wikipedia at all. In this instance since the published sources are overwhelmingly from sources discussing Bush, then her life is portrayed through a prism radiating from him making an unbiased biographical article impossible to write from the information available. And as your edits over the last few days show, the main reason that people have an interest in her is because of the rumors of an alleged affair with Bush. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, Flo, UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If 100% of the articles cover the allegation of an affair, then we must focus a substantial amount of our coverage of her in such a manner. That may seem like UNDUE weight on the (hypothetical and unproven) affair, but the perverse outcome is that in such a case attempting to focus the article on other notable activities or events not nearly as covered in RSes is the actual UNDUE violation. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC) If the only coverage concerns the alleged affair, then the article is not about a person, but an alleged affair. Thus the material should be covered in a more appropriate place, like GHWB's article. –xenotalk 15:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC) As repeatedly pointed out, the coverage concerns more then the alleged affair.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to the version right before deletion i.e. the first version here . . . User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald. It doesn't even mention the affair. I would love to know how this version violates BLP or Undue.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Also, DGG's reasoning would seem to require that the article is at least relisted out of concerns for impropriety and basic fairness.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, per DGG -- the way this one was closed was entirely improper (with double votes, etc), and even the cached version shows that she is notable. Concerns about undue weight are to be dealt with via normal editing -- problems w/rt undue are not grounds for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Relist, per the serious procedural flaws pointed out by DGG. Reading the pre-relist discussion, it is not one that any reasonable admin would have closed as delete, and hence the flaws cannot be presumed to be harmless. T. Canens (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion, as it accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion. I would be remiss if I didn't note a long-ish discussion (in which I am highly involved) here, an RfC at Talk:George H. W. Bush. The petitioner for this DRV is attempting to add material to the GHWB article about an alleged event, going so far as to claim that an excerpt from Kitty Kelley's book is a reliable source because it is reprinted in The Times. On the one hand, that should have nothing to to do with this DRV; on the other hand, I believe it provides a road map to how and why this article was re-created and, subsequently, why this DRV exists.  Frank  |  talk  13:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Frank is cherry picking the weakest argument I made. There are several other arguments I made on GHWB's talk page which would seem to tend toward inclusion of Fitz in GHWB's page. Also, I'm not "attempting to add material to the GHWB article about an alleged event." In this Drv, I'm trying to make sure a noteworthy person gets their own wikipedia page. Two separate things. Not really sure why this matters though. I believe she is worthy of inclusion (in both spaces) independent of this "alleged event" anyways and have stated as such numerous times. In response to "on the other hand, I believe it provides a road map to how and why this article was re-created and, subsequently, why this DRV exists." Are we concerned here with procedural details or making the substantively correct decision? I would sure hope the greater concern lies in making the substantively correct decision. To respond to endorsing deletion as it "accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion." This "consensus" (if you can call it that) was clearly improper. I don't think this "consensus" reflected the discussion at all. I came to these conclusions with the everyday meanings of "reflect" and "improper" in mind though. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) There is no cherry-picking going on here. The edits you made to George H. W. Bush, which I removed here, were completely outside policy and were solely for the purpose of mentioning an alleged relationship with no regard for the quality of the sources, policies around here, or anything other than the allegation. Once that didn't stick, you moved into arguing that Fitzgerald has some notability of her own...seemingly as a means of then mentioning the allegation in Bush's article. I noted immediately in this discussion that I am highly involved in that discussion; it's clear we disagree, but this is not about disagreeing so much as the fact that your edits to Bush were not within policy. Your next step was to try to recreate Fitzgerald; when that didn't work you are now trying to overturn that deletion. I don't need to cherry-pick; your edits speak for themselves. Furthermore, the Jennifer Fitzgerald article you re-created is nothing more than a re-hash of the diff I provided above; it is equally against policy. If this DRV somehow results in the article being re-created, that version cannot be the one that is restored; it would be against policy there just as it was in Bush's article. Admins commenting here: please compare the most-recently deleted version of Jennifer Fitzgerald with this reverted diff from Bush.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC) There is one thing I think we agree on Frank. My article on Fitzgerald pretty much sucked. I would posit though that the first version on this page User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald establishes notability without violating BLP (Although I would still argue that NPOV requires some mention of the alleged affair but I can live without it). I really don't seem to understand most of your arguments though. Seems like you're arguing mostly about procedure and ignoring the substantive arguments. Either way, the AfD was certainly flawed.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Relist. The original AfD had some serious procedural problems and there are new sources to consider, so a new discussion has to be the way forward. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn - This seems it was set up so that all the "keep" votes that appeared in the original AfD after improvements were made to the article were discounted. New sources further establishing notability of this exist too. --Oakshade (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Content about a userfied version of the article, not this deletion review Comment on the userfied version at User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald. Even this is still problematic IMO. Now we have an article on a woman that was, what, a secretary/aide/right hand ma...er...woman? How on earth is such a person/position notable or ever even touched on in reliable sources? Because of her connections to the president as an alleged adulterer, that's why. Even if the article no longer says it, that is still where her notoriety derives from. If I came across this article w/out knowing any of this background, I'd have to wonder "why are they talking about this woman at all?" Tarc (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, right hand woman to what many would consider to have been the most powerful man on the planet for four years. I don't think many would wonder why we have an article on her any more then they would wonder why we have articles on such luminaries as Pezhman_Bakhtiari. I do think that the article should have some sort of mention of the alleged affair though.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, but at the end of the day we're still talking about the most powerful man on the planet's aide, not the man himself. That's a form of WP:NOTINHERITED IMO; her notability shouldn't be derived from who she works for. So, she's known enough to be named in some reliable sources, but to go into detail as to why (flimsy affair innuendo) runs afoul of WP:UNDUE and such. Bit of a Catch-22, which is why editorial discretion should be to simply can the whole thing as an unwise idea. As for Mr. Pezhman there, I dislike "other" stuff" arguments. IMO that article is worthy of an A7, so we'll see if it flies. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Pezhman . . . PEZHMAN?!?! . . . NOOOOO!!!! In all serious though, you made an argument. I refuted it. All I was saying was that the reality you conveyed is far from true. Not inherited does not apply here as there are many in depth sources that refer to her in her own capacity. She wasn't merely an "aide" as many high-quality sources note. She is known for more then the alleged affair although UNDUE would seem to actually require that we actually add content on the affair if you understand what UNDUE really requires. Also, I would recommend you read A7 again. The wording of A7 makes it clear that A7 applies in a very narrow manner. A7 would not apply to Fitzgerald. A7 "criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." - Certainly there are credible claims of significance. We have many reliable sources and most agree that Fitzgerald passes notability. A7 is far from applicable in this case. Also, not sure why this is collapsed. This deletion review directly pertains to the userfied version in the userspace. This was the version which I filed for deletion review for.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)You didn't refute a thing, I'm afraid. She is not well-known for anything but the affair allegations. further delving into her history and career have come because of the allegations. In an alternate world where there never was affair innuendo, the positions and jobs that this person has held would not even see a whiff of the Wikipedia, in terms of being article-worthy. As I said, if the affair junk is kept, it runs afoul of BLP and undue weight; if it is stripped, you;'re left with a non-article about non-notable career...I really don't know what to call her, "politician" is certainly out of the question. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC) It is collapsed because this part of the discussion is about the userfied version of the article, which is not the point of DRV. There is exactly one point to DRV: it is to review closing of deletion discussions. It is not here to rewrite existing articles or discuss whether or not a userfied article meets criteria. Neither does A7 apply at all to this case, because the article was not deleted under A7; notability was asserted and it could not be speedy-deleted under that criterion. Whether notability is actually established or not is a matter for a full deletion discussion; but this DRV is NOT that place. (A7 was discussed regarding Pezhman, not Fitzgerald.) When an admin closes this DRV, then we'll see where this lands. If the article is then re-created, there will be a new deletion discussion regarding that version of the article. Furthermore, you have repeatedly asserted things such as "many in depth sources" without actually providing them. Not a one that I can see in any deleted article or the userfied version meets that definition; and on top of that, because a source is reliable does not mean the subject is notable. But again - that's a discussion for a subsequent deletion discussion, if it comes to that.  Frank  |  talk  15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC) How could anyone in their right mind believe the closing of deletion discussions was OK? Is wikipedia really so backwards as to posit that something as shady/improper/unfair/etc. as the open - close - delete that was done in the AFV is thought of as OK? That is truly incredible. A procedural nightmare. I suppose I will have to do a organized presentation of the sources when (hopefully) this gets overturned then.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. WP:RELIST confirms that a relisting need not be for a full seven days and a relisted debate may be closed once there is a clear consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC) And the two additional (new) !votes were enough to create so clear a consensus after what had been a keep closure 4 hours earlier? Hobit (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion / move to userspace I think that consensus was clearly for deletion at AfD. I think that an article addressing the BLP issues could be created, but that should be done in userspace and reviewed there before another attempt at recreation. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Alan, Do you think the top version on this page User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald adequately addresses the BLP issues?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Please take further conversation regarding that article to its talk page (xc) or elsewhere. As noted above in the collapsed box, this discussion is solely a deletion review regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Fitzgerald. It is not a forum for discussing a possible new article on the subject.  Frank  |  talk  16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, given the nature of the close, I'd say it is the best place for such a discussion. A talk page in user space is unlikely to get any meaningful discussion. People often bring drafts here or are asked to produce one. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC) That's not what deletion review is about. It is for determining if the AfD was closed according to the consensus of the discussion. Otherwise it would become an extension of the AfD itself; this result is expressly frowned upon.  Frank  |  talk  11:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC) It is traditional to bring a draft to DrV when desiring to recreate a deleted article. Given the speedy that just occurred, it's reasonable to DrV _that_ speedy on the basis of the new article actually addressing the issues of the old AfD. Such an argument requires a draft. That in addition the closure of the underlining AfD is clearly flawed just adds to the problem. Hobit (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC) That sort of thinking is exactly what turns a DRV discussion into a complicated mess. DRV exists to do one thing: review whether or not a deletion discussion accurately reflected consensus. It is not meant as an extension of an AfD. Your argument suggests opening a can of worms. Do we consider this sorely policy-violating version of the article, deleted under G4 but clearly not acceptable regardless of any previous deletion discussion? Do we consider User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald, about which there is disagreement as to suitability for inclusion in the project? Do we consider WP:N and other policies, and if so, in regard to which article...deleted...restored...draft...another draft...? That has the additional complication that non-admins cannot see deleted revisions. Should we also be considering discussions about discussions, such as this and this? How about accusations on the article's talk page that its history contains BLP violations? How about a long list of peripheral items I haven't even listed? The answer in all these cases is a resounding no. What we are here to discuss is whether or not the deletion discussion was closed in a manner that accurately reflects the discussion that took place WRT the policies in place at the time. I don't think the policies have changed materially since then, but I'm just adding that bit since it was 18 months ago. Wikipedia:DRV#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review is pretty clear about this.  Frank  |  talk  08:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC) We try to do the right thing. When as much time has passed as this and things have changed (a new source) it is legit to create a new article. If it gets deleted as a recreation it comes to DrV. There is no other way to move forward at that point. And then the discussion must turn to the nature of that article. This DrV is a bit of a mess because there are two issues. The first is that the AfD was, frankly, a huge mess. The second is that the speedy probably wasn't valid. Does the existence of those two issues make the case for restoration weaker? Clearly not. But the confusion between the two has really messed up this DrV. To get back to the original point, both issues (AfD and speedy) can be addressed by a draft. The AfD was largely about there not being enough material to write an article not based on rumors--doing so shows that the problem has been fixed. The speedy was about the original problem not being fixed (and very much was about the draft of the article). Both require a draft to move forward. To say "no drafts allowed" is to say "we won't consider restoration no matter what" because nothing but a draft can address the issue. WP:N is clearly met by a mile. The question is if we should have the article anyways because the topic of the article is (argued to be) only notable for being part of a rumor. That's clearly false (1/4 of a Time magazine article about how she runs the office of the VP of the USA seems pretty clearly significant), but the only way to show it is to write a draft. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC) More tangential discussion (AfD comments, not this deletion review) Yes, I hope we all try to do the right thing. "Clearly met by a mile" and "clearly false" are not so clear to me. She is a woman who was an aide to the president. I have yet to see any assertion that such is sufficient to meet WP:N. "Multiple" sources? 1/4 of a Time magazine article? Not equal by a mile. And, the re-created article was a BLP-violating mess. A draft isn't necessary. What's necessary here is to decide if the AfD was closed correctly (it was). What is next is for someone to come up with something plausible to replace it and then to do it. If what was re-created the first time is used, it will almost certainly be deleted. If the draft currently being discussed is used, it will almost certainly go to AfD. But none of that can be decided here at DRV; the purpose here is merely to determine if what is already deleted should stay deleted. What happens next can't be decided until this DRV is decided.  Frank  |  talk  23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Frank is playing the game he told us we should not but if he wants to play let's play. "Clearly met by a mile" - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" This is without a doubt the case here. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922739,00.html, http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20108467,00.html, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/12/55616.shtml, http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1061FFD355E0C718DDDA10894DA494D81 etc. etc. etc. If you follow the plain language of "N" it is absurd to say that "N" isn't met. To extend a bit . . . "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]" Not only is the coverage substantial but there are multiple independent sources with in depth coverage. "Clearly false" - There have been continuous arguments (mostly by a few editors who have contributed little to the discussion) made that Fitz is only notable for her alleged affair with GHWB. I would recommend anyone who makes such a claim to do a bit of research. The "gatekeeper" claim of notability certainly holds weight. At least if you trust TIME magazine and James Baker (and other sources).--UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC) The 3-page Times article is about Bush himself and his underlings, Fitzgerald gets about half a page, the People article is affair innuendo, Newsmax isn't within spitting distance of being a reliable source, and the NTYtimes is, again, affair innuendo. Nothing to see, really, nothing to justify an article or satisfy notability concerns. We're still left with (if affair junk is discarded) a story about a glorified administrative assistant. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC) "Time magazine commented in 1982 that she was "a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees", and The Times quotes an un-named source as saying, "You cannot overestimate her influence on Bush." - Time Magazine and The Times "Bush wanted Fitzgerald to act as a "buffer" between his office and the State Department." - A George Bush biography "[Fitzgerald's] overprotectiveness and flashes of anger in public toward other staff members alienated Bush's top aides even before he became Vice President." In 1980, James Baker, who was Bush's close friend and campaign manager, threatened to resign unless Bush fired Fitzgerald. Baker felt that she had more influence over the candidate than he did. Bush conceded to Baker's request but continued to pay Fitzgerald's salary. - Time Magazine and other sources This content was gotten in just a few minutes and I believe with a little effort we could find more. Seems to me like these tend toward satisfying notability a la the "gatekeeper" role n'est ce pas?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC) At the least I would say that we have multiple independent sources and the coverage is not trivial documenting her role as a gatekeeper.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Once again, I will point out that such a "gatekeeper" (yet another fancy, invented term for an aide?) would never see such news coverage if it wasn't for the affair junk; one begets the other. There is nothing to say about this woman that cannot be said in a footnote of a Bush administration article. If that. Tarc (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Your "one begets the other" leap of logic holds no weight. What you think doesn't (or isn't supposed to) matter. What matters is what the sources say. Sure she was an aide for a while but if sources make her out to be a notable aide then, well, she's notable. If she's notable then she deserves her own page and shouldn't be a mere footnote. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Emily Schooley – DRV is not a location that allows discussions to be used as platforms to attack other users so I'm closing this now. There is no objection to anyone opening a new DRV that discusses the merits of the closing without rearguing the AFD or attacking other editors. – Spartaz Humbug! 14:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Emily Schooley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article was submitted for deletion by a user with an account created solely to harass and defame Ms Schooley. Though the user Deepsix66 claims no affiliation with Frozen North Productions, they did not make any negative comments about Frozen North, despite claiming on their userpage that they thought their Wikipedia article should be deleted. The request for deletion of Ms Schooley's page came not long after Ms Schooley posted an article on her blog outing Frozen North for poor business practices. Previously, the article existed for months on Wikipedia without any requests for deletion brought up. Additionally, myself and many others felt that the article on Ms Schooley should be kept, as she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines. Misssinformative (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC) ETA: Note that among Emily's notable movies are Black Eve and One Week in Windchocombe, both listed on imdb and both with significant press from sites such as Fangoria, which is a respected horror magazine and is used on Wikipedia for numerous citations. Schooley is a Canadian actress working mostly in horror, and her Facebook fan page has over 900 fans, which to me would indicate a "cult following." As well, she has been an invited guest of high-profile sci-fi conventions such as Polaris and arts/tech conferences such as Notacon, which suggest that not only are people aware of her work but that she is making contributions to the acting and filmmaking world. Misssinformative (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - DRV Nominator seems to be trying to turn this into AfD round 2. The closer successfully noted the consensus to delete from the debate about a lack of sources and no significant film roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Motivations of the AfD nom are ultimately irrelevant. Bigger digger (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse claims that the nominator was acting with ulterior motives are speculative at best and a severe WP:AGF violation at worst. The consensus was clear and the debate was flooded by sockpuppets/SPAs voting keep, which is never a good sign. Also, while not related to this DRV I did read the first few posts on your blog and every single one of them was an angry feud against people you've worked with, one of whom even took you to a collections agency! I know DRV isn't a good place to give anyone career advice but damn, it has to be said that it comes off as very unprofessional and may be a clue to why you haven't been able to find work significant enough to pass our guidelines for actors and entertainers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Upon a Burning Body – Notability assertion appears to have been sufficient that the article merits its day at AfD. Restored and so nominated. – Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Upon a Burning Body (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Album charted on Top Heatseekers at number 28[19], therefore causing the band and the album to meet criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC, which directly reads “ A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: [...] 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. ” --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 01:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Is this the national music chart for the US? Spartaz Humbug! 14:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC) No, that would be the Billboard Hot 100. Billboard does have lots of other charts, some of which definitely contribute to notability but I wouldn't say an appearance on the Heatseekers (especially one at #28) constitutes notability by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Heatseekers isn't a bad chart per se, but it wouldn't contribute much to notability. Heatseekers is a chart of albums by bands that have never made the main chart, where this individual album is coming close. The purpose is to highlight bands and artists that may be successful in the future, but haven't been so yet. It's kind of a chart of uncharted things by bands that have never charted. I wouldn't think that this makes it pass WP:MUSIC.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn only because this was a speedy deletion, the charting appears to be a sufficient claim of significance to survive A7, and both the pro and comments here focus on notability; deletion on notability grounds calls for the standard deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC) A7 may be inappropriate, but A9 would apply to the article as speedied.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC) A9 applies only to recordings. How can it apply to an article about the band? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I stand corrected.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and list Per HW and Kww this probably isn't a valid speedy. Though it's unlikely to make it at AfD we should have the discussion as someone might be able to fix it up. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, no longer eligible for CSD A7, and no compelling reason to keep it deleted anyway. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 October 2010

Buddhism and violence – Deletion endorsed. Consensus does not exist supporting restoring the page in question at this point in time. If the nominator wishes it, he may request userfication in order to edit a proposed draft version in userspace, and address concerns of WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:COPYVIO. Then, that proposed draft version could be brought to WP:DRV for analysis and discussion. – -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Buddhism and violence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) page needs improving not deleting- deleted without discussionandycjp (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Remind the deleting admin of the opening paragraph of WP:CSD. Please cite the criterion used. The deleting admin should archive his talk page; it is much to big. It is also misformatted, at least on my screen. Incubate the deleted article. It is not unsalvageable, but it is true that the article, "Despite the widespread belief that Buddhism is wholly pacifistic, there is a long history of violence within the 2,500 years of Buddhist traditions" is written as an academic essay putting forward a synthesized view of the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Incubation would be better than deletion but I would prefer the article to be fully restored to public view with an intro rewrite.andycjp (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Leave it deleted - there were sufficient problems with the article (in particular synth and copyvio) that I suspect it would need to be fundamentally rewritten. - Bilby (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Upon viewing the cached version available above, this article was pure WP:SYNTH. To quote an advocate from the article's talk page, "But if criticism about Christianity, such as: Christianity and violence is OK, so is this, Buddhism should not be exempt from criticism". That is the kind of tit-for-tat mindset that infests the Israel-Palestine topic area. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, deleted out of process, no CSD applied. Thereafter it should be AFDd or incubated. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) If there is a credible/verifiable copyvio concern, then of course we should tread carefully. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - I commented on the talk page prior to deletion that it was an essay advancing a position as opposed to an encyclopedic article. I was thinking of nominating at WP:AFD, and in all honesty wasn't considering a speedy. However, it certainly should have been deleted, and consider this to be a just about acceptable application of Ignore All the Rules. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn as above. andycjp (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Withholding judgment until the deleting admin's comments. If G12, fine, but document the source. If G10... no, it wasn't G10. If OR/SYNTH, that's NEVER a speedy criterion. Jclemens (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC) The section I was concerned about was the portion on Japan, which is taken from OUP. I don't know what YellowMonkey saw as a problem. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Not seeing a comment from the deleting admin, I went to his talk page, where it appears no one at all had asked him to come here and comment... so I just did. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn per terrible rationale articulated below. OR and Essay are not speedy reasons; copyvio is, but only in cases otherwise irreparable; and "waste of time" shows an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude inconsistent with exercising administrative privileges over an article. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I see where you're coming from, but, we should sometimes let common sense do its job (that's why we have IAR). Time is not unlimited and there is no sense in wasting it. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I look at it a lot like SNOW: if someone objects, then the expedited process wasn't proper in the first place. I wouldn't necessarily !vote to keep this in an AfD, but I'm certainly willing to give it a 7-day benefit of the doubt, AGFing that people who want to see it kept might just use that time to render it suitable for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn but incubate. Since no copyright infringements were mentioned in the deletion summary, I don't see a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Based on Stifle's suggestion of overturning the deletion, I don't think a case can be made for deletion under the snowball clause—I don't think a deletion discussion would be open and shut. What I do see is an article with serious flaws, including large amounts of synthesis. The topic is reasonably encyclopedic, so I think there's hope for the article, but it will take a lot of work—that's why I recommend restoration to the incubator rather than the main encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn Reasons for deletion based on WP:NOT such as original research or WP:SYNTH do not qualify for speedy deletion. Such decisions must be made by consensus as they are subjective in nature. This may very well be due for deletion, but not before proper public scrutiny. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC) If the reason for this article deletion was G12, copyright infringment, then I endorse the deletion but caution the deleting admin to be very clear that such is the case when making the deletion. I see G12 being mentioned here, but I don't see it being used as the basis for deletion. If it is a copyright infringment then it should remain deleted. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, per process it should be AFDd or incubated.Kanatonian (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, since the article didn't meet any speedy deletion criterion is should not have been speedily deleted. I do think the article is largely synthesis, but that's a problem that needs to be discussed at AfD or elsewhere. The Japan section is a copyvio and should be removed but the rest looks OK. Hut 8.5 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Tarc and WP:IAR. Obviously not encyclopedic material. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted essay, OR, copyvio, waste of time YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Care to share evidence of copyright violation? Stifle (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted. This is so completely SYNTH that I cannot see any reasonable probability that it would be kept after an AfD. Thus the procedural error is harmless. T. Canens (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 October 2010

File:The_Pendulum_-_Before_The_Duel_.28small.29.JPG – Being handled via otrs – Spartaz Humbug! 16:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:The_Pendulum_-_Before_The_Duel_.28small.29.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Apologies for not logging on to Wikipedia to point this out during the original review, as I had no computer access. I am the sole owner of the reproduction rights of this production photograph of the play 'The Pendulum' (as producer of the play.) They were purchased in their entirety from the official production photographer Matt Jamie. Similarly for *File:Alexander Fiske-Harrison headshot1.JPG · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]: the reproduction rights for this acting headshot are solely owned by me, the subject (actor), having been purchased from the photographer who took them, Marco Windham. As for *File:Miura family.JPG · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]: this photo is mine. It was taken on my camera by a farmhand (name unknown) - hence I am in the photo - at Zahariche, the ranch of the Miura family. It is also unique as the only photo in existence of the two Miura brothers together on their ranch (alongside their matador nephew, Maestro Dávila Miura.) Fiskeharrison (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC) You'll need to submit a permission form (blank version available at WP:CONSENT) to [email protected]. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I have done this for all three images (using a separate email for each). --Fiskeharrison (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC) OK. The emails will be processed, and the images replaced, in due course. Please monitor your email in case there is a reply requesting further information. I think this DRV can be closed. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 October 2010

Template:Bathrooms – Non-issue. The closing admin moved the template to {{Toilets}}; it has been edited as suggested in the discussion. Nobody seems to have a problem with that outcome. –  Sandstein  21:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Bathrooms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There was no clear consensus here. Keeps and deletes were about even. Some of the deletes did suggest a replacement template. But this can be done through editorial changes. Should have been closed as a 'no consensus' and a suggestion to make such a change. Tatterfly (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion per TfD arguments, but I'm not at all opposed to the recreation of this template in a useful form, like that suggested by User:213.246.126.56 in the TfD. SnottyWong converse 22:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse A reasonable close, and there's no reason not to create a better functioning template from scratch. AniMate 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn The discussion favored mostly making changes to this template, and this can be done without its deletion. Deleting it kills the edit history, which is useful in making changes. Moving it preserves the edit history, which can be used as a future reference. The best changes in a move can be held through a discussion. Linda Olive (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The template was moved instead of deleted. It's now here Template:Toilets. Yoenit (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Do nothing - the close of the discussion was ok, and the template has been renamed. If deemed necessary, a new WP:TfD could be opened. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of characters in Red Dead Redemption – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of characters in Red Dead Redemption (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Article was nominated for deletion by me with two major concerns: First, the only character in the list to receive any specific significant coverage was the game's protagonist. I had no opposition for article creation on that specific character as there is plenty to support it, but also felt that one notable character can't support a laundry list of them. Second, (in regards to this being an extension of Red Dead Redemption) the secondary characters are adequately covered in Red Dead Redemption#Plot, where it gives sufficient details without falling into WP:TRIVIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teancum (talk • contribs) Endorse no consensus close. The arguments you raise were addressed and disagreed with. Taking your second point first, whether the plot section is adequate to cover the characters, and/or whether it also makes sense to list the characters in this form, is an editorial judgment specific to the article topic, and there was definitely not a consensus that the plot section was sufficient. As for your first point, regarding the "significant coverage" aspect of the notability guideline, WP practice indicates that's largely moot when we're dealing with a subtopic of a notable topic, and the decision of whether the subtopic is too large to fit into the main article or should be split off. The overriding question is whether that level of detail of the subtopic furthers understanding of the notable topic. Again, this is an editorial judgment, and there definitely was not a consensus that this level of detail was not appropriate. So there was no consensus in the AFD for either argument presented above for deletion, nor is there any policy that would compel a deletion result here even in the absence of consensus for it. As always with these fiction-related articles and lists, I wish people would spend more time trying to improve them and write them from an out-of-universe perspective (which is possible even when descriptions are only sourced to the primary work of fiction) rather than waste time on deletion discussions. The problem is typically with how such subjects are covered, not whether. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse as accurate reading of AFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse a reasonable and accurate reading of consensus, or lack thereof, for this AfD. AniMate 22:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse, could not reasonably have been closed any other way, sadly. Stifle (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alan Brewer – Article moved, create-protection not relevant to this person. Jclemens (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Please could you make a page redirection link to point from Alan Brewer to Alan West Brewer. When I try to create it, it is locked and tells me to raise the matter here. Many thanks. Scil100 (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Since we have no other Alan Brewers, I moved the article there. That work? Jclemens (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Scil100 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closing admin, who did not even ascertain whether the article in question was a legitimate spinout or not prior to making the decision to delete, claims arguments for deletion of this spinout article were "clearly made" and does not see that they were refuted. As the one who clearly refuted each pro-deletion argument, I strongly disagree. Admin concedes that "some" of the material belongs in the main article, though does not offer any guidance as to how to decide what content to show our readers, and what to censor. Attempts to resolve with admin here failed. BACKGROUND: The topic in question is a list of ten serious and well sourced doping allegations, documented in reliable secondary sources, about Lance Armstrong. This list was originally a section of the main Lance Armstrong article, but was made into a separate spinout article because it was determined by consensus to be too much content for the main article, per CFORK. At the time the spinout article was created, most of the content was removed from the relevant section in the main article, and summarized there. According to WP:BLP#Public figures, each and every one (not just some) of these "notable, relevant, and well-documented [allegations]" about a public person belong in the article ("If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article")., but according to CFORK spinout that much material belongs in a separate spinout article. Since each of the ten allegations are serious and properly sourced, I don't see any justification for not including any one of them in either the main article or a spinout. I'm not sure how to reconcile this conflict (about whether the content belongs in main article or spinout), except I'm sure the solution is not to omit from Wikipedia any of the content which is all supposed to be included per WP:BLP. So the only solution I can envision is undeleting this spinout article. Besides, there was no consensus to delete among those participating (9 keep votes; 8 delete votes), so isn't the default to keep? Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Most editors advocating retention missed the point entirely, arguing simply that the material was notable and "well-sourced". Being "well-sourced" is not and never has been a sufficient condition for inclusion; in fact, some of the worst attack-pages that I have seen have been rigorously sourced. Only Jclemens adequately addressed the neutrality issue and hedged his view with caveats and concern. CIreland (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I don't understand. The criteria for inclusion of allegations about public figures is explicitly and clearly stated at WP:BLP#Public figures: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.". Please note that this means that allegations that meet this criteria not only may be included, but it "belongs in the article". This is not an attack page by any stretch; I don't understand that point at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry if I was unclear - my point was simply that being well-sourced does not ensure neutrality and I used the extreme example of well-sourced attack pages to illustrate that. I did not say that this article was an attack page. CIreland (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Then why are you endorsing the decision to delete? How is removal of any of this content not a violation of WP:BLP#Public figures? And what about the point about there being a lack of consensus to delete? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I'm endorsing the closure based on the quality of the arguments presented - the function of DRV, not re-arguing the AfD. That being said, the BLP policy says much more than that single quotation, as does WP:NPOV. The chief issue at AfD was the weight that a separate article gives to unproven allegations. CIreland (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, and I've read BLP. And NPOV. What I'm curious about is what specifically in any of that or in any policy supports deletion of this material and effectively overrides the section which specifically addresses this exact situation... well-sourced allegations about public figures (an argument I did present in the Afd). When I presented this argument at the AfD, the response was that that applies only to content in the main article, which strikes me as bureaucratic technicality and brings us to the question I asked above. So the context is supposed to be in the main article per WP:BLP#Public figures but in a spinout article per the spinout rule. How do we resolve that? By removing it entirely from Wikipedia? How does that make any sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) (BTW, thanks for the compliment. I really think this sort of a decision needs a non-boolean discussion, and I appreciate that you and some others are noting that as well, even if we disagree on the outcome.) Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse own close, and suggest Born2Cycle stops making claims that aren't true. The fact I used "if", rather than "since" in a sentence on my talk page doesn't mean I didn't look at the history of the article - I obviously did. No-one is suggesting "censoring" the material; I clearly stated that the material may (even should) belong elsewhere. Also, the claim that he "refuted" every argument for deletion is just that; an opinion. Another opinion might be that he merely wikilawyered every opposing argument to death, as appeared to be happening here as well. Born2Cycle might do well to let the DRV run; people don't tend to change their minds when they're being badgered. Black Kite (t) Sorry for misunderstanding, Black Kite. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)(c) 06:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC) That's OK, but I hope you take the point. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Comment So, this is an interesting and problematic problem in Wikipedia, where a confluence of factors can be combined to end up with an improper result. While I don't think the page was ever an attack page, let us assume for the sake of discussion that it was. It remains well sourced, and it remains quite large relative to the rest of Armstrong's own article. By forcing a merge (which is what this amounts to, a de-merge), the net effect is to force the truncation of the well-sourced allegations... or is it? UNDUE actually says that material about a topic should be covered in proportion to the associated coverage in reliable sources. Can the entire allegations article simply be added, wholesale, into the main article? If not, why not? UNDUE? It becomes less tenable once we focus off of the "what makes a nice looking balanced article" and properly re-focus on "how do reliable sources cover this topic", which in the case of Lance Armstrong is about a cyclist without peer beset by doping allegations for years. As always, when we have sourced content, the question should be less about "should this article be deleted or kept?" and more on "What is the best way to represent this topic for this encyclopedia's readers?" Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes; to be honest if the article title had been something like "Lance Armstrong controversies" rather than the slightly dubious one that it was, I may well have just merged and redirected. Having said that, the material is still in the history of the main article prior to it being spun out, so it's not as if it's been lost or there will be any attribution issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Aren't you saying that instead of deleting this article it should have been nominated at WP:RM? I would be happy to do that if you would undelete. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Comment All I can find about how to treat material in a spinout relative to the main article is here: "However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. " In other words, unless I'm missing something, to argue that a spinout is a POV fork you have to show that the content would not be admissible if it were in the main article; the criteria for inclusion of content in spinouts does not appear to be any different from the criteria for inclusion within the main article. And the consensus of the AfD (including the admin closer) was that none of the content in particular did not belong in the main article per the inclusion rules, therefore it did belong in the spinout. Hope this helps. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - back to basics: Like all debates on Wikipedia, a conclusion or a consensus is not based on a simple tally of !votes, especially when that tally is a tie or extremely close run. The tie breaker here was the quality of the arguments that outweighed the one-majority 'keep' !votes.--Kudpung (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Comment - I just happened to stumble on another thread (15 October) where User:Born2Cycle stated quite unambiguously "consensus is more than the votes of the participants". --Kudpung (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, in a WP:RM discussion "consensus is more than the votes of the participants". There is no default at WP:RM. We close entirely based on consensus, but consensus as determined by looking not only at the votes, but the strength of the arguments, and the consensus of the overall community as expressed via policy, guidelines and naming conventions. The reason I asked about a default at AfD is I noticed that in the 2010 Ryder Cup photograph discussion yesterday User:SmokeyJoe stated, "Closer did the right thing, although it was not a consensus to keep, but in the absence of a consensus to delete, defaults to keep.", and nobody challenged that assertion. If someone said something like that in WP:RM discussion, I suspect it would be challenged. So, apparently, the default is to keep? Or is that just a rationalization used when it conveniently supports the outcome that happens to be preferred in a given discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Two more comments of yours in various discussions were also: "consensus is determined not just by raw count, but by merits of the arguments/reasons." and "Closers are supposed to weigh the persuasiveness of the arguments, not just do a raw count..." Irrespective of the kind of debate and what the recommended outcomes should default to, the Wikipedia debate policy, which you apparently appear to endorse elsewhere, was accurately applied here by the closer. --Kudpung (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, Kudpung, those comments are consistent what I just said above. What's your point? I ask the 3rd time... is the default at AfD to keep as User:SmokeyJoe stated and to which no one objected? Or is that just a rationalization used when it conveniently supports the outcome that happens to be preferred in a given discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Hi Born2cycle. I answered on my talk page, and above, before I saw this. An article that can do harm is very different. Closers are much less likely to allow a default to keep where there is a potential for harm. "no consensus defaults to keep" is not so simple where there is a BLP concern. Black Kite made a fair close, but you are right in that he deleted material that is suitable. It was the organisation and presentation that is unacceptable. If that can be fixed, (see my comments above), I read that Black Kite is more than willing to give you access to the deleted content to allow something different to be written under a different title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Any AfD where DGG recommends deletion, usually means the article should be deleted. That having been said, I've looked at the deleted article and the AfD. The concerns raised there were valid and the conclusion reached by Black Kite was absolutely reasonable. I would also note that since many of the participants believed this to be a BLP violation, so perhaps User talk:Born2cycle/armstrong-allegations should not be hosted on Wikipedia. AniMate 09:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I NOINDEXed the page for the time being. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Can you please not do that? There has been no consensus whatsoever about the material not belonging in Wikipedia at all. I'm trying to fix the only problem noted about the article; some deadlinks. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Strongly endorse. I question the basic competence of anyone who advocates for this sort of article to be retained. Either by weighing the arguments to delete (which he did) or by simply invoking WP:BLP and be done with it (which he didn't, but I would have supported that if necessary), there was no recourse other than to delete this drivel. It deserves mention, neutrally and rationally-worded, in the main Armstrong article certainly, but what amounts to a a standalone "Criticism of..." article is simply horrid. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC) The problem with these two above opinions is that they don't match what BLP actually says. 1) The article didn't "serve no other purpose" than to attack Armstrong, as I explained in my AfD rationale, 2) the allegations are indisputably well sourced, 3) Armstrong is absolutely a public figure, and 4) this is not an isolated incident--coverage has been ongoing for years. All participants need to keep in mind that BLP is not a license to whitewash or avoid controversy: it's a mandate to avoid unsourced controversy that may harm real people. Accusations against Armstrong are already more than public. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Actually it does, as I do not accept your explanation for criteria #1. We don't need a bulleted laundry list of of each and every accusation. The text at Lance Armstrong#Allegations of drug use is more than enough. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Each and every one of the ten "accusations" is a separate notable event or incident that is well sourced. Omitting any one of them from Wikipedia is censoring content that, according to BLP#Public figures, "belongs" in. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC) "Don't break out the "OMG TEH CENSORSHIP" battlecry for something like this, it is absolutely pathetic. They are not separate, notable, or individual events. They are unproven allegations, nothing more. Put a bit more effort into writing content fit for an encyclopedia, rather than material fit for TMZ. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Why does the censorship battlecry not apply here? What part of WP:BLP#Public figures do you not understand or not agree with? It clearly states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Why does this not apply to each and every allegation separately? If it "belongs in the article", but editors are not allowing it, how is that not censorship? There is no question about removing content that violates WP:BLP. But WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLP#Public figures ) addresses this exact situation, and clearly states this content belongs. Not WP:BLP nor any other policy supports removal of this content, therefore, removal is censorship, by definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Your bucket might carry water here if this were about trying to remove the information from the Armstrong article itself, but the allegations are given a paragraph or so of treatment there. I find it to be more encyclopedic and less tabloid-ish to discuss the allegations as a broad topic. A list of every "on this date this was alleged", "on this date that was alleged", to me, gives to much of a spotlight onto something that is only a part of the man's biography. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Now we're getting somewhere. Please look at the September 13, 2010 version of the Lance Armstrong article. Note that the content in question was then in the Armstrong article itself, just a little over a month ago, and that it was well established, having started back in 2004 with this edit (of course it evolved since then as the list of allegations grew since then). Therefore, the net effect of 1) removing that material from the main article and putting into a new spinout, and 2) the subsequent deletion of that spinout per the AfD in question, is censorship of that well-established content, right? As to the import and relevance of this list, these allegations go to the root of why this particular figure is notable in the first place. The U.S. federal government is currently spending months investigating these allegations. This is not something that is "only a part of the man's biography"; it questions the legitimacy of what makes him notable in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) This kind of thing is annoying. It's undue weight to have too much of this in the LA article, but it's also undue weight and maybe an attack to have it in an article by itself. At the same time Wikipedia isn't censored, and information that is well sourced and clearly notable should rarely be deleted. Apparently the sources were largely deadlinks, which is troubling for an article like this and an issue that was raised in the AfD quite a bit. I'd say endorse deletion but allow recreation under a better name if every single issue can be documented in a live RS. I also believe that we can probably write the material (and sources) densely enough that the information can go in the main article without too much in the way of UNDUE issues (perhaps undue number of sources in that section, but I think that's acceptable) Hobit (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Comment I've started a broader discussion here. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse – Arguments for deletion significantly outweigh the reasons for retention given, which merely amount to "well-sourced" and "it's notable" without bearing anything else in mind. As an aside (not having participated in the AFD), this is another example of what happens when WP:V and WP:RS are blindly followed without taking anything else into consideration or following any other common sense. –MuZemike 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Really? Really? That's all you can muster in a case like this? The comment may be pithy, but ignores the nuances of the case, the article, and how BLP is written vs. applied. Jclemens (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah. Really. –MuZemike 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Question I'm more and more baffled. Can someone who endorses the deletion please identify specific wording in WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or any other policy, that supports either complete removal of the content in question, or the argument that this content should not be in a separate WP:SPINOUT, ideally something that clearly overrides WP:BLP#Public figures according to which each and every one of these notable and well-sourced allegations about a public figure belongs in Wikipedia? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC) This is the same tone and tenor of the type of truth-seekers that pester the Barack Obama topic area from time to time, with "IT'S RELIABLY SOURCED!" their motto. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc, you can snark all you want within reason, but Born2cycle asked a reasonable question that you responded to with a non-answer. Can you or someone else please answer it, rather than dismissing it? Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc, thank you. If one thinks that these allegations about Armstrong's doping are similar to "truth-seeker" allegations about Obama, I can begin to understand the objection. If you can cite a specific example of pestering about Obama, I would be happy to explain the difference. My questions stands. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I rarely entertain pedantic questions, sorry. Though DRV invariably strays that way, we're really not here to re-argue the original AfD, only to review the closing admin's actions. This is simple, editorial judgment of whether or not a list of allegations or accusations of a crime against a living person is encyclopedia material; editors made the better argument that it was not. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. Can you then at least explain how you determine what is a "better argument" here? Will you acknowledge nothing in the supposed "better argument" cited anything about what any policy or guideline had to say about this whatsoever? And that the supposedly "[not] better argument" made specific reference to relevant specific guidance in WP:BLP, WP:SPINOUT and WP:CFORK? I'm just curious as to how you determined the pro-deletion argument was "better". Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I'll take a shot at it. WP:ATTACK is pretty clear that we should delete any "... Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject.". If that page does primarily disparage its subject then it is to be deleted. The issues are A) does it do so and B) does that mean we can't ever have a "controversies" or "legal problems" spinout article? I'd say A) is a reasonable thing to claim but B) seems like a bad idea and stands starkly different than WP:BLP or other related policies which instead insist on quality sourcing. Thus I started a discussion at WP:ATTACK. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Unless I missed it, no one arguing for deletion in the AfD (or arguing for endorsement here) referenced WP:ATTACK, much less quoted from it, until now. I see the problem. A section within a BLP addressing well-sourced allegations about the person is fine, even encouraged at WP:BLP#Public figures. But if the allegations grow, the section gets too big, and so the content is apt to be moved to a separate article, per WP:SPINOUT. But then the resulting spinout article could be easily misconstrued (misconstrued because the purpose of a spinout of a section that is too big is not to disparage which is the defining characteristic of an attack) to be an attack article. Yes, I think this needs to be addressed at WP:ATTACK; good call. Is it fair to say that the supposedly "better argument" (for deletion) many refer to here implicitly relied on WP:ATTACK. I don't see how such implicit reliance on policy makes for a quality argument, but whatever. That makes a little more sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Born2cycle, I see the problem with the article stemming from Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. The title, and the listing of allegations, implies that there is a long list of allegations. As this is negative, it immediately fires BLP alarms. The implication is also not one of a Neutral point of view. Looking at the cached version, I see a list of sourced allegations, but no source for a list of allegations. Just because there are a lot of them, it doesn't mean that they should be grouped. For there to be a separate article on all the allegations, there needs to be sources of independent, reputable, secondary source material about the allegations collectively. Even then, due to the subject being a living person, great care needs to be taken to ensure that the Wikipedia article doesn't even imply anything not explicitly stated in independent reputable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. There's probably enough legitimate sourcing out there to write a neutrally framed article on the general controversy, but this one was just awful, particularly for the bloating of the number of "allegations" by treating related, repetitious charges as independent and by giving lengthy, detailed treatment to charges that appear to have been convincingly debunked. The notion of presenting this material as a list was inconsistent with the sort of responsible editing that WP:BLP requires. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Now, that's a good, valid and persuasive point, finally, though even so, I don't think that any of the allegations have been been debunked at all, much less convincingly. As far as I know, no reliable sources treat any of these allegations as being debunked (though of course Armstrong's lawyers and associates do). I am curious about what you think debunked any of them, though of course that's off topic here. Anyway, thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse close. The first sentence of the article starts "Although Lance Armstrong has never been found guilty...". Obviously a BLP nightmare will follow. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC) So seriously... which part of the article was an intractable BLP violation? You're reaching beyond what Black Kite said in his closing, and I'd really like to see some of the "it's obviously a BLP problem" camp actually substantiate their opinion by demonstrating how specific parts of the article run afoul of the actual BLP policy. Obviously, it's a violation of many people's notional BLP policies, but that's a separate matter. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Our policy on BLP requires us to cover negative aspects. The foundation, in their statement regarding BLPs, put overly positive BLPs right next to libel in the list of serious problems facing BLP. That said, I believe that the closure was proper. The excessive detail present in this article represented an undue weight of coverage when the coverage of Armstrong was taken as a whole. I do think that !votes claiming that this mostly well-sourced article could be deleted solely on BLP grounds should be discounted, as well as some of the fanciful claims like the person who cited WP:COATRACK. But even discounting those arguments, I think there was a compelling argument for deletion or merge. Since the closer explicitly left the possibility of merge open, and only chose deletion due to the lack of utility of the redirect, I think this was an appropriate decision. Gigs (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Note - It is a shame, but there are now attempts to shove the entirety of this deleted article back into the main Lance Armstrong one, i.e. [20]. If it is too much to have this laundry list of allegations as an article, the same applies to any other article IMO. it is unfortunate that it was present in that article for so long in the past, but that's not a reason to retain it now. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC) As I read the above discussion, there seems to be quite a lot of support, even among those who do not support the individual article as a spinout, for de-merging the content. After all, it was there in the first place, uncontested by the editors of that article. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted. The AFD closure is not one that no reasonable closing admin could have made, and I think that is enough. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Numerically this could reasonably be regarded as no consensus, but the main point madeby the closing admin - that "the arguments for not having this as a separate article are clearly made and I do not see that they are refuted by those supporting the article's retention" - appears to be backed up by the debate. Taking the BLP problems into account, this seems like a reasonable close. Just put some of it in the main article without violating WP:UNDUE and everyone should be happy. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The reason given for deletion was undue weight given to unsubstantiated claims about Lance Armstrong, with the implications this has on WP:BLP. The reasons given to keep did not address this at all, and instead pointed at how well the article was sourced. If notability were the issue, those would have been good arguments, but that was not what the debate was about. I can see no fault in Black Kite's closure of this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse (as valid process). I personally would have decided the opposite but it's a close call, and anyway I'm not an admin. It's a plausible position, to say the least, that articles like this are not encyclopedic in conception, and in so being are BLP violations, even if most of pieces of information are, on their own terms, well sourced and relevant to the subject. This information can be added (in part) back to the main article, or form the basis of a better-conceived article focused more narrowly around the Armstrong doping scandal. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 October 2010

2010 Ryder Cup photograph – AFD close endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
2010 Ryder Cup photograph (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) To quote from our policies and guidelines "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability..." (from WP:NOT) and "Routine kinds of news events (including ... viral phenomena) - whether or not ... widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" (from (WP:EVENT). This was as clear cut a textbook case of a viral phenomenon that there is. It received a huge amount of media coverage in the short term, but there was absolutely no evidence of any enduing significance – certainly none of the keep !voters were able to provide any. The closing admin was vague in his closing statement, deciding to keep while having a no consensus rationale. When challenged, he has stated his view that the consensus of the AfD discussion was to "wait and see" (when in doubt don't delete) which in my view completely contradicts policy. wjematherbigissue 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse (no consensus). Closer did the right thing, although it was not a consensus to keep, but in the absence of a consensus to delete, defaults to keep. RE-nominate in two months if you wish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) No consensus defults to keep, that's why it exists as a closing option. Closing as 'keep', if as you say, "it was not a consensus to keep", is not an example of doing the 'right thing'. Quite the opposite infact. "RE-nominate in two months if you wish." Based on what policy exactly? What would anybody who nominated this in 2 months be able to say in answer to someone who votes in that second Afd, "procedural keep, WP:NTEMP, kept at prior Afd."? MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Closure reflected the consensus. As as aside word of advice, never nominate an article based on NOTNEWS while the story is ongoing. It will most likely not result in a consensus for deletion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - per SmokeyJoe there was no consensus to delete. This article has more than enough citations and references to assert notability, leave it be. Glen 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per above. Also endorse brewcrewer's comment that, cynically, the best way to axe a silly news article (and this article should be axed) is to wait until the coverage dies down and everyone realises it's a silly news article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Light vs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Light (2nd nomination). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Sadly endorse; per Mkativerata/brewcrewer the best action is to wait six months for the matter to die down. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. There were some strong arguments to delete, but they weren't even close to being supported by consensus. Renominate later and the result could well be different. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. Consensus is not a head count, which is most definitely what appears to have happened here. Consensus at AfD should be based on established practice as formalised in policies and guidelines, which are to be ignored according to the voices here, and not some perception of what the wider community actually thinks. In all seriousness, what is the point of having these basic principles if we are to blindly ignore them to pacify those who wish to make and keep articles for every trivial news story there is? It should not be necessary to accommodate this kind of thing for a few weeks, let alone six months, in order for some people to finally see sense. The closer should see through the flimsy keep arguments to the substantial policy based delete ones and do the right thing. wjematherbigissue 15:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC) To be honest, this may require some attention to our notability guideline. Flash-in-the-pan news "stories" such as this transparently meet the qualifications of the GNG and so gain the "presumption" of notability. That is, as the guideline states, not absolute, but quoting the section at issue: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article" (emphasis mine). As written, community consensus is the method that overrules the GNG to discard fluff. For better or worse, that consensus tends to form six or so months after these types of articles are created, but rarely forms at the time they are first brought to AFD. Without comment on the merits of this practice or the article at hand, I don't see any likely change in the process for future articles of this nature absent a revision of WP:N to provide something closer to a bright-line method of determining when the GNG is inadequate. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed, there seems to be a misconception about GNG – it is after all only meant as a starting point, a (very) rough guideline, which should be applied using common sense. It also defers to WP:NOT, a policy which should generally be adhered to, not frivolously disregarded. NOT in turn refers to WP:EVENT which specifically deals with this very subject. All of this seems to be being ignored. wjematherbigissue Endorse as accurate reading of AFD discussion. I expect that there will be "whatever happened to Cigar Guy" type coverage at every Ryder Cup cycle, so there's a legitimate reason to anticipate notability will be durable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I actually came here thinking that the decision would be reviewed based on policy. Seems I was mistaken. Still, it's good to know that crystal balls work just as well at DRV as they do at AfD. wjematherbigissue 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC) WP:CRYSTAL, which you cite, refers only to article content "about anticipated events"; it's common practice in discussions focused on "enduring notability" for editors to state their opinions on that issue, in no small part because it's the only way to address the policy/guideline issues involved. It's a bad sign for someone who insists his policy interpretation is correct to botch interpretation of another related policy so clearly and so snidely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Whether that particular page is technically applicable or not, "expect[ing] that there will be "whatever happened to Cigar Guy" type coverage at every Ryder Cup cycle" is certainly the essence of what is discouraged by WP:CRYSTAL. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I concur, the concept of CRYSTAL can equally be, and very often is, applied away from article content. I consider the suggestion that I am being malicious in my reading of policy to be an unwarranted personal attack and request retraction. wjematherbigissue 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC) No one implied "malicious" intent; you're imagining that. And neither response addresses the central point: that you simply can't have a discussion about the "enduring notability" of recent events without some mode of speculation about future coverage. Policy about article content doesn't apply to such discussions. While some editors might misapply CRYSTAL, I doubt I've ever seen it applied to discount an argument of no enduring notability, although logically it should cut both ways. "This is the sort of event which generally receives long-term coverage" (or its negation) is an appropriate argument in this context; we couldn't have a meaningful discussion if it weren't.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Perhaps in future you could choose your words more carefully if that was not your intent – to me, in the context you used it, snidely implies underhanded, devious, malicious. wjematherbigissue 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse, but.... The controlling notability guideline here would seem to be WP:EVENT. A debate can be made about whether this photograph and its resultant internet meme satisfies the two-pronged test presented by that guideline, sufficient to overcome the firm assertion that "viral phenomena," even if "widely reported at the time ... are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." However, DRV is explicitly not AFD2. Some of the Keep arguments at AFD asserted a belief that the event and coverage were sufficient to pass the two-pronged test. Others cited the competing guideline at WP:NTEMP as a counterargument to the "lasting effect" verbiage in the relevant notability guidelines. The closing admin weighed these decisions, and made a determination that I do not think can be found facially defective, even though I do not agree with it as a matter of course. However, I suggest that this is in fact ripe for the application of WP:ATD. On the event notability guideline, it notes that: "If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization, or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content." Although not by any means a scheduled or official part of the 2010 Ryder Cup, there is ample precedent for unusual sub-events to receive coverage in the article of the parent. A merge to that article (in pared form, naturally), preserves the key aspects of the content and the ample citations for it, while eliminating the contentious status of the article. A mention and wikilink from List of internet memes is probably also warranted. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse as there was no consensus for deletion and keep votes were backed by policy. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Please give some examples of these good arguments then, so that we can actually assess how good they were, and whether they outweighed any counter arguments that were made, and whether their proponents adequately rebutted any challenges. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. I don't see how this closure is safe at all. There are obvious mistakes in Afd closing policy made by the original closer here - a 'keep' is not the same as a 'no consensus', and does not allow renomination of the article in 6 months on the same grounds. If it is a keep now, it means it meets our inclusion criteria now. Admin discretion is for the finer issues of content policy interpretation, not for Afd procedural basics like that. And on the issue of admin discretion on content issues, despite numerous requests to do so, the closer has totally failed to give any sort of breakdown or analysis of the opinions in the Afd and how he weighed them, so that me might be able to take his discretional interpretation of the content policies and guidelines in play here, on anything but blind trust, rather than with some confidence that the deleters were somehow mistaken, and did not properly counter the keep arguments made (and vice versa). In that regard, this closure is not good enough, not by a long shot. I don't mind it being over-turned to a no consensus, I don't even mind another admin closing it as a keep as long as he properly explains how that is possible based on the actual debate and our actual policies, but I absolutely object to this poor and unexplained closure being allowed to stand as is on blind trust, particularly if people quite wrongly think it allows it to be renonminated in 6 months. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse – to say the least, there was no consensus for deletion here. I also find it hard-pressed to see how one can get a "delete" close out of that one. In either case, there is nothing against re-nominating for AFD in the future should consensus shift direction. –MuZemike 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC) WP:NTEMP is what stops renomination. This is just Wikipedia/Afd 101 - any such renomination would just be met with a bucket load of WP:NOTAGAIN pointlessness. I don't know why anyone here is even pretending that the idea of relisting a 'keep' in 6 months time with no new reason, is anything other than just a total piss take. And if you don't see a delete consensus there, then by all means please give me an example of a valid keep vote in there that went unchallenged, and not only that, was completely triumphant. Because that is what a KEEP outcome says, not 'no consensus', try again later, but KEEP - this content is valid now and forever (because let's all try not to be completely naive and n00bish here, unless the NOT policy itself actually changes, which I don't see happening any time soon, then there is no argument at all that could be made at a future Afd that defeats a keep judgement made right now w.r.t. NOT#NEWS). Infact, Jesus H Titty Christ, I just realised that to even get a basic 60% support for a keep outcome in that Afd, you have to do a basic dumb vote count! There are at most, 2 immediately discountable votes on the delete side, whereas on the keep side, being completely generous and playing devil's advocate, there are still 4 votes that any competent closer puts in the bin straight away, before he even starts trying to weigh arguments, and I've included in the 'valid' keep side even the votes that are really merge opinions, and such obviously lightweight opinions like 'it made CNN', which is not particularly insightful for a NOT#NEWS deletion debate. It is pretty clear from even that basic analysis, that closing this Afd properly was very much going to be an issue of strength of argument. To even get close to justifiably calling it a keep, in the normal sense of the term and not this odd idea that keep also means no consensus, then there should already be some explanation from the closer, or anyone else here wanting to endorse, as to just how you got to a keep here wrt to actual examples of actual votes and actual policy, instead of at the very least, it being a no consenus outcome, which is the only outcome which does allow renomination later on the same grounds. (If this is not just a basic fact, I invite the closer of the DRV to prove me wrong in his closing statement.) MickMacNee (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Ooops, too late, User:Cirt has closed it as I typed that, giving zero explanation as to wtf just went on in here, and how the hell any of this BS makes any sense in policy except the usual nonsense. What a surprise. MickMacNee (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rubashkin crime family – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rubashkin crime family (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) AfD closed after 3 hours as "speedy". John Nagle (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC) The page involved was deleted under CSD G10, closing an AfD which had been open for only three hours. The page was well-cited, the content was not controversial, the page had been edited by three editors, and had been up for three weeks. So there was no urgency for deletion. However, the title, "Rubashkin crime family", was viewed by some as overly hostile, even though the article documented the five family members who had been convicted and one is out on bail pending trial. Worth noting is that there is a paid PR operation devoted to improving the image of this group[21], and that effort has spilled over onto Wikipedia on several occasions (see Talk:Sholom Rubashkin#Requested semi-protection). At present, there is a lobbying effort underway to "Free Sholom". So an attempt to delete the article in the middle of the night deserves close scrutiny. I'd like the article restored and the AfD allowed to run to completion. The article may need a rename, but the content is solid, properly cited to sources like the New York Times. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. BLP attack page. "properly cited to sources like the New York Times" is bullshit, as its well documented on the (now deleted) article talk apge. The NYT may have discussed different Rubashkin family members committing crimes, but the NYT, nor any reliable source, has ever discussed a "Rubashkin crime family", which is a family dedicated to crime, like say the Colombo crime family. This has been explained on numerous occasions to the nominator, but there is lots of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT going on. My WP:AGF has run its course, and I am afraid that User: John Nagle knows what is wrong but wants to "discuss" this in as many fora as possible as to atleast publicize his nonsense as much as possible. I support a block for perpetuating this BLP-violative disruption.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, this was not an obvious attack page, as is quite evident from the fact that a number of people are disagreeing about it, with extended discussions, etc. As such, speedy deletion was inappropriate in light of the fact that there was an on-going AfD. Nom is entirely correct in asserting that the AfD should be allowed to run its course, with editors having access to the article so that they can make an informed decision. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Argumentum ad populum.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC) "Not an obvious attack page"? Er ... the title, the very first sentence? And it might be a good idea not to claim there was an ongoing AfD - it was AfD'd AFTER the speedy tag. Why on earth would we allow an article which may be frankly libellous to exist any longer than it needs to? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Brewcrewer. The idea that examples such as non-payment of union dues add up to the description of a 'crime family' is original research and a BLP violation. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. There may have been valid content that can be incorporated elsewhere. There may have been a source that would be useful in another context. But this page was, based on its title if nothing else, an attack page against living people and so demands deletion under G10 and the BLP guidelines. The NYT has never referred to the people involved as a "crime family". Nor has any other newspaper, magazine, or published book. The only currency the term has is in blogs and polemics that are not reliable and demonstrably not neutral. And adding a source (that does not support the article title) does not serve as an affirmative defense to G10/BLP. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, the deletions don't stop here, the intention is obviously to create a brand new Rubashkin family with quote: “One person owned one company and was involved in one court case.” [22]. No family left at all, see also the deletions here [23]. And of course, we Europeans had no possibility to say anything about the deletion. Personaly I would have opted for moving the article to “Rubashkin family”, which the New York Times calls “the Rubashkin kosher meat dynasty”, [24] no less. ajnem (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC) If the family is notable, then a new article could be created, however given the BLP concerns, I don't believe the deleted article should be restored. PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Edit conflict, Phil beat me to it. Without any regard to notability or viability independent of the individual biographies, the deletion of this scurrilously named article does not prejudice creation of articles under other names. Calling a family a "crime family" without extraordinary establishing sources, on the other hand, is a BLP violation, and should surprise no one when it is summarily removed. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I had misgivings about the name myself. That's the big issue here. Can someone suggest an alternative? "List of criminal members of Rubashkin family" seemed too much like listcruft. "Rubashkin family" mixes up the criminal and non criminal members, which creates WP:BLP problems. The Forward article does conclude that the family and their various businesses and crimes should be viewed as a unit, and the Village Voice had a long article, "The Fall of the House of Rubashkin". [25], so there are reliable sources that support talking about them as a group. But how? That's the problem. Any ideas? --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Anything inclusion worthy can probably be placed in Rubashkin.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC) That's a disambig page. --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict) The family is notable, that's just the point, unfortunatly also for things, that are not so great, and that's why this campaigne (see also here and here) is trying not only to deny the family's notability, but its existence as a family. ajnem (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I makes IMO no difference what the article is called, to my knowledge there are no Rubashkins of the Aaron Rubashkin family, who are notable and not involved in businesses that have gone wrong, but there are other Rubashkins, that are not related to them, that have to be protected. ajnem (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Brewcrewer. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Rename to Rubashkin family I suggest this as a way out of this mess. The title is neutral. We may then have arguments over content, but that's a normal part of the process. --John Nagle (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC) No other option but endorse, regardless of the article title, the article is a BLP violation throughout all of its revisions. No problem with creating Rubashkin family as a new article, of course. If you're !voting "Overturn" here, you're requesting a violation of WP:BLP - end of story. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC) OK. Please put up a temporary restore somewhere so the content can be copied to Rubashkin family, and we go on from there. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Can't happen. As I just said "the article is a BLP violation throughout all of its revisions". It needs to be started afresh - no part of the history is viable. I suppose that technically the uncontentious part of the text could be ported elsewhere without any history, but that probably needs discussion regarding attribution. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC) No one has expressed any valid objection to the referenced content, only to the title. Again, I'd like the content retrieved for reuse, into some sandbox name. Retyping all the citations to the New York Times is a pain. --John Nagle (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Even restoring it and moving it to a new name would leave the old title in the history of the new article, though. The content is a separate issue; the last version of the article was purely a list of members of the family who happened to have committed a crime - I'm not entirely sure how encyclopedic that is anyway. Anyone else who can see the deleted history want to chime in? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC) In my honest opinion, the article can't be restored in its entirety without violating the BLP policy. However, if someone was to start a new article, some of the citations from the deleted article could be recycled. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - How long the AFD was open is really irrelevant, because this wasn't deleted as an AFD. It was a clear-cut, indisputable G10 attack page. Quoting from the G10 criterion: "Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack." Actually, this survived a speedy request for a remarkably long time, since attack pages are usually deleted within minutes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Note - Having only glanced at the content of the article, I didn't see anything in it that was clearly against policy, and would have no objection to the content being recreated in someone's user space without the title. However, I have serious doubts that the notability of the family can be established. For that we need RSes that write about the family, not just members of it. We do have Bush family, Kennedy family and some others, but those are obviously a lot more notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Some of the sources were specifically about the family, and these were noted in the AfD. As for "indisputable" -- I do not think that word means what you think it means (as they say), it's plainly the wrong word as is evident from the way people are disputing it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC) A cursory review of the available literature was not determinative. There are a lot of uses of the phrase "Rubashkin family" but quite a few of them are coatracks for the criminal actions of the best known members. There are a few sources that look potentially useful, but I'm not certain that there's anything that can be said about the family as a whole that isn't actually about the activities of those members who have their own articles. Not that any of this is necessarily germane to this DRV -- as noted, title choice was fatal for the deleted article. Regardless, anyone wishing to build an article on the topic is probably well-advised to begin de novo and source impeccably. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It's tough, but let me have a copy of the deleted article, so I can extract the citation templates, and I'll have a go at it. There are background articles on the family.[26][27][28]. The family is releasing an "in depth documentary" about themselves [29], so favorable material will be available. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Comment I've started Rubashkin family, starting from the refs in the old article. We can now go ahead with this deletion. Please try to flesh out the family article with their positive contributions. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Citation templates from article O'Connor, Anahad (February 19, 2010). "Rabbi Is Charged With Trying to Extort $4 Million From a Hedge Fund". The New York Times.Saulny, Susan (February 2, 2004). "Rabbi Will Not Be Prosecuted In Theft of Federal Grant Money". The New York Times.Nussbaum Cohen, Debra (January 13, 2010). "Rubashkin Kin Guilty in Sex Case". The Jewish Daily Forward.Preston, Julia (2010-06-21). "27-Year Sentence for Plant Manager". The New York Times.Muschick, Paul (March 25, 2009). "Man jailed in Allentown hazmat case. He lied to EPA about family's role at Montex Textiles site". The Morning Call.Sadka, Saul (February 6, 2008). "Chabad-linked rabbi fined $0.5 million in toxic waste case. Rabbi Moshe Rubashkin of Crown Heights charged with storing chemical waste at textile mill owned by his family". Haaretz.Brostoff, Marissa (September 19, 2007). "Indictments Hit Prominent Crown Heights Family". The Jewish Daily Forward.Waddington, Lynda (November 6, 2008). "Rubashkin family member heads to prison for Pennsylvania misdeeds". The Iowa Independent.National Labor Relations Board. "Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc and United Production Workers Union, Local 17-18, Case 29-CA-17848" (PDF). p. 318. Those are the citations that were in the article. Endorse own deletion as the article was a BLP violation in every iteration. Courcelles 21:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse: It's a clear-cut attack page. --Carnildo (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Clearly an attack page which is only going to cause trouble. Restoring this is a non-starter, especially with the far more neutral Rubashkin family already created. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Rename per Nagle. There is probably enough general comment on the Rubashkin's as a family to justify an article on them, which would have some positive things to include as well, but an article title like this is just plain impossible. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Gambino crime family. Lucchese crime family, Rubashkin crime family? No. There might well be room for an article that covers the Rubashkins on a collective basis, but this isn't the title with which to get that article started. Nor can I find any sources that use the term "Rubashkin crime family" in a Google News / Archive search. G10 is justified here. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and move to Rubashkin family. The family has been known mostly for crime in the past decade, but they were known simply for running the business before. Dropping "crime" out of the title preserves the neutrality. The article can still describe their crimes. Linda Olive (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 October 2010

Rucka Rucka Ali – Question answered – Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rucka Rucka Ali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) A. I have no clue how to request for undeletion, Wikipedia is too damn big and whoever wrote theses instructions doesn't know what "simple" means. B. Where do we request for undeletion C. Why can't this page be undeleted? Sure there are noobs who don't know how to make an article, but IHDC! I wish to create it, and I bet tons of people come on here for Rucka, yet Wikipedia has the page deleted for people creating bad articles on it. Arilegolego (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC) The page is locked because it was recreated multiple times and none of the recreations indicated notability. If you want to create an article about this person, you should do so in your own user space and then come back here to request a review of it for references and notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC) what does that mean? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilegolego (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Presently, no article can use that title because the articles that used it in the past did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you'd like to create an article on the subject, the best way to do it is to use the WP:Article Wizard. --Bsherr (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service, et al. – Bad-faith nom created by sock of banned user in forbidden (to him) topic area, endorsed by unanimous consensus to boot: three strikes and you're ENDORSED. – Jclemens (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service, et al. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Article was speedily deleted with no discussion. Subject is notable, and has received substantiual coverage from reliable sources for more than a year. 71.182.216.165 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted - it was deleted as created by a banned editor, in this case a sock of User:Grundle2600. Deletion was correct under that catefgory, no reason to undelete. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 'Comment Such is our policy, and I understand why it is, for it's the only way to enforce a ban-- though it continues to seem to me absurd to discard good material. Someone else should quickly rewrite it, since it is clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse- Per WP:IAR I think you can sometimes make an exception to WP:CSD#G5 if keeping the article deleted would obviously deprive the encyclopedia of a worthy article. That is not the case here. I have done a search and I simply cannot find sources sufficient to justify an article on this topic. I don't think if it had been started by a good-faith editor it could survive an AfD. Reyk YO! 02:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse WP:CSD explicitly allows for deletions to be refused even when the criteria are met - it says deletion is at an admin's discretion. So an admin has the discretion to refuse deletion of good content even if one of the criteria (eg G5 or G7) apply. In this case, it seems the creator was banned for content-related policy violations. The content he/she has create therefore has to be considered unsafe and deletion under G5 is warranted. On the other hand, if a user was banned for just being a dick on talk pages or something but created unimpeachable FA-worthy content, it would be proper to exercise the discretion not to delete. IAR isn't needed - the discretion is explicitly provided for by the relevant rule (WP:CSD).--Mkativerata (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per above. Further, regardless of who posted it, the article itself probably would not have survived an AFD. Much of it seemed like an excuse to collect criticism of the Obama administration, and the lawsuit itself was dismissed at an early stage and does not appear to have generated any appellate-level decisions (at least not yet) that would make it notable as case law. The Gerald Walpin biography seems more than capable of summarizing any relevant information. postdlf (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Administrators may care to notice that this is a re-creation of Gerald Walpin firing (AfD discussion), notice that 71.182.216.165 is in the IP address ranges mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600, and put two and two together. Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Speedy close this as a bad-faith DRV filing. The IP is definitely one of Grundle's, and anything to do with the Obama or political topic area is off-limits via community consensus. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Faith Freedom International – Closure endorsed. While the non-administrative closure was endorsed, several commentators have supported a subsequent nomination, most specifically in "a month or two". – Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Faith Freedom International (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Two of the keep recommendations completely missed the point regarding the lack of reliable sources available and only counted the number of sources. Another keep recommendation was a random personal attack, and another was a weak argument for an exception to the guidelines. See below for a more detailed analysis regarding the sources available for this article, a problem apparently plaguing it since the article's creation. Oore (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Comment regarding available sources: Of the 10 sources currently in the article, only [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 #1] and #9 can be said to have any depth of information regarding the website. However, both sources publish articles advocating a narrow point of view and have no reputation for reliability. Among the other sources, all are examples of either trivial coverage or no coverage. #2 like the preceding sources publishes articles of a particular view, and only has one sentence on the website. Reference #3, a book, contains only the title and URL in the appendix. Reference #4 contains no in-depth coverage. Reference #5 is a list of about 1500 banned websites. References #6 and #7 are rankings of websites, where data of practically all domains can be found. Reference #8 contains about 2 sentences on the website. Finally, reference #10 is just a blog entry. Thus, the website does not satisfy any of the three criteria at WP:WEB. Oore (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse- but with no prejudice against renominating in a month or two. Even discounting the personal attack I simply cannot see anything in the discussion that could justify a consensus to delete. Reyk YO! 04:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC) As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) As it was a non-admin closure, I did not see any potential benefit for me to discuss this with the closing editor. Oore (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, when I use to do NACs I reverted/relisted some of the AFDs I closed at the request of the nominator on several occasions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Ah, ok. Didn't know that could be done. Oore (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Comment If I look at the category "Islam related websites", most of them do not match the criteria as presented by Oore. I do not understand why he is making so much noise about FFI, while, for example, MENALIB or Ummah.com lack any reliable third party references at all. I do not believe that that should be a problem, but I do not see why it should be a problem for FFI either.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regardless, those too should be deleted if there aren't reliable sources and you're welcome to put them up for AfD, or I'll go through the entire category myself later in the week. Oore (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I do not believe that WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here. That rule is about the unjust argument that if article A exists, there is enough reason to create article B. At this moment we are not discussing the existence of these articles, but the way they comply to the guidelines. And personally, I believe that your interpretation of the guidelines is too strict. Nevertheless, you can always put up the MENALIB-article for AfD, and see what happens. It was uncontested for 6 years, and I cannot imagine what problem one can have with it standing here. However, if it gets deleted, you have more reason to complain about the treatment of the FFI-article.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I see what you're trying to say, but we should judge articles on their own merit, instead of bringing up other problematic articles to defend the existence of the article in question. If you see an issue with how I'm interpreting policy, feel free to bring that up on my talk page. Oore (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Before a bunch of shmoes :) decided to throw a mop and bucket through my window I made a lot of non admin closures and this is probably one I wouldn't have touched but it is a proper reading of the consensus. Also, the closer not being an admin is not a reason to decline discussing the close with him before taking it to DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Comment by closer: I thought this was a fairly easy keep. In my opinion, not only were there more keep comments at the AfD, but they were also more in line with policy. Also, the AfD was started on the 2nd and relisted on the 9th. After being relisted, there were 3 comments supporting keeping the article and none advocating deletion. That said, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if the close was overturned. And I would have reopened the AfD and allowed an admin to close it if asked. -Atmoz (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Why do you believe the keep recommendations were more in line with policy, Atmoz? A single reliable source covering this website with depth has yet to be shown. Oore (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Outcome There was no consensus to delete in that xfd. No real reason to think that re-relisting would have changed anything. Maybe it could have been no-consensus instead of keep, but the basic result of either is the same.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse outcome, although this was not a well-advised choice for a non-admin closure and probably would have been better closed as "no consensus." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) endorse this was certainly the sort of AfD that a non-admin should stay away from closing, if only because it leads to DRVs like this. However, I think there would be no point in reopening, since any reasonable admin would have closed in the same manner. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 October 2010

Comparison of racing simulators – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of racing simulators (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was a great comparison data for all car simulators, it is heavily referenced in many sim communities and information on that page was up to date. The arguments for deleting this article were that: - it would need maintenance (yes! That's what open encyclopedia is for), - it contains just a lot of tables (wow, who would guess that comparison might be done using tables). Following this type of thinking, all comparison pages should be removed... Please restore the page. 212.27.22.177 (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) --> Endorse - clear consensus to delete, any other close would have been in error. Also, Deletion Review isn't Articles for Deletion round 2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse, you don't get to fight your battles here again. Opinions to delete were clear and policy/guideline-based, outnumbered the predictably-weak "keep everythings", resulting i na clear consensus to delete. Nothing more to see. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse any close other than Delete would have been wrong. The arguments in favour of deletion were numerous, sound and not rebutted. The article has been copied to Wikia. Hut 8.5 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse- There was no other way that AfD could have been closed. Reyk YO! 21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2 and each article stands or falls on its own merits. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn I think the decision was plain wrong, and I do not thing my keep !vote was a "predictably weak keep-everything"--and neither was Hob it's It was an argument that AfD is not for improvement, and that articles that needed editing, even extensive editing,should be fixed and not deleted. The arguments for deletion were none of them policy based ,and should have been ignored. Too much detail is not a policy based argument, When true, it is easily remedied by editing out the excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse I don't see how the decision was plain wrong. There was a clear consensus to delete. And there was policy explicitly behind just about all of the delete !votes - WP:OR. The use of primary sources to compare products is unacceptable. The delete !votes that relied on OR were perfectly valid and led to the correct outcome in respect of a massive unadulterated tract of OR. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse The AfD was pretty clear-cut. Deletion Review isn't for a separate attempt to get consensus that you'd agree with, but reviewing improper deletions. This is not one of those cases. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse I think the outcome was wrong, but consensus was pretty clear and not outrageous. I don't think the reasons to delete were valid, but given the !vote, IAR probably creeps in here. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Note that if you'd like to get this userified, provide sources that substantiate the data in the table, you have a lot better chance of it being restored to mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse my own close, mainly because I don't think I could've really closed it any other way (and the Delete comments were right - it was a horrible mess of OR). That's not to say a viable article couldn't be written on the subject, of course. If you want it userfied, just ask. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Maurice Jay – speedily restored by deleting admin. – Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Maurice Jay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) is an important figure in broadcasting in Ireland Mj2035 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation in userspace, and then after independent reliable sources are included, it can be moved into article space. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn since the article included clear assertions of significance sufficient to survive A7. Assuming this was a recent creation, i should have been BP-PRODded rather than speedied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore. An article that has been around for 4.5 years is almost an invariably bad candidate for speedy deletion. The article bears that out. There are numerous claims to significance and importance. They are hopelessly unverified - a sign of our changes in standards over 4.5 years. But that doesn't make it A7 eligible. Send it to AfD.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Comment' The deleting admin does not seem to have been asked to reconsider or been notified, so I notified him just now. (The ed. instead asked the person who placed the tag; I have notified them also) DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn Totally incorrect use of A7. And should be easily sourceable. No need to rewrite in user space--just add the sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn As others have noted, this was a horrible interpretation of A7. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 October 2010

Super Hits (Miles Davis album) – The AfD consensus was to "delete some, keep others", and the appellant has convinced the original multi-AfD nominator that this album should have been among the some that are kept, and no other editor has objected. Any editor is free to renominate this album immediately for a separate AfD if desired. – Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Super Hits (Miles Davis album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Per Eric 44's criteria here, this article should have been kept: it charted and it has a professional review. It is also featured in several of Davis' discographies, e.g. from the BBC and Billboard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn per nom. Another demonstration of the problems created by indiscriminate bulk nominations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn per nom; note that I instigated the bulk AFD. But hey, all those and this was the only one needing an overturn? Not bad. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:A German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg – Please raise that at commons – Spartaz Humbug! 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC) We were both restoring the colon at the same time; thank you for suppressing the image that wasn't intended to appear. Since the closure appeared first, I did not do the notifications delrev requires. The newly-advised procedure does not obviously apply, but I am visiting that link. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:A German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) Libel and other reasons. Overturn and delete: An image captioned as "German Prostitute" and showing an identifiable female should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, unless the female provides consent. I have already German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg requested deletion, discussed the keeping with the keeping admin, and German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg appealed the nondeletion through Commons. Both deletion requests appear on the German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg same page. The main disagreement, against deletion, is that she is a well-known and trusted Wikipedia editor who has not requested deletion and is open about herself having been in prostitution. However, this is said by various editors other than her. As far as I can tell, she has not said so herself and has not notified Wikimedia Foundation of her consent in writing, either publicly or privately. The only information I have of her name is that it is Annabell, no editor has that exact name, and, to my knowledge, no editor has written that she is the Annabell or that the image is of herself. There also appears to be a misunderstanding on whether deleting if she requests it is sufficient. As I previously noted, as a matter of U.S. law, it is not sufficient, because if she is harmed before she knows of the image (or has time to request deletion), the Foundation may be financially liable to her. This is a point likely to be better understood by attorneys, and I think parties to the discussion have all been nonlawyers. The grounds for deletion are libel, use of her likeness without her consent, personality rights, possibly having been under the age of consent when photographed given the Foundation's inability to verify age, violation of a Commons guideline (e.g., under the guideline what is normally not okay is a photo of "A man and woman talking, entitled 'A prostitute speaks to her pimp' (possible defamation)"), and violation of BLP policy because calling someone a prostitute is inherently contentious given prostitution's illegality in most of the U.S., where Wikimedia has servers. This generally is not new information. I don't know how to read German, so some pages in German, such as one with the image or an German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg image page, may have information of which I'm unaware. I did not seek mediation because I cannot identify all parties, since I cannot identify the image's subject as an editor, although some editors would disagree. I asked whether an attorney could consider the matter, but none was available especially for an age-of-consent determination. Editing the caption to remove "Prostitute" could suffice but I assume that's objected to and also would have to be done separately wherever the file is used, now and again in the future. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC) (Corrected to remove excess colons, fix bracketing that altered an intended link, and change erroneous boldfacing to intended italic per quoted original and clarified that two pages are in German: 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)) Cough, go to Commons and ask there since we don't control commons images in the English wikipedia. You need this link Spartaz Humbug! 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

DragonFable – - moved to the article location by Alexf. Non-admin procedural close of this section as housekeeping. – Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
DragonFable (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I want to move User:Harry_Blue5/DragonFable there, which is well sourced compared to previous version of the DragonFable article that was deleted. Due to the article location being salted I couldn't move it there, moreover it is now a redirect and I was told to go bring it up with the admin that closed the discussion, who is now Semi-Retired. So instead I've brought it up at DRV. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:21pm • 05:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 October 2010

Andrew_Lowey – Deletion review is not the correct forum for seeking deletion of the article. Feel free to nominate for deletion at WP:AFD. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Andrew_Lowey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) BLP contains no references. It also seems the subject has limited notability.RobRedactor (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Comment I don't frequent DRV, so I may be misguided, but is this the right venue for the discussion? Wouldn't it be easier just to start an AFD for the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Feel free to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. While it was nominated and kept over 4 years ago, standards have changed significantly again and it's worth another shot. A deletion review isn't the correct forum. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Hmm, OK. I agree that AfD is the way to go, but as the admin who declined the speedy deletion of this article, I don't feel comfortable closing this DRV. Would somebody else set the wheels in motion? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Buddhist sex abuse cases – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Buddhist sex abuse cases (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) 1 User Jclemens did not notify me on my talk page Rinpoche talk that the article was tagged for deletion (I was the contributor) 2 the reason logged for the deletion was "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" but the page is both notable and thoroughly sourced and it is not a BLP (biography of a living person) 3 I feel whatever issues User Jclemens had should have been discussed and I should have been given the opportunity to respond 4 It seems to me that the question of vandalism must arise in the circumstances and ask you to consider addressing this issue as well. Rinpoche (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC) FYI - Jclemens is the admin that deleted the page, not the editor who tagged it for speedy deletion (presumably). Traditionally, the editor who tags it is highly encouraged to notify the creator of the article (but is not required to do so). The admin who performs the deletion rarely, if ever, notifies the creator of the article. SnottyWong talk 05:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC) So how do I find out who tagged the article? Rinpoche (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Jclemens deleted the article without anyone having tagged it or notified the contributors first (which is not at all unusual for a G10 deletion). --Mkativerata (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse You accused named people of sexual crimes without clear sourcing. Frankly, you should be prevented from editing BLPs until you understand our BLP Policy. Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I didn't accuse anyone of sexual crimes. I merely listed known and uncontroversial sexual abuse. All of it was sourced and all of it is fully documented in both popular and academic literature. The article is not a BLP although it does reference living persons. It seems to me that you conflate'abuse' with 'crime'. So it certainly is in the context of sex with minors but abuse need not be criminal. No one today would argue that a religious teacher (any teacher) entering into sexual relations with a student is not guilty of abuse. That is why such teachers generally resign or are dismissed when discovered. However in the case of Ole Nydahl cited, who does essentially claim that his sexual relations with students are not abusive, I clearly recorded that defence and moreover referring to a criticism of Ole Nydahl's emphasis on the bliss of sex from one of his own root gurus (a very signicant matter indeed in that particulat lineage) I also recorded his defence. In a comment on the discussion page I suggested that persons persistently removing references to Nydahl might care to add a section defending such relationships but that I was unable to because I knew of no sources. To repeat you conflate abuse with criminality and on the basis of this confusion you treat me as you have. Frankly I don't think that very admirable and I ask you to provide me with a more carefully considered account of your actions. Rinpoche (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I copy this remarks from your talk page and my reply here. (You)The DRV will determine the consensus. The article lists living people who have not been convicted of an offence as sex abusers. That's why we can't host the article. A serious allegation of that requires proof. Can you prove with multiple concrete incontrovertible sources that each and every one of them was a sex offender? Also beware of SYNTH. If the sources do not say that they are sex abusers then you cannot list them in an article titled sex abuse. Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (Me) First of all you introduce the term 'sex offender', once again conflating abuse necessarily with criminality. This really is very remiss indeed of you. I'm surprised you are seemingly unembarrassed by this persistent error you perpetrate. Regarding your remark about sources, with the exception of Ole Nydahl all of the cases I cite are to be found sourced on the individuals' concerned own wiki pages, are adequately sourced by me and are entirely not contentious either because the behaviour had led to resignation or (in the case of Trungpa, Tendzin and Sogyal) is indeed multiply and incontrovertibly sourced. In the case of Nydahl the situation is unusual since he makes no secret of his sexual relationships with his students but justifies it as equipowered and this is noted by me in the article. I don't understand your reference to SYNTH ('look and feel'?)but once again what is at stake I think here is your confounding of abuse with criminality. Not all abuse is criminal. It's not criminal for a teacher to have sex with an adult student but it is abusive and there is absolutely nothing misleading or 'SYNTH' about describing the relationship as abusive. Will you please now address the question of your confounding of abuse with criminality and let me know your proposals? Rinpoche (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Endorse. For non-admins, the article was essentially a list of Buddhists who had been the subject of sexual abuse allegations. Most were sourced although IPs have recently added unsourced entries. I'm endorsing because the page was clearly a hit-job on the people it covered. There no doubt could be a policy-compliant article on sexual abuses cases within the Buddhist clergy but this article was most certainly not it. Good deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The article was not a 'hit' job. I mention its origin on the discussion page. I had been looking at the page 'Catholic sex abuse cases' and wondered if there other such pages for other religions. The only religion other than Christianity I have any experience of is Buddhism. I did some research and was struck that in practically every emerging post 1960s Western Buddhism movement I could offhand think of there had been siginicant abuse scandals not just peripherally but at the very heart of their communities. I thought that notable and worth recording in an encyclopedia. But how can one write such a page without citing known abuse? Here's a typical example from Catholic sex abuse cases In 1995 Cardinal Hans Hermann Groër resigned from his post as Archbishop of Vienna, Austria over allegations of sexual abuse, although he remained a Cardinal.(refernce cited: "'Exile' for disgraced Austrian cardinal". BBC News. 1998-04-14. Retrieved 2010-04-01.) and this is typical of many such citations there. Precisely how and why do mine differ and become 'hit' jobs? Rinpoche (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) You make a remark for the benefit of non-admins that the article was essentially a list of Buddhists who had been the subject of sexual abuse allegations (but they were not just 'Buddhists' but at the heart of communities they had founded and in each case the allegation was well-founded and adequately sourced). But also the article was not 'essentially' just that. It included a carefully sourced collection of references in the 'Literature' section which took me some to put together. But here we have the difficulty with Spartaz's action in removing even my userspace draft because no one is who is not an admin is now able to check claims such as you make here.Rinpoche (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I have removed a userspace version of the article at User:Rinpoche/Buddhist_sex_abuse_cases as another G10. The basis premise is that this was singling out individuals who have been convicted of no crime in the context of sex abuse. perhaps we should save time and effort by including this in this discussion too? Endorse own deletion Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I can't follow this comment. What is a 'G10' in the context of a Wikipedia article? Again you conflate 'abuse' with 'crime'. Again I frankly don't find that very admirable. Rinpoche (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Comment The deletion-without-tagging was based on this BLPN thread, and I'm entirely unsurprised that my actions have been sustained. Apologies for not responding earlier, but I *do* occasionally have a life. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for this. I didn't know of the thread and I shall study it directly. You must be busy indeed. One is naturally so very grateful. I too am extremely busy with my own modest investigations into the nature of things but do nevertheless try to find time to participate in projects like this. I know just how you feel! In studying the thread did you perhaps notice that the original article's contributing editor (me) had not participated and did you not think it at least courteous to let me know of its existence since you were minded to delete the article? Or did you not judge that I had contributed the article in good faith? Why not? Why do you sign off 'cheers'? Is that irony or in reality some sort of a challenge? Of course you haven't cheered me. On the contrary you have deeply upset me and I do feel myself very unjustly used by you. Rinpoche (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) When there's an unambiguously inappropriate page in Wikipedia, the rule is "delete first, discuss later". Had there been an indication that the inappropriate content was created in bad faith, I would have blocked you as well, and we'd be discussing this in an unblock requrest. But there was no such indication, so you were neither blocked nor even immediately cautioned. "Cheers" is a shorthand way of saying, "I know you may not be in favor of what I've done, but I continue to Wp:AGF, bear you no ill will, and hope you have a good day despite being here at DRV." Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, but what I'm saying (concentrate now) is that the page wasn't umabigiously inappropiate and when it was discussed (and it was discussed) I should have had the opportunity to paticipate in the discussion. I haven't had time to look at the thread you quote I never knew about. I'll look at it tomorrow and give my reactions here. You were insensitive thus in your remark 'cheers'. Rinpoche (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I get the fact that you don't believe it was unambiguously inappropriate, but the community has not seen fit to agree with you at this point. You're free to take offense at my being nice to you, but it doesn't really help your cause: better to display sympathy for the people whose good name your article defamed on the basis of inappropriate documentation than to take umbrage at me being nice to you despite the deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I'll address this tomorrow evening. Whom have I defamed? Is that why you deleted because you judged I had defamed an individual(s)? Sleep well. Rinpoche (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Concluding comments by me I have put off commenting on the BLPN thread discussion because I wanted to reflect a little on what really seemed worth stressing. In the end there are just two areas where I wish to make remarks. In the first place it is suggested here that the article was just a 'hit' list and not in the spirit of Wikipedia's generally conservative approach to citing living persons, that the article was even defamatory. I've defended the article against these assertions in the comments here but further point out that in fact Wikipedia does publish articles containing similar lists of living persons involved in some scandal or other. An example would be List of Christian evangelist scandals where the sources provided are mainly newspapers, television programs and websites. In the second place concerning the characterisation of sexual relationships between a teacher and a student as abusive, this is nothing more than what is universally felt about such relationships. You often see the eupehmism 'inappropiate elationship' used but what is mean is 'abusive relationship' in exactly the same as we commonly warn children of 'inappropiate touching' when in fact we mean 'abusive touching'. Abusive behaviour need not be criminal. In the case of the redacted Rinpoche singled out below by my negative critics as an example of a suspect citation by me, we find the word 'abuse' used in the two of the titles of sources cited to reference his behaviour in his wiki 1 'Best-selling Buddhist author accused of sexual abuse' 2. 'President McAleese distances herself from spiritual leader accused of abuse'. There is nothing further I wish to add. I ask you to restore the article. Rinpoche (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. Currently only admins and the creator of the article really know what this discussion is about. This excludes me, but that's fine, and I am not arguing for temporary restoration of the article. Reading between the lines of the discussion so far, it appears to me that the article creator isn't aware of the huge moral and legal difference between a Buddhist teacher sleeping with a student and a Catholic priest sexually abusing a child. It is problematic when teacher-student relations get mixed with sexual relations. Sometimes it happens anyway and it's easy to understand how it happens. In most jurisdictions there are no specific laws against, or if there are such laws, they only hold up to a certain age of the student. That's because such relations are not a priori wrong but everything depends on the specific situation. It gives reason for serious concern if a Buddhist teacher appears to defend such relations as perfectly proper. But surely even a teacher who is abusing his charisma to sleep with adult adult students is not comparable to a priest who engages in sexual activities with 10-year old boys. Hans Adler 10:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply I'm surprised you think it's fine that you don't know what it is you're commenting on but it certainly isn't fine with me who should like to be heard fairly. Here are the opening remarks of the article Buddhist sex abuse cases refer to abusive sexual relationships within Buddhist communities and especially a number of cases that have emerged in recent decades involving teachers within the emerging Western Buddhist community. By 'abusive' relationships are meant especially relationships involving minors and novices as well as those cases of consensual relationships between adults where nevertheless (as is the case with minors and novices) there must be a presumption of abuse when one partner, typically a teacher, is plainly exploiting a position of power or trust within the community over the other. I should be obliged were you to do me the courtesy of clarifying your comments in the light of the above. The article was indeed a deliberate foil to Catholic sex abuse cases but it wasn't meant to be directly comparable nor sought to make any such comparision. It was also (originally) a stub. I hoped others might contribute. As it happens there was a long history of sexual relationships with boy monks in Japanese Buddhist monasteries until reforms were introduced in the 19th cenury monsteries, as also I believe so in China and, on the account of many travellers including cultural attaches from both Britain and Japan, in Tibet as well. There are hints of continiung such behavious in some monastic communities in SE Asia. Of course sex with minors is repugnant and criminal. But can you clarify why you don't think it abusive necessarily for teachers to enter into sexual relations with adult students? I did invite in the talk page a defence of such activity to be inserted in the article (but of course you weren't to know, nevertheless I am curious). Here it is Regarding Changchub's position that sex between a teacher (in this context a religious teacher) and a student is not necessarily abusive, I think it would be a good idea to include a notable, sourced defence of that position if one exists. I don't know of one myself. A section 'Defence of teacher/student sexual relations' could perhaps be added. Ideally, I suggest, the defence should address Sandra Bell's, June Campbell's and Piya Tan's criticism referenced in the article. Cheers Rinpoche (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC) It is clear from your response that the article contained exactly the kind of inappropriate material that I commented about. We are generally very conservative in our reporting concerning living people. In case of suspected wrong-doing of individuals we tend to err on the side of understatements, not overstatements. "Catholic" sex abuse cases are a very notable topic that is concerned (almost?) exclusively with abuse of minors. What you have written about is far less notable and a lot more general. I don't have reason to doubt your claim about 19th century monasteries, and that can of course be written about. The problems arise when you put living people, specifically relations between teachers and adult students, into the same article. "But can you clarify why you don't think it abusive necessarily for teachers to enter into sexual relations with adult students?" – Is this a joke? This is so obviously a borderline area, in which some relations are obviously abusive and others are obviously not abusive, that I simply can't believe you are serious. Some examples: A 35-year-old male teacher at a German Gymnasium is teaching a 12th form. The students are all over 18 now, but the teacher has taught the same class in previous years, when they were in puberty. An attractive female student had an obvious crush on him at the time and is now hitting on him. Successfully. – Most likely a case of abuse, and criminal in a number of jurisdictions. Should typically lead to serious consequences when discovered. A young trainee teacher straight from university moves to a new city before the school year starts and meets a nice girl in a discotheque. Two weeks after a one-night-stand he is stunned to discover she is one of his students. Both secretly fall in love with each other. After a year of everybody else making jokes about the situation they discover that the interest is mutual. During the summer vacation they start a relationship. They find a way to make sure they no longer meet at school. – No abuse. Although technically criminal in some jurisdictions, this is not what the law is intended to prevent. An artist teaches painting at an adult education centre. He is very popular with his students, all of whom are bored housewives. It is widely known that he always sleeps with the most attractive of his students, and they are competing for the privilege. – No abuse, just immature behaviour. May be criminal in some jurisdictions with poorly crafted laws. A 26-year-old PhD student at a university hits on her 45-year-old professor. They form a kind of symbiosis: She is his research assistant, young lover and companion and provides him valuable feedback about his lectures. He provides her with a secure university job, co-authorship of important research publications, the security of being attached to an authority figure, and is a not-too-time-consuming lover and amiable companion. The egos of both get an enormous boost and the scientific careers of both profit. [This is loosely based on a real case, unrelated to my own universities and my own subject.] – Definitely no sex abuse. Technically criminal in some jurisdictions, which is justifiable because of the element of favouritism. Hans Adler 12:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC) You make the same error Spartaz does above in assuming abusive behaviour must be criminal. But relations between a teacher and student cannot be equal and these days are always regarded as abusive. FYI I am indeed serious about that, sorry to strain your credibility (you sound young to me) Rinpoche (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC) FYI: I am a 40-year old German with a daughter and a PhD in mathematics, currently teaching and researching in Austria. With that out of the way, I must disabuse you: As some of my examples show, "relations between teacher and student", if you define it so broadly that it includes the case of a western Buddhist teacher and his students can of course be equal enough so that there is no question of abuse. The section Sexual abuse#Positions of power does not say what you seem to believe it says. It says sexual misconduct (not: sexual abuse) can occur where a person uses a position of authority to compel another to otherwise unwanted sexual activities. That's dramatically more restrictive than the criteria I used in my examples. The section speaks basically about a form of rape, not about asymmetric sexual relations. If you don't have the competence to make such important distinctions when writing about living people Wikipedia will not let you do it. It's as simple as that. When you write hyperbolic accusations against a person, when you write about a living person's legal sex life for no apparent reason other than to disparage them or prove a political point or a point in a battle between religions, or whatever it is – then you are out. Hans Adler 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Not so young then, but still younger than me anyway. I'm a mathematician too incidentally although I would be the first to admit that's no recipe for clear-sightedness in wordly affairs. I can only repeat a final time that I am indeed serious about characterising relations between teachers and students as abusive on the part of the teacher. My purpose (and not any of those you impute to me for whatever purpose etc.) in the article was to document this abuse in Buddhism which is certainly notable in emerging Western Buddhism. Which part of competence don't you think I understand (it's defined in the negative I see)? 'Factual competence' presumably but all the cases I cited were thoroughly sourced and already discussed in the wiki biographies of the individual concerned. Thank you for your time and attention (you may safely assume the question about competence you so obligingly raise to be rhetorical). I do wish we could have exchanged views before the page was deleted. Rinpoche (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I give up. If you insist on being banned for WP:BLP violations there is nothing I can do to prevent it. Hans Adler 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Why should I be banned for for WP:BLP violations. I haven't attempted to restore the deleted pages? Rinpoche (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - All we're here to do is evaluate the actions of the closing administrator, not have a debate about the topic itself. It is well within admin discretion to shitcan articles that are WP:BLP-related nightmares. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I contributed this article in good faith and haven't had the opportunity to discuss the issues raised for myself. I repeat there are no WP:BLP-related nightmares in the article. Every single instance I cited is cited anyway in the wikis for the person concerned. Your use of the term 'shitcan' is an offensive slight on my effort. Rinpoche (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not terribly concerned about your feelings, especially about word choice, to be honest. That you have put a lot of WP:EFFORT into it and thought you were doing good still does not excuse a bad article. You seem to have a personal crusade here that you feel strongly about, but the Wikipedia really isn't a platform for issue advocacy, especially one that smears living people. Some of whom, judging by the back-and-forth above, were not actually found guilty of a crime. Listing such people in a "sex abuse" article is simply horrid, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC) - I note you're not terribly concerned about my feelings. Thank you. But I should wish you to be courteous nevertheless and dismissing my effort as bumph for the shitcan was not courteous. Like others contributing here you premiss sexual abuse as necessarily criminal. It is not as the case of consensual sexual adult relationships between teacher and student indeed demonstrates. I repeat all the examples I cite were thoroughly sourced as in the example directly below. Why do you think I have a personal crusade here? Since becoming a contributor (but for not much longer I fancy, I am very disillusioned indeed) a few months ago I have contributed on a variety of topics in the Wikipedia ranging from mathematics through to women activism through to artists ranging from the celebrated such as van Gogh to the less well known such as Anton Mauve to the outrightly obscure such as Anton Hirschig (all these articles contribiuted mainly or entirely by me). I do not see why I should need to parade my religious convictions on wikipedia to showe good faith but I should have thought them evident enough looking at my userpage and perhaps my mountaineous monniker. I can add I went to considerable trouble providing a more carefully balanced and favourable discussion of Ole Nydahl, one of the Buddhist teachers cited in the article, in his Wikipage whose section 'Criticism' was overwhelmingly negative before I edited it. It's absolutely horrid you useme like this and I ask you to desist whatever your private concerns about the way you feel about me. Rinpoche (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Just for the record for those that cannot read the deleted pages here is one of the entries on a currently living individual. A $10 million 1994 lawsuit filed in California by Janice Doe (an agreed pseudonym) alleged fraud, assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress and breach of fiduciary duty. It also alleged that he had “seduced many other female students for his own sexual gratification”.[7] The lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed sum. Since then however allegations of abuse have continued. Apologists point out that ((redacted)) is not a celibate monk. Detractors reply that there must be legitimate concerns that he abuses his position, pointing out that he lacks credibility as a 'chick magnet'.[8] If Rinpoche cannot see what is wrong with this text in an article about sexual abuse then then they really have to read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS & WP:SYNTH really hard. The first source is a blog and the second is www.american-buddha.com which I cannot evaluate since it is blocked in Qatar. Spartaz Humbug! 19:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The individual concerned is notorious in Buddhist circles and the lawsuit was very widely publicised. In the Rinpoche's wiki page the following can be found In 1994, a $10 million civil lawsuit was filed against redacted Rinpoche. It was alleged that over a period of many years, Rinpoche had used his position as a spiritual leader to induce some of his female students to have sexual relations with him. The complaint included accusations of infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, as well as assault and battery. In December 1995, the issue was settled out of court through mediation.(refs cited: Simpkinson, Anne. "Soul Betrayal" Common Boundary, Inc. November/December 1996. and Lattin, Don. "Best-selling Buddhist author accused of sexual abuse." The San Francisco Free Press, 10 November 1994. and Brown, Mick. "The Precious One", Telegraph Magazine, 2 February 1995, pp.20-29.) Subsequently, additional reports surfaced of students who "claimed that they had felt obliged to have a sexual relationship with their teacher."(ref cited Oakley, Richard (July 4, 2009). "Shock at lama redacted Rinpoche's past: President McAleese distances herself from spiritual leader accused of abuse". The Sunday Times. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)) In 1995, a young English woman said she had attended one of redacted Rinpoche's residential retreats and been led to believe she had been singled out for special attention. "At first I was flattered, and very open and trusting. He encouraged me to fall in love with him - but I realised he was toying with me. I noticed several other young, pretty women going in and out of his apartment; when I confronted him with this, he dropped me and ignored me for the rest of the time I was there." (ref supplied) Supporters of redacted Rinpoche state that lamas of the Nyingma school are not required to take vows of celibacy, and indeed redacted Rinpoche does not claim to be a celibate monk.(ref supplied) So what exactly is your problem with my entry for this individaul in the article? I ask you to stop patronising me with all these WP:BLPs etc. you site. These are not at issue in this article. The article was thouroughly sourced and entirely competent. I ask you again to comment on the confusion you persistently make concerning abuse and criminality. If you think a blog and that site are suitable sources for an article naming specific individuals in the context of sexual abuse then there is no point speaking to you further. Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) That's your view about blogs. What about the long quotation from the Rinpoche's concerned own wiki page sourcing the abuse I cite which you cited as suspect? What about your persistent confounding of abuse and criminal behaviour you do not address although that prejudice is what led you to delete my draft article from my userspace here? Are you walking away from that too? Will you in that case concede that you have lost the argument and restore my user space for me so interested parties who are not privileged supervisors can judge the issues preoperly for themselves?Rinpoche (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC) That's not just Spartaz' view about blogs. If you doubt it I suggest that you complain here and see how long it takes until you are blocked by the project's founder in person. Thanks for pointing to the other BLP-violating article. I think after my edits it now conforms to our BLP-standards. (It still has a lot of other problems, though, such as excessive use of the honorific "Rinpoche".) Perhaps an admin with access to the deleted article can make sure that the other articles you cited also conform to BLP. Hans Adler 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) My point about blogs is valid. Some of them are very good. I do understand (as ever I am obliged to you for instructing me) that in general they can't be cited but as I note below WP:V only says in general they can't be cited and you as a 40 year old something research mathematician studying in Austria will appreciate the corollory that some therefore are worth citing. As for your edit of the redacted person referred to here as the chickmag Rinpoche not to hurt his feelings or defame him whatever it's worth quoting I think certainly because it's so elegantly phrased In 1994, a $10 million civil lawsuit was filed against Sogyal Rinpoche. It was alleged that over a period of many years, Rinpoche had used his position as a spiritual leader to induce some of his female students to have sexual relations with him. The complaint included accusations of infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, as well as assault and battery. The lawsuit was settled privately, but related allegations flared up again later. but mainly to point as the noted American poetess Sylvia Plath once more or less just as elegantly characterised so I do feel that this is just basically 'wanking a glitter' here (although I can reasonably ask why you deleted the significant assertion "claimed that they had felt obliged to have a sexual relationship with their teacher" which is supported by the inline quotation provided in accordance with WP:V and adds to the picture of abuse, because that of course is what it is, already described and why did you choose the legally meaningless phrase 'privately settled' over, what was originally given, the legally correct 'settled out of court' which was wiki-linked? I don't really undestand why you are satsfied your edit is superior). I suppose I'd better add (now rather than later) that in English 'induce' and 'feel obliged to' have a quite different character as any brilliant a bit world famous so she or he might very well claim 60 something or other native speaker of English and distiguished arithmancer or something like that that can tell you. Are you a native speaker of English or perhaps just not quite as good as you fancy yourself? Surely we've said enough to each other by now? Rinpoche (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC) It bills itself as "an Oregon non-profit religious organization dedicated to spreading the word that the American tradition, and our Western cultural roots, provide abundant resources for spiritual inspiration, ethical guidance, and the expansion of human understanding", but they host a lot of nutty 9/11 conspiratorial junk as well, like a rense.com. I wouldn't trust it an inch in terms of WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) American Buddha is a well known forum. I cited it because I didn't want to plagiarise it's witty characterisation of the Ronpoche concerned as an unlikely candidate for a "chick-magnet" which gets right to the heart of the issues about him and why I also provided a thumbnail image of the Rinpoche. Don't know abour conspiracy theories. Is there one for the Rinpoche? Clarification appreciated. Rinpoche (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not your personal blog where you can publish witty insults of living people. Such crap would never make it into Encyclopedia Britannica. What makes you believe that it is acceptable here? Hans Adler 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) For the reasons exactly I pointed out. It gets to the heart of the matter. What have you got against wit especially when it's as insightful as this? And it wasn't an insult. Nor crap. But how very robust of you, just like Mozart farting at the piano I am 'moved' to reflect. So Austrian (and I should know as well as anyone - I've slept nights enough in their mountain huts and lived to tell the tale :-}) Rinpoche (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse as within admin discretion. Removing the worst, and listing at WP:AFD would've also been ok. Regarding justification for the delete, I can't emphasize enough the importance of reliable sources for any negative content about living people; blogs, forums, wikis, partisan groups and so on shouldn't be used. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC) ReplyThe article was thoroughly sourced and competent. Why shouldn't be blogs be cited as a source? What's your POV on blogs? Some are okay, some aren't. The best are outstanding, the worst abysmal. Like books, pamplets, papers. I repeat the article was throughly researched and competently sourced. Compare what I entered for the chickmag Rinpoche thought suspect by Humbug! and what is entered in his own wiki quoted above. The Rinpoche in question is notorious in Buddhist circles. If you're a Buddhist you would have to be currently engaged in a six year retreat face-down prostrate in a moon crater not to have heard of him and know about his very widely publicised issues. He doesn't need multiple spources. Rinpoche (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you should have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. Have you read what I put on your user talk? PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Well I shall look at these and perhaps comment. Thank you. I did look at what you put on my user page which I recognise was helpful and thank you for that. Appreciated. I have replied. Rinpoche (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I looked at WP:V and especially at Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. I don't see anything there that conflicts with the position I take above about blogs. It does say that generally speaking they're not acceptable. By implication some are and I would say American Buddha is one of them. I also note an inititial remark "in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question" but as pointed out the chickmag Rinpoche's issues are simply a matter of record, a matter of fact and can't in all honesty be credibly challenged and the same is so with all the example of abuse I cited. I glanced also at WP:RS and didn't see anything there that I feel requires attention from me. I once again stress the article was not a BLP. Jclemens says I defamed the individuals I cited. I have done nothing of the sort and will address this claim tomorrow morning around 02:00 when I expect to resume these comments (and complete what I have to say). Thank you for your attention Rinpoche (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Discuss on AFD without prior restoration, even if this means that only admins can participate in the AfD. The article is highly problematic with respect to WP:BLP, and I can't fault Jclemens for deleting it altogether as a precautionary measure. But it doesn't meet the G10 requirement of "serving no other purpose" than disparagement. Rather it seems like an earnest but very flawed attempt to write a sourced article about a topic that perhaps does not need one. But that (and whether the sources given are reliable) is for AFD to decide. If we decide to keep it as an article (which would frankly surprise me), individual problematic sections can also be removed editorially.  Sandstein  11:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Agree with Sandstein. Not a G10, worth discussing the sources given that the topic itself is probably reasonable as long as the sources are golden when it comes to BLP issues. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Note that per the BLPN thread, I have absolutely no objection to a similar article being recreated, with the non-problematic sources included, in a BLP-compliant fashion. However, since the title, plenty of past revisions, and much of the content was a relatively-intractable problem, G10 was the most expedient option. I disagree that the "serves no other purpose" clause in G10 was intended to prevent its application to such a situation, or that failing that I was inappropriate in IAR-deleting the article per BLP directives. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Reformatting and marking text copied from the BLPN discussion. Feel free to comment afterwards. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC) If some reliable secondary source has written about the topic then WP could have an article on it. Just collecting information about people who are Buddhist, religious teachers, involved in a sexual relationship, and the other person in the relationship is one of their students would be considered original research. Wolfview (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. The Nydahl, Eido Roshi, Brad Warner and Dainin Kataghiri cases were all sourced with major newspaper colums or published books. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC) As I said I did not start the Page, but I think the information is worthwhile. I propose an article called: Buddhist Teacher/Student Romances or something along those lines. Then go into these sections: - What did Buddha say? - What is the tradition within the particular orders (Zen/Tibetan/Etc.) - Document what different teachers say about it. - (For example, Ole Nydahl acknowledged that he sleeps with students but adds that its ok.) - This way the article will be purely neutral and documentary. It should aim to document the controversies and let readers decide for themselves. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC) It sounds like you might have the makings of a sourced article on Buddhist teachers who violate the religion's own teachings on sex. That's hardly sex abuse, and the funny thing about religions is that people are essentially allowed to make up the rules as they go--if they differ too much from another sect, no big deal, they'll just be catalogued as a different sub-sect. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Ok then. Is there any possibility of you emailing me the content of the now deleted page at coreheim |a| gmail.com and creating such an article for me? I'll re-write it in the manner stated, and you can see if approve of it or not. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC) as I said, I was not the original author of the article, that was user:ripoche. I would not use the word abuse in an article such as this. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.250.138 (talk) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. To answer the IP's question, I think that's doable in part, (Yes, I absolutely can mail you the article...) but it's going to be complicated to get the revision history back without reintroducing BLP material into the history, and I am not inclined to directly help create such an article, although I suspect others here might. Again, if that's all that is desired, then the DRV is moot, because I already agreed that such an article can be created. All I did was G10 the existing article based on undersourced serious allegations, I have never said that a better article couldn't (it certainly can) or shouldn't (I'm ambivalent) be written. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. While there were some citations establishing that certain Buddhist teachers slept with certain students, there were not any citations establishing that these consituted "sex abuse," or that there was any basis for meshing them all into one topic. I largely agree with Hans Adler's comments above. It's clear that this was a BLP problem, and that the article was OR to advance a POV. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I've already addressed the question of the term abuse in these comments. To repeat for a final time it's perfectly well understood that sexual relationships between a teacher and a student are abusive on the part of the teacher. No other word, other than euphemisms, in the English language suffice to describe them. In the case of the redacted Rinpoche cited above, two of the references cited in his wiki (never edited by me incidentally) contain the word abuse in their titles 1 'Best-selling Buddhist author accused of sexual abuse' 2. 'President McAleese distances herself from spiritual leader accused of abuse'. Accepting that this catalogue of abusive behaviour at the heart of emerging Western Buddhist groups is notable and worth recording, what then do we call it? 'Scandal' is misleading. A precious Rinpoche may be cavorting scandalously in the bordellos of Lhasa without behaving abusively, or at least in a way that need concern us overly as to the moral safety of his community. Regarding Hans Adler, English is not his first language, as is evident from his editing of the readacted Rinpoche's wiki I mention above, and I suspect that's where much of the problem lies. I dare say he also opposes lists such as List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty as POV nightmares and that may be in line with Wikipedia recommendation but the fact is that lists like these are popular. The list List of Christian evangelist scandals I cite above as roughly comparable to the section of my article where I list cases of abuse (but my article was not just a list, amongst things other citing and summarising a very significant and notable peer-reviewed academic study) survived a page deletion call - no consensus was reached. But in the case of this article, because it has already been deleted, if no consensus is reached then I suppose it will remain deleted. And of course it's likely that the deletion will be endorsed, or at best no consensus will be reached, because only admins can see the article and I dare say their canteen culture sniff at lists. The popular vote won't be counted save from those such as Hans Adler above who feels 'free' to take it upon himself to wade into an article he cannot read because he can clearly see that the author doesn't understand that 'sexual abuse' refers to Catholic priests buggering small boys (he uses the euphemism 'sleeping with' - Michael Jackson fans please note). That is not a happy outcome and that must be regarded as Jclemens's fault. Rinpoche (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) For the information of Hans Adler and others I cope below the definition of sexual abuse at Abuse#Sexual_abuse Main article: Sexual abuse See also: Template:Sexual abuse, Category:Sexual abuse, Sexual harassment, Sexual misconduct, and Sexual slavery Sexual abuse is the forcing of undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another, when that force falls short of being a sexual assault. The offender is referred to as a sexual abuser or (often pejoratively) molester. The term also covers any behavior by any adult towards a child to stimulate either the adult or child sexually. When the victim is younger than the age of consent, it is referred to as child sexual abuse. and here's a remark from a notable academic paper If child sex abuse is society’s “best kept secret,” the second most covert sexual offense is that which is euphemistically termed “consensual sex” in the workplace and academia. Like child sex abuse, it extends as far back as Biblical times when David the King misused his power to gain access to the wife of one of his soldiers. Despite slow but steady progress in combating sexual offenses, it remains the most enigmatic and controversial behavior in a culture and legal system which too often dismiss it as a private matter between adults or minimize it by disbelieving or blaming the victim. — Billie Wright Dziech et al, 'Consensual' or Submissive relationships: The Second-Best Kept Secret, Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy Vol 6:83 (1999) Of course language evolves all the time but I don't doubt for one moment that if an individual making the kinds of remarks justifying teacher/students sexual relationships as not necessarily abusive on the part of the teacher as I've seen here had tenure in a UK academic insitution he or she would have been called in by now to clarify their views. I would like to think that the underlying cause is simply a misunderstanding of how the word 'abuse' is currently used in the English language. Rinpoche (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC) While you appear slightly more sober now, I note that you are still responding to the nuanced arguments with which I tried to make you understand why this was far from satisfying our high standards for verifiability and fairness – by turning everything into simple yes/no, black/white questions and dishing out underhanded insult/threat combinations that are sophisticated elaborations of "I know where you work, you wanker, and I know how to make sure you won't get tenure". Seriously, it can hardly come as a surprise to you that the persona you are playing is prevented from writing about living people in an encyclopedia. Some final words on the facts: An 'abuse' relation can only exist where one person has power over another. Teachers at general schools are in such a position with respect to their pupils. Employers and supervisors are in such a position. I have a number of Buddhist friends, but I have never heard of a western Buddhist who had similar power over his students, other than in the context of saying that this is something to avoid and a sign that things are going seriously wrong. We cannot independently assess the quality of a teacher–student relation here in any individual case. There is also no reason for us to adopt a Buddhist view on this quality, which in any case will have arisen in a context in which the students are children and which is therefore of limited applicability to Buddhism as it is practised in the West. We must go by what the sources say. Precisely. If newspapers report that A has accused B of sexual abuse, and that B has admitted having had sex with A, then we may be able to report both facts (there are high relevancy bars, and any inconsistencies in the reporting can be a reason to leave something out entirely), but we cannot say that B has sexually abused A, and we must in fact make sure not to create that impression. Hans Adler 10:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Point of order. Can we stop arguing the merits of the article and start back on the merits of the administrator's action? As said admin has stated "I have absolutely no objection to a similar article being recreated, with the non-problematic sources included, in a BLP-compliant fashion" above, why don't we just call it a day on this particular version of the article and someone can start fresh if they wish, adhering to the above. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC) OK, I can agree with that and will unwatch this page. But by way of explanation: I think this is a natural thing to happen when an article by a relatively new user is deleted without getting its day in AfD. Hans Adler 13:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Note further that the appellant has been blocked twice, first for 24 hours (which resulted in a brief break in the textwalling above), and now indefinitely for trolling and disruption. See the carnage for yourself at WP:WQA if desired. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Lulz. Even I probably don't have the chutzpah to both tell someone to go fuck themselves and use an edit summary so offensive it had to be rev'deleted at WQA. That's an epic meltdown. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 October 2010

User:Primerstar6/12oz Prophet – Delete endorsed. Deletion of the userspace page could take place as a separate discussion, at WP:MFD. – -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Primerstar6/12oz Prophet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I deleted the page 12oz Prophet a while ago, and then userfied it to User:Primerstar6/12oz Prophet per Primerstar6's request. A long discussion has ensued at User talk:King of Hearts#12oz prophet wikipedia page deletion; please read it before commenting. I still do not believe that 12oz Prophet is notable, but I want to see what everyone else thinks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Um. Reads as promotional. The sources I read were not about the subject, an online magazine, but were about subjects covered by the magazine. I think there are unlikely to be reputable sources providing non-trivial third party coverage of the magazine. However, I think a lot of work has been done, and that that work gets the article past WP:CSD#G4 (a weak achievement), and so they may be entitled to have it move to mainspace from where it may be quickly list at WP:AfD. The authors should be referred to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC) As for COI, I am not an employee or close friend of the people who run 12oz prophet and I am not a blogger for their website; just as an FYI. I am a member of the graffiti community who knows 12oz prophet magazine/website is a cornerstone of that underground scene, and there are thousands of members that agree. Since it has never been made exactly clear what the page needed beyond what can only be subjectively defined as 'notability' I have lost interest in whether wikipedia wishes to be comprehensive on this matter [in the sense that there are no less than 5 wikipedia pages on other matters that link back to the now-defunct 12oz wikipedia page]. 134.192.150.96 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6 Hi primerstar6. You say "12oz prophet magazine/website is a cornerstone of that underground scene, and there are thousands of members that agree". This looks like the start of a decent claim of notability. I could believe this to be true, but we are not interested in truth. See WP:TRUTH. How can you verify that it is a cornerstone. Where is the verifiable direct evidence that thousands of members agree? Was a poll done, and published, independently of the magazine, in a reputable source? That "there are thousands of subscribers" is a point towards inclusion. Can you verify the number of subscribers? What is the subscription revenue? What is the advertising revenue? What impact has this magazine made on what community. Keep in mind that every mention of "blog" is a point against inclusion. We are not interested in what happens in blogs, although we might be interested in what third parties might say happens in some specific blog. You allude to incoming links to the deleted page. At https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=12oz+Prophet&namespace=0. One is a see-also. Another is a reference from the magazine, where the reference wikilinks. The third contains a passing mention of the magazine, and is not the focus of any sentence "Os Gemeos met Allen Benedikt (founder of 12oz Prophet Magazine and also part Brazilian), who together with Caleb Neelon (also known as Sonik) became the first to interview them after a trip to Brazil in 1997 (12oz Prophet Magazine Issue 6; 1998), which became Os Gemeos' introduction to audiences outside of South America". These incoming links do not, on their own, justify an article. Yes, Wikipedia aims to be comprehensive. We would like to have comprehensive coverage of all magazines. But there has to be some threshold for inclusion. Generally, this is the WP:GNG. There needs to be reliable independent direct coverage of the magazine. As online magazines often seek to promote themselves, we can be particularly firm on this point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, I must agree with smokeyJoe--what the refs support would be a more general article about the scene. I'm perfectly willing to believe & hope that the magazine is notable, but there do have to be some references to show it. I don't want to keep the article out, but you need to find enough reliable material to keep it in. Now if the VV or the NYT or New York ever writes an article about the magazine itself, that's tthe sort of thing that's needed. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed, there's not enough here to demonstrate notability. I have no problem keeping this around in userspace, but there's no way it belongs in mainspace like this. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion exactly as I said during the AFD: The article has been around for 4 long years and has neither established notability or expressed verifiability through reliable sourcing. The userspace draft is really no better, and the conclusion is inevitable: that this is simply a non-notable topic and no amount of waiting and/or rewriting is going to change that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 October 2010

EXtremeDB – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
EXtremeDB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I am surprised this article has been deleted. I have read it before and I need to see again. Please undelete the article, due to having useful information in it and developers like me need to have access to it. I count on you to consider my request and publish the article -TheLadyBug1999 (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse article was deleted as software spam and the comment above "developers like me need to have access to it" would seem to confirm that. Recommend getting your own web hosting someplace else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC) As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion. The AfD was poorly attended, but the conclusion that the article should be deleted as spam is unimpeachably correct. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 October 2010

List of Pixar film references – Relist. Without considering the 1st AfD, there is a marginal consensus to delete in the 2nd. However, the 2nd AfD brings up no new arguments, and an article shouldn't be deleted just because fewer people chose to vote in a subsequent AfD. Allowing more discussion seems beneficial here. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
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) First nomination resulted in a clear keep, then same user nominated it again and it was deleted after only 2 days even though very few users discussed it JDDJS (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Article temporarily restored. As the AfD discussion was based heavily on the state of the article, it needs to be restored for this discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus- There was no consensus to delete that I can see in that AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Note One of the biggest complains in the nomination was lack of references outside the films, however the page does in fact contains several references besides the films. JDDJS (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn there is nothing in the nomination or the close which addresses the outcome of the first AfD nomination, in which plenty of independent reliable sources were listed. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC) With further review, I believe the following five references (from the article as it was when deleted), at a minimum, constitute independent reliable sources: comingsoon.net Comingsoon.net 2 Filmjunk NBC on Ratzenberger Firstshowing.net None of those are forum posts or primary sources, and they demonstrate that multiple, independent reliable sources have addressed the topic of Pixar film references in a non-trivial manner. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn I think the references are good enough for a keep, but that is not really relevant. There was no consensus, so it looks like the closer either substituted his own view, or did not adequately examine the history of the article. (but, as far as I can see, I ran the full 7 days, not just 2). DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. I was concerned that WP:ILIKEIT would affect my "vote" so I didn't comment on the AfD but I don't see how a consensus for deletion can be found in the limited comments there, especially given the recent prior AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and relist. In this case, the arguments provided didn't really go to the core of the matter, and I think a new AFD is warranted. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse as it doesn't seem we're all reading the same AfD. 2 deletes + the nom vs. 1 keep...discount the sock, discount the SPA. I find no fault in an admin who derives a consensus to delete from that. Not every deletion discussion attracts pages and pages of interested users. Tarc (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC) ...except nothing in the close references the first AfD. If an admin is going to close an AfD on previously kept article as delete, it is incumbent on the second administrator to explain why and how the first outcome is no longer correct. This is especially relevant given the relatively low amount of time that has passed--it's not like it was kept in 2005 and our notability standards have changed radically. Note further that given that the 2nd AfD had less participation than the 1st AfD, relisting would have been appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I also think the nominator should address the first AFD and explain why the consensus was "incorrect". Don't just pretend that it didn't happen. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn per JClemens, per DGG and per the initial AFD. Thinly argued rerun after a fuller discussion, where one keep argument seems to have been inaptly discounted because the editor did not bold his !vote. In addition, nomination statement did not accurately represent condition of article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse- I think this was within administrator discretion. When you have three strongly argued cases for deletion, and the keep voters do not address any of those concerns, then I think inferring a consensus to delete is not unreasonable. Reyk YO! 18:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Reyk. Note that I was the nominator. None of the "keep" !votes from AFD #2 hold any weight. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC) As you were the original nominator, can you explain where "entirely original research" in AFD#2 comes into play when there are legitimate, WP-recognized references in the article? Further, is there any response to your own observation that said references were, in fact, in the article at the time of AFD#1 that was also submitted under the guise of the article failing due to WP:OR? How then, is AFD#2 allowed to be a valid AFD submission? SpikeJones (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC) One, what about all of the "keep" !votes from the first AFD? Two, why doesn't the "keep" !votes from AFD #2 hold any weight? Several references were cited. JDDJS (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 1. Most of them were just WP:ILIKEIT and WP:LOSE. 2. I'm not sure about using all these blogs as references. Are they all reliable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 1. Most of them were not [[[WP:ILIKEIT]]. Some were, but some of the deletes seem like WP:DONTLIKE. 2. The blogs seem to be reliable, and there are a couple of references that are not blogs. The reference might have not been perfect, but it was better then a lot of other articles, and it can get better. The idea itself seems notable to me. It is much simpler listing all of them in one page, rather then clutter them into the movie articles. JDDJS (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Relist. While there were more delete !votes than keep !votes, it looks like two of the delete !votes suggested that the information could instead be used in a new article or other existing articles, weakening the case for deletion (as opposed to merging/rewriting). Also, I think that the keep !vote suggesting that reliable sources exist on the topic is a stronger argument than the delete !votes suggesting that the current article is mostly original research, as articles are usually kept or deleted according to their potential based on sources, and not on their current state. In my opinion, the only strong argument for deletion was that this is a list of trivia (possibly suggesting that it can never be made into an acceptable article even if sourced), but that opinion was only stated by one person who was only weakly in favor of deletion. So overall I would have interpreted this as no consensus so far, though I can see how it could also be closed as delete. While I think this close was "within admin discretion", I always hate to see that argument here as I think relisting an article to get more opinions is always better when there isn't a very strong consensus for one outcome. I also noticed that the previous AfD for this article was initially closed as delete, then was taken to deletion review (see here), relisted, and later closed as keep, which might suggest the topic could benefit from longer discussions. Calathan (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Comment Don't take this personnel Ten Pound Hammer, but is it really okay for a user to renominate the same page for deletion twice in less then a year, without even giving a different or more detailed explanation then the first time? I mean Ten Pound Hammer didn't even make any note to the first AFD. Isn't that considered fourm shopping? JDDJS (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC) On the other hand, one might consider repeated DRVs for articles that have been repeatedly deleted forum shopping as well. Reyk YO! 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC) It was on only deleted once. The deletion review was not submitted by me. The first one was overturned because their wasn't enough discussion. This DRV is no more forum shopping then if admins repeatedly removed rollback rights from a user who didn't deserve it and yet kept asking several editors for it. It is response to forum shopping, not forum shopping. JDDJS (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: As an active editor on the page, my vote would obviously be for Keep, but I also understand what WP standard the original nominator is trying to adhere to (and appreciate their effort, even though I'm on the opposite side of the fence with this particular article). Some observations: The original nominator in AFD#1 admitted that the article merely needed to be cleaned up and that the mainstream sources were reasonable - this was quoted in AFD#2. Even in AFD#2, additional mainstream sources were presented to support the article's existence. There is no question that re-inserting the reference elements back into each individual article would turn into a hard-to-maintain hodgepodge of even more WP:OR additions than those that are more easily removed from a single page. If the question is the timecode sourcing of each individual observation of a documented reference, I ask whether anyone has a better way to encyclopedically point out specifically where in the film such references occur. Yes, one argument is "the film itself is the source" so there's no need to timecode (let the viewer determine the reference on their own), but by including the specific timecode we can encyclopedically pinpoint the exact moment the particular reference occurs. I agree that cleanup is required, but a messy article is not a reason to have it deleted. I also agree that the closing admin acted a bit hastily on an AFD that had not reached a reasonable consensus. SpikeJones (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse by default because the request does not raise any understandable procedural concern and adds no significant new information.  Sandstein  21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I am confused by your reasons for endorsing. I bought up the point about the original AFD that wasn't mentioned. Several users also cited several valid references which was the major reason for the deletion. JDDJS (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse – assuming consensus can change, I am not seeing how there was not a consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 22:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Consensus can change, but there is no evidence that it did. The second AFD had only about 4 people comment. The first had much more. The problem was that enough knew it was going on. After seeing the first AFD, the admin should have re-listed and notified people who discussed in the first AFD. JDDJS (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse The closing admin was entitled to, nay obliged to, consider AfD2 as a fresh consensus-bulding exercise and judge the AfD on the basis of the contributions to it alone. On that basis, there was a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Question: considering the exact same AFD reasoning was made in AFD#1, should the exact same replies have been copied and pasted into AFD#2 instead of merely saying "I point you to the arguments already made"? Didn't think that we wanted to repeat ourselves unnecessarily. SpikeJones (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The point is that the arguments had much less support in the second AfD and the delete arguments had much more support. So the consensus changed. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC) ...And it's changed back, then, since if "DRV is not AfD part 2" we can read all the above "Overturn, it had plenty of sources" from editors who didn't comment in the AfD back into the AfD if you want, and reinterpret a broader consensus. You know why? Because it had plenty of independent reliable sources, and if "trivia" is covered in reliable sources, it's not trivia and the closing admin's rationale is entirely without merit. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, the assertion that a new AfD should not consider past AfDs might have merit if the !voters in the first AfD and editors commenting at the subsequent DRV were notified, to see if they'd either changed their mind, agreed, or left the project. If you don't do that, you have ONLY the nominator and anyone who happens to participate in both left as "can change" participants. It's obvious the repeat nominator's position did not change, so what the second AfD is isn't a "can consensus change?" question, it's a "who's paying attention this week?" question. If there was substantial overlap between the two AfDs it might indeed be reasonable to infer that consensus had changed. In fact, no such overlap exists. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Question to people who endorse The two biggest complaints are lack of references and it's trivia. Several references have been noted, and trivia is listed as reason not to delete at WP:DONTLIKEIT. So why do you want it deleted? JDDJS (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse There was a clear consensus for deletion. The second AfD is completely independent of the first, thus the arguments made in the first can not be considered in the second. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) That doesn't address the point I made above. There is no valid reason to delete this page. JDDJS (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I will try to avoid turning this Deletion Review discussion into AFD#3 for the article. Allow me to sum up some points: In AFD#1, the original nominator's claim was that the article was "Entirely original research". Later, the same editor stated "I support adding some of the more reputable sources". The discussion from AFD#1 pointed out 12 different WP-acceptable sources along with an MTV interview with Pixar staff that specifically addressed Pixar putting refs into films. The point here being that the article in question has proper refs from mainstream media AND the original nominator accepted this to be the case. AFD#1 also was closed prematurely by an editor while an active discussion was going on in the AFD space. AFD#1 went to deletion review and was deemed appropriate to be re-opened and re-listed to garner additional comments. As we know, AFD#1 resulted in KEEP. Armbrust said that "AFD#1 comments cannot be considered for AFD#2". Fair enough, even though I specifically said "to avoid entering the same argument here (that being references to counter the 'no original research' submission), I linked to AFD#1. If you're saying that I should have just gone ahead and duplicated the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that resulted in AFD#1 being a "KEEP" result rather than NOT duplicate the discussion verbatim, then let's reopen and relist the AFD and I will copy-and-paste those valid references into the AFD discussion. AFD#2 was created by the same original nominator to AFD#1, using the exact same criteria as with AFD#1 ("original research"). Considering that AFD#1 passed with "Keep" and that the editor agreed that there were valid references, it seems odd that AFD#2 would not be questioned as an invalid AFD submission... especially in such a short timeframe from the same submitter. {cleanup} is certainly a better option than AFD, especially as AFD#2 mentioned two additional mainstream sources to be considered along with the original sources in AFD#1. When looking at the original AFD submission - regardless of the "for" or "against" comments - the point is that there ARE valid mainstream references and that the article is NOT original research. The closing admin should have made note of this mis-statement and rejected the AFD for not being a valid submittal (requiring it to be re-submitted with different deletion criteria). Just like AFD#1, this AFD should have been re-listed to generate more comments rather than being closed/deleted without seemingly being looked at with a greater eye for detail. SpikeJones (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure, AfD is not a vote, and the keep arguments did not address the problems raised. Also, AfDs do not "stack"—each discussion is a de novo consideration of the issue. This seems to be just a thinly-veiled attempt to reargue the AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Yes they did. THE ARTICLE HAS PLENTY OF REFERENCES. There is no reason to delete it. JDDJS (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Discussion from previous AFD is not relevant if the keep side do not reference them. Seems a reasonable close. Not opposed to a relist given that Jclemens has come up with some sources to discussion although the closing statement does not reference N. Spartaz Humbug! 20:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Going by your comment it seems that you should be under Relist and not endorse JDDJS (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Eh, if "trivia" isn't a synonym for "non-notable", what is it? Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Indiscriminate trivia seemed like a reference to NOT rather then N to me and my vote is exactly what I think. I endorse the close but would not be opposed to a relist. That's a nuanced view JDDJS and I trust my fellow admins to be able to read it as I meant it. Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry it just seemed that relist would seem better. JDDJS (talk) Actually notability is completely different from trivia, see WP:IDONTLIKE. JDDJS (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC) As pointed out in AFD#2 - notability is met with coverage in mainstream media, such as that found at wired.com or nola.com. Further notability comes from refs in article itself from WP-approved sources such as slashfilm.com, collider.com, or Creative Screenwriting Magazine. AFD#1 mentioned coverage at MTV.com as well. How does any of this fall under the nomination criteria of WP:OR? The AFD should be rejected and the article restored as WP:OR is an invalid discussion point in this case... or, at the very least, the AFD should be relisted to generate better discussion and insight as to why it does not qualify as a valid WP article. SpikeJones (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I'm curious why you guys think that arguing with every endorse voter is a helpful and/or effective tactic? Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC) We're just addressing the points that the endorsers make with a valid reason explaining why we disagree. Also why hasn't anyone addressed the point that the article actually has references? JDDJS (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC) My opinion is that if the article is to be deleted... then fine. But at least delete it under proper criteria. WP:OR was proven to be wrong in AFD#1, and there was no reason to use that as an reason to list under AFD#2. I'm just pointing out that the original deletion submission and subsequent "yeah, it has no references" comments are flawed. SpikeJones (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC) There are a couple of reasons: 1) To demonstrate to you that your endorse has no basis in policy, with the goal of getting you to change your mind and position, or in the less optimal alternative, 2) to demonstrate to others including the closing admin that your endorse has no basis in policy. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, Keep: Why is this even up for discussion again? We've had an AfD discussion that resulted in Keep. TenPoundHammer objected to OR in the article - not speaking for others, but I know I back up every single reference made with third-party resources and links, which any non-blind peruser would note at the bottom of the article as this was PRECISELY the argument during the first AfD. Many sites and sources, from print media (NY Times, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly) to movie sites (Slashfilm, Coming Soon, Pixar Talk, etc.) have noted the continuity or self-referential nature of the Pixar "Universe". If there is a problem with Original Research (defined as posting information without a third-party reference) then DELETE the information. That is what editing is all about. Seems to me someone just got frustrated and nominated the article. Addressing this: "Original research. Almost all the references are to the film itself." - It was pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN that there had to be a citation of the reference in the actual film itself, in ADDITION to the information found on third-party sites. Many sites note a list of references and then update periodically or allow comments on the site that illustrate these references. Even TPH himself noted in the first AfD that there was plenty of mainstream coverage of Pixar's self-referencing. Regarding the notion for splitting the page: The article provides a valve for this information. Listing references on each individual movie page leads to the information being on multiple pages, thus taking up even more space (ex: Monsters Inc has a reference to the Pixar Ball - so this would be noted both on Monster's Inc's page as well as Pixar's. Etc. Ad infinitum) Further - even if somehow there is a "consensus" to leave the page deleted, I can guarantee that there will be a new page created by someone every time a new Pixar film comes out and multiple sites post the Pixar Easter Eggs. There is ultimately NO POINT to deleting a page that will reappear every year, if not more often when Pixar starts putting out multiple films a year.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC) relist for wider discussion or as a second choice overturn to NC. Deletion was probably perhaps within admin discretion, but given the previous AfD (about 6 months ago) and this DrV it seems likely a wider discussion would create a different result. We shouldn't relist after a keep if nothing significant has changed (underlying policies etc.) under the hope different people will show up. Further, I find I can give very little weight to the reasons for deletion. The article is very well sourced, meets WP:N and the claims of OR are fairly bogus when the issues are purely factual in nature. Plus, as ejorative.majeure notes, it looks like the !votes were penalizing the article for having both third party references and references to the primary source (the movie). That's crazy and not supported by a darn thing. Hobit (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. Hobit's final point is extremely important, and should be underscored. The nominator's stastement, looking only at the primary source citations, did not make a valid argument for deletion. Aside from the plain inaccuracies in its content (roughly two-thirds of the references were to primary sources, not "almost all", and the statement that all the references were to a single film is conspicuously and undeniably false), there were clearly sufficient secondary source references to support an article -- and the nominator made no claim otherwise. Similarly, one "delete" !vote was based entirely on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which by its language wouldn't ordinarily aply to an article of this sort, and clearly doesn't apply to an article with such extensive seondary source discussion. To draw a parallel, an article on "Biblical references in the lyrics of Johnny Cash," consisting only of references to primary source lyrics and Bible verses, might properly be deleted -- but an article which supported its central claims to reliable secondary sources would not be subject to deletion simply because it supplemented those secondary sources with pinpoint cites to primary sources. The closer here failed to recognize that because such delete !votes failed to take the significant secondary sourcing into account, those !votes/arguments were actually not based (or not soundly based) in policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 October 2010

Jane-finch.com – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jane-finch.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Please recreate wikipedia entry for Jane-Finch.com. It is a notable community website referenced often in the media. Supporting links are included: http://www.g4tv.ca/gadgetsandgizmos/episodes/5023.shtml http://thestar.blogs.com/thegoods/2010/07/mayor-miller-very-sorry-for-at-least-some-g20-jailings.html http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/563486 http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=26b68569-5745-4c5f-aaca-0c7b3c6e2395 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1IEqBz.chR0&refer=canada http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=167130 http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=161575 http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/10/6/29/n2951130p.htm http://media.www.brockpress.com/media/storage/paper384/news/2007/10/16/News/jane-And.Finch.To.Become.university.Heights-3035783.shtml http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=a6feaa51-145e-49ee-a868-6ca1816458ba Venom 200 (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion after looking at the first four links above, I see nothing that discusses the website in detail, just mentions it in passing as (for example) a place to see a picture of a wet road. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Added reputable links that featured Jane-Finch.com: http://www.g4tv.ca/gadgetsandgizmos/episodes/5023.shtml http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lostinthestruggle/filmmaker.html http://www.toronto.ca/civicawards/2009winners.htm#hubbard http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/paulyuzyk/recipients_2010.asp Directorpaul (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Here are archived Canadian national and local television news coverage specifically featuring Jane-Finch.com: Global National: http://jane-finch.com/videos/global_internetneighbourhood.htm CityTV Toronto: http://jane-finch.com/videos/citypulse_makingadifference.htm G4 Tech TV segment: http://jane-finch.com/videos/g4tv.htm Daytime Toronto: http://jane-finch.com/videos/daytime.htm Directorpaul (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC) The trouble with those is that they only really mention the site because of its link to Paul Nguyen (currently at DRV himself, where I support recreation) rather than covering it in detail as a topic of interest in itself. As such, I don't think the coverage is significant enough to meet the guideline relating to websites, WP:WEB. It'd probably be better to talk about the site in Nguyen's article rather than one of its own since that's what the sources do. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Here are additional archived media interviews featuring members of Jane-Finch.com discussin their work (which does not feature Paul Nguyen): Sue Chun and Blacus Ninjah from Jane-Finch.com: http://jane-finch.com/videos/daytimetoronto_makingadifference.htm Phanath Im - Senior Editor of Jane-Finch.com: http://jane-finch.com/videos/ctv_honouringavictim.htm http://jane-finch.com/videos/verdict_cantheviolencebestopped.htm Mark Dezilva from Jane-Finch.com talking on the news: http://jane-finch.com/videos/cbc_pistolsforpixels.htm http://jane-finch.com/videos/cbc_gunamnesty.htm Mark Simms - Executive Producer of Jane-Finch.com: http://jane-finch.com/videos/global_gangsandsnitching.htm http://jane-finch.com/videos/global_communityreaction.htm http://jane-finch.com/videos/cityonline_50cent.htm Directorpaul (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Adam Thompson – keep endorsed. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Adam Thompson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) At first glance, this might appear an obvious keep. But it was a flawed decision for several reasons: 0% (that is not an exaggeration) of keep rationales attempted to explain how the article subject met the GNG, even when specifically invited to do so. Within minutes, it had been added to WP:FOOTY's list of discussions, as is routine for most football debates. [30] However, exposure among a partisan crowd did not stop there. The user decided that this was not sufficient, and that a personalized request for participation at WP:FOOTY was neccessary. [31] I accept that he had good faith intentions, namely to provide more clarity on whether or not the current guideline is sufficient. But this does not change the fact that an extremely distorted proportion of participating editors were members of a wikiproject with an unrepresentative view of the relationship between WP:NSPORTS and the WP:GNG. The administrator acted improperly by closing. Administrators should never use the tools in a way that either does, or appears, to be furthering their own POV. User:Mkativerata used a POV in the keep rationale that he had previously expressed in when attempting to amend this very guideline on this very point [32]. The change stood for eight minutes before being reverted [33], was not present during the !voting process on whether to promote NSPORTS to a guideline ([34]), and indeed the requirement in NSPORTS that articles meet the GNG exists to this very day, as can be seen here. In summary, we have zero explanation of why the article passes the GNG. Conversely we have explanation of why the article does not meet the GNG, and why it needs to do so. We have users treating the process as a democratic vote, to the extent that they feel that they feel that footballers are above the GNG and that is the end of the matter. We have a closing admin that made a very questionable call in deciding to close the discussion. AfD is decided on the weight of arguments. If you actually read them, the weight of arguments was clearly that the article does not pass the GNG, and given that NSPORTS mandates that stand-alone articles pass the GNG, it doesn't pass NSPORTS. Regardless of the (skewed) ratio of the votes, the article should have been deleted. Regards, —WFC— 09:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Re diff [4] at least get the diff correct and not misrepresent that it was "reverted". The correct diff is here with the edit summary accurately reflecting what the editor did (and I agree with what he/she did).[35] --Mkativerata (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I'll also quote again from WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right." --Mkativerata (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I guess that distinctino makes you entirely qualified to use the tools to push your POV then? In any case, the version that was promoted did not include your change, showing that there was not in fact consensus. —WFC— 10:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC) And one of those subject-specific criteria is "'In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." It's not unambiguous in any way, shape or form. —WFC— 10:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Ok well your "unambiguous" view got resoundingly rejected at the AfD so lets see how it goes here. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC) No, it got resoundingly ignored by people with a direct interest in lowering the bar, and closed by an administrator that even now refuses to acknowledge that he should not have made the close. Instead of graciously accepting this point and standing down, you are continuing to push your POV. We all make mistakes. Me more than most. But your dogged refusal to accept any wrongdoing when it is right there in front of you shows everything that is wrong with giving admins scope to largely ignore our policies and guidelines, and instead do as they please. —WFC— 10:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and reclose. The closing admin is a bit too close to this for my liking. If the argument had been purely based on whether they meet NFOOTBALL I'd have probably said the closing admin was sufficiently independent, however a significant amount of the argument was based on the relationship between GNG and the athlete guidelines and this is something the closing admin has been involved in as shown by the diffs and therefore I don't think this admin should have closed. I don't think it's worth relisting as there had been enough discussion but I do think it's worth being re-closed by another admin, as although I think the same outcome is likely I don't think it's certain. Dpmuk (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Somewhat in response to Number 57's comment below I should probably have made it clear that I strongly suspect that Mkativerata hasn't been biased in his close, however, as I've stated here before, I think it's important that we are seen to act correctly and those diffs put some doubt on that. If it was clear to me that another admin would close it the same way I'd endorse but I believe this one falls in the admin discretion area so they may not. Dpmuk (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion This article has been through two AfDs in the last three weeks, both initiated by the same user, and neither of them have resulted in a consensus to delete, with a majority (5/8 and 9/11) noting that the article effectively passes WP:ATHLETE in both cases. I hardly think one edit to what was just an essay back in May makes Mkativerata biased here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure - I probably would've !voted Weak Delete / Userfy if I had been around for these discussions as I'm not fan of keeping articles on players who have only made a single cup appearance, but that's a moot point and this is not AfD Round 3. There was a pretty clear consensus that the article should be kept due to the subject meeting WP:NSPORTS (especially in the second AfD) so I think the closure was correct, and I see no wrong-doing on the closing admin's part - he certainly didn't misuse any admin tools as there are no admin tools required for closing a discussion! Bettia (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse... I think. In the end this was much closer than I thought it would be, but given the numbers and the reasonably balanced strength of each side, it's either keep or no consensus, which in real terms have the same effect anyway. One edit five months ago to an essay that later became a guideline isn't a COI in my book. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC) endorse consensus is pretty clear. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse own close. The AFD/AfD2/DRV nominator suffers a number of misconceptions here. The relevant misconception for the purposes of this DRV is that the GNG is a black letter law to which an administrator has to hold every single AfD argument, and in this case, discard 9 keep arguments. That plainly isn't the case. For a number of reasons. First, the GNG is a guideline; no more a guideline than, say, NSPORT or WP:POLITICIAN. Secondly, the GNG itself says it is subject to exceptions, so AfD participants can, by consensus decide something is notable despite failing the GNG, or isn't notable despite passing it. Third, WP:N, the central guideline on notability, says directly that subjects can be notable for passing the subject-specific guidelines even if they fail the GNG. That doesn't mean they will be notable; but that they can. The community very clearly decided that Thompson is notable. The community is free to decide that despite the GNG because it was armed with a subject-specific guideline that said he was notable. The community was also free to accept WFC's arguments that the GNG should prevail; but the community didn't. It's as simple as that. Regarding whether my choice to close this discussion was improper because of my past involvement in editing NSPORT, I don't think that it was. I made an edit that removed incorrect text that incorrectly stated GNG as a black letter law.[36] It was edited eight minutes later in a different way, the new text being completely acceptable because by using the words "generally expected" it didn't treat the GNG as a black letter law.[37] There was no dispute over either edit. But in any case, it is quite clear from my closing statement here that the close is based on the consensus at the AfD. If it had been 9-3 reasonable arguments the other way I would have certainly closed it as delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse The issues of notability were explicitly addressed and consensus was that the subject was notable and that the article should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Comment I've noticed that the user who started this deletion review has set up a RfC on the issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of association footballers. Calathan (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse keep per pretty solid consensus, and definitely well within discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Firstly I don't think that this guy is notable, there is not significant coverage about him, I think that it harms the project to have pages on everyone who ever kicked a football or ever sung a song, WP is starting to look like a directory of sports players and singers and less and less like a serious encyclopaedia day by day. But getting back to this AfD as per Bettia, I would have !voted delete (perhaps not weak) but I cant fault the close it is clearly what the majority of participants wanted.Codf1977 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse The AfD was closed following a strong consensus to keep the article, and I don't see that the closer has acted inappropriately. Eldumpo (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse the participants at the AfD for this article made rather clear arguments based on policy to keep the article and consensus for retention was clear. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) It seems you've already endorsed above. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse close but open RFC advertised at WP:CENT aimed at resolving the issue. I agree with much of what WFC has said, and it does appear that there is a sort of walled garden meaning a local consensus is overriding wider community consensus. However, AfD is not set up to deal with that sort of issue. What we need here is wider participation from people not involved in the debate as at the moment it is the same participants rehashing the same arguments. I would also encourage WFC to rephrase his arguments - what we have here is simply a disagreement between well meaning editors, and we would be well advised to keep discussion of motives out of it. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Though I have already stated my position above, I would like also to state that I also agree with Quantpole position, and urge WFC to start such a RFC. Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Quantpole has hit the nail on the head here. I think there should be an(other) RFC on this topic, and that this is a good example of why. However, having had the benefit of a few days' worth of relative distance, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to start it. —WFC— 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC) To clarify, I'm talking about an RfC on local vs global consensus. —WFC— 18:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Reluctant, weak overturn and renominate with instructions to discuss in terms of WP:GNG. The question presented is whether local consensus at an AfD ("keep, has played in this or that league") should override a clear guideline (per WP:ATHLETE, articles still need to pass WP:GNG). I am of the opinion that a long-established guideline is more representative of overall community consensus, in cases (as here) where most "keep" opinions do not explain why one should not apply the guideline in this instance (which local consensus could in theory well do). But reasonable people may disagree about this approach, so, weak opinion.  Sandstein  21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Nomacorc, LLC – Deletion endorsed. Users make work on a new, properly sourced article in the userspace page. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nomacorc, LLC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Hi, The Nomacorc, LLC page was deleted after I made two factual additions to the article citing a Wall Street Journal article. After discussing this with Fastily (adminstrator that deleted the page), he said that he would reinstate the page without my two editions (see discussion below). However, it looks like Fastily retired without actually following through. Can this page please be reinstated. Thank you. Here is my conversation with Fastily: "Hi Fastily, I see that you deleted the Nomacorc, LLC page immediately after I added two facts with direct references to The Wall Street Journal. You cited that the page was "advertising" or "promotion." Can I ask how two facts that have been added straight from the Wall Street Journal flagged the entire article for deletion? Best regards, Capagody (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Capagody User_talk:Capagody#Re:Deleted_Nomacorc.2C_LLC -FASTILY (TALK) 19:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC Re: Nomacorc LLC Hey Fastily, Thanks for letting me know, however I didn't create the page, I simply added two edits to it. Is there a way to reinstate the page without my edits? Please advise. Capagody (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Capagody Without your edits? Yes, there is, but the revision of the page before your edits is still somewhat promotional in nature. That version is marginally passable, so I'll restore it if you like. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Fastily. I would greatly appreciate it if you would restore the page without my edits. Once it is reinstated, do you suggest that I edit some of the content of the original page to make it less promotional in nature? Thanks againCapagody (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Capagody Fastily, will you restore the original article without my edits as you mentioned above? Thanks, Capagody (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2010 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Relisting comment: I moved this entry from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 29. This DRV request was hidden because Capagody (talk · contribs) placed it inside <!-- and -->. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. This article is not currently deleted, but is located at User:HCNAPA/Nomacorc, where it has been blanked but is readable in the history here. It is indeed overly promotional in tone. I suggest writing a new, neutrally written article. You don't need the old one undeleted, or the permission of DRV, in order to create a new article. Chick Bowen 02:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 October 2010

Josh hough – No chance of having such inappropriate content undeleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Josh hough (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) Josh Hough is a public figure within the city of Redlands California. He has become an almost iconic role model to many of the young children and teen thhroughout the city. I believe it to be indicitave to the citizens of Redlands that you allow a page to be made on Mr. Hough. I occasionaly hear conversations on the background of Josh Hough and i think it would very beneficial to have a page on wikipedia in which many of the key event of Josh Hough's life are stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motrcolt (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC) No there is no evidence that this person is in any way notable. The repeated recreations of the article and this deletion review strongly suggests that you are here to disrupt wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

YaBB – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 10:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
YaBB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Yet another Bulletin Board was started in 2000 by a 16-year old. It served as the first flat file, non-threaded, free, and open-source bulletin board / forum system ever. It was also one of the few openly developed projects by team members from around the world at the time. It is written in the Perl language and is still being developed today. Developers of YaBB have gone on to found and develop Ikonboard, Invision Power Board, E-Blah, and Simple Machines Forum. For its first couple years, it was the most used forum system out. It is referenced in several books and in many interviews of software companies and developers, many whom worked with YaBB in the past. It was essentially the grandfather of most forums out today and is still a large competitor. It has a rightful place in history due to these reasons and is well known by name in the Internet website world. YaBB had an article on Wikipedia for many years. It was unjustifiably deleted by Wikipedia in February 2010 for incorrect facts and biased promotional opinions of the editors. The article was painstakingly recreated this week. An editor on Wikipedia essentially attacked me this week by referring me to the apparent deletion review process then removing all of my arguments, marking the article as spam, reverting hours of work I spent on updating the article for no reason, then marking it for speedy deletion. I discussed this with him and was told my arguments for keeping it were invalid. He also stated the article was promotional in nature, when in fact it was written in a very historical manner (I'm not sure how the originally deleted article was written but it was no more historical than the new). After I and others replied on the discussion page to explain why it should not be removed, all of these discussions were completely deleted. The old discussions which were on the incorrectly spelled "Yabb" page were then moved from there to the deletion discussion on the newly created "YaBB" page. I also explained to him that many other competing software such as Ikonboard, Invision Power Board, ProBoards and Simple Machines Forum also have Wikipedia articles and are much more promotional than YaBB's was. The newly created article had a long section of history, which was most of the article, links to interviews of other software founders that came from and/or referred to YaBB, links to many external reference sites, and links to books.Corey (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Here are some example external links with information related to the article. http://www.yabbforum.com https://sourceforge.net/projects/yabb/ http://cgi.resourceindex.com/detail/04955.html http://www.forum-software.org/yabb/review http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14252 http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10949 http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/matt-mecham-ibforums http://www.boardmod.org http://www.yabbtoolbar.com http://www.yabbworld.com/ http://www.yabbdirectory.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software_(other) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProBoards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Machines_Forum http://www.facebook.com/pages/YaBB/175303075097#!/pages/YaBB/175303075097 http://www.abbreviations.com/b1.aspx?KEY=232812 http://www.amazon.com/YaBB-Lambert-M-Surhone/dp/6130401248/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1286515157&sr=8-5 http://books.google.com/books?id=8G_P6AkUT8EC&pg=PA324&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=WTl_7H5HUZAC&pg=PA157&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=FaTiGmOLVF4C&pg=PA7&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ic0PTG3dhc&feature=related temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review Corey (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)]</ref> temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Comment - Not finding much terribly convincing so far. Anything with "yabb" in the URL is going to regarded as a primary source, other wikipedia articles can't be used to establish notability, neither can fan sources (e.g. facebook). Haven't looked at all the rest yet, but the amazon link to to what appears to be the book form of a (perhaps this?) wiki article, and the first google book link just used a YaBB script as an example of an install. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC) *Reply - I don't know what you expect to find for a piece of software and what would convince you.... For future knowledge in how to better wite "historical" articles that are not full of what you call useless references, then please explain to me how Simple Machines Forum and all the other forum software deserve a wikipedia article and YaBB does not? I'm not saying they don't, but if that is your reason for deleting it recall: YaBB's article had much more references from other sources than the others. In fact, SMF's only has 2 links that are not links to their own website; the YaBB article only had a couple links that WERE to their own website. Seem fishy to you? Certainly makes me uncomfortable with the whole premise of Wikipedia and its apparent attempt to be a non-promotional but educational tool. I don't understand how you do not see the connection in the history section and in the links to the various interviews from other well-known software developers and their roots with YaBB. Also, the fact that it is referenced in COUNTLESS books - I only listed a few should add to that. The books I happened to list were some that discuss various software and particularly reference YaBB, its history, what it is, and in some cases how to install it. YaBB has a place in history for giving birth to the non-threaded forum world, paving the way for open source forums, and for being the proving ground for the developers and founders of countless other systems and companies. What have the others done other than writing a piece of software similarly and selling it? What do you not get? I want to prove my case to you and want to ensure that this piece of history is not lost. Please tell me what you are looking for to prove this, and I'll find it. Please also tell me what I can do to better preserve the information in an article that meets the guidelines you are trying to enforce because I cannot figure it out by reading other articles. Corey (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC) See WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:INN, WP:SEWAGE etc. The fact that other articles exist which may not meet the standards in their current form is not a free pass for everything else. The expectation is that this article meets the standards. The basic inclusion criteria is notability which roughly speaking does the world at large beleive this is significant such that reliable sources will write in detail about it. The general notability guidline calls for non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Hence the sourcing to blogs/forums posts etc. fails the reliable sources part (I can go out and create loads of posts all over the internet about my favourite topic, it means nothing, worse still I can make crap up). Those which are the the originators, sourceforge etc. are primary sources and fail the independant part (again I can go out and write lots and lots about my product, doesn't make it interesting to the rest of the world etc.) , reliable sourcing eliminates many including those which are based on wikipedia content, wikipedia isn't a reliable source. And non-trivial coverage precludes directory entries passing mentions etc. Your statement "I want to prove my case to you and want to ensure that this piece of history is not lost." suggests to me the fundamental problem, you want wikipedia to be the source for the piece of history, something wikipedia is rather expressly not, wikipedia should never be the primary source of anything. If the history is important per notability the world at large will believe so and will have written about it, any wikipedia article has to be based on that, not the other way around. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for providing me with an educational, useful, and respectful reply, as others in these discussions and deletions have not done so to date. I understand your points and agree with most of them. Of course, I agree that links to the project's own sites do not count as sources of providing importance due to not being independent. However, being Internet software, most of the sources are going to be online references such as forums on others' sites. Interviews nowadays are often posted on forums as were the ones referenced. If you doubt their reliability, you can contact the interviewers or simply see that they are the administrators/founders of the major sites they are posted on. If it would make you feel better, I could publish them all in a printed book. And seeing as the world is now an online social media consumer, historical articles and public opinion about a topic are going to be discussed online, which in turn become the main method we can use to verify the importance (to the people) of said topic. Of course "crap" could be made up, but that is the risk we take with the Internet. I have to rely on electronic documentation at work without knowing that the work was truly done or by the person listed. One day, this may be all we have. And this still doesn't account for the physical paper books that do exist. I agree that Wikipedia cannot be assumed as 100% factual and correct. However, fact is Wikipedia is used as a research tool by teachers, students, and employees because of the way it has positioned itself. You and all the Wikipedia researchers/administrators are tasked with protecting this. Of course, sound research must be backed up by other sources. The general notability guidline also states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." YaBB definitely had more sources to prove its notability several years ago, which is why it had a Wikipedia article for years (edited by many people) until February 2010. Suddenly deleting it is not following your own policies. That being said, if the information presented to date is not sufficient and based on your reply, the free pass you have given me is to request review for deletion of every other web software, especially forums and especially those (most) which have no external references. And no, this would not be to make a point WP:POINT, it would be to help Wikipedia's editors in keeping it the great source it's meant to be. Corey (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Other articles which don't (and can't) meet the standard can of course be nominated for deletion. Be cautious however of "Before nominating an article for deletion" and WP:POINT. Regarding the reliability of forums etc. by wikipedia standards they generally aren't, we don't need to take a risk, if a source can't be evaluated or doesn't meet the standards we don't use it. I have some sympathy on the prelevance of electrronic media perhaps not fitting the model well in establishing notability, however it's a tough nut to crack it is pretty easy to gain a very broad web presence, run astroturfing campaigns etc. This is however a far broader problem and issue than just this article and something which has been discussed on numerous occasions with no concensus to change things, it isn't within DRVs remit to just ignore and overrule the community. Regarding wikipedia "as a research tool by teachers, students, and employees because of the way it has positioned itself.", then not really again wikpedia is qutie clear it isn't a primary source on these things, it's why the insistance on verifiability, no one should be citing wikipedia as a source they should always be going to the underlying wikipedia sources. Indeed many in the academic world are critical of students etc referencing wikipedia. (See Citing_Wikipedia#A_caution_before_citing_Wikipedia) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I'm struggling to figure out what sources are considered valid for making the case of Internet forum software. I can continue to quote physical paper books though. In addition to the several books with information about YaBB, there are hundreds if not thousands that have URLs to forums for sources cited in the books that are using YaBB (easily found because YaBB.pl or YaBB.cgi is in the URL). I am reviewing the WP:Reliable Sources guideline. http://books.google.com/books?id=yYztT8dwTyoC&pg=PA433&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=lZivTMfXOZGlnQfggfWhBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=vPP_qJeeGgsC&pg=PA538&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=sZivTPaTGsbcngfA56iPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=TzsqA_hrjTcC&pg=PA100&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=-JyvTM-hCsyfnAfuvsmiBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADhG#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=KgryRaX2xzAC&pg=PA6&dq=Perl+YaBB&hl=en&ei=P6CvTOSfNIernQfDxtztBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Perl%20YaBB&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=_7jvXpB_NBMC&pg=PA135&dq=Perl+YaBB&hl=en&ei=P6CvTOSfNIernQfDxtztBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false Corey (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Quote: "The fact that other articles exist which may not meet the standards in their current form is not a free pass for everything else. The expectation is that this article meets the standards. The basic inclusion criteria is notability which roughly speaking does the world at large beleive this is significant such that reliable sources will write in detail about it. The general notability guidline calls for non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources." It is hard to equate an article to fit the standards by viewing other wiki articles if they might not meet the standards and are not marked for deletion. If the qualification is notability certainly the results of Google, Ask, and other search engines should heavily influence the decision of an article about YaBB. Simply the letters YaBB deserves definition and description (history) of a freelance endeavor that still exists and flourishes 10 years after appearing on the international web. Noting past programmers, the Perl language use and even the growth of such a project still being carried forward. Usage by thousands making yabb.pl return 3,910,000 hits when a single search made should be evident that YaBB should be included in Wikipedia. Cjohn323 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Cjohn323 If number of google hits show it's important, again then you'd expect the world at large to have noticed (talen note, notability) and written about this. Notablity guidlines are WP:N and general notability guidlines neither mention number of google hits as indicating notability, they do mention non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. See WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:GOOGLE (particularlty Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Notability) for more on this. Of the book extracts I've seen above they don't appear to pass the bar of non-trivial coverage, they are passing mentions or directory style listings, what is needed is coverage which addresses the subject directly and in detail. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Main categories: Technology and Applied sciences Computing: Artificial intelligence • Classes of computers • Companies • Computer architecture • Computer model • Computer science • Computer security • Computing and society • Data • Embedded systems • Free software • Human-computer interaction • Information systems • Internet • Mobile Web • Languages • Multimedia • Networks • Industrial Networks • Operating systems • Platforms • Product lifecycle management • Programming • Real-time computing • Software • Software engineering • Unsolved problems in computer science • More... Category:Free software This is a category of articles relating to software that meets The Free Software Definition. That is to say that users can freely use, study, copy, redistribute, modify, and publish modified versions of the software, making it "free software" or "open-source software". In practical terms, this means either software whose source code has been released into the public domain, or software which is distributed with a free software license, including, but not limited to, the list of FSF approved software licenses, and whose source code is available to anyone who receives a copy of the software. Category:Software Category:Perl software Category:Free software programmed in Perl Category:Computing and society Category:Computer-mediated communication Pages in category "Bulletin board systems" As a Bulletin Board software written in open-source Perl, YaBB definetly is noteable still being developed after 10 years. Bulletin boards themselves have been around before the popularity and availability of the interent. As Open-source software it is rare to not have been commericalized. As a remote communications media to bring together users around the world it is the fore runner of blogs and social networks. Notability it has in many of the Catergories. Quote: "you'd expect the world at large to have noticed" It has ! Cjohn323 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC) It would help if you would actually read the guidlines notability and the general notability guidelines rather than just trying to fit anything and everything to your view point. The existance of a category for something doesn't mean anything which could fit that category is notable - neitherWP:N nor WP:GNG say that is the case. My crappy garage band is a band, and we have categories for bands, it doesn't make my crappy garage band notable. The concept of a bulletin board may indeed be notable (and indeed we have an article on the concept), but that doesn't automatically make everything which could be described as such is notable. Merely asserting "it has!" says nothing, once again the requirememt is for that to be demonstrated by it being written about in a non-trivial way by multiple independant reliable sources, not some random wikipedia editor saying "it has!". Unless you can produce those then this discussion is pointless. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 'Overturn Put simply, I do not see a consensus to delete in the discussion. It would help, though if someone experienced in our guidelines helped in the writing and sourcing. (My own view is that computer programs from this period are notable as long as there is evidence of sufficiently major use. We have to be realistic in terms of the possibilities for sourcing.) DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Are you reading the same discussion. 8 opinions, 5 opine to delete 3 to keep (one weak) the 4 of the deletes bring up the lack of suitable sources/references one is a weaker bald assertion of non-notability. The three keeps, one "weak" addresses the sourcing, the other two basically the weaker bald assertions of notability. In terms of the standards of rough consensus which are applied I can't see how a consensus wasn't reached. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC) "from this period" What is so unique about ten years ago that it should be specially treated? BBS software from the era of 300 baud modems might be hard to source but 2000 web based BBS, no. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Endorse deletion The closer's reading of consensus was correct, particularly as the first 'keep' was 'weak keep' (a very weak keep in my view) and the other two did not address policy or guideline reasons for keeping the article at all. Jon 217.43.240.23 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse 2000 is not so long ago, it is still well within popular internet time, and obvious lasting influence of this thing should be plainly evident without going to primary sources and fan pages. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 2000 is almost 11 years ago, which is a pretty long time, especially when you consider that the "modern" Internet did not become popular until the late 90's. This means YaBB's inception was remarkable for its time in days when telnet BBS systems still thrived and were only just dying as the primary means of remote "online" communication to be replaced by E-Mail which homes then still barely had. Also, several other sources have been cited in this discussion other than just primary sources and fan pages. Here's another to add to the list: http://www.pcw.co.uk/computeractive/features/2158240/add-forum-website . YaBB had a feature article in this British magazine and was featured in several other magazines, books, and CDs over the years. Don't try to tell me again that minor publishers don't count because this was a very popular mainstream magazine that existed for 31 years and just stopped publishing last year. If it was "not notable" why would such a large publication write an article? I can also provide you with a dozen sites with YaBB reviews on them, some of them being full product reviews by the site rather than just member-edited or user comments. Here's one of them http://www.forum-software.org/yabb/review which has several pages in the article written by an independent administrator on that site - no ties to YaBB and no request for this - done on their own. Do you honestly expect to find a web URL to all sources that you personally feel make it notable? Not everything is accessible on the Internet as much as you'd like to think - things are sometimes not posted online and things do "expire" online. Books, magazines, and newspapers still exist. People still make speeches using their mouths. There are still physical museums and memorials that you can touch. I couldn't provide you with a citing online for all of those things, so then you might say "it's a you said so then, which means it can't exist." If we had this discussion a couple years ago we could have pointed more quickly found sources out, but the fact that they are not all readily available today via the Internet does not mean it's not notable. By Wikipedia guidelines, if it was once notable, it is forever - it cannot become "unnotable". YaBB had the article for years, which means it was notable - it would not have been "missed" by all the editors for that long. Additionally, as I said, in its hayday (not that it isn't still very popular) there was more that I could readily cite on the Internet - we're having this discussion too late. You cannot ignore the independent interviews, reviews, and several book references that have been provided above, and you are. These are not "fan pages" OR "primary sources" point blank. I know of someone who is actually trying to find a copy of a magazine that has an article about YaBB in it to scan as a printed proof. You can buy the books above if you'd feel more cozy. Corey (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Corey, the thing to do with these sources of yours is to set up a wiki over at Wikia dedicated to bulletin boards or whatever, where you can use whatever sources you like. Alternatively, build up an article on YaBB in your user space using good quality sources that talk about the subject in detail (not yabb, forums, fan sites, wikipedia, trivial mentions) and check with an experienced editor whether it meets the inclusion criteria for an article in Wikipedia before moving it into article space. As it stands, the deletion was correct. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.240.23 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC) When I re-created the article this month, my goal was to write it in a better manner and I feel I did that. Granted, it was far from complete and lacked some sources and information, but I noted that in the article that there were things to be completed. My hope was that we would receive guidance and time for others to contribute. I can certainly write the article somewhere else, but where would I find guidelines on how to properly write the article and what would be the process for getting someone at Wikipedia.org to review it to see if it could be included here? 99.190.107.115 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cracking the Quran Code – No consensus to overturn, relisting for another debate. The main issue here is the AFD debate being affected by meatpuppetry, and that those votes should have been discounted. Sandstein, who closed the debate, has said that he closed on the merits of the discussion, and that discounting the meatpuppets didn't/wouldn't matter much because AFD is not decided by pure vote counting. In order to change the result of an AFD, there needs to be a strong consensus, and I cannot see that here. There are reasoned rationales here endorsing the original closure. There are some users who have supported the article's presence in good faith, for instance Vejvančický has made a reasoned rationale for keeping at the AFD and endorsing the result here. Many arguments here give a good reason for why these sources are insufficient for notability, so a fresh start at AFD seems appropriate. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cracking the Quran Code (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Astroturfed with SPA or Close to SPA being part of a suspected Meat Puppet ring . While the usuals at AFD seem to have a consensus that it was not notable. We have the discussed it with Sandstein on her talk page and (s)he has stood by it. IT seems consensus was with the a delete I request it be relisted to gain wiser conensus by established users The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC) As closing admin, I refer the participants to this discussion to my comments on my talk page (permalink). In addition, I note that I have closed this discussion on the merits of the arguments being presented, not on the merits of those who presented them: there was insufficient discussion of the sources that were advanced to support the notability of this book, so I could not find a "delete" consensus.  Sandstein  19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC) While I am aware that DRV is not AFD Part Deux, as nominator of the original AFD and upon reviewing the article once more, I believe that the "no consensus" closure should be changed to "delete" and we should be gone with this article, rather than going through another week of AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with Ryulong. One of the "keep" voters also made a ridiculous personal attack against me due to the fact that I voted Delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Not really. That user was just suggesting that you were personal when you championed to delete Nazism in Arab PalestineSalamaat (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Quit trying to rewrite the past. As far as Nazism in Arab Palestine goes, that article was deleted by community consensus. You can try listing it on DelRev if you want, but be warned that the chances of it being restored are around 0.01%. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and Delete Umm... Sandstein? Really? Blatantly clear that at least two of the people (Dallas hero1989 and Salamaat) who voted for keep are meatpuppets. Ret.Prof is a POV pusher, also not a good thing to listen to. Get rid of the article. It is shameful too. As someone who follows the conflict closely, (and firmly blames the British for at least the beginning of the Israel-Palestine conflict) I am especially upset, as these types of WP:COATRACK crackpot books and the shameful behavior of the meaties Dallas hero1989 and Salamaat are hurting, rather than helping, coverage and hopeful resolution of a key issue in world politics. For the record, I am pro-Israel, so my delete vote has nothing to do with the conflict and everything to do with the book and/or the Wikipedia article being a total joke. Sven Manguard Talk 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC) AfD comments are not votes, and whether these "keep" opinions are by meatpuppets is irrelevant, because I am discounting them anyway, as well as your own "delete" opinion: the only opinions that matter are those that address the number and quality of sources covering this book. And these opinions are basically only those of Vejvančický (keep) and Bali ultimate (delete), possibly also those of Ryulong (delete) and RS101 (keep). These four divided opinions do not constitute a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  07:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 1. I am well aware of the fact that they are not votes, but for lack of a better word, I use vote for deletes and keeps. I use it solely as a colloquialism. 2. AfD is about more than sources. Articles that do not meet other requirements, or violate the what Wikipedia is not are also fair game for delete votes suggestions. In this case it is a non notable fringe theory used for POV pushing, in other words, a violation of WP:SOAP. If there is any legitimate content of encyclopedic value in the book, it certainly isn't covered in the article at the time of my statement. 3.Furthermore, as this has slipped under the radar of the vast majority of legitimate reviewers of books, it is not notable. There are two sources. One is a tabloid, which in reading the introduction, makes it clear that it is a POV rich and otherwise unreliable source. One legitimate source is not notable. Not for a book, not for anything. If I were not involved and I saw a tabloid as a source for just about anything, I'd remove it. So there, a source related reason. One source, plus a crappy tabeloid that should be removed. Better? Sven Manguard Talk 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, that would be a valid opinion in an AfD. It is not relevant in a DRV, though, since the point of a DRV is to determine whether a discussion was correctly closed on the basis of the opinions that were expressed in the AfD. In other words, DRVs are a purely procedural exercise. If you want to make a case for deletion on the basis of the merits of the article's sources, the place do so would be a new AfD, not this DRV.  Sandstein  14:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I stay with my comments from the AfD discussion. We have two non-trivial independent sources (Ok, there could be a connection between Arutz Sheva and Weekly Blitz, but I'm unaware of that). The main problem of the article is that both sources represent the same point of view, moreover in a very sensitive area. The sources are in English, and the first one states that "some Muslims have given rave reviews of the book". Did we try to find reviews and another coverage in Arabic or Hebrew (the relevant language areas)? Unfortunately it is impossible for me, as I don't speak or read any of the languages. I am not pro-Israel, I am not pro-Palestinian, and I do not follow the conflict closely. All I demand is careful research before we delete (?) this information. I've rewritten the article to reflect the sources available.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 03:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse as within admin discretion. In my opinion this is a close call and deletion may have been justified from the discussion, however there were enough keep votes, one of whom, User:Vejvančický, listed new sources, that a non consensus close was justified. I note that a 'no consensus' vote does not stop a reasonably quick relisting if anyone wishes to discuss Vejvančický's arguments more. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Hmm. Either delete or no consensus would probably have been within discretion here. The SPI seems to have turned up nothing to date, and if those arguments were ignored as not being based in policy anyway then I don't see that anything's really changed to justify overturning. The article as it stands is about as unbiased as it could be and is properly sourced, so there isn't any overriding policy need to delete this. Renomination in a month or so might be a good idea though. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn, which I rarely do, and delete. There is no way in hell those SPAs should have been counted at all, reducing the keeps to a handful, and a thin one at that. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Dpmuk, the delete-pushers meatpuppets: Stonemason89 & ResidentAnthropologist are weak and failed to make a case. SorrySalamaat (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Honestly, where is your proof that either of us are "meatpuppets"? Both of us are established editors; ResidentAnthropologist especially (he previously made many contributions under a different username, but was forced to switch to his current account after his old one was hacked by a JIDF troll who was trying to discredit him). You're the meatpuppet, not us. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC) On the topic of meatpuppets: Official Edit counts from the X! counter, retrieved around 23:00 UTC (19:00 EST) ResidentAnthropologist - First edit: Sep 17, 2010 13:08:08, Live edits: 1,003, Unique pages edited: 372, reviewer, rollbacker Stonemason89 - First edit: Jul 03, 2006 01:47:33, Live edits: 5,411, Unique pages edited: 1,585, reviewer Salamaat - First edit: Apr 25, 2010 17:12:00, Live edits: 58, Unique pages edited: 28, no additional privileges Dallas hero1989 - First edit: Sep 26, 2010 01:20:08, Live edits: 13, Unique pages edited: 10, no additional privileges. Sven Manguard - First edit: Sep 19, 2010 00:35:43, Live edits: 1,264, Unique pages edited: 908, no additional privileges (mine is for full disclosure, not accused of being a meat by either party) Cheers. Dallas hero1989 is the only blatant meat IMO, (although Salamaat isn't that far off. Only four edits in April, the rest are very recent.) Sven Manguard Talk 23:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC) endorse If the sources in the article are reliable, the book is notable. Arguments about the sources were about its biases, which aren't generally a good reason to discount the sources for purposes of notability (otherwise we might never count Fox News or the like). That said, the reliability of the sources isn't clear to me. One is apparently the 4th most popular paper in Israel which probably doesn't mean much, but does mean something. I think the other (Weekly Blitz) might be a SPS, but I can't tell either from this AfD or the article's source. Looks like there is a valid argument that it meets WP:N and so a NC or keep result is possible and the discussion isn't so strongly delete leaning to get past that. I really can't see a strong case for deleting a book that meets GNG no matter how crackpot-ish it might be. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete. The book is not remotely notable, and the sources are inadequate. 2 RS = N is an extremely weak criterion for a notable non-fiction book, and its time we realised this. In practice, we often do: we almost never keep books where that is the most that can be said without some sort of supporting evidence of other factors in notability. Anyway, this is, at best, 1.5 notable sources, and it was wrong to accept this as sufficient RSs. Personally, I tend to assume that all !votes on topics pertaining to Palestine and Israel are likely to be ideologically motivated, and there is not one single person here or elsewhere in the world who cares about the issues that is actually neutral. I don't know how an admin can do right in articles in this area except in the most extreme cases of suitability or unsuitability, and I therefore do not fault Sandstone for using non-consensus. But he should have realised this was one of the extreme cases of non-notability. I know of no solution, except a general decision that in this entire area all the rules will be applied either with particular restrictiveness or that they will be applied with particular laxity, applying to both sides on a consistent basis. But in practice, I'm not sure I would have appealed this--it rarely makes sense for those wanting deletion to appeal a non-consensus. It's much easier to just wait a month and afd2 DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn Several editors sought to have the article kept on the basis that one of the subjects of the book is notable, implying that the book is therefore notable. That really makes no sense. The two sources presented for the book do not seem to meet the criteria for reliable sources. Oore (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Comment The book could be mentioned in the article Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the context is apparent in the references. However, I'm not sure whether the target page is suitable enough for a redirect. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn there quite simply isn't in-depth, independent coverage of this unknown book. It makes a fringe case, and has only been taken note of by websites that favor the general point of view of the author.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I believe the two sources are actual newspapers, is that mistaken? This doesn't appear to be a case of SPSs, merely sources that tend to agree with material in the book. I don't think that's a reason to delete, though perhaps it should be. Would we then not count Glen Beck's show as a RS for similar situations? I might be okay with that, but it seems a pretty slippery slope. Where is the line drawn? Hobit (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC) upon investigation it does appear WeeklyBlitz.net have an editorial board so it probably meets a RS, however two sources are pretty slim for a book. The Book is also Self published by LULU.com. If these are the only two sources combined with being SP Book. I am not convinced of notability. If a journal had book review on it I would support and considering all the journals out there that cater to these Extreme or unusual religious topics that this was has failed to be noticed is significant. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC) No the weekly blitz isn't a reliable source. It's run by a guy who describes himself as a "Muslim Zionist." According to the lede of wikipedia's Muslim Zionism article (not that i would use wikipedia as a source for most things, but it confirms my research) its editor Salah Choudury is one of the three leading proponents of Muslim Zionism. Nothing wrong with that, but he has a rather idiosyncratic point of view and a version of the truth to push. Arutz Sheva (aka Israel National News) is an organ of the settler movement. Neither has an editorial board striving for accurate reflections of reality, but rather an intent to push their versions of reliality, like a lot of folks.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think WP:RS excludes those sources with idiosyncratic points of view, nor should it in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Well, you're wrong. From WP:RS: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Both these websites have a terrible reputation for checking the facts, a rather large number of people view Arutz Sheeva as expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist (this is not the case for Choudury's self-published website weeklyblitz, because few have heard of it outside those intensely interested in loving him/hating him), and are both "promotional in nature." They are propaganda outlets. Accept that fact or not.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Interesting, I've always thought of questionable sources as being acceptable for WP:N for things like books. The question is if the book is notable. Given it's had coverage I'd say yes, but I can see how you could get a no out of it. Thanks for pointing that out. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC) hmm I though it was Blog site thus i looked for editorial board. I completly agree if only fringe website and one somewhat RS notice it then i doubt it is notable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn I think Oore and Bali ultimate have made excellent points. There is no evidence of this book having a notable presence/recognition in the field of Israel-Palestine books. The publisher not a neutral or mainstream company. Any facts, details from this book - especially the verses that are the basis of the claims made in this book - can be incorporated in Muslim Zionism, Biblical narratives and the Qur'an, Islam and Judaism and this book used as a source. But not a separate article for the book. Shiva (Visnu) 13:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and delete I agree that the fact that this book is self-published through LULU.com, and has received very little coverage in mainstream news sources, means that it is not notable, just like this book was found to be non-notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn discussion clearly poisoned by meatpuppetry, and Sandstein should have known better than to close it as they did. Also per Stonemason89, topic is simply non-notable, as self-published/vanity-press books virtually always are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Untitled 2011 AMC television series – Restored and relisted – Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Untitled 2011 AMC television series (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) AFD was closed as Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. However, it would seem that the sources in the article were indeed sufficient for an article despite the lack of a working title; furthermore, the pilot has been approved. Another user asked on my talk page if I would reconsider, and I didn't notice his post so I didn't have time to do so. I think that the Collider.com source I provided makes a good argument for this being undeleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Is this a first? TenPoundHammer arguing that TenPoundHammer's application of TenPoundHammer's Law was wrong. ☺ I agree that although the closure reflected the consensus, the consensus was apparently wrong, with (by the rationales) only Borock looking at whether the various WP:CRYPTICs truly applied to the case at hand. (A quick search for sources turns up other sources additional to the ones cited.) It's a shame that the discussion effectively lasted only ten hours and the article's creator didn't manage to bring this counterargument to the attention of anyone. At minimum, the AFD discussion should be revisited by its participants in light of this information. Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Nguyen – Restored, and sent to AFD. – -- Cirt (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Nguyen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nguyen Please review and add this article back. I've supplied links to support the notability of this person. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/paulyuzyk/recipients_2010.asp http://www.toronto.ca/civicawards/2009winners.htm#hubbard http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lostinthestruggle/filmmaker.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k8YfKHV_sI http://www.blogto.com/people/2009/06/toronto_through_the_eyes_of_paul_nguyen/ http://www.innoversity.com/roadmap/speakers/pauln/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorpaul (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Restored temporarily for discussion here' DGG ( talk ) 13:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 'Restore; AfD optional The first three references given seem to show notability (the third was available for the earlier article also) . It might not be enough by itself, but it was not even commented on at the AfD there. In connection with the two awards, it might possibly shown notability.( The youtube and blog references are of course totally irrelevant to notability , and the university one is just a blurb). DGG ( talk ) 13:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Restore and send to AfD. The first three links look fairly good, although the last three are pathetic. Different enough not to be G4'd and with enough sources not to be A7'd; this is probably worth another chance. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Additional reputable media links: http://www.rcinet.ca/english/column/the-link-s-top-stories/multiculturalism-award-winner/ http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/2010/01/unsolved-murder-rate-runs-843.html http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/2010/10/mayoral-candidates-debate.html http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/2010/08/06/torontos-six-most-memorable-neighbourhood-naming-smackdowns/ http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/563486 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1IEqBz.chR0&refer=canada http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=2e9fa45a-99b9-4918-a372-0ec3234e4e9a&k=52736 http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228975 http://www.rrj.ca/m4093/ http://www.simcoe.com/article/48650 http://www.iansa.org/regions/namerica/documents/guns-crime-Can-ccjAug09.pdf http://www.mfa.gov.ua/canada/en/news/detail/41780.htm Directorpaul (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorpaul (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Restore. More than enough new sources that this would be in no way eligible for a G4 and would also be enough to pass A7. (As an aside I thought that protection was only meant to be applied for the minimal amount of time to stop the problem and if that had happened here, rather than being immediately indefinitely protected we wouldn't even be here as this could have been recreated with the new sources and shouldn't have been G4'd). Dpmuk (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Archived TV news interviews of Paul Nguyen: Global National: http://jane-finch.com/videos/global_internetneighbourhood.htm CityTV Toronto: http://jane-finch.com/videos/citypulse_makingadifference.htm G4 Tech TV segment: http://jane-finch.com/videos/g4tv.htm Daytime Toronto: http://jane-finch.com/videos/daytime.htm Directorpaul (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 October 2010

Zedbazi – Overturn – -- Cirt (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zedbazi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) An article I speedy deleted on September 23 as WP:CSD#A7, another version was speedy deleted by User:Falcon8765 on July 7, that time as WP:CSD#G11. I have received a polite query from User:99.241.141.77 concerning this deletion which you can read on my talkpage. After looking through the deleted article history, I think the IP has a point. While I believe the version I deleted qualifies as A7, and the version deleted by Falcon8765 is indeed very promotional, I looked at this version of December 24, 2009 which doesn't look all that spammy or promotional. It also has three references, including the San Francisco Chronicle, indicating international coverage, so there is a possibility that the band meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. I recommend selective restoration of versions prior to December 24, 2009, even though further updates will be required. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn - I wouldn't be adverse to having it restored in the referenced, non-promotional form. Falcon8765 (TALK) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with you both about all 3 versions. I would certainly have deleted the versions Sjakkalle saw as A7 just as he did, and the one Falcon saw as G11 like him. But the Dec 24 version seems OK, except that some of it needs to be rewritten into more readable English. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore best version - December 24, 2009 one, I guess. Any reasonably credible claim of notability is sufficient to overturn. Whether the article can survive an AfD is another matter. Herostratus (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. I don't understand why this was even brought here. Surely the nominator, as the deleting administartor, could simply have restored the reliably sourced (by me, btw, although this topic is way outside my comfort zone) version that confirms that this group introduced gangsta rap to Iran? I would claim that the last version that I touched is better than the December 2009 version linked above, but that's immaterial to the outcome of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 October 2010

June 2010 West Bank shooting – No consensus to overturn. This is a somewhat disheartening discussion to review, given the unnecessary allegations of bad faith on both sides. There are some issues that naturally produce good faith disagreement, and the unclear line between "routine news coverage" and "notable event" is one of them. Given the disagreements over this issue, it would have been perfectly plausible for either AFD to be closed as no consensus, and therefore it is understandable to see them reviewed here when they closed as delete instead. The calls for sanctions and the unfortunately predictable accusations of political motives are distractions and I give them zero weight in this close. The relevant issue is this: Courcelles made a judgment call in weighing the delete arguments more highly than the keep arguments. Was that a seriously flawed or abusive judgment? There are reasons that argue that it was, but also reasons for endorsing it or at least giving Courcelles latitude in making it. As with the underlying AFD, these are matters for good faith disagreement, and there is no consensus within this discussion on one particular answer to that question, and therefore no consensus to overturn the close. (And by "no consensus to overturn" I really mean that, unlike the previous DRV result that was more like an "overturn to no consensus" in practice, since the article was undeleted and put back up for a second AFD. I'm leaving the result of the last AFD close undisturbed.) – RL0919 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
June 2010 West Bank shooting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Sorry to bring this here again, but this close was even more problematic than the first. On the bright side, the second AfD discussion included some analysis of WP:EVENT, which, as user:Fences and windows pointed out (in the first DRV), should have been done in the first AfD. But the bright side ends there. The closer explains his decision thus: At the core, this debate is about whether NOTNEWS or EVENT controls this article. NOTNEWS, however, is a policy, higher ranking than EVENT. The closer further explained this notion in a personal communication with me: consensus was that the EVENT "standard" was totally irrelevant [38] (emphasis mine). This idea, that WP:EVENT is totally irrelevant because it is outranked by WP:NOTNEWS, is consistent with the closer's personal opinion that WP:EVENT is such a weak guideline and as written is almost useless [39]. However, it is an idea that was not expressed by a single participant in the AfD discussion, so it cannot reasonably be seen as a summary of the consensus that the AfD discussion produced. Furthermore, even if the discussion did produce such a consensus, it could not outweigh the Wikipedia-wide consensus expressed in the very existence of the WP:EVENT guideline, which clearly includes the intention that the guideline shall not be rendered meaningless by having it outranked a priori by WP:NOTNEWS. A side note about the allegation of canvassing on the AfD, which was adduced by the closer. It was noted on the AfD that a Wikipedia editor mentioned the AfD on an off-Wiki blog about Wikipedia, in a context in which it was clear that said editor supported keeping the article. Contrary to the closer's statement, there was no evidence that the blog had any effect on the AfD discussion. Conversely, it bears noting that, oddly, 9 delete votes appeared on the page in the first 16 hours after the AfD nomination, all in a row (leading a future keep advocate to make an aborted suggestion to delete per WP:SNOW). After that, the discussion proceeded more normally, with 13 keep votes and a further 4 delete votes interspersed over the next 6 days. To me, this raises the suspicion that there was covert canvassing on the delete side immediately after the article was nominated for AfD. Perhaps others would disagree, and, to be clear, I am not suggesting that this suspicion is a reason to overturn the close, which I think should be overturned on the grounds stated above. My point is that mentioning the opposite suspicion in the close was problematic. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reclose by another admin the closing admin's thoughts on WP:EVENT are not supported by the debate or by a broader consensus as far as I can see. I think NC would have been the best close here, but delete might have been reasonable just not for the reasons the closing admin gave. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. WP:EVENT is a guideline on how to separate news from events of lasting significance. Thus, the closing admin throughly misread the arguments of those arguing to keep. In any case, no clear consensus is discernible from the discussion. RayTalk 22:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse own closure. First, there is very real evidence of canvassing by a banned user in favour of keeping the article. Then the keep arguments say such things as "a terror attack is intrinsically notable" which isn't true at all. Yes, this is a struggle between NOTNEWS and EVENT. These things always will be, as long as EVENT exists. Even this article passing EVENT is heavily disputed, see Smartse's comment near the end. Policy trumps a guideline, every time. Every last time. And this article, as shown by the discussion, was fundamentally and irreparably afoul of the NOTNEWS policy. Courcelles 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) What "banned user"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Eric1985 (talk · contribs) nableezy - 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC) That user is not banned, but blocked. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) If no admin is willing to unblock an indef-blocked user they are "de-facto banned". See WP:BAN: Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". That block was discussed at ANI and "after due consideration by the community" the block remained. The user is "banned" by the letter of WP:BAN. nableezy - 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) The discussion you cite bears no relation to the the very limited provisions of WP:BAN you cite; the discussion relates principally to the propriety of the original blocks, with lengthy side discussions on related subjects like your alleged outing of an involved editor. Virtually all of the pertinent discussion even predates the blocked editor's initial unblock request. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You can pretend what you are saying is accurate. I wont. Of course the dicussion was about the "propriety of the original blocks", that is what a block review is. And after that review the editor remained block, which means, according to the quote in WP:BAN, the editor is banned. But this is such a minor point that dealing with it is not worth the time typing this response. nableezy - 17:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn Closing admin was mistaken on both the policy and the facts: NOTNEWS, however, is a policy, higher ranking than EVENT. True, but to reach that step there must be a consensus that in this given scenario they were inconsistent with each other. While some editors certainly made that argument, other (and more) editors disagreed, arguing that they are consistent with each other because NOTNEWS does not apply to the specific facts of this afd. All in all, consensus to delete. flat out factually wrong. a simple !vote count will reveal, if anything, the opposite.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC) The canvassing issue, is at most a red herring. I can start a blog in about 5.7 seconds complaining about anti-Arab bias, then post a link to the blog, yelling and screaming "Canvassing!" Even if the blog is legit, there is no reason why Wikipedia has to suffer with articles deleted out of order because some dude decided to open a blog complaining about the afd.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse, closure reflected consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but that's just flat out incorrect.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) ...in your opinion. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC) It was a difficult call, but the closure properly reflected consensus based on wikipedia policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC) @Stifle. No comment on giftigerwunch, but i always found you a reasonable editor, which makes your comment very perplexing. a consensus determination is not a matter of my opinion or your opinion, it is a simple head count. you can reasonably claim that one side's arguments do not make sense, you can reasonably claim that one side's arguments do not conform with WP policy, you may even reasonably claim that WP policy allows/requires the closing admin to disregard the arguments that do not make sense or do not comport with WP policy. However, there is no possible way you can claim that there was a consensus to delete article with fidelity to the classic dictionary definition of the word "consensus."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC) If you intend not to comment on me, then I ask that you do not mention my name as it's pretty clear what the implication is. I would also appreciate it that if you're going to attack me you spell my name correctly and be a bit more transparent about it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I suggest you also read WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. AfD discussions are not a "vote" or a "head count". You may also want to discard the dictionary definition and take a look at what we define as WP:CONSENSUS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC) misspelling your last name is a personal attack? drama queen much? as for the rest of your comments and misapplied wp policy, there are strawman arguments. it was not i that claimed any sort of consensus. i only point out the factual incorrectness of the comments made by others claiming a consensus to delete.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC) You know very well what I am referring to, and I'm not going to be baited and have no interest in continuing a discussion where the counterpoint is WP:ILIKEIT and personal attacks. As I'm sure you're aware, arguments which aren't based in policy or misrepresent policy won't be considered when the discussion is closed; I have nothing further to say on the matter. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse As there is no indication of any form of "enduring notability" as per WP:NOTNEWS policy. It is very clear "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.", this in common with lots of other terrorist or criminal attacks in regional conflict zones around the world make the news due to the notability of the "master" conflict, but the coverage of the event in question stops on that day, and all you are left with is occasional mentions - take it to WikiNews. Codf1977 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse, deletion was correct per WP:NOTNEWS. This is now the second deletion and the second time it has been brought up here. To bring it up here again is disruptive. This is fishing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - this is now round 4 of this discussion. Two separate AFDs were closed by two separate admins who both found there to be consensus to delete the article. A policy does in fact trump a guideline and the users arguing otherwise are either simply mistaken or are willfully distorting the policies of this website. DRV is not an opportunity to re-argue the same issues, and it should not be used when somebody just dislikes the outcome of an AFD. We do not need to go through this multiple times. The closure was grounded in policy (WP:NOT) and was both procedurally and factually correct. nableezy - 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse Yet another bad-faith "i don't like the outcome" DRV; again, there is no wrongdoing by the closing admin...just because you disagree with it doesn't make it wrong. As this is the second in as many weeks, sanctions against the nominator should be strongly considered. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC) ...along with sanctions for editors calling for frivolous sanctions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC) AfD (delete)--> DRV (relist) --> AfD2 (delete) --> DRV2. That is abusive/disruptive by any non-partisan's definition. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) your comment may be taken more seriously if you did not call for sanctions at the first DRV. your comment would also be taken more seriously if this DRV did not include reasonable long time editors unconnected to the I-A conflict area that are of the opinion that the close should be overturned. Finally, your comment would be taken more seriously if you actually addressed the underlying issue here, that the closing admin was mistaken on the basic facts (there was a consensus to delete) and policy (that NOTNEWS automatically trumps EVENT when both may apply to a given article).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I guess I'm quite lucky that I place zero value on what you do or do not take seriously, eh? :) And I did address the issue; administrators are empowered to make judgment calls in an XfD, and this one judged the strength if argument regarding "not news" trumps the weak keep calls. XfDs are not bean-counting, which is how we avoid having articles kept or retained based solely on how many partisan editors can be rounded up to come !vote, because it isn't actually a vote at all. Clear? Tarc (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) That's unfortunate, because I try to take seriously all my fellow Wikipedians, even those that don't reciprocate in turn, and even those trolls that have done nothing but drama-mongering in their entire Wikipedia history. As for the substantive part of your comment, when you finally addressed the underlying issue, you are correct about policy. However, your statement about policy does not apply to the given facts of this scenario. The closing admin did not say "I hear both sides of the argument and I think the delete arguments are superior." Had he said that, we would not be here today. Rather, the closing admin utilized an incorrect fact (that there was a consensus to delete) and an incorrect policy (that NOTNEWS automatically trumps EVENT when both may apply to a given article) . So that's why we are here today. Would you like to address these specific issues?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC) That is what I did address, but I will do so again, just for you, one last time. The closing admin made a judgment that the arguments to delete based on "not news" policy were stronger than the arguments to keep based on the "event" guideline. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC) incorrect. please read the closing admin's rationale and please read what i tried telling you right above this comment, twice. the closing admin did not say that the delete arguments was better then the keep arguments. the closing admin based the closure on an incorrect fact (there was a consensus to delete) and on an incorrect policy (that EVENT is meaningless and is trumped wherever NOTNEWS may apply).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Once the weaker arguments to keep were weighted less, the consensus to delete was quite clear. That is the point; admins closing XfDs can and do do this, and even if you disagree with his interpretation of policy (your statement that it is "incorrect" is only your opinion), that isn't a valid reason to go to DRV. Are we done? Tarc (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) its all layed out right in front of you, but you keep on repeating the same strawman arguments. for the third time, the closing admin did not say that in his opinion the keep rationales were weaker. can you please respond to the points raised instead of repeating the same strawman arguments? this is getting ridiculous.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Brewcrewer, the result was delete. That means that the closing admin felt that the deletion arguments were stronger and better grounded in policy than the arguments for keep; that's simply the way it works. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Did you bother reading the closing admin rationale (linked above) or are you just saying that because you assume that's what happened?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to be baited Brewcrewer. If the closing admin closes an AfD as delete, it means that they felt the delete arguments outwighed the keep ones. I'd suggest you stop assuming bad faith, start listening to what we're telling you and make an argument without attacking others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Read the closing admin's rationale. It's right here He clearly did not base his closure because he "felt the delete arguments outwighed the keep ones." Read the rationale.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I have already read it; as I said just now, suggesting that I am commenting on a closure at DRV without reading the close is a complete failure to assume good faith. You're just not getting it: if an admin has closed an AfD as delete, they felt that the delete arguments outweigh the keep ones. Period. Full stop. No ambiguity, no question, no uncertainty. They do not need to explicitly state that for it to be true, because closing it one way or another implicitly means that they believe that was the consensus, i.e. that the arguments on one side outweighed the other. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You're claiming that the closing admin "probably meant something" when he said pretty much the exact opposite. When determining whether the closure was done in compliance with WP policy we don't assume the closing admin meant something when his closing rationale is layed out right in front of us, and we especially don't assume the closing admin meant something when what he said contradicts that assumption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Facepalm We say it because that is what happened. You act as if the closing admin made the call entirely on his own, irregardless of user input. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Valiant efforts were made in this AfD to blur the lines between policy and guidelines, but the closer correctly applied the policy in light of the arguments made during the AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. The AFD discussion discussion plainly reached no consensus. The community is clearly divided over the interpretation of the various applicable policies and guidelines, and both sides' arguments are grounded in reasonable policy analysis. In these circumstances, it is not appropriate for the closer to settle the policy interpretation dispute when the community does not reach consensus. The result, as is demonstrated repeatedly and with increasing frequency, is that the resolution of this sort of AFD no longer depends on the community discussion, but on the opinions of the closer on the unsettled policy issues. That is incompatible with consensus decisionmaking. I also believe the "canvassing" claimis a red herring given far too much weight; there is simply not a shred of evidence that the posting cited had any material effect on the discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep the fact that any admin took the NOTNEWS argument seriously is itself problematic. Obviously, a lot of folks want to see an article on this event suppressed, despite its international ramifications, but what NOTNEWS actually says is entirely at odds with what those folks want it to say. No policy-based reason for deletion was articulated, despite the VAGUEWAVEs to NOTNEWS. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Funny that someone that always screams "bad faith" at others displays some himself now, i.e. "want to see an article on this event suppressed". Tarc (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) No bad faith is being assumed. One can want an article suppressed in good faith--that doesn't mean that the desire is in line with Wikipedia's policies. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep per argument articulated by Brewcrewer.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep per User:Brewcrewer. The canvassing argument is a red herring, and a dangerous one. If writing up a deletion debate on a blog was enough to get an article deleted, anyone who was losing a debate could just write it up on a blog, shout CANVASSING, and get the article deleted.AMuseo (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus at the actual discussion, let alone consensus to delete. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse- DrV is not for fishing, as Nableezy and SupremeDeliciousness point out. I see nothing to suggest that the closing admin was out of line here, and this is, what, the fourth time this has been discussed? People simply need to accept that DrV is not a second round of AFD to be appealed to just because you don't like the result. Reyk YO! 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Here's the question. Does WP:EVENT have any meaning? The closing admin basically said it's irrelevant because NOTNEWS>>EVENT. I personally think that's an error and one worth fixing, or at least worth addressing. I would have !voted to delete given that we regularly delete articles of this type (IP conflict deaths). But I A) Don't think there was consensus for that outcome at the AfD and B) I think the closer's rational is fatally flawed. Could you address the issues rather than assuming it's just here because people don't like the outcome? I'd prefer the outcome and feel that there is a problem here. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I started a discussion over at VPP on this "policy vs guideline" issue. TheWordsmith pointed out that WP:EVENT was written a year ago as a solution to the "notability vs NOTNEWS" problem. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you, Ritzman. For over a month now, in article after article one group has held that violent incidents may be deleted as news stories no matter how wide the coverage or serious the political impact. Another group, of which I have been part, has argued that individual incidents of political violence are WP:Notable when they get widespread coverage and have political impact. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting It would be extremely functional to come to some general agreement on what makes an incident notable.AMuseo (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Cod and Reyk. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The delete arguments were more grounded in policy, with many of the keep votes arguing by assertion. Quantpole (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC) comment When I compare the outcome to the outcome of [40] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Newry car bombing it seems to me that the difference in outcome a kind of WP:BIAS is due to the large number of editors who strongly hold opinions supporting the legitimacy of the Palestinian armed struggle. These editors introduce a Wikipedia:Systemic bias into Wikipedia with the result that violent attacks that take place in Israel are treated differently than very similar armed attacks such as the 2010 Newry car bombing or the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt.AMuseo (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC) endorse per my close of the first AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Indeed. Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting made it crystal clear that NOTNEWS trumps everything. the questin now being asked is whether this is in fact Wikipedia policy. Can you speak to that question?AMuseo (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC) WP:NOTNEWS is part of the WP:NOT policy, yes. See the page's header. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I have read and reread these policies, and I I continue to read them as supporting the idea that wikipedia is not the place for things like traffic accidents, but the a violent attack by politically-motivated militants that has a documented impact on public opinion, consequences for government policy, and an effect on peace negotiations is not diequalified under NOTNEWS and is qualified for keeping under the GNG.AMuseo (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Picking up your original request, according to the header of the page NOT is a policy so, as a section of that page NOTNEWS is also a policy. Notability is a guideline and arguments based on policy carry more weight then those on a guideline. The status of the pages is a relative guide to their general acceptance as NOT has been a policy almost since the inception of wikipedia and is widely accepted as an over-arching content guide that speaks directly on project scope. N is a guideline and numerous attempts to promote it to policy have been defeated by the community, which clearly therefore does not consider the standard to have the weight of a formal policy. That means that arguments grounded in N are not sufficient to overcome well-founded arguments based on a policy that speaks directly to project scope. EVENT is a newish page that is not widely accepted and does not have the same standing as N. I do realise that you are capable of reading all this yourself, and maybe you have, but it doesn't matter how many times you query this point the fact remains that a widely accepted policy does have more validity as an inclusion standard then a guideline that is not as widely accepted. An admin closing a discussion is expected to assess consensus against community norms and weigh arguments against them. Hence I stand by my original reasons for closing AFD1 as delete. I am not at all surprised that AFD2 closed as delete too. Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Picking up on something CW wrote, does your logic mean that WP:PRESERVE >> WP:N? Tim started a nice discussion at the policy pump. I really don't think there will be any kind of consensus for this policy>>guideline and further I think if it did gain consensus we'd get some crazy outcomes (never deleting a sourced article again for example...). It's a bad idea and those supporting it really need to step away from this example and look at the larger picture. For example, why does WP:EVENT even exist if NOTNEWS would always trump it? Further, NOTNEWS doesn't specify what enduring notability means, where WP:EVENT tries to. I think it's fair to use the guideline as, well, a guideline, to the policy. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I'm going to respond on your talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Tarc. Also endorse Tarc's suggestion to consider sanctions against those behind this silliness. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You are suggesting that editors who disagree with you on the interpretation of policies should be sanctioned? Really?AMuseo (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I'm suggesting that editors who abuse the process by treating DRV as a second (and fourth) attempt at AfD should be sanctioned, yes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) There is no abuse of policy, as non-frivolous arguments were made with regards to the closer's rationale. Suggestions that raising such concerns is grounds for sanctions is not not supported by any wikipedia policy, and seems to be intended to to produce a chilling effect to silence your opponents. It is disappointing to see administrators use such arguments. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) It's equally disappointing to see editors who don't read carefully. I wrote abuse of process, not abuse of policy. And the point of sanctions is to have a chilling effect on disruptive behavior that fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:ARBPIA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You are engaging in semantic nitpicking, which could also be described as wikilawyering, but I'll rephrase: There is no abuse of process , as non-frivolous arguments were made with regards to the closer's rationale. Suggestions that raising such concerns is grounds for sanctions is not not supported by any wikipedia policy, and seems to be intended to to produce a chilling effect to silence your opponents. It is disappointing to see administrators use such arguments. It is even more disheartening to see the same admins resort to wikilaywering to defend their attempt to chill out opposing points of view. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC) There are many ways to disrupt the Wikipedia process. For example, but starting an excessive number of AFD's. In little more than a month, we have seen numerous AFD's on articles that document some violent aspect of Islamist movements and ideologies. To me, it appears to be a pattern that reveals an effort to keep information about the violent aspects of Islamism off Wikipedia. And it seems abusive because editors are forced to spend time on these endless AFD's when they could be improving our many articles that need improvement. I have probably forgotten some, but here are what, to me, appear to be a pattern of recent attempts to remove material about Islamist violence from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaza Baptist Church, The Teacher's Bookshop, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 European terror plot, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian drive-by shooting, August 2010 West Bank shooting, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Hamas terror campaign, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdinç Tekir, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 September 2008 Baghdad bombings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 September 2008 Dujail bombing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2008 Peshawar bombing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba (2nd nomination).AMuseo (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) The "abuse of process" is clear to those who look. An article is deleted, sent to a deletion review that relists it, where it is deleted again by a different administrator. Common sense would inform all concerned that the community's consensus, in back to back AfDs, is that the article should be deleted. Filing another DRV is simply trying to game the system, to wear down others until the nominator gets his way. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC) @HupHollandHup: Whatever. @AMuseo: You're right. The Islamization of Wikipedia must be stopped. Why don't you write an article about it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc, since articles that get kept can be repeatedly nominated for deletion, what you describe can work both ways. Sometimes it can be abusive, in either direction, but it can also serve to draw a wider range of editors into the discussion. Most article deleted after a DRV and DRV'd again do end up deleted, but some of them do get kept in the end. People have a right to full hearings, and I would encourage the much more widespread use of deletion review--in general. (I'm not at the moment commenting on this particular article or group of articles). DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC) That's quite an AnalogyFail, DGG. Yes, kept articles can be re-nominated, but unless a reasonable amount of time has passed between filings it is generally seen as an act of bad faith and disruption. But we've had no passage of time here. This topic had its "full hearing" at DRV1, which determined that it should be relisted, and relisted it was at AfD2, where it was deleted again for the same fucking reason as AFD1. If these partisans had waited a few months, see if the subject matter continued to garner coverage, and then filed another DRV, perhaps that wouldn't have been so bad. But they didn't, because they demand it now. That is disruptive. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Personally, I think they did well not to wait, because in my opinion the deletion of the article was so very wrong at several levels. This is not a disagreement over content; this is a matter of maintaining basic NPOV, and that's something that has to be worked on continually and cannot be passed over. In terms of strategy, it's always a question of whether to keep going in the hope of making a final successful push, or waiting and starting over--it is very difficult to tell in advance what will work better. In this case, I think we supporters of the article want to be able to say we did everything possible. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC) "Strategy" ? Is this just one big game to you? Some people always joke about how the Wikipedia is one giant MMORPG, but now we have a confirmation that some really are playing it that way. Interesting. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Wow. Are you going to tell me that waiting between AfD nominations is making this a big game too? You try to accomplish what you feel is the right outcome by giving it your best shot. In the case of AfDs, it's pretty clear that nominating again right after a keep isn't going to get you anywhere so people wait and try again. Is that somehow morally bankrupt? Hobit (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is. All these re-nominators are doing is in essence buying a wiki-lottery ticket, hoping that on the nth iteration their number will come up, i.e. they happen to get a closing admin sympathetic to the cause. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC) So once kept, no one should renominate an article for deletion? I'm not understanding your response. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Generally renominations are done after a reasonable length of time, enough time for the situation to change or to become more clear. Maybe an article that people accept in good faith might be sourcable but after six months it turn out it isn't- then it would be reasonable to renominate it. Maybe a biographical article gets deleted because the subject is not even close to being notable, but six months down the track they achieve some lasting fame. That would be a good time to take it to DrV. But if someone instantly re-nominates an article at AfD because they didn't like the outcome, nothing has changed between then and now, the person just wants to roll the dice again with a different closing admin. That would be disruptive gaming of the system. This here is similar disruptive gaming of the system. The article has been deleted twice-for the same reasons- and it is not acceptable to go on complaining endlessly at DRV just because you don't like the result. Reyk YO! 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I think my point got lost in there, but I'm not overly worried about it. On this topic, I personally don't mind the result (in fact I pretty much favor it at this point) but I do very much disagree with the logic that got us there (EVENT vs. NOTNEWS) and I don't think there was a consensus to delete. Admittedly I'm not the one that brought the DRV, but I do think there are valid reasons for this DrV beyond a simple disagreement with the outcome. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. What is genuinely disruptive here is the attempt by several AFD discussion closers to impose their interpretation of policy on the community, even though it clearly lacks consensus support. It reminds me of the attempt to impose the BLP-defaults-to-delete rule some time ago. When one looks at the entire range of similar AFD discussions, it should be clear that there is no basis for discounting the policy views of a large segment of, at worst, a closely divided community. "This policy does not apply because . . . " is no less a policy based argument, in principle/abstract, than "This policy applies because . . . "; there is no rational basis for privileging either argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Wikibias canvassing blog bring this up again [41] 1st comment "JJ" also links here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Comment Wow we are scouring the internet now to find out if others might be talking about something here at Wikipedia? That argument should really not have anything to do with this at all. How do we know who is talking about what and where? Is there chatter on IRC or Google Chat? Really, stick with the issues, folks. KantElope (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Per WP:MEATPUPPET, it is quite a valid issue, and not to be cavalierly swept under the rug. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Given the contribution history of the user that claims this is irrelevant I would say this is highly relevant. Only edits made in the last 2 weeks come to pages that this blog has canvassed users to vote at. nableezy - 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC) I've looked at the blog, and I haven't seen that it canvassed anyone to vote on any article. I suppose it might be our business if an editor is whining about Wikipedia on an off-wiki blog, but this reflexive screaming about canvassing is really getting ridiculous. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Almost every post at that blog is a canvassing attempt. Yesterday a newly registred account went around exclusively to Pro-Israeli editors and directed them to the Wikibias blog: [42]. Its a pro-Israeli blog run by a blocked user who has said that "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." [43] and "I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." [44] Examples of his blog posts being carried out right after he blogs: Syrian American [45], right after an IP carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[46] and another blog post about Oldest synagogues in Israel [47] right after a user carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[48]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC) The above comment is substantially inappropriate, and brings into question whether the poster's comments should be given any weight in this discussion. By characterizing as "pro-Israeli" all the editors who disagree with his/her position on this dispute, the editor has clearly refused to accord them good faith as is required here, despite the fact that many of them, myself included, have held similar positions in similar AFD/DRV discussions not involving Israel-Palestine issues; it also completely ignores the policy-based arguments advanced here (and elsewhere) independent of issues in that dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC) The rote inclusionists are just as much of a problem as the pro-Israel partisans. It has proven to be quite a tag-team, difficult to overcome in these discussions. Thankfully, AfD3 is a slim-to-none possibility coming out of DRV2 here. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC) It doesnt actually say "go here and vote", but it comes very close. It provides links to discussions and subtly pushes people to vote. Some comments are less subtle than others, with one saying "just register anew [sic] account and go help tip the scales to keeping the topic article". nableezy - 20:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC) There was one comment that canvassed, but the blog itself doesn't push people to vote, subtly or otherwise. Jesus, have we gotten to the point of getting into a hissy fit over a comment on an obscure blog? When there is evidence indicating effective covert canvassing on the other side of the debate (see nomination)? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC) “ What we are urging new and would-be editors to do is to get a Wikipedia account, and learn the system by editing on some noncontroversial topic that they know something about. Once they learn the ropes, they should approach controversial topics slowly, to avoid falling into traps like the one Tarc, Nableezy and SP are laying here." - Wiki02138 ” That is an almost verbatim reproduction of the tactics of the CAMERA lobbying campaign a few years back. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn per nomKantElope (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Comment Care to elaborate. "Per nom" is rather vague. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse DRV is not a second chance at AfD. The article has been deleted twice already with detailed rationale provided by the closing administrators in both AfD processes. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - close was well within admin discretion. Otherwise, there seems to be a trend to appeal, query, or seek to overturn every single admin decision that vaguely relates to the I-P dispute. For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't a healthy trend. PhilKnight (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete. When closing such discussions, a finding of consensus requires that there be something resembling a genuine consensus. One might discard maverick or outlying views but to determine this by simple majority or start judging the matter oneself is quite improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse - AfD has got it right TWICE on this article now. This is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic... Furthermore, there is now a catch-all 2010 Terrorism-in-Israel article (which has PASSED AfD) into which all the various news articles may be consolidated. Wikipedia is NOT A NEWS SUMMARY SERVICE, and particular not one which tendentiously collects and memorializes the casualties on one side of the Israeli-Palestinian Civil War while ignoring the other. —Carrite, Oct. 9, 2010. What "catch-all 2010 terrorism-in-Israel article?" Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign is the article being referred to, I believe. September 2010 West Bank shooting was recently redirected to there as a result of an AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign is about a specific campaign that began in August/September 2010. It is not a "catch-all 2010 terrorism-in-Israel" article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn since there is no consistent consensus to delete. I strongly deplore the effort to remove articles on news events in political conflicts which would not be removed otherwise. All sides seem to engage in this tactic--not just the people have. The fate of the articles thus depends on the variable balance of the politics of the participants,. This is noty a way to deal with NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not quite sure what you mean by "consistent consensus". Consistent would imply that consensus needs to be applied across multiple articles or over a period of time, but that's not the case; it's the consensus developed from the AfD that decides its closure. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Summation comment by nom: I opened this DRv because of specific concerns, which I stated clearly in the nomination. After a particularly long discussion, not a single person endorsing the closer's deletion has addressed those concerns. Let me repeat: not a single person endorsing the closer's deletion has addressed those concerns. Besides its obvious relevance to the question of what the consensus of the discussion was, this fact should give us pause as to what the point of DRv discussions is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC) You're not kidding anyone here; you opened this because you disagree with the result. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse as pointed out in the AfD, the event was in the news only for one week. This indicates, that there is no enduring notability, which according WP:NOTNEWS is necessary for inclusion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 October 2010

The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) – Allow recreation. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Notability; this page userified over the summer to improve it; now ready for review and reposting, if approved. For citations meeting notability, see the first seven (7) footnotes. Original instruction following userify was to have the administrator review; he has disengaged and requested it be sent to DRV. Cmagha (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC) If you have trouble bringing up the link, go to my user page. Both the article and the discussion can be found there. --Cmagha (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I've fixed the link for you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) allow recreation Excellent work. Yes, ready for main space. (I thought the original article was acceptable, though in need of considerable rewriting. But now I don't think there's any doubt about it. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) allow recreation- looks like this one was was knocked out of the park. There is absolutely no question about any notability here, and I can't see any possible reason this would even need to go to AFD. Well done. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. This user has a repeated history of misrepresenting sources/original research in relation to this topic. I don't have time at the moment to comb through the re-written article, but I strongly suggest that the editors involved in this discussion take caution in re-evaluating the article. In past instances, some of the sources listed as refs didn't even mention the Irving Society or it was unclear which of the many societies by that name were being referred to. He has also taken several sources out of context. Before re-instatement, a thorough fact checking of the article is needed in my opinion due to the history surrounding this article. 4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) allow recreation. See the first seven footnotes, where the notability cites were frontload for Spartaz' review last summer. And I think the detractors from earlier this year need to back down from expressions of bad faith about specific editors on this project. It is really getting unfair.--Coldplay3332 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC) allow recreation. If you look at fns. 2 & 3, both are non-Cornell secondary sources (one is a federal report) and they both cite directly to the Irving. Notability achieved. Wehatweet (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)— Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. allow recreation. I also checked fn. 1., and the Sanderson quote refers to the first literary societies at Cornell, of which the Irving was one of two at the time. So that checks out. The Ithacan cite is dead on; direct reference, so that checks; same with the Cornell Register. Also the University of Michigan’s University Chronicle is a direct cite to the Irving. So in fn 1, there are three cites to secondary sources not connected to Cornell which reference this subject. I agree with Wehatweet; notability has been achieved. Tea36 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC) — Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. allow recreation. The Syracuse Orangemen chiming in (with Coldplay32): I think fns. 2 & 3 make the best case for notability; particularly the federal report cited. Also, see in fn. 5 the greater use of the indicators we use in legal writing, such as "Cf." and "see"; these help limit the citations for the purposes above in the text. That may help the detractors. I see that Spartaz' has noted that he "hates markup" in the tiny history line notation -- should that be moved to the main discussion? Is it code for someone else in a discussion we are not privy to? Lebowski 666 (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Yes it means that I am a frustrated cereal killer. Actually, it means that wikipedia is notorious for confusing mark-up text and command lines for templates and the like. For example, I had 5 goes (including previews) and had to spend 10 minutes this evening reading documentation on a non-standard info box just to understand how to insert an image into an article. I frequently get mark-up wrong hence my tendency to do the correcting edit with a comment about how I feel about the stuff. Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Procedural question: How many edits to how many different articles is required before editors are no longer tagged as having made "few or no other edits" outside the topic area? I note Lebowski 666 has over 50 edits to more than half a dozen other articles, none of them particularly related to this subject, including a couple of image uploads. I gotta say, his contributions are more diverse than mine were at the same point in my wiki-editorship. Risker (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Um, yes that was over eager, I have removed the tag with my apologies. Spartaz Humbug! 03:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC) The Great Lebowski caught the Wiki fever last summer; he’s done quite bit. Not as much as I have, but I have heard him tapping away at lunch in the cubicle next door more than once! Coldplay3332 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC) allow recreation. On the critique page, I provided these comparators and a summary of the research. Brought forward for review, but do read all the commentary. In order of less, to more, evidence: Sphinx (senior society) (Notability based incredibly on primary, Dartmouth sources), Philolexian Society (like the Sphinx at Dartmouth, all are Dartmouth sources), Episkopon (nice, notability determined by three primary sources, one of which is somebody's resume), American Whig-Cliosophic Society (notability accepted from one secondary source which is a simple, unlabeled list), Elizabethan Club (notability determined by one secondary source dating from 1921, and not linked; everything else is a Yale publication), Franklin Society (Notability based merely on two secondary, Non-Brown University sources), - - Irving's evidence quality/quantity falls here. - - Philodemic Society (notability established from two secondary sources), Jefferson Literary and Debating Society (notability apparent from two secondary sources, which are exactly the same as the Washington's at UVA), Washington Literary Society and Debating Union (notability apparent from two secondary sources), Philomathean Society (notability well deserved from four secondary and one primary source),. Total of nineteen (19) citations supporting notability, more than any comparator linked, supra. Best Evidence, eight (8) Secondary Sources specifically citing the Irving. United States Bureau of Education, Contributions to American Educational History No. 28: History of Higher Education in New York, Circular of Information No. 3, (H.B. Adams, ed. 1900) at 393.</ref> (Non-Cornell secondary source describing the Irving specifically as “a purely literary society,” cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); see also p. 74; John H. Selkreg, Landmarks of Tompkins County (1894) at X.; Thomas Spencer Harding, College literary societies: their contribution to higher education in the United States, 1815–1876 (171) at 265; (Non-Cornell secondary source, albeit relatively minor, which nonetheless adds support for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); Catalogue of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity (Aldrice C. Warren, ed. 1910) at 1001 (Non-Cornell secondary source noting the importance of membership in the Irving); The Shield (16:1)(Theta Delta Chi March 1900) at 210; Fayette E. Moyer, "Literary Societies," Cornell Magazine (January 1895) at 187–194. (Although a Cornell source, this citation notes that the Irving also admitted women to membership, but the Philaletheian, believing that there ought to be one society which devoted itself purely to debate, remained an organization for men only, thereby meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations.). See also Carol Kammen, Cornell: glorious to view (2003) at 39. (non-Cornell source supporting the same); Sari Knopp Biklen & Marylin B. Brannigan, Women and Educational Leadership (1980) at 128 (non-Cornell secondary source noting that by 1884 and 1886, the Irving was feeling pressed by Cornell Athletics. Cite meets need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.); Charlotte Williams Conable, Women at Cornell: The Myth of Equal Education (1977)(Although written by a Cornellian, this source notes that the Irving Literary Society, along with the Christian Association, was one of the few campus venues in which Cornell member could participate as equals with Cornell men. The early membership criteria are an example of the cyclical, rather than evolutionary, nature of gender inclusion noted by feminist theorists. As such, it supports reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.). Strong Evidence, seven (7) Primary Sources directly identifying the Irving: University Chronicle, “Educational” (Univ. Mich.)(Jan. 16, 1869) at 2. (identifying the Irving as one of Cornell’s two literary societies. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); "Irving Literary Society," The Ithacan (Apr. 4, 1869) at 2; (Non-Cornell source editorial stating that the Irving was "first in the field"); The Daily Journal (Ithaca, New York)(Nov. 8, 1870) at 2 (Non-Cornell primary source noting transaction of the Irving Literary Society’s business.); “Exchanges,” The Virginia University Magazine (12:2)(Nov. 1873) at 266 (non-Cornell primary source noting that the Irving was entertaining an agenda which strayed from traditional literary activities. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); Daily Democrat 2 (Ithaca, New York)(Sept. 27, 1884)(Non-Cornell primary source stating “The Irving literary society met last evening, but was poorly attended. This institution should be one of the most prosperous student societies in the college, but strange to say, it has deteriorated in point of numbers, and its management has fallen into the hands of technical instead of literary students.” Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); The Daily Democrat (Ithaca, N.Y.)(Oct. 31, 1884) at 2. James Gardner Sanderson, "The Personal Equation," Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine (67:397)(January 1901) at 86. (referring to that the Irving and Philaletheaian as “the two literary societies [that] were everything . . .” during the early years, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations; the article is a memoir by a Cornellian); Good Evidence, four (4) Secondary or Primary Sources which may not directly identify the Irving, but refer to literary societies at Cornell in a manner, which when combined with another source, prove notability of the subject: Blake Gumprecht, The American Collegetown (2008) at 77 (Non-Cornell general secondary source citation on student culture at Cornell, noting that the Irving and its peers established an environment conducive to free intellectual thought in the early years, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (3d.)(1874-75) at 77 (showing Irving as one of two senior literary societies) to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.); “Cornell University,” The People’s Cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge (W.H. DePuy ed. 1897) at 687 (Non-Cornell, secondary sources, referencing literary societies in general. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (1879-1880) at 5 to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.); Gerald Graff, Professing Literature: An Institutional History (Univ. Chicago 1987), at 45–51 (Non-Cornell, albeit general, secondary source referencing Cornell on the role literary societies, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.) combined with David Fellows More, The Historical Journal of the More Family (John More Association 1913) and Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869) to confirm the general Gerald Graff cite refers, in part, to the Irving); Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869)(Non-Cornell primary source identifying Cornell’s literary societies as electing men of talent and work, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. But it is a primary source, not secondary. Though cited to round out the Graff citation, it also stands on its own as proof of notability). Cmagha (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cleanwell – Overturn. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cleanwell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Courtesy request for page creator, who is convinced that mention of uniqueness of a company's product is enough of a claim of said company's notability to escape CSD A7 deletion, and refuses to believe otherwise. (Long discussion on my page)) Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) RESPONSE: Having reviewed the a7 criterion for speedy deletion, I believe that this article was not properly deleted. A7 is used to specify articles which do not indicate why its subject is important or significant. However, this deletion review itself is not about the A7 criterion, but more specifically about the reason that it was deleted. Fortunately we have the talk discussion logs in which the deleting admin states his argument that the article did contain a claim of significance but that the claim was not credible: "This claim taken by itself does not appear credible. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)". So, this deletion review has been created not to investigate the entirety of this article; instead, it must solely provide evidence which supports the credibility of the claim. The claim as indicated by both parties is: "Cleanwell represents a significant shift in the hand sanitzer product space because of its uniquely non-toxic, chemical free ingredients." Parsing this down, we see that this is a complex claim which can be simplified: Premises: 1. Cleanwell is uniquely non-toxic. 2. Cleanwell has chemical free ingredients. Conclusion: Cleanwell represents a significant shift in this market. Let us begin by examining the first premise. The wikipedia page on hand sanitizer specifically addresses non-alcohol based sanitizers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_sanitizer#Non-alcohol_Hand_Sanitizers "benzalkonium chloride is rated as a level 7 high hazard in the Cosmetics Safety Database" "Triclosan is rated as a level 7 high hazard in the Cosmetics Safety Database" "Alcohol-free hand sanitizers may be effective immediately while on the skin, but the solutions themselves can become contaminated because alcohol is an in-solution preservative and without it, the alcohol-free solution itself is succeptible to contamination" Cleanwell however contains none of the above mentioned substances and is also alcohol free.[1] Further, herein lies a strong argument for notability and inclusion. This formulation represents a gap in the knowledge stored within wikipedia and on this basis is notable. Premise 2 is substantiated by US Patents.[1] As we have validated the premises, there remains no doubt that the admin's claims of non-credibility are false. We have substantiated the claims. There does however remain the original question of notability, which to avoid a subsequent review shall now be addressed. Ideo is a global design and innovation firm which has repeatedly won more awards than any other design firm in the world: "IDEO brought Ingenium, the key ingredient and first all-natural antimicrobial that meets FDA and EPA standards for germ killing efficacy, to market in the form of the CleanWell product line."[2] It is difficult to argue that the world's first all-natural antimicrobial that meets both FDA and EPA standards is not notable. Sources: [1]US Patents 7,465,697 b1 and 7,763,575 b2 [2]http://www.ideo.com/work/featured/cleanwell (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEO) Notable Coverage and External Links Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire [Applying the precautionary principle to consumer household cleaning product development, Journal of Cleaner Production, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VFX-50J9GV0-4/2/ce7d32a846bb67b952451851a6370f78)] Sanitizer Myths maincampus.com FDA approves manufacturing facilities Thank you for your consideration. Tlow03 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. The page creator has provided sufficient evidence that this article did, in fact, make a 'credible claim to importance/significance' such that an A7 Speedy was not appropriate. An AfD might well succeed, but giving the chance for community discussion seems only right. --Korruski (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore Certainly enough is in the article to prevent a speedy deletion. There are good sources which I think show actual notability , including substantial coverage in a NYT article [49] -- and a number of other news sources, all available in G NewsArchive--the creator of the article should add them. Curious that the author does not seem to have thought of looking, but the company's publicity dept. needs some assistance--the links to the positive press is not even on the company web site. I admit that in reviewing speedies I do not always look for references not in the article if the speedy seems really obvious--but I certainly would have looked when the user complained to me--and certainly if I were going to argue, as he did, that the claims were not credible, I'm glad the user persisted, despite the negative and even contemptuous comments made to him on the talk p, including, finally "Im done with someone who refuses to believe everything I tell him" --an unfortunate phrase to pick when what was told him was clearly wrong as shown by good sources. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. The way Tlow03 was dealt with struck me as rather unfortunate, as he was doing an excellent job of making his case. --Korruski (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "he was doing an excellent job of making his case." - And in retrospect I was doing an excellently bad job of handling it. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Maybe I'm just a hardline believer in science and rationality, but I think claims like "chemical-free ingredients" make it impossible to treat the article claims as credible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I agree it needs rewriting, and I'll take responsibility for seeing it done or for doing it myself. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with DGG that it will need continued work. I will offer to contribute to the process of improvement. Also I agree with Hullaballoo that "chemical free" is not the correct term to use, and should be revised. Tlow03 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn per above and send to WP:AFD, where it will almost certainly be deleted. What a waste of everybody's time, but if someone fights hard enough you have to let them waste some of your time, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn page creator made their case. -- Ϫ 08:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding – Close as "no consensus" endorsed. Article may be renominated for another attempt at consensus. – RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Article is not notable or an appropriate entry for an encyclopedia. See detailed discussion on the article talk page. Austex • Talk 03:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse keep until another AfD achieves consensus - I believe that the AfD discussion suggested that the article does have a legitimate claim to notability, and there was no consensus against this. No particular reason why this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia has been given and, again, there was no consensus that the article was unencyclopedic. Therefore, I don't see any reason not to keep the article until another AfD achieves consensus to delete. I understand Austex's main complaints centred around the undue emphasis the article gave to him personally, which was unfair and potentially damaging. I thought that this issue was rectified during the delete discussion, by not using Austex's name in the article. --Korruski (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, thank you and other editors re the deletion of my name. It is most appreciated, and it mitgate my own personal conern. My concern now is with the article to begin with. Austex • Talk 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure, but relist to build consensus: I see no reason why it should not have been closed as no consensus; there doesn't seem to be any consensus one way or another, and closing it as no consensus was perfectly valid. It may be helpful to relist this to attempt to gain consensus to either keep it or delete it though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse as an accurate reading of the AFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion With no relist. As per discussion and reasons cited. This simply is not an encyclopedia article and it was created for a specific purpose on Wilikepia (a BLP issue) that is now gone and deleted. No other Wikipedia page references this article and it is cited by the WikipediaLawProject as being of low importaqnce. It would be helpful for the creator to explain why this is notable and worthy of an encyclopdiac listing. However, if kept is anyone willing to consider the additions I have cited on the article talk page to make it more accurate, complete and well-rounded? Austex • Talk 17:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Yes. I will consider them. Austex, I appreciate that this article is important to you, but I don't feel that this is the place to make your case for deletion. If you feel that the decision to close as 'no consensus' did not reflect the discussion (in other words, you believe there was a consensus to delete) then say so. Otherwise, you are free to relist the article for deletion, and make your case there. Alternatively, I will be happy to help you with improving the article. --Korruski (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Would you recommend that I or someone else instigate a new AfD? I do recognize that I have a considerable interest, and also a considerable CIO on this topic, about which I have no doubt more than stretched the boundaries. I don't want to abuse the system. Austex • Talk 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Comment At the AfD I suggested deletion or total rewriting, and I still think it is needed. The actual non-local notability, the fairly wide citation of the case, is entirely due not to the principal issue or the merits, but only to the successful appeal on the procedural point of just what sort of information the judge may decide himself without sending to the jury. The article rather obscures this, & I had to read the actual decisions to figure out what was going on. The original dispute does have to be discussed to give some context, but I would suggest in rewriting that it might perhaps be relegated to a sentence or two of background. Unfortunately we have no way of solving this sort of problem , & I continue to think that if the undue emphasis is not fixed the article should be deleted, DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: Just to remind everyone that this discussion is about whether or not the closure of this AfD as no consensus was appropriate and a correct interpretation of consensus on the AfD, not about whether you feel that it should be kept or deleted (that's what the AfD itself was for). All this "endorse keep" and "endorse delete" business is strange, as the closure was neither for keep nor delete. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Comment A good point, Giftiger. Would you favor relisting it again as an AfD? If so, someone other than me probably should list it, although I would be happy to do so. I'd personally prefer that 'Korrisku' or 'DGG' initiate a new AfD and I will withdraw this appeal. Austex • Talk 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Agree with assessment of close of AFD by Pax:Vobiscum (talk · contribs), which as an appropriate decision and a good determination for the outcome. -- Cirt (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Cancel Appeal Seems to me that we ought to accept the original decision by Pax:Vobiscum and let it stand, and then re-list is as an AfD for more discussion. Austex • Talk 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tyler Clementi – Let's not have the usual mess with this. The original content was speedily deleted. This deletion review challenges that speedy deletion. In the meantime, other people have taken the other route of challenging a speedy deletion, namely writing, a different article. In fact, two were written, one at Tyler Clementi and one at tyler clementi. They're both now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler clementi. Continuing to argue whether we should undelete John0101ddd's one-sentence stub, given what Kingturtle and Fæ have done in the meantime, is just daft. One discussion, on the current articles, at AFD, is enough. If you have an opinion on how policy applies, and how and whether to include an event of someone's suicide in Wikipedia, that's now the place. – Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tyler Clementi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) It was speedied as BLP1E, but the dude is dead, so BLP cannot be invoked. It is already the second day of coverage on front page of New York Times, so 1E cannot be invoked. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion: The fact that the one event was reported in the news for two consecutive days does not mean it's no longer a single event; per WP:1E the individual is not notable, and per WP:NOTNEWS, the event isn't suitable for encyclopaedic coverage either. It doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, but it uncontroversially fails WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS so an IAR delete was reasonable in this case. If there is significant opposition to the IAR deletion then by all means restore it and take it to AfD, but it's unlikely to stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD per the policies above. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Except the coverage today is not a repeat of yesterday, it is the front page of the New York Times as commentary: Online Musings Point to Student’s State of Mind Before a Suicide. And is on the Op-Ed page of several New Jersey papers in print. The guide you pointed to says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This doesn't fit any of those categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The coverage is a continuation of the same story. It was covered first on Gawker long before the NYTimes got its hands on it. Gawker covers all sorts of passing and relevant (but ultimately non-notable) news, and at this point this seems like another one of those articles. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) <ec>The event is clearly notable and this isn't a passing news story given the massive coverage. The biography is less likely to make it, but not and open-and-shut case given the massive amount of coverage. Not a speedy, not a BLP, no reason to ignore process, and if the massive coverage continues will make it past WP:BIO1E just as Rodney King did. Overturn Hobit (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC) We get massive coverage on all sorts of stuff, but not all of it is notable. Rodney King is quite a jump - the events surrounding him triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 04:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Do remember that WP:NOTNEWS refers to enduring notability, not notability or coverage immediately after the event. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD. No applicable speedy criterion. No overriding reason not to debate according to standard process. Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. We should try to avoid recentism getting to our heads. We have little to no information on whatever has happened - whatever article we write will consist solely of a few select quotes from the news articles, all of which state the same limited material. The story right now stands as such: kid is cyberbullied, commits suicide; two fellow students arrested. After that, then what? We have no information. We have no perspective. We don't even have all the facts yet. We don't know if this will be different from any of the other similar tales that make the news rounds. See WP:ONEVENT, WP:SENSATION, etc, etc. I think you are all jumping the gun. Why don't we wait for at least a week for all the furor to die down, and then we can think about starting something up? --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 04:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The same could be said of World War III when it starts, that we should wait to get perspective on it. I can also sum up WWII the same way you did: Hitler invaded Poland and then we dropped the bomb on Japan. Let a full AFD decide. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I would generally agree with you, but this is hardly Hitler invading Poland or a major diplomatic scandal. It isn't even the Afghan War Logs. It's a local piece of news that has gone viral nationally because of unfortunate implications. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 08:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn and rename to "death of..." per EVENT. No speedy criterion applies, listing at AfD is probably inevitable. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) BLP applies to recently dead out of respect to their families. Neither of the two deleted articles are encyclopedic and dwell on the tabloid aspects of the case. Endorse. Note to closing admin that as this was deleted under BLP it may only be recreated or undeleted if a clear consensus to over-rule this exists. Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Can you cite the exact guide you are referring to? I don't see anything like that at WP:BLP. You may also note that the death was covered in the New York Times which is a broadsheet newspaper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deceased Specifically But material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased, so anything questionable should be removed promptly In this case both articles as written were inevitably salacious and unpleasant for the surviving relatives and BLP therefore applies. 1E or ONEEVENT is pretty clear that this subject is only notable for one thing, so this article does not belong here and was rightfully deleted under BLP ground to avoid harm to surviving relatives. A consensus can permit creation of a new article but, I think, neither of the ones that were deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) That says "anything questionable should be removed promptly" in the article, it doesn't say to delete the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Removed promptly includes deletion if the whole article is a problem. Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Endorse. In cases like this (an article on an ordinary person, recently deceased in tragic circumstances) we should start with the status quo of "delete" and then only create the article where there is consensus to do so (and consensus can be achieved here at DRV). That's the ethical thing to do, even if it isn't supported by current deletion process. The alternative is creating an improper article in the moments after the event, when the damage caused by the article is at its most acute, and accompanying that with a rancourous 7 day AfD. So I support the deletion of the article on those IAR grounds. As an article fails BLP1E and NOTNEWS by a very wide margin, I'm going, for the time being, to support the status quo and oppose any consensus to create an article on or in any way related to the subject.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The only problem is that he is dead so BLP1E does not apply. And NOTNEWS says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This doesn't fit any of those categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The key words being "For example..." --Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) And it would help in any of those examples were remotely similar. "For example" doesn't mean everything or anything, I peeked at my thesaurus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) They are providing examples of news events which may not have enduring notability; it is not a complete list or categorisation of articles which fail WP:NOTNEWS; the policy itself explains what should or should not be considered: if it doesn't have enduring notability, it should be at wikinews, not here. And so soon after the event, we don't know if it's going to have enduring notability or not because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Do no harm is clearly the guiding principle here. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) How exactly would an article on his death cause harm? Our first objective is to write an encyclopedia. We don't have a crystal ball that can tell us that an article with bring joy to someone or despair. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Clearly you have no imagination if you cannot work that out for yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC) It is hard to imagine how an encyclopedia article, using information from various news sources, could possibly cause more harm than those news sources themselves. --Korruski (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Where did I say do more harm then the papers? Spartaz Humbug! 08:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) My point is that I cannot understand how the article can do harm when it will not be including any information that is not already being covered by most major news sources in, at the very least, the US and UK. You suggest that to fail to see how it can do harm shows a lack of imagination. Well, fine, I admit that I cannot imagine how it can conceivable do harm, so please explain? --Korruski (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Overturn. The event satisfies WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE based on coverage in several well-known news publications; I think it satisfies WP:GEOSCOPE by virtue of the fact that large numbers of the LGBT community outside the US have now heard about the incident; and WP:EFFECT seems like it's likely to apply, as this is causing calls for anti-bullying measures to be taken (c.f. The Ellen DeGeneres Message), and Matthew Shepard is even listed as an example there. If the deleted article is of insufficient quality to be posted in its own right, then it should be recreated (possibly under a different name, as previously suggested, or as a subpage of a suicide or bullying article) with a short summary until a better-quality article can be created. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.