Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2011 Deletion review archives March 2011 >

28 February 2011[edit]

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

David Ramadan is an important Arab American contributor both to the business world and political world. He is building a successful business while also providing valuable insight into Arab/American relations and providing expertise back to the Arab world on American politics. I strongly believe that Mr. Ramadan meets all the criteria to be listed in Wikipedia. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddonofrio (talk • contribs)

Comment - The appealer also created a "Listed at DRV" page at the protested article. This action is really only useful when an admin restores the page history for review during a DRV debate. It's not useful when the review page has no history behind it. So I have A3 CSD deleted the latest version of the page. It is the earlier A7 CSD deletion that is specifically being brought for review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and so I did just that. That was the obvious reasonable intent. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not well familiar with the normal criteria used to decide which DRV articles do or do not get their history restored. I know it's only a small minority of reviews. So I did not feel comfortable making that call myself. DGG is one of the admins who most often does such history restores, from what I've seen. So if he has decided it should be restored in the current case, that's more than good enough for me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete A bit of searching on google turned up coverage in Al Jazeera, msnbc and Huffington post. While I am unsure if there is enough coverage for a proper article this is not an a7 candidate. Yoenit (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete and rewrite The article was based on his website. Though OTRS permission was given, as shown in the edit history, the tone remains highly unsuitable alike that of a press release. But it never was an A7 speedy--it always asserted considerable notability . (I just now notified the admin who did the a7 deletion). DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete per Yoenit and DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 February 2011[edit]

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

This is a clearly notable subject and should not be deleted merely based on the prejudice of this site's owners.卐卐 Free Palestine! 卐卐 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation This has become very notable. Myli Millstone (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse deletion- per WP:NOTAGAIN. Reyk YO! 06:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I need to point out that both these editors only registered today and their only purpose seems to be to drag this muck up again. Reyk YO! 06:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 February 2011[edit]

25 February 2011[edit]

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

[WP:Speedy keep] is a guideline, which states, "This page...is a generally accepted standard..."  At the AfD discussion, [WP:Articles for deletion/Zonnon], the AfD reached a stopping point based on SpeedyKeep criteria.

Regarding the new activity at the end of three days, compare with the activity at (ref#1, and ref#2).  Also note the discussion after the normal 7-day period, which discussion can only take place in the context that the closure can occur at any moment.

The closing decision found that there was a delete consensus, but ignored the influence of the SpeedyKeep criteria.  As per WP:Guide to deletion the closing admin should explain the closing.  It is not credible that a closing statement could ignore that the nature of the discussion, including those willing to participate, had been changed by the SpeedyKeep criteria.

This request resulted in this refusal.  The response was of the form, "see my closing statement", and "take it to DelRev", with the explanation being that individual editors do not need responses.

Now that the discussion is at DelRev, a responsible course for the encyclopedia is to uphold the standards in WP:SpeedyKeep, and in doing so give polite inferential support to WP:Guide to deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse -- while there was a short amount of time a speedy keep would have been valid, as soon as the next delete comment came in 27 minutes later, it was no longer valid. Closer clearly gave appropriate weight to points made. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If someone had come in and closed the discussion in the period of time between the nomination being withdrawn and the first delete recommendation coming in then Speedy Keep would have applied. Since that close did not happen and the AFD continued to run the Admin's job is to assess the consensus of the complete discussion. The admin correctly determined the consensus at the time he closed the discussion. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Unscintillating's characterization of the closing admin's response does not do him justice. What he said was by no means as curt as your quotation indicated. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a procedural error here and I concur entirely with GB fan.—S Marshall T/C 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, & permit rewrite in user space only when there is in fact some substantial 3rd party references. Some of the programming languages nominated by the user who nominated this one were in fact notable, having decent third party sources that could be identified, but some do not seem to have them. This was among those for which nobody has yet found any. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Community consensus should not be overriden by procedural quibbling. Speedy keep was on the table for 27 minutes, between the nominator withdrawing and the first delete vote. Once a good faith discussion of the merits was underway, with opinions on both sides, it would be irresponsible for an administrator to close it as speedy anything. Reyk YO! 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Proper procedure was followed with regards to Speedy Keep, per SarekOfVulcan. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-Let me get this straight: the argument to overturn this AfD is based upon the idea that it should have been speedy kept immediately upon the nominator's withdrawal, and that the following comments were somehow null and void because of that? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. That's not how things work. We had valid discussion, and a valid result based on that discussion. There's no reason to overturn this.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Serene Branson – No consensus. A very heated discussion on both sides. There were arguments that the closer made a "supervote" or was biased in disregarding "keep" !votes more liberally than "delete" !votes, but the defense of his close was equally strong. However, the "overturn" !voters have established that BLP1E does not apply because she is a public figure (BIO1E is still up for grabs), so I am restoring the history, since an AfD resulting in a redirect usually preserves the history unless there is a good reason not to. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Serene Branson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Should have been closed as "No consensus for deletion" rather than "Delete." Long before the on-camera episode of speaking gibberish which gained her worldwide news coverage (leading to WP:BLP1E arguments for deletion,) the subject had at least two instances of significant newspaper coverage as well as a local Emmy nomination. The raw count was 25 deletes, 24 keeps, showing near parity. The closing admin chose to ignore 2 of the "deletes" and 8 of the "keeps," leaving 23 delete arguments against 16 keep arguments, which still does not appear to amount to a consensus. Several more of the "deletes" could have been ignored, based on their denial that the award and two newspaper articles provided any support for prior notability. The original nominator argued finally for a "No consensus close" and I believe his judgment is correct. Edison (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to ignore the numbers entirely, if no one minds. They tend to distract from determining consensus. It's not a vote, so the exact numbers don't matter.
    Anyway, the issue here is clear. Pretty much everyone favoring delete mentioned WP:BLP1E, and few who favor retention did much to rebut this argument. A couple of users mentioned some awards she won (such as you, Edison). However, these claims to notability were weak and not accepted as beating out the BLP1E argument (I note that the former does not matter, but the latter does). Phantomsteve made a good call on this one. Endorse his closure as properly reflecting consensus.
    The claim that Safiel requested a no consensus closure seems to be a bit of a red herring, as well. Stifle made the comment, just before Safiel requested a closure, that any result would end up at DRV (*cough*). Safiel probably read this and misinterpreted it to mean that consensus does not exist, rather than that consensus isn't well-liked by some. If I have misinterpreted his reasoning, he can feel free to correct me. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 03:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete This is a tough case for the closing admin. This is a clear "no consensus". So, the real question, is does "no consensus" default to keep. Normally it does, except for BLPs with contentious material and week sourcing. So, is this a BLP exception? No. Here, we have largely non-contentious material (early misreports, but not a lot of serious disputes about event) and strong sourcing (of the event). There's an entirely reasonable argument for doing a merge (probably to the station), which requires using sources from this article (necessitating undeletion). There's also a case for making it an "event", not a bio article. Keepers did refute the 1EVENT argument. The only thing they didn't refute, which annoyed me, was the issue of whether a regional Emmy matters. I think nobody did a great job in the AFD in addressing all the issues, up to and including the most recent and comprehensive reporting. A new AFD in the future would be a good opportunity for a better discussion. --Rob (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. All that needs to be said here is that the closer evaluated the strength of the arguments rather than engage in rote bean-counting. The keepers tried valiantly to dig up some past scrapings of notability such as regional awards, but what that sort of action amounts to is a sort of wikipedia-form of confirmation bias; they have already concluded that the person is notable, so they go out and cobble together whatever scrips and scraps can be found to support the already-formed conclusion. This effort failed, the results were judged to be insufficient in overcoming the concerns of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. This is DRV; Deletion REview. Not D2G; Deletion 2nd Guessing. Tarc (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please discuss the merits of the case without continuing the vituperation you found necessary in the AFD. Edison (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Protip; it helps to read past the first line of the post. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No contribution to the discussion, just more insult and vituperation. Edison (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Enough with the strawmen, please. If you can address the points I actually raised...DRV is not for second-guessing, the closing admin considered and discounted the regional emmys and such as not being sufficient, etc...then feel free. Tarc (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "classic" case would be where there is a clear consensus to delete. The closing admin themself acknowledged, by giving a detailed explanation, that this isn't a typical obvious close. So, there's no need to insult somebody for requesting a review. This is exactly the type of case to bring to DRV. There are two separate issues: was deletion appropriate and was the close as delete appropriate. I would suggest what you're doing here, and to some extent, what the closing admin had done, is to make their own AFD arguments. That is what you, and closing admin did, is what really belonged in the original AFD discussion. But, the issue for the closing admin, and this DRV, isn't whether there should be a deletion (which I supported), but whether there is a consensus for deletion. There is no consensus. One issue, which nobody seemed to properly raise, is that 1EVENT, doesn't necessarily call for deletion. A merger is equally appropriate for dealing with that. In fact, there was no discussion whatsoever about a merge, by ether side. Generally, there was a poor discussion in the AFD. So, a new AFD, now, or later, would be a legit option. --Rob (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just wrong and misguided all around, and a very warped notion of what consensus actually means here. Everyone presented their arguments, and the closer considered the actual arguments made rather than doing a simple tally. Consensus doesn;'t mean "everyone agree", it means "what is the general leaning of the overall discussion. In this case it was, clearly, to delete. There would also be no merit at all to an article on the event. What event is there? A woman was confused on-camera for a few seconds and some news outlets talked about it? Big fucking deal. There is no lasting historical impact of an on-screen mishap. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yah, we're all misguided, because we disagree. Anyhow, I'm not advocating a simple tally. It's ok to discount week arguments that ignore or misrepresent policy. However, both sides actually misconstrued policy. 1EVENT doesn't require deletion, as many implied. In fact, it often results in merge, which wasn't even discussed. So, if you want to discount bad arguments, do so on both sides. Using your logic, any discussion that occurred would be a "consensus" for deletion. What is the purpose of having a discussion if an admin substitutes their own view of what should happen? There are exceptions, where an admin can delete, despite the lack of consensus, in the case of BLPs. But, this isn't such a case. Anyways, are you seriously telling me there is a clear consensus that this shouldn't even be kept for a merge? (e.g. restore history, but keep the redirect currently in place). --Rob (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really have little time or patience to deal with ARS-tinged talking points, i.e. "an admin substitutes their own view". You disagree with how the admin read consensus. Whoop-de-doo. DRV's should not be abused by simple "I disagree" filings. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- after reviewing the discussion and the closing rationale, I find that the closing admin acted sensibly. DRV is for correcting it if the admin makes a mistake or acts improperly, not just because someone doesn't like the result, and I cannot see that the closing admin has done anything wrong. Reyk YO! 09:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as being just (but only just) within administrative discretion. It is very helpful to have a detailed analysis by the closing administrator, in this case nicely presented. I do not think that less weight should be given to arguments "per someone else". If my opinion is the same as someone else's it is entirely appropriate I should say so and not have to do a copy and paste. However in this AfD no one seemed to vote in this way: the nearest was "delete per all previous arguments" for which I think less weight is appropriate. It is a shame the AfD nomination was not explicit on the BLP1E matter because less experienced editors might not have felt the need to adddress this aspect. Never mind, the nomination was on grounds of notability and BLP1E was raised early in the discussion. I wonder whether significant material was added to the article in the course of the discussion (the "other notability" argument did seem to gain support as time went by) making earlier comments less apposite. The closing administrator did not address this aspect so maybe it did not apply. I agree with the closing admin that many of the keep votes were weak on rebutting BLP1E but to my mind there were sufficient cogent arguments that "no consensus" would have been the best call. However, it is close and not at all as head counting would have suggested. I think it reasonable to live with a "delete" close. What can I say about Tarc's arguments? I'd best say nothing. Thincat (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be nice if people actually read WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT sections they like to reference, and also consider the context they exist in. WP:BLP1E is specific to BLPs (obviously). It is designed to protect otherwise private people, who get caught up in a single event. So, if a private person had a speech impairment, known only to family/friends/co-workers got a similar YouTube moment, deleting would be appropriate to let them keep their anonymity. A TV reporter for a major outlet, is not a private person (yes I know being a reporter doesn't make her notable). WP:ONEVENT suggests that the article be made about the event, or be redirected to an appropriate larger topic. At this stage, there is now a redirect. So, the more relevant current question to ask, is should the history of the page be restored, so it can be used in the target article. A merge/redirect is a more common way of handling public figures, who's individual notability is minor, and are closely associated with a larger topic (in this case, the station). When the AFD began, there was nothing worth keeping, but over time, more developed. It makes keeping (which may or not mean a separate article) a reasonable alernative. Still, not a single "delete" or "endorse" has cared to address the point. I think, sadly, both saids, have used cookie-cutter arguements, that can be copy-pasted to a million articles, without noting distinctions, or changes over time in the process. --Rob (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per my typical DRV test; the closer did not give weight to something to which he should not have given weight, nor did he omit to give weight to something to which he should have given weight, nor did he arrive at a decision at which no reasonable administrator could have arrived. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The BLP1E point was wrong (notability is for being an Emmy award winning journalist plus recipient of Frank Shakespeare award for Outstanding Achievement in Journalism -- source was noted in the article). Therefore the BLP1E-based "deletes" should have received no weight, leaving no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is quite a lie there. Many of the calls to delete, or responses to the award-harping, dismissed them as regional and of little significance, in terms of establishing notability. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • More vituperation from Tarc: if you disagree with him you "lie." Edison (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup. You'll find that Tarc's an expert at giving the absolute maximum amount of offence possible without quite saying anything that would get him blocked or RFC'd. He's been getting away with it for years.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My dear Mr. Marshall, one hardly needs to be an expert to recognize demonstrably false assertions. Please, re-read the AfD and note what those who cite WP:BLP1E are actually saying rather than what you appear to be projecting. I'm reading down the list right now, and find many that clearly address the issue of either regional Emmys or that Frank Shakespeare thing, or both. You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise, that these two awards establish prior notability, but I'm afraid that many editors do not agree with you. When someone says "Item X confers notability", the burden of proof is on said person to, y'know, prove it. No one did to anyone's, esp the closing admin's, reasonable satisfaction. On the contrary, those on the deletion side of the matter clearly explained that the "emmy" was a regional award for local news coverage, and the Shakespeare thing was something given by a student political organizational. Local coverage generally does not translate into notability. So back to my original remark, you claiming that 1E-based deletes were wrong and should have been discounted is, as seen above, demonstrably false. Quod erat demonstrandum. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem with that train of thought is that local coverage does translate into notability. A local newspaper, for example, is usually a reliable source. Equally, many blogs purport to provide global coverage, but they usually aren't reliable. In fact, whether something's local or global has no bearing on its reliability.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, local coverage generally does not translate into notability. See WP:GEOSCOPE. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Pathetic. Stretching a guideline far beyond its reasonable application. WP:GEOSCOPE means that a report in the One Horse Town Review from One Horse, Massachusetts, about the local church fete doesn't confer notability. It was never meant to exclude the fricking Los Angeles Times or the KCBS.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I see it, local coverage often but does not always show notability, for a paper covering a small area is sometimes indiscriminate: we don't accept it for notability of high school athletes, for example, and I am reluctant to accept it automatically for the notability of local writers or artists. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- closer's detailed rationale makes it clear they did not make an obvious error in evaluating consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. First, the closer erred in giving !votes early in the discussion, before coverage of the subject had fully developed, the same weight as those after detailed coverage had emerged. The !votes over the first day or so, when the coverage was mostly "weird event" type stories, overwhelmingly favored delete (and properly so). Expressed community opinion shifted drastically after the medical diagnosis was disclosed, and coverage focused on genuinely newsworthy matters. Moreover, given that Branson has voluntarily accepted her role, at least for the present, as the "public face" of the medical condition involved, the protective aspects of BLP1E clearly don't apply. Second, in cases like this, where the community is divided over basic aspects of the policy involved, it is not the role of the closing administrator to settle the policy debate without a clear consensus, particularly since the level of support for the conclusion reached is clearly lower than than the level required to reach consensus on the policy debate itself. BLP1E has historically been problematic situations like this; although incorporated into a policy, it provides only rough guidelines as to how editing discretion should be exercised, and therefore is a matter where it is particularly appropriate to recognize the lack of community consensus, in the absence of substantively objectionable content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. Classic case of the closer using his own judgment, not the community's. When policies are unclear about the interpretation, the interpretation is decided not by whatever admin cares to volunteer to make a closing statement, but buy what the community thinks. Otherwise we would close inconsistently 700 different ways, according to the views of the individual admin. I would have one view on w what the policy meant, and close in accord with that. PhantomSteve would have another, and close accordingly. There is no intrinsic reason why his view is better than mine, or mine better than his, or why the view of whoever closes this is better than either of us. The admins are supposed to have a basic understanding of policy. They are not screened to be experts in the interpretation of it--if they were, nobody at all would pass rfa, for there is no disputed question where 70% of the people here agree on the right interpetation--if there were, it would not be disputed. The role of the closer is to determine what the good faith community thinks about the matter. They do this by discarding the views of people with clearly invalid arguments not based on policy, and , usually, spas. Then they see what the consensus is. If there is none, they are supposed to say so. When rules contradict, and half the community who cares to be present says one thing and half the other, the closer does not get a casting vote. Anyone who does more is going beyond their remit and undertaking things for which they are not qualified. Nobody at Wikipedia is qualified to say authoritatively what the interpretation of policy is. Not even an individual member of arbcom is, for policies within their scope: they decide as a body. Not even an individual member of the WMF board, for those policies that come within their jurisdiction--they too decide as a body. Not even the WMF attorney--he does decide what we can legally do, but aside from that, not what our policy is. No admin has a role beyond anyone else here in making policy. They have the role of interpreting it in accord with the way the community wants, and the only individual decisions they can make are when they determine what it is clear the community wants--whether explicitly, at xfd or rfc, or implicitly when they do admin tasks like speedy deletion. If the decision is not clear according to the community view at xfd, the admin may not make it. That's a supervote. There are some cases that might look otherwise: If the decision needs IAR, he can do that, but he must be reasonably sure the community will support him. If the editors present at an xfd are not representative or sufficient, he can decide that, and continue the discussion. If it is absolutely clear the community always interprets a policy one way, and the temporary majority seems to say otherwise, he can continue the discussion or even close in accord with the known general view, if this is unambiguous.
Here we have a case where it is ambiguous. I'm not sure myself. Normally, if this received only sporadic local coverage, there is no question that BLP policy would prevail, and the article deleted. But the NYT wrote an article giving this a general significance with respect to public health, and other newspapers did similarly. hat's pretty strong evidence that it's of relative importance beyond the event itself. Is it enough to prevail? I suspect there will be further publications using this event as an example,and if there are, it will determine it in the direction of keep, but I wouldn't want to say my suspicion is conclusive. Frankly, I just do not know. The course of this discussion and the previous one indicates that neither does the community.
There is room for a compromise solution, at the moment it's a redirect, but a redirect to an article without any relevant content at all. A redirect and merge is a possible compromise close, that avoids having the article under her name. I can see saying that, or I can see saying no-consensus. when it's as equivocal as this, I can't see any admin reasonably making their own keep or delete decision. The only people who think its a reasonable close are, as usual in a divided situation, the people who agree with it. ILet me for argument's sake adopt Stifle's test: I think no reasonable administrator should have closed in this manner. Not that the closer is unreasonable generally, just mistaken in this instance. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely long-winded, but once again DGG attempts to substitute his own opinion for that of the closer's. Once again, that is not a valid reason to overturn a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are saying that the closer made the close based on his "opinion". I think you are exactly right; so he did, but he should have made it according to his judgment. That's the difference between a supervote and a conclusion. People who cannot separate the two should not be closing discussions. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I say "opinion" in terms of judging consensus and weighing the relative strengths and weaknesses of those that have weighed in. Nice try, but the "just a supervote" card will have to be reshuffled into the ARS deck. Tarc (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why you think I'm doing this in any connection with ARS. I haven't paid any of their labels or pages any particular attention in many months, and am just technically a member, as I am of many other wikiprojects. As for the role of a closer, I have given my opinion the way of have stated it here repeatedly, regardless of whether it will support deletion or keeping. Some of my inclusionist acquaintances are surprised (& annoyed) by how frequently I support deletions at deletion review--they don't realize that I support all clear & representative community decisions. I can distinguish between what I think should be done and what the community thinks should be done. They are not always identical. I'll argue for my position, but I'll go with the community. Those who do otherwise think they are so much wiser than other people, that they can decide for them--but I do not think that of myself . DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: I did not put my "opinion" into the close - my opinion was that of weighing up the arguments and deciding whether the arguments for deleting were stronger or weaker on the whole against those for keeping. Obviously I have an opinion on this article's existance - earlier I re-read it - but that had no influence over my close. If I had wanted my opinion considered, I would just have !voted myself, as I have in the past when I went to close an AfD but upon looking at the arguments and article, have decided that I had a very firm opinion. In this case, I did not have such a firm opinion. I never think I am so much wiser than other people, that [I] can decide for them - my job as closing admin is to gauge the consensus, which I believe I did here. To be frank, DGG, I am a bit hurt that you do not know me better than that - we may not always agree when we comment at AfDs, but I've always respected your opinion, but in this case, I just don't know what to say (says he, having written hundreds of words....) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC per S Marshall. Just with those awards and the bits of local coverage she qualifies under WP:BIO without the one event. That said, I'd strongly favor using WP:UNDUE and the spirit of WP:BLP to limit coverage of the "one event" to a couple of sentences.Hobit (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be more clear, I believe that that discussion reached no consensus about if the local sources were enough before the event in question. Further, I don't believe that the keep sides arguments can reasonably be found to be significantly weaker than the deletes. So NC was the only reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG, Hobit, and the fact that WP:BLP1E does not apply to public figures, which an award-winning journalist certainly is. Jclemens (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not invent notability policy that is unsupported by the Wikipedia community, eh? An article about a person who wins 1) a regional award and 2) an award from a student organization is unable to reach even the low-hanging fruit of WP:ANYBIO. Local/regional awards do not make one a public figure. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're confusing "public" with "notable", eh. You can be a public figure, without being notable. BLP1E is designed to protect non-public (aka private) figures. The policy protects people from having their privacy violated, because they were caught up in a single public event, often unwillingly. So, a private person, of marginal notability may be deleted, in such cases. But, with a public figure, there's no issue of privacy. If the public person doesn't quite warrant a stand-alone article (as is the case here), we can merge/redirect to a larger, notable topic. Serene Branson is obviously a public figure. So, are you going to finally discuss the issue of merger, or are you just going to throw more insults? --Rob (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob, I would have to first toss out a single insult before I could toss out more. If you feel otherwise, stop cluttering up DRV with endless carping and head to WP:WQA if you feel you have a case to make. But no, just because someone has a job on tv doesn't warrant the "public figure" tag. There are thousands upon thousands of reporters across the nation on par with Ms. Branson; they do their job, day in and day out, without a whiff of national recognition or reference. By your, ahem, "standards", any one of these people who does something that goes youtube viral for whatever reason is suddenly article-worthy because they are classified as a "public figure" ? That's where I call bullshit. As for a merger, there's nothing to merge to. She stroked out on-air, you want to make an article about that ? Tarc (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You still fail to distinguish between the word "public" and "notable", and I never suggested every public person warrants their own article. Please only respond to my posts if you fully read and comprehend them first. As for the merge target, that would be the same as the current redirect target. The incident easily warrants some mention in KCBS-TV. I've actually never advocated a stand-alone article (you'ld know that if you read my comments before replying). Personally, I would have preferred people had put the content straight into KCBS-TV from the start, and made a redirect for the name. Nobody would have objected to such content (if kept concise). But, since the Serene Branson has been made, with sourced content, a merge/redirect works fine (which requires an undelete). Regardless of what I want, the fact remains, there was never a consensus, which is the point of this DRV. --Rob (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I read you loud and clear, you're not all that complex; you're simply scrabbling for any half-baked reason to overturn the obvious consensus found in the AfD. The incident has really very little to do with the tv station, so no, a mention there is not warranted. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closer gave rational and sound logic behind the final decision.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus and undelete The strict scrutiny placed on Keep votes used to discard votes without enough of an argument to discard votes for retention was applied only in one direction. Equally incoherent votes for delete were accepted as truth. Arguments provided by keep voters countering the claims of BLP1E seem to have been inappropriately discounted. Rather than engage in a hagiographic analysis of which keep votes should be ignored, the most appropriate conclusion would have been a recognition that there was no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone back over the entire discussion and I cannot find a single delete !vote that I could justify discarding because it was "incoherent". Could you point some out? I would discard two of the keep !votes, one because it had literally no content and one because it consisted solely of personal attacks, but none of the deletes. For the rest of the discussion, the closing admin gave more weight to the delete !votes and less to the keep ones because this genuinely reflected the relative strengths of the arguments presented, not some lack of impartiality on the part of the closing admin as you seem o be suggesting. Reyk YO! 06:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you notice that 11 or so of the "Deletes" did not acknowledge that she had any coverage, whatsoever, before the aphasia episode, ignoring the award nomination and the two newspaper articles about her which were cited, as if the YouTube were the only event which had ever been noted by reliable and independent sources? They made it sound as if she were some random soccer mom who stood in public and got on YouTube for uttering gibberish, rather than a TV reporter in a major market who had some minor notability previously. The other Delete voters appropriately noted her modest prior claim to notability, and judged that it was just not great enough. Edison (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single delete vote doesn't have to address every single possible issue in order to be considered valid. I, for example, did not address the local awards because the arguments had been stated numerous times as to why they weren't notable, and I saw no need to re-hash it, preferring to address another issue I felt hadn't been covered enough.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec)Since, from my reading of the debate, the relevance of the minor award and run-of-the-mill local coverage had been thoroughly refuted early on in the piece I see no reason to discard delete !votes that did not bring it up again. Reyk YO! 07:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It still appears that Keep !votes were more casually dismissed than Delete !votes with equivalently slight rationales. Edison (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps because the keeps rested largely on the "she was notable prior to this event" argument, which was largely debunked. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus (suggest that article be undeleted for two weeks at WP:Under_construction/Serene_Branson to allow development before next AfD, and that during this time Serene Branson redirect to WP:Under_construction/Serene_Branson)

    Wikipedia:Deletion policy states (blockquote follows),

    If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it.

    The existence of doubt is documented:  (1) The fact that the administrator went to lengths to explain speaks for itself to the existence of doubt.  (2a) The AfD discussion was taking place as events continued to unfold.  (2b) Opinions came before the 2nd event which is the erroneous speculation as to the existence of a stroke.  Most mistakes like this are ignored through the WP:UNDUE weight clause; however, this is an example of an interesting mistake which has long term effects on society, because we now know how easy it is to confuse a migraine aura with a stroke.  (3) We do not have a guideline regarding two closely related events, nor has anyone so far provided a theory with which to discuss such a case.  (4) The AfD could have been snow closed as "No consensus", as indirectly documented by the nominator.  (5) As a practical matter, it is still too soon to be considering either the notability of Serene Branson, the notability of the initial event, or the notability of the 2nd event.

    Regarding the clause in the policy, "will normally not delete", the closing administrator has a guideline in WP:Guide to deletion to "transparently explain how the decision was reached", and unless I've missed it, there is no consideration in the closing statement that we should consider this as an "abnormal" deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wait, what? People usually bitch because admins close AfDs with simple "the result was X". Now people are bitching about in-depth and detailed explanations? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?
2a) The event is over.
2b) There is only one event, not two
3) See 2b.
4) There is no such thing as a "snow close no consensus".
5) It is never too soon to nip a worthless piece of news trivia in the bud. People that crate these sorts of article sin the first place should have the contents of WP:RECENTISM tattooed on their foreheads. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as a practical matter, I do not believe article space can redirect to project space. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait wait, Unscintillating, just to be clear, are you saying that the discussion and speculation about the first event should be considered a second event?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was said during the AfD here was, "there were two events, (1) the video of the event, and (2) the misreporting regarding a stroke", and such existence was not disputed during the AfD.  However, the issue here is whether or not there exists doubt about a consensus to delete, as policy states that an administrator will normally not delete such an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That no one responded to it is no surprise, given how absurd the claim was. There were not, in any conceivable fashion, 2 events. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The respondent stated here, eight hours before the above post, that Branson "stroked out on TV".  The first event has the long term effect on society that we know what a migraine aura is.  The second event has the long term effect on society that we know that experts confuse migraine aura with stroke.  What is the relationship of two closely related but different events to WP:BLP1E?  The question being examined here is, should the closing admin have had doubt as to the existence of a consensus to delete.  The closing admin did not attempt to refute or integrate the point made at AfD, "the positions based on WP:BLP1E fall".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Say it with me; there is no second event. A reporter had an incident on-air that went into the Viral Video Hall of Fame, with discussion about what said incident actually was. That is all part of the same "event", in terms of determining notability here. Hell, JetBlue Guy can't even get a standalone article (thankfully), and his attempted "second event" credentials were an appearance in a musical and a mention in Time magazine. You're trying to pull a "second event here" out of...misreporting of her on-air spasm? Ridiculous. Utterly. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great example. Stephen Slater of JetBlue fame was *kept*, not deleted, and it was redirected to another article. All of the history of Stephen Slater, is available and visible to everyone. With Serene Branson we can do the same. It could be made into an article on the event, or a better choice would be to restore and merge/redirect to the article on the TV station KCBS-TV. Unfortunately, you insist on assuming that the only two choices are a stand-alone article, or outright deletion. It should be noted that the original AFD did not even discuss merging. So, it doesn't matter how you weight the !votes, there's no consensus on merging. You can't have a consensus on something that's not discussed. --Rob (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in terms of this DRV, the only choices are a standalone article or outright deletion. There were no !votes at the AfD for anything but these two outcomes. Therefore there is no possible way this DRV can turn out except for the result to be overturned to "keep" or, hopefully, that the original result will be endorsed. Reyk YO! 01:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Where's that rule from? An AFD determines if we delete the content. Where the content goes (stand-alone bio, event article, or merge/redirect) is a content issue, that can be discussed like any other editing issue, typically on the talk page. It's quite often the case, when a page is kept in AFD, with no discussion of merge, that there is in fact a merge later on. That's especially true in borderline cases, like this. --Rob (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you, Edison, et al wasting our time at DRV? Go to Talk:KCBS-TV and raise the matter. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A policy question being examined here is, should the closing admin have had doubt as to the existence of a consensus to delete.  What would have been the effect had the closing admin attempted to refute or integrate the point made at AfD, "the positions based on WP:BLP1E fall"?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, you are saying I should just go to Talk:KCBS-TV and suggest merging content that's been deleted. That's even more than the usual dose of non-sense. Do you comprehend what a merge is? Do you understand what's required to do a merge? Anyways, the reason we're all here at DRV, is that there was "no consensus". That's it. I think it's very harmful when an admin misreads an AFD, and insert their own judgement. Tarc, you've repeatedly shown you do not comprehend what it means to delete an article, what the available alternatives are, what a merger is, and how a merger is performed. Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Rob (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, more condescension from the peanut gallery. Robbie, nothing is stopping you from going, right this very second, to the talk page I noted and initiating a discussion as to whether or not discussion of this "event" is worth mentioning at the KCBS-TV article. Following that, assuming there isn't disagreement, nothing is stopping your creative little fingers from writing a sentence or two of the incident at that page. Hell, being the cheerful helpful guy I am, I'll even pen it for you;

"On Sunday, February 13 2011, while covering the Grammy Awards, Serene Branson appeared confused and disoriented while trying to speak on camera. The incident, which quickly went viral to youtube and other social media websites, was initially surmised to be a stroke but was later found to have been a migraine aura."

There ya go buddy, reword for prose, google for a few citations and you're off to the races. Since we don't need anything else from the article; no dribble about personal life, background, the non-notable proppings of student awards and regional Emmys, there is no article history that needs to be preserved. You can use the redirect that is there now. Now the "I disagree with the AfD result so I'll falsely claim there was no consensus" caterwauling can come to and end. An admin did not misread the AfD, nor insert their own judgment. As Roy Rogers was fond of saying, "happy trails to you". . Tarc (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggestion above is a good one, but I wish it had been expressed without insulting a good faith editor. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Admins are selected through RFAs to determine consensus on discussions such as this one. Our admins are all different and if a different admin had stepped up and closed this discussion there might have been a different read of the discussion. PhantomSteve did a great job of explaining how he determined the consensus. His conclusions are reasonable. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin I am not going to say much, as most of what I would say is in both the close, and the comments on my talk page. However...
    1. As I have explained, the fuller-than-usual explaination of my close was purely for the fact that I both knew this would be controversial (and so whatever I decided, it would probably end up here!), and the fact that I knew that because of work commitments, I would possibly be unable to comment at a Review;
    2. Redirection and Merging (or creating an event-based article) were not options - here we are arguing whether there was consensus to delete or not... however, there was definitely no consensus for any of those options, and to choose any of those would be (in my opinion) forcing what I think should happen as the result, rather than the consensus. Incidentally, I make no comment on what I feel should happen here, my opinion is irrelevant. If I wanted my opinion to be considered, I would have contributed insteading of closing!
    3. With respect, I disagree with the statement it is still too soon to be considering either the notability of Serene Branson, the notability of the initial event, or the notability of the 2nd event.. It is never too soon to consider notability - she/it/they are either notable (in which it should be kept) or not notable (which would mean it should be deleted). You could apply that logic to other articles as well... a film which is being released next month, by a new director, new producer, new actors and new company: we should keep it, because it is too soon to consider the notability of the film. OK, that is an extreme example, but the principle is the same.
    4. The main claim for notability is the Emmys. The awards she was nominated for, and those she won, were all regional awards. So the question is "Are regional Emmys sufficient as evidence for notability". Before closing, I looked into this a bit. Although we have a list of the 20 local regional chapters (see Regional Emmys), there are no lists showing the winners of any of these, with the exception of 4 individual events (2010 Southeast Emmy Awards winners (not referenced, so I can't verify how accurate it is), 22nd Midsouth Emmy Awards (referenced, but I could only find details of the 25th Awards at the site), 23rd Midsouth Emmy Awards (again, I could not find details of the 23rd Awards at the site, apart from a call for entries here), and 24th Midsouth Emmy Awards (again, no details at the official site). Ironically, the only Nashville ceremony which does have a list of winners at the website (the 25th) doesn't have an article yet!

      This appeared to indicate to me that although the regional boards are notable, the ceremonies themselves would appear not to be so.

      In the WP: namespace, there were about 50 hits for "regional emmy" (see here) - however none of these are at policy/guideline pages (most are AfD or AfC). There has been no definitive community consensus that regional Emmys are something which can demonstrate notability. Obviously, no one would argue about national Emmys - they are covered by the major papers of the world!

That will probably be my last comment here (unless it's open for another week!) as I've got 6 night shifts coming up, and so although I will read this page (as I have every day, even if unable to comment here), I will probably be unable to comment - and I also feel that everything that I need to say has been said PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out how the approach you take could ever result in you closing an AFD differently than how you would contribute as a late !voter. Normally if one is a late participant in an AFD that's already had a lot of input, they should read the previous contributions, consider them carefully, do their own research on the article (like you did), and then present their own position, which is likely to correspond to at least some prior opinions. That position should be based on an understanding of policy, and past consensus, and not what whether they personally like the subject. So, somebody making an appropriate contribution as a late !vote, would produce roughly the result as somebody using the close approach in this AFD. Basically, I think the closer did a great job contributing their opinion, but just not as a closer. As for the merge issue. I agree there was no consensus for that. But, only delete requires a consensus. --Rob (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I !voted "weak delete", and I still think that's a legitimate opinion in light of the facts, but I did not see a consensus in support of deletion, and I was surprised by the close. A large number of editors, citing policy and pointing to specific facts and sources, expressed the well-reasoned conclusion that notability was established. To the extent that these !votes were discounted on their merits (e.g., on the basis that local Emmys don't convey notability), that seems to me to be a substitution of the administrator's judgment about the facts for that of the editors who reached the other conclusion. I don't think that AfDs should be closed that way. As has been pointed out, there's no indication that Ms. Branson needs special protection as a private person who has now returned to private life; indeed, here she is, back in the public eye at the Academy Awards and the subject of more coverage on February 28 at CBS News[1] and the Los Angeles Times[2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The line between closing a/c one's opinion and evaluating opinion is not always clear. I think the closer intended to do it right, and did not mean to suggest otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Closing admin has expressed a viewpoint with which I think few people would agree, that the absence of information is believed by "Keep" !votes as a reason to keep an article.  "...we should keep it, because it is too soon to consider the notability of the film."  I have consistently taken the view that we continue to waste our time here as we did at the AfD, that the judgement of history provides perspective and in this case provides additional information.  My viewpoint is to object to "both articles that lack the perspective of history, and premature AfD discussions." (ref).  The closing admin also states, "It is never too soon to consider notability - she/it/they are either notable (in which it should be kept) or not notable (which would mean it should be deleted)."  This note 3 specifically does not include "no consensus" as a possible result of a notability discussion.  Reductio ad absurdum reveals that one hour after Branson had the event, we could not already be deciding notability.  I speculate here (with note 3 as a reference along with the initial quote above) that because a "no consensus" outcome at Wikipedia results in a "Keep" decision, the closing admin discounts ideas that would lead to a no consensus position, on the grounds that they result in a "keep" result.  C.f., the statement, "Secondly, I have left Safiel in the 'delete' camp, as the nominator. Although s/he said that it should be closed as no consensus, this is not the same as saying "I now think that it should be kept" - if this assumption is incorrect, then please accept my apologies."  Unscintillating (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the 100s of AfDs which I have closed will show that I have no problems either closing as no consensus or as keep. Some people here are obviously thinking "Oh, he wanted it deleted regardless". At the time, I had no opinion on the matter - I went (as best as I could judge) by what I saw to be the consensus. That may have been correct or it may have been incorrect (this discussion will decide that point), but for anyone to suggest that I was intent on deleting it regardless (or unwilling to close as no consensus) shows that they know nothing about my attitude towards AfDs and their closure. For what it is worth, if the AfD was to be open now, then my !vote would actually to be to keep, but my opinion is not important here. Of course, those of you with the afore-mentioned opinion will just say "Oh, he's just saying that", but that is your perogative, even if wrong! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus in accordance with the comment of Arxiloxos. Though I !voted keep at the AfD, I was skeptical as to its chances at the time. As the AfD went on, legitimate arguments for keeping and additional information surfaced. The knee-jerk BLP1E reaction to the origin of the article by a number of editors was understandable, but did not develop into a consensus view.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I had been only barely aware of this incident, and unaware of this article, before coming here with the intention of closing this DRV. I find, though, that I am simply not comfortable undeleting this content. Yes, the information is sourced, even if much of that consists of reputable news sources indulging in surprisingly irresponsible speculation. But we find here a paradox typical of borderline BLP1E candidates. If this person was indeed notable before the event in question, then it seems like a violation of undue weight to have her biography completely dominated by one incident which, in her life and career, is quite minor. But without that incident there's virtually nothing verified by reliable sources to say. To me, that problem is evidence that this is, indeed, a case of BLP1E, and the close was not only correct, but the only truly responsible way the debate could have been closed. Chick Bowen 04:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 February 2011[edit]

  • Boroka – Original AFD closure endorsed. However, others are more than welcome to start a brand new AFD, in order to get a more focused discussion started from scratch to assess further community input and debate. – -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Boroka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No policy-based keep votes, just variations on "she's notable"/ILIKEIT, which should have been given little or no weight. Article did not include a genuine assertion of notability and was sourced virtually entirely from a promotional press release. The argument that the subject failed the applicable SNG as well as the GNG was never countered, let alone refuted. Closing admin has waived discussion. Overturn and delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Stifle's no consensus close. I'm not seeing ILIKEIT in the keep rationales, but a bunch of "eh" votes on each side, with no clear consensus, just like Stifle closed it. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure, per Jclemens. Arguments were weak on both sides. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've have !voted "delete", but I can't fault the close.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as there is clearly no consensus and overturn argument is incoherent. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Ideally, but as that is not very likely, just re-file a 2nd AfD (since it closed as an NC) and hopefully get more participation. Those are some of the most witless, knee-jerk !keeps I have ever seen in an AfD. BabbaQ's "the sources provides notability" when they (adultfilmdatbase.com and an avn blurb?) actually do no such thing, while "Regent of the Seatopians" is just a WP:ITSNOTABLE (which the two "per..." calls inherit. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete The keep arguments were clearly much weaker than the delete ones. Epbr123 (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse There is no real evidence that the sources meet any of our inclusion guidelines. The delete !votes are basically as strong as they can be (the nom at least indicates he's looked for sources and came up with nothing) and the keep !votes provide no basis for their !votes. That said while I might close this as a delete, NC is certainly within discretion as A) the article does have a reliable source (well two actually) B) I see no BLP issues, C) the !vote certainly leaned toward keep. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • struck weak, it is a reasonable close even if not my first choice. Hobit (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for a 2nd AfD. . The discussion was contaminated by the probably sockpuppet--and I'd try to deal with that first, before the relisting. The best way to deal with a discussion like that, is to do it over, not discuss the notability here. I suspect it will end in a delete, but the 2nd AfD is the simpler way to do it. I rarely see the point of bring a no-consensus close here to change it to delete, since a 2nd AfD is easier DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Giridharilal Kedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted due to the lack of information for Giridharilal, in internet. So administrators marked it as not-notable. But it is Notable according to Wikipedia:Notability, as Giridharilal was an Indian politician, he was known as the father of common people, Co-operative movements and business society in India. He was associated with many social organizations like Lions Clubs International, Kala vikash Kendra,Little Theatre Movement, Navakalika, Maruti Mandap, Ramayan Prachar Samiti, Bhagbat Prachar Samiti, Ramacharit Manas Path Samiti, Divine Life Society, Shyam Sundar Math, Sankirtan Bhawan Dharmik, Akhil Bharat Jagannath Consciousness Sansad, Marwari High School, Utkal Sahitya Samaj and many more as a trustee, governor, District Governor, Deputy District Governor, President, Sectary. So i request to restore/undelete the page Giridharilal Kedia

There are some books, "Utsharg to Giridharilal Kedia" published by JBD Press India Ltd, ISBN:9788184099836. & There are some online sources you can view this at 1. Website on him 2. published by IITM 3. Lions club International, Biodata 4. Foundation day of Kala Vikash Kendra 5. google books Odisha1 (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there are also many offline sources, like magazines, articles on many languages, Awards, News in News Paper. He is also the founder of Lions Eye Hospital, Cuttack; Image Institute of Technology & Management, Utkalion Foundation Trust trust deed Odisha1 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This deletion was over a year ago. You're welcome to recreate the article if you can overcome the reasons for the article being deleted. However, the closure at the time cannot be faulted, and I endorse it. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see this was recently recreated and deleted as a copyvio and subsequently as a recreated article. Recommend userfying the non-violating elements for further work. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a deletion in January of 2010. I didn't look into that. I deleted the article on 21 February, but the rationale had nothing to do with "lack of information for Giridharilal:, it was a clear copyright violation. However, while I thought it was clear, if there are extenuating circumstances (for example, you've made arrangement for permission), these can be addressed. Steps were outlined on your talk page, which you've removed. If you need them again let me know. If you think I was in error in concluding that the material was in violation of copyright, please let me know, and I'll review. However I confess to be puzzled at the User_talk:Ronhjones#please_go_through_Talk:Giridharilal_Kedia. I just assumed that Ronhjones was deleting an attempted recreation of a copyvio, but the comment makes no references to copyvio issues, and talks about the 12 Jan 2010 version. Am I missing something? --SPhilbrickT 15:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in the history of the talk page, there is a confirmation of an OTRS ticket (number 2011022110011361, for those who can't view the deleted history). We'll probably need someone to look into it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that; it came in after my deletion. That may explain why subsequent discussions focused on other issues. --SPhilbrickT 15:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there is no meter of copyvio. The metter is that the article is notable as Giridharilal was an Indian politician, so i request administrators to restore/undelete it.Odisha1 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS ticket is good. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said on my talk page - The article was tagged as a WP:CSD#G4 by User:WWGB - the question of copy violation was not raised at this time - and would not have been appropriate as there was an OTRS ticket. The CSD linked back to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giridharilal_Kedia. User:WWGB Also added on a slightly later edits "tag, no evidence that book exists" and "reference states nothing about these titles, it just states he had a funeral". I viewed the current page and the deleted one from the AfD - the current one was similar to the old page, and in fact was less comprehensive. I checked the quoted book ISBN (9788184099836) and totally failed to find any hits to that number - thus it seems that User:WWGB was correct. I deleted the article as G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. User:Odisha1 asked me to look at the talk page - that seemed mainly to be devoted to the copy violation (which as I said was not an issue), and the possible book ISBN - which I knew was not verifiable. As a compromise I offered to userfy the whole article (including the earlier versions), so that User:Odisha1, could extract all the useful data available, and then add enough extra data to make a good page. User:Odisha1 has decided not to go down that path but to come here instead. User:WWGB has not been notified about this discussion, I think he should be, and I will do that now.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the "Google Books" link posted above, open with a page of some obscure Performing Arts Journal, with the comment of 1 page matching "Giridharilal Kedia" in this book.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The AfD discussion page is fully protected. Would an admin tag the page with <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2011 February 24}}</noinclude>? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Deletion review notices are placed at the top of the AfD so that they are more visible to a viewer (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boroka for an example). Would you move the Delrevafd notice to the top of the AfD? Cunard (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Thanks for alerting me to this discussion. As a contributor to the original deletion discussion I did not consider that the latest version demonstrated significantly more notability. On that basis I made the db-repost nomination. I was not concerned by the earlier copyvio or the OTRS ticket as they were not about notability. I believe that the latest version of the article still failed to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Yes, he was an active member of a Lions Club and the head of a college. Reliable independent sources were very scarce and, even then, the relevance to the subject was quite superficial. As for the book, and despite extensive searches, I could find no references to the book or its ISBN. The author is clearly passionate about the subject, but IMO the article fails notability and the closing admin acted quite reasonably. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to userspace as stifle said. The deleted article possibly showed sufficient notability as it stood to overcome the G4. Being head of a college with a Wikipedia article is sufficient, and the source was adequate--the college's web site. Added information given here makes the notability clearer. I would normally say just restore, but it would be much better to rewrite in user space first, because the article is excessively spammy and peacock, the usual result of copying from a website--even with permission. FWIW, the college article shows similar problems, and I am about to do some editing at Image Institute of Technology & Management. Presumably the OTRS license covers this also, but the material there is equally unusable. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. a former chairman does not sound like a notable academic to me, and certainly does not seem to fit with Criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC, also I checked out He had worked successful as a Presedent[sic] of Kala Vikash Kendra, Cuttack - that comes up as a secondary school.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The OTRS ticket 2011022110011361 just covers the biography at this page from which the article text was copied. Other texts are not included in this ticket. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ronhjones, a former chairman means a past chairman. He was the chairman, but now some one new has come into a chair so the new ones become the current chairman & Giridharilal become the past/former chairman. & Kala Vlkash kendra is not a secondary institute as you can search in google books & webpages. Giridharilal is notable as he is the founder of Melvin Jones Lions Eye Hospital, were eye operations & checkups are done free of cost. He was elected District Governor, by the members of Lions Club International.Odisha1 (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have rechecked the ISBN of the book Utsharg to Giridharilal Kedia, it is correct. And i request you to please restore the article as i will try to improve the page.Odisha1 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN may be correct, and it number validates mathematically as a correctly formatted ISBN. But anyone can write a book and get a ISBN - there are even plenty of such books for sale on big sites like Amazon.com, but it does not confer nobility. As for a close - it's not up to me to decide, that will be done by the a closing admin, when seven days has elapsed from the start of this review.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the first paragraph written by me that Giridharilal was a trustee, governor, District Governor, Deputy District Governor, President, Sectary,chairman of many social organization & institutions which i have listed above ,& this shows notability according to Wikipedia:Notability Odisha1 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Institute of Technology & Management is unmistakably a post-sedondary college, giving Bachelors and Master's degrees. If his office is the head of the college it does not matter what the title is if he is indeed the chief officer, and whether an official is the present official or a past one is equally notable or non-notable. On the other hand, the various provincial governorships are of a fraternal organization, and would not normally be notable. If he were the national head it might be another matter, but he wasn't. As for the ISBN , there is no wayI know of to search comprehensively for library holdings in India. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If his office is the head of the college - possibly - can I add that the only current reference on http://www.iitmctc.org/ is a tiny obituary under "Latest News" (because no one has updated the site for 2 years!) on the front page that says Chairman & Founder Trustee - which in my part of the world would suggest a accountant type person and not a proper professor as would be required by WP:ACADEMIC. I have also found the page on that site that User:Odisha1 keeps citing, has in fact been totally orphaned, and there is no possible route from the main page to that page (I just run a full link checker over the whole site, that page is not listed).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for late reply, the "Latest News" has not been updated, that i know. I also agree with you, that accountant type person and not a proper professor as would be required by WP:ACADEMIC. & you can see that link in http://iitmctc.org/aboutiitm.aspx . And i m not citing...Odisha1 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you can give the reference of the book, which you have found in Google Books, that is given above, Performing Arts Journal. This book is about Kala Vikash Kendra, Which was headed by Giridharilal.Odisha1 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can also give the reference of http://books.google.com/books?id=Eov3dibs-F8C, just got while searching in Google Books Odisha1 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 February 2011[edit]

22 February 2011[edit]

21 February 2011[edit]

20 February 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The criteria in the essay WP:AIRCRASH have significantly changed since the article was deleted. As WP:AIRCRASH is now written, I believe that the article would pass. Therefore, I believe that this particular AfD should be looked at again. I would like to ask for a temporary undeletion of the article, and a relisting at AfD for a new discussion on the issue. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIRCRASH is a project-space essay that has not been accepted by the community at large. Why should a change to its text -- by a wikiproject -- affect an AfD that was considered by the community? Wikiprojects don't get to write guidelines, let alone re-write them to affect the clear outcomes of past AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances here are slightly unusual. When I wrote the article, it met various criteria under WP:AIRCRASH. Between the creation of the article and its listing at AfD, WP:AIRCRASH was changed, and the article fell outside the criteria, and was subsequently deleted via AfD. I accepted that at the time. This DRV is not a criticism of the deleting admin, nor of any participant in the original AfD discussion. Since then, WP:AIRCRASH has been rewritten again. My belief is that the article would now fall within the essay, as it is currently written. What I am asking for here is that the article be temporarily restored, so that a second AfD discussion can then be held. I have notified all editors who participated in the original discussion that I have raised this here, and they are welcome to comment on this request. Basically, the effect of the request here is Overturn and immediately relist, but this is not because there was anything wrong with the original closure, because there wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Aviation and the Aviation Accidents Task Force have been notified of this DRV. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But only two editors in the whole discussion mentioned AIRCRASH -- one of whom !voted delete. So it wasn't deleted on those grounds. Rightly so, because AIRCRASH should be of marginal, if any, relevance at an AFD. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- It didn't seem as though the article was primarily deleted on WP:AIRCRASH grounds, but on WP:NOTNEWS grounds as well. The consensus at the AfD was clear and I believe that for the article to be restored we'd need to see a change regarding reliable independent sourcing, not just a change regarding the wording of a wikiproject-specific guideline of limited acceptance. Reyk YO! 07:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c)Keep deleted As was pointed out to Mjroots on ANI before he came here, only 2 users even mentioned AIRCRASH in the original AFD [3], and as previous opponents to aircrash deletions have often pointed out to me, simply citing 'an essay' cannot save/delete an article, so how can it now restore one? I didn't cite AIRCRASH here and the reasons I voted delete haven't changed, or rather no evidence has been offered that they might have by Mjroots. I also don't really see what actual criteria Mjroots uses to ignore the essay on other occasions, but rest on it so firmly here. MickMacNee (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The primary change to AIRCRASH regarding stand-alone accident articles is that there's now a greater emphasis on using the criteria in WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS. What in the article meets those guideleines that was not apparent in the original AFD? Not having acces to the original article, I can't determine tht for myself. Also, has new information been released that further shows that the article meets those WP guidelines now? If MJR can assert that those questons can be answered satisfactorily, then a restore/relist would be acceptable. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release of the DGCA report over a year after the accident may put this past NOTNEWS. As had been noted in the original article, flight crew had been dismissed. The DGCA final report recommended changes to ATC procedures. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in light of DGCA report info. - BilCat (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Overturn in light of DGCA report info. - Correcting my comment - I was confused by the non-standard "Keep deleted" above, and should have read the instructions first instead of relying on others' comments as my example - sorry! - BilCat (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Appears clear to me that the article was deleted by overwhelming consensus as a violation of NOTNEWS. For that decision to be overturned and the article restored, it would have to be demonstrated that that is no longer the case. And having scanned through the DGCA report, for me there is no significant long-term impact that would have changed the AfD result. wjematherbigissue 08:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the Administrator's decision, which was consistent with policy and reflected the consensus of the participants, as shown by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124. Essentially, deletion review is about whether the administrator's actions were correct, rather than whether the outcome would be different now. What User:Mjroots seeks is the opportunity to recreate the article in a form that he or she believes would comply with notability guidelines (although, as others have noted, WP:AIRCRASH isn't a policy for inclusion, but rather a statement of form to follow when describing the facts of a civil aviation incident-- whether as its own article, or as part of an existing article about the airline, the type of incident, etc.). Recreating the article about Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 won't automatically trigger WP:SPEEDY G4, which (I'm adding italics) bars "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" and goes on to say "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". One doesn't have to get the page "undeleted via deletion review" to avoid G4. For those curious about what the article said, or who want to avoid an identical recreation, the article was sourced to the investigation reports. The description was that Flight 4124 "was a domestic scheduled passenger flight in India which overran the end of the runway at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai on 10 November 2009. The aircraft suffered substantial damage. As a result of the accident, the pilots involved had their licences withdrawn by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)". The article went on to say, "The aircraft involved was ATR-72-212A VT-KAC, msc 729. The aircraft made its first flight on 18 May 2006 under French test registration F-WWEJ before entering service with Kingfisher Airlines as VT-KAC. Prior to the accident, an Air India flight from Goa was reported to have bounced on landing, breaking two runway lights. The accident occurred at 11:10 UTC (16:40 local time) when Flight 4124 overran the end of Runway 27A. Runway 27 had been reduced in length to 1703m owing to scheduled maintenance work. This was to take place every Tuesday from 07:30 to 11:30 UTC. The shortened in-use runway was designated 27A. The METAR in force at the time of the accident was VABB 101110Z 07007KT 2300 -RA FEW012 SCT015 FEW030CB OVC090 24/22 Q1003 NOSIG=. This translates to METAR for Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, issued on the 10th of the month at 11:00 Zulu time, wind from 070° at 7 m/s. Visibility 2300m, rain, a few clouds at 1200m, scattered clouds at 1500m, few clouds with cumulonimbus at 3000m, overcast at 9000m. Temperature 24C, QNH 1003mb, no significant change expected. No operation on runway 27A was permitted when the runway was wet. It was reported that a crew member and six passengers sustained minor injuries in the accident. It is reported that the aircraft will be written off as a result of the accident." The page then said, "The DGCA opened an investigation into the accident. As a direct result of the accident, the DGCA suspended the licences of six pilots, giving the reason for this that they had not followed strict guidelines covering landing on Runway 27A in poor weather conditions. The airlines involved were Go Air, Kingfisher Airlines and National Aviation Company of India Limited. An Air Traffic Controller was also suspended by the DGCA for failure to notify the pilot of Flight 4124 of the runway conditions. In response, Kingfisher Airlines denied allegations that the crew had acted improperly after the accident. They also claimed that the flight crew were not given information on the state of the runway before they landed." An information box was present as well. I have my doubts that this could be taken from WP:NEWS to WP:EVENT. I think that there should be a list of runway overruns to describe this type of event succinctly, and that without the irrelevant information in the description above, it would fit into such an article. However, there is nothing to bar User:Mjroots from pursuing this from a different angle. Mandsford 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse'. The rewriting of an essay doesn't affect that AfD. A new redirect to Kingfisher_Airlines#Accidents_and_incidents would be fine. Fences&Windows 20:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, per my reasoning at the original AfD to keep the article. C628 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . This should have been done earlier. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. a relatively trivial accident with a few minor injuries "treated by first aid" according to the sources. This is below the bar of encyclopedic coverage in August 2010 and today also. Consensus was clear, the guidelines are clear. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Clear consensus for delete. Comments at AfD by User:C628 ("resulted in long-term repercussions", "actions taken against several personnel") were unsourced. All sources in the article were news reports or data, not secondary sources making commentary on the story. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Userfication to allow Mjroots to edit based on new sources. This nomination appears to have been poorly posed. There was nothing wrong with the original deletion, but now there is suggestion of substantive new sources. If true, a re-write is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not in the habit of adding unsourced material! As stated above, the fact that people were fired as a result of the accident was reported in the Indian press, and the source for that has been provided. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the AfD, C628's comment is the most persuasive for "Keep", but C628's comment did not point to the alluded sources. This was unhelpful to the Keep side of the debate. I see your comments above. I do not find that a source says that people were fired. I see a title using "derosters", but its "facts" are tentatively worded and I read no reliable evidence or claim of anyone even being reported as suspended, let alone without pay. Derostered the day after an accident sound like they are needed for the investigation. Daily News and Analysis reads as unreliable NEWS story, as it repeats hearsay the day after the accident. Every other source reads as purely primary sources (not evidencing notability). I don't see the sources meeting the WP:GNG. Granted, there is a lot of reliable information here, but there is not is evidence of continuing interest. If you could provide newspaper stories well after the event, or mention in a magazine or book about aviation, then it would be different, although I have trouble seeing it ever as a standalone article. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the AfD was faulty or inadequate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in my original post, the original decision was correct. my reasoning for asking for a review was that AIRCRASH had changed. Further coverage Aviation Herald covering final report in Nov 2010 (scroll down past first few photos). Flight Global coverage of review of runway operations as a result of the accident. Wall Street Journal coverage of classification of the accident as a "serious incident" instead of a "serious accident", despite this being against the guidelines for such classification. Times of India article on separation of investigation from DGCA to an independent body, partly as a result of Kingfisher 4124. That article also states the report was the first to be publicly published in India. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrt the sources for my argument at the original AfD, this mentions (and links to) the investigation, and this is about the repercussions for the pilots/crew. Additionally, the articles Mjroots links to above are evidence of continuing coverage of the incident, and the release of the investigation (including four seperate safety reccomendations as a result, one of which affects the landing procedures for the entire country) shows that the incident had a lasting effect on India's aviation. C628 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, SmokeyJoe said that the source for the pilots being derostered was an "unreliable NEWS story," but I'd consider it reliable, it doesn't seem like a source of suspect quality, just because it's a news article doesn't make it unreliable, and the salient point--that of the pilots being derostered--isn't hearsay, it's something that was confirmed by the agency in charge of such matters. C628 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Break

The discovery of the classification of the accident as as serious incident instead of a serious accident against guidelines for classification, plus the subsequent separation of accident investigation from the DGCA to an independent body would now seem to fit DRV Criteria 3 - may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. Therefore I would ask that this particular DRV is now considered under this criteria, not that originally raised. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted per my comment at the AfD: Wikipedia is not the news. Diego Grez (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's comments The consensus at the AfD appeared to me to be that this was NOTNEWS - the essay about AIRCRASH was not (in my view) the main discussion point, and so I believe that this should remain deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, my apologies for not getting involved earlier - although I have not been at work and hence had more time to do things, that has also meant more time for family things, which have been more important than Wikipedia! It is not an indication of any lack of interest, just lack of Wikipedia-time! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - wiki-project errata does not override established notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — my experience is that where DGG cannot find a reason to keep/undelete an article, it is not worth saving. WikiProject guidelines do not have the status of policy or even guideline and do not override same. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 February 2011[edit]

  • Agalmics – Deletion endorsed. Aticle may be userfied upon request. – lifebaka++ 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Agalmics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Admin, who has since retired, nominated agalmic for deletion mere weeks after page was up (Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built). The concept depicted in the article ("agalmic economies") was not only mentioned, but was a central driving theme in two Hugo Award nominated bestsellers: Accelerando and The Green Leopard Plague. "Algamics", or "algamic economics" is also an academic concept first coined by Robert Levin. These references were prominently mentioned in the article. Yet of the three people that voted they claimed:

  1. based vote on what they found (or didn't find) on "Google News"
  2. claimed there were no "reliable third party sources" even though the article sources clearly indicated best selling and highly accredited books (see Hugo Award nominated/winning)
  3. claimed "concept does verifiably exist" but voted for "delete" because there was "no sufficient use in reliable, peer-reviewed academic journals"

Admin then deleted after less than two weeks.

I am requesting an undelete on the fact that "agalmic(s)" is a verifiable concept and continues to grow as a meme and concept in the English-speaking world:

  • Doesn't it belong on wiktionary? I mean, you've shown that it's a word in use, that there's a concept to explain and that there's a meme. I don't dispute that. But what you seem to be talking about is a definition of agalmics, and definitions belong on wiktionary rather than wikipedia.

    If there's an article to be written that goes beyond the bare definition then you're in the right place, but what would such an article contain?—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been a while so I don't remember exactly what was already in the deleted article, but as a start I would imagine : Definition, Theory, Relationship to other disciplines, Economic paradigm, Criticisms, In fiction, See also, References, and External links. Otherwise you could make the same argument for most (if not all) wiki articles. Locutus42 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to Locutus42 to help him produce a replacement article.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also.This really should have been done earlier in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question since use by only one academic writer does not make anything notable, what term do people use it discussing Levin's theories? (I gather this is Rob Levin, and he is notable in any case for work on linux, not as an economist. What term is used in the novels? Is the term explained there? One posting , [4], says it was used in Accelerondo in a considerably different sense. More important, I see from some of the citations above and in google that even those people who discuss it , usually say it is when used in the meaning given in the article, it is identical to post-scarcity economics. I think as my own personal intepretation of what Levin wrote that he may have been using it in the terms of a developing sector of things subject to non-scarcity, rather than an economic system primarily based upon all or most things not being scarce. That's my own OR, unless someone can find it in print. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Rob Levin and the term used by others are "agalmic", "agalmics", "agalmic economics", etc. I don't think the blog you referenced claims that "agalmic" was used in a different sense, merely that when the author of the blog first read Accelerando he perhaps understood the word differently. I have read Accelerando many times and I firmly believe that it does indeed reference the concept outlined by Levin. I should also point out, that it is not merely *mentioned* in the book it is the grounding philosophy of the main protagonist and central jumping-off point for the entire book. Agalmics plays a central role in the first (of three) sections of the book and is a echoing backdrop for the other two sections. I'll concede that it is certainly debate-able whether "agalmics" is distinct enough from "post-scarcity economics" (or even "Culture of Abundance", or "whuffie", or Buckminster Fuller's "Ephemeralization for that matter). Agalmics certainly makes a strong argument for distinguishing itself as separate from "gift economies". I would argue there is room for all of these concepts in their own unique place, but others can certainly agree or disagree. I don't know that we lose anything by allowing them to be distinct on Wikipedia. Finally, I would agree on your interpretation on what Levin's original scope and intent was. I think he was outlining the beginning of this process. I think the authors/speakers/thinkers who have carried on the idea of agalmics have pushed that mode of thinking further to ask the question of what happens when these non-scarce resource sectors continue to displace the "traditional" economy until the sector of things not subject to scarcity become the sum-total of all matter in the universe (this is certainly the case with Accelerando where nearly all matter life-inhabited solar systems is converted into "Computronium").Locutus42 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I have run searches across all of the major full-text scholarly databases--JStor, Project Muse, and a combined search of all EBSCO databases (which would include nearly all peer-reviewed journals in economics, sociology, and other related fields), and I find no uses of the term, nor does it appear in the OED. I think this is a neologism. A merge to "post scarcity" would be acceptable, but I still think the merged material should make clear that the term is primarily used by one person, and that working outside the field. The original article claimed that agalmics is "a form of economics," a claim not supported by the sources available. Chick Bowen 00:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not sure if I am allowed to vote since I asked for the review... but for all of the reasons mentioned above I vote to overturn the deletion. Locutus42 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your nomination will be considered a vote to overturn; there's no need for a second. Chick Bowen 01:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD consisted entirely of delete votes, with the exception of comments by Locutus which implied that he disagreed. Consensus was crystal clear here. If Locutus would like to userfy this article and develop it further to address the concerns raised, he/she is more than welcome to. —SW— communicate 16:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "consensus" was all of three votes.... you're calling this "crystal clear"? And how should we "address the concerns raised" when the concerns were mostly bogus. So let's look at the three votes:
  • One of the voters stated "No reliable third party sources about the subject." even though the article clearly showed it could be readily found in numerous third party sources complete with links and references. That concern was addressed by the article itself, one only need to actually read it.
  • The other voter stated their vote was based on "academic journals". Since when did Wikipedia only contain articles for things that are found in "academic journals". If this is actually a criteria I think we can safely delete at least half the content of Wikipedia right now.
  • The third voter stated their vote was based on a Google News search. I am at loss here... maybe we ask Google to change the PageRank algorithm?
So now you are basing your vote on those three votes??? I have yet to see one naysayer actually point out a valid criticism relevant to the actual article. The only exception being the former SYSOP who actually nominated the article. He/She said the concept had not been "taken up in any significant way". This despite the fact that it is the driving theme behind a best-selling book which won the Hugo award, the Arthur C Clark award, the BSFA award, and the Locus award. Can one of the naysayers please tell me what the hurdle for "significant" is?Locutus42 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
xFD doesn't have a quorum, so 3 people is fine, everyone was able to comment if they wanted. Reliability of sources is context sensitive, so expecting some subjects to be covered by academic sources whilst others not is not unreasonable. A subject being presented as an economic concept (for which there is a large amount of academic study) should reasonably be covered in an academic way by those who are considered reliable in the field of economics. Rob Levin isn't a recognised economist and apperance in fictional works doesn't contribute to this as a real world subject. Your comment about pagerank seems a little ridiculous, if I search in google for a specific term I expect to find items relevant to that subject, are you saying google pagerank doesn't work that way? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
CardHub.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I did not attempt to contact the administrator because he seems to be on vacation till sometime in March. Furthermore, from his comments I can not understand what type of deletion it is and the content of the CardHub.com page seems to be aligned with content found on a plethora of company pages within wikipedia. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrate -- Lastly I feel that CardHub.com is a reputable company that is mentioned in mainstream media on a daily basis (http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=cardhub.com&cf=all&scoring=d) so if the community wants to improve the content then by all means, but if they do not have any suggestions for improvement then I do not think that the solution is to simply delete the page. Sarabas (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have temporarily restored the page for discussion--and conceivably for improvement-- in user space at User:Sarabas/CardHub.com. I didn't put it temporarily in mainspace as I sometimes do, because I think it was appropriately deleted as entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hey DGG so the next step should be for me to edit the page to make it more informative and then send you a message when I am done? How much time do I have?" Sarabas —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
      • You have at least a month or two, and after that you still have as long as you like once you're still making an effort. If you abandon it for a few months, it'll probably get deleted, per WP:STALEDRAFT. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia isn't a free web host. An acceptable article on a company doesn't look like that. It begins, "X is a (nationality) company based in (place)." It lists the company's revenue, operating income, net income and number of employees. It does not describe the company's products in detail (although any notable products can have their own articles—which is why we have articles on Coke and The Coca Cola Company). In short, it's an encyclopaedia article. Imagine your audience is a moderately intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, African teenager.—S Marshall T/C 19:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy deletion. The log "15:59, 28 March 2010 Chaser (talk | contribs) deleted "CardHub.com" ‎ (spammish; mentions in mainstream sources are just that--mentions--not substantive information about the company)" does not refer to a CSD criterion, and the words offered do not quite rise to the level of CSD#G11. However, if Sarabas (talk · contribs) is hoping for more than a formal AfD discussion where the page will be deleted as too promotional, he should base the article firmly on third party sources, and carefully read WP:COI and any appropriate declarations. He would also be well advised to do some editing of existing articles, or we might think he is only here to promote a single company. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is not an ad. Some people feel everything they see is an ad. Things like this should always go to AFD and have a proper discussion. Dream Focus 01:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It appears out of process but common sense says this wasn't going to survive. AfD is meaningless for this stuff. If the author wishes to attempt to read our policies and make this into a more substantive article it should be incubated. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
We have AFDs for a reason. Obviously there are some who believe it won't survive and want to eliminate it. That doesn't always happen though. Google news archive search for "cardhub.com" shows 150 results. [5] MSNBC calls them "a leading credit card comparison Web site" and mentions their application on Facebook. [6] USA Today has an article based on information from them, and quotes their CEO. [7] I believe at an AFD, it would in fact survive. And no reason to delete something from mainspace, since its more likely to get noticed and worked on there. Any problems can be discussed and readily fixed. Dream Focus 08:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Squeezing blood from a stone. Nothing of that goes an inch towards establishing notability. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it does. And the case was whether it qualified for a speedy delete or not, which it does not. Send it to AFD for a proper discussion. Dream Focus 22:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Well within admin discretion to toss promotional spam. Let user work on it in user-space if they wish. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per Tarc and Schmuckythecat.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - per Dream. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been userfied, and as-is is not fit for the mainspace. It should be worked on there. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. After DGG restored temporarily at User:Sarabas/CardHub.com, Sarabas worked on it. It is not clear when, if ever, it might be moved to mainspace. Probably, Sarabas should be allowed to move it to mainspace when he chooses, and then anyone may nominated it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
I am arguing for the restoration of the article: List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country which was deleted. The list was previously called "Norwegian diaspora".

The name was changed to a "list of expatriates" which negated the rationale for delete based on the word "diaspora". The name change was made about 3/4 of the way through the debate which negated those delete votes based on the name "diaspora" in the title. The closer ignored the name change and counted the delete !votes that complained about the name, even though the article no longer had that name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. A quick note from the closing admin to rebut some of the statements here - I'm not sure of the procedure here, not having been DRVd before, so I'm not turning my points into something formally bolded as a Vote Which Is Not A Vote. Firstly, Richard made no attempt to discuss this with me prior to bringing this DRV, which is contrary to procedure as I understand it. Secondly, the deletion arguments were not solely based on the name. The nomination opened with "I am nominating this article for deletion because the topic seems to be a neologism constructed through synthesis of different sources that do not themselves describe this topic" something the keep commenters did not rebut. I disregarded all "deletion" rationales but one, as I made clear in my closing statement, that included deletion comment being "per the excellent reasoning in the nomination". Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand what a neologism is right? It is a new word, which was the title of the article, "norwegian diaspora". That the Keep votes did not address that the title was a neologism was because the article was moved to a new title not containing the word "diaspora", so there was nothing to address. You counted all the delete votes based on the old title being a neologism. That is what makes your closure invalid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out that there are more than 25 articles called "X diaspora" and that there were whole books on Norwegian emigration to America. I also pointed out that we are voting on the topic, and not on the state of the article at any given time. Any article can be a stub of just a sentence or two if the topic is valid and can be sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both Stifle and I left messages and you and I communicated before I brought it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle's message being "good close" and yours being "I'm taking it to DRV", yes. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the beauty of a selected quote. The entire conversation was: "Good closure, I think, although I came up with a keep outcome from my analysis. Yours was not unreasonable enough for me to make an issue of it. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) will, on the other hand, so watch out at DRV in short order." to which you responded: "Noted; thanks for the head's up, and the compliment. Keep safe - or keep safe, I guess". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never witnessed a deletion reversed based on a personal appeal, only at deletion review. We have "no consensus" for iffy AFDs, you closed as delete with great certainty. Being taken to deletion review isn't punishment, it is getting more eyes on the process. When I said "I'm taking it to DRV", you could have said " Oh no, please don't, I was 100% wrong and will reverse it" and negated bringing it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could, yes, but if I wasn't certain in my action I wouldn't have made it. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to address logical arguments, simply that you haven't yet provided me with any. Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Seems to me this could use a relist. Would you have a problem with this, Ironholds? lifebaka++ 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'd rather get some consensus that that's necessary; at this point, I can confirm that me coming out in favour of a position will probably lead to Richard opposing it while vehemently claiming that he'd discussed it with me beforehand. Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask because I really have no idea how I would have closed the AfD. This seems to tell me that it should either have been closed as no consensus or relisted. I'd say we should go with relisting, as consensus may have been forming towards the end of the AfD. This isn't any sort of censure on your closure, which was perfectly reasonable. The only trouble is that keep seems perfectly reasonable, too. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With an article currently existing and up for AfD at Norwegian diaspora, I no longer have any clue what should be done here. No action. lifebaka++ 01:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said it was a reasonable decision, and I think the nominator should have made more effort to discuss the closure with the closer first. Will the nominator please explain why he repeatedly does not do this? And I won't accept "it's optional", because it's polite, and everyone else does it. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eat your pride and accept the rule as it is, or lobby to change the rule so that the new rule demands a personal appeal before an AFD. If the closer ignores the logic presented at the AFD, repeating the same logic again has not been shown to have an effect on reversal. I have never seen a reversal based on a personal appeal. If you can show me statistics on how many personal appeals have led to a reversal, I would be happy to lobby with you for a rule change. The only way to resolve a controversial AFD is to get new eyes on the situation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's happened with me in the past. So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you feel Ironholds is so set in his ways that consulting him before impugning his decision is a waste of time? Stifle (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider myself sufficiently neutral to place a bolded word in this discussion, but I want to put it on record that I believe Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is misusing DRV by the above and by using it as a second bite at the cherry when a deletion discussion does not go his way. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my read on it as well, considering that the DRV nomination attacks arguments that weren't really part of the closing rationale. Reyk YO! 01:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's arguable that Ironholds closed that discussion in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was clearly wrong. There was a Norwegian diaspora and it's been the subject of numerous scholarly treatments. Wikipedia quite rightly has a whole family of articles about it—see, for example, Viking expansion, Danelaw, Varangians, Settlement of Iceland, Norse colonization of the Americas, etc. Create a redirect to Viking expansion. No blame attaches to the closer because the debate ought to have considered that possibility specifically, and failed to.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are not about Norwegian diaspora - they are about migration from Norway the past 1000 years. The point of the afd nomination wa sthat 1. not all migration is diasporic. and 2. there was no evidence at the time that the phrase "Norwegian diaspora" has any currency. MR. Norton has now - after the deletion procured a single source.21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·
  • No they aren't, they're about a historically significant mass emigration from the whole of Scandinavia between 800 and 1100 AD. Norwegian diaspora is a plausible search term for that event, though. My personal bias is that I like putting in a redirect wherever possible—redirects tend to stop inexperienced editors from thinking "ooh, a tempting redlink, let's write an article!" and therefore save us from unnecessarily repeating process.—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments One It was said above "I don't remember a deletion close being reversed on a personal appeal" -- I can remember many. It'll take some searching to find them, but most administrators both know they are capable of making errors and are very willing to fix them. Speaking for myself, there are closes I am very sure of and closes I am somewhat less sure of, & in those cases I would certainly relist if a reasonable case were made on my talk p., & I think I remember having done so. Two Even if it is known that a given admin never reverses their decision, asking about the decision can guide the appeal to address the salient points involved. In my experience, it can often prevent a poorly-founded appeal, and I would think most people contemplating an appeal would not want to do so if they became convinced they would not succeed in it. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete this article as several experienced editors gave cogent reasons why it should be kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide something more detailed and, dare I say it, cogent? Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I would like to know why I haven't been notified as the original nominator for deletion?·Maunus·ƛ· 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think Richard only bothered poking me, and then got distracted while we argued over whether or not another administrator telling me "good close" on my talkpage constituted Richard calmly and politely discussing the close with me or not. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody notifies the AfD nominator. It's the closer who's being challenged.—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironholds, can I just clarify whose delete comment you thought was valid? Was it mine? Because User:Johanneswilm's also seemed well argued to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Johanneswilm's comment was useful, but more focused on the reliability of the content than anything else. If there'd been a need for a longer rationale I would have included it. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Ironholds does seem to have afforded the delete votes that concentrated on the name less weight, and based his closing rationale on the fact that issues of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR had been raised and not addressed by the article's defenders. I see nothing wrong with this close. Reyk YO! 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, even after the page move and some editing to the article contents, the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues remained. At the time of deletion, the article was still synthesising several different sets of data (Norwegian-born people, Norwegian citizens, Norwegians registered with the local embassy) into one concept - that of Norwegian expatriates. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't original research, it is just called research when you compile information from various referenced sources. What makes something original research is reaching a novel conclusion from the results that isn't in the initial data, like concluding that the people of Italy hate Norwegians, or that Norwegians hate Peru because of the low number of Norwegians there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the different sources used the same defintion, then you'd be correct. But as I point out, they don't and hence it's synthesis. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn <ec> with a WP:TROUT to RAN for not trying to discuss this first. I have seen deletions overturned by the closer, and I think in this case there was a fair shot of it occurring. The discussion was leaning toward "keep as improved", though a relist was probably the best bet. Hobit (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how long should I argue with him before bringing it here? An hour, a day, a week, a month? If he agrees to rescind I can always withdraw the AFD, but I think it best to get the others involved as quickly as possible before the issue gets forgotten. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, contacting the deleting admin is a part of the process outlined at the top of the DRV page. In some cases taking that step can immediately solve the problem which makes everyone else's life easier. Secondly, the process is generally pretty simple: you explain why you see the close being a misreading of the discussion. The admin generally either agrees or disagrees. You then either have a fixed close or you go to DrV. I generally ads less than 24 hours. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing arguments were that it violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Look at the cache of the article. Its a perfectly valid WP:LIST article, with references to where the information comes from. It is certainly NOT original research nor synthesis. The list itself says its listing "Number of people born in Norway or Norwegian citizens". Does anyone doubt that all sources were referring to the number of people born in Norway or Norwegian citizens? The article defines itself clearly as saying "Expatriate Norwegians are Norwegian people outside of Norway." If you have a problem with the same for some reason, then you can discuss a more appropriate one, that not a reason to delete this though. Dream Focus 03:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Issues of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH were addressed by those participating in the discussion and much of the validity of the WP:SYNTH was based on the former title of "Norwegian Diaspora", which was changed to address concerns. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please separate the discussions:
  • As for Norwegian diaspora: Someone in the deletion debate pointed out that the article "topic" was what should be discussed, thereby implying that there was nothing wrong with the topic. This was in reply to a "delete" comment I made while the article was still located at "Norwegian diaspora" and claimed that there were four million "ethnic Norwegians" in the US, among other things. The problem was that the article topic as conceived by all the early contributors was in fact seriously flawed. People with some small amount of distant Norwegian ancestors are not Norwegian, even if they claim to be in a US census that, apparently, insists on people putting in some ethnic identity. Nor are all Icelandic people part of a "Norwegian diaspora". Not only do they not identify as such, but their ancestors left Norway long before the modern Norwegian nation-state existed. In other words, the original article used muddled definitions both of "diaspora" and "Norwegian". With such a start it couldn't end up as anything other than a hopeless confused mess (certainly violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as the closer argued). As for using Norwegian diaspora as a redirect to Viking expansion, I think it is better to keep to the term "Norse" when dealing with that period.
  • List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country, on the other hand, is a topic easy to clearly delimit: Norwegian citizens and/or people born in Norway living abroad. There is no reason why such a list shouldn't be allowed to exist, and there is no reason to not allow it to be recreated. I would suggest starting from scratch, to make sure that the figures are as correct as possible and based on reliable sources, but if such reliably-sourced content existed in the later revisions of the now-deleted article, I see no reason not to resurrect those revisions.
--Hegvald (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately it is what the reliable sources call the "Norwegian diaspora" and not how you, or I, or any other editor chooses to define the term. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have found two sources speaking of a "Norwegian diaspora". That isn't much, but what is more interesting is whether these works really include all current descendants of Norwegian emigrants to North America, as opposed to just the emigrants themselves? Does either source think of "the Viking expansion and the conquest of Normandy" as part of the same historical phenomenon as the 19th/early 20th century emigration? As for Elazar, the answer is clearly no on both accounts; he appear to be preoccupied solely with the events of 1905, when many members of the large waves of late 19th century migration to North America were still alive, and he is really not dwelling on this, as his main interest lies elsewhere. How about Hale? I can only see a snippet view of Hale's book in Google Books, so I can't tell. I assume you have access to the book and can clarify the context for those of us who do not. --Hegvald (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem with a list that includes both people born in Norway and Norwegian citizens is that these two concepts are not comparable. Some people born in Norway are not Norwegian citizens and not all Norwegian citizen will have been born in Norway. So I still think it involves synthesis because these two concepts are being combined into a single one, namely expatriate Norwegians. If the list used one definition or the other, on the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - despite ARS handwaving to the contrary, no actual wrongdoing or misstep has been cited in the original AfD. Consensus, when the "keep-its-interesting" votes are weighted down, was clear. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The article Norwegian diaspora has been recreated and renominated for deletion.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was improperly renamed during that AFD. The current one by that name is totally unrelated. Dream Focus 23:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary The salient argument not to overturn the deletion is: that the Keep votes did not address that the title was a neologism. But that was because the article was moved to a new title not containing the word "diaspora", so there was nothing to address. The closer counted all the delete votes based on the old title being a neologism. That is what makes the closure invalid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I said and not what I did. Tell me - did you actually read my rationale? Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Neutrality or not (see above), DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse After the invalid votes were discounted, this was a pretty clear delete. Moving a page at the last minute is not a quick way to invalidate all of the prior delete votes. —SW— confabulate 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 February 2011[edit]

  • Bedat & Co – Moot. Article currently exists, and may be taken to AfD if necessary. – lifebaka++ 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bedat & Co (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article is about the Bedat & Co company which I feel that I've added sufficient source. However, its been deleted due to "unambiguous advertising". I've discussed this over with User:NawlinWiki and he suggested that I post this article up for review. I don't think that this article is advertising. User:BabyJinxi3 is a draft I've written before re-posting the article again.

BabyJinxi3 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse for now. The primary claim of notability appears to have been that it was once owned by Gucci Group, but considering they sold it so quickly and it isn't even mentioned in the Gucchi Group article it apparently wasn't an especially big deal for them. Sourcing is also poor, including a bunch od trade sites that appear to be press releases, a 404 page, and even an attempt to use a web forum as a source(!!), which is is a big no-no. A suggestion would be to try crating an article on the parent company first, and if that passes muster then try working on the subsidiaries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the decision, and Starblind's comments, which are exactly what I was about to say. The best course would indeed to try an article on the parent company, which could include a mention of this. Alternatively, a mention could probably be inserted into the Gucci Group article--that it isn't there now does not serve as a standard for lack of notability. Or conceivably Bedat might be personally notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse the original deletions. No disrespect to the administrators who commented above but they made arguments that belong at AFD. The issue here is whether or not the version of the article that has been deleted was "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and after reviewing the text, it's a "coin flip". I probably would have taken it to AFD but it was still within admin's discretion. However, this is just my opinion but all versions of this article look as if they were written by someone with a close connection to the subject. While this is not strictly prohibited it's discouraged because it's difficult for such people to write with a neutral point of view. The article looked more like "adcopy" then an "encyclopedia article" which is why previous version were tagged with G11 in the first place. Also, one weak indicator that a subject may be notable is if someone completely unconnected with the subject elects to write an article on it. (but that in itself doesn't satisfy WP:N) As for User:BabyJinxi3, since there has never been an AFD decision on this subject, let him move it to mainspace and let the community make the call on the issue of notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace I have condensed User:BabyJinxi3 and removed the promotional material. The significant coverage in this article from Manila Standard Today demonstrates that the watch brand is notable. Cunard (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list I see only one solid source, but it should be enough to ward off a speedy. I don't think it passes WP:N, but A) there may be another quality source out there and B) it has passed the speedy criteria by which it was deleted. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a second source (titled Bedat & Co腕錶 平民瞬間變明星) from stnn.cc. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't figure out if this is a press release or what, but I stick by the notion that there is certainly an assertion of notability and so it should go to AfD if people want it deleted. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the second source under external link into the article. Anything else I can amend prior posting this article up then? BabyJinxi3 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When a marginal but improvable article gets deleted, it's in everyone's interest for it to be improved before going back into mainspace. In fact, I think that's the ideal result of a deletion review: everything we do is aimed at getting good mainspace articles (and good properly licensed files, etc...) DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Gay Nigger Association of America – endorse status quo. Obviously this is a topic which is dear to a few editors, but from my reading of the debate, there is no consensus for either side. However, Regent's Park's ("rgpk") comments deserve recognition. Most blogs are not reliable sources, and the use of those sources will sink future restoration attempts. It's not the number of sources, it's the number of reliable, third-party sources that directly deal with the GNAA. – Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Gay Nigger Association of America article has had a long and "controversial" history on Wikipedia. The article went through numerous (read: 18) RFDs before finally being deleted. Before you come to a decision on whether it should be undeleted, hear me out.

That was half a decade ago. Since then, the GNAA has been mentioned in numerous sources whos notability cannot be questioned, and can, without a doubt, be considered "notable". To quote riffic, during the last deletion review:

I would like to point out that the sources used in the draft establish notability for both organisations in the same news article. The article by the Atlantic states "Weev rails against Jews in his LiveJournal and he and several other members of Goatse Security claim to be members of the Gay N***** Association of America," and in the Portuguese article in Rede Globo, the author goes on to describe other members of the GNAA.

(Since then, the reason of why Goatse Security and the Gay Nigger Association of America are separate entities has been detailed in this interview.)

Yes, this is listed on the Perennial Requests. This does not mean that it cannot be requested for a Deletion Review. "Please read this before requesting undeletion of any of these articles" does not mean that it cannot be requested, just that a number of factors must first be considered, which they have.

  • With the second wave of publicity RE: weev and JacksonBrown's arrests, the Goatse Security/GNAA connection was made a lot clearer.
    • This interview clearly establishes the link between The Gay Nigger Association of America and Goatse Security. This is the "substantial new evidence" required by WP:DEEPER.
  • The Patriotic Nigras are a troll group that has undergone far less scrutiny on Wikipedia, despite having much less notable sources. I feel that we must tackle this double standard if we are to improve the encyclopedia.
  • This may be seen as an "ad nauseum" request. This is not true, it has been five months since the last request for a Deletion Review. Since then, numerous sources have been added to the draft.
  • This is not a frivolous request for undeletion, it is a genuine attempt at recreating an article that I feel is notable. If there are any problems with the article or anything keeping it from being undeleted, it is my intention to fix them.
  • Substantial changes have been made since the September 6th Deletion Review, and the September 22nd Deletion Review was closed because it was seen as "frivolous".
  • We should only argue this DRV on the merits of the claims of the AFD, which based its outcome on grounds of lack of sourcing.[8]
  • There is no denying it, the Gay Nigger Association of America is notable, in their own right. It does not need to "inherit" notability from Goatse Security when it has its own.

The current draft of the article can be found here. If you do nothing else before voting, please, at least compare it to the old article (i.e. the one that was deleted five years ago.)

LiteralKa (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose recreation - this is simply causing too much drama. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:50pm • 02:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe I just watched someone rephrase WP:DONTLIKEIT LiteralKa (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you cite a specific policy to base your opposition of inclusion for the draft article in question. riffic (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support' - It is hypocritical that a noteworthy organization like the GNAA is not on Wikipedia. Many groups with less credibility are, and there is hypocrisy here as a result. It's time to END the drama by recreating a page that SHOULD be here, and leaving it up for good. 76.98.237.76 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again. Oppose recreation, the current status quo is entirely satisfactory. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting all the AfDs and DRVs, we've been over this ground nearly thirty times now. No article for you.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So because of the sheer number of requests, this article will never be notable? I learn something new every day! LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you cite a specific policy to base your opposition of inclusion for the draft article in question. riffic (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • With pleasure. WP:ADMINSHOP#FORUMSHOP: "Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording."—S Marshall T/C 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is my interpretation this section WP:ADMINSHOP would apply as a behavior policy to one specific actor, or a group in collusion to act in bad faith to win sort of overall advantage in gaining consensus. All of the previous attempts at overturning deletion on this article have clearly stated under what terms it satisfies content guidelines and have always been handled in a mature manner. At this point any fear of unnecessary drama by bringing this article up before process should have died down long ago. Now, unless you have evidence of anyone acting in disregard to the terms of WP:CONSENSUS, and to the linked Wikipedia:Policy shopping, please strike out what I am to perceive as to be an accusation of bad faith. I quote "It is important to assume good faith with all editors (absent evidence to the contrary)", and further down this states "Labeling arguments as policy shopping has a negative connotation, and should only be reserved for cases in which the offending activity is prolonged and easily identifiable." riffic (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Eventually there has to be closure. Editors aren't permitted to keep repeating discussions ad infinitum until they get the result they want—that would be the triumph of persistence over reason. We've discussed this enough now.—S Marshall T/C 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • So are you saying it should've stopped sometime before, let's say, the 15th AfD, when the article still existed? nprice (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy close no new sources have been provided in this DrV and nothing I see as different from the last DrV has been argued. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just said the exact same thing above, yet voted a different way! LiteralKa (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, there's been quite a few new news sources about the GNAA since the last DrV. I don't have all of them to hand, but [[9]] is pretty helpful. I don't see how the fact that multiple AfDs and DRVs have passed if the situation has changed between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.176.240 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2011
      • If you want to bring something here that is on the list of perennial requests, you need to provide some darn good (new) sources. If you cannot or will not do so, you can't expect anything other than a speedy close. Hobit (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's odd, I've done nothing but that. LiteralKa (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess I'm missing it. Could you spell out exactly what sources you have that weren't part of previous discussions? What exactly has changed? Hobit (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • See this, and I cannot fathom how the problem could possibly be a lack of notable sources, the article is riddled with them! (I count 32 non-GNAA sources) LiteralKa (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. No, you can't get an article on Wikipedia just by asking again and again and again ad nauseum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been five months, how is this "ad nauseum"? LiteralKa (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it can be AfD'd "ad nauseum" until it finally *IS* deleted? nprice (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion- Really, the last AfD could not have been close any other way and I don't really see that much has changed in the meantime. Reyk YO! 23:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article One of the more peculiar refusals to admit what everyone who knows about it knows perfectly well to be notable. Lack of common sense or distaste for the site are the two likely underlying explanations. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation – I know enough about the "Perennial requests" page. The FBI believed that the GNAA was notable enough to warrant several mentions in the criminal complaint they filed. I already wrote several articles already, and I'm confident that an article on the GNAA can be done in accordance with Wikipedia policy. weev and JacksonBrown are standing trial for their online activities, and they receive a lot of attention in the media. Connection and notability is clear: [10]. @Ancient_Apparition: Wikipedia shouldn't censor itself out of fear or convenience. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation I know there is a huge history with the GNAA and Wikipedia, but I think if someone were to create a page about a different organization with the same sourcing that Murdox's draft has there would be no issues. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation Per my statements in previous discussions; I don't think anything has changed since then, and GNAA is obviously something that does not deserve a Wikipedia article. I'm sure that more than half of the votes here have been canvassed in their IRC network, just like the last discussion; prove me wrong. Diego Grez (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather combative tone you have there. I can assure you that no canvassing has occurred. Please assume good faith in the future. Thanks in advance! LiteralKa (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. My comments are grounded in what happened in previous discussions; if that hasn't happened now, then I sincerely apologize for not assuming good faith. Diego Grez (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you also care to specify why the GNAA is "obviously something that does not deserve a Wikipedia article"? LiteralKa (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's rather a personal opinion; I just don't think it deserves its own article, as most sources given in the article are either, primary sources, or they are reports on something else and make very little mention of the Gay Nigger Association of America. Diego Grez (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • First off, that's not true. Second, even if that were the case, the sheer number of sources would make it so that there is still plenty of mentions. Third, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to endorse the deletion. LiteralKa (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't said that I don't like it; I'm just pointing out that still I don't see a single, third-party source that covers the association in depth, or at least to demonstrate this specific association's notability, and still see several primary-source-references (want the numbers? Okay: Ref #1, #4, #5, #11, #26, #27, #36 (not of the association, but Goatse Security, which claims to be "a subsidiary"), and #41). Want me to check, and comment on every single other reference, too? I'd be glad to do that! Diego Grez (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those refs are to cite claims the organization makes, I excluded those in my count of 32 good sources. And yes, actually, that would be great! LiteralKa (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, look at 4chan, there are tons of self-references. It's not a bad thing, Diego. LiteralKa (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think that anybody can state for sure that canvassing has occurred (Diego Grez) or that canvassing has not occurred (LiteralKa) but I see only one comment in this discussion that does not come from an established editor. However, IMHO it's very likely that it has. Why? Because they're the "GNAA". Any discussion here on whether or not there should be an article on them has a high probability of generating drama and drama="lulz". Lots of meatpuppets means more drama and therefore more "lulz" and creating "lulz" is what they do. This is almost as certain as a magnet will attract iron or my cat will chase a laser pointer. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith. LiteralKa (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Name one participant in this discussion for which I have failed to do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've certainly implied that I have. LiteralKa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I said that in my opinion that canvassing has occurred, I never said that you did it or suggested that this review was started in bad faith. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just like some people believe that the Freemasons / Jews / liberal media are behind everything, some people here believe that GNAA is secretly manipulating this !vote from behind the scenes. Can we please put the conspiracy theories aside and have a productive discussion? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation (strongly). Purely and simply, I oppose recreation of this article. I don't see why we should allow an organisation which has had what can only be described as a vendetta against Wikipedia and its associated IRC channels, to have a page detailing itself on the very same site that it and its members choose to fuck up mercilessly. No dice. BarkingFish 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Most of the Conservapedia users feel pretty strongly about wikipedia, and I'm in no doubt that some of their members have vandalised wikipedia at one point or another in the name of Conservapedia (if anyone could go dig up an example of this I'd love them long time). As it stands, I don't see how this is relevant to a deletion review. Could you please elaborate? Murdox (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. Murdox, I see it as relevant that the article shouldn't be recreated, since the organization and its members have a blatant disregard for us as a site, an organisation and as a project. Recreating this article would serve as negative reinforcement to the GNAA - It's like a mom giving sweets to her kid to shut them up during a tantrum, it serves to reinforce negative behaviour towards us from the group. If this article gets recreated, I dread to think of the future drama over it. But that's not my decision, thankfully, only an opinion. BarkingFish 00:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you cite a specific policy to base your opposition of inclusion for the draft article in question. riffic (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My pleasure, riffic. Ignore all rules - If a policy or rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, Ignore it. The absence of the GNAA article is an improvement to Wikipedia. The fact that we're sitting here debating the General Notability Guidelines shows that we're sticking to the rules like glue. Just because something meets the guidelines for notability or any other guideline, doesn't mean it is suitable for an article on here. BarkingFish 16:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Could you quantify or explain the statement "The absence of the GNAA article is an improvement to Wikipedia." please? I understand your use of Ignore All Rules, but there usually has to be a pretty good reason behind it to stop it devolving into WP:POINT. Thanks in advance. Murdox (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course :) - The presence of the article on the GNAA here has caused enough drama to have it AFD'd "God only knows" how many times, it's resulted in argument after argument over its presence, the quality of the article and so on. By removing the article, it would hopefully remove the drama concerning it and the content of the same, whether it should be here (or not, as the case may be) and would therefore prove to be a net positive. Wikipedia is trying to quell drama and arguments, edit wars and stuff, and this article has, as a location for this kind of thing, been one of the top targets. Removing it and keeping it removed will hopefully end all the shenanigans surrounding it. BarkingFish 21:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is, quite simply, a terrible argument against recreation. This isn't some juvenile tit-for-tat game. The only question at hand should be whether or not the subject warrants an article. The preponderance of sources means it does. Whether or not you like the GNAA or think they have a vendetta against Wikipedia, they are still notable and warrant an article. We don't "get back at" our so-called enemies by refusing to write about them. That's just childish. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Would an admin add {{Delrevafd|date=2011 February 18}} to the AfD page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we were to disregard every single policy action against this article, and examine it in a new light against the existing content guidelines, yes this article would pass a first draft keep onto wikipedia. Put all former preconceptions aside and examine this article solely on a content policy basis -- the sourcing is solid, and the references are cited. This article has been improved since the last action here at deletion review, while standing the last n months in constant scrutiny nonetheless attempts via miscellanea for deletion being denied. Endorsers of deletion have not yet put forward any convincing argument citing a specific policies or guidelines this article fails to meet. riffic (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just what makes you think we're gonna look at this article in a different way to all the others, hm? "If we were to disregard every policy action against this article...." - When it comes to something like this, policy actions are the last thing we should be ignoring. Sourced or not, the topic is one which had it not have been so much fucking drama, would have been salted against recreation when it first appeared. BarkingFish 12:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please maintain a civil tone in your reply to me. riffic (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will maintain whatever tone I so desire, as long as I'm not attacking you personally :) This is a highly emotive subject, and letting slip one sweary is hardly going to cause World War III. Either way, I've struck the offending word, even though I didn't want to. Whatever happens, I still think that we shouldn't recreate the article - We don't allow vandalism at Wikipedia, so why recreate an article on a whole bunch of them? BarkingFish 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was true that wikipedia didn't allow articles about groups critical of Wikipedia, we wouldn't have Conservapedia or Encyclopedia_Dramatica. Wikipedia's policy on vandalism is primarily to stop the glorification of distasteful edits. I think your argument would hold a lot more merit if my draft of the article contained content like "Here's a list of every wikipedia user the GNAA has trolled". As it stands, I've attempted to avoid mentioning most anything to do with wikipedia at all in my draft unless it's from an external source (in this case, Andrew Lih). Murdox (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Antagonism towards Wikipedia is no cause for denying the creation of an article on a subject. That's just not how we roll. Besides, nothing the GNAA did comes close to ED or several other groups. BF, if you're going to argue so vociferously, you'll need to find a better argument. Also, tone it down a notch. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation Beyond the distastefulness of the topic (which I agree is irrelevant), the sources provide only the most marginal grounds for establishing notability. When GNAA is the main subject of an informative article at a reputable source, then it could be reconsidered. But drive-by references to a marginal trolling group do not make for notability. Eusebeus (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being the main subject of an informative article is not a requirement of the General Notability Guideline. Please read WP:N and you will see under the terms stated this article is presumed to satisfy the criteria for inclusion -- namely a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. The references attached to the current draft under review, specifically the Jodi Dean and Andrew Lih citations are more substantial than trivial mentions, and as it stands the terms of the General Notability Guideline are satisfied. riffic (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, don't see GNG being satisfied by those sources. I accept you disagree. Eusebeus (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Recent media coverage has removed any legitimacy from its previous deletions whch were said to be carried out under the guise of notability. incog (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - The draft passes current content guidelines, and the only argument the opposition is using right now is wp:drama riffic (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow restoration - The sheer fact that the article has been AfD'd and DRV'd and whatnot so many times, and so many different people have weighed in their opinions, proves beyond a doubt that the organization *IS* notable (whether the people arguing against will admit to it or not). The article itself has numerous properly cited sources, and is well within Wikipedia guidelines. The fact of the matter is that given how polarizing the subject is, if the article is not recreated, different people will continue to petition that it should be allowed. If it *IS* recreated, the "other camp" will continue to petition that it should be deleted. If drama is going to happen either way, why not at least leave some useful content on the site? nprice (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the only way we'll settle this is to get a comment from Jimbo and let him say what he thinks, after all, it's the site he started which they've been fucking with. Posting to JW's talk page and will await his reply. BarkingFish 01:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll know this is important if Jimbo decides to interrupt his vacation over it. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't said he won't contribute, he will be coming on now and again - just that in his own words, he "won't be doing any heavy lifting" - I don't know whether commenting on a DR is "heavy lifting", but we'll just have to wait and find out, won't we? :) BarkingFish 03:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that wasn't sarcasm on my part. He probably will only comment if he sees this as important. I don't quite understand the emotion this subject generates in some people, so I wonder how he will respond. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We welcome Mr. Wales thoughts as we welcome all thoughts, and appreciate the Vision through which this article could be made possible. However, even the founder knows that his opinion isn't any more valid than another, just because of his role. Discussions can only be fruitful, if all contributors contribute valid, logical, input, and not stray from informed, intelligent discussion. We should be ever mindful that we don't censor that with which we disagree, on a basis that we don't like it. Furthermore, we should also be mindful of canvassing for specific opinions in hopes of reaching a favorable consensus; it not only undermines the system placed before us, but also undermines the contributions you have brought to the discussion. Grammaryan.Nation (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Number one, argument from authority is very effective in informal logic (which is what this discussion is); someone who's been with this project 10 years would have a better handle on GNG than most of us. Secondly, IDONTLIKEIT cuts both ways; ILIKEIT isn't any more valid. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • GNG is written in no unclear terms - while I'd appreciate Jimbo's input, I don't think it's necessary. Community consensus is what matters (which will probably never happen) - but if people view that the article does not pass GNG - where should its content be placed? A subsection of Goatse Security? nprice (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted We don't need this. Try Encyclopedia Dramatica. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the status quo. I expect the bar should be somewhat higher when an organization appears to be entirely self-promotional, which is the case here. No one who wants to be taken seriously picks a name like GNAA, and I'm entirely supportive of us not taking the organization seriously. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason for opposing recreation. It has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is our only criteria. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. The GNAA has many mentions in reliable secondary sources (Ars, Wired, etc), which makes it notable. The nature of coverage on the group has changed significantly since its original deletion. Weev's recent arrest has caused much of this. People saying we shouldn't have this article because it causes drama are missing the point, and doing so in quite a myopic manner. We don't have articles here because we like the subject or it's easy, we have articles because the subjects are notable, period. The GNAA clearly passes WP:GNG, so we should have the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I took a look at the references in the recreated article and they seem to be a mix of blogs and other non-notable sources. Some sources, like the Atlantic article, are notable reliable but they are about Weev and not about the GNAA. The proper place for this material is in the Weev article and the Goatse article mentioned above. (FD: I saw the note posted on Jimbo's talk page and came here.) --rgpk (comment) 15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're choosing to ignore printed book references such as Andrew Lih and Jodi Dean. There are enough reliable sources to satisfy the GNG. riffic (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an admin you might be aware of this and I hate to engage in pedantry, but there is no single guideline that states a source itself must be notable. A source indicates notability, yes, and must be reliable, but in itself the source being a notable one is not a requirement under any of wikipedia's content policies. riffic (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, those two references only strengthen my case. A para in some book does not a notable organization make. Something in the Weev article along the lines of Weev created the Gay Niggers Association of America (GNAA) to disrupt Wikipedia (cite Lih) and the internet (cite Dean) appears to more than adequately cover the group. I meant to say reliable rather than notable. apologies and corrected. --rgpk (comment) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • This would be true, of course, if these were the only two references attached to the draft. This is not the case. These two references, in addition to all the other reliable sources used as references in the draft are used in their entirety to construct this article. riffic (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I am almost 100% Weev did not create the GNAA. An example of WP:Synth, perhaps. Murdox (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • rgpk didn't read the citations, or he would have seen that these two references don't even mention Weev. These two citations, however, do address the subject of the draft directly in detail; enough to be considered not a trivial mention. This warrants a standalone article. riffic (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sigh. I didn't realize you're hovering over me and watching everything I do. Must remember to keep my clothes on :) I read the text included with the citations and perhaps incorrectly concluded from scanning the blogs that Weev created GNAA (an excellent reason not to use blogs as sources). This should not be surprising since I've never heard of Weev or the GNAA before. So who created GNAA? My main point is that beyond the one sentence above there is not much else to say about this organization.--rgpk (comment) 19:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Someone correcting you is not "hovering over [you] and watching everything [you] do." Do not compare other editors to voyeurs, please. LiteralKa (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted No evidence of significant coverage in multiple, secondary reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail, to meet the general inclusion criteria. Google Books, Google News]. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except of course all the references attached to the draft. riffic (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wales has replied on his talk page :) - I note his comments here, and it looks like we're no further forward...

(From JW's talk page, in response to my post:) - I have no strong view. It may well be the case that the irony here is that our taking so long to delete their article when they weren't notable, gave them an aura of being notable that led to significant press coverage. I am curious to know whether the *group* is really notable, as opposed to the one guy. But I don't really want to be involved, as I'm not very interested in the subject.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 7:44 pm, Today (UTC+0)

So we're still in a hang. Thanks for your patience anyway guys :D BarkingFish 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sorry guys, you took so long that they actually ARE notable now." :P nprice (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Header

The first paragraph of WP:NOREFS reads: "When notability is in doubt, and that is the reason given for deletion, the very best way to counteract that is to demonstrate notability." riffic, among others, has done this numerous times. GNAA has been involved in numerous events. The page is not an advertisement, it is notable as per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.

So far, the only arguments for keeping it deleted fall under WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, WP:ATTP, WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:JNN, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOEFFORT. Coincidentally, these are all listed under the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I would also suggest reading WP:DRAMA, if you have not already done so.

Those against recreating the article are asking the draft to be bombarded with references to demonstrate a level notability beyond that of other articles. The editors involved in the upkeep of the draft have done everything to avoid this, as it is simply "un-encyclopedic".

Those for the recreation of the article have pointed out that the GNAA is notable (see: the next paragraph), and that there is a good working draft of the article. In the five years since the deletion of the article, the draft has come a long way.

It is ridiculous that riffic has to repeat his assertions of notability over and over again.

For those who will inevitably accuse me of wikilawyering, gaming the system, or even "wikifinagling", I would like to point out that deletion reviews are a formal process, and citing policies and guidelines in a formal process should not be frowned upon.

I notice that BarkingFish has potentially violated WP:CANVASS with an appeal to Jimmy Wales with this edit, in a likely attempt to cite WP:JIMBOSAID. In doing this, he violated both the neutral and nonpartisan requirements for a notification (see the first example of WP:GAMETYPE), thus canvassing. He treated this deletion review like a vote, which it is not. It seems to be an attempt to undermine the deletion review process and get his way in the matter (if I am wrong, please, correct me). Otherwise, his actions are against the spirit of the encyclopedia and will not go unnoticed. LiteralKa (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading any of this mess it is worth mentioning that on multiple occasions Jibmo has made it clear that it isn't Canvassing to bring issues to him and his talk page. There is a large precedent of nasty or important or wide ranging issues being brought to Jimbo's attention via that page, and Jimbo has said repeatedly that he welcomes that. If BarkingFish went to 27 other people's talk pages, it would be canvassing, but you didn't say that he did that. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo can say whatever he wants. The fact of the matter is that his talk page is watched by a lot of people. It is effectively a forum, and should be treated as such. Additionally, canvassing does not only apply to mass posting. (also you just cited WP:JIMBOSAID, lol) LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a "large precedent" for reading all what people write before responding. LiteralKa (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, now you're wikilawyering. Jimbo has asked to be treated like an ordinary user, and leaving a notification on his talkpage about yet another DRV for an article with a rather controversial wiki-history makes perfect sense given that he's the founder. If he said, "I think this should be 100% overturned and restored to mainspace", I somehow doubt you'd be worried about canvassing. I don't really have an opinion on this (at least yet), but now you're grasping at straws. And by the way, the fact that one user (riffic) believes that the sources are evidence of substantial coverage doesn't mean that everyone has to share his opinion; interpretation is subjective, after all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo can be treated like an ordinary user, to an extent. Blatantly disregarding the facts re: his user page is just ignorance. I still would be worried about canvassing, because it's an obvious attempt at one. riffic has put it perfectly, hence my citation of him, I can cite others, if I must. Please stop ignoring the facts. LiteralKa (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring anything, just pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments which I won't rehash. My previous post speaks for itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, I just pointed out the obvious flaws in all of your arguments (which I won't rehash), riffic, mine, and others posts speak for themselves. You are ignoring the fact that Jimbo Wales talk page is not a normal talk page, regardless of how we should treat him. LiteralKa (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't giving any reason why it's canvassing. Posting something in a public forum isn't canvassing; plenty of people watch it, and people with both opinions are likely to see it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LiteralKa, if you feel for any reason that I am responsible for Canvassing, you are welcome (I have no objections to this) to post a message at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents and allow the admins to deal with this in any way they see fit. BarkingFish 01:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC) +1EC[reply]
I'm not going to, because a) the "damage" is done, and b) it's your first offense. It says on WP:CANVASS that repeat offenders should be reported. (i.e. assuming good faith on the part of the editor in question) LiteralKa (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest actually reading my post above, then, Blade. And you know just as well as I do that people who watch Jimbo's talk page are not likely to have a neutral opinion, which is required under WP:CANVASS when reaching a wide audience, and not an individual. An e-mail would have worked fine. (Also, this is a Deletion Review, not WP:AN/I, please talk about the deletion. TYIA) LiteralKa (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; like I said above, I don't really have an opinion on this just yet, although I may come back later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC) My points above still stand, however.06:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(RE Blade of the Northern Lights)
Whether or not he is wikilawyering has no place in this discussion. The DRV is a formal process, one in which such acts are allowed. That being said, I do not see where LiteralKa has used technicalities of policies, whilst ignoring the "heart" of the policies, nor have I seen him using them as a way to "defeat" others, but instead seems to be using them to flesh out his argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see his actions as Wikilawering.
If you believe Jimbo should be treated as a normal user, why should he even be mentioned in this discussion? Why did BarkingFish run to him in the first place, or even seek his opinion? By your argument of him being a normal user, anything that I say, outside of this DRV, talk page, or the wiki, would have no place here, so should his, as a normal user? You cannot enjoy welfare while making billions.
Next, while many people may or may not be nonpartisan when reading his page, it must also be pointed out that Jimbo, as a user, is totally unaware of the GNAA, and has little knowledge of it. As such, he does not meet the quidelines for "interested people", whom ought to be contacted to flesh out a discussion. To reach
It appears to me that it was not only {riffic}, but many others that shared his POV, though {LiteralKa} never cited them outside of the weasle-worded phrase. Even so, I do not see it as much of a stretch to agree that the GNAA is notable. With weev incarcerated, due to an incident that was widely reported on, and has continuing coverage on notable news sources, the page doesn't have any qualms with WP:INHERITED.
(RE Sven)
Might you cite the "multiple occasions" in which Jimbo has said these things?
Acostoss (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Acostoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So far from it being canvassing to ask Jimbo on his talk page, what I have observed in the last year or two, is that when he gives an opinion or takes an action, often people try to look for any possible reason for opposing his view. Additionally, bringing anything to wide public notice runs the risk that the public will not support you. For this particular issue, this question is entwined in the history of Wikipedia, and I can't think of anyone better to ask. (of course, I may be saying this because I in this instance support his position that the long debate here may have made it notable. ) As I see it, the safest practice with obnoxious things is to give them very brief neutral coverage rather than to try to remove all mention. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it happens a lot doesn't make it right. Bringing such an issue to wide public notice to people with polarized views seems to fit WP:CANVASS pretty well, IMO. LiteralKa (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation per Jclemens. He basically said it better than how I can. –MuZemike 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to quote Throwaway85 from the reply immediately below that: "That's not a valid reason for opposing recreation. It has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is our only criteria." Would you perhaps respond to this? LiteralKa (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: if Jclemens out of all said it better than how you can (pardon me, but ROFL), could you maybe explain how higher that bar should be set? If it is so obvious, surely there is some precedent. Sam Hocevar (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have yet to see a delete !vote that cites a valid, applicable policy. I have searched for one, and I cannot find one. LiteralKa (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your opinion abundantly clear; please don't bludgeon us to death with it. Your viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be a "valid, applicable policy". I don't see how it's "bludgeoning" if you cannot come up with a single valid policy for keeping this deleted. LiteralKa (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes bludgeoning when you shove it in our faces at every given opportunity, as both yourself and riffic seem to have done. We can clearly see how you feel, you know how most of us feel, so kindly stop ramming it down our throats please. What's said is said, let's just get on with either discussing it, or waiting for the poor, unfortunate soul who has to short this den of iniquity out and close the debate :) BarkingFish 13:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for a policy. Could there perhaps not be one? LiteralKa (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with your accusations. Is this your policy-based persuasive argument now? riffic (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly chuffed with the accusation made by LiteralKa of Canvassing (which he still hasn't retracted despite being told he's wrong) and your persistant badgering of "Can you quote a policy on which to base your opposition" blah blah blah etc. My argument is simple. Let's not argue, let's let the closing admin decide what best to do with it. BarkingFish 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I have already responded to the claims that I am mistaken, and you know this. Being told that I am wrong and being proven wrong are two completely different things, and considering the fact that you apologized for canvassing, I don't see the need to retract anything. Second, the refusal of you, among others, to provide logic behind what seems to be a purely emotional opposition isn't me going "blah blah blah blah", or even an argument. LiteralKa (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologized for it? Damn. I must be doing things without remembering, since I don't recall having apologized for anything whatsoever. - I refuted the allegation, and offered you the chance to take it to ANI if you wanted, but I certainly haven't apologized - I don't normally do that unless I've done something wrong, which in this case, I haven't. BarkingFish 18:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My IRC logs say differently. LiteralKa (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do forward me a copy, since you aren't allowed to post them here. I can be reached through the Special:Emailuser thingy on the toolbar. BarkingFish 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per Jimbo. He basically said it better than how I can. Since the Goatse Security drama, their notability has certainly improved far beyond the biased standards forced to that article. I don't see why "the bar should be somewhat higher when an organization appears to be entirely self-promotional", or why "an organisation which has had what can only be described as a vendetta against Wikipedia and its associated IRC channels, [should not be allowed] to have a page detailing itself on the very same site". Other oppose arguments are "this is simply causing too much drama", "the current status quo is entirely satisfactory". Are you writing an encyclopedia or are you having your personal crusade against the GNAA? Please take those arguments to meta. Sam Hocevar (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the underlying idea behind Jclemens' argument is best summed up here. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but I think that's the mentality. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, but suggest drafting before moving into mainspace; I'm convinced there's notability here that could lead to an article; that's all that should matter here. Sceptre (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 February 2011[edit]

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

The closing administrator said as his rationale that "it is not for me to differ" when the !votes leaned 2:4 in favor of keep. However, when reading the keep rationale there nearly isn't any. The first keep vote claims it meets WP:GNG despite the general guideline being "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." Review of the article shows 1 blog reference and a link that no longer exists despite being added only two months ago. The context of the second ref seems to suggest it was only a trivial mention anyway. The second keep vote says the article "basically" meets WP:GNG, not that it meets. The third says "I'm unsure how this impacts on policy" and further goes on to say "Read Erindipity, liked it, would like to know more about the author". The fourth keep !vote said "per Snappy. Meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)" despite Snappy (the first keep !vote) not being able to identify which notability guidelines the subject meets. I cannot see how an administrator could interpret that as consensus. Consensus is supposed to be supported by policies and guidelines that were developed using broader community consensus which this clearly has not.--v/r - TP 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC) v/r - TP 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers can read for themselves what I actually said 'in full'. RashersTierney (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm this article has "survived" two Afds with a Keep result. Perhaps that should count for something.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-Admittedly, the keep !votes were pretty weak, but even allowing for that, we've got a no consensus at best. A delete result here would be unsupportable.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even a no-consensus would be acceptable so as any further attempts to send to AFD are not met with "Hmm this article has "survived" two Afds with a Keep result. Perhaps that should count for something". I disagree that the consensus was to keep based in policy--v/r - TP 22:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist No consensus. Something odd going on here. Subject has zero secondary independent reliable sources. MoyrossLADY (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you not notice the RS reviews in the EL section, or are you discounting them for some reason that's not obvious to me? Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are 4 items in the EL section and in none of them is David Kenny the subject. There are two book reviews of his works one by his own newspaper, one by its sister title. WP:BIO asks that he be the subject of multiple secondary sourecs indpendent of each other and of the subject. He has none because he is not notable. MoyrossLADY (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jclemens, if there are RS reviews in the EL section, why are they not used as references? The answer is because they are not about the subject.--v/r - TP 14:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The article shows a solid consensus for "keep" in both previous AfD. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and leave well enough alone. This is a difficult one with respect to the merits--technically he does meet WP:AUTHOR, but it's really borderline & my personal opinion is we should draw the bar above this. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin is right that our guidelines, which are only guidelines, are subject to their application by the community in individual cases. The GNG isn't the only path to notability. It never has been. The keep !votes weren't so objectively weak as to warrant an alternative outcome. But I wouldn't die in a ditch if this got relisted.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Stifle's close. The article might be a bit on the light side, but there's no good reason to delete it--he's clearly a real, and at least marginally notable person. Note that the last three !votes were keeps--hard to justify closing an AfD trending keep like that as anything other than keep, even though, per DGG, editors can disagree that this was the right result. Erring on the side of keeping allows improvement, and it's possible to renominate later should the need arise. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The consensus reached at AfD was rather clear that the sources provided established notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources? That's my point, the keep !votes couldn't possibly have looked at them. Wordpress and a non existent website? That's the best that can be found on this individual? They were very poor !keep votes and that should've been taken into strong consideration when closing the AfD.--v/r - TP 14:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure, I would have been acting unreasonably to close as delete. No consensus and keep are both variants of "not-delete", and the article was duly not deleted. As I said in my closure and subsequent discussions, the purpose of the AFD discussion is to come to a consensus, on whether the subject of the article meets inclusion standards or not. This is a question of fact, and the consensus was that he does meet the standards. The closure that the esteemed nominator appears to want is the so-called "supervote", that is to say he appears to want me to dismiss arguments to keep because they're "wrong" and therefore close as delete. I consider myself very strongly on the deletionism side of the del/inc spectrum, but there is absolutely no way I could justify a keep delete closure. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that I feel consensus was to delete, but I do not agree at all that consensus was to keep. Both resulting in non-delete is beside the issue. The issue is that judging it as "keep" attaches a certain stigma against future AfDs as BabbaQ has pointed out. There was no consensus based in policy. At this point though, I've taken it as far as I'm willing to go over the matter. I feel there has been enough attention here that if you all really feel to endorse it, than far be it for me to keep arguing over it.--v/r - TP 13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to change "keep" to "no consensus, defaults to keep" if you wish. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be agreeable to that, thanks for the offer.--v/r - TP 17:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree with Stifle except for his last sentence, which I think might be a typo. If as I suspect Stifle meant "delete" where he said "keep" then I am wholly in agreement with him.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typo fixed, thank you :) Stifle (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for fixing the typo. You really had me confused. Now I fully support your position. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 February 2011[edit]

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

I do not fully understand how notability criteria at WP:CORP affects the entry, since most companies in Comparison_of_file_hosting_services. Considering and "Deletion of articles" reasoning for consistency at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I ask politely to restore the page from User:Roberto_valerio/CloudSafe to common space. Direct admin contact is not possible right now since the page was marked protected. Roberto valerio (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Roberto, you need to be aware of both WP:CORP and WP:N. Without reasonable independent third party sources, it is very unlikely this article will be moved to main space. I'd have to imagine the company has seen some news coverage, either in local press or trade press. If you can find such articles (be they on-line or not) that provide significant coverage of the company, then we'll likely end up with an article here. Please feel free to ask me, or pretty much anyone else who hangs out here, for guidance or clarification. Hobit (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need at least some indication of importance: market share is one possibly notable aspect, business awards are another, product reviews are a third. But not just what's in the article in the cache, a statement that the company exists. In any of these cases, it has to be shown by third party sources. If you can show these sorts of things, and have suitable reliable sources, then try to write an article. But not otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject recreation based on current draft. I echo DGG's recommendations — please show notability with third-party verification. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a few online repositories to the first coverage in print publications: "Hakin9" (print, german), "t3n" (print, german), "PC World" (print, polish). Then some blog coverage at AppStorm, Online Backup Dir, Online Tech Tips . Please give me advice what else is necessary to equal the companies on Comparison_of_file_hosting_services. Regards, Roberto valerio (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
going down the list, 1. exactly where in Hackin9 is CloudSafe mentioned? 2. is merely a statement that it exists, & is not substantial coverage. Furthermore it lists it as a startup, and startups usually need some time to become notable 3. is a PR release from the company, not an independent source. 4. This one is a full review. Blogs are not usually RSs, but in computers some can be, and this seems to be by a staff reviewer. If we can recognize this blog as a good authority this would be half-way there, but I'm not familiar with it. 5. is a mere directory listing 6. is an elementary comparison of 3 services, listing cloudsafe along with 2 very notable services. Its a fairly well known how-to site. Personally, I think 4 & 6 make enough. , though I'm sure someone will challenge it if at least one such review isn't from an actual edited computer magazine or the like. Any info on market share, btw? DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for having another look at the request. To have at least one article from a computer magazine I uploaded the article from Hakin9 to [Scribd]. Market share projections are quite difficult since file hosting is a large space with dozens of services. Assumption: Based on registered users so far we should be in the Top 20 in Europe. Regards, Roberto valerio (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete/allow recreation I think the Hackin9 interview about the company combined with the detailed appstorm review and the other sources above are enough to A) meet WP:N and B) write an article around. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for helping me out. Still, a couple of hours later the article is deleted again (User:Lifebaka). Sorry, but I do not know how to deal with this issue anymore, I am missing transparency and reliability in the process. Could anyone step in and give clear advice? Best, Roberto valerio (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once this DRV ends (they usually run a week) an admin will make the call about exactly what to do. Why one admin restored and another moved it back to userspace I'm unclear. But just wait a bit and some kind of resolution will be had. On the up side, things _are_ pretty transparent. That is, this is the entire discussion. The restore and move were weird and hopefully will have an explanation soon. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved it back because the offered draft was not, at the time, going to stick around in mainspace. I decided that moving it back to userspace was preferable to letting it get deleted. There is nothing wrong with recreation, in the abstract, but this particular draft needs more work. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am giving up. Some admins delete, some undelete then some delete again. Seriously, it's nice to have an open discussion. But it is a waste of time to have to argue about the same arguments over and over again. I tried my best and failed, because there is no consensus. Aanyway, thanks to the good & helpful admins here on this discusson. Roberto valerio (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lorenzo Iorio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I must state in advance that I am not acquainted with all the subtleties and policies of Wikipedia concerning similar issues.

I tried to resolve the issue of the recreation of the page about Iorio with the administrator who originally deleted this page, but without success. In my opinion, the substantial problems with this page were: 1) there was a sockpuppetry issue during the previous discussion. After I asked for a recreation, the administrator asked me if I was another sockpuppet, which is not the case. 2) It seems that Iorio has a current lingering conflict of interest with another Italian scientist active in the same field; the anonymity of editors and administrators should have made the rest.

One of the critical issues during the previous deletion discussion was that the h-index of Iorio, along with his publication record, compared to that of other researchers, was not high enough. Now, the situation is different since, as it turns out from the NASA ADS database, his h-index, number of citations, etc. are of the same level of, or even larger than, those of other researchers active in similar fields, whose dedicated articles are present in Wikipedia.

Please consider that, in the present case, it is fully meaningful to compare articles pertaining researchers working in the about same field.

Another critical issue was that the deleted page was substantially a sort of promotional CV online. The page I have in mind would be substantially different, much shorter. In practice, I would take as examples the existing articles about other researchers working in about the same field. In addition, I would include just a link to the Iorio's list of publications http://digilander.libero.it/lorri/list_of_publications.htm, his personal website http://digilander.libero.it/lorri/homepage_of_lorenzo_iorio.htm. I would also add the links concerning the several international press releases dealing with some works of him. I would also add the links to some of the distinctions received by Iorio like top cited awards by Elsevier, and so on. Such links are new, and were not available during the previous deleting discussion.

Although it may not be formally considered as a valid argument from the point of view of Wikipedia policy, I must notice that the presence of articles dedicated to other researchers not displaying the same public coverage (few or no press releases at all, no top cited awards, no most viewed articles, and so on) and with similar or smaller h-indexes, together with the absence of a similar article dedicated to Iorio, would constitute an objective and substantial lack of fairness and justice. I could make several examples. Please, notice that during the deletion discussion some of the partecipants contrary to keeping the Iorio's page actually made explicit comparisons with other articles about different researchers.

Finally, I notice that the second speedy deletion was due to a copyright problem with another site. I would easily resolve it by writing an entirely new text. Michoball (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If you think you can make a better article which demonstrates that he meets the notability standard of WP:PROF, the best thing to do would be to make a draft in your user space at User talk:Michoball/Lorenzo Lorio, which could be considered here. Read WP:YFA before you start: I will put some useful links on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The WP:PROF page starts by noticing that the issue of notability is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". It is exactly the common sense that should be applied when I invoke meaningful comparisons with existing articles to other comparable scientists in the same field explicitly exhibiting less public coverage and comparable or smaller bibliometric indexes.

Then, the WP:PROF page continues by stating that a notable person must be, among other things, "subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources." This is just the case for L. Iorio, as shown by the various links to international and independent magazines dealing with some works of him, by the various " Top 25 Hottest Articles " and " Most viewed articles " classifications of the various academic journals published by Elsevier, Kluwer, Springer showing the ranking gained by some of his papers, and by two New Astronomy Top Cited Author awards from Elsevier.

In the WP:PROF page we read: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable." Among the following criteria there are:

  1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. It is the case for L. Iorio, since the NASA ADS database, which is certainly a well renown and trustable independent reliable source, shows that his various bibliometric indexes, among which the h-index is as large as 20 (after just 10 years of scientific activity...), are objectively high and comparable to, or often higher than, those of other scientists having their articles in Wikipedia. L. Iorio is also author of an invited review article on a well estabilished academic peer-reviewed jorunal. Moreover, as I would demonstrate, L. Iorio was appointed by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for submitting nominations for the Crafoord Prize, which is the most prestigious prize in the field of geosciences.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. It is the case of L. Iorio, as I would demonstrate. He did not receive the Nobel prize. But, please notice also that the WP:PROF page specifies: "Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1". Actually, as I can demonstrate, L. Iorio received a prize from the Italian Physical Society, and from another international astronomical institution.
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. It is the case of L. Iorio, Elected Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, as it can be shown.
  4. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. Indeed, L. Iorio is associated editor of an academic journal published by Bentham Science Publishers

Thus, we have here more than one of the aforementioned criteria fulfilled.

Interested editors and administrators may want to check my claims by directly looking at L. Iorio website which collects the information I am conveying here in a public, objective and verifiable way. Indeed, they will find scanned copies of most of the original documents. Other suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Michoball (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite a non-infringing version in user space, and if it looks passable, anyone can send to AfD -- for a better discussion than the 09. This was most recently deleted because of being a copy of a web site. Otherwise, I think it probably does meet WP:PROF. I don't want to recap the 2009 AfD in detail, but I do not see that there was a clear consensus to delete, nor that the discussion was adequate in discussing the extent to which the person met the WP:PROF criteria. I think the articles and citations are enough to demonstrate the person as having made an impact, going by our usual standards. The Fellowship is indeed relevant--the objection was made at the AfD that he was just a member, not a fellow. If he can be shown to be a fellow, this is an important contributing factor, though not enough by itself. But it's two years later, and perhaps things are clearer now. But I point out that editor in the sense of WP:PROF is always interpreted as editor-in-chief, not associated editor or member of an editorial board, and I would not consider any Bentham Open journal truly a major journal in any field--not a single one of them is in JCR. (Some of Betham's review journals in Pharmacology are, but they're not part of Bentham Open). (I also point out that a better discussion is more likely to be had if the case is stated without the degree of overemphasis that was present there, and for that matter here.) DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, dear friends. I rewrote it according to your guidelines at User talk:Michoball/Lorenzo Lorio. Comments, suggestions and criticisms are welcome. Thanks Michoball (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious concerns about this "rewrite".

  1. Much of it is original research, based on analysis of papers he has written. Please remove all sources except the secondary ones that actually discuss him.
  2. Some of the biographical information is unsourced. Please provide reliable sourcing or remove it.
  3. His "Bibliometrics" are sourced to this website: http://digilander.libero.it/lorri/bibliometrics.htm , which is Iorio's own personal website. It claims, for example, that his h-index is 20, g-index is 25, and number of citations is 633, but http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/5500192 gives an h-index of 6, g-index of 9, and number of citations as 180. Please explain this discrepancy, and please provide reliable secondary sourcing for these numbers.

Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please, note the following.
  1. Please, Jay, be more specific about the alleged original research which I would have included. Do you refer to the invited chapters by him? Do you refer to the invited review by him? I could, perhpas, remove them, especially the chapters, but, on the other hand, they are all means contributing to support his notability. Consider, for example, the invited review. It is a clear sign of notability. But, now, should I remove the citation to it? So, somebody else will say that I wrote an unsourced reference...The same for the EGU talk, which also holds as media coverage: should I remove the citation to it? Moreover, Jay, I have included a complete list of secondary sources, press releases by international magazines and newspapers, which deal with Iorio's works. Very few other existing articles about scientists active in the same field can display them. This is a fact, not an opinion.
  2. Please, explain me exactly: what bibliographical information is unsourced? Must I find somewhere on the Internet Iorio's driving license and/or his Identity Card displaying his address and his nationality? Must I find somewhere on the Internet that he actually has a degree in Physics? Ok, I've found this http://miur.academia.edu/LorenzoIorio/Teaching/15155/PhD_certification. Do you refer to the fact that I wrote that his first article in gravitational physics dates back to 2001? If so, it is easy to check in the included list of publications.
  3. Sorry, Jay, but your remark about his bibliometrics is totally absurd, as anyone can notice. As I stated, and as it is stated in the Iorio's bibliometric page, the source of such numbers is the NASA ADS database which, permit me, Jay, is certainly much more complete, reliable and accurate than yours (just to make an example, Jay, please note the field of activity that your site attributes to Iorio...Artificial intelligence! Notice also the ridicolous lack of lots of published papers, not to say about their citations..It is so since, perhaps, it is based on Bing? Who knows) and, in this case, also of other ones like, e.g., Google Scholar, ISI Web of knowledge, Scopus whose coverage is less complete. It is well known that different databases have different coverages. Clearly, one has to consider the database yielding the largest h-index: it is evidently more complete than others in that specific case/field. For example, Google Scholar, for reasons unclear to me, attributes very few citations to a work by Iorio and Ruggiero on the Hořava-Lifshitz gravity which, instaed, has 37 citations on NASA ADS. Take the time to carefully check NASA ADS, please. Look at the definitions of h-index and g-index, go to the NASA ADS database, and check yourself by doing the required math (you will not find there a button for the h-index and the other bibliometric indexes: you must do the calculation by hand). I cannot explain here how to make bibliographic researches with NASA ADS. Anyway, you may want to carefully read http://nebulium.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/the-hirsch-index-part-1/

and make the necessary operations. Please note that, actually, how NASA ADS works is a bit strange: sometimes in a day some citations disappear, then they re-appear, and so on (mirroring issues? Regular mantainance? Bugs? Who knows). For example, right now it returned me 626 citations (self-citations excluded): I'm sure that tomorrow they will be again 633... However, the h-index and the g-index computation are not affected. Anyay, thank you. Nothing personal. We are all here to do our best, of course. Michoball (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, Jay. I just removed the citations to his invited chapters. Michoball (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
  1. All articles about scientists ought to talk about their research. It's their research that has made them notable, not their biographical details, which are just background. Otherwise, it would be like writing an article on an author without mentioning what they wrote, on a musician without mentioning their music. Summarizing briefly some of the main peer-reviewed work is highly appropriate. Care needs to be taken to refer to the most important work, as judged by citations. It would very much help to have a secondary source, preferably from a review journal of high reputation, to use for a quotation about it's importance--it takes a while to find a good quotation, but we should try to do this more.
  2. Routine bio information can be & almost invariably is in the case of academic taken from a person's official cv or similar sources. (If one should happen to find it elsewhere it was almost certainly just copied from that cv--even in a published obituary.) It's a good idea, though to have outside citations for awards and the like.
  3. Invited papers are selected on the grounds of expected interest. They are rarely peer-reviewed. Papers at some scientific meetings are, but it's the exception & they can only be included as of peer-reviewed work if this is known. In the sciences, chapters in books are usually a rather minor form of publication. But all of this is important for us to evaluate only where such papers or chapters are the bulk of the work and there is little in peer-reviewed journals. That's not the case here--there is quite a lot in peer-reviewed journals.
  4. h-index is important, but what I would like to see is the citations to the most cited per-reviewed papers from other peer-reviewed papers, something which can be done adequately on Scopus or Web of Science, but not google scholar. the GS counts are useful if there is nothing else, as is the cases in some subjects, but they normally run about twice to Scopus or WoS counts and need to be evaluated accordingly. ADS is a wonderfully complete service, but includes unpublished work. Using h or g indexes is shorthand. I personally really really dislike them, because it loses most of the information, but giving them has become standard.
  5. I repeated the count for Scopus just now. 116 papers listed. Highest counts, 30, 26, 25, 22, 21 h=13 (meaning 13 papers cited 13 times or more) There are 66 papers with 2 citations or fewer. This sort of distribution shows a great many papers, with few of them making a major quantitative impact of the mainstream of physics, and none having great influence This is usually an indication that the work is off is a special area of its own, that this work is considered somewhat off the mainstream--but not considered really on the borderline of credibility, for in that case the counts would be much lower.
  6. What also counts--and counts very heavily--is where the papers have been published. This is unfortunately for accurate analysis to some extent a matter of reputation, & can be only very poorly approximated by the impact factor of the journal--some bureaucratic agencies us that criteria but it's widely deprecated. I & others have frequently used in an AfD whether any of the papers have been in Physical Review or , even better, Physical Review Letters, as a helpful indication. (none of his have, & about half are in journals people would call good, and half in those they would probably call not so good) This too is tyoical of someone whose work is somewhat out of the mainstream but not negligible.
  7. We need to be careful on the one hand not to let in afrticles about unimportant pseudo-scientistific cranks, but on the other, not to include only the mainstream.

I therefore conclude that he qualifies for an article: the work is not yet generally accepted as major, but it has had an impact.

I'd suggest

  1. expanding the description of the research about two-fold
  2. adding the counts to the most cited papers.
  3. removing the bold face. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to DGG.

Dear DGG, thank you for your remarks. I implemented all your suggestions, now. However, permit me to let you know the following. About his invited review, I do not know what happens in other fields, but in the present one the invited reviews are, actually, all peer-reviewed, in particular this one in Astrophysics and Space Science. About the bibliometric indexes, I've found a host of other indexes. Let me study them. I may add them later. About your research in Scopus-I thank you for it-, actually it clearly demonstrates all its inadequacy. Indeed, Iorio has published (including the papers at press) 137 works, not 116. Also the citation counts by Scopus is quite wrong since his most cited papers have 53, 37, 36 citations, and so on (see NASA ADS, but not only it), certainly not 30, 26, 25, 22, 21. About the journals, please note that he published lot of papers in journals like Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Journal of High Energy Physics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, The Astronomical Journal which have impact factors which are larger than, or almost equal to, those of the journals considered by you. Finally, I would not agree with you about making a too strict distinction among peer-reviewed citations and non-peer-reviewed citations. Actually, I do not see how it could be judged of minor importance, from the point of view of the impact, a citation in a talk or in a proceeding by colleagues in the same field. Moreover, note also that NASA ADS has its own severe scrutiny about the citing records to be submitted to its database: if you try to submit some records to it, it may happen that they refute it because it does not pass their quality control. Moreover, it often happens that works which are still unpublished at a given epoch, will be published later. Thank you again. Michoball (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A question to the admins: inclusion in biographical databases of institutions. Would it be helpful to add also the fact that several papers of him are enlisted in the biographical databases of several international institutions like the International Astronomical Union, NASA, and so on? Thanks. Michoball (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to some of the various issues still in the article:

  1. The first sentence still contains unsourced biographical details, specific that he was born in 1971 and lives in Bari, Italy.
  2. The next paragraph is pure original research, based entirely on primary sources. If he's notable, reliable secondary sources will have described his interests.
  3. The claim "According to the NASA ADS database, the main bibliometric data[5] of L. Iorio are as follows: h-index = 20. g-index = 25. m-quotient[6] = 2." is not cited to the NASA ADS database, but to Iorio's personal website. These claims can only be included if they come from reliable, secondary sources. Iorio's website cannot be used as a source for these claims.
  4. The claims "At present, his most cited article has 53 citations[7]" is pure original research. This claim can only be included if it is explicitly made in a reliable, secondary source.

These serious issues have still not been properly dealt with. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to Jay.

Please, other admins: read since there is a serious issue with such an admin and her/his requests.

  1. Has you read what DGG wrote? How would you demonstrate that Iorio was born in 1971 and that he lives in Bari?
  2. As you can see, I implemented the suggestions by DGG who asked me to double the part concerning the research activity.
  3. This statement is unbelievable!! Have you read what I wrote to you in the previous reply? Do you realize that those bibliometric information can be retrieved from NASA ADS or not? Do you know what is NASA ADS? Why don't you read what I write?
  4. I implemented one of the suggestions of DGG, who explicitly asked me to insert that information. What does it mean that "it is pure original research"? Have you looked at the link I inserted or not? It comes from NASA ADS! Michoball (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michoball

  1. Yes, I read what he wrote. You need to have a reliable source for everything you write in a WP:BLP article. If you don't have one, don't include the claim.
  2. The paragraph is pure original research, based entirely on primary sources. If he's notable, reliable secondary sources will have described his interests.
  3. Yes, I read what you wrote. But you haven't cited the NASA ADS database, nor can you do so. These claims can only be included if they come from reliable, secondary sources. Iorio's website cannot be used as a source for these claims.
  4. DGG didn't ask you to do that; please re-read what he said, which was different. In addition, it wasn't very good advice, since the counts would only be valid as of February 18, 2011. That kind of ephemeral information isn't particularly helpful. Regardless, you haven't done what DGG asked you to do.

I'm sorry you are finding this process difficult, but WP:BLP rules are very strict, and often difficult for the non-experienced to understand; this is compounded by the fact that the Wikipedia community decided fairly recently that Iorio is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to Jay

This is exactly what DGG asked me: "

  1. expanding the description of the research about two-fold
  2. adding the counts to the most cited papers." I already included a plenty of reliable secondary sources documenting what Iorio did. However, I added the date and place of birth of Iorio and his address. I have removed the link to the bibliometric page of the Iorio's website, and I removed the citation count to that Iorio's paper.

Admins, what must I do when there are conflicting suggestions by different admins? Thanks.Michoball (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date and place of birth, and address removed

Perhaps, it is unnecessary to state those informations Michoball (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michoball,
  1. DGG did suggest that, but what you produced pure original research, based entirely on primary sources. If Iorio is notable, then reliable secondary sources will have described his interests.
  2. DGG also did suggest that, which is not the same as what you did: you made a claim that a particular paper is the most cited one. Please review WP:NOR. Also, as I pointed out, it wasn't really good advice anyway, since the counts would only be valid as of February 18, 2011.
Please keep in mind that when you use a paper of Iorio to generate information about Iorio himself, you are using it as a primary source. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Jay.

As you can notice, I now removed the issue of the most cited paper. I also removed his place of birth and date, and address, although I found sources for that. Michoball (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the large OR paragraph describing his work, you have still left in the sentence "According to the NASA ADS database, the main bibliometric data of L. Iorio are as follows: h-index = 20. g-index = 25." Please provide a link to the reliable secondary source that states exactly that. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Jay

Jay, that paragraph requested by DGG refers just to those works by him covered by the awards received, magazine and newspaper articles listed below. Moreover, why should I remove the sentence about his bibliometric information, if I included NASA ADS as secondary, relaible source? The issue of h-index was important in the past deletion dicussion, it is explicitly included in the WP:PROF, and, now, I cannot proof it?? You will never find any webiste or database which will display those information! You must get them by making an action like clicking on a button "calculate the h-index", or you have to do the math from the data provided by the databases! Otherwise, why did you displayed me that ridicolous database in which Iorio was listed as a scientist working in another field? Or, do you mean that, "ok, we know that his bibliometric indexes are OK, but you must not display them"? You entered in a loop: where do you think that another putative website would retrieve the bibliometric indexes from? Of course, from some databases by clicking on their magic button, or by doing the math! Recall that WP:PROF requires the use of common sense first of all! Michoball (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "that paragraph", if you want to prove you're not doing original research, then quote those sources supporting the claims made in that paragraph. And what I mean is everything in a biography of a living person must be sourced to reliable secondary sources that explicitly support the claims they cite. I understand that Wikipedia's content rules can be frustrating to those unfamiliar with them. Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow creation and re-list at AfD for a full debate, is my opinion after having read all the above, and mainly based on DGG's analysis. The last AfD was marred by more than a dozen sockpuppets, but we may hope that his supporters have learned that socking will be detected and is not helpful. Before that, my advice would be that the WP:Verifiability of the referencing should be improved (Michoball, read that policy carefully); I have not had time to do much checking but, for instance, ref.9 against "m-quotient" goes to a footnote which links only to the WP article Gravitation, and ref.11, the claim of a prize from the Italian Physical Society, is cited to their Wikipedia article, which says nothing about it. The article should concentrate more on genuine claims to distinction, such as comments on his work by others, and avoid seeming to claim too much - being "elected to a Fellowship" of the Royal Astronomical Society, for instance, merely means that you have paid a subscription - "Fellowship... is open to any person over the age of 18 whose application is acceptable to the Society", and to be impressed by the invitation to nominate candidates for the Crafoord Prize, I would need to know to how large a mailing list that invitation was sent. If we can agree to allow creation and relist at AfD, perhaps detailed criticism and advice can go on elsewhere. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Jayjg, you are setting unreasonable conditions. We have for years always accepted h & g indexes in articles and in arguments because anyone with access to the databases (& ADS is a free database) can verify them. It is done by counting, and it's explicit in WP:OR that counting and addition are not OR. (and the methodology is open--its not like taking a value that google found by some arcane method they won't release to the public). We have always explicitly accepted information from a CV and similar primary sources as RS for the uncontested uncontroversial facts of a biography--it's clear in the RS guidelines (in my 4 years here, there was one CV with a doctorate that looked dubious; it was challenged, and I did a few hours of research and found I could not verify it after checking every possible source, and we deleted the article.) The RS for the publication of papers is their inclusion in a responsible database., and Scopus as well as ADS are among them. Yes, there's an error rate of a few percent in the details for any particular paper, but the journals themselves could be checked if in doubt. All sources without exception have errors. We have reasonable standards of accuracy in our discussions--we after all are not trying for the Truth, and saying someone is or is not notable here is not definitive evidence of their True Importance in the Universe, whatever that may mean. If one really wants to be persnickety, the fact that several of his papers are discussed in several sources , if only to express a lack of conviction in this theories, meets the GNG. (The reason we don't use that as a criterion is that for scientists that would be wildly inclusive, but it none the less is technically true.) A challenge to information in an article that appears to have sources must be based on something reasonable. To the best of my knowledge we could find at least one fact in every bio article here for which someone could make some sort of an argument about the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, the only "conditions" I'm setting are WP:NOR and WP:RS. We can obviously cite self-published material for uncontroversial claims, such as a place of birth - my objection there was that the material was included with no citation. However, calculating something like an h or g index is clearly not the kind of simple calculation or conversion allowed by WP:CALC. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to Jay, JohnCD and DGG

I rewrote the paragraph requested by DGG about the scientific activity in a (hopefully) better way since, now, all statements are backed by press releases and newspaper articles. I also added an invitation letter to IAU GENERAL ASSEMBLY and, especially, lots of international institutions listing his papers in their institutional bibliographic repositories. Dear JohnCD, permit me to let you know that, actually, being an Elected Felllow of the RAS does not merely mean that you have just to pay a quote. Instead, you must be introduced by another renown scientist who has to send a presentation letter. You may check yourself by going to RAS website and/or directly sending an inquiry to them. Moreover, about the Crafoord Prize I am truly skeptical about your remark. Do you really think that almost everyone may receive an invitation to submit nominations to the equivalent of the Nobel prize in geophysics..? Moreover, JohnCD, please be clear about the issue of the m-quotient: I simply put a footnote to explain that Iorio started publishing in gravitation 10 years ago, so that his m-quotient is (h=20)/10 = 2. Since I created an article to the m-quotient, I think that there is no need to insert a formal citation to it: the blue wikilink should be enough. Or do you want I change the format of the footnote? If so, could you, please, help me? Thanks. JohnCD, I don't understand your point about the prize by the Italian Physical Society. I inserted the blue wikilink to the society, and a citation displaying the prize. Could you, please, be more precise? Thank you again. Thanks, DGG. Michoball (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, JohnCD. Fixed

Great, JohnCD! You were right about the link to the prize of the Italian Physical Society! I have now fixed its link, which now correctly displays the prize. Moreover, I removed the misleading footnote to the m-quotient, and I inserted it in the text between round brackets. Michoball (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other additions

Hello. I have added links to reviews by other peers to some works of Iorio. They are 3-4 stars for a total of 5 stars. Please, notice that you will not find anything else for other scientists having articles here. Michoball (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRAS - putting "Elected Fellow" in italics makes it look like a high honour. Sorry, but it isn't 1, 2 - details on your talk page. I am not being picky, I am advising for your own good - exaggerated claims (a) make you look desperate and (b) will give objectors something to latch onto. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JohnCD. Thank you for your suggestion, which I just implemented. Please, give me any other suggestions. Michoball (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation The article is a thicket and has too much peripheral material and far too many references. However, I see some distinguished editors consider the references to be too few so I shall defer. These are matters for normal editing which is possibly impeded by the current userspace status. So, I think it would be best to restore the article since the individual likely meets at least WP:PROF #1 coupled with adequate verification within the article. Given that the article is prima facie supportable even given its BLP status, these are AFD matters. If there is to be AFD2 I hope it will be conducted in a more orderly fashion than AFD1 and I shall be keeping well out of the way! Thincat (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Jay and the h-index an the g-index

To Jay and to all admins: Actually, from NASA ADS there is not even need of doing any calculation to have the h-index. It is simply a matter of visual inspection of the articles listed by the database according to the number of citations. The m-quotient is a simple division of the h-index by the number of years of activity, whihc is rather elementary, it seems to me. You obtain the g-index simply by adding (it sounds: "twenty plus sixteen plus eight plus...") the citations of the papers listed by the database, and compare the total obtained to the square of your g (it sounds like: "twenty five times twenty five equal to six hundreds and twenty five). Michoball (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CALC does not allow Wikipedia editors to make these kinds of calculations. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those elementary calculation (and, I repeat, there are no calculation at all involved in the h-index) reflect the source, i.e. NASA ADS Michoball (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you say this based on your lengthy experience with Wikipedia and its policies? You can repeat this all you like, it won't change the fact that use of the database violates WP:NOR and this calculation in particular violates WP:CALC. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jay. Have you, or somebody else here, dealt with other existing articles in which h-index and g-index were removed? I see that other articles exist here with them listed. Anyway, I read WP:NOR and, especially, WP:CALC: there is absolutely nothing that forbids me or anyone else to use databsases like NASA ADS, and that forbids me to display that referenced calculation (which are not, indeed, calculation in the case of the h-index: this is a fact, not a matter of speculation). It seems just a personal opinion of yours. Michoball (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I should, now, have catched the point, Jay. I deleted those statements. Again, Jay, nothing personal. Thank you and sorry for this tit-for-tat. Michoball (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification of my earlier comment Jayjg, you are being hypercritical. Counting is not OR, & the h factor is counting; the analogy is looking at a list of prizes and saying the subject has won a particular number of them. . The g factor does require multiplication, but the analogy is getting population figure and and area for some place, and determining the populate per sq. mile: this requires division, but neither of them even require a calculator. Elementary arithmetic is not OR to most of us. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 February 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In the debate, consensus decided to remove the article, pointing out a lack of sources, and lack of NPOV because of "ownership" of the article. These issues have not changed, but one of the "owners" has simply restored the article afterwards. I believe that speedy deletion (G4 / recreated article) would apply, but since not everybody agrees, I'm bringing it here. It seems logical that either the deletion should be overturned, or the article should actually be removed. In my opinion the latter is preferable because the article has had the same issues for years. 17:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.68.91 (talk)

  • Retain article-This diff, comparing the current version with the one immediately before it was redirected as a result of the AfD, shows the article has changed substantially, so G4 doesn't apply. Anyone is free to start a new AfD if they wish, of course.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD- G4 technically doesn't apply, but most of the issues that plagued it last time are still evident. Reyk YO! 21:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD not a speedy at this point. Hobit (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD Look, G4 is only for things where no one with a clue about our policy will object to speedy deletion in good faith. That's not the case here, so off to AfD it goes. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 February 2011[edit]

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

Given the recent débacle on programming languages deletionism, Alice ML should be reevaluated.

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and undelete: Plenty of readily available high quality citations on google scholar [11] Imprecisekludge (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, allowing recreation - No matter how much I personally disliked the deletion spree, the DRV rationale borders on nonsense and the consensus was very clear. Given that it seems (from the AfD) that there is more than one Alice programming language and there is evidence of notability of at least one of the two, I'd say no problem if someone rewrites an article with the same title with evidence of notability. --Cyclopiatalk 18:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other language/environment already has an article at Alice (software). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm at a loss as to how all votes to keep outside of the nominator counts as a clear consensus (as noted by Calathan). -- Imprecisekludge (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep#1 -- "use Google"
      • Keep#2 -- "nom is incompetent"
      • Keep#3 -- "here is a list of articles specifically referring to AliceML, and nom is a vandal" -- only (semi-)good !vote
      • Keep#4 -- "use Google"
      • Keep#5 -- "nom is saboteur"
      • Keep#6 -- "look at all these refs that have nothing to do with the article subject"
      • That's how. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Multiple commentators cited good sources that referred to the correct Alice language. Not all such links were clearly marked directly next to keep votes, but they did exist. I'll grant that certain voters were somewhat splenetic, and I can understand how that would cloud one's judgement. --Imprecisekludge (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - While I understand that in general AFDs should be closed based on the strength of arguements, deletion at AFD requires a consensus, and in most cases I don't think it is reasonable to consider a single person's opinion as a "consensus" even if his arguements were the strongest. Given that no one at all agreed with the nominator in that AFD, I don't think it was reasonable to close the debate as a consensus to delete. With the confusion over what the subject was, not many people actually discussed the real subject of the article, so perhaps relisting would allow more people to discuss the real subject of the article. Calathan (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to nc A) I don't see a good discussion in that AfD, but I certainly don't see a consensus to delete. (so per Calathan in effect) B) I am seeing a fair number of articles that use, cite, and in some cases describe Alice ML ([[12]]). It does seem to be used by a fairly small set of folks, but the functional languages community is pretty small, that doesn't make their publications unreliable or unsuitable for WP:N. Further, there appears to be decent documentation at a number of academic institutions. I can certainly see this being viewed as not enough, but I don't think this AfD was clear enough to override all that. Hobit (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, it's clear that the nomination in the DrV is bogus, but let's not derail the discussion and rather treat the nomination as a bad !vote. Hobit (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Someone keeps recreating the page, so I think maybe it needs to be re-deleted and create protected until this deletion review concludes. Calathan (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete: Alice ML is highly notable, there are dozens of references and citations related to the language. It is hugely influential. I respectful ask that editors not familiar with programming languages and computer science bow out of this debate. Relevant: http://www.archive.org/details/20060408-jscott-wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblanco (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I deleted the article and protected it based on the AFD result, but I will be happy to unprotect and reinstate if the consensus here is to recreate (and it seems to be headed that way). I have no opinion on the merits of the deletion. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete: There was no consensus; there wasn't even a single vote to delete. I know consensus is about the strength of the arguments, not a simple count of votes, but it's quite a stretch to call the view of one person in a group of seven "consensus". Zwilson (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alice ML is a significant for a number of reasons. To quote [1], "There is little other work on type-safe marshalling for ML-like languages, and almost none that deals with dynamic type equality across programs in the presence of abstract types. A notable exception is the Alice language of Rossberg et. al." The paper [2] is a model of Alice's futures, and one of few formal presentations of futures in functional programming languages. Some other aspects of the language are probably significant, if additional references are required. As for the discussion itself, it seemed the arguments for deletion mostly revolved around claims of the lack of reliable sources, while diverging from WP:RS by claiming Ph.D theses are not peer-reviewed, rejecting peer-reviewed articles for not meeting an unspecified citation count. 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.107.169 (talk)
  • Allow recreation Something of a meta argument, but the fact that sources apparently exist is insufficient - they need to be in the article. Undeleting the article results in the same issues being apparent, with no real motivation for making the effort to ensure the appropriate references are added (any AfD will be met with the same harassment of the nominator, and DRV made to host the same arguments). I am also rather disinclined to have WP:N deprecated. A recreated article, with references, is fine - as long as there are contributors not scared of a little work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not WP policy. WP:N is not to delete articles that need work, it is to delete articles that are *not notable*. Policy is to restore the article, tag it as requiring further citation, and wait. If the work is not done, then (maybe) AfD again. In any case, discussion about what sources were and were not cited in the article is rather difficult until the article is restored in some form. -- Imprecisekludge (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I'm a bit surprised by LessHeard vanU's comments. I suspect we are heading that way (sadly IMO), but we aren't there yet either in policy or day-to-day reality. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete on the grounds of both process and the notability of the article. On the grounds of process: as others have stated, there was no consensus to delete; the original proposer put the AfD forward, and all comments were for Keep, but the closing admin discounted every reason in favour. Some of the reasons in favour of a Keep decision were personal attacks, and so not legitimate arguments, some mixed personal attacks and legitimate arguments, and some were legitimate arguments; it is clear in this case that consensus was not reached. On the grounds of notability: in the original AfD, the proposer replied to evidence of notability in the form of conference publications and substantial mentions in peer-reviewed publications by rebutting them on several grounds. Let's consider the 'Alice through the looking glass' publication. The proposer claims that the place the paper was presented is 'third-tier' and that they aren't indexed in one particular source, namely the ACM Digital Library. The ACM Digital Library only indexes journal articles published by the ACM - so the claim that anything no in the ACM Digital Library is not notable roughly equivalent to saying, for example, that anything not originally published by News Corporation is not notable. This is an incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia policy. WP:N requires that there are reliable sources for a given article; WP:RS says that 'Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications' and 'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field' with a list of conditions. The last author on the Alice in the Looking Glass article is very clearly an expert in the field; see [13], and so the paper is a reliable source according to WP:RS. There is therefore no requirement that articles be peer reviewed. The Alice through the Looking Glass article could be considered a primary source (although the question of whether a source is primary or secondary is blurred for research not based on carrying out experiments). It is therefore worth including some papers which review Alice ML in the notability analysis. The Alice through the Looking Glass paper is cited 35 times according to Google Scholar, including in Introduction to Concurrency in Programming Languages. In summary, taking the arguably primary and the definite secondary sources together, the requirements for notability are very clearly met, and the closing of the original AfD was flawed. A1kmm (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus / keep While the votes could have been better phrased, there was no consensus for deletion and reliable and verifiable sources that were directly relevant to the article were provided and referenced, and these sources don't need to be peer reviewed to be acceptable. Alansohn (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and troutslap the closing admin for blatantly ignoring the consensus of the discussion, also ignoring the valid sources that were presented in some of the comments, giving a misleading close rationale that gives the false impression that no valid sources were presented, and allowing the personal attacks that were also present in some of the comments to sway his judgement. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Clearly overwhelming consensus to keep. Steven Walling 03:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nemerle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn and undelete: I will personally add in source, such as this one:

  • Here is just one very long article on Nemerle in a Russian magazine

#1 RSDN Magazine 2006

Note that RSDN Magazine is a highly-ranked Russian peer-reviewed publication accepted by the ВАК (Higher Attestation Commission) of the Russian Federation as a journal in which a publication is necessary for obtaining a PhD degree in Russia.

Reference: [14] List of such publications: [15] (RSDN is #2111 in the list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.13.115 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion was hijacked by Reddit readers, which became the focus rather than the deletion discussion itself [???]. A cursory search through Google seems to suggest that Nemerle has some notability (World News, several books and articles, and plenty of discussion on Stack Overflow). I do not know much about the subject, but I think this article merits a discussion that is not centered on vote canvassing. AZ t 05:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't informed the nominator/etc about this, because redditors are watching his edits, and I'd rather avoid a repeat of the AfD. AZ t 05:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the sheer amount of fanboy fallout that is currently going on, I think that is an impossibility. –MuZemike 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not exactly fanboyism or sock-puppetry, as far as I am aware. Here's the Reddit discussion thread - there's a few good points raised (if you look beyond the initial discussions on the nominator). In particular, the posters there have no affiliation with Nemerle. AZ t 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The old article lacked particularly valid sources, but not due to a lack of such sources existing. There are at least few relevant, qualifying publications that could be used. See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=nemerle the number of qualifying sources may be on the light side, but there is more than enough to justify a short article. SCVirus (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • permit re-creation, the substantial items on GScholar are papers by Michał Moskal himself, but there see to be about 50 citations to his work, usually in the context of comparing it along with well-known programming languages, e.g. "The .NET platform supports a wide range of 'native' languages (C#, VB.NET, and functional languages like F# and Nemerle just to name a few)."[16] or "For example, it may be written using X++, SQL, TSQL, C#, F#, C++, C, Pascal, Visual Basic, Java, JavaScript, Delphi, Eiffel, Nemerle, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, Visual FoxPro, Lua, variations thereof,or any other programming language or combination of languages" from a US Patent App. [17]. I think that is evidence of a reasonable degree of notability. And see [18] from IEEE--a citation like that is significant. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Just based on the fact that Mono, a highly popular open-source .NET implementation, supports Nemerle suggests its notability. The deletion requester seems to not fully understand that the fact that an article doesn't have good citations does not make its subject non-notable. Just looking at the AfD was pretty depressing, to be honest, given just how easy it is to see that the subject is notable with some cursory searches on the web. I have informed the admin who approved the deletion, but he has not yet returned my message. In any case, I support the reinstatement of the article, and if it is reinstated, I will work personally to improve its citations if I need to. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar has 95 references to the language, mostly self-hosted or in other non-peer reviewed venues, but including some in high-impact PL journals. For example, the first reference supplied by "Kochetkov.vladimir" in the AfD was in ACM TOPLAS (high impact) with a long mention of Nemerle, saying of it that it is the first language to achieve a homogeneous embedding of syntax extensions through LISP-style macros. Kochetkov also pointed to the Fx7 solver, implemented in Nemerle, which is is regarded as an interesting and significant new technology in many new publications in automated theorem proving. I find the following chorus of opinions that the subject has no reliable sources disappointing, which I take to be a reaction to the influx of outsiders. As a heuristic, PL languages that return a lot of results on Lambda the Ultimate (e.g., for Nemerle), are quite likely to have sources of sufficient quality. Overturn and undelete: The number of reliable sources I found for the article is not high, but I agree with SCVirus there are enough to support a useful article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and undelete: Something that was not considered during the pre-delete discussion: Nemerle qualifies as notable under Wikipedia:Notability_(software). Nemerle is "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field", it has "been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources." While some of the sources cited in support of Nemerle being notable were relatively informal, like the workshop paper, the essay state that "it is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown." — gmarceau (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not undelete, but allow for recreation with reliable sources, none of which has been provided as of yet. Corvus cornixtalk 08:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete: Are you kidding? Taken from AfD:

Scientific (non-RSDN) articles which bases at Nemerle, or uses it/researches arround it, or have a references to it:

  1. Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming (PDF)
  2. E-matching for Fun and Profit (PDF) (Fx7 project, mentioned in article was moved here)
  3. Rocket-fast proof checking for SMT solvers (PDF)
  4. Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories (PDF)
  5. Evolving a DSL Implementation (PDF)
  6. An ECMAScript Compiler for the .NET Framework Isn't freely avaiable (PDF presentation that can be found is not an article itself), but references Nemerle (check the "References" tab at ACM article's page).
  7. Efficient E-Matching for SMT Solvers (PDF)
  8. Using Dynamic Symbolic Execution to Improve Deductive Verification Isn't freely avaiable, but references Nemerle (check the "References" tab at ACM article's page).
  9. Comparative Study of DSL Tools (PDF)
  10. Edit and Verify (PDF)
  11. Fast Quantifier Reasoning With Lazy Proof Explication (PDF)

Some significant projects, written in Nemerle.

  1. Russian Mathematics Equation Search Engine and it's international interface
  2. Ready to use Ruby On Rails derriviative for .NET platform

--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk)

Also, there is an article on InfoQ: [19] and it is noted in another one: [20]

Generative and transformational techniques in software engineering II: international summer school, GTTSE 2007, Braga, Portugal

Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems: 14th international conference

  • Overturn and undelete. Many sources have been found and consensus was strongly against deletion. Shouldn't have been brought to AfD, and SarekofVulcancertainly shouldn't have deleted it. Allowing recreation is insufficient, as why would you make people go through the extra effort of recreating it when you can simply expand and source the original? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Plenty of reliable sources, as per this discussion, and as per the AfD. There was line noise there from angry folks (as there is here) but that shouldn't drown out the signal. -- Imprecisekludge (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete; reliable sources exist, and there's no reason to be prejudiced against the original content that was there prior to deletion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per sources presented and DGG. --Cyclopiatalk 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Wikipedia is not Britannica. Notability must be considered in the most specific terms, in this case, for software. Allow for expansion from what existed.

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • +1 On overturn and undelete, will collaborate on making the article more solid, if necessary. Rodrigob (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete um, have you seen how many other articles are pointing to this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Nemerle 85.170.164.12 (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that Nermerle is included in {{.NET}}, I'm not sure that's as indicative as you think it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roughly the top two thirds of the AfD are taken up by attacks on the nominator and bland, non-specific, non-policy-based assertions for keep. Given this, it's hard to fault Sarek for closing as delete. However, I do not see that those favoring deletion, towards the bottom of the discussion, took the time to adequately determine if the sources Kochetkov.vladimir found (reposted above) amount to notability. Overturn to no consensus. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete: The removal of this article does not make Wikipedia better. Nemerle is notable for having features not found in previous languages, especially structural macros in a non-homoiconic language. From a programming language design perspective, it is more notable than say... C#. Zwilson (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Something of a meta argument, but the fact that sources apparently exist is insufficient - they need to be in the article; this article had a sources request for two years. Undeleting the article results in the same issues being apparent, with no real motivation for making the effort to ensure the appropriate references are added (any AfD will be met with the same harassment of the nominator, and DRV made to host the same arguments). I am also rather disinclined to have WP:N deprecated. A recreated article, with references, is fine - as long as there are contributors not scared of a little work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with my comments above, that's not WP policy. WP:N is not to delete articles that need work, it is to delete articles that are *not notable*. Policy is to restore the article, tag it as requiring further citation, and wait. If the work is not done, then (maybe) AfD again. There's motivation for fixing/improving articles beyond fear of immediate deletion, I would hope. The entire existence of wikipedia would seem to be a constructive proof of this. In any case, discussion about what sources were and were not cited in the article is rather difficult until the article is restored in some form. -- Imprecisekludge (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for Deletion

For my own education, I will attempt to evaluate this article per each criterion for deletion as listed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism.

  • Some articles complicate indexing. For example, having articles on the many unnoteworthy individuals named John Anderson makes it difficult for readers to find the article about the notable U.S. presidential candidate with that name.

OK. There's only one Nemerle, so, +0 for deletion.

  • Similarly, the presence of obscure subjects in lists and timelines makes it more difficult for readers to find key people and events.

People would likely find the Nemerle page via Google or through a mention in a separate page, which probably wouldn't be that hard to follow. +0, then.

  • Some articles cover topics too obscure for the wiki process to work. For example, a topic where only a few dozen people have firsthand knowledge (or any knowledge at all) is unlikely to see expansion or error correction by anyone but the original author and instead may become filled with incorrect information. It is arguably better to find no result in Wikipedia or an obviously incomplete result than outright incorrect information.

There's some risk here, if Nemerle is a very obscure language. Ironically my first reflex was to go check Wikipedia to see how detailed its article was, as a gauge of obscurity. However, in the case of a programming language, I disagree that it's better to find no results. If you want more information than provided by first-party sources on an obscure programming language, some outdated information is better than none. It at least would give you something to go on. But I can at least see where they're coming from, so +1 here.

  • Deletionists may believe that the presence of uninformative articles damage the project's usefulness and credibility, particularly when casual visitors encounter them through Internet search engines or Wikipedia's "random page" or "recent changes."

If we're worried about "norms" judging Wikipedia's credibility, maybe we should think about the stupendous amounts of care and attention given to articles like "Dyson_spheres_in_popular_culture", a list of sci-fi books and movies that contain vague references to a nonexistent technology. I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim that Dyson spheres in popular culture is a topic more credible or valuable to human knowledge than a real programming language that has generated discussions on LtU. +0 for deletion.

  • Some deletionists argue that allowing small, uninformative articles to remain promotes poorly-written "drive-by" articles, and that by deleting them writers will be more likely to make informative, well-written articles for their first edit.

Based on my own experience, this is simply incorrect. If someone makes a "drive-by" article and it gets deleted, they are 100% more likely to get discouraged and never come back to Wikipedia. +0 for deletion.

  • Articles on obscure topics, even if they are in principle verifiable, tend to be very difficult to verify. Usually, the more obscure, the harder to verify. Actually verifying such articles, or sorting out verifiable facts from exaggeration and fiction, takes a great deal of time. Not verifying them opens the door to fiction and advertising. This also leads to a de facto collapse of the "no original research policy", which is one of the fundamental Wikipedia policies.

This is pretty irrelevant, since all of the verifiable information is available on the internet. +0 for deletion.

  • For many subjects related to fictional characters or works, it's very difficult to ensure that an article would portray the subject from a real-world perspective. The most high-profile example of this was that at one time Wikipedia had an article for every single individual Pokemon, even though most of them exist as little more than minor actors in video games: that's because it is easy to write whole articles from the perspective of a video game guide, or from an in-universe perspective which treats plot elements of a TV show as real. Because of this, deletionists argue that the content itself simply isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, whereas an external wiki which had different rules on how to present content would be ideal.

Irrelevant, +0.

  • Less notable articles (minor concepts, South Park episodes, etc.) are more likely to result in articles that are OR.

I don't know what "OR" means. +0.

  • Less notable articles may distract attention from improving important topics (big things in history for example) because energy is devoted to video game cruft.

The people who make edits and read obscure PL articles would not redirect their energy to historical articles if the PL ones could not exist. +0.

  • Because Wikipedia is not paper it can utilize things like section redirects to cover even the most obscure subjects without giving each its own free-standing article.

This makes sense, but no one ever moves obscure PL info into a parent article; it just gets deleted entirely. +0.

Ok. So, out of all of these points, only 1 of them even seemed vaguely relevant to this article's deletion.

Am I missing something? Could someone please step in and explain why it made sense to remove these languages? By the deletionists' own criteria, I don't really see how it makes sense. I have no vote/nomination, since I am not really an experienced Wikipedia contributor, but I was hoping for more clarity. Max (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw-man argument. Too bad the deletion in this case is based on actual Wikipedia policy... 68.49.236.236 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get the impression that "inclusionists" are claiming that any of these articles meet WP:N. I thought the debate was whether WP:N is worth enforcing in these situations. After all, Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules is a policy, too. The deletionists' criteria seem to address the question of "When is it appropriate to include an article even if its notability is indeterminate or unverifiable".
To put it differently, I believe that the philosophical arguments against any WP:N deletion can be summed up as "This article ought to be included despite violating WP:N, because its presence is a net positive to Wikipedia." The counter-argument would be those criteria which I reproduced above. For example, "No, it is a net negative, because it introduces too much ambiguity and confusion in our namespace." In that sense, I don't feel that I was attacking a straw man at all.
Incidentally, I feel like your tone is more sarcastic than necessary. It's obvious that I am biased towards inclusionism, but I am sincerely interested in understanding the individual motivation for deleting these articles. In other words: If WP:N did not exist, what other reasons would exist for deleting them? Max (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpret IAR. It has never been an invitation to actually ignore the rules, except in those cases where the rules are wrong. Unless you have an extremely good reason not to, follow the rules.
I thought the gist of inclusionism--as it relates to obscure programming languages--is that, for articles such as Nemerle & Alice ML, WP:N is wrong. I am open to being corrected if I have misinterpreted that as well. How does one determine whether a rule is "wrong", as you put it? Max (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the deletionism/inclusionism stuff are essays. They are informative, yes, but do not carry weight. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly aware that the essays are not policies, but essays about the policies. Is there another, more appropriate, forum for discussing the merits and flaws of policies themselves? Because, if Nemerle (for example) is to be included, then the rationale for inclusion is certainly that WP:N falls short, and the auspices of WP:IAR highlight it as an article whose presence is a net positive for Wikipedia despite its subject's lack of notability. I really would appreciate a response to the question I posed above, as it would clear up a lot of the misconceptions I seem to be struggling with. I will reproduce my question here: If WP:N did not exist, what other reasons would exist for deleting them? Max (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the Dyson spheres, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I feel WP:OTHERSTUFF is a bit of a "straw-man" argument in the context of my post. I wasn't saying that Dyson spheres in popular fiction should not be included, or that its inclusion indicates that obscure programming languages ought to be included as well. My comment about the Dyson spheres article was specifically in the scope of that deletion criterion, "... the presence of uninformative articles damage the project's usefulness and credibility..." Dyson spheres are simply one example; there are thousands of articles about fantastical subjects, from jedi knights to the Predator, which do little to document subjects of real import. And that's fine! My surprise comes from the apparently disproportionate amount of attention paid to certain subjects, such as obscure programming languages, which is the only subject I happen to have an emotional attachment to. Over the years, I am surprised to see some very "crufty" articles withstand the test of time, while others are instantly purged. Max (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, Elblanco. Accusing good faith editors of vandalism is a big no-no around here, which can earn you mandatory vacations from Wikipedia. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that these articles *were* deleted in good faith. The languages in question are clearly notable (which is a red herring since notability is merely a guideline, not a rule), the articles were well written, the consensus in the AfD discussion was against deletion, 20-30 seconds of google searching per language would have informed anybody of these basics (there are dozens of references, papers, citations, etc. for each), yet they were still deleted. It's clear that the moderation process is broken w/r to deletion and that the editors were not acting in accordance to the AfD discussion. W/r to vandalism, vandalism can be modification or destruction of otherwise good articles. These were destroyed for no particular reason. Vandalism can also be unintentional. I believe that the original AfD markings were unintentional by somebody ignorant of the topics. If the standards that were used to delete these articles were applied to all of wikipedia, we'd be left with articles on God, Ronald Reagan and Brittany Spears. Elblanco (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Britney who...? Gosh. These "fan-cruft" articles are just cropping up all over the place. To AfD with it, I suppose!... ;-) [1] Max (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)ElBlanco, while I may have sympathy for some of your points, here is some piece of practical advice:
  • As already told, calling good faith actions you disagree with "vandalism" is a breach of WP:CIVIL and it is taken pretty seriously here.
  • External links to people's opinions on WP may be useful but are usually not particularly impressive here; what counts more here is editorial consensus and guidelines/policies
  • Try to assume a less confrontational attitude, chill out and be prepared to compromise. Clashes of this kind are not new, and a solution/compromise may be found, but newbie editors that react emotionally and look like driving an agenda are prime targets for sanctions. You don't want that to happen. Stay as cool as possible. WP is an exercise in compromise, diplomacy and patience, above anything else.
FWIW, it can be difficult for less savvy Wikipedia users to remain civil in these common debates, because it can sometimes feel like the experienced editors are being dismissive or condescending (whether or not that is truly the case). Indeed, policies such as WP:N, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:V et. al. are donned by veteran users like utility belts, and create an arsenal of canned responses that can make newbies feel like they are having a frustrating experience with a phone rep reading off of a script rather than a civil debate with a fellow contributor. I believe that experienced editors could do more work to "meet them in the middle," so to speak; to Wikipedia veterans, debates like this are "just another AfD," but it feels, and is, much more personal to some of the people affected by them.
It would be nice to see some experienced editors occasionally engaging in discussion without constantly bringing Wikipedia policies to bear; not because the policies are irrelevant or wrong, but because they are all based on very reasonable conclusions that can--and should--be explained within the context of each given discussion, rather than repeated by rote.
Agreed strongly on the "Chill out" part, though. Wikipedia's collective blood pressure seems to skyrocket sometimes. Max (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to familiarize with guidelines, policies and the deletion process.
Hope it helps. --Cyclopiatalk 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take it seriously, I am being serious. The deletion of the pages was performed without community consensus, or adherence to the rules. WP:N is a guideline, not a rule, yet that appears to be the only justification used, even though all deleted languages were shown to be notable repeatedly. The entire deletion process has been botched, and now, with a clear consensus to overturn, the articles are *still* not restored and are awaiting what would appear to be an equally arbitrary judgement to overturn as the one used to delete in the first place! Other than overturning and restoring the pages in their entirety, the only compromise available is to unlock that pages and allow them to be reconstituted from scratch.
The reason clashes like this are not new is that the process for deletion is broken, it's subject to the arbitrary whims of individuals not community consensus, votes are not counted, and mere guidelines are used as justification for deleting valuable content from WP. The burden of proof is not on the deletionist, but on the inclusionist. The deletionist in this cases did not prove in any way shape or form that the articles should be deleted, yet extensive documentation and votes were ignored by the editor who did the final deletion -- essentially saying that the evidence for inclusion did not meet his personal feelings! If that's adherence to the process, it's a shamefully broken process that is in clear need of revision.
I, like most people, come to WP for knowledge. To learn something. If I see something I can fix as a random person, I believe that I should be able to do that as per Wikipedia's Raison d'être. I could care less about the bizarre bureaucratic process that self-selected WP editors have crafted that only has to be followed by non-editors (as this example has demonstrated beyond all doubt). Feel free to sanction me or whatever process is put in place to deal with criticism of a broken system, I doubt I'll be contributing to WP any further.
  1. ^ This is a joke.
Think for a moment. People make mistakes. people judge hastily; people judge by appearances; people are hyper-critical about things they udon't understand or about things they know very well; people think that coverage in a field is getting too extensive; people don't understand the importance of particular sources or particular types of sources; people react to the way an argument is presented rather than the actual argument; people get impatient; people have a consistent viewpoint that is different from one's own: none of these are signs of evil or conspiracy or bad faith or vandalism or an attempt to harm Wikipedia. We have processes for correcting errors--no decision here is every final. There are instance of bad faith deletions, usually for revenge but sometimes for personal reasons or to make a point, but they are really quite rare and usually quite noticeable. We each of us view things a little differently, and we all know this very well, which is why, except for the most obvious cases, we have the practice of making group decisions . Sometimes there is an unfortunate concurrence of unrepresentative individual views on one side of an argument that do not get corrected, but no group is composed of perfect judges. Sometimes people who care reasonably about something will happen not to get things they way they want them. We try to make this unlikely, but we cannot make this impossible. The only way to always get what you want is to work by yourself--once you make the decision to join a group project, you must realise you will not always find everything the way you would like it. Even our best collective efforts will not reach perfection, and there is no rational expectation that we will always be doing the best possible. Whatever perfect beings there may be in the universe, they don't write encyclopedias. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are instance of bad faith deletions, usually for revenge but sometimes for personal reasons or to make a point [citation needed] Corvus cornixtalk 23:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep Adequate reliable and verifiable sources were provided by those arguing for retention and there was no consensus for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Clearly no consensus to delete. Steven Walling 03:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete I favor tough interpretation of GNG in relation to bands and websites, and any of the other dime-a-dozen entities which are promoted in articles. However, a programming language is an inherently encyclopedic topic, and the only question should be whether it was something dreamed up last weekend (or otherwise weirdly esoteric), or whether it is receiving serious attention from those working in the field. The sources above show the latter is the case. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A small point, but brainfuck is notable precisely because of how esoteric it is, as well as the fact that it's still Turing-complete. Being esoteric isn't necessarily a knock against a language, so long as there's something legitimately noteworthy about the language. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete I find the section above labeled Rationale for Deletion to be precisely the point. Wikipedia derives its usefulness in part from the fact that it covers such a broad range of subjects: deleting content without relocating the information without good reason is poor sense. Eamon Nerbonne (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SarekofVulcan's reading of the consensus in that debate strikes me as quite accurate. But, the consensus was wrong. As exhaustively established above, the debate participants failed to investigate the sources deeply enough. Therefore the correct outcome is to allow recreation of this material. Would the closer of this DRV please consider not using the word "overturn". An "overturn" implies that the closer was in error, but he wasn't. It was the debate that was in error. "Allow recreation" is the correct phrasing.

    Let's also be alert to the fact that DRV is not AfD round 2 and many of the arguments presented earlier would not normally permitted here. In this DRV, we have (quite rightly) temporarily set aside our normal DRV behaviour because in this particular case it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia that, to a certain extent, we re-argue the AfD. Because many participants in this discussion are not DRV regulars, I think our use of WP:IAR should also be explicitly mentioned in the DRV closer's statement. We need to be clear that this is not how we normally conduct deletion reviews but we collectively decided that the circumstances were exceptional.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think the reading of consensus was clearly wrong and swayed by the fact that a number of single-purpose accounts were created by advocates who sometimes didn't grasp wikipedia policies. A good amount of proper sources for notability were posted and ignored. Essentially all sources cited in this discussion were cited in the original, at some point. If I'm not mistaken, allow recreation would only allow recreation. To restore the content that existed, which is the reasonable thing to do, then even if the words may be phrased less diplomatically than you would prefer, the only proper option is Overturn to Keep . -- Imprecisekludge (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "number of single-purpose accounts were created by advocates" it's a conjecture. It's a real people. VladD2 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about diplomacy, it's about what's right. SarekofVulcan is supposed to close the debate that's in front of him. He's not supposed to examine the sources for himself and decide what he thinks—and if he'd done that I would have been the first to suggest overturning him. But he didn't, he read the debate and weighted the arguments raised in that debate as an admin should. It is not Sarek's fault that users participating in the debate didn't pay sufficiently close attention to the sources in front of them.

        "Allow recreation" could be on the basis of, for example, a userfied version of the deleted article. Or the DRV closer could say "Restore" rather than "Overturn". I don't agree that it's necessary to say "overturn" here and I also don't think it's appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • The debate had all the relevant sources, all the relevant arguments, and a significant amount of keep votes. The only correct and relevant argument (that there are sources that prove notability) was both made and sourced. I'm at a loss as to what wikilawyering notion of mod responsibilities could possibly justify deletion. On the issue of "Overturn", you'll note that there are precisely four options given (above) for comments in a deletion review: endorse, relist, list, and overturn. "Restore" and "allow recreation" are not among those. Either there needs to be a broader decision made to alter the deletion review process, or you need to bring your understanding of the options on the table in line with the actual options on the table. -- Imprecisekludge (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I use "restore" or "permit recreation" as arguments my intent is to avoid the possible implication of an overturn, that it is in some degree a censure to the closing admin, and I think others use them similarly. There's a dual purpose at DR, to ensure we treat articles correctly and also, sometimes, to reprimand aberrant closing admins. The discussion usually makes it clear what's intended. We do not want to discourage people from bringing things here that need correction because they do not want to censure erroneous, but good faith closings. The way I , at least, look at Wikipedia process in general, is that we want to do things right, and encourage people do do things right, but to accomplish this as gently & peacefully & cooperatively as possible. The policy upon which I base this is that WP is not a Bureaucracy. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) x2 — That's an understandable viewpoint, Imprecisekludge, and I respect it even if I disagree. I'm afraid I think I need to take it apart and explain point by point.

          1. "[The argument that there are sources that prove notability]" was both made and sourced. That argument was indeed well-made, but subsequent debate participants did not find it convincing and argued against it. Those subsequent participants were wrong, but wrong though they were, that's how the argument went.

          2. "...there are precisely four options." That's true, but we're not in a normal deletion review. In examining this closure it was necessary to go quite some way beyond the normal DRV process. What we had to do was to virtually re-argue the AfD from scratch, and that's not normally permitted either. We've gone far beyond the tick-box options that DRV normally offers and we're into the vague region where we do what's in the encyclopaedia's best interests.

          3. My "notion of mod responsibilities" doesn't include examining the sources for themselves and making up their own minds. Wikipedia's admin corps are a bunch of generally well-meaning people who normally try to do what's right, but let's face facts:- they're untrained, unqualified, unpaid and virtually unsupervised. Many of them are children. Their remit is not and cannot be to make up their own minds who's right, particularly on a subject where they aren't an expert. The symbol for an administrator is a mop, not a gavel. In other words, administrators aren't judge or jury. They're janitors. All they can do is close the debate as they find it.

          4. "... a significant amount of keep votes." That's not how it works, the !vote count is irrelevant. No matter whether 100 or 1000 or 100000 editors say the same thing, they can still be wrong. And the !vote count is easy to stack. Administrators are ordered to disregard it and assess the way the debate flowed without counting numbers.

          Does this make more sense to you now? There's no point in punishing SarekofVulcan for this, or even seeming to punish him. He closes a lot of debates, and nobody gets it right every single time. This was a close in good faith, on the basis of the debate that SarekofVulcan read. It's not his fault that the debate participants were wrong.—S Marshall T/C 19:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • Gotta comment on #3 here -- for the record, I've been out of college for 20 years, and I have a short published article on a CS topic. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry to drag this out. I very much appreciate your reply. I still think you're wrong however. Of course number of votes is not decisive. But I think you're removing too much responsibility from mods in general here. To execute a consensus, you need to judge what the consensus is. And that means judging the merits of the arguments. So if the right arguments with the right merits are presented, then that's what matters. My contention is that the right arguments with the right merits were presented. You note that other, wrong arguments were also presented. We trust mods to differentiate between the two. Sometimes mods get it wrong and are overturned. I don't think this should be seen as censure. It mixes apples and oranges -- we need to distinguish between overturned and overturned with prejudice. --Imprecisekludge (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you've got a lot more faith in Wikipedia's admin corps than I have. And I think we don't ask them to decide what's right and what's wrong. If administrators could decide that, then what's the point of having an AfD discussion first? If our admins could judge it for themselves, then we needn't bother with all the talking. We could just wait seven days and then an admin would come along and make the right choice. But unfortunately, our admins are more fallible than that, and we can't trust them to know what's right. The way things actually work is that admins decide what the consensus was—a very different thing.

              But on the substantive point, I don't think we're disagreeing. There's no cause to censure SarekofVulcan, and the word "overturn" refers to the outcome of deleting this material, rather than to the call Sarek made about consensus. Provided that's clear in the close, and provided the material's restored, then both of us should be satisfied.—S Marshall T/C 21:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - people have been creating new, shorter versions of this article. The last thing we need is parallel versions: I have therefore temp-undeleted the version that was deleted at AfD; it can be seen in the history behind the temp-undelete template. Please DO NOT edit it while this debate continues. JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since a couple of IPs didn't get the hint, I've fully protected for the duration of the DRV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete 20:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.176.92.7 (talk)
  • Overturn and undelete Programming language which used in real projecct must be in Wikipedia. Deleting information about programming language make worse Wikipedia. Use the rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules VladD2 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is simply a (rare) mistake by SarekOfVulcan. I believe the article should be kept but that fact notwithstanding, the debate should have been closed as "no consensus". Sure, the keep side was a little weak on articulating its point around WP policy but it provided enough bits of evidence to suggest keeping the article and revisiting possible deletion at a later point in time. Pichpich (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete - The notability is established. Deletion was mistaken. This discussion is adequate. The Russian source is adequate. The fact that it's in distributions' package trees (no mean feat in some cases!) is indication enough. The fact this many people are participating makes things even clearer. As a programmer, I can see that this is a language of note, and there is no doubt. prat (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete - being among the early-delete-voters on the original AfD, I've (unfortunately too late) got the facts which would've changed my voice to "keep".
As we've discussed in the original AfD, most of the references were the language-related articles that came from the single source, RSDN Magazine, which is undoubtedly a reliable source by itself; but the articles were rejected as an unreliable source for being written by the same person, User:VladD2, a person among the official Nemerle developers, thus the articles could be considered a self-advertising.
Besides these articles, during the AfD we were able to find at least a single independent source, it was Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming (PDF) (the other sources mentioning Nemerle were proposed by User:Kochetkov.vladimir but contained too little Nemerle coverage to consider them important, but the source above was pretty good and nobody were able to put any doubts on its reliability).
After the AfD, I was informed of the fact that User:VladD2, being the author of the disputable articles and the Nemerle contributor, actually started contributing to the project after the articles were published. I just investigated the official Nemerle code repository and the earlies commit by User:VladD2 is r6363 on June 3, 2006. As seen on the article list, some of the articles in question were published in RSDN Magazine #1-2006 (that went to print in the beginning of 2006), and even published on the site in May 2006, what is earlier than VladD2's code contribution. The newly discovered facts make these articles be considered independent enough, and, together with the pretty notable status of RSDN magazine itself, that makes me reconsider these articles as reliable sources. Together with the “Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming” article, we have a sufficient independent and reliable coverage of Nemerle, hence again my vote is to overturn an undelete,... and guys, someone please put these good sources into the “References” section :) Honeyman (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. The stated reason for the delete, that most of the current sources given in the article are not reliable sources, is not a reasonable basis for deletion. The unstated reasons are not clear, but unlikely to be valid. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 February 2011[edit]

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

Player now passes WP:ATHLETE notability and guidelines. The admin who locked the page has sadly retired. Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shlomo Shamai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted by User:PMDrive1061 (no longer active on Wikipedia) as non-notable and possible COI. Has just won the prestigious IEEE Claude E. Shannon Award. All the other winners have Wiki pages. (PS I am not related to subject in any way and do not know him.) Udzu (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • moot, just create it even without this award, clearly meets WP:PROF as an IEEE fellow and Member of the Board of Governors of the Information Theory Society [21]. Throw in his H-index of 34 [22] and there is no way any such article would meet A7. The Shannon award (which is _huge_ in the field) puts it way over the top. If you want the old version of the article, just ask any passing admin to userfy it for you. Heck WP:REFUND is probably the fastest way forward here if you want the old version back. Hobit (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's create protected at the moment... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed that. In any case, this is a no brainer and should be unprotected and created ASAP. Hobit (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Scott Walterschied (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Copyright violation removed by Cunard

Sources: New York Times (USA) 22 April 2009, Vol. Media, Iss. Sunday, pg. 3, by: Lorne Manly, "Decline in Movie Finance"

Variety.com (USA) 28 January 2011, by: Eric Kohn, "Walterschied Eying WME Comic Exodus"

The Times (UK) 15 December 2010, Vol. Sunday, Iss. Arts, pg. 1, by: Giles Coren, "2011 London Comic Expo"

Indy Film (USA) 16 April 2010, Vol. 520, pg. Cover, by: Staff, "Film Financing"

OTF Exchange (USA) 16 April 2010, Vol. 5010, Iss. April, pg. 1, by: Staff, "Film Finance Panel & Reception" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgawkelly (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 February 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Arabcartoon.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 3#File:Arabcartoon.jpg Cunard (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV has been archived before, I had no chance to respond. Here are my responses: --Raphael1 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you explain why this image meets WP:NFCC? If not, there is really no chance of undeletion.Hobit (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I did explain that on the deleted page using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. --Raphael1 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It'd not being asked if you did, it's being asked for you to do so again here. It's you who is asking for it to be review, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to do that here. Given that image was apparently removed due to not having an appropriate rationale it's going to be difficult to evaluate that without you telling us that rationale. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? First you remove the very document, where I give the rationale and then you ask me to do it here again? Is this some kind of memory game?--Raphael1 17:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the image is available at http://www.topdog08.com/2006/02/index.html - scroll down to February 04, 2006 - Cartoon from Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that in a situation where a newspaper publishes a 3 panel comic strip, we could possibly claim that a single panel was within policy, however reproducing the comic strip in its entirety is almost certainly outside of policy. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is reproducing the Muhammad cartoons in its entirety (12 cartoons) confirming to this same policy? Doesn't Wikipedia prove the cartoon to be correct by showing a double-standard here?--Raphael1 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are individual cartoons presented on page, not multiple images from the same cartoon, so it's not directly comparable. If those on the Jyllands-Posten article were multi-frame cartoons then there would be a stronger case we shouldn't show every frame of every cartoon. However this is still was what about X issue, the correct place to debate the other image is there. As above though this image was deleted not for that reason (though it may well have been had it gone through an FFD debate), but for the lack of suitable rationale. That needs to be resolved first. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Raphael1 says above, the file did have a rationale. PhilKnight (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • So the deletion via CSD "F6: Non-free file with no non-free use rationale: invalid fair-use tag" was incorrect? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some confusion here, so let me lay out the history. The file had, since it was uploaded in 2008, the following rationale:
Use of the image in the Wikipedia article [[Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] is believed to qualify as fair use since:
# It is not of sufficient resolution to facilitate easy reading of the article
# It is a single page, not part of a systematic mirror of ''Al Ghad''<nowiki />'s articles or images, and thus should not significantly inhibit ''Al Ghad'' from selling their content.
# It is politically significant. The JP [[Muhammed cartoons]] sparked controversy, but have been widely defended as an act of freedom of speech. In return many Muslims accused the "West" as being hypocritical resp. having a double standard.
# It adds significantly to the [[Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] article and is being used there for informational purposes only.

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) tagged it as disputed fair use on Jan. 24. On Jan. 26 Raphael1 (talk · contribs) took the existing rationale and converted it to the standard template form; however, he did not change the wording. On Jan. 30 Feydey (talk · contribs) deleted it, clearly judging the rationale insufficient. Raphael1 listed it at DRV on Feb. 3, but did not respond to requests to say why it shouldn't have been deleted. I closed that debate on Feb. 12 as endorse, since no reason to undelete had ever been provided. Raphael1 then immediately opened the present review. So it is Feydey's deletion on the grounds of insufficient rationale that is being questioned. I agree with that deletion on the grounds PhilKnight states above: that this simply does not constitute fair use, because there's no reason to provide the entire work instead of a part. So my view is endorse. Chick Bowen 20:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • List at FFD The distinction made above about "individual cartoons presented on page, not multiple images from the same cartoon" when the individual cartoons were published together on the same day, is pedantic . We accepted those cartoons because the articles could not be written understandably with the entire array of them. ditto here. As I understand the history, this is the first time the cartoons are being discussed. Perhaps the best thing is to discuss them on FFD before coming here to review the result. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's pedantic, they are different items ownership of belongs to different individuals, so I don't see it as a direct comparison, i.e. it's not something for us to resolve in this forum. As said it wasn't deleted for that reason so we shouldn't really be endorsing it for that reason. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that the fact of their being the work of multiple independent artists might make a difference—I had not thought of that, to be honest. . But do the artists own the copyright or the publisher?
    I think the NFCC rationale says the artists. In a debate on it I'd probably be interested if the artists had released them under a free license, if so the overall would probably be a good illustration of the overall impact, if not then I'd probably be going towards it being over use of others copyrighted works (how far different is it from other montages say?), it's certainly not clear cut to me with the limited look I've done, just a sufficiently different scenario. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot understand, why an image, which possibly violates 12 different copyrights, is somehow more appropriate for fair use, than a cartoon done by a single artist. And if this is not the reason, what is the reason for its speedy deletion? Why has this image never been listed on FFD? --Raphael1 18:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be appropriate for fair use, but that doesn't give this image a free pass to also not be appropriate for fair use, each image must stand or fall on it's own merits. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. As I said above see what about x?. It's also a sufficiently different case that any discussion on one is unlikely to be a significant overlap on the other. As to why it's never been listed at FFD, No one is obliged to list anything, so the reason it hasn't been listed is that no one has listed it. (It was actually listed here but that discussion didn't address the appropriateness under the NFCC criteria which is almost certainly a stronger line of enquiry). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean you support a WP:CSD F7 for the Muhammad cartoons? If you don't, why not? --Raphael1 11:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the nTh time, this is about this image and no other, this image has to meet the policies, regardless of the correct/incorrect inclusion at this point in time of other images. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still interested in your answer resp why you prefer not to give one.--Raphael1 11:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) In fact I did change the wording (albeit slightly), and you never explained what's wrong with my fair use rationale, so I never knew what issue you have.--Raphael1 18:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SchuminWeb has not participated in this discussion. I linked to his username above because I was describing his role. Chick Bowen 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and speedy close this unnecessary second review. The image (as used here [23]) was correctly found to be in breach of the NFCC principles. It was being used as a mere example illustrating a political sentiment that was also expressed in many other ways by many different sources, and thus in order to understand that sentiment it would have been perfectly sufficient to describe it and cite it to suitable textual sources. This particular artistic expression of it was not in itself notable and not in itself the object of sourced analytical discussion and coverage in secondary sources. In this respect it differs crucially from the original Jyllands-Posten "Mohammad" cartoons, where the cartoons themselves were the subject of our coverage, not merely a vehicle for illustrating it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the political sentiment expressed in the Muhammad cartoons is also expressed in many other ways by many different sources, and thus it would have been perfectly sufficient to describe it. The Muhammad cartoons themselves are not the subject of any article but rather the controversy that followed its publication.--Raphael1 11:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I agree, that the Muhammad cartoons are relevant to the controversy and therefore to the J-P cartoon controversy article. But equally this cartoon in question certainly uniquely expresses a broadly held opinion, which makes it (maybe less, but still) significantly relevant for the Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Don't you see the irony of this discussion after looking at the cartoon in question? [24] --Raphael1 12:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can just as easily "see the irony of the discussion" (or understand the POV of those people who perceive such an irony) after reading a well-summarized account of their arguments, sourced to reliable sources, in the article text. That's all that matters here. If the information can be conveyed in text, then the image is unnecessary, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we actually had the very same discussion on the 12 JP cartoons: Can't the information be conveyed in text? Are the cartoons really necessary? What opinions are necessary to describe in Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? All relevant opinions? Why not describe them in the best way possible, not just what is absolutely necessary?--Raphael1 12:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't part of the other debates, but I can see why people would come to the conclusion that the visual presence of the 12 JP cartoons is necessary (for instance, in order to assess the arguments in any debate about how offensive or harmless they really are, or how they play with certain xenophobic stereotypes, or whatever else it is that people have discussed in this context, it is necessary to actually see them – at least some of them.) This has nothing to do with any question about how to best describe "opinions". As for opinions, yes, absolutely, they should be described in the best way possible. Describing them in well-written text is the best way. That's what an encyclopedia does. In any case, the comparison between the two works is beside the point. We have the JP cartoons because they are the subject of the article, which makes them an absolutely classic NFC case (just like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or V-J Day in Times Square). The corresponding article about the Controversy about the Al Ghad cartoon about Mohammed cartoons doesn't exist. Because, evidently, no such controversy existed. The cartoon is entirely non-notable. If you could write that redlinked article, and fill it with well-sourced material, then you would be welcome to use the image in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think, that well-written text is the best way to describe opinions? Why do you think almost every newspaper prints cartoons? Because they are an artistic and often humorous way to describe widely held opinions while avoiding the disadvantages of language. Why not use a cartoon to describe a counter-opinion in the cartoon controversy? How could this not be the best way to describe this opinion in that matter? Here's how I see it: [25]--Raphael1 13:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your name looked familiar. There's still threads on your talk page from 3 years ago where you fought tooth and nail to delete or hide images from the Mohammad article, fork a non-image version, etc... Who do you wish to remove potentially offensive material on one hand, and then fight for the usage of another the next? Tarc (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can ask you the very same question. In fact I did here: [26] Who do you wish to remove potentially offensive material on one hand, and then fight for the usage of another the next? And btw I never filed an AfD on any of the images in Muhammad or speedy deleted any of those.--Raphael1 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, you can't ask me the same question, since I did weigh into this particular matter with a keep or a delete. And no, you didn't file an AfD, you just tried every other trick in the book, such as censored tags, javascript to hide it, and a no-image version. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked, the no-image version is still deleted, and I'd guess there are still a couple of indef blocks every month, because some editor had the firm believe, that removing a particular image (resp. moving it behind a like) improves the quality of Muhammad or similar articles. Are administrators still allowed to call those editors "crazy radicals"? Shouldn't we rather take Jimbo's advice? [27] --Raphael1 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is quite obvious from Raphael's comments that he sees this as a matter of POV balance – since he couldn't remove certain images he didn't like, he wishes to see a balance in the form of an image that promotes a POV he does like. But the POV's promoted or not promoted by these items, and their "offensiveness" or lack thereof, should of course be completely irrelevant here, which means we shouldn't even stoop to his level and try to refute him in these terms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is the POV promoted in this cartoon irrelevant, if I want to use it in the article Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? --Raphael1 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Future Perfect nailed it. If we're not discussing the image in the article and instead merely using it to express an opinion, then there is no justification for using it. We can perfectly well cite the opinion that the newspaper was hypocritical using written sources. We tend not to illustrate opinions using cartoons. Making your own 'satirical' cartoons isn't going to help your case, Raphael. Fences&Windows 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we can as well write that opinion down, but I'd consider it added value to show a cartoon, which responds to the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Why don't you want to make the article even better? --Raphael1 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone agrees with the opinion of "more pictures == better", this has been a raging debate in non-free image topic area for ages. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say, that more pictures are necessarily better, but you have to agree, that this particular cartoon definitely adds value. (I esp. like the fact, that one can totally understand it with no arabic skills at all.) --Raphael1 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not DRV round 3. There must be closure at some point. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete I give as many reasons as Stifle: Zero --Raphael1 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have already had your !vote by nominating; please don't make a second one. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Keeani Lei – Decision endorsed. It appears that Шизомби is interpreting the letter, rather than the spirit, of "A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies," which effectively prohibits all "no consensus" closes if you go by the letter. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Keeani Lei (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I recommend overturning the AfD closure and deleting the article. As I have summed up at Talk:Keeani_Lei#Issues, there are no high quality, reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy about Keeani Lei. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "Arguments that contradict policy" or "are based on opinion rather than fact" may be discounted and "compl[iance] with core content policies [...] cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." There was a rough consensus for deletion (given that the keep arguments contradicted policy and were based on opinion), and the article and information in it do not comply with policy. Closing Admin Stifle waived the DELREV discussion User_talk:Stifle/FAQs#I_disagree_with_your_AFD_closure. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - While I take the position that, unless the actual awards can be physically shoved into the Wikipedia article, they don't provide the written content needed to sustain the Wikipedia written article, others seem to think differently. Also,the keep-an-article-to-reward-trinket-collection appears in some policies and guidelines in a minor role. (e.g., Wikipedia:Notability: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.") The trinket view is a minor policy view, so it doesn't contradict policy. The deciding factor is that the closer seemed to give weight to the keep consensus regarding trinkets, so it is hard to say that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Endorse as no consensus. Of course, that no consensus means you can immediately relist at AfD (once this DRV ends), if you want. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Core content policies require without exception that an article have "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, and that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" WP:V#Reliable_sources_and_notability. Core content policy further requires without exception that they be high quality ones for articles on living people. Even if we assume that there is a consensus to "keep-an-article-to-reward-trinket-collection" (though I don't see strong grounds for that assumption) there must be high quality, reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy regarding that trinket collection. AVN is the only source for the award and it is not a third-party source because AVN gave the award. Again, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS states "compl[iance] with core content policies [...] cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Thus, even if we assume Lei is the recipient of both awards she is alleged to have received (even though there are no reliable third-party sources that say she was, and not even AVN says she was), and even if we assume PORNBIO is exempted from the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and even if we assume “passing PORNBIO” is conclusive proof that a subject should be included when the guideline explicitly states it “is not conclusive proof” (emphasis in original)... ultimately N, N (people), and PORNBIO are guidelines, not policies. An article cannot be kept because of a guideline/consensus/consensus about a guideline when it fails core content policies. I see no ambiguity here: the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and was required to delete the article. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see the issue of WP:V wasn't bought up at the AFD, the closer certainly can't decide that though no one mentioned it, I'll add it in and choose to delete it. If it isn't in the debate it gives no one any chance to respond to the issue. I'd perhaps think it was debatable if it counted as third party, since it's clearly third party to the subject of the article, but that isn't what DRV is for, we aren't here to put forward those arguments that was what the xFD was for. Since it was no-consensus raising a new xFD to argue such a point would seem to most appropriate thing to do. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination noted "No significant reliable sourcing." The failure of GNG was cited, which has provisions for multiple secondary sources with editorial integrity "to allow verifiable evaluation of notability." The failure to meet BASIC was cited, which requires "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and I both brought up the fact that there is no reliable source that Keeani Lei was the recipient of the AVN Awards. WTFITS also observed the problem with two of the sources, though I suppose one could argue that editor did not explicitly state that as a problem of WP:V. No defense of the sources was offered. Even if these issues had not been brought up, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS requires that "A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies" (emphasis added). Stifle's closing of the article as "no consensus" means that he was unaware of that requirement, or that he came to the conclusion that the sources are high quality, reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'm not sure what other possibilities there could be. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closer has to work within the framework of the debate, if the community wanted differently, then they'd extend the WP:CSD criteria, so any admin could simply decide that and delete it, it's long established that is not what happens. If the closer saw something which wasn't covered by the debate the correct approach is to not close it, but to instead join the debate, otherwise they'd end up being bought here and it being a supervote suggested. Really I can't see arguing the toss about it here is providing anything useful when you can simply relist it for deletion and debate the points of WP:V there. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Renominate in 2 or 3 months I might agree with "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Шизомби at the AfD when they said the awards even if proven are not sufficiently important awards for notability . The question of whether the sources for even that was verifiable was discussed at the AfD , see the final !vote, by WTFITS. This should have been taken into account., and it wasn't. But to close as non-consensus was within discretion--as Stifle says in the close, it was borderline between that and delete, and in borderline cases we do not delete. Personally, I think we need a wider discussion of the criteria for the class of subjects; we may be accepting a level of notability considerably below what we expect for performers in general or other classes of people. But there's no point changing a non-consensus close to delete, when one can just renominate. I realize the first AfD closed in 2009 was a speedy keep, (the nomination was withdrawn), and this is technically a keep; I ordinarily do not like quickly repeated AfDs, but considering the rather ambiguous wording of Stifle's close, I think its appropriate, for there are signs that the consensus on these articles is changing. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse though delete could have been a reasonable outcome too. This is well within admin discretion as the letter of PORNBIO appears to be met, though the lack of detailed third-party sources and the group nature of the awards make it questionable. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Well within discretion to keep such a stub. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble seeing exactly where administrators are given that discretion and could really use some help with that. As far as I can see, WP:V and WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS don't read, respectively, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia can still have an article on it" and "Wikipedia policy does not require that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are negotiable, and can be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus or by a closing admin. A closing admin must not determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must not be respected above individual opinions." :-/ Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we don't meet WP:V here? I'm seeing sources for the awards. I'd very much prefer not to have this bios for folks that are only there because of group awards, but that's best left for discussion at PORNBIO. If you can make a run at why you feel WP:V isn't met here, I'm game to listen, but I'm not seeing it. Hobit (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is not met. avnawards.avn.com is a reliable self-published primary source for the fact that Keeani Lei was one of six performers who were in the scene from "The Violation of Kylie Ireland" that was nominated (which was one of fifteen scenes nominated). There is no reliable source for Keeani Lei herself being a nominee for that award (if a source could be found that she was, she was one of about eighty "nominees" in the "Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene" category!). However, avnawards.avn.com is not a third-party source. A third party is "someone not directly involved in a transaction" (Wikt:third party) or "A party or person besides the two primarily concerned" (OED), in this case the awarding party and the receiving party are the two principals. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree pretty strongly, I feel you misunderstand 3rd party in this context. The awards site is A) reliable and B) an independent third party source for information on the actress. WP:3PARTY is the relevant essay which states: "A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject". In any case, WP:V doesn't require third party sources, that's WP:N. WP:V "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Hobit (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and WP:OR require that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources_and_notability, Wikipedia:OR#Sources, a fact that is noted in the essay to which you point. The awards site is reliable to the extent I noted above. The awards site is not an independent third party source. I guess one could argue that the essay doesn't really make it 100% clear whether by "subject" it means the subject of the article (Lei in this case) or the subject being covered (Lei being in a scene nominated for an award by AVN). The essay Wikipedia:Party and person makes the distinction clearer: "A third-party source is a source that isn't involved in the event. The third party is the neutral, outside observer." The essay WP:Independent sources states "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." 3PARTY also states "For other subjects, no third-party sources exist, because the only people who have published information are the people involved in it. Wikipedia should not have articles on any topic that third-party sources have never written about, or have published only trivial, routine, or passing mentions." AVN was involved in the information published, and their coverage is just a passing mention. If you want to argue that 3PARTY is really just 2PARTY and that the essay refers to the subject of the article, AVN's still really not "independent and unaffiliated," given that they gave her a nomination, which makes them "too close to the subject" and that essay also states "At least two third-party sources should cover the subject" and "These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance." There aren't multiple reliable third party sources and there aren't enough facts to write a non-stub article. It also states "Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability." Thus, if AVN had given her a nomination (which it did not), that could not be used to establish notability. A third party would have had to report on the award, which, if the award were truly a notable one, would have happened. If, say, AVN had nominated Lei herself for two awards in two different years, and e.g. Playboy and the Las Vegas Weekly had both reported that, and there was enough written about her for more than a stub, this would be an entirely different situation. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain we can discuss this somewhere else, but for now let me just say I think your interpretation of "third party" is different than is normally used for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to, where at? However, I'm quite sure my description of "third party" is accurate, and if any other is being used, it is being used improperly and likely to Wikipedia's detriment. Not quite sure why you're bringing it back to WP:N again (which Lei fails completely), but regardless of how one defines "third party," WP:N states ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Multiple sources are generally expected." avnawards.avn.com is a single primary source for the AVN award nomination for the scene she was in. There doesn't seem to be a single secondary source for the nomination, much less multiple ones. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse own closure; it was right on the borderline but I think it was reasonable. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. While I respect the closer's careful approach, I believe that the close was flawed. I believe the closer should have given more weight to several arguments in favor of deletion, and less weight to certain keep positions.
    • WP:PORNBIO no longer enjoys community support. While there is no consensus as to how to revise it, there has clearly been steady erosion of whatever support it once had, as evidenced in many AFD discussions over the last year or so. Jimbo quite correctly described PORNBIO as "seriously misguided." [28] In this context, the !votes which simply called for the mechanical application of PORNBIO text should have been given reduced weight, and those which analyzed the issues under more general notability standards given greater weight.
    • As Sz argues cogently, we simply don't have independent, reliable sources that support the inference that individuals who appeared in scenes which won AVN Awards are in fact viewed as award recipients. I presented evidence, never refuted, that not even AVN takes that position (at best, it is inconsistent); and no one presented any independent, reliable sources ststing otherwise. We may have, say, independent, reliable sources that Song X won a Grammy Award. We may have independent, reliable sources that Guitarist G performed on Song X. But that doesn't establish that Guitarist G won a Grammy Award.
    • There have been several recent discussions, some general, some article-specific, over how to handle articles when, in the specific case, application of the GNG would present a different result than application of a specialized guideline. While I'm not sure a general consensus has yet been achieved, it is fair to say that, when entertainers/entertainment product is involved, the GNG has consistently been treated as overriding the specialized guideline, both as an inclusionary and exclusionary standard. This factor should have been more heavily weighted in the close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HW is right there is no generally accepted practice. I think the only practical way to view it is that they are the special rules are applicable rule in their domain, though the GNG would apply to other areas of notable for the same subject. If further limits in the special rules are desired, this would need to be stated in the rule, and I think in most cases some casesI there would be considerable opposition. The usual way we restrict notability further than the WP:N rules specify is by three other principles. First is the application of WP:NOT and other similar guidelines, like LOCAL and BLP. Second, we often interpret the specific meaning of "substantial coverage" and a "reliable source" a little differently depending on the subject. Third, there's the principle in WP:N that meeting WP:N does not mean an article must be written--there could be very good reasons to make something a combination article or a redirect. But since people disagree, In arguing at AfD , I usually try to show when I can that something does, or does not, satisfy both the specific guideline and the GNG. For porn stars, I think we are a little too inclusive, and I'd deal with it by saying that in this particular type of article, the GNG alone is insufficient (as I said, it might take quite an argument to convince everyone). DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've countered HW several times now, the performers of the AVN scene awards receive the physical awards, not the producers, director, or writers. I've attended the awards several times in person, and this is how it's done. Video evidence is available since the awards were broadcast on Showtime and Playboy TV in the past and is available on DVD. I'm not sure why HW wants an independent source to verify the practices of AVN since the most obvious evidence is produced by AVN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have "countered" HW with your claim before, but have you presented a citation to one of those DVDs to back up your claim? Your own observations of the event itself are original research and your repeated presence at the show might suggest a possible COI. Transcribing a quote from a published recording to that effect or making an audio clip would help your case... somewhat. A DVD of the AVN Awards would be a primary source that is reliable (if in fact it explicitly states the performers are the nominees and not the scenes themselves). However, policy strictly requires much more than that for there to be an article. I tried looking for the kinds of sources needed and would have been happy to add them, but I couldn't find them. This particular performer at this time doesn't make the standards that WP requires. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on whether Keeani Lei is deserving of an article. I'm saying that the winners of the scene awards are the performers of the scene since they're the ones that receive and keep the trophies. Video evidence can be purchased at [29][30][31]. You can see evidence of the performers receiving the awards from the 1995 awards on youtube too.[32] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That youtube compilation is, at best, double-edged; it shows that AVN treated the scene awards differently than the performer awards. For wards like "Best Actress," the performer's name comes first. For awards like "Best (whatever) Scene," the performers' names come last, after even the production company. The fact that performers from the winning scene come onstage can easily be seen as as much a matter of stagecraft for the ceremonies as anything else. After all, AVN itself lists "scene" awards in a different category from "performer" awards. Rather than interpreting the mixed signals that AVN may be sending ourselves, we should rely on how independent, reliable third-party sources characterize such awards (preferably sources not involved in the promotional aspects of the industry involved.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. The New York Times and Village Voice treats Tyla Winn as one of the winners of the multi-person scene award. This LGBT news website thinks Dylan Ryan is the nominee for the solo scene award. Newsreview seems to think Sasha Grey won the oral sex scene award. The Guardian treats scene awards as three of Belladonna's four awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the YouTube video, I can see that despite listing the nominees' and winners' movie titles first, followed by the production company, finally followed by the performers, that two trophies were indeed handed to the two performers for the "Best Couples Sex Scene" AVN award. Related to that I wonder, strictly speaking, if the Academy Award for Best Picture is awarded not to the picture itself but to the producers who receive the award, or both, or if the producers collect the award on behalf of the film. Hmm. Anyway, if it's always been true for the group sex scenes at each AVN awards show that the performers are the actual recipients of the award and are not just collecting it, then using Template:Cite video for one of those DVDs (particularly with a quote or clip) would seem to make for a reliable primary source. If that is the case, it would seem to be acceptable as the source for that information in an article - provided that N and V have been met with secondary, third-party sources on other grounds already. I wonder how they handle delivering awards for scenes involving large numbers of performers, or scenes with unidentified performers.
I am not sure whether it is fair to require that an editor other than the one adding the claim should have to be the one to buy a copy of the primary source. Likewise, I am not sure how fair it is that a source be one that must be bought to view. WP:SOURCEACCESS does address this to a degree where it states "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining source material." A newspaper article behind a paywall can be acquired by other means, by using interlibrary loan. A print source in a university library could be visited by someone for free, or acquired by interlibrary loan. What of sources that can't be acquired by interlibrary loan, I wonder? But absent clarity on that point, that's admittedly a topic for further discussion elsewhere. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we accept paid sources, and always have. The question of the the burden depends on the rule WP:AGF. At least if experienced editors add them, we assume they are described and cited correctly unless there is some evidence to the contrary, as we do for everything said and done here.
I would think that in a scene involving a small number of actors, as seems from the article to be the case here, the scene being notable implies the principal actors are also--anything else is hairsplitting. Remember also the general rule that if in doubt, we keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has cited to the DVDs though, and they haven't released one for 2010 yet anyway AFAICT. PORNBIO doesn't say anything about implied or inherited notability. It states "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years" not "Has received nominations for, or been in scenes or movies which received nominations for, well-known awards in multiple years" so I don't see how it's hairsplitting. WP:N states there must be "significant coverage," that there be "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." She's one of several performers listed after one of several movies in one of many categories, and neither the scene nor her are addressed directly in detail. If she is somehow notable for her participation in that one scene, that one event, the relevant guideline there would seem to be WP:ONEEVENT, that "the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." However, even if the performers were inarguably the recipients, and even if the primary source inarguably gave the performers' participation in the scene/awards show significant coverage, the WP:V rule is "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:N's rule is "'Sources,' for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." There are none, so there is no doubt, so the "general rule that if in doubt, we keep the article" doesn't come into play. But remind me where that "if in doubt, keep" rule appears, if you would? I don't recall. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would have closed this as a delete, but no consensus was well within Stifle's discretion. Courcelles 06:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 February 2011[edit]

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

This page has been unfairly deleted as this player satisfies the 3rd criteria of tennis players notability (she played here: 2010 BGL Luxembourg Open – Singles which is the main draw of a WTA tournament) Vinz57 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete the page, so it should've been No consensus. Armbrust and Mayumashu vote shouldn't be counted either because the subject did pass WP:TENNIS/N. I've seen Cirt closed AfDs as Delete that should've been No consensus so many times without giving concrete rationale for deletion. I've seen enough and think it is time for someone to warn him. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 00:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- It doesn't look like a terrible reading of consensus to me. Remember that WP:TENNIS/N is just a guideline and not policy. It is not binding. The community can decide not to follow the guideline's advice, and this seems to be what has happened here. Reyk YO! 01:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist The closing admin failed to give a reason for closing a debate where the consensus was far from obvious on its face. Of course, if a disaffected AfD participant seeks better reasoning from a closing admin, the closing admin should be asked on his or her talk page before coming here. Vinz57 properly did just that, but was unforutnately told by another editor to come to DRV rather than await Cirt's reply. Cirt might have been able to give an explanation that satisfied Vinz57, or changed the close in light of Vinz57's points. But unfortunately, here we are. The nomination, as well as the first two delete !votes, were based on a premise that was shown by Arteyu to be incorrect. There is nothing in the closing statement from which we can discern whether that was taken into account. Travelbird's delete !vote, on the other hand, was entirely valid and well argued. I would have agreed, but on its own the !vote was not enough to establish a consensus to delete (especially as it was arguing to bypass a guideline). As an aside, it's curious that no-one discussed the GNG in this debate. There's a surprising amount of news coverage but it would be good to have a discussion as to whether any of it is significant enough to found a proper article. All the more reason to relist, in my view. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent; Allow recreation I could support this going to no consensus, but at the same time the debate had been relisted once. Cirt doesn't leave deletion summaries as often as he could, or should, and had Cirt done so in this case, this one could (and probably should) have been handled without needing a DRV. I notice that there was no reference to the GNG in the discussion, which indicates a poverty of argument on all sides. Finally, the subject is a minor, and there are those who believe that non-notable minors should not have articles. At this point, I would like to see an article, if one is to be placed back into mainspace, which clearly indicates how the subject meets the GNG, with references, and not just some obscure sub-SNG (ATHLETE not good enough for tennis players for some reason?). I would recommend userification and work, and Cirt is usually good about restoring fixable articles like this. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - A deletion debate exclusively on whether each AfD participating Wikipedia personally thought the tennis player was important to them rather than an AfD applying policy to determine whether reliable sources thought the tennis player was important enought to write about. Nice. Just nice. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I undid my prior AFD close. I restored the page. I relisted the AFD for another potential seven days of discussion. The AFD discussion is ongoing, again, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yulia Putintseva. This DRV can now be closed, with discussion arguing for notability or lack thereof, continuing at the AFD page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adrian Oliver (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe now that Oliver meets the notability guidelines for college athletes because:

If you feel the subject meets notability requirements you're free to recreate the article, so you know, so long as you assert notability with some verifiable sources you should be immune to a speedy due to recreation (the article has to be substantially similar). Just a procedural comment, no opinion on the DRV itself, looks like it might be notable but it's not really my field of expertise (or competence for that matter). 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: San Francisco Chronicle articles "What Spartans ask, get from Oliver: more", "Adrian Oliver thinks, therefore he scores"; Seattle Times interview "An interview with ex-Husky Adrian Oliver", article "Adrian Oliver gets one more game at Hec Ed", "Oliver leaves Washington to play closer to his home".
  • Allow recreation the sources here are clearly enough to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - Right on! Finally, someone gets it and cites sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jerry D'Amigo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was not there for the discussion and was not there to point out a major fact that everyone missed. Everyone pointed out the fact he failed Notability under Ice Hockey players, but in fact he does not fail under " 4. Achieved preeminent honours..." He has been on the All Rookie team and as won the Rookie of the Year at the NCAA Division one level. This is more than enough as John Tavares, and Steven Stamkos had articles when they played in the OHL and they had Rookie of the Year awards not surprising as this is under 4 and the College hockey gets the same precedence as the OHL. No one pointed this out and I'm pretty sure I put it on the article too. He also satisfies general requirement of third party sources, which you find easily when you google him.Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It would have been better if you asked the closing admin first to simply reconsider, as your argument does have merit; all I see on his talk page is your notice that you filed here. I really don't see this person meeting the general notability threshold, as the coverage is routine "he signed here, he got send down there...", etc...type. So it'd hinge on if being Rookie of the Year of ECAC Hockey is deemed sufficient for #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was nothing I could do about the close. It was clear that the consensus was close, but everyone seemed to miss a few facts that could sway them, so asking the admin to recreate it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Plus you can get good third party like [33], [34] and these two that were on the article and used to write it [35], [36].--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article temporarily undeleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment from closing admin. The AFD as read couldn't have been closed any other way but I'm finding some gnews hits such as this and this so a case for GNG would not be unreasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to another AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Good close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The conversion isn't about if it was a good close as it was because the consensus was delete, but rather it's about should it be discussed again due to facts that were not present then.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist a good close, but new facts mean we should probably have a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist per Hobit. New information should be considered. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete or relist no fault to the closing admin. Based on that AFD discussion delete was more than reasonable. However with the new sources available it looks very reasonable that it meets GNG. Since it's temp undeleted already I'd say unblank it and add the new sources. If no one objects, call it an allowed recreation, if someone does object, call it a relist and have a new AFD.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, as the admin deleted based on consensus, but endorse recreation (without relist) based on the two sources that establish notability. Resolute 15:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: Not only was the AfD closed properly, but I disagree with the nom's premise. I really rather regret now the "preeminent honors" clause I penned when I drafted the NHOCKEY criteria, Our expectation at the time was that people would understand in a criterion that lists "all-time top ten leading scorer," "First Team All-Star" and "All-American," preeminent honors would mean just that: preeminent. Between that and the "major award" clause that newer editors claim to mean includes every honor a league issues down to Rookie of the Month awards, the original intent of the criteria is being bypassed by them.  Ravenswing  17:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He won Rookie of the year not month. Secondly, every player in the OHL that won the Rookie of the Year has an article and there's a big consensus that these articles are notable and the OHL gets the same precedence as the NCAA so the fact that you say that Rookie of the Year is not a big enough award, so I urge you to go to Matt Puempel (he's the same position and only qualifies because he won the OHL ROY) and afd it. You'll find easily that the consensus will be keep. Also, Taylor Hall, Patrick Kane, John Tavares (ice hockey) all had articles when the only notability they had was winning the OHL ROY. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "big consensus" that those articles are notable? Would you care to point out where that consensus is, please? As far as that goes, however, NOT every OHL Rookie of the Year has an article. Five do not, and the factor which separate them from the 32 who do is that the 32 all have played in the NHL, that being an automatic pass on NHOCKEY's criteria for playing in a top professional league. Other than those five, the only exception since the inception of the award is Puempel, which I've prodded - thanks for pointing that one out!  Ravenswing  02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to afd as I said don't prod it I'm pretty sure you aren't that confident that it'll make it so you prod it. The people who don't have articles are from 1990 and below which is before the internet was made and there isn't enough for any of them to make an article about them. That's why they aren't articles. Don't ignore that. You continue to ignore that Taylor Hall, Patrick Kane, John Tavares (ice hockey) 'all were in the same position as Puempel and they had articles when they had ONLY ROY. You would also be the FIRST person to put an OHL ROY under afd that has an article, since no one has done it before. That's the consensus I'm talking about. The fact NO ONE has even thought about afding him except for you who is only doing to try to make a point which isn't a good thing to do on wikipedia.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add here are Taylor Hall, Patrick Kane, John Tavares (ice hockey) articles, respectively, that show that they had articles with only notability being ROY [37], [38], [39].--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... let's take it from the top. (1) If you claim that a ROY is presumptively notable, he is presumptively notable no matter the year of the selection. Oddly enough, reliable sources existed before the Internet; we called them "newspapers," "magazines" and "books." (2) You persist in conflating failure to agree with you with "ignoring" or not understanding you. (3) That being said, your logic has several holes. The first is to assume that the articles to which you refer relied on the NHOCKEY criteria for survival ... criteria, however, which were not at all official before this past year, well after those articles were created. Since you've only made a handful of hockey-related edits, you can certainly be forgiven for being unaware that before the changes to WP:ATHLETE, the hockey Wikiproject viewed the NHOCKEY criteria as having little to no force when it came to AfD. (4) So, in fact, you have never sought a consensus on the subject? Fair enough; that's all I need to know.  Ravenswing  08:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are now trying to make this personal. I urge you to not do that. I didn't say you were ignoring me; I said you are ignoring the fact that the three players I mentioned had articles with the only notable this being ROY. So, tell me why they deserve it and a NCAA ROY doesn't. I'm still waiting the answer from you and please you know just as well as I that newspapers and magazines from 20 years ago are hard to get and also they aren't much books about OHL and junior players written it wasn't until the internet that these became widely available about junior players. On more thing, wikipedia guildlines has precedence over any Wikiproject guildlines so it doesn't matter if Wikiproject Hockey doesn't agree with them. They must first try to change the guildlines. Here's an edit from 2007 that says major awards at the OHL, QMJHL, and NCAA are notable. [40]--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to last spring the page you link to was just a failed proposal for a guideline (as you can see at the top of the page you link to). The official WP:ATHLETE page was on the WP:BIO page and listed that an amateur player had to play at the olympics or world championships to meet the presumptive criteria. But all those players you point to had articles because they met WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that players who played in the world championships (like D'Amigo) were notable.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to get, Everyone? Do you not have libraries in your area? That being said, you're not getting it. When I said that before the guidelines were made official, Wikiproject editors gave them little credence at AfD? That was because they were unofficial project guidelines with no authority or force. Beyond the GNG, WP:ATHLETE was the sole official guideline in force for all sports, and NHOCKEY was just our opinion as to who should be notable or not.

Moving on, I honestly shouldn't have to spell this out, and I dislike dragging this out, but plainly you need to hear it: the three articles you are harping on were created before NHOCKEY became an official guideline. All three articles qualify for reasons having nothing to do with ROY awards; being first round draft choices and playing in the NHL. We have been AfDing all manner of articles that either passed the earlier version of ATHLETE or for which consensus would not have been achieved before individual sports guidelines were devolved to the projects, and "why didn't you AfD this three years ago, huh? Huh? Huh?" catcalls are unwarranted and inappropriate - there are many invalid articles which fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia, and it shouldn't need to be explained to you that no editor, however industrious, follows New Pages 24-7.  Ravenswing  19:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 players where NOT drafted nor where they in the NHL. They had articles when they were only rookies in the OHL and it was in 2007. Also, you have accused me of being uncivil, but you have been condescending to me in almost EVERY reply to me. I have asked you to stop making this personal yet you continue. I would also like to point out that DJ explained the guideline clearly without being condescending and it took him one post I would hope that it would make you see that being condescending is the way to go--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per the excellent points raised by User:Ravenswing. Eusebeus (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion as the outcome in the discussion was clear at the time. But have no issue with a relist. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I think the sources and NHockey claim brought up here merit a new discussion at AFD. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 February 2011[edit]

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

There was no consensus for deletion and so WP:DGFA does not seem to have been followed. Other factors include the creation of a content fork, tryphé, during the discussion which explicitly copied material from the deleted article. Licensing considerations therefore require retention of the edit history. The closing admin seems to be away until the 15th but, in any case, indicates that objections should raised directly at DRV - see his FAQ. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No comment on the AfD itself at the moment, but I have taken the liberty of restoring Extravagance and redirecting it to Tryphé, to preserve the edit history. This discussion should continue regardless. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)The AfD participants were right to conclude that the material in question didn't constitute an encyclopaedia article, but for some reason that totally escapes me, that got turned into a "delete" outcome. I can't find any logic in that at all. It's clearly totally inappropriate for extravagance to be a redlink.

    Please will the closer either (a) create a fresh soft redirect to Wiktionary, or (b) restore the history beneath a soft redirect to Wiktionary (depending on the consensus in this discussion) for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Later) In view of Lifebaka's edit above we might prefer to create a disambiguation page including Tryphé, the Seven deadly sins, etc. with a soft redirect to wiktionary.—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This DRV filing is without merit, it was well within the closing admin's right to view that discussion as a delete. Making the term into a redirect is fine, though, that is always an editorial decision that can be taken up after the fact. Tarc (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- obviously the correct reading of consensus at at AfD. Reyk YO! 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete it, so it should've been no consensus. One editor erased most of the original content before the article's life was at an end, after insisting it was not one of the seven deadly sins. It did have sources in it. [41] A key reason many people said keep was because it was one of the original seven deadly sins. One editor went and dismissed this, and erased sourced information from seven deadly sins as well.[42] Google Translate from Latin shows that Luxuria means EXTRAVAGANCE [43]. The deleted sources cite the Oxford dictionary. Can someone who owns one or has access to their site please confirm this information. Dream Focus 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The user who made these changes gave ample explanation on the discussion page, which aI'm sure the closing administrator read.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my point. If the closing administrator dismissed all the Keeps because of this one person's comments, and this person was wrong, then the results should be overturned. Does he link to any reliable sources to prove he is right? The previously established information [44] seems far more reliable. Dream Focus 07:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse redirect w/history result I think either a redirect or no consensus was the best outcome here given that discussion. We now have a redirect, so I don't see a problem. The original close of delete was perhaps barely within admin discretion given that discussion other than the copyright issue. But with it, it's clearly not a delete. Also, if anyone can fix the article up, they have the history as a starting point. Net win as I suspect a good article can be written here. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What copyright issue? I see no mention of that in the discussion anywhere. Dream Focus 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was indeed unclear. The fact that chunks of this article were copied into another article means we need to retain the history of the "source" article to meet our licensing rules. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect, but the article could use some serious attention. It's a stub right now but I could see a LOT of room for expansion, historical references, ect. I'll take a look 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well within admin discretion and it looks like those arguing delete were more grounded in policy. It is unfortunate that the creation of the other article was a copy and paste job, but that can be sorted out in numerous ways (history merge followed by deletion, redirect with history intact etc) and does not need to be considered at DRV. Quantpole (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for several reasons: 1. Close against policy, justified on the basis that "I don't think it's fixable". The view of one person that it's not fixable cannot prevail over consensus that it is. Nobody disagrees with NOT DICT. The disagreement was over the application of it this particular article, and that's not a policy question, so it's a place where one has to go by consensus. Otherwise the close is a supervote. 2. If one goes by count, there was probably no consensus. 3. If one goes by strongest argument, the argument that it could be improved is the strongest argument, since deletion is the final resort only. The opposition attempted to show that it was only a dicdef at the time, but that is not reason for deletion unless it is impossible to expand it. They did not show that. As the policy says, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, and stubs are often poorly written." DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, here we go again. #1 "I don't think it's fixable" was only a part (note; a part) of the nominator's rationale, not the closing rationale. I don't know about others, but I evaluate the article up for deletion based on why I think it should be retained or tossed. As fair as I am concerned, the nomination isn't anything more special than Vote Number One. You claim that "not fixable" was the reason it was deleted is, therefore, bunk. #2 AfDs are not exercises in bean-counting. #3 The strongest argument is is simply your opinion. DRV isn't to be used to simply second-guess or "I would've closed it differently if it was me". Several !votes, including mine, saw the additions made during the AfD as puffery that didn't actually expend the article in any meaningful way. It was impossible to expand the topic beyond a simple dicdef. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, could you elucidate the sentence "I evaluate the article up for deletion based on why I think it should be retained or tossed. " Do you mean you decide on that basis when you !vote at AfD , or when you !vote here, or that you decide on that basis in closing an AfD? DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure per NOTDIC; no objection to creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary, or a disambiguation, or to undeleting the history under same. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as good close and well-within admin discretion. Eusebeus (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 February 2011[edit]

  • Category:Persons convicted of fraud – No consensus has emerged from this discussion, but that is partially because it's not the best fit for this venue. For now the status quo will remain, but, as is customary for a no-consensus close, anyone may open a new CFD at any time. The best way forward, if someone wants to pursue that, is to open a CFD for a rename, merge, split, or other of Category:Fraudsters; please don't create another new category without a CFD (striking this line--a new CFD is needed, but I did not intend to dictate how that CFD would proceed). – Chick Bowen 19:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My close has been questioned, so I'm appending a further explanation. This debate considered two questions: the CFD closer's view that no consensus reverts not to "keep" but to "previous status," and the disposition of the categories discussed. There is considerable feeling that the closer's general procedure falls under admin discretion, given the complexity of the situation; there is also considerable feeling that the outcome was wrong. Thus, the DRV neither rejects the closer's logic nor endorses the result, which is to say: no consensus. As I say above, the best recourse is to open a new CFD, which can consider the situation without being muddied, as any DRV must be, by the previous debate's conclusion. Chick Bowen 22:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Persons convicted of fraud (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Simply put, there was absolutely no consensus to delete.

Four suggested merging to Category:Fraudsters, eight said keep, and 6 suggested a reverse merge from Category:Fraudsters. Closing admin suggested that no-consensus should default to the position before the category was created, which is unsupported in policy.

(This category was originally created because I and others objected to categorising people as "fraudsters" simply on the basis of convictions for expenses fiddling.)

I have discussed this with the closer see User talk:Black Falcon#Fraudsters. He has declined to undo the closure, but at the same time he's indicated he's willing for someone uninvolved to review it and reverse if they disagree. That leaves as with an admin neither standing by nor reverting his closure.--Scott Mac 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion. Besides the fact that there was a consensus to keep the category there is absolutely no logical explanation for why a "no consensus" in this case should result in anything but the usual "keep". In the afore mentioned discussion linked to by Scott, I explained in more detail (to the closing admin) why I believe that is the case.Griswaldo (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I would really appreciate a good explanation of what exactly the closing admin was thinking. This only reinforces my perception that CfD is under-watched and tends to have particularly bizarre outcomes on far too regular a basis. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn (no consensus defaults to keep). Where there are possible significant real world concerns, the participants consider that aspect. There was not a consensus that there are significant real world concerns requiring deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case is complicated, and I don't think I have fully comprehended what is going on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sticking with initial impression, and the old catchcry "closer should have !voted". The close was a clever, and possibly correct, assessment. What it was not was a reading of consensus. It was a supervote in that the close contained argument not taken simply and directly from the discussion. It is not the role of the closer to adjudicate a complex case where it means that the closer gets ahead of the participants. It is far better for such an opinion to sit for a day or two, and then, if there is no substantial objection, for it to be accepted by a later-arriving independent closer. Where the closer said on his talk page, "I will not object to an uninvolved editor changing the close if he or she reviews the discussion and arrives at a different conclusion ", I see evidence that his close should have been merely a !vote.
  • Suggest that the closer restrain his capable reasoning for !voting, and be more hesitant in closing, but as I would predict that a relist would lead to the same outcome, let's just leave this here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But should others feel a different outcome should be discussed, as evidenced below, they should be encouraged to start a fresh CfD discussion. I suppose this is equivalent to a relist outcome here. If there are to be any changes, category deletions will be required, and to a fresh CfD is the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, when I wrote that "at a different conclusion", I meant a different conclusion about the presence or lack of consensus in the discussion. As I have expressed at my talk page and this deletion review, the outcome which I implemented was not the outcome I would have voted for. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with a side order of "is this the right venue?"

    I certainly believe that "no consensus" in a deletion discussion should default to keep, and I've said so very vocally on a number of occasions, but I don't think the discussion we're considering was, precisely, a deletion discussion at all. Despite the header, the discussion was actually about whether to rename a category. As such it should have been treated not as a deletion discussion but as an editorial discussion that was closed by an administrator. Per policy, where the administrator finds no consensus in such a discussion, "restore status quo ante" is absolutely the right outcome. I find Black Falcon's reasoning impeccable and wholly agree with it.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While some people were suggesting that the "fraudsters" category be renamed/merged, and I'd certainly have been happy with that outcome - others were suggesting that both be kept (and that's fine my me). The point is that the discussion was all over the place, and the status-quo was for both categories to exist (not for a deletion or merger that has no support) and there to be a later discussion on merging this (which I agree does need a consensus, and is an editorial judgement). Upholding the status-quo did not demand deleting anything.--Scott Mac 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a point of fact, the discussion was NOT about renaming a category. The discussion was about a new category that had been created, and the nominator suggested deleting it and merging all contents into another category. Black Falcon also repeated this misrepresentation of the situation in his explanations of why he did what he did. There was no proposed rename. Some commentators suggested a reverse merge, which might be like a rename of Category:Fraudsters, but keeping vs. deleting the category being discussed here had nothing to do with "renaming" anything. Can we please get this straight. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a point of fact, I think it was. Most people in the debate agreed that we need either a Category:Fraudsters, or a Category:Persons convicted of fraud or a Category:People convicted of fraud, or some combination of the above. The disagreement wasn't about whether we should have such a category or not. It was about which such categories we should have, and largely focused on which one should be merged to others—in other words, I think the basic issue here isn't about deleting the category, it's about what the category should be called. I see it as semantics.—S Marshall T/C 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally am quite content for there to be two categories. Others voiced this view too. But one was deleted without consensus. The rest is semantics.--Scott Mac 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I count at least 7 such comments.Griswaldo (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion A close needs to reflect the views of the participants in the actual XfD, not be a deus ex machina pulling an opinion out of the air. The close would have been an excellent and well-thought-out vote if it had been cast during the discussion, but it has no connection to the actual discussion that took place. There was no consensus for deletion, but there was also no justification for "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to no-consensus There was no consensus about what to do with this. There was considerable feeling that a merge was appropriate, but no agreement on what way it should go. (I have my own opinion, but I cannot claim there was really consensus for it more than any of the other proposed solutions) What is now needed is some discussion for how to deal with this, at a workgroup or the talk page. Closed on the basis that the discussion had not yet been closed after even after an extra 7 days & that some conclusion was necessary, but if there is no consensus, either the discussion continues yet further at the xfd, or we keep the status quo at xfd and the discussion continues elsewhere, or later. That no consensus defaults to keeping the status quo is a basic principle of deletion processes., DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as flawed implementation. In the deletion discussion, a fundamental premise of the conflict was "is cat:Fraudsters the same as cat:Persons Convicted of Fraud". The closure acknowledges a lack of consensus on this, however as implemented it presumes the premise is true. If they are the same, then reverting to a 'prior state' is just a matter of removing the newer category and reverting any articles that used it to the old one. However, if the premise is false, this action is actively deleting a unique category and miss-assigning articles to an improper category. This close, then, was more a !vote than an impartial decision (unintentionally so, I believe). A true 'no-consensus' close, to me, would have been to leave things as they were with two separate categories. Rather than reopening the whole discussion, I'd simply find another admin to take a stab at reconciling the multiple options (I suspect a merge or reverse merge of some sort will ultimately be it). --InkSplotch (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn' - Griswaldo went through the discussion and commented " Merge 4, Keep 8, Reverse merge 6. As we all know, reverse merge also entails keep. If you group them together you have 4 merge, 12 keep (since two people wrote both keep and reverse merge)" - I would say, there actually was something resembling a consensus to keep rather than delete and I agree with Inks comment about the closure appearing to be closer to an admin super vote than a weighing up of consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure – No-consensus should default to the status quo ante in this case only because a substantially identical category (Category:People convicted of fraud) already had been proposed three times—in 2005, 2008 and 2009—and failed to gain consensus each time. My reasoning for restoring the original situation was along the lines of reversing an undiscussed move or forking of an article. If three proposals to move or split an article end with no consensus to move or split it, and then someone (in good faith) moves or splits the article following mixed discussion, then it does not seem unreasonable to undo the move or split pending the formation of a consensus.
    With regard to the distribution of votes, it is true that keeping Category:Persons convicted of fraud in some form was supported 12–4. It is also true, however, that keeping Category:Fraudsters in some form was supported c. 9–7. And, finally, having one category only instead of two was supported c. 10–6. Thus, there was a majority for keeping both categories and, at the same time, for having only one category.
    The fact is that a numbers-based approach ignores the substance of the arguments underlying the votes (consensus is not a vote-count), and it was on the arguments that I attempted to base my decision. Numbers do not reveal, for instance, that one "keep" assumed that all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters (all X are Y) whereas another "keep" assumed that not all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters (not all X are Y). Numbers do not address the fact that certain assertions were supported by reliable sources and others were not. And, finally, numbers do not tell us how to determine whether an article belongs in Category:Fraudsters or Category:Persons convicted of fraud, or what to do with all of the subcategories of Category:Fraudsters by nationality, or how to take into account people who are identified in reliable sources as fraudsters but never were formally convicted, because on questions related to scope there is, again, no consensus.
    Based on the discussion, I believe that the correct next step would be to nominate Category:Fraudsters for renaming or splitting and to try, once again, to form a consensus. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the suggestion that my close was a "super-vote" of some kind, I'm happy to say this is completely off-the-mark. Had I voted, I would have voted to keep Category:Fraudsters, make Category:People convicted of fraud a subcategory for those who were formally and verifiably convicted and rename all of the by-nationality categories to the convicted of... format. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that only 4 people wanted the new category deleted. However you slice and dice the numbers, only 4 people wanted the category deleted. That was, far and away, the action with the least consensus. You point out things like 9-7 people wanted Category:Fraudster's kept. Great, but what doest that have to do with deleting this category, which was a separate category? Then you claim that 10-6 supported "having one category instead of two", but 16 editors did not comment directly on whether or not we need one category or two. If you were writing an entry, I'd say that was WP:OR. Once again, 4 editors wanted this deleted, and that's what you did despite the overwhelming number of rationales for keeping it.Griswaldo (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your perspective, and you seem to be approaching the matter from the standpoint that the CFD was (primarily or solely) about Category:Persons convicted of fraud. However, once reverse merging started to be discussed and Category:Fraudsters was tagged, the discussion no longer was about one category only. It was a general discussion about what to do with both categories.
          And, in this context, there was no consensus about what to do: keep Category:Fraudsters only; keep Category:Persons convicted of fraud only; keep both separately; or keep both, with one as a subcategory of the other. Some editors considered more than one option to be acceptable, but no two options could have been implemented concurrently. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some of the discussion obviously became about merger or reverse merger. I'm not arguing against that. And there was no consensus on merger, I'm not arguing against that either. However, some of the discussion was also about keeping this category or deleting/merging it - and there was certainly no consensus to delete or merge it. Yet, that's what you did. You deleted it and merged the contents into another category - an action supported by only a minority.--Scott Mac 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you're right, there was no consensus to delete or merge it. At the same time, though, there was no consensus to have the category. To be honest, I did not see a consensus (!= majority) on anything, much like in the three previous CFD discussions about "fraudsters"/"people convicted of fraud". To have kept Category:Persons convicted of fraud due to no-consensus effectively would have meant allowing the previous three CFDs to be bypassed merely because the category was created (albeit in good faith) outside of the normal CFD re-nomination process. Of course, this might not be an issue if both categories were allowed to exist but, unfortunately, there was no consensus for that either.
              Consider the following (hypothetical) situation. Over a period of a few years, there have been three proposals to split the 'Controversies' section within the article Silvio Berlusconi into a separate article. Each time, editors failed to reach a consensus and, thus, the split was not performed. Sometime later, following only 1–2 hours of mixed discussion, an editor (acting in good faith) carries out the split and creates Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi. A discussion is initiated to undo the split and, not surprisingly, ends with "no consensus". Now, in this type of situation, defaulting to keep will mean allowing the previous three discussions to be bypassed just because the initiator has an unfair advantage.
              It is unfortunate that the end result was supported by a minority only, but each of the four possible courses of action (listed above and in my closing rationale) was supported by a minority, so that part was unavoidable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since when did one need a "consensus to have" anything on wikipedia. As for the rest, you are simply ignoring the default option of having two categories simultaneously. If people want to merge them in either direction, they need a consensus. What you did is merge without consensus - indeed against consensus.--Scott Mac 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since when did one need a "consensus to have" anything on Wikipedia? is a valid question, and my response for this case would be: when the existence or creation of that thing was discussed (multiple times) and not implemented due to a lack of consensus. I am not ignoring the option of having two categories simultaneously (which I identified as Option #3 in my closing rationale) but, due to the previous discussions, I could not consider that to be the "default option"—not to mention the issue of how to define the scope of the two categories (Options 3a and 3b), on which there was also no consensus. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fair general point, but this situation was never discussed before. Having both this category and Category:Fraudsters was never discussed before. The consensus you keep on talking about is a phantom consensus. What was discussed was renaming Category:Fraudsters and that discussion, each of three times, ended in no consensus. Even that situation had "no consensus", but this one was never discussed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- this was one of the most perceptive and intelligent administrative actions I have seen on Wikipedia. In effect, a change/renaming of categories was proposed, and looking at the various discussions together it is perfectly clear that that change lacked consensus, and so it has been appropriately rolled back. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Are we looking at the same CfD? A new category was created. There was, according to the closing admin, no consensus about whether or not to merge it into an existing category. The admin then deleted the category. That's what happened. No renaming was proposed. No change was proposed to any other existing categories. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Falcon has made it perfectly clear why he chose not to adopt that perspective. You're free to take your own view, but it's disingenuous to imply ("are we looking at the same CfD") that there's not a coherent argument there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per Black Falcon and Nomoskedasticity. Sometimes the appropriate close is not simply a numbers game. Horologium (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This result is a bit like the 1992 presidential election in the United States going to Ross Perot because neither of the other two candidates managed to achieve a majority of the votes. When a super-majority of commentators agree on one thing (that a category should NOT be deleted, let's say), it shouldn't be a surprise that they feel a bit bamboozled when that one thing is exactly what doesn't happen. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question. Is it proper to "endorse" one's own closure? I don't mean to imply that Black Falcon should be censored from the discussion. Not at all. Conceptually, however, it seems rather strange that someone would officially endorse their own closure in a proceeding like this, as opposed to simply "commenting" on the matter.Griswaldo (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems valid enough. The closing admin should comment and indicate if and why he stands by his close. whether he calls that an endorsement or a comment makes no difference. This isn't a vote. --Scott Mac 02:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Just seems odd to me endorsing one's own actions. No big deal.Griswaldo (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The key sentence in Black Falcon's explanation is "Thus, there was a majority for keeping both categories and, at the same time, for having only one category." That is a situation where doing nothing is not advisable, because it's a self-contradictory state. So BF had to make a call. This rollback to the previous state is a valid result of that scenario.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is deleting something, there is a majority for keeping, better than keeping two when the majority prefer only one? Why does one majority trumph another majority, when you need a super-majority to delete things, and nothign liek that to create things? When there's ambiguity, the default is to keep - not to "rollback" as a technicality to allow deletion on a minority opinion.--Scott Mac 18:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closure reflects that the actual status quo ante was not the existence of two categories, but the outcome of previous discussion on the matter.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were no previous discussions on this matter. There were no previous discussions on whether or not to have to two categories. NONE. Three previous discussions, all of which ended with no consensus dealt only with renaming "Category:Fraudsters" and did not touch upon the idea of having the presently discussed category and Category:Fraudsters. That there was a prior consensus, or status quo arrived at by discussion is plain and simply false. It really saddens me to see the claim repeated again and again in this manner. Here are the three prior discussions - 2005, 2008, 2009. As you can plainly see none of them touched upon the present scenario. Griswaldo (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the deletion of this category sets a dangerous precedent. If an article or category is created, the "status quo ante" to that creation is always the non-existence of that category or article. If the current scenario is allowed to stick, it would mean that if that category or article is put up to XfD and there is "no consensus" a closing admin could always choose to delete the content based on the basic fact that before the content existed it didn't exist (that's the "status quo ante"). Everything I knew about our conventions and policies regarding the deletion of content made me think that this wasn't remotely legitimate as an argument here on Wikipedia. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe we can delete things from now on when there isn't a consensus. Let's rewrite the AfD guidelines to include the "status quo ante" argument that says, "when an admin chooses, no consensus defaults to delete".Griswaldo (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overurn the deletion of Category:Persons convicted of fraud. In the the 26 January 2011 propose merging Category:Persons convicted of fraud to Category:Fraudsters, the close was no consensus, restore the way things were before the 26 January 2011 propose merging Category:Persons convicted of fraud to Category:Fraudsters. Before the 26 January 2011 propose merging, both Category:Persons convicted of fraud and Category:Fraudsters were active categories and there was no 26 January 2011 propose merging. The deletion of Category:Persons convicted of fraud is in violation of the the 26 January 2011 CfD close. In otherwords, Black Falcon's own close of the 26 January 2011 CfD does not support Black Falcon's deletion of Category:Persons convicted of fraud. In the alternative, there was no consensus to delete Category:Persons convicted of fraud at the 26 January 2011 CfD. The CfD participants reviewed Category:Persons convicted of fraud while it was active and chose not to delete it. That is consensus to not delete Category:Persons convicted of fraud and the close and/or the act of deleting that category failed to give that consensus its authority. Whatever the conclusion, the admin deltion of Category:Persons convicted of fraud was without 26 January 2011 consensus authority and was based on a misunderstanding of the actual closing language and/or consensus of the 26 January 2011 CfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore category -- I now see the point being made by a number of other contributors, and I see in particular the way this close risks re-opening the settled principle of no consensus defaults to keep. I prefer use of "Fraudsters" even for people like Devine, but consistency in application of the deletion process requires that this deletion be overturned. I still like the logic Black Falcon used, but again it is not in keeping with the usual deletion process. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist A reasonable outcome, but would have been a much better !vote than close. Insert "supervote" language here. I largely agree with SmokeyJoe's reasoning other than his belief that the final outcome is clear in the event of a relist. Hobit (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Seems like something that is well within the discretion of the closer given the state of the discussion and the historical discussions surrounding Category:People convicted of fraud, which cannot be said to be substantially different in any way from this category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and give the deleting admin a one-minute block for making the wrong decision so that it will be on his/her permanent record. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen some pretty petty shit around here over the years, but that takes the prize. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! I've seen much more petty stuff around here. Guess I spend time in pretty petty places (say that 5 times fast). I agree though that it is very much uncalled for and Cla68 should really apologize. The closer tried to do the right thing and while some of us may disagree if it was the right thing, I see no basis at all for thinking it was done with anything other than the best of intentions. Hobit (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom. --JN466 15:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As noted above, the discussion was a mess, with several apparently existing for several contradictory options. The close quite properly tried to unravel the chaos, and closed the discussion with a solution which produced the most coherent outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hamumu Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notable company, deleted for no reason. 192I (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No it isn't and no it wasn't.

    Hamumu Software is a Californian organisation of about two or three employees that has won no awards and received no attention from independent reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. It isn't notable. The reasons for deletion were well explained at the AfD discussion and noted by the administrators who deleted it subsequently, and they are quite normal reasons to delete material from Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userspace draft time Previous AfD looks solid, but almost 4 years ago. It's possible to recreate a new article in mainspace, and I'd recommend that if an experienced editor who knows notability and sourcing expectations were to do it. If not, then drafting an article in userspace seems like the more appropriate response, just so the new article doesn't get dragged into AfD immediately based on a fixable problem. Of course, if notability is still not establishable, it should not be moved back to mainspace.... Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems irresponsible to suggest that a user create a userspace draft which, barring any unforseen and miraculous future events, will never be a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. 192I should first get a little editing experience, and only then consider pushing for content that the community previously rejected. Show us that you are not a single purpose account, here solely to promote your own interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This AfD is four years old and there seems to be no justification to overturn it based on the results of this discussion. If it were possible to recreate the article in userspace and to establish notability using reliable and verifiable sources there would be no obstacle to recreating an article for this company. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse according to the last version of the article from 2009, which FWIW was written as an advert in first person, it's apparently a one-man operation with no notable products or any other notability to speak of. In other words, a million miles from meeting our WP:CORP guidelines. Unless things SIGNIFICANTLY change, this one just isn't gonna happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 February 2011[edit]

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

I believe WP:BEFORE was not properlly done and that the Dragon Quest Task Force was not properlly notified. A quick google search would have shown Square-Enix plans to release info on the game later this month and therefore the discussion was premature. 陣内Jinnai 17:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit confused by this nomination, Jinnai. Are you asking us to convert the "merge" into a "keep"?—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger results are common outcomes to AFDs if there are valid article concerns, and the merger here had complete consensus from everyone involved within the discussion during the entire week at which it was listed at AFD, list of Games-related deletion discussions, and list of video game related deletion discussions. Proper notification was given. The article can clearly be re-created (even tommorrow) if the information which was due at the end of last month (end of January and the date at which the discussion initiated) according to jinnai's sources comes to pass, which currently didnt happen. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, yes I think it should have been kept. There is a TF that deals specifically with these articles and it wasn't notified otherwise I would have responded and found those entries at the time.陣内Jinnai 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure as reflecting the consensus, but it is not necessary to use DRV to change one kind of not-delete result into another kind of not-delete result. This can be done on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case it should probably be mentioned in the instructions somewhere. I saw nothing about that.陣内Jinnai 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, DRV normally won't overturn a "merge" to a "keep" or vice versa. It's a bit fuzzy because there can be circumstances in which we might need to (such as where a deletion review led to a "merge" outcome with a protected redirect, or where a discussion was unusually contentious for some reason). As Stifle says, you can raise it on the talk page and gain consensus there.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Bruce Copley – Endorsed, no reason to keep this open any longer. Note that nominator is currently blocked. – Chick Bowen 15:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bruce Copley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

incorrect deletion process, biased deletion: arguments not objectively considered from everyone and instead, by his own admission votes counted by deleting admin User :Stifle; no consensus reached before deletion process activated; discussion was still very active; no chance offered to respond to criticisms by last user to post, no reasons for deletion offered. ChrisStefan (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Also, if the admin had read the page he would have seen that there was a request for mediation active which had not yet been responded to. ChrisStefan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Endorse as proper close. First off, the claim that there were "no reasons for deletion offered" is plainly false. The reason given by the nom, and by every subsequent commenter !voting delete", was that the subject fails basic notability requirements. Throughout the course of the unduly long AFD, you completely failed to rebut this. The closer was right to give less weight to the !votes by contributors with no other edit history, but regardless AFD is not a headcount, and those comments offered nothing but unfounded opinion without regard to current Wikipedia guidelines and standards, so their arguments would count less in any event. If you can show that Copley has been the subject of significant coverage by significant reliable sources (as defined in WP:RS), please do so, by providing citations and/or links here. Show us articles or books about Copley. Please don't flood this discussion, as you did the AFD, with multiple paragraphs that don't accomplish that single task, as that isn't going to sway anyone.

    The mediation request is completely irrelevant, as this is the proper forum for challenging an AFD result, there is nothing compulsory about mediation that could have stopped that AFD or this DRV, and not liking the way an AFD is going is not even remotely reasonable grounds for requesting mediation. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Endorse. I didn't comment at the AfD, but I know my usual response to an article which has 5 paragraphs, each trying to show why the person is mildly important in a completely different activity, especially when it is written in the laudatory terms of the article presently in the cache. Had I seen it, I might have considered speedy deletion as entirely promotional, & the susbequent discussion by the subject reinforces this.
    1. If you read the arguments in the AFD you would have seen that all the criticisms regarding notability were fully addressed and supported via arguments and sources but that this was never acknowledged by those proposing deletion - not by you either - this was the reason for requesting objective mediation.
    2. If you read the request for mediation you would see that the grounds offered had absolutely nothing to do with your unfounded accusation of me 'not liking' it.
    3. Would like to offer as proof, links from the article itself. Please note that this has to be studied in conjunction with the claims in the article before you can decide on notability. Where can I find these since the article has now been deleted? All I can seemingly access is a record of the AFD discussion.
    ChrisStefan (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are just a few sources I have right now, to get the ball rolling:
  1. http://www.fullcirclemag.co.za/media/articles/misc/allfiredup.jpg
  2. http://s2a3.up.ac.za/awards_winners.php British Association Medal Winners and Awards
  3. http://www.rhodesalumni.com/accolades.html Rhodes University Alumni Accolades
  4. The Australian Didgeridoo, Free Spirit, Series 8, Episode 5, SABC 3 national broadcast, March 2006, Produced by Shoot the Breeze Productions (Electronic Listing Nr: OP30-86587)
  5. http://evolution.skf.com/zino.aspx?articleid=14964 SKF Sweden Evolution Business and Technology Magazine article about Dr Copley's work
  6. http://www.fevacasters.sony.com/video/XzgyBPyjPRI The Rainbow Vuvuzela and Dr Copley on the Official SONY World Cup Soccer Site
  7. Rainbow Rhythm Series 2010 - Showcasing the Rainbow Vuvuzela, South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC 2)
  8. http://leadership365.wordpress.com/ Dr Edwin Hawthorne from Elevating Minds [ww.elevatingminds.com] on Dr Bruce Copley and Holistic Leadership
  9. http://www.epafrica.com/index.php/african-speakers-bureau/speakers/83-bruce-copley African Speakers Bureau Listing
  10. http://www.amybiehl.co.za/archives/1859 Dr Copley and the Amy Biehl Foundation
  11. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&note_id=10150090771253813 Holistic Intelligence - breeding wisdom, not knowledge
  12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKD-tef2wGA Two Day Event with Dr Peter Block and Symphonia Consulting
  13. http://www.lesleyrochat.com/news-and-blog/2010/5/10/afrioceans-warriors-celebration-huge-success.html AfriOceans-Warriors: Celebration HUGE success!
  14. Cooke, J. (1983). International Who's Who in Tennis. World Championship Tennis, Inc. p. 154. ISBN 9995019523.
  15. http://www.itftennis.com/coaching/publications/nonitfpubs/science/medicine.asp International Tennis Federation articles on medicine and conditioning
  16. http://www.didgeridoobreath.com/kb_results.asp?ID=16
  17. "Lecture Post for Copley", Pretoria News, South Africa, Jan 1972
  18. http://www.sunvalleyprimary.co.za/site/gallery/culture-bruce-copley-music-man-39
  19. http://www.radiohelderberg.co.za/programmes/in-the-spotlight/item/64-dr-bruce-copley-on-936-fm
  20. http://www.ileadspeakers.com/inspirational-speaker-dr-bruce-copley-pretoria.html
  21. http://www.cpbd.co.za/CvBruce.html
  22. http://www.aahalearning.com/reading/room7/articles/Interview_Bruce/#top An interview with Bruce Copley by Ed Drury, reprinted from The Didgeridoo & Co Magazine, Jan/March 2003

... and much more about him if you care to Google his name. Please motivate how anybody can believe this man is not 'noted' by numerous independent and reliable, verifiable sources. ChrisStefan (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own deletion as reflective of the consensus — ChrisStefan and various pop-up users were the only ones supporting keeping the page, while a variety of established users supported deletion. The discussion was held open for ten days, almost 50% above the norm, and it was only "still active" to the extent that ChrisStefan and a smattering of WP:SPAs were bludgeoning it to death. A mediation being opened is not a bar to a deletion discussion being closed. I echo Postdlf's request to ChrisStefan not to flood this discussion similarly. Quality is better than quantity — please provide links to mainstream media, not blogs, adverts, Facebook pages, and YouTube videos. See WP:RS and WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not bludgeoning to death, instead simply responding to criticisms as they arose, if you care to read the discussion thoroughly. A mediation being opened should at least have given you cause for consideration and pause but sure, your defense is correct, no-one can take you to court. Your restriction on the type of source which should be allowed is typical of the kind of dogma I had to address during the AFD already, during which I pointed out that Wikipedia acknowledges that YouTube videos can be reliable sources under certain conditions. Sources like blogs and Facebook notes can be quality sources when written by reliable persons or instances, and our video sources meet all the criteria for reliability. Shouldn't each source be considered on its own merit and in conjunction with the article, and not just indiscrimnately boxed into pre-accepted categories of non-acceptability? It is strange that you as the deleting admin did not notice these arguments re those type of sources in the AFD yourself. All I ask is that somebody unbiased read the article sentence by sentence, then actually look at the source(s) for that particular statement, and in this fashion arrive at his own conclusions at the end. ChrisStefan 17:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "holistic edutainer". Good Lord, whatever next? Postdlf has already said everything I would say about this.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - notably and refreshingly different! Difficult to top! ChrisStefan (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he said everything you would say, why do you ignore the list of references I provided in reponse to his (your) request? ChrisStefan (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because most of them clearly fail Wikipedia's rules, I couldn't make head nor tail of the others I checked. I can't tell for certain in what publication the first article appeared, although on the face of it, it seems to be "Full Circle Magazine". But who publishes it, and with what degree of editorial supervision and fact-checking? Does it have an ISSN or other evidence of being a non-amateur publication? Is the image shown an article or an advertorial? There's no information. The second source doesn't contain any in-depth discussion of the subject at all. At that point I decided I was wasting my limited volunteering time and stopped checking sources. I simply skipped down to the arguments, noted that Postdlf had adequately covered how I felt, and chose to support his view.

    I think the main problem you have here is the sheer volume of text you have written about this subject. Deletion review regulars have long experience of editors who insist on replying to every single remark. Usually, when over 50% of the text in a discussion has been written by one editor and everyone else disagrees with him, that lone editor is attempting to challenge a consensus by sheer persistence—i.e. to get his way by exhausting the opposition rather than out-arguing them.

    This impression is exacerbated by the fact that you started your nomination by accusing the AfD closer of bias. Very, very few nominations that say this succeed. You can say that Stifle was mistaken, or that he missed something important, but calling a closer "biased" is normally a fast ticket to an "endorse" outcome.

    My advice to you is to withdraw this request for the moment, because the discussion is going against you very quickly and resoundingly. If you don't wish to accept the outcome then your best bet is to prepare a brief draft article in your userspace, based only on the most impeccably checkable, reliable, independent, professional sources that you can find, and then after a short cooling off period, bring it back to DRV with a brief and respectful nomination statement.—S Marshall T/C 20:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Only one person, and their socks wanted retention. While I discourage writing with a conflict of interest, ChrisStefan, if you really want an article on this topic, start fresh from a user subpage, create a short stub, that's not promotional, and include just a few, solid independent reliable substantial sources. You have to show there's something to build on. Quantity can't make up for lack of quality. Just one solid substantial independent source, would have done you more good, than the the long list of worthless links provided. --Rob (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob: If you look at the top of the AFD discussion, you will see that I addressed the question from you at the time, as to which sources are our top sources. I supplied you with a short list - however you failed to respond to this. ChrisStefan (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How weighty are endorse supports from people who took part in the AFD, especially if they are the nominator or the deleting admin? It can be shown that the deleting admin did not even read the discussion properly and was most probably not even aware of the pending mediation request, and the user Rob had a lot to answer for during the discussion in terms of showing bias and bad-faith, as pointed out numerous times. ChrisStefan (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source: Book titled, "Rehumanised Productivity Improvement – Revised performance management, human resources development, work environment improvement". – Published by Knowledge Resources, 1999. Author: Dr Deon Huyshamen (http://www.cpbd.co.za/CvDoc.html) Entire section written about Dr Copley on pages 64-66. ChrisStefan (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, people have a problem doing the legwork. Lack of attention span?? Who knows. Probably. Critics versus creators, maybe. Anyway, I have supplied the references requested to prove notability. All that is needed is for someone (the requestor....??) to have the guts to agree instead of looking desperately for help at what other people are saying. Poor little me, arriving with stars in my eyes, wanting to contribute... rude awakening! Wiki-dogma excludes possibility for independent thought... or does it...? Wiki-Warrior has spoken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Express your argument in 100 words or less. If notability is clear you'll be able to. Note that I clicked on a few of your links, and frankly they're laughable. Egg Centric (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempt 1: "This article complies with all Wikipedia requirements, as demonstrated ad nauseam during the AFD". 14 words.
  • Attempt 2: "The only way to verify this first-hand is to actually read the damn thing and check the sources yourself so get off your lazy bum and get on with it." 31 words
    ChrisStefan (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones exactly were laughable, Mr Joker? How many? ChrisStefan (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not intend to engage you any further. Good luck! Egg Centric (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you! This same position was taken by the other advocates who staunchly endorsed deletion during the AFD, when asked for ptoof of their statements. Yet their 'vote' is what ultimately counted. ChrisStefan (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request speedy/snow close from an uninvolved admin; nominator is name-calling and casting aspersions against those who disagree with him and needs to drop the stick. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While awaiting this, here is an analysis of the presented sources.
    1. Scan of a magazine page. No idea how notable the magazine is, whether it has a circulation of 100 or 1 million, or even whether the material was editorial, advertorial, or something else again.
    2. He won a silver medal. No indication what sort of an award it is or what it's for.
    3. Probably self-written; very promotional tone.
    4. Offline, unable to check.
    5. An interview, some contribution towards notability, but the four topics available on the website are "industries, products, services, and solutions", so it is probably leaning towards advertorial.
    6. Youtube video, fails WP:RS.
    7. Offline, unable to check.
    8. Blog, fails RS
    9. Evidence that he will accept payment to be a public speaker. So will I. I haven't been approached yet.
    10. Charity website, not media coverage; again if I organized a charity day I would get something similar but it wouldn't make me notable.
    11. Facebook page, fails RS
    12. Youtube video, fails RS
    13. Blog, fails RS
    14. Offline, unable to check
    15. He's been cited by someone. So have I.
    16. He plays the didgeridoo. Wonderful, but so do buskers in Dublin.
    17. Offline, unable to check
    18. Photo gallery, does not show anything as regards notability
    19. He was on a radio show. I did that once too, talking about WP in fact!
    20. See 9
    21. Resumé
    22. Interview about didgeridoo-playing; see #16. Marginal notability perhaps.
  • So really, analysing all the sources, I do not see the non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources that we normally expect of articles. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, what you need to understand is that when the notability of an article is challenged, the burden of proving this claim does not fall upon those who challenge it. Instead, the burden of disproving this claim falls upon those who assert notability. You were asked in the AfD to address an issue. You did not (to the satisfaction of those who commented). Disliking this result is hardly a valid reason to overturn the AfD. Here, we have little choice but to endorse. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Stifle: You are not 'uninvolved', you are the closing admin I am accusing of doing a shoddy job
Re name-calling: Not really, it was an attempt at bringing a little humour into this dismal proceedings.
Re criticisms of links: Already thoroughly addressed during AFD. Also I mentioned repeatedly above that to understand the sources properly you need to look at the article also. Yes he's been 'cited by someone; - do you know why? For instance the British Association Medal is one of the highest research awards that can be awarded to a research scientist in South Africa (which also warrants the so-called promotional adjective 'prestigious'.) The list of research articles independently collected by the ITF is proof on an amazing and sustained contribution in the field of sports science that is unmatched since 1970 to the present day. YouTube videos do not automatically 'fail' RS. As pointed out many times before: From [WP:VIDEOSHARE]: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines...Copyright is of particular concern. Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established if the link is used as a source. We have shown that the videos we use are reliable and have no copyright issues and are undeniably reliable. Facebook notes and blogs can be acceptable if reliability is beyond question - links must be judged on own merit. Re Didge: he doesn't jut busk, he pushes the didge beyond normal boundaries, as is plain to see from the sources. Yes he was on a radio show and we have proof of him working with notable charities and doing notable work with them but you simply denigrate this as if it is nothing, etc. etc. All these sources, some on their own and all together contribute to proof of notability in diverse and different fields and it is extremely strange that people cannot admit this. ChrisStefan (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re burden of proof: During AFD I have accepted the 'burden of proof 'for every single criticism, but almost never did the critics accep burden of proof for their own statements - see for example Egg Centric above. I may dislike the result but I never said that is the reason for reversal and for that statement the 'burden of proof' lies with 'you'. I have listed my reasons for seeking reversal clearly already. ChrisStefan (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's not claiming to be an uninvolved admin, he is asking for it "from an uninvolved admin", i.e. for an uninvolved admin to perform the request. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response != proof. You gave responses which were not suitable, so did not prove anything. lifebaka++ 16:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse & snow close. Closure was a correct reading of the policy-based consensus at AfD. And while DRV is not AfD round 2, none of the sources provided neither in the list above nor in the article represent any substantial coverage in reliable sources with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ChrisStefan (talk) is further formally warned that any further contribution that fails to WP:AGF or can be construed, even by the flimsiest reading, as a personal attack on others, he will be blocked for 7 days. Enough is enough. MLauba (Talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree. The sources are clearly reliable enough, there clearly is substantial independent coverage in them especially taken as a whole, and there is no real reason to doubt them or to doubt the fact that this person is a noted personage. How does this relate to good-faith on your part, I wonder? Your insistence on ridiculously high standards for every single source would invalidate almost every article in Wikipedia, and I suspect that you use it for that purpose here instead of being prepared to evaluate the article on its own merits. If true, could this be bad-faith on your part? (I guess you would counter that it's bad-faith on my part for pointing this out.) People can say "your sources are laughable" without backing it up or even identifying those sources, but when I call him a 'Joker' for saying this, then I am warned about good-faith and bans? Don't worry about the 7 days ban you can make it 777 days if you want, because why in the world would I want to be associated any longer with such a farce? ChrisStefan (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two points. First, see WP:OTHERSTUFF for why arguing using how things are done elsewhere is easily fallacious. Second, no amount of incivility on the parts of others excuses incivility on your part. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was not present at the AfD, but I know what I usually say to an article consisting of 5 paragraphs, each devoted to a totally different activity is which the notability is, at best, borderline. In the present state of the article, I would probably have said something stronger, such as suggesting speedy deletion under criterion G11 for being entirely promotional and not being capable of improvement by normal rewriting. The discussion at the AfD and now here certainly confirms that impression. But there is the BA Medal [45] : I see we have very few articles on the Gold medal winners, and I consider that an error due to cultural bias--the specification is "exceptional contribution to the advancement of science, on a broad front or in a specialized field, by an eminent South African scientist." They should be written promptly--I meets the WP:PROF requirement. But the Silver medal, which is the award in this case, is "a person under the age of 40 who is actively engaged in research and has, by way of international participation and publications, shown outstanding capability and achievement." I do not think that confers notability -- I see the key phrase "outstanding capability" which often means Not Yet Notable. It's possible that an article directed to the scientific achievements might meet the standard, but it would need to be written by someone else--and watched carefully. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and block ChrisStefan. Between the meatpuppetry at the AFD and the name-calling and generally behaving like a petulant child here, it's extremely clear that this is not a user who is here in good faith to help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Casual(rapper) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was recommended for PROD because of the first sentence of the article stated that the forementioned artist didn't achieve commercial success. i talked to the person responsible for deleting the article (User:JamesBWatson) said that if i could establish notability throughout the article, then it could be restored. He gave me a userfied copy and i proceeded to edit the article until it established notability and had significant sources. I asked him to restore the article and he never responded back. please can you restore the userfied article back to an official one? thanks. AlexLoeher 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we have the exact article name please? If it was deleted by PROD it can be restored by simple request, but I can't find an article under the name you've given. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlexLoeher/Casual (rapper) is the userfied name of the article and i think would be the best version for restoration. the orignal version should be Casual(rapper) though. im not completely sure. AlexLoeher (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLoeher (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the article was on the Casual disambiguation page, about 3 or 4 down. The actual article name was Casual (rapper). That's as specific as I can get i'm sorry AlexLoeher 17:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marianne Ny (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted by consensus of four people. Although notable anyway by her position (and thus not a BLP1E candidate although maybe the article was), Ms. Ny is particularly notable now that the media is focussing upon her history, rather than just because of her involvement with Julian Assange... and even if it is decided that this doesn't apply, at the very least there really ought to be a redirect to the Assange case Egg Centric (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC) (Note there is no incoherency between my suggestion of a redirect or her inherent notability; I argue for the latter but say for arguments sake if consensus is otherwise then there ought to be a redirect to her involvement in something that is inarguably notable)[reply]

  • Endorse but allow redirect until such time as there are multiple RS covering her in a substantial way for something other than the Assange case. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted or redirect per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've got to endorse the deletion because that was the consensus. Creating a redirect is, in the circumstances, quite reasonable.—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why you have to endorse deletion on consensus (especially a consensus of a couple of people!). Unless you mean endorse the deleting of it by the admin, which of course is reasonable... but we can form a new consensus here. Or do I misunderstand what DRV is for? Egg Centric (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main purpose of a deletion review is to decide whether the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV is not here to substitute its own decision for that of the closer, only to call out instances where the closer has failed to follow policy somehow. It is not a de novo hearing, nor a place to run to the other parent. The criteria I personally use (which are not policy by any means) are those from Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right. So how does an article like this get recreated then? I consider her notable before Wikileaks, as it happens, but since the last deletion discussion there have been more reliable sources and reasons to consider her notable... so how does one check if consensus has changed? Thanks for your help btw Egg Centric 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • When an article has been deleted, it may be recreated without any formality if the recreated article overcomes the reason for deletion, except where the article has been create-protected, in which case a userspace draft is usually presented here for review. I should clarify that my previous post relates to deletion reviews where nothing has changed since the deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Given that, I'm going to create the redirect now and at some point in the future, if no one else does, put a proper article there. The first part is almost certainly non controversial. How does second sound? Egg Centric (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The redirect is fine, but until/unless this person becomes notable for more than simply having her name in the press of being the prosecutor of a high-profile case, recreating this article would not be a wise idea to pursue. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - No actual fault in original AfD. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Yes, I'm the nominator. But I didn't quite understand what DRV was for. Now that I have a better idea, I see the request is probably speedy/snowable, especially now I've endorsed the orignial decision! Thanks all for your patience and assistance. Egg Centric (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 February 2011[edit]

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

Although some citations in the "history" part is missing most of the article is filled with proper references Burki1907 (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I have been working on this page in the my sandbox page, User:Burki1907/sandbox and I think it is now ready to be undeleted.[reply]

The sole external link to a non-Euroavia source is the EU's webpage, which reads more like a press release than a legitimate news article. To merit a Wikipedia article of its own, can you show where reliable sources that are independent of the group have in-depth coverage? Primary sources are ok to provide support for basic facts and such, but not for establishing notability. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this article cannot be undeleted? Since you are right about the fact that there are no external pages except for the EUROAVIA and EU's pages, we cannot find any other websites to put in the article as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burki1907 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - totally non-notable, consensus properly followed. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Yes, we are indeed saying that since there are no other sources than that rather promotional page, there cannot be an article. This is the basic rule for inclusion here. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as the nominator puts it, "we cannot find any other websites to put in the article as a reference" ...and neither could we, despite relisting the debate for two extra weeks and giving it every possible chance. This fails our basic guildelines on organisations by a very wide margin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice web page. You might want to check out Alternative outlets to recreate deleted articles to find a place to host it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mylai Tenner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I have write the content with proper reference but my page has deleted, kindly restore it so I can change if there is any mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeesolz (talk • contribs) 13:55, February 7, 2011

Endorse deletion - totally shameless advertisement without any trace of actual reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion A clear G11 as entirely promotional. No reason to rewrite, for there is no apparent notability either--a "famous author" whose books are not included in WorldCat. On the other hand there is a listing in Gale's Contemporary Black Biography. Gale is a respected reference publisher. That this should be included is cause not for inclusion of the article, but doubt about the reliability as a source. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse shameless advertisement even including phrases like "For other titles please visit his website" and then a URL. Pretty clearly an attempt at promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 February 2011[edit]

5 February 2011[edit]

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

Filing on behalf of User:Aborig, who wishes to present the userspace draft at User:Aborig/Ghil'ad Zuckermann for restoration to mainspace. I have no opinion. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moot. So, per the conclusions at WT:DRV, because ordinary recreation is not actually a deletion review, I've listed this as an uncontested page move request at WP:RM. Once the page is moved, those who may object to it may tag it for G4 or AfD, whichever may be appropriate. An administrator should close this discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of this deletion review request is to void G4. Because Stifle asked the community to review the article for suitability in the mainspace, you ought to have respected his wishes. WT:DRV did not reach the conclusion that articles presented at DRV are uncontested page move requests. Please do not do this again. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere does Stifle say the 2008 G4 deletion was wrongly decided. This is a simple recreation. --Bsherr (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle deemed it necessary to ask the community to evaluate the article for suitability instead of simply recreating it. This is under his discretion. The page was salted because it was repeatedly recreated so it is not a "simple recreation". This deletion review prevents another speedy deletion per G4 and will lessen the chances of its being deleted at another AfD. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I contacted the moving admin Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) about this move. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I found this move request in the uncontested moves section of Wikipedia:Requested moves (now in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=412223528#Uncontroversial_requests ) and routinely obeyed it, after finding that page User:Aborig/Ghil'ad Zuckermann had no talk page, and therefore no current controversial-type move request such as are listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. Do you want me to move it back, or to change this discussion into an AfD, or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. This moving was not your fault. Would you move the article back to the userspace? If the page were to be nominated for AfD it would be deleted because none of the sources establish notability. A DRV discussion will give the creator more time to find sources to establish notability. If third-party reliable sources cannot be found at the moment, recreation will not be permitted and the draft will remain in Aborig's userspace. This will allow him/her to continue researching and working on it. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Move back  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. I have advised Aborig on his/her talk page to find third-party reliable sources to add to the article so that it passes WP:SECONDARY which requires an article not be solely based on primary sources. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text that I found in page User:Aborig/Ghil'ad Zuckermann seemed to state plenty that looked noteworthy. The AfD discussion that I have now found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghil'ad Zuckermann was lengthy and far from unanimous for "delete". OK, he is likely more noteworthy for Israelis than for others. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Cunard and Anthony. As requested, I've added many third-party reliable sources such as Rotem, Katz, Fishman, Reuters and Trouw. They seem to establish notability but please tell me if you would like me to improve the page further. Aborig (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the additional work on the article. I am reviewing it right now. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per the sources added by Aborig (talk · contribs). The significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (e.g. this article from Reuters) demonstrates that Ghil'ad Zuckermann is notable per WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to mainspace. It now meets WP:AUTHOR, and the GNG, and almost certainly WP:PROF as well. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation as sources make a more than credible claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation and restore to mainspace - Plenty of source info in the article from which to conclude it meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 February 2011[edit]

3 February 2011[edit]

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

There was no valid reason given for the deletion. Please undelete, because there is no free replacement. Raphael1 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you explain why this image meets WP:NFCC? If not, there is really no chance of undeletion.Hobit (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the image is available at http://www.topdog08.com/2006/02/index.html - scroll down to February 04, 2006 - Cartoon from Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that in a situation where a newspaper publishes a 3 panel comic strip, we could possibly claim that a single panel was within policy, however reproducing the comic strip in its entirety is almost certainly outside of policy. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Savannah Gold – Recreation permitted as long as reliable sources are used. I looked through the various deleted versions and none of them seemed to have any decent sources, so I don't feel able to undelete per WP:BLP. Ask any admin for the deleted text if you'd like to see it. – Chick Bowen 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Savannah Gold (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Restore. Savannah Gold aka Natalie Heck ([46]) passes WP:PORNBIO by winning the UK Adult Film and Television Awards - Best Actress ([47]). The last AfD was full of misinformation. Somebody wrote it was a website poll, but in my knowledge the UKAFTA has a jury like the AVN Award. Even if it would be so, the F.A.M.E. Award is also a website poll and every winner passes PORNBIO. My last argument: look at List of British pornographic actors, there are 14 UKAFTA winners. Lolly Badcock, Carmel Moore and Keisha Kane won even in the same category. So everybody should see that it was a big fault to delete the article under false circumstances. --Hixteilchen (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation When the AfD is wrong, and you can prove it through sources which weren't even brought up in the AfD or article, DRV is not a mandatory stop, especially when this much time (9 months) has passed. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. UKAFTA is a major award in the porn industry. Too often, editors focus on the AVN awards, but the world is bigger than the little ol' San Fernando Valley. Cind.amuse 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned up the links. Usually we don't use <ref></ref> tags outside of articles, because they make long discussions less transparent. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore If someone has won a notable award, it is likely there are multiple sources out there. They may be more obscure and probably cannot be found via a common Google search, but could possibly be in some magazines or other offline sources. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just recreate it - The low-hanging fruit that is WP:PORNBIO has been met. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted, and get ready to salt. There was nothing wrong with the original AFD, nothing wrong with the close, and nothing wrong with yesterday's speedy deletion of the recreated article. There is something wrong with Hixteilchen bringing this to DRV w2ithout attempting to discuss the issue with either closing admin. There is something wrong with Hixteilchen claiming "false circumstances" in the AFD, since the only falsity is his claim that the article subject won the "Best Actress" award award from the UK Adult Film and Television Awards, since she didn't. She won the non-notable "BGAFD Best Actress Award", given by the non-notable commercial porn website BGAFD. The award might have been given out at the same staged-for-profit awards dinner (which BGAFD advertised), but it wasn't an "official" award, existed before the UKAFTAs did, and is without doubt nothing but a website poll [48] [49] [50] (NSFW links!). BGAFD may trade advertising space for the right to promote themselves/their awards at a borderline-notable event, but that still doesn't make their award notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hullaballoo Wolfowitz this is just your interpretation of the award, The Best Actress-Award is one of the main categories of the UKAFTA (would be the same Oscars without Best Actress). I even showed that other notable starlets have won in the same category. I don´t know what you have against polls, the fans are the fairest jury in the world! See also FAME Award, it´s a just-fan-award. The so-called BGAFD Best Actress Award is just the sponsor name and you know that. But it is the UKAFTA Award, thats fact. So I resume all your arguments lead to no result, because she passes WP:PORNBIO the same as Lolly Badcock, Carmel Moore and Keisha Kane do. Thanks for your attention. --Hixteilchen (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your unwillingness to accept or comprehend what's evidently stated in plain language is disruptive. The actual UKAFTA best actress award is listed directly below the BGAFD award in the link you cite (as "Best Female Actress," for reasons it's a trifle amusing to speculate about). One of the performers you mention, Lolly Badcock, won the BGAFD award in 2005, while the UKAFTA awards didn't exist until 2006, which should establish, except to those entirely unfamiliar with chronology, that the awards are different. And a consensus was reached in previous AFD discussion [51] that BGAFD awards weren't sufficient to meet the much more generous standards of the 2008 version of PORNBIO, so they're not going to satisfy the more stringent current requirements. Can somebody just close this time-wasting discussion, since there's no doubt that the nominator's rationale is factually unsupported? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are the only person that thinks so, the BGAFD award ist part of the UKAFTA. Type in wikipedia BGAFD Awards you will see where you land.--Hixteilchen (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than whining about The Big Bad Wolfowitz and his dastardly habit of factchecking, perhaps you could explain 1) how an award given for some years before the UKAFTAs existed can be one of them, and 2) if it is one of them, why the UKAFTAs would include 2 separate best actress awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is against all rules, The majority was for Restore. But exclusionists want to keep deleted. Send a copy of the text to my user page. There were sources by the organizer! (that´s no reliable source)? You can´t permit recreation Chick Bowen, she won the UKAFTA Award! --Hixteilchen (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 February 2011[edit]

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

The page was deleted in 2007 by Guy and then he deleted the page in 2011 without cause. I have observed his arguments and the individuals that he is communicating with who say his actions have not been appropriate. I agree with the other individuals as the article should have not been removed. Additionally, the initial requester of drv, when first posted for deletion review done in 2007 asked that drv not happen from what I see. I have no idea if Guy aka JZG has some sort of personal connection or animosity towards the subject of the article but his arguments are mean spirited and from what I observe rather bullheaded and without cause. When the article was replaced they were told to not make it too big by administrator Tom who said it should not be too large. I am sure that if the article was a true vanity page that they would have made it much larger. I am asking that the article be restored on Wikipedia because it had been on the Wikipedia system for four years with no problems. If I have not done this correctly I apologize as I have just begun posting to Wikipedia. 69.243.59.171 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Misrepresentations of the edit history of the article aside, the new version of the article is not terribly different from the version deleted in 2007. Kimble's situation has not changed at all in the past three years. I see no reason to restore. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – There must be some better reasons behind your challenge of the deletion aside from attacking the deleter with ad hominem remarks. –MuZemike 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I strongly suspect that the IP above is the same person as 69.140.66.1 (talk · contribs), who made some quite imflammatory remarks, of which I am surprised the IP was not blocked as a result. –MuZemike 03:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist This is 4 years later and consensus can change. The subject should have a chance to be put to the test in 2011. Shaliya waya (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Restore If I get a vote I believe the article should be restored on Wikipedia. I looked at logs and editorscommented how the article had been visible for years with no problems. There have been no misrepresentations of logs or edit histories that I am aware of.
 05:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Shaliya Waya, using G4 to enforce a 4-year-old discussion amounts to a denial that consensus can change. The cached article does contain sources that the 2007 deletion discussion could not possibly have considered. This isn't a call that one admin can make on their own authority because the sources need to be discussed. Overturn without prejudice to subsequent listing at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, it just means that I didn't notice the re-creation because the WP:SPA sneakily did it at a slightly different title. It was spam. For a politician who was not elected, Repeatedly not selected, in fact. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reason that it appears you are showing a prejudice towards the subjected article and person contained therein. I have viewed the public histories for one of the editors and see nothing sneaky or underhanded. The article was up for four years and the only one who seems to be bothered by it is you. Just an observation from the posts. 69.243.59.171 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per Lifebaka. Candidates for elections are not notable, and as there is no new assertion to notability beyond that then the article clearly meets G4. Syrthiss (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for two reasons. Firstly as noted above, consensus can change and 4 years is a long time. Secondly, the addition of new sources means it wasn't a valid G4 candidate - the community decides whether the sources are enough to meet the notability requirements, not a single admin, and as there are new sources the community needs to decide again - especially as one of the reasons for deletion was there were only primary sources and this is no longer the case (as a non-admin I'm taking this fact on trust as I can't see the AfD'd version). Dpmuk (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (obviously); the original article was created by WP:SPAs, deleted by AfD and rapidly re-created at a much better title also by a WP:SPA, all subsequent significant edits are also from this or another WP:SPA. The article was a campaigning platform for a minor also-ran politician who has not been elected. The requestor asserts that I deleted it out of bigotry because the article subject is a devout Christian. Not so. I deleted it as a G4 and spam. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four years and some new sources certainly make it not a G4. restore and list at AfD. Also the SPA status of the author doesn't matter in the fairly tight speedy criteria as far as I know. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, this is outside of G4's realm because three new sources were used, so a second AfD would be a good idea. But being realistic, is there any chance of this being kept? I can't help feeling that it might be a better use of everyone's time to focus on something that at least comes close to meeting the relevant guidelines. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I must say that the article from what I have seen was deleted by Guy in 2007 and then deleted again four years later by Guy. It does seem to be some sort of prejudice in his decision making. I believe that articles should be allowed if they are newsworthy and notable. Guy's reasoning seems somewhat clouded by emotion. I do not believe that the article was a campaign platform as the man has a campaign website. The person who deleted the article should be able to prove that his decision was not because of a prejudice and based upon a substantial reason because the article had been present for four years after his original deletion on minor grounds. 69.243.59.171 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist since new sources make it "not a G4", such that a new AfD is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AFD. The article is really not similar to the one deleted in 2007, and an AFD discussion from 3 and a half years ago that only four people contributed to is not justification for a G4 deletion now in my view. AFD will give us a more up to date consensus (which I suspect will again be in favour of deletion). --Michig (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. Article included several credible claims of significance for activity postdating the 2007 AFD, and therefore was evidently not suitable for G4 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list at AfD on the basis of talk of there being new sources not considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kimble. If it is not quite a G4 and not quite a G11, it is not G4 or G11 speediable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This was deleted at AfD because it showed no notability apart from being a political candidate. The new sources all derive, again, from his being a political candidate - their headlines are "About the candidate", "Kimble taking another shot at seat in Congress" and "Voters Guide: US Senator", this last one listing him along with ten other candidates. They do nothing to address the reason for deletion, making this a correct G4 speedy. We do not need to have a new AfD every time he stands again and gets some more press-cuttings as a candidate. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? He can still meet WP:GNG yes? And as the article is improved (with sources and stuff, the very definition of improved around here), it isn't a G4 right? It may well get deleted at AfD, but that's not a single admin's job to determine, nor DrVs. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • question/comment This guy is a scientist yes? Has anyone tried to see if there are any sources about him in that context? If so it might push him over to notability. But right now he seems to run afoul of our standards for political candidates. While I'd rather go through an AfD than have a speedy deletion when the last deletion was four years ago, insisting on such an AfD at this point would seem to be needless red-tape. I will change that opinion if sources about his work as a scientist can be presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A cursory search didn't get me anywhere. All the results were still references to his political career (and mostly Wikipedia mirrors) or about one John M. Kimble (a scientist working for the USDA). There might be some things offline or locked behind paywalls that Google doesn't see through. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The image was originally used in the article about Khalid Saeed, whose death was one of the main catalysts for the current 2011 Egyptian protests. He is now one of the slogans for the protest, with the "We are Khaled Said Movement" (Said being another spelling of Saeed) being an example. This image is from his autopsy after his death, likely taken by the forensic examiner. It was released onto the internet somehow in June of 2010 and it caused a major amount of worldwide criticism and backlash against Egypt and the image itself was spread around the world, becoming viral. Because of this, I feel that the image is significant and should be used in the article as a representation of this.

Around the 26-28th of January, since the start of the Egyptian protests, a rather large number of IP addresses had been removing the image from the article and were being reverted by myself and a few other editors. Only a very small minority of the IPs gave a reason and it was invariably about the image being graphic. There was a discussion about this on the talk page here.

After this had been going on for a while, I created a thread on ANI, which you can find here. I wasn't sure whether the edit war on the image was enough to ask for semi-protection through RFPP, so I raised this in that ANI discussion. The prior FfD for the image was then revealed to me and the image was redeleted as it had been a re-upload.

I feel, however, that there is certainly a good enough reason for this image to fall under non-free use and that the image is a necessity for the article because it is one of the main reasons for his notability. SilverserenC 04:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Just realized that I should have a link to the article in question, Khaled Mohamed Saeed. SilverserenC 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue where failures to follow the deletion process can be reviewed, and, where appropriate, amended. It is not a venue for users to advance new arguments (or re-advance old ones) that ought to have been raised at the XFD. Colloquially, "DRV is not FFD round 2". Stifle (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where all of the admins at ANI told me to take it. :/ SilverserenC 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you give the link to that? I get tired of the circular bureaucracy here sometimes too; the least we can do is figure out once and for all where you need to bring these objections instead of just getting voted down for process reasons.Yankeefan233 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ANI discussion can be found here. AniMate told me to take it to DRV. And, on the article talk page here, OverlordQ (also an admin) directed us to take the discussion to DRV. SilverserenC 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's right at the top of the DRV page, under the bottom of the box with 1, 2, 3, and 4 in it. There is not normally an appeal from deletion decisions, with the exception of where deletion process has not been followed. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore this, and any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can and should be reviewed here. All systems except drumhead court-martials provide for review. All admin decisions are reviewable, otherwise the community would not be willing to have admins, as none of them, including myself, are perfect. There needs to be a way of considering new evidence after something has been deleted, and this is the only place available. The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is not applicable. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reconciling the difference between your reading of policy and others' isn't something we need to do here, but if you want to propose an amendment to the policies and instructions at the top of the page, feel free to do so and gather a consensus for the change you'd like to make on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have all due respect for what Stifle says but in the circumstances I think it behoves us to consider this here.

    Warning: We're considering a close-up of a corpse's face. It's not the most distressing image I've come across on the web, but children, and editors of a sensitive disposition, should consider refraining from googling it.

    This image is someone's copyright and we don't know whose. The FfD correctly decided that we cannot be sure it is ethical to use it. Nothing has changed in that respect, so I conclude that (a) the original deletion was correct, and (b) we should enforce it.—S Marshall T/C 17:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen two girls one cup? This does not even come close the most distressing image I have seen in the last week. If you open any news channel you will a more distressing image any day of week -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original Deletion was Correct agree with S Marshall on all points.Electrojet2008 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The FfD was pretty much solely about the graphic nature of the image and not about the free status and meeting NFCC. Being too graphic is not a reason to delete an image. It may be a reason not to have it in the article, but that should be discussed at the article's talk page, not FfD by people who don't understand the importance or context for the image ("while I am not familiar with the person or circumstances of his death..."). Hobit (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse deletion: Support Per Hobit -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am still concerned that the image hinders rather than aids true understanding of the case, because to the non-expert eye it is suggestive of a lot of things that may not be true, visually mixing up the effects of the lethal violence (beating) with disfiguring effects of the post mortem investigation. I would say there would be a decent NFC case if we were using it to illustrate a well-informed, well-sourced medical discussion about what we are actually seeing in it. I don't see that discussion in the article yet. If we are using it only as an illustration of the shock value that caused its public impact, we will do better by relying on a verbal description alone ("a photograph of the hideously disfigured face of the dead body after the post mortem investigation appeared and sparked protests and accusations of torture" – that's perfectly sufficient). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do tomorrow. I've still got all of the sources I pointed out in the AfD that I have to add. SilverserenC 09:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Decided in contradiction to established policy. The policy about the nature of the image is unmistakable and part of our foundational policies: NOTCENSORED. Whether it otherwise qualifies as fair use is another matter. I suppose we could solve that one very easily by writing an article or section specifically about the image and the effect of it. Such a discussion would be meaningless without the actual image present, and thus meets the NFCC criteria. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links, for reference:Image removal, the FFD.
So, although I am fully aware that DRV is not 'round 2' of the deletion, I ask that this decision be made by the article content editors, because there were no policy-based reasons given at FFD.
AniMate wrote, If we want to describe the torture we can do so using words and not that image. - I strongly disagree with that sentiment; there is absolutely no way that any description can convey the same information about this topic as that image.
It is encyclopaedic, has unique historical significance, adds to understanding of the subject.  Chzz  ►  13:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion on the article talk page, actually, if you look. And, including myself, there are five editors supporting inclusion, with the opposers being IPs where this discussion is their first edit. SilverserenC 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, sorry; I just wanted to point out, that an article talk page was/is/will be the the right place for a discussion of this kind, because FFD and DRV can merely act upon policy-based reasons (such as if nonfree can apply) rather than any discussion relating to its specific merit for inclusion in that article. And yes, there is indeed clear support from some established editors over there - which increases the rationale for overturning the FFD.  Chzz  ►  19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No policy-based reason for deletion articulated by either the nominator or those agreeing with him. I note that the discussion was poorly attended and should probably have been both relisted and DELSORT'ed. Still, arriving at DRV, the deletion is objectively unreasonable and should be overturned. While I respect FPAS's entirely forthright nom, including the honesty about having just orphaned the image himself, the same applied "human decency" standard would have suppressed the two iconic and prizewinning photographs in Category:Vietnam War photographs. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - If only to have a proper discussion about the usage of a non-free image, rather than have the deletion be about the graphic/controversial nature of the image itself, which is (or should be; we lost the goatse image from that article because of wiki-prudery last year) outside the scope of a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per Jclemens. Wikipedia is not censored. Clear historical importance. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 February 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC 19-01-2011 fair use claimed.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

No consensus to delete. 6 keeps and no deletes other than the nominator. Image cannot legally be replaced due to subjects protected identity and image officially released by Australian Department of Defence for use by media organisations without requirement for further permission so there is no question of copyright infringement. Image had an extensive fair use rationale which was supported by a number of experienced editors. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A wide-ranging discussion after which S Marshall changed position from "undelete" to "endorse"
  • There's quite a subtle issue to be considered here, that occasionally surfaces at DRV: there's a problem with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria in that they don't address Crown Copyright. Clearly NFCC should address Crown Copyright, because images subject to Crown Copyright are supposed to be available for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study. (See, for example, the MOD website here.) Setting aside concerns about the exact wording of the NFCC for a moment, there is absolutely no copyright-related reason or non-free-content-related reason why Wikipedia shouldn't use these images. This means that the "keep" consensus was objectively correct.

    However, when we take into account the exact wording of the NFCC, it becomes clear that our own rules do require this image to be deleted, because it is copyrighted material. Thus it would be overly harsh to say that SchuminWeb should be overturned. Please would the closer of this DRV consider not using the word "overturn" in connection with this debate.

    My recommendation is that we refer the question of crown copyright to the copyright noticeboard so that editors interested in copyright can consider how best to allow for it in the NFCC. I also think that without prejudice to the outcome of the discussion on the copyright noticeboard, we should undelete the image for the moment.—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "are supposed to be available for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study" well that's the rub, we are the free encyclopedia in the expansive sense, the images should be forward usable by commercial interests also in much the same way we don't accept the NC variants of creative commons. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, mate, that's Wikimedia Commons' mission, not ours. Wikimedia Commons are trying to build a library of content that's both gratis and libre for anyone to use, even for commercial purposes. It's a very admirable goal, of course, but here on Wikipedia we're not doing that. What we're building is an encyclopaedia. And that's why we have the facility to host images directly as well as use Wikimedia Commons ones: because sometimes, it's in the encyclopaedia's interest to use images that are gratis but not libre.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem somewhat confused, take a look at Wikipedia:About - "Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project", free content being the key point here.
Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors' rights and obligations - "Non-text media may be contributed under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution."
Take another look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content "Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially." .. "Any content not satisfying criteria, such as "non-commercial use only" images, images with permission for use on Wikipedia only, or images fully copyrighted are therefore classified as non-free." and "The licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires all content hosted on Wikipedia to be free content. However, there are exceptions."
We do not accept images licensed under Non-Commercial licenses only, we do not accept images licensed for use on wikipedia only. Sure we accept that in some restricted circumstances no free image will be available, at which point we apply our non-free content policy which imposes a higher standard than simple fair use.
Back to this image - does it fit "does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially." No. Does it fit ""Any content not satisfying criteria, such as "non-commercial use only" images, images with permission for use on Wikipedia only, or images fully copyrighted are therefore classified as non-free."" . Yes. So we classify it as non-free and we apply the non-free content criteria which are purposely designed to restrict our use of non-free content, since our goal is to write a free encyclopedia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think I'm confused. I'm afraid I rather think you're misunderstanding the point in two respects. First, you seem to be talking about the rules as written; but my point is that there's a lacuna in the rules because they fail to grok how Crown Copyright works. They mistakenly put Crown Copyright into the same category as a commercially copyrighted image, and that's the wrong way to deal with it. Second, you're conflating the ideal situation—which is for users to submit content that's both gratis and libre—with the reality, which is that sometimes it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to use content that's gratis but not libre. And that's why we have NFCC at all.

    In this case I think it's common ground that the image is not replaceable. That was certainly the consensus at the FfD. So to me, the questions are, (1) is it ethical to use it, and (2) if so, will it enhance the encyclopaedia? I see the answers to both questions as a clear yes.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If crown copyright is not free for use, then it falls under under [[Wikipedia:Non-free_content]. If its not free the wikimedia foundation don't permit it unless it falls under an exemption doctrine policy. Images released solely for wikipedia use may enhance the encyclopedia and of course there is no ethical issue, we don't permit them because they are at odds with our goal, NC licensed the same no ethical issue but at odds with our goals. There is no ethical question in it, non-free is at odds with our project goal which is what my original statement says.

    Does it enhance our encyclopedia? well if our goal is to create a free-content encyclopedia (as it is) then the answer has to contemplate the benefit of the image vs it introducing non-free content to our encyclopedia. (WP:NFCC rationale - "To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.")

    Our exemption doctrine policy is WP:NFCC so that's the sole question which has to be resolved, if it's crown copyright, licensed for use by wikipedia only, a commerical image or licensed NC only, the question is still the same. So your original call "Clearly NFCC should address Crown Copyright, because images subject to Crown Copyright are supposed to be available for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study." the rationale qutoe I give above addresses that, simply those still aren't without our mission. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I still think you're confused. Crown copyright is not "released solely for Wikipedia". In this case the image is available for use for the purposes of non-commercial research and private study. It is not available for commercial use.

    Her Majesty is not going to licence her property under any terms except Crown Copyright. The mountain will not come to Mohammed. And I read the FfD discussion we're considering as a consensus that the image is not replaceable.

    Your view seems to be that "if it's not free content we don't want it", and I think by "free" you mean "libre". But that's not how things are. The reason why we have non-free content criteria for images at all is because it's established custom and practice that there are times when it really is both ethical and in the best interests of the encyclopaedia for us to use content that's gratis but not libre.

    I see it as essentially idealism -vs- pragmatism. Of course, ideally we'd have a free content equivalent, but we don't. No free content equivalent could exist. So in these circumstances we have to decide whether we can use the content that's gratis but not libre, and the first question is whether it's ethical to do so. In this case it is. The second question is whether it enhances the encyclopaedia to do it. In this case the answer is yes. See?—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid the discussion about Crown Copyright and the fundamentals of NFCC is a red herring. Our non-free content rules are deliberately designed in such a way as to restrict our use even of totally legal "gratis" images such as these, as long as they are not "libre". Crown Copyright / non-commercial permission / "permission for Wikipedia" and other similar situations only mean that one of our eight NFC criteria is safely met (NFCC#2, commercial damage). All other criteria must still be applied with exactly the same strictness as everywhere else. In the present case, the crux is replaceability. The review nomination misstates its case, by repeating the mistaken premise that new free pictures would be impossible. They clearly are not, as was conclusively proven in the parallel cases of Mark Donaldson and Willie Apiata, where third-party photography at public events has been frequent and evidently unhindered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said before, I read the FfD as a consensus that it's not replaceable. In the discussion we're considering, Mattinbgn's very cogent point was that there are potentially serious implications of harm to living people when one takes a photograph of a member of the special forces. This view was eloquently and patiently supported by pdfpdf. Only you disagreed with it, and I don't find your responses were sufficient to refute the point because the man may well have taken steps to alter his appearance since this photograph was taken. Therefore, a current photograph potentially includes different ethical issues compared to one that's already been released by the MOD.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steps to alter his appearance since"? Now, that is a new argument. The photograph was taken just the other day. We will know whether he will "change his appearance" once he will begin to appear on public occasions during his promotional publicity tour (which has been officially confirmed is going to take place.) I'm not talking about taking candid shots of him at the front in Afghanistan or stalking him to his home. I'm talking about taking photos like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right to say the picture was taken very recently, and in fact I believe the date was 19th January 2011. But members of the special forces can change their appearance fairly rapidly.—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a red herring – whenever he will be appearing in public, then whatever his appearance is at that time will evidently not be secret. We're talking public appearances in front of dozens or hundreds of private citizens, who possess mobile phones and cameras. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're saying this because of public appearances that haven't actually happened yet, though. As far as I can see, you're arguing that the image isn't replaceable now, but you think it will probably be replaceable in the future. Am I right?—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they haven't happened yet. But we can expect them to happen in the immediate, near future, i.e. during the next few months [52]. That's enough for NFCC#1, which is deliberately designed so as to bar non-free images not merely from the moment a free equivalent has actually become available, but from the moment the possibility of such a replacement has become foreseeable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete image.Oceansummer87 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn #1 there was no consensus for deletion--the closer should have !voted rather than closed if he felt he needed to override it. #2 The arguments that the picture is irreplaceable (and thus that he lives is irrelevant) are strong and #3 per S. Marshall. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we asking for the undeletion of a file talk page or the file page? If the latter, can someone please correct the listing? Stifle (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear I'm requesting the undeletion of the both the image and the talkpage. Anotherclown (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse (as original nominator) – all "keep" votes were based on a faulty premise, i.e. that creating new, free images would be not merely difficult, but illegal. That would have been a valid argument if it were true, but the premise was conclusively shown to have been factually mistaken during the nomination. In two earlier, exactly parallel cases, it was clearly demonstrated that photographs created at public events by third-party authors (i.e. not controlled and released by the subject's military employers, but by independent journalists or private citizens) did in fact exist, and that there is evidently no legal or practical hindrance to the creation of such photographs. The keep votes, being based on a factually mistaken premise, were therefore validly discounted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. NFCC implements Wikimedia Foundation policy, and exceptions to it can't be created by a local consensus. Therefore, it was particularly important for the closing admin to carefully weigh the arguments against the texts of policies involved. This was an infobox image, used for general identification of the article subject in a BLP, creating a strong presumption that another identifying image can be created and used. The keep !voters never refuted this presumption. The probability that such an image can't readily be created in the near future, or without difficulty, isn't enough to establish an exception under the NFCC exemption doctrine. There wasn't anything about the medal presentation ceremony itself which was particularly notable. If the photo had been taken during the even for which the subject received the medal, with the same copyright status, I think the outcome would be different. But a picture of a soldier who is receiving, or has just received, a medal, however much it may add to the attractiveness of the article, does not add to a reader's understanding in the same way that an image of the underlying event itself might. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. In my view, closing admins at FFD are more than anywhere else entitled to go "against the numbers" and it was correct to do so here in light of the repeated points that Fut.Perf. raised regarding replaceability. His/her arguments were, objectively viewed, overwhelmingly strong. I also note that no-one seems to have attempted to ask the Commonwealth Copyright Administration for permission to use the photo. In my experience off-wiki, the Commonwealth frequently gives permission to use its copyrighted works with attribution. I'm not sure why S Marshall is linking the UK MOD website though, UK and Australia copyright law is of course different. The Australian Copyright Act vests all copyright of Crown works with the Crown and makes absolutely no special provision for the fair use of Crown copyrighted works, save only for reproductions of court judgments and legislation. At least in Australia, the position is very clear and very much contrary to the position that S Marshall asserts. Happy to take anyone through the relevant provisions. The Australian government may, as a matter of policy, be more liberal in giving permission to use copyrighted works for non-commercial purposes, but the law does not require them to be so. Like any other copyright holder, the Commonwealth of Australia has to be asked to give permission for use, or we need a firm fair-use rationale. Neither exist here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's a good point. I knew that there were mild differences between Australian copyright and copyright under the Law of England and Wales, but I didn't realise Crown Copyright worked differently in different realms. I withdraw my objection and now endorse the deletion.—S Marshall T/C 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note, though, that the "research or study" concept that you mentioned above is a fair use exception in Australian law: both for Crown copyright and general copyright: [66]. But I doubt placement on a wikipedia article is "for the purposes of research or study"; I assume that's why we demand "licensed for commercial use" for Creative Commons-licensed images. And the factors in subsection 40(2), which are quite similar to our own NFCC, would be a hurdle if we're looking to reproduce a whole photo.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But a claim of fair use has to be in US law because the Wikipedia servers are way over there in the US. I was arguing that Crown Copyright amounts to a grant of permission to use (which would be correct in the Law of England and Wales, but as I learned from researching your post, is wrong in Australian law). Actual permission could be in any law.

    I still think the NFCC are wrong about Crown Copyright and I'd like to find a test case on which to argue the point, but clearly this one isn't it.—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the Australian Department of Defence has released the image under the following specific terms: "This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice and imagery metadata) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your family or organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (for example, "fair dealing" for the purposes of reporting news under section 103B of the Copyright Act), all other rights are reserved."
As such how is the use of this image by wikipedia in contravention of these terms? Indeed it explicity covers the use of this image under "fair dealing" for the reporting of news which is exactly what this article did with the image. As such the copyright holder has ALREADY GIVEN THEIR PERMISSION. I also continue to dispute any assertion that we are allowed to photograph this individual, and anyone who asserts otherwise is simply ignorant of the law. Have people done so anyway - yes, and in all liklihood anyone who did so in the future would probably get away with it. So yes third party photography is possible, but that doesn't mean its legal. Protection of the identities of SASR personnel is a fact that has been clearly established and references for this were provided in the previous debate. Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A license "for your personal, non-commercial use" is worthless under WP:NFCC. It needs to be a Free cultural work, which it isn't. And as for the legality, no, nothing of the sort has been established. The only thing that's been established is that the government normally doesn't volunteer certain information. Nothing has been cited that would constitute a legal restriction on what private citizens may or may not do, once information has been voluntarily released by the government. You claim there is a law, so cite that law, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have completly ignored my point, which was about the explicit permission under "fair dealing", and not a license "for your personal, non-commercial use". I'm no lawyer so no I don't have the legislation in front of me but I would assume either the Defence Act or Crimes Act. That said this media release on the Australian Department of Defence website is fairly clear, and I quote: "Soldiers of the Special Operations Command are given protected identity status due to the nature of the work they undertake for the Australian Defence Force and the wider Australian public." [67] Anotherclown (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What accepted claim of "fair dealing" are you arguing? --Mkativerata (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above the Australian DoD released the image under the specific terms listed above, which includes this statement: "Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (for example, "fair dealing" for the purposes of reporting news under section 103B of the Copyright Act), all other rights are reserved." As such I am arguing, that the copyright holder has EXPLICITLY accepted the use of this image under "fair dealing" for the purposes of reporting news under section 103B of the Copyright Act." This image was used to do exactly what the copyright holder released it to do and as such it does not infringe that copyright IMO. As I also established above, and in the Ifd, it cannot legally be replaced either. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But: (1) Wikipedia does not report news; and (2) reporting the news isn't automatically a fair dealing. It's only fair if it doesn't unduly limit commercial opportunities, the image isn't replaceable, etc. etc. So to make use of that exception, the image has to (a) be used to report the news; and (b) be "fair use". Neither is satisfied here. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong - you continue to ignore the point: there is no legal replacement. Also if the Australian DoD didn't allow the image's use under "fair dealing" then how else did ever media organisation in the country get to use it? Anotherclown (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And quoting WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant. How about actually discusing the points I raised rather than deflecting the issue? Anotherclown (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, people have been discussing the points you've raised for two weeks now and nothing seems to be getting through to you. I don't see much point in continuing. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No they haven't. I have made two points above that have not been properly discussed. AFAIK neither have been raised previously in their current form. Fut.Perf. asked me to clarify my point, I did. You asked me to clarify it further, I did. As such I await your responses. If you choose not to participate in the discussion that is your choice however. Anotherclown (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the law: I did what you ought to have done, and looked up the laws you cited. Nothing, of course. The defence act only mentions a prohibition of unauthorized depiction of military installations (forts etc.). In the criminal code the only article that could possibly be relevant is that about espionage, but it of course contains an explicit disclaimer about information that has already been communicated to the public by the authorities, which is of course the case here. Ball is in your court. – About the fair dealing argument: it doesn't matter whether you appeal to the "for non-commercial use" clause or the "fair dealing for reporting news" clause. Their status in terms of WP policy is the same: they are non-free licenses. And Mkativerata is also correct about the point that we are not a news medium, so the "reporting news" clause in the fair dealings rules is irrelevant to us. (But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a difference, as stated before.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February&oldid=420279092"