Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2011 Deletion review archives December 2011 >

30 November 2011[edit]

29 November 2011[edit]

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

Tgose are two of my personal pictures. How can I do to keep them with no future problems? This is a biographical page I use for information purposes only. I'm the person depicted in the biography so I'm the legal owner of the material in it, includiong the two (2) pictures you already deleted. Can you help me with that issue? Thanks in advance. 66.176.42.2 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • SuperKombat – Its pretty clear that this was a defective discussion. The SPA votes should all be discounted unless they advanced well founded policy based arguments. However, from the discussion I'm reading here, the delete arguments failed to address the possibility of sourcing that was provided on the talk page and consequently deleting this would have been a poor outcome. As such a close of no consensus appears reasonable and perhaps could be considered as something of a not proven deletion case. While I am loath to encourage unending further discussion, its clear that a proper consensus can be found by examining the possibility of sourcing and directly addressing them and that no benefit would be gained by delaying this, so I'm closing this with permission to immediately relist at afd. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
SuperKombat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have lots of issues with this close. It's particularly sloppy work, and it's worse coming from an administrator (User:HJ Mitchell) I generally admire and agree with. For the record, immediately after the close I told Harry in a friendly way I was coming to this process. The T-Day holiday gave me time to consider whether I wanted to proceed, and I do.
IMHO, consensus for deletion was clear, given the obvious sockpuppetry associated with the procedure, the poverty of argument on the keep side, and the gaming of the system with this particular AfD (and with the entire MMA/kickboxing group of AfDs in the last few months). In this case, the subject article was deleted by process here in July, plus two of the subsidiary event articles were deleted here and here. Yet these pages were recreated again in October. Note the page creator User:Minowafan was blocked for being a sockpuppet of process participant User:WölffReik (himself blocked for a time for socking), who clearly knew about the AfD outcomes, being a participant. These should have G4'd right away. Note Minowafan/WölffReik also created the subsidiary pages except for one, that created by an editor User:Cyperuspapyrus also blocked for socking. So we have shadiness in each of the pages from minute one.
As to the details of the AfD process under this discussion, note the comment by the nominator here. Note the November 6 revision history here. We have lots of sockpuppetry, as sysop User:MuZemike pointed out before the close. By the sysop's report, six of the eight keep !votes are tainted by use of more than one account. The arguments made by the eight keep !voters don't stand the test of guideline or policy. Given that Harry had been informed on a previous AfD about the rife socking (and reversed himelf), I was baffled by his overly optimistic closing statement in this well-gamed procedure.
After Harry's close, the procedure was edited by User:Johnymanos arc, himself a participant in at least one of the earlier processes. Harry failed to remove the AfD headings from all of the subsidiary pages, leaving some of that [1][2][3] to another likely sockpuppet, User:Rickr20 (certainly a SPA). Finally, Harry failed to put notices of the outcomes on any of the talk pages associated with the procedure. As I said before, sloppy work.
I have zero faith these promotion-oriented buzzing bees will go away the next time the pages are listed for deletion. While consensus here may not overturn the no consensus outcome, Harry has explaining to do. I also don't understand why User:WölffReik is allowed to edit anything, given the proven history of using multiple accounts to affect these procedures. BusterD (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't overturn, though I do find this a little tricky. I would suggest following Harry's ren-nom suggestion, not because of the arguments advanced at the AfD , but because of the sources Ol'Yeller points to on the talk page imply GNG may be met. I wonder if the sock activity was dealt with completely? Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • A decision's usually better than a compromise, if that's possible within our rules. However, there are good reasons why DRV will not normally fault a closer who calls "no consensus" on a fraught or contentious debate, not least because a call of "no consensus" gives you the latitude to renominate in early course. That's as good a remedy as a deletion review, to be honest. I wonder whether the technical errors with the close might be because of some kind of error with a closing script, perhaps; I wouldn't assume sloppiness on HJ Mitchell's part without eliminating other possibilities.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No assumption of sloppiness is necessary. Harry apparently never looked back. He didn't watchlist the close, and when the process was "vandalized", he didn't notice. If an admin is so dependent on closing scripts he or she doesn't double check the pagespace and talkspace afterwards, then that's pretty careless closing behavior, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Criteria supporting notability:-

1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage

2. Promotes a large number of events--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable

3. Has actively been in business for several years--the longer the organization has been around, the better

4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters
1. Coverage in 83 countries, all the events live on Eurosport.

2. Promoted 7 events in 2011, 6 in Romania and 1 - the final from Germany, 5 shows were World Grand Prix.

3. Yes, SuperKombat's mother is the well known organization Local Kombat (promoted events with K-1 and other European promotions from Croatia, Hungary, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Poland and Czech Republic from 2003 to 2010). Same founder. LK was broadcasted by Fox Sports some events like K-1 Europe's GP in Bucharest - 2010, not only Eurosport.

4. Hesdy Gerges current It's showtime champion, Alexey Ignashov, Ben Edwards, Errol Zimmerman, Albert Kraus, Mighty Mo, Bob Sapp, Carter Williams, etc. all fought in the promotion in 2011. All are known from K-1.

Therefore, what are some users trying to do? To destroy the kickboxing database while MMA has here all kind of obscure promotions pages? Not only from United States, but also from Europe like Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki with no important coverage and with no fighters not even from top 30 in the organisation. While SuperKombat had a lot of fighters from Top 16 this year, coverage in 83 countries, notable fights like the final tournament or Gerges-Verhoeven, shows in other countries too.

Not to mention that some users were deleting important pages of the K-1 history. Take a look, there were redirected but the majority is missing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_K-1_events. Including the K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Bucharest - EVENT ON HD NET you can check commented by Schiavello and the Australian - which was the only World Grand Prix of K-1 in 2010 in Europe, considering in the end Amsterdam organised no show, so we had only an East Europe one. The same destroying (deleting) all the list of events here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Local_Kombat_events. Or deleting the events list of other notable European promotions. Shame! :( Rick Rick, 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to thank new User:Rickr20 (95 edits, all in MMA) for demonstrating exactly what we're dealing with in these MMA/kickboxing AfD processes. BusterD (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Strangely, that Papaursa user is editing MMA articles, but he is reporting for deletion kickboxing articles, destroying the database. And you support him! I only express my opinion, something is not right here.
  • to S Marshall from BusterD: "Thanks for your comments (S Marshall) on the DRV. I've got nothing but respect for HJ, and I acknowledge the wisdom in yours and Rich's words. Can you explain why these pages weren't G4'd right away? The first three clearly meet the criteria. BusterD (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)"[reply]
  • The speedy deletion criteria are deliberately narrow, and they deliberately don't leave much room for administrator discretion. (When it comes to deletion, admins are the jury and executioner, but the role of judge has always been reserved for community consensus.) Davewild decided that the new version was not "substantially identical" to the previous version, so it didn't fall within the criteria for an immediate summary deletion. Thus the only options were prod and AfD, and prod's useless when the article is defended by its creator. I can understand why this seems bureaucratic to someone in your position and I have some sympathy with you. I believe that I've reflected on this enough now to add some of those words in bold that we always seem to get in discussions.

    Relist with a semi-protected AfD in the hope that next time we can get an untainted deletion discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Thank you very much because you try to remain objective and you are not influenced. There is place for everybody here, including Papaursa who did great job regarding the whole martial arts or even BusterD who is like a policeman. But in this case I am not sure BusterD is right. It is your choice if you want wikipedia not to have a kickboxing database like it has MMA or boxing. Then, our work will end here. If not, we should be allowed even to recreate for example the K-1 lost events. Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickr20 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want anything, only respect please our work as we respect your work. Especially when we came with arguments. I can't believe people deleted K-1 events. And really, if you want WIKIPEDIA only for you we will leave it. Me, Wolf and others (Dutchmen) who already left. You know what Jimmy Wales said. Rick
  • Does not really make much sense to appeal a no-consensus close. The closer suggested a renomination after a while; the main thing to decide is how long to wait. Based on what's being said here, though, I wouldn't be surprised at continued lack of consensus. (myself, I don't have enough interest in the subject to try to figure out the merits.) DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there is a clear consensus to delete if you exclude the rife gaming and socking. If this process gaming and socking is allowed to continue (and thus be accepted), then I agree lack of consensus will be a problem. Virtually everyone involved with page creation and keep !votes here is a known puppet, a socker, or a SPA. Is this how the pedia truly wants to handle such gaming the system? BusterD (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow renomination at AfD 2 months after a no consensus close. In the renomination, carefully compose a clear response to the reasons that no consensus was reached last time. Trust the closer to know how to discount SPAs; no need to semi-protect an AfD. Nothing to "overturn" here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the article up for AfD because I thought it deserved a discussion after being recreated and I strongly feel the events fail notability. Lately there has been a rash of martial arts articles getting recreated shortly after being deleted and I would like to discourage this practice. I think putting it up again will lead to the same results--the sockpuppets, disruptive editors, and SPAs will tie things up with arguments that don't really bear on the issue. I hope that the editors involved received blocks. I think there was a consensus for deleting if you remove the questionable editors, but that's just my opinion. As far as comments about my views go, I have a clear record of voting to delete some events and keep others--it's a novel concept that isn't all or nothing (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride Total Elimination 2003). The key for each event is whether it meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT and has reliable independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DRV nominator BusterD (talk · contribs) that the discussion was plagued with sockpuppetry and disruptive participation. Discounting the participation by Mdtemp (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik/Archive) and discounting single-purpose accounts Mdtemp (talk · contribs), The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk · contribs), and Temporary for Bonaparte (talk · contribs), there were two "keep" votes remaining: Madison-chan (talk · contribs) and Umi1903 (talk · contribs).

    Madison-chan wrote "weak keep" and her rationale seemed to be a "delete" vote: "Events don't seem all that notable, and almost all Ghits are unreliable". The following "some of the kickboxers appear to be notable" is a weak argument to keep the article and was rebutted by Papaursa (talk · contribs): "Having notable kickboxers doesn't make an event notable. An event needs to be long-term significant (see WP:SPORTSEVENT)."

    Umi1903 relied on a slippery slope argument: "This organization is probably the most eminent one in Europe for 2011. If you are tend to delete these, what's next? Delete all Kickboxing champions' articles, as well? Why are some people out here so much obsessed to wipe kickboxing articles, since we've got tones of UNREFERENCED articles from varied disciplines? Why!?" WP:OTHERSTUFF is also applicable here. Mdtemp (talk · contribs) countered Umi1903's argument:

    The fact that an organization created this year, one whose first event outside of Romanina is this weekend, is the preeminent kickboxing organization in Europe says a lot about the state of kickboxing right now. Feel free to put up those other unreferenced articles for AfD.

    The "delete" votes were nearly uniform in invoking WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT to justify deletion. Owing to the strong policy-based arguments on the "delete" side, and the weak arguments on the "keep" side, I would have interpreted the consensus as "delete" based on the AfD discussion.

    However, as noted by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), the "delete" arguments did not analyze the sources mentioned by OlYeller21 (talk · contribs) on the talk page:

    Coverage from reliable sources

    I'm seeing several hits in a Google News search and Google News Archive search. I can't read most of them but it indicates to me that a G4 may probably doesn't apply after reading through the arguments made at this article's previous AfD. OlYeller21Talktome 17:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    It is possible that the subject(s) pass Wikipedia:Notability based on the non-English sources that editors have not reviewed. Because the discussion was defective, and because the socks tainted the discussion as noted by S Marshall (talk · contribs), a "no consensus" close is arguably justified.

    Relist with a semi-protected AfD by the DRV closer to achieve consensus about whether the articles fail Wikipedia:Notability. Like SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I trust the closing admins will discount the arguments by the single-purpose accounts. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 3 December 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.
Cam Newton eligibility controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Legitimate, valid article that was meant to be created according to the discussion at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr. 198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Neither valid or legitimate. There is a section in Cam Newton discussing these matters, and that's all there is to it. The discussion you refer to suggests splitting off from Cecil Newton, Sr. "to make the article robust, broad and complete", which clearly hasn't happened. Moreover, I do not see a strong and well-argued consensus there to create this new article. Besides, if I read the discussion correctly, the suggestion seems to be that your article would be created contingent on the deletion of Cecil Newton, Sr., which didn't happen--and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Newton, Sr. did not deliver any kind of consensus for this spin-off. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 November 2011[edit]

  • Matson Jones – Deletion Endorsed. Obviously we are not restoring this. There is no barrier to creating a new sourced article and letting it take its chances. – Spartaz Humbug! 04:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Matson Jones (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The reason for deletion was WP:PATENT, and I don't believe this was nonsense at all, and would like to have the deletion revoked. Also I'd like to point out that the user (DJ Clayworth) who requested the deletion has been reprimanded for being overly delete happy. --Corn8bit (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's generally not a good idea to try and bad mouth the "closer", the deletion is either valid or invalid, that status of the closer with regard any other deletion is irrelevant. What makes you believe this wasn't nonsense? It's a deletion from 3.5 years ago for which I'm assuming you can't see the content. Don't confuse a believe that the subject is a real subject with what someone may have written under a given article title. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted text is:
I think the text speaks for itself. T. Canens (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2008 version is obviously nonsense. Possibly the nominator was referring to the older version from 2006, which was deleted under A7 (and wasn't nonsense). That version did claim that the band had released an album on a notable label (Sympathy for the Record Industry), which is arguably an assertion of significance. Hut 8.5 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we seriously going to discuss whether to overturn an A7 (of an article that is extremely borderline at best) from 2006? T. Canens (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator trying to bring into question the deleter is quite clear and specific as to who that was, they only performed the one deletion, the 2008 version. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am willing to Assume Good Faith--not everyone can figure out at first how to read the deletion log. I take the comment as indicating he wants to make an article for the band somehow, and is asking our assistance in earnest. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is exactly right, I'm very (brand) new to this, and I created this account because I saw that in the history of my favorite band's wiki there was good, quality information. I didn't see the gibberish in the history, so my apologies for missing it. I'm also happy to create or cleanup the page as needed, to the best of my ability. Thank you for your help :) Corn8bit (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe I'm overdoing it, but I'm happy to extend the same assumption as the lister was willing to extend to DJ Clayworth. No need to labour that point further here though. If the user believes an article can be written about the subject meeting the relevant criteria/standards then they are free to do so. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy – Deletion vacated Closure of AFD was correct at the time. Although !votes are nearly even (6-4 in favor of overturn), I find that the "keep deleted" !voters did not address the Atlantic story from after the AFD at all. It was ignored by all of the "keep deleted" !voters except when pointed out to FT2 by Hobit. FT2's response was to point Hobit to an AFD that closed before the article was written. With that in mind, I feel that undelete !voters have made a stronger argument and consensus leans toward restoring the article. No prejudice against renomination at AFD. – v/r - TP 16:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason for the deletion was WP:NOTNEWS. In the discussion, it was explicitly stated that the article could be restored if the WP:NOTNEWS criteria is met. I believe that I found evidence to support that. Apparently, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit created an episode based on this case (see this article). I think this means that the story has now gone into popular culture, hence the WP:NOTNEWS criteria is met. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete source listed above plus things like Atlantic covering this 2-3 months later make me think we are past NOTNEWS and have sustained coverage. I also think the original discussion was probably better closed as no consensus, but delete wasn't outside of admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted (disclosure: nominator of original deletion) - it has had no significant mention pretty much since the event. Now, it is now not the subject of direct commentary, significant coverage or analysis, but has merely been the inspiration for a TV episode - not even a major show but an episode of a show. Brief 1 sentence mention in the article on that show/episode if we cover the episode. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A massive story in the Atlantic 3 months later isn't significant coverage, or is that not long enough past the event? Hobit (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the original AFD - long standing norms on matters are quite content to pass by huge volumes of news that get attention for a short time but really have no place in an encyclopedia. This was one of those. Significant coverage showing any kind of enduring encyclopedic nature was pretty much zero then, and coverage on a show that attributes its plot idea to an old news story, doesn't really change that. If we had an article on the episode, worth a one line mention. "Gave someone the idea for an episode of a tv show" doesn't make the original story itself encyclopedic. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic coverage, 3 months later, is IMO, exactly the kind of in-depth, after-the-fact coverage one would want when overcoming NOTNEWS. It takes the event as a starting point and goes into detail about how it illustrates issues with society--the massive increase in female binge drinking, the problem with the culture found at Duke (and other similar schools), etc. Could you explain why you don't find that coverage to be enough? In addition the SVU show is almost certain to spark some additional news coverage of the underlying indecent. Hobit (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is very similar to S Marshall's comment - namely it's a good example to include within a wider topic on internet privacy. But the standard for an event to be encyclopedic is lacking, this had no significant impact in the way encyclopedic topics do. It scoverage after the initial "OMG SEX NEWS!" splurge was one brief revisit a few months later, and someone based an episode in a series round the idea (verging on WP:NOTINHERITED). It isn't "significant coverage" or coverage of the event either). It just doesn't show (to me) it is encyclopedic. The rest - see AFD rationale. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that if you think the "revisit" was brief you probably didn't look at (or read) the article. It's more than 5500 words, solely on this topic 3 months later. That's a lot of words. An average NYT article is 1200. The industry standard for a "feature" article in a newspaper is 400-1000 words. It seems remarkable to be deleting an article here because it's "just news" when we have sources like that. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The TV show episode is not significant--every episode of that show is based on a news story. The basic situation has not changed since the AfD. Chick Bowen 05:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may disagree as to the relevance of the TV show episode, but I can't see how you can write "The basic situation has not changed since the AfD" given the Atlantic reference above which was written 2 months after the AfD. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per FT2. The article cited says: "Truly (the writer of the episode) explained that he always ensures that the twists of his script deviate considerably from what happen in real life... Truly could only milk (the original incident) for four or five scenes—anything more would have felt like a stretch, he said. Caitlin’s murder was resolved well before the episode’s half-way mark... " The fact that the incident provided inspiration for part of one episode of a TV series, altered to be in an office rather than a university and to result in a murder, really does not mean that it has "gone into popular culture." Also, the BLP issues raised in the AfD still apply. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete/allow recreation BLP was not the cause for deletion but rather NOTNEWS and a strong argument has been made that NOTNEWS no longer applies given the Atlantic article and the later use of the idea in a TV show. The primary BLP issue would be the people who are mentioned in the faux thesis, and the article shouldn't mention them by name (and appropriately does not). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Rubbish. All of these crime serials, the CSIs to NCIS to Law and Order, crib from the headlines of the day for interesting story angles, it doesn't make the underlying event notable by association. Once in awhile the cribbing makes the local news, but nothing more. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore it was a bad decision in the first place. The various stages of the incident raised very different questions (.i.e. , when it was thought real, and then when it was admitted not to be).It's mot news--it will continue being discussed, at least tin the professional journals, and certainly when the next comparable incident occurs. NOT NEWS has a purpose, but when it reaches things dealing ith basic social or education mores it's over=extended. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't take any issue with Mkativerata's close because it was quite accurate on the basis of the debate before him. I see that, as is happening more and more these days, there are matters that the debate failed to go into.

    Notability isn't inherited from a Law and Order episode to its source incident, and Karen Owen's sex life is clearly of no encyclopaedic interest whatsoever. What is of encyclopaedic interest is the subject of internet privacy, which is of course what the one half-decent source we have is really covering anyway. And, oh look, there's a section of that article called internet privacy#specific cases, which is where coverage of Karen's thesis belongs. (I see that the same section should also mention Jessica Cutler.)

    On re-reading that, I think it suffices. I won't trouble to add any words in bold, because anyone who would have any business closing a DRV will know exactly what I mean and what I think should be done.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, this is now no more "just news" than Claire Swire email. If a suitable place can be found to merge it too, then that is another matter. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment To drive home the point that the WP:NOTNEWS threshhold has been met for this article, here are some additional references that discuss this topic after it made big news on October 7 and 8 of 2010:
Additionally, I found a serious reference at Forbes which came out a week before the big news cycle of October 7 and 8 of 2010. The Forbes references discusses in detail the privacy aspects raised by S Marshall.
The article could also be beefed up with a background on the faux thesis author from this reference by a local newspaper from her hometown. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain if bettyconfidential is a RS, but in any case, the original article appears to have been posted on or just before Oct 1 based on the comments section. It was updated in May. The other sources do seem to show ongoing coverage however. Hobit (talk) 15:15, 4 December 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 November 2011[edit]

  • Category:(X)-related works – Closer to receive a trout for closing a discussion as delete when they have no permissions to make it so.The initial consensus was to endorse the outcome even if incorrectly reached, however there have been a couple of pertinent late votes to relist several discussions through lack of participation but that is pretty common at CFD, which is, as many of us have commented in the past, more than slightly broken through insufficient participation. That said I can't see any harm in allowing a relist of any of the categories at editorial discretion with the exception of death related art categories which is explicitly endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 06:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 30#(X)-related works
  • Massive deletion of many categories by a non-admin. Using reasoning not based on any Wikipedia guidelines, and ignoring comments made by others. What is the point of discussion when anybody can close a discussion? Why do we vote on admins? This is another example of the problem of non-admin closes. We allow anybody to close a multiple category deletion. Then a robot goes around immediately and makes hundreds or even thousands of category name changes. So why bother editing categories at all? This will discourage hundreds of editors who see this robot changing their work. There should be a delay between when a discussion is closed and when the robot goes forth wreaking havoc. There is also a problem in that sections of talk pages can not be watchlisted. I can not watchlist just this section: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 30#(X)-related works. So people can not really participate in these discussions. How does one know when there is discussion? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: Non-admins can't make the bot empty pages, as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working is fully protected. There is the edit, which allowed the renaming of these categories. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 03:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a non-admin closed the discussion. Anybody could drop into any category discussion and close it. Once a discussion is closed then the process leads to categories being deleted.
Also, the person who initiated the deletion/rename discussion was the person who allowed the renaming of the categories as indicated by the diff you linked to, Armbrust. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-close WP:NAC says non-admins should avoid closing things except when the result is obvious. As far as I can tell, User:Timeshifter is the only one opposing this, but there aren't enough supports to make this a good NAC. Also, the closer "lack[ed] the technical ability to act upon the outcome", which is no good per WP:NACD. --NYKevin @784, i.e. 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose, same result'Endorse - frankly this seems very much a sour-grapes DRV. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was a correct reading of the discussion. If a NAC is right there is no point reverting it just so an admin an announce the same result. Doing so discourages non-admins from being bold in making correct closures. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the relevant policy already does that... personally I think this ought to be closed with the same result, but I'm somewhat concerned about the expanding role of NAC in these. --NYKevin @079, i.e. 00:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, but not for the reasons given by Timeshifter — a 2-1 vote isn't enough for consensus here. Best to let this get more input before closing. Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original CfD was open for one day short of four weeks - relisting isn't likely to draw any further comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus. So the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus." --Timeshifter (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus that doesn't agree with your POV is still consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close The !VOTE was at least 3-1, and arguably 4-1 with a couple more commenting in ways that suggest acquiescence or even support for deletion. There had been no new comments for almost a month at the time of close. Even if the decision is that this should be relisted, the fact that the closer was a non-admin should have no bearing on the result, and under no circumstances should an admin justify a reclose using the fact it was a non-admin close. Monty845 06:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The non-admin closer made up a rule against the use of the word "related", and then did not follow his own rule in one case. That rule being to substitute "about." So there is no rule, and even less logic. Multiple people pointed out the problem with this rule in one case, but for some reason this does not seem logical to the closer in the other cases. In nearly all the other cases I was the only person who commented specifically. So I don't see where there is some obvious consensus that allows a non-admin close according to WP:NAC, and the banishing of a word from category names. It is silly to ban a word. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not here to discuss the merits of the case itself; we're here to discuss the merits of the close. The closer provided a good reason for that inconsistency. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and closers, in general, have discretion for common sense decisions like that. --NYKevin @082, i.e. 00:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was discussing the merits of the close by a non-admin. That non-admin close was done incorrectly according to WP:NAC. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my !vote, my comment here, and your comment. You are complaining that the close was logically inconsistent. I am informing you that those are allowed, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I agree that the NAC was bad, but I don't think this is a very good argument for that case. I'm focused on the number and quality of the !votes, which are the most important criteria here. --NYKevin @226, i.e. 04:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. That nomination is a bit if a mess and is one of the reasons I dislike bundled nominations. Anyway, I agree Eluchil's point that we shouldn't revert a correct NAC just because it was performed by a non-admin (NOTBUREAUCRACY and so on). Although I think there was consensus for the "Death-related art" categories (and, if possible, they should not be relisted), I do not think there was consensus for the others ("(X)-related songs", "Race-related works", "Cancer-related works", "Category:Drug-related works", "Category:Adoption-related works") where the only two commentators are the nominator and the opposer (Timeshifer), and both have reasonable arguments (i.e. neither !vote should be discounted by the closer). Jenks24 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein (talk · contribs), who closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 22#Natalia Fowler, wrote:

    Per WP:NACD, non-admin closures should be limited to uncontroversial cases and may be reopened by any administrator. The fact that a review of the decision has been requested indicates that the decision is controversial. I am therefore, in my individual capacity as an administrator, overturning the closure and relisting the discussion.

    I agree with this approach in nearly all cases. However, in this case, the close was requested on Fayenatic london's talk page because no one wished to close the 25-day-old discussion. Whereas there are many admin closers experienced with closing AfDs, there are much fewer admin closers experienced with closing CfDs. I am therefore willing to give non-admins more lenience with the undesirable tasks that admins are reluctant to do, especially when the non-admins have demonstrated that they have carefully read and analyzed the arguments. Fayenatic's closing rationale is solid and an accurate interpretation of the consensus for the "Death-related art" categories.

    However, as Jenks24 (talk · contribs) noted above, the bundled nomination resulted in low participation in all of the CfDs, save for the "Death-related art" categories.

    Endorse the closure of the "Death-related art" categories.

    Relist "(X)-related songs", "Race-related works", "Cancer-related works", "Category:Drug-related works", "Category:Adoption-related works" owing to the insufficient participation. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 7 December 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 November 2011[edit]

  • Pacific Square – Deletion endorsed. The consensus below is that the close was within admin discretion. However, there is no prejudice to a rewritten article with new and better sources. If someone would like the original userfied or moved to the incubator, just ask. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pacific Square (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Other than the Nom, only 1 person voted Delete, and their reasoning proved faulty (lack of Reliable in depth secondary sources, of which one was shown). Discussion with the Closer amounts to "It's not my place to agree or disagree. The consensus was that the coverage was insufficient". A rational of "no evidence has been provided that it might have sufficient coverage to satisfy notability requirements" is simply wrong. [4] proves that. It should have been relisted at the very least when, even the closer noted, a distinct lack of !votes on the matter was presented. 2 surely cannot be deemed 'consensus'. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well as the requirement is for sources, providing a single one doesn't answer the concern. There is no quorum in AFD. I have some sympathy that this could have been relisted, but on the discussion in the xFD and what's been presented here so far, I find it hard to believe it would survive for long. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I endorse the result of the AfD for the reasons already stated, I would also like to point out that we do have a source. This means a potential alternative outcome that would comply with our rules would be to smerge some of the deleted article's content to Maroubra, New South Wales. Depending on who contributed to the original article this might require a history merge, so the correct procedure would be to ask HJ Mitchell for a userfied copy of the deleted material, perform the smerge and then if the history merge is necessary follow the instructions at WP:HISTMERGE.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC or relist One very solid source and a few less than great (but reliable etc. even if just dealing with a fire) may or may not meet WP:N. However there is no consensus that they do not meet WP:N. Given the low attendance at the AfD, it should either have been a relist or no consensus as there was no bright line crossed on notability (i.e. neither no sources nor tons of sources). Hobit (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, I find it extremely unlikely that local news sources didn't cover its construction. That would be unheard of in the states--local news always covers major construction. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per 82.19.4.7. This really was within admin discretion and for a run-of-the-mill local shopping centre hardly a surprising result. But I'd support restoring the article under a redirect to Maroubra, New South Wales where relevant content can be merged. When the sourcing is so thin, coverage in the article about the local suburb is a much more sensible approach. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Describing the Content of the Article as run-of-the-mill is biased and not what we are talking about. "Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question" ( WP:DELREVD ). The closing admin placed to much weight in non policy arguments (and possibly their own opinion) in the closing as Delete. All the policy based Arguments were (IMO) solidly disproven. Weight of a 3 site WP:Google test have no weight at all and should have been discounted. How does that equal a Delete? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC) PS one of the GTests was based upon a faulty db search engine, The Southern-courier (a subsidiary of news.com.au) shows results [5] Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
The only non-policy argument I can see, looking over the AfD again, is your suggestion that by not being just a shopping centre it's sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. I have no opinion on the subject whatsoever, and, despite your attempts to suggest I was acting improperly by disagreeing with you, I closed the AfD in line with the consensus as I saw it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight ... You believe a GTest IS a valid test of somethings WP:N? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think just looking at those local newspaper hits should give all the necessary answers. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree'd thoes hits are not suitable for a Cite, but the fact that they are there, proves the worthlessness of GTests and what weight a GTest should be given. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's within admin's discretion as many editors see it so I'll just give my opinion (so I won't bold anything). AFD is not a vote count but numbers aren't meaningless. Barring BLP issues I like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nom (3 or more is optimal) before I "hard delete" anything. This may avoid challenges like this one and allows me to, with a straight face, tell someone who comes to my talk page that there was a "community discussion" and the result was delete. The AFD in question here was not a "community discussion", it was a back and forth between 2 editors. I would have relisted this if I came across it in the logs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A reasonable close, Within discretion. Fully in line with the usual closes on articles in the subject area. and I would have used my discretion the same way had I closed it--except I generally don't close in that area, having a relatively deletionist bias for shopping centers. The possibility remains to write a stronger article with more and better sources, and try again. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 November 2011[edit]

  • Body Sensor Networks – I don't see consensus to overturn. Although two editors have agree with returning to a merge discussion, I find less participants here than at the AFD where the consensus was to redirect. Addendum: I am userfying this article to Hobit's userspace. – v/r - TP 16:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Body Sensor Networks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to ask for reverting the deletion of Body Sensor Networks wiki page.

I have been conducting research on Body Sensor Networks for nearly ten years and would like to write an article about the field. The editing of the article has just been started. However, it seems that the site is always redirected to Body Area Network while I am editing the page, and it has been deleted subsequently.

BSN and BAN are actually different and often mistakenly used. Body Sensor Network (BSN) refers to both the infrastructure and applications of the network, just similar to Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), while Body Area Network (BAN) refers to only the network infrastructure similar to Local Area Network (LAN) or Personal Area Network (PAN).

The term BSN also includes the use of implantable sensors and which is a different wireless connectivity to those commonly used in BAN. BSN also covers several network topologies than that described on the existing BAN page.

I am new to wikipedia, so please advise what can I do to keep the Body Sensor Networks wiki page. I am willing to edit the content, if it is not agree with wikipedia's policies. As an expert and a strong supporter in the field, I would like to set this straight.

The Body Sensor Networks page created in 2007 was not done by me. I have recently modified the page as I saw that it was mistakenly redirected to the BAN page. As I started to work on the page, the initial references are from the inventor of the term, but I was in the process of adding more information from other researchers in the community.

Could you please have a look and help in reconsidering the revert the deletion decision of the recently added Body Sensor Networks page?

Thank you very much in advance. (Airuko (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

  • Hi, can you provide sources that discuss BSN vs. BAN or show that BSN, as a term of art, has some kind of general acceptance? Looking at the AfD, it _sounds_ like one professor is using this term, while others do not. Could you clarify that (ideally with references)? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sentence BSN and BAN are actually different and often mistakenly used is telling. English is not a prescriptive language, so use defines meaning not visa versa. If the two are used interchangeably, they are interchangeable. I'm slightly worried here that the two might have different translations Japanese (or some other language) which may not be interchangeable. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For references from other information sources, please see
- http://www.efytimes.com/e1/creativenews.asp?edid=73192
- https://www.zotero.org/groups/chiarini_thesis_references/items/itemKey/FKAVMNGN#./FKAVMNGN?&_suid=163
- http://www.cms.livjm.ac.uk/pri/otherprojects.html#A_Body_Sensor_Network_and_Gaming_Platform_for_Dynamically_Adapting_Physiotherapy_Treatments
- http://www.media.mit.edu/people/joep
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_4120000/newsid_4125700/4125706.stm
- http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1459617
- http://www.startribune.com/business/90362829.html?page=2&c=y
In http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10323325-247.html, the usage of BSN and BAN are clearly defined.
In general, most papers on BANs are network related, and most papers on BSN includes sensors, application, network, biocompatability, energy harvesting, etc. There are quite a lots of work on sensors in the BSN community which may not always have wireless or BAN. If required, more references can be provided. (Airuko (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I've looked through all the references given above and followed about 15 of the dozens of the links from the previous version of the page. None of them discussed BANs and BSNs in a comparative fashion, or as being different things. Of the links I clicked on the only one that mentioned BSNs by name was https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-540-70994-7_28 which is a paper / talk from a conference with the term in the title (the term does not appear in the title of the paper, nor the abstract). Of the references above only https://www.zotero.org/groups/chiarini_thesis_references/items/itemKey/FKAVMNGN and http://www.cms.livjm.ac.uk/pri/otherprojects.html mention BSNs (but the latter uses it a LOT). I see no evidence of BSNs and BANs being anything but synonyms. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that in several research papers, BAN is used instead of BSN, either because in some contexts they are replacable or they are mistakenly used. To be precise, the terms do have different meanings. BAN usually refer to the network architecture (as defined by the IEEE standard). Researchers in this area can usually differentiate between the two terms. In addition to http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10323325-247.html that I gave above, you can also see from the links below:
- http://www.slideshare.net/jassics/body-area-network-8498901
- http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse574-08/ftp/ban/index.html
It is also accepted in the field that 'Professor Guang-Zhong Yang was the first person to formally define the phrase "Body Sensor Network" (BSN) with publication of his book Body Sensor Networks in 2006.' as metioned in the link above (which is from a third person across the continent). The term existed since before I started my research on BSN in 2003. There are several terms invented afterward. There is also Body Sensor Area Networks (BASNs) which actually come after in 2009 (http://people.virginia.edu/~bhc2b/papers/HansonEtalComputer09.pdf). I do believe that the majority of people in this research area will be able to differentiate between the two terms (just from the meanings of the words used in the terms themselves). Even if the terms will mutate and eventually become synonyms, I do hope you would allow us to keep and further develop the BSN wiki page to be more complete. This is very important to us as much as wikipedia is important to you. I hope you understand. (Airuko (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
To clarify the points mentioned by Stuartyeates, BSN stands for Body Sensor Network. The term Body Sensor Network is used in all the links I gave above, although not all of them are in a relative fasion with BAN (Body Area Network). In the three references given previously, however, BSN and BAN were mentioned as different things. To support my earlier claims, I also would like to add a few more references:
- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070913081044.htm
- http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/CMS/files/Innovate5+cover.pdf
- http://www.ece.uah.edu/~jovanov/paper/Jovanov09_TITB_BSN_Editorial.pdf
- http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/234/all/1/Body_sensing_network.aspx (Airuko (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • relist we now have reasonable sources with which to make a better call. I'm not sure what the right organizational scheme is, but we have solid RSes showing that the two topics are different. The nom here may need to be careful with WP:COI and should probably indicate what relationship, if any. he/she has with Professor Guang-Zhong Yang... Hobit (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to be his student four years ago. I am now working as a lecturer in an university in Thailand and have no any formal link with Prof. Yang (Airuko (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • Thanks. If you are going to edit a BSN article (if it gets restored) you should consider making a note of that per WP:COI. I don't think it's a clear case of needing to, but I'll leave it to you to read the COI guideline and figure out how best to proceed. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse redirect and restart merge discussion, with a note on the talk page of both articles. I see no point in relisting an AfD when deletion is not being considered, but I also think there is not yet consensus that this should exist as a standalone article. DRV is not the best place to discuss this though; article talk space is. Chick Bowen 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with that. You are right, since deletion isn't being considered AfD is probably the wrong place. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really not at all convinced, but Airuko seems motivated to make an article. What I suggest it that the article is userified for Airuko (who is welcome to ping me once the references are integrated into the article and the article clearly articulates what BSN is and how it differs from BAN, if they choose). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 5 December 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 November 2011[edit]

  • Scam Newton and Scam newton – Deletion Endorsed. There is some discussion below about the general principles involved but also clear consensus that in this case deletion is the appropriate outcome. – Eluchil404 (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Scam Newton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Scam newton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Sourced reference to Cam Newton and should redirect to that article. l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 22:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What reference where? They weren't in the deleted redirects and they don't appear in the target article. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Derogatory POV-infringing BLP-infringing redirect title. Not a reasonable search term or misspelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would probably be deleted at rfd (primarily because there doesn't seem to be consensus to mention this name in the target article), but it was speedied instead of going there. We allow POV redirect titles if there's significant coverage outside of Wikipedia; likewise, it's not deletable as a BLP once it's sourced (and five seconds of googling found this one from The Arizona Republic). I know whether there's sufficient coverage out there, but I don't think this can quite be dismissed as the run-of-the-mill attack page that it was repeatedly deleted as. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Routine application of BLP principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion and those of other admins who have deleted the redirects. This isn't a "non-neutral redirect". It's an "attack" redirect against, of all things, a living person. It doesn't matter whether it's sourceable. We don't allow disparagement. G10 says so. Of course, if it is sourceable, it might be mentioned in the article and attributed to those who use the nickname. But our redirects don't have the luxury of attribution. A redirect is an implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of the nickname. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You even tagged the deletion with the applicable CSD criteria. The worst I can say is maybe use a "," instead of "or". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This I disagree with pretty strongly. Please read our guidelines on redirects. We keep non-neutral redirects as a matter of course. WP:RNEUTRAL. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read G10. Then please tell me where the guideline authorises attack redirects on living persons, as opposed to mere "non-neutral" titles. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • G10 doesn't. But are you seriously claiming that if the article covered the topic/attack, we shouldn't have a redirect to it? Shall we remove Tricky Dick? If not, why not? I think it qualifies as an attack. Where is the line? I'd think the line would be a mention in the article. Where do you draw it? Hobit (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The line is clear. G10 draws it. The redirect disparages the subject. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you dodged the question there. Does Tricky Dick disparage the subject? Is it a G10 candidate? Why or why not? I don't think the line is as clear as you claim. If it were, I'd think you'd G10 that redirect. Hobit (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tricky Dick is actually exactly the example I've had in mind since the start of the review. I didn't bring it up, though, because the name's been expunged from its target article List of nicknames of United States presidents... which has become exactly the sort of POV hagiography that you'd expect from people who insist that WP:BLP talks about removing negative material instead of negative unsourced material. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that article is a real problem. Removing an extremely well-known nickname of a dead president? Not exactly our shining moment. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Disparaging, non-notable faux nicknames are unacceptable. Consider topic ban if this behavior persists, as the article's talk page shows a bit of a contentious history with this user as well. I just tagged a missed one ("$cam Newton") G10 as well. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The emerging consensus here is that WP:BLP takes precedence over WP:RNEUTRAL. I agree that BLP is more important but I do think we need to reword RNEUTRAL to show that derogatory nicknames for a living person are not normally acceptable. As currently worded the issue could cause confusion.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not BLP trumping here, but G10. An admin has made a reasonable G10 call. As for sourcing, a sourced attach is still an attack. The real test is whether the redirect title is covered at the target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spent too long thinking about this. I'm not comfortable with deleting a sourced redirect as a G10--discussion would be preferred. At the same time I'm certainly not comfortable with the redirect to an article that doesn't actually have the name in it when it is so negative and involves a BLP. So endorse but I hope we all agree that if the term were in the article we'd keep this (or at least leave it to RfD rather than speedy). Hobit (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Scam Newton" is now used in the Cam Newton eligibility controversy article, maybe these redirects can be targeted there instead --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that piece of trash of an article has been quickly, and rightfully IMO, redirected to Cam Newton. There is not a thing to justify a standalone article on this issue. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (e/c) No. That has been properly redirected as a WP:Coatrack Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jessie Stricchiola – There is clearly no consensus to overturn this deletion at this time. On the contrary, there is a general feeling that the AfD close was a strong one that reflected the arguments in the deletion debate well. The argument that a notable person's criticism of the deletion on an external site is itself an indication that the deletion was mistaken does not seem to be generally accepted. However, there is also recognition that the full array of sources listed in this debate is at least close to enough to allow for an article if the conflict of interest in the original could be avoided. Thus, a neutral userspace draft is appropriate--if someone wishes to write such a draft, a new DRV can be opened once it is completed. – Chick Bowen 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jessie Stricchiola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No clear initial consensus, dubious expertise of original debaters and new information See also User_talk:Mkativerata— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malixsys (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I was not involved in the AfD, but have gone through it here and believe that the right result was obtained. I appreciate the fact that the closing editor took the time to weigh the merits of the arguments and the evidence, rather than engage in mindless vote counting, entirely as appropriate per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I also found the linked blog entry provided by Malixsys unconvincing, to say the least. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Please apply and compare your analysis to the closing here, do you agree that "mindless vote counting" is the only possible way to have reached this closure?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No consensus at discussion, and a wonderful rant by Danny Sullivan (technologist) at the linked blog post. Personally, I don't know Jessie Stricchiola from Eve. But I know Danny Sullivan. He is probably the single most important search engine analyst (who isn't directly working for a search engine). If he says she's notable in the world of search engine marketing, then she is. The rant (between the frothing-at-the-mouth parts) also provides strong arguments that weren't considered in the deletion discussion. This is something like God himself coming down from Ararat and pointing at where Stricchiola's name is engraved on the stone tablets. Undelete. If the reason for deletion was that Wikipedia editors agreed, that would be one thing, but even the closer agreed that didn't happen. If the reason for deletion was that three anonymous Wikipedia editors made strong arguments, well, here is one undisputed subject matter expert making a stronger one. And for what it's worth, he's a Wikipedia editor too, even if he can't figure out how it works. --GRuban (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that rebuttal is that it being written from the point of view of a Wikipedian. Fine, but that's not why we have articles, not because Wikipedians like them or not. We have articles on people who are notable in their field, not just people whom we personally like. Danny Sullivan is an expert, probably the single most influential expert, on this field. That's why his rant is important, because it is a strong argument on Stricchiola's notability in the field. Not because he can rant, and a Wikipedian can rant, and whoever rants best wins; but because Danny is an expert on search engines, which should beat an expert on our encyclopedia.--GRuban (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, your argument seems appropriate for Citizendium, but for this insane asylum his C.V. grants him no special privileges, correct? LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closing admins are empowered to weigh strength of argument/position and not just headcount. Weak keep rationales such as "let's be more wiki-friendly to girls" and "her book is on an important topic" don't cut it. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Substantively, I think it should be "overturn" due to the strength of Danny Sullivan's arguments. But procedurally, it'll probably sit better as a "relist" so the deletion faction doesn't feel there were any improprieties. Moreover, the argument for a relist seems to me to be clear - there was no strong consensus for the original delete, and his post, whatever else you may think of it, does contain a lot of referenced information about notability. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a pity to overturn such a careful close with such a well-thought-out closing statement, but source 1, source 2, source 3. Itszippy's analysis of these sources is flawed because he's under the misapprehension that sources have to be strictly about the subject before they meet the GNG. This is quite wrong, and indeed the GNG specifically says "need not be the main topic of the article". Thus Itszippy's analysis is nowhere near as conclusive as the closing statement suggests. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing analysis by Mkativerata clearly summarised the consensus in the AfD; most telling: "That those delete !votes have stood for between 7 and 13 days without any challenge leads me to conclude that there is a consensus to delete." The original debaters may or may not have had dubious expertise about Stricchiola but some of the "Delete" arguments - for example, DGG's research into how many libraries held her book - suggests a thoroughness neither bettered nor equalled by the "Keep" contingent. Interestingly, the research undertaken by some of those who opted for deletion fully supported Cantaloupe2's initial nom. As for the link to Danny Sullivan's rant, I won't even dignify it with the term "new information". It is pure bitching that does not reflect a constructive attitude to WP nor does it reflect the attitude of those of us who make the effort to practice editing, to search for and learn about the various guidelines and who avoid creating articles unless we're confident, as article creators, that they're well-written and reliably-sourced. ClaretAsh 01:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the "attitude" of his post, which I understand why might offend you and you need not further explain that aspect to me, don't you think the post also contains new information that's relevant, again completely apart from the procedural critique and views he expresses? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it doesn't offend me. Don't worry about that. As for the "new information", I don't see any. What I do see is the procedural critique you mentioned and which, I concede, may be of use to those who look after the various "WP:" guideline/procedure pages. Other than that, all Mr Sullivan has to offer is his own word, as a subject expert, that Jessie Stricchiola is notable according to WP's interpretation of that term. Fortunately, this isn't enough. There are good and obvious reasons for our COI policy. Nonetheless, this doesn't preclude Mr Sullivan, or any other expert, from aiding WP, for example, by providing or recommending sources, or assisting in the search for information. And yes, I will take this opportunity to advertise our library, as I feel it is greatly under-used. ClaretAsh 11:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn The right outcome for this was keep as the delete !votes were pretty bogus. We've got an NPR interview of her, a source that pretty much solely covers her, two full pages of a book that discusses her and her views, and about 5 other good sources. A "no consensus" outcome would have been within the bounds of admin discretion so I'll suggest we overturn to that. Let's walk the sources listed by ItsZippy.
    • [6] is nearly useless for WP:N
    • [7] is conceded to count toward notability.
    • [8] is certainly NOT a mention in passing: this is 1.5 pages of her discussing a client and case.
    • [9] is a NYT article that spends two paragraphs on her.
    • [10] is a CNN article that cites her three times.
    • [11] cites her three times.
    • [12] is an NPR story that spends 4 paragraphs (of radio time) on her and her opinions.
Could a discussion reasonably conclude she's not notable? I suppose so as the coverage is about her opinions and not her per se. But the consensus would have to be really strong, and this was split. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Vacate and reclose  Imbalance in the closing shows in the focus on reducing the keep votes, while ignoring drive-by delete votes.  The idea that unchallenged posts ripen and strengthen with age I find to be contrary to reason, this is an idea that reason has a transience such that it changes over time and is a function of the context of later comments.  The idea also opens the door to WP:THELASTWORD.  WP:ATD is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  Yet the closing admin has taken the alternate path that editors normally should not follow, and ignored WP:ATD.  I can't see the article, but one search and one click yields this sentence, "Jessie is widely recognized as having been the first to publicize PPC click fraud in 2001 and has been interviewed by numerous trade publications and media outlets on the issue, including NPR, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Wired Magazine, The Washington Post, CNNMoney, CNET.com, CNBC, and The BBC" (emphasis added), so there is a major disconnect here between this sentence and the idea that this analyst not only doesn't satisfy wp:notability, but that the material in the article is objectionable, and the redirect itself is objectionable.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer seems to have adequately examined the relative strength of the arguments made rather than just tallying them up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion. Delete with fire. From the discussion on Hacker News:
wpietri writes:
For those wondering about the backstory, I went and looked at the history of the deleted page.
The article for Jessie Stricchiola was created by account "Stricchiola" in November 2009. The commit message: "Added article for search industry pioneer Jessie Stricchiola". That account made only one other significant edit, which was to link the Jessie Stricchiola article into the first paragraph of "Search Engine Marketing".
Within 15 minutes, Wikipedians marked the article as insufficiently referenced, a probable conflict of interest, and possibly lacking notability. Stricchiola edited the article for the next few days, ignored the warnings, and eventually stopped editing. Other than minor fixes from Wikipedians, the article was basically untouched until September 2009, when user Cantaloupe2 nominated it for deletion discussion.
So as far as I can tell, a search engine marketing person wrote a self-promotional article about herself. Wikipedians immediately warned that the article had a number of issues, all of which she (and everybody else in the world) ignored for nearly 2 years. Somebody eventually noticed; Wikipedians discussed it and decided the article was unsalvageable.
tptacek writes:
You missed the AfD discussion, trivially easy to find for that article but helpfully provided upthread for you, where a Wikipedia admin considered each of those sources and took them to pieces --- those citations were superficial quotes attributed to Stricchiola in articles about click fraud, not coverage of Stricchiola herself, and the book appears to be a step away from vanity publishing.

Unless the above is factually false, there is no possibility that the article will ever be brought up to Wikipedia quality standards, and it amounts to nothing more than self-promotion. In that case, we should not only keep this article deleted, but censure and demand apologies from Jessie Stricchiola and Danny Sullivan for attempting to turn Wikipedia into Geocities and use it to promote their businesses. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Self-promotion aside, she IS notable:
As per Wikipedia:Notability_(people):

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been

the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. ... The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

13 reasons/sources:
A) She was the first to publicize PPC [Click_fraud] in 2001 and as director of online marketing for the Chase Law Group was interviewed by CNET even way back then
B) Was featured in http://www.amazon.com/Google-Story-David-Vise/dp/B0028N72A8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322515718&sr=1-1, written by the Washington Post's David Vise
C) She is an expert and witness in court cases
e.g. In the famous Twitter case between Courtney_Love and fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/twitter-libel-suit-costs-courtney-love-163265000-2232935.html

D) inc. used her as an expert: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050801/marketing.html
E) NYT cited her as an expert: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E0D6133DF930A35750C0A9639C8B63
F) CNN MOney used her as an expert: http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/02/technology/google_fraud/?cnn=yes
G) NPR used her as an expert: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5303608
H) Danny_Sullivan (even though he rightly or wrongly ranted) affirms that she is an expert and cites supporting facts
I) She is a published author: http://www.amazon.com/Art-SEO-Mastering-Optimization-Practice/dp/0596518862/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1/190-3969850-5648863
J) Was on a panel of experts or speaker at MULTIPLE conferences: Search Engine Strategies Conference and Expo, ad:tech, SMX, Search Engine Strategies, O'Reilly Media's Web 2.0 Summit, Webmaster World's PubCon, Stanford's Web Publishing Workshop
K) One of the original nine founders of SEMPO
L) Her company has been listed in BtoB Interactive Marketing Guide as a Top Search Marketing Company for many years
M) She has written articles on the subject of click fraud, e.g. http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2065811/Lost-Per-Click-Search-Advertising-Click-Fraud

Malixsys (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. I !voted a "weak keep" at the AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Just because she has been occasionally cited as an expert does not mean that she is notable. Close was a good read of the deletion discussion, and no new information has come forward that would change this. The reasons A-M given by Malixsys do not show that she is notable--GNG requires significant coverage in third party sources, period. Danny Sullivan has not provided sources, and they were not in the article. Being a founder of something notable does not necessarily make you notable. Commenting for a reporter in a newspaper article does not necessarily make you notable. Having written books does not necessarily make you notable. And as a lawyer, I want to emphasize that there is no way in hell being an expert witness necessarily makes you notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the whole collection (founder, book, quoted extensively, expert witness), viewed in total for this specific case, could make her notable, even if no single item in isolation would qualify? It seems like there's something going in your comment in terms of decomposition - roughly, if X alone isn't notable, then no combination of X's can be notable since each one by itself isn't notable -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that taken together they don't amount to anything. If they did, people would be writing news stories about her, etc. But they don't. Fails WP:GNG. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between about a person and about what they do is a bit tricky. Most notable authors and academics (for example) don't have news stories about them. I doubt 10% of our BLPs have articles about the subject. There may be coverage of their works or their opinions though. And that is usually enough for the GNG. As the GNG specifically doesn't require coverage that is solely on the subject, I think you are creating a (much) higher bar than our guidelines do. On top of that, the first article I listed is pretty much solely about her and her opinions... Hobit (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A rant by an expert does not trump good-faith process by neutral agents. The expert could have asked someone for help. But he assumed that being an expert in one thing made him expert in yet another. Demonstrably not so. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, based purely on the strong source analyses by S Marshall and Hobit above. If someone had made those arguments at the AfD, perhaps we could have avoided the need for this review, but instead ItsZippy's less-convincing analysis was allowed to stand as the best (and indeed only) review of the sources that was presented. Mkativerata rightly highlighted that DGG and Metropolitan90 made good cases for deletion, but in light of what we now know about the sources I don't consider these to be enough to swing an otherwise balanced debate. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus It seem pretty clear that that AfD close was a supervote. Also, considering other sources brought up in this DRV and the subjects status as being one of the first to deal with click fraud issues, as detailed here and here, shows her notability. SilverserenC 06:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good close. Bewildered by the above supervote allegation, the close made direct reference to the points debated and did not introduce new arguments. In pointing out the better arguments that stood for days without rebuttal, per WP:Silence, it could reasonably argued that "delete" held consensus, if not a very strong wp:rough consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I agree with you on the supervote thing. That close was certainly not that. However, the !vote you (and the closer) cite agreed there was one good source. It then discounted a number of sources (from CNN, NPR, the NYT etc.) for not focusing solely on the subject. That would seem to stand in direct contradiction to our guidelines which specifically note that a source need not be solely focused on the subject to count. So we have 1 agreed upon good source, and a lot of sources discounted for reasons that contradict our guideline. Certainly if there was consensus that this view should hold in this case, I'd agree (guidelines are not hard-and-fast rules). But I don't think it makes sense to assume that just because people who had already commented didn't chime in with a reply means that they agreed with the argument--they had stated their views and (I assume) moved on. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse We pay the big bucks to people like Mkativerata to take a 7-6 "vote" and make a decision, including none. While Mkativerata's evaluation of the arguments presented is an opinion (but not a supervote), a reason to overturn his decision based on "closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" is not convincing enough for me. Stare decisis there.
My understanding is that Danny Sullivan tried to get involved after the AfD had closed, and what followed was him (understandably) trying to scramble to get on the ship that had already sailed. All of us, I think, would be sympathetic to his plight, if it wasn't for the fact that he completely bit the head off the good samaritan trying to help him, and acted like a complete dick. In any case, since all these new sources provided came after the article was deleted, I don't see why this decision should be overturned based on "Deletion Review 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". Start the article again, without prejudice on anybody's part. Apparently the deleted article was a crappy stub created by the subject and not much improved at the time of deletion. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but let someone without conflict of interest try to make a stronger article, using the additional sources suggested here. The COI is sufficient that the deleted material should remain deleted. Deciding what to do on an evenly balanced AfD is not a supervote; what would have been a supervote is deciding against clear consensus of established editors making policy based arguments on an AfD because the closer interprets the guidelines a little differently, or raising new arguments during the close. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 1 December 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 November 2011[edit]

22 November 2011[edit]

21 November 2011[edit]

  • Davina Reichman – SNOW overturn BLP1E is not a speedy criterion, speedy criteria do not apply to an article which has survived an AfD except in cases of newly-found copyright infringement. – Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Davina Reichman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The BLP was not under discussion but appears to have been deleted as a one event BLPIE from comments in the associated afd - I asked the deleting admin but looking at his activity there is no guarantee he will edit in the next days. The admin asserted he deleted it a6s a BLPIE from comments in this associated afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show (2nd nomination) - I am not seeing a consensus worthy of deleting the Bio in that discussion - the bio has previously been at AFD in october 2011 and was closed as no consensus - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman - If the bio is to be deleted it should be at its own AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment regarding an associated deletion - IClothing - The admin also seems to have deleted IClothing in a similar manner - so I am attaching that deletion review here also - I am of the opinion (from memory) that there is not much for an article there but there may well be detail for a merge to the parent BLP if its deletion is overturned here. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment regarding IClothing: at least that was deleted under a CSD criterion (WP:CSD#A7) and had previously been deleted as WP:CSD#G11. It is still cached here where it claims "the world's first iPad compatible clothes". Some might regard this as an indication of importance, others might regard it as bilge water. Perhaps a separate discussion is required. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." There might be limited exceptions to the principle, but this surely doesn't fall into any of them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am now finding a whole lot of backstory to all this: here and here. Thincat (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn- WP:BLP1E still isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Even if it was, the article was ineligible for speedy deletion anyway (barring newly found copyright issues) since it survived a previous AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn out of process deletion. Article not eligible for speedy, no applicable speedy criteria in any case. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is strange. the deleting admin's last edit was on Oct 23 and his last admin action was on Oct 19 and then on Nov 17 he swoops down out of the sky and deletes Davina Reichman and IClothing and then disappears again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Their editing seems very sporadic as does their admin actions, so it doesn't look that unusual for the individual at least. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, BLP1E is not a CSD. JORGENEV 12:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn article had survived a previous AfD and so could only be deleted by another AfD. This might be justifiable if the AfD on the fashion show had discussed deleting this article as well, but it didn't (in fact several people commenting at that AfD suggested some of the content could be merged to this article). Hut 8.5 15:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Advise the deleting admin to read the XfD (which he linked to) and WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remembered seeing this on IRC. Basically, the deleting admin stated that they are familiar with the subject, who has requested deletion. Logs available by email upon request. T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say the admin should have directed her to otrs to request that. Such a request if verified would not be a reason to delete it as he did. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. At least we now have a reason for the deleting admin's decision, but in my opinion the subject's request alone is nothing like enough to justify speedy deletion of an article that had already survived an AfD. I'm not convinced by the IClothing A7 either given the number of sources cited. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 November 2011[edit]

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

L.S.,

Recently I noticed that the Wikipedia entry for "Anton Singov" has been deleted. After reading the discussion page it seems like there were both good and disputable reasons for deletion. One of reasons (lack of reliable sources) seems very reasonable to me, the reason that notability is not established is arguable. The article satisfies on point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The subject of the article has consistently reached top3 and won several first places at the most notable international "electronic sports" competitions in the world such as Electronic Sports World Cup, Dreamhack , Quakecon, Intel Extreme Masters and World Cyber Games Russia. Look for the pseudonym "Cooller".

Would it be possible to restore the history so that the sources can be added? I have already tried to talk to the admin who deleted the article but it seems he has resigned his position as admin.

Thank you for your time. Nieuwebezoeker (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there coverage in third-party reliable sources anywhere? I personally support having e-sports covered in much better detail here, but without reliable independent sourcing it's unlikely to happen. Note that coverage need not be mainstream (though that would be really helpful), but it needs to exist. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Hobit, thank you for looking into this. I am not sure what you mean with third-party reliable sources, but I have linked to sources in my above post (some official, some third-party) for the result of the tournaments. This includes third-party coverage from GotFrag (a big North American PC gaming website), the BBC (British Public Service broadcaster), ESReality (one of the biggest Quake related coverage-sites) and Cyberfight.org (Russian competitive gaming site). Nieuwebezoeker (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, what you need to read is WP:RS and WP:N. Basically speaking, we need non-trivial coverage of Anton. Something more than "he placed 1st" or "we played against him". The BBC coverage is, for example, just in passing (mentioning him but not discussing him). So I'm afraid those sources won't do. We'd need to see an interview or other coverage in a reliable 3rd party source, that has enough we could write a bio. I don't think any of those sources do that... Hobit (talk) 00:00, 25 November 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 November 2011[edit]

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

This Page Is Waiting To Be Updated With References And Information To Show This Person's Public Status. Please Check DJ_Many Talk Page For The Updated Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.93.81 (talk) 11:21, November 19, 2011‎

  • Comment The talk page has been deleted (not by me this time) but didn't look any much better than the original. One of the refs was non-independent (own site). another was a brief profile with no source, and the last was a link to a magazine and I could see nothing about the subject. A Note To The Author: People Here Will Take More Notice Of What You Say If You Type Like this instead, lowercase on ordinary words being the correct way to type (or write) English. This way is far easier to read anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the link to the magazine (L3 magazine), there is an item about this person on page 48. I don't think it's possible to link directly to the page, but it is there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The magazine's website links to the various magazine issues [13], though I'm not sure how realiable/significant it is, the magazine seems to use hotmail for email which is usually a bit of a red flag for me. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (Despite Having Been Written In Exactly The Same Style.) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok please review now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Many56 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user started to rewrite the patge while it was under review. That's not how it works. Once a decision is made on the deletion review, if the decision is to overturn the deletion, you can edit it then. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humm, an improved article would be handy though for purposes of this DRV. Should they make a copy in user space (deleted when merged if the article is restored), keep it in main space and just replace the DRV notice as they go, or something else? Hobit (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Realistically if someone wants to improve it, it's probably better to usefy, close the DRV then start again when it's complete. Putting a 7 day limit on improvements (which is what DRV would be) to then either decide to delete it again, or userfy at that point seems a bit of a waste of time. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there are more promotional external links than references, I think it is too promotional. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Endorse CSD It's a badly written raw promo based on self-references. If someone rewrites it, sources it, and makes it comply then have at it but this isn't it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 November 2011[edit]

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

Considered as multilingual name in Cyrillic. The "Гомес" name may mean Gomez or Gomes depending on translation. It was used on mnwiki, ruwiki, ttwiki and, bgwiki.

Clearly transliterated as Selena Gomez in Cyrillic. Namiin Azhar (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC) * Note that above nomination was two refactored to one Spartaz Humbug! 08:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what? That was considered and given its due weight in the RFD, which led someone to ask why anyone would come to the English Wikipedia and search for the name of an American actress using the Cyrillic characters. Seems like an excellent question to me.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A bit unnecessary, one would think. Peridon (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse we don't have redirects from non-English titles unless the target has a close connection with that language or a culture where it is spoken (WP:R#DELETE). Deletion was thus supported by the relevant guideline and the nomination doesn't address this. Hut 8.5 17:53, 19 November 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 November 2011[edit]

  • 50/50 Twin – Undelete and redirect to The Color Changin' Click#50/50 Twin. Strictly speaking, the only policy-based result is "undelete" here, as an uncontested PROD. However, this discussion has also decided that the artist is not notable enough for his own article, so it would be silly to disregard those arguments just because DRV is not suppose to generate original thought (WP:IAR). Meanwhile the IAR argument that PROD undeletion policy should be ignored is not valid, because a rule must hinder you from improving Wikipedia before it can be ignored. Here, since the history has not been shown to be harmful, a history restore is compatible with arguments that the artist is not notable. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
50/50 Twin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

According to WP:Proposed deletion this article must be undeleted automatically on request. Article was deleted by PROD on 12 May 2008. Although first article may have been written too early in his career, this artist has now released 6 albums. Whether or not he has now achieved sufficient notability should be decided through AfD. The same admin had previously denied a Request for Undeletion [14] on 21 October 2011 Ei1sos (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete as a contested prod and then immediately redirect to The Color Changin' Click#50/50 Twin as a non-notable artist. Since this article is constantly being re-created, protect the redirect until a well-sourced draft is presented to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. I find the deleting admin's rationale to be sensible, and I don't see any reason to overturn correct action on what can only be described as procedural grounds. I think "redirect & protect" or "keep deleted and salt" are equally good ways to proceed from here. Reyk YO! 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion. I hate to say it 3 times already. If the person is suddenly now notable under WP:MUSIC, write a new one: an article from 3 years ago would be extremely unsavalgeable for the purpose, and indeed would be an insult to the artist in question to start from that point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but this makes not one bit of sense to me. For all I know, not being able to view the older article, it might contain reasonably useful biographical information without asserting notability. If the artist has become notable over the more than three years since the PROD-deletion (which is certainly not "suddenly" in terms of popular music), information about his early career certainly might be appropriate to incorporate in the article. And, frankly, those early speedies look pretty bad to me: membership in a notable band may not satisfy the notability requirements, but it's an assertion of significance sufficient to survive A7. The requesting editor can't write a new article right now, because the article is protected against recreation. This is a bureaucratic snarl that should just be cut away. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Reyk and BWilkins. If he's now notable and was not then it makes much more sense to start a new article. As for the contention that we must undelete if requested, it is long established that all Wikipedia rules can be ignored if the circumstances warrant it, which they do in this case. I could get behind restoring this solely for the purpose of userfying it to be worked on until it is ready for mainspace, but restoring it as an article without fixing the underlying problems would harm rather than help Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is clearly appropriate, folks. The WP:BURO violation is to refuse to create it.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So create it, without first undeleting. Reyk YO! 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then we're invoking IAR when there's a rules-compliant way to achieve the same thing. Part of our job at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed (emphasis mine).—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per WP:PROD/WP:REFUND. Our process says we should undelete and I see no reason not to. Perhaps because I'm a horrible writer, but I never understand why people think that having a starting point doesn't help when writing an article. I'd say Either roll up your sleeves and and write the article or allow the person who is willing to do the work to have a starting point if they want it. If having a bad article offends so badly, do the undelete and immediately redirect so the history is available as a starting point... Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/undelete. The article has never been the subject of a deletion discussion; the last deletion was via PROD; and it's currently protected against recreation. As S Marshall points out, at the very least this should be a redirect. Allow Ei1sos, who's a reasonably experienced editor not involved in the prior versions of the article, a suitable brief interval to create at least an acceptable stub, then take it to AFD if the result isn't sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the old history is restored for work, it should be edited in one page: either unprotect in article space or userfy. Please don't split the page history without a good reason. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but only because the article was an unsourced BLP. This is one of the few reasons that I would decline a contested PROD at WP:REFUND. If someone wants to use it as a starting point for a new article then it can be done in userspace or the incubator. Once that is done, then we can discuss the subject's notability at AFD if somebody wishes to nominate it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think userfying makes sense in this case. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Makes perfect sense, it is the people who are endorsing the deletion that are perpetuating the bureaucracy. It was removed under a non-binding process, bring it back and let the user work on it. JORGENEV 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:Chavezcoup.jpg – Overturn to no consensus. WP:NFCC#8 is intentionally vague about what "enhances the reader's understanding"; multiple proposals have tried and failed to objectify it. In a sense it can't be objectified; there are simply too many possibilities and each one must be considered on its own. It is not for the closer to decide what NFCC #8 means, because that is the FfD participants' job. The closer's only role is to read the discussion, discard invalid arguments (not ones he doesn't agree with), and then close it based on approximate consensus. As for the default action on an FfD with no consensus, it has been argued that on WP:NFCC#Enforcement, it says that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale," but the same can be said about articles: it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain text to provide valid reliable sources and a rationale as to why the text should be included. That doesn't mean that AfDs should default to delete. If you want to dispute this part, it might be a good idea to start an RfC. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Chavezcoup.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This is a historic photo, one of very few that document an important event in Venezuelan history: the 1992 coup attempt, in which current president Hugo Chávez was involved. It was nominated for deletion with a frankly bizarre reason (that this was merely the record of two men meeting); then the deletion discussion was closed as "delete" even though there was nothing like consensus to do so. I raised the issue both with the nominator (who refused to respond while the nomination was open) and also with the person who closed the discussion, to no avail. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't endorse that. NFCC#8 is too vague for the closer to treat it as a question of fact. It's a matter of opinion, and in a matter of opinion, the closer's opinion isn't the opinion that matters. The FFD discussion is more than just an admin's suggestion box. There was no consensus, and the closer should have found accordingly. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, restore the file. Per S Marshall, NFCC #8 is a decision that requires 1) rational arguments to be set forth about why it applies, 2) an ensuing discussion, and 3) the closer to evaluate the consensus on the NFCC #8 argument as a part of the closing. I really don't see that done there--The one !vote that supports NFCC #8 failure is simply a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the delete vote was vague, but the keep vote was also a well know and documented mistake: WP:ITSHISTORIC. That leave us with my well explained nomination (and that was not "bizarre" at all) and the Admin's mission to enforce policy. In the worst case, this could be relisted to attract more !voters, but in the end, it will always be a policy-based judgement, and not a vote counting, and I don't see anyone making anything near of a policy based argument for keeping this image. Calling NFCC#8 "too vague" is a catch-all. --damiens.rf 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not. NFCC#8 is not an excuse to purge the encyclopaedia of non-free material. Relevant images almost always enhance the reader's understanding of the topic.—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or bar for non-free content is higher than just "enhancing the reader's understanding". The image should be something that is asked by the text, that conveys relevant information that could not be easily passed with text, and that portrays something that an average reader could not figure out by himself. This picture of two man meeting surely does not pass this bar. --damiens.rf 01:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that was what NFCC#8 meant, then that would be what NFCC#8 said.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You choose to follow the letter and not the spirit. --damiens.rf 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I choose to follow what the guideline actually says, rather than what you appear to think it should say.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well what the policy actually says is ""significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." which is substantially more than your stated above "Relevant images almost always enhance the reader's understanding of the topic". --82.19.4.7 (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, yes, I abbreviated. I believe that relevant images almost always significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, and I believe that omitting a relevant image is almost always detrimental to that understanding. Many readers relate to pictures better than text.—S Marshall T/C 13:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well abbreviating where it alters the meaning, can be confusing, I've no difficulty seeing why damiens.rf would see your version as out of line with the actual policy. Your latest interpretation suffers the same criticism as you level at damiens.rf, if the policy merely required it to be a relevant image, then that's what NFCC#8 would say. If I replace your wording to damiens.rf view that "I believe that most images aren't required if the text can..." etc. As we don't do prescriptive policy designed to be so tightly written that it covers every possible eventuality (which would be a nonsense anyway), looking to the intent of the policy is important. The intent of the NFCC criteria and how they arose in the first place is of course to provide a greater restriction on what non-free content we can/should use. The idea of merely being to exclude non-relevant images seems somewhat at odds with that. That wouldn't be part of an NFCC, it'd be part of general image policy regardless of free status, we don't include irrelevant free images or text either. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Let's parse what NFCC#8 actually says. The wording is: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I'd break that down into two limbs: significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and then omission would be detrimental to that understanding which is exactly the same thing said the other way around. (The second limb should long ago have been excised for being redundant, see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34#Criterion 8 for a discussion about that.) My position is that relevant images almost always significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, because there are readers who relate better to pictures than to text, and because even readers who're very comfortable with text benefit from the additional context provided by relevant images. Therefore, I believe that NFCC#8 as written is passed by almost any relevant image. Your point that this makes NFCC#8 virtually meaningless is quite true, and my reply is that meaningless or not, this is what it says, and if we want to make NFCC#8 meaningful, it will be necessary to change the wording. I do think that as written, it's a test of relevance. It's also the only one of the non-free content criteria that does test relevance.

                        Your other point, that the NFCC criteria are there to restrict our choice of non-free content, seems uncontroversial but I do not think it enhances NFCC#8 beyond what NFCC#8 actually says.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                        • I'm not entirely in agreement about the second part being redundant, it's a re-emphasis of the point. The fact that it was felt important to labour the point to my mind is indicative of it trying to impose a standard higher than the one you seem to propose it means. As to the rest about relevance of image, I understood your view point. Others have a different view point and interpret the criteria differently, they don't agree relevant images almost always significantly add to the understanding. Your criticism of the other view point is that "harder" application isn't what the criteria says, but they could equally well argue your "softer" view of it also isn't what it says - i.e. there is merely a difference of opinion in the interpretation of NFCC#8. It is your interpretation of the criteria is what makes NFCC#8 more of less irrelevant, if on the other hand you take believe the criteria are supposed to restrict the free content and the criteria would have been written with that in mind, it's not unreasonable to conclude the spirit of NFCC#8 is stronger than your interpretation. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was two editors arguing for deletion and one argued for keeping based on the well know failed argument WP:ITSHISTORIC. We need good reasons to keep non-free content, not to delete them. --damiens.rf 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. I'm not sure you've read WP:ITSHISTORIC very carefully. It's not a "failed argument" at all. It says:
      "Being historic or one-of-a-kind is not, by itself, sufficient. Being of historical importance can, however, be part of a good argument that an image satisfies criterion 8 (contextual significance), and being unique may be helpful in satisfying criterion 1 (no free equivalent). It is also important to distinguish between an image that is, itself, historic and notable in its own right (such as the photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), and thus is very likely to satisfy criterion 8, and a non-notable image that illustrates an historic event, in which case passage of criterion 8 is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus." (my emphasis)
    • In short, the fact that an image is historic is not necessarily in itself sufficient, but it can indeed be an argument in favor of an image's retention. It can be "part of a good argument that an image satisfies criterion 8." In other words, far from being a "failed argument," it's part (if only part) of a good argument. What's important is gauging "editorial judgment and consensus." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In short, you're still saying an "image is historic" when the case is actually that it's "an image of an historic event". --damiens.rf 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, you'll see that WP:ITSHISTORIC (which you keep on citing) covers both types of photo, and admits that there is slippage between them. Frankly, I think this image is indeed arguably "historic and notable in its own right," at least within the Venezuelan context. In any case, there is no doubt that it also "illustrates an historic event." Your argument, such as it is, seems to deny both the former and the latter: you say that this is simply a photograph of two men meeting. As I point out, that's like saying that this image is merely a picture of three men meeting. This is the argument that I think is bizarre. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse- I agree with S Marshall that there was no consensus in this discussion. However, in cases of non-free content I think no consensus should default to delete. Reyk YO! 00:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Jbmurray is correct, and since it's a matter of interpretation, the only way to decide whether to follow it is by consensus; nobody, correct though they may be, has the right to say "my interpretation is better". If the FfD was not sufficiently attended to get a good consensus, then relist is a possibility DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
I think it was a typo for policy-ignorant votes. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn to NC (default keep) The nomination gives good reasons for deletion (no idea if they are true as I can't see the picture or its context). One keep !vote gives a reasonable reason to keep (same caveat). One delete !vote which doesn't explain its reasoning. I suspect the image meets NFCC#8 (as I tend to judge #8) because seeing a historical event places it in context and increases the readers understanding thereby. I don't think a consensus for deletion was formed. Was it within admin discretion? I'd have to say no. 2 to 1 with both sides having valid arguments isn't a consensus no matter how you slice it. Weak because I lack context. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn (to no consensus). I think that DGG is right, and it should have been relisted in an effort to get a clearer consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. In the absence of consensus to include disputed nonfree content, such content should be removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serious question: Is that stated somewhere? I know a lot of people treat NFCC that way (closing admins at FfD for example) but I didn't think there was actual consensus on that point. Is there something I'm missing (which is quite likely as I tend to avoid NFCC discussions)? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Off the top of my head, I'd say it follows from the WP:NFCC enforcement policy, which says that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created" and that "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria" (my emphasis). I've seen it stated in similarly direct terms in various discussions (eg, here [15], where admin Kww says "Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd.") Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I think that perhaps an RfC on the topic would be wise. I do agree you make a reasonable case, but none of that (other than one admin's opinion) says quite what you are claiming. Given our deletion policy very clearly states that we default to keeping things, I think it is actually less than clear, so clarification would be good. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Jbmurray is correct. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion, and since there is no consensus opinion to be found in this XfD, the file ought to have been kept by default, as is policy; there is no rule in deletion policy according to which disputed unfree content is deleted in the absence of consensus to retain it.  Sandstein  07:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (or alternatively relist). Notability does not override the non-free content criteria. –MuZemike 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a way to un-delete or otherwise host a deleted file such as this for non-admin review? Any reading on the discussion would depend on NFCC number 8, which is subjective. For any non-admin who hasn't seen the picture, trying to discuss this is like taking a shot in the dark. ThemFromSpace 01:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see the image (actually, rather better quality than the one we had) here. It's the black and white image, with the caption "Hugo Chávez and fellow rebel Francisco Arias Cárdenas, the targets of the intended murder plot." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As anyone can see now, it just shows two men meeting. We don't use non-free content to convey such trivial information. --damiens.rf 18:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the silliest argument I've ever seen on Wikipedia (and I've seen a few). So this is a picture of a man waving a piece of paper in the air, this is a picture of two men smiling at each other, and so on... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have sources mentioning the notability and influence of the real "historic images", which is not the case for the photo being discussed here. In this case, the sources only talk about the event depicted. --damiens.rf 12:31, 25 November 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 November 2011[edit]

  • Aubrey Wentworth – Decision endorsed. While the "overturn" side argues that the "delete" !voters have successfully addressed the arguments of the "keep" side, the "endorse" side argues that the sources raised by the "keep" side are sufficient, and furthermore, the article would have been merged (rather than deleted) if not kept. Hence "delete" is not a viable option; at the very minimum it would be redirected to One Life to Live. That said, the closing administrator is advised to provide a closing statement explaining his rationale. Discussion of what to do with the article can take place on the talk page. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aubrey Wentworth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I really think this should have been deleted, as I think the "no concensus" result doesn't actually reflect what is said in the discussion. My arguement was valid and really showed the article for what it is. That is not the issue here, while the passing view is obviously no consensus to an uninvolved admin - looking a little closer and actually reading the comments in the AFD - you can then see the faults and notice there was atleast some consensus to delete this article.

  • Casanova88 said Keep because in his view Aubrey is central to the soap opera therefore should be central to Wikipedia.
  • Carrite said keep because we should all "Embrace your inner pop-culture cruft"
  • 173.241.225.163 voted keep HOWEVER - per another comment, which wasn't a for or against arguement, just a general question to me. The IP in question is also suspect - as his only contribs are to AFDs...
  • Phoenix B 1of3, said said keep because the article should exist as a sourced stub to pass GNG - however I highlighted the results of various google searchs in my nomination and this drew attention to the fact that no RS sources exist - therefore failing GNG in the first place.

All those who offered opinions to remove the article, including me talked about policies and guidelines. There were five in favour of deletion, six including me. There was also one "Procedural keep" in which the editor states the article should be deleted because they felt it was non notable. So that makes seven reasons to delete - This is compared to three keep arguements - three because one of the four was the IP who just voted instead of giving a view. So can you see what I mean that there was some consensus present, because at the end of the day, did those with the keep stance offer valid AFD comments. RaintheOne BAM 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want an involved admin closing an AfD debate? I'd think that one would want an "uninvolved admin" being the closer, as that significantly lessens the chances of a conflict of interest arising from an admin who was on the record as holding an opinion on keeping or deleting said article. Additionally, RfA is not a vote. One two three... 00:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant uninvolved in a different way - an admin could involve themselves in the task they are taking on by reading the comments in full. I know RfA is not a vote. However, I struggle to see how you reached your decision other than counting up the bolded words. Otherwise you would have atleast acknowledged that two arguements for keeping, acutally had the editors brand the subject in question as "cruft" and "non-notable" - with one of them adding in capital letter that the article should be removed from Wikipedia and then citing guidelines as to why they beleived so. I also do not think you read my statement above properly either, as you state "RfA is not a vote" - I pointed out what people said, what the general consensus in that discussion was.RaintheOne BAM 00:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you counted up the number of arguments for each side, and then used that to frame what your definition of a "general consensus" is. One two three... 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before two of you reply to each other further, let's read WP:AFD, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey George, I have read the guidelines a couple of times before nominating here. It is the first time I have ever done so because I feel there has been a breach. It is not personal to One, I genuinely think he was just following procedure and closing a relisted AFD, it is just that this one has an odd chain of comments - So I'd like to back up my general belief that we are all here to improve wikipedia and say sorry - but I still think there is an obvious consensus here and I'd like willing parties to give a slice of there time to read the AFD.RaintheOne BAM 06:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. As one who voted to delete the article in question, I too am surprised by the outcome. As I mentioned in the AfD discussion, all the keep arguments have been refuted or were based on opinion rather than policy. Raintheone has elaborated on this at better length above so I don't think there is much more I can add. Consequently, I respectfully support Raintheone in questioning the AfD outcome just as I stand by my original view that the article be deleted. ClaretAsh 10:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This was an accurate close, although it could have benefitted from a clearer explanation by the closer, and I would encourage One to be more expansive with his closing statements in future. It's a pity that the correct outcome combined with its policy-based reasoning did not emerge during the AfD, but "no consensus" was the right route to it.

    Where the "delete" voters were right was in their focus on the sources. As a group, they correctly pointed out that there are insufficient sources to sustain an article about the fictional character, and they correctly determined that notability is not inherited from the actress to the character. With the honourable exception of JuneGloom, they then incorrectly construed this lack of sources to mean a "delete" outcome. It does not. What a lack of sources means is there should be no separate article for the character. It does not mean "delete".

    In fact, per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, a delete outcome is not appropriate unless all the alternatives have been exhausted. In this case, there were alternatives, such as "redirect", "merge" or "smerge" to a list of characters for the relevant series. Therefore, there should not be a separate article but Aubrey Wentworth should not be a redlink.

    Because One correctly did not delete the article, interested editors can now get together on the article's talk page and form a consensus about what to do next. If the consensus is in accordance with policy, a merge or redirect will be the outcome. If One had incorrectly deleted the article, then this route would not be available, so his close was correct.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • S Marshall, how do you reconcile your comment on alternatives to deletion with the outcome of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011)? Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I recall that RFC very well, and thank you for starting it. The reason why I would distinguish that in this particular case is because I see the debate itself as defective. The RFC was about how to deal with merge or redirect !votes at AfD. In this case, there was about half a merge or redirect !vote (the one from JuneGloom) and the matter was not discussed, but per WP:ATD, I really do think it should have been. So our role here is not so much to examine a contested close, but rather to correct a defective debate.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The inconsistency I see here is that merge considerations not stated in the discussion effectively receive more weight than explicit merge arguments, since the entire discussion is devalued as "defective". I think that merging was considered and rejected by participants. ClaretAsh wrote that "even a merge is probably unjustifiable" (diff of full comment). Other delete supporters pointed to WP:PLOT (Jfgslo) and a lack of reliable sources (Raintheone, Stuartyeates) – problems that will not be solved by merging. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the reason I disagree with that is because One did not close as "merge" or "redirect". He closed as "no consensus". I think that means that in practice, no consideration has really received any more weight than any other, has it? Certainly, in the case of a fictional character who has no inherent notability of her own, a redirect or smerge to the list of fictional characters to the series seems to be the normal outcome per Wikipedian custom and practice, and I think a semi-consensus to this effect emerged after the Pokémon/fictional character Wikiwars of 2006. (I've said "merge or redirect", but in fact I would not see a merge or smerge as correct in this case because the character already has her own very brief section in list of One Life to Live characters, and to expand it would I think give her undue prominence in that list, so strictly, I would see the right outcome as "redirect" rather than "merge".) Early in my first remark I said it's a pity that this outcome did not emerge from the AfD.

            Basically, I feel that the February RFC ought to lead to fewer findings of merge, smerge or redirect in XFD discussions, and more findings of no consensus instead; and I think One's close was generally in line with that. I do think that specifically with fictional-character-related XFDs, our normal custom and practice is to maintain one list for each series or franchise, and I don't think it's too unreasonable of me to say that discussions about fictional characters where this option is not fully discussed are defective.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • That raises an interesting question: In closing an XfD, is it the closing admins place to make qualitative judgements about the discussion or simply to recognise its thrust? I can see arguments either way. The reasoning behind this deletion review, I think, is that One should have followed the latter course. However, what appears to have happened is that s/he either made a qualitative judgement (justified or otherwise) or merely opted for no consensus as the easy option. ClaretAsh 12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Qualitative judgments. For example, it's uncontroversial that sometimes a !vote will need to be disregarded, either because the person making it lacks standing (e.g. a sockpuppet for a blocked user), or because it is somehow at variance with our norms (e.g. a !vote of "Keep! The sources are lacking, but who cares?") Closers have to assess the weight to give to each !vote. This is the reason for the epexegesis and tendency towards pleonasm that characterises Wikipedian debates.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It depends whether One meant no consensus for any specific option or the old "no consensus to delete". I think a consensus against a standalone article is pretty clear. Interestingly, I thought that the RfC, by treating merge and redirect separately from keep, would replace imprecise closes like "no consensus to delete, discuss merging on the talk page" with more specific outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm also curious about which of those possibilities One meant. I see what you mean about imprecise closes, but I'm concerned about the possibility that this makes the closer into an edit-on-demand service. The risk I see is that the closer could potentially be asked to carry out quite complex editing actions (e.g. those involving history merges) as part of the AfD closure process, which doesn't seem entirely fair and may potentially put people off making certain closes. Or do you mean that the closer might say "the consensus was merge" without actually carrying out a merge?—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per S Marshall, there is not a really good policy-based rationale to support a delete !vote in the case of a fictional element that can be merged elsewhere. In fact, a "keep" close (or more specifically, the "merge" variant of keep) would have been reasonable reading of the policy-based arguments in the AfD. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an accurate reading of the AFD discussion. We should put a summary end to the repetitive debates over "important" characters on US network soaps; they're covered in more than adequate depth in multiple periodicals which infest the racks of supermarket checkout lines, and (because they don't pretend that scripted content is anything but fiction) are more reliable (and often enough more literate) than the comparable sources we accept as demonstrating notability for professional wrestling characters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are reliable, then why these "supermarket racks" have not been archived in libraries as either print publications or microforms of back issues? Never mind the internet and websites. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now if you'd checked, you'd have seen some fairly extensive library holdings of the print editions [16] as well as archiving via microfilm edition [17]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, would you provide a closing rationale, either here or amended at the AfD? Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - My !vote was the "procedural keep". It seemed to me at the time that, regardless of the merits, there was no policy-based consensus to delete, and that there was unlikely to be during the course of the deletion discussion due to (a) several vocal "keep" editors that at least vaguely strayed into policy-support arguments; (b) a confusing and poorly-written TL;DR nomination, and (c) a lack of significant interest from delete voters despite two re-listings. Long AfDs create inter-editor conflict and rarely benefit the project (particularly with an article this bland and inoffensive) and, with or without policy, articles shouldn't be deleted if the community can't come to a clear consensus to delete. (After all, policy is only a documentation of past consensus.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those of us who opted for delete stated our position and backed it up. My perspective is that we felt we'd said everything that needed saying. In some cases, we went further by responding to the "Keep" supporters. I'd hardly call that a "lack of significant interest". ClaretAsh 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant numerically. The delete votes were intelligent and well-reasoned, but you know how it is at AfD - sometimes you see matters where you attract five delete votes in the first hour it's up, and sometimes (as here) you can still count the editors who care on one hand after two re-listings. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 'no consensus' was the correct interpretation of the consensus at the AFD. JORGENEV 13:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I understand what was meant, that sentence is inherently illogical. Intentional humour? ClaretAsh 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete – The reasons for deletion are much stronger than the reasons for retention, in which the latter showed a significant disregard to the need for secondary sources to satisfy notability. –MuZemike 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. This is one of those few closes that strike me as wrong "with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish". Flatscan's analysis is exactly correct. T. Canens (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Is this a perfect article? No, it needs to be worked over with a chainsaw. That is an editing issue. The fact that this fictional character has been (essentially) incorporated on not one but two American television soap operas indicates cultural significance. No consensus means no consensus, and that's exactly what that debate was. Deletion review should be a place for the review of deleted articles, not a back door for disgruntled nominators to shop for a better result. You want to delete the piece? Bring it to AfD again after a decent interval, don't go making end runs around the process. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Indicates cultural significance"? Can that be sourced? My interpretation of a character appearing on two separate shows is that some producer majored in marketing. ClaretAsh 07:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to something, probably re-close by another admin who hasn't commented here. A lazy close, made only one minute after the closing admin closed their previous AfD. That gives me no confidence that the admin engaged in any kind of evaluation of the discussion. Such an evaluation was plainly necessary on the face of the debate. Don't get me wrong, some AfDs can be closed that quickly. But not this one. The failure to thoughtfully carry out an administrative function in respect of a contentious discussion is reason to overturn it and have it done properly. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse delete is likely a better reading, but NC is reasonable and within discretion. A closing statement would have been welcome. I'd not oppose a new nomination in the near future. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 27 November 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.
Monet Stunson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article shouldn't have been deleted. It has all the criterier for WP:NMODEL, and WP:GNG. According to some users, the refs were not correctly placed and I don't think that was delete worthy. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin – As said on the AFD and on my talk page, the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention given. The reasons on the retention side seem to hinge on that she's simply notable without indicating any reliable sources that can indicate notability or otherwise indicating that there might be sources out there without actually making any effort. The arguments for deletion, on the other hand, have taken the time to try and find something significant, which none of them could. It's not an argument for placement of reliable sources, but rather the lack of them altogether. –MuZemike 06:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Please take a look at this[18]. This claims that the article is notable. They even mention that she has a wikipedia page. Please restore this article. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum – please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phrasia and User talk:Secret#Sockpuppet/get a life, where there may be possible double-voting via socks here. –MuZemike 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Bullcrap, when you reviwed the article, you had no thought of sockpuppetry. You did not do research on the article well. This was a good article, I provided a solitary link providing notability and fanbase of the subject. Your expertise is video game articles so why where you the reviewer? ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am an administrator, and I have the prerogative to close deletion discussions in the most fair way possible as I see fit. My job with regard to closing deletion discussions is to analyze the arguments brought forth and determine if a consensus for deletion (or else) has been reached and whether it most reflects what most editors feel about the article. I don't need to be a subject-matter expert on every subject in order to do that.
As far as sock puppetry is concerned, no, I did not mention anything about it. That concern was brought up by User:Secret, who has observed similar editing patterns between both accounts. –MuZemike 06:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is wiki worthy, it has been on this site for years and all of a sudden it's not notable enough? By the way, leave my sockpuppet case out of it. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several other editors thought it didn't. Also, if you had used sock puppets to try and votestack in a deletion discussion, then we need to be aware of that. –MuZemike 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And sockpuppetry is confirmed by checkuser, Endorse and close. Secret account 07:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well i wouldn't want to edit and contribute to somewhere I'm not wanted. I'm not the only user here with sockpuppets. I produce a reference and sourced article. It's delete. On the delete repeal, I'm treated like highway garbage. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You blatantly deceived the community by using sock puppets to votestack in the deletion discussion; you knew you were not supposed to do that (about 4 times now), but you went ahead, anyways. You produced an article in which nobody was able to backup any of sources or find any new ones in order to help keep it. Finally, if it is you who feels like highway garbage, consider how the rest of us feels, given your disruption here. –MuZemike 07:24, 16 November 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 November 2011[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
DeusM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Procedural 1: The article was not properly nominated with reasons for deletion given. The subsequent discussion was based on guessing what the problems might be (apparently notability) and trying to answer them.
  • Procedural 2: The closing administrator did not understand his/her obligation to distinguish policy-based consensus from mere headcount of keeps/deletes. See my discussion with closing admin here.
  • Policy: Among the handful of editors involved (six, I think), WP:IDONTLIKEIT was supported by guesswork (maybe the sources just reproduce press releases) and invented "policy" (a business must be notable for 500 years to be notable at all). There was no dispute that the article had at least three independent sources (owners of the sources are identified in the discussion) with significant coverage. No evidence that these three articles, with wholly different content, came from a press release (one press release was identified, but each article contained interviews and information not included in the press release; none of them reproduced text from the press release. On its face, in each case, reliable, independent reporting). But in any case, WP:RS does not say that articles which may be prompted by press releases are not reliable sources (journalists refer to press releases all the time as the basis for reporting: that's why press releases exist). If the community consensus is that Wikipedia should not have pages like this, the correct solution is to change WP:NOTE. A topic with significant coverage in several independent sources is on its face notable, and energy should be directed to improving it. WebHorizon (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Ron Ritzman's nomination explained its reasoning clearly by linking to the deletion review that preceded it; the closing administrator understands his job perfectly well; and User:Ihcoyc nailed it. This material was spam. We can see that you didn't want this deletion to happen, WebHorizon, from the way you replied to every single "delete" !vote: the article must have been important to you. But I'm afraid the consensus was against you. I'm sorry that that's made you unhappy but the appropriate behaviour now is to accept the consensus and move on.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. By practice, the reference to the DRV discussion is an appropriate statement to open an AFD discussion of this sort, probably the most appropriate way. The close accurately reflects the substance of the AFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors are free to test policy arguments. Can anyone just point to the policy being followed? As I said in the debate, if someone had pointed out a policy reason for the deletion, I've have withdrawn my "keep". If I want to work on Wikipedia articles about social business, social media and B2B marketing, but the articles are going to be deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, better find out sooner rather than later. Why is it so hard for someone to give an actual policy-based reason? (Please refer to [[19]] "Advertising or other spam without relevant content.")WebHorizon (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
The reasons were quite clearly given; no reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. In what way can this reason be better delivered to you? Tarc (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - No other possible outcome from an AfD with a lone call to keep, closing admin closed based on consensus and strength of argument presented. DRV is not for "I disagree" cases. Tarc (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The procedure was perfectly OK--people wanting to see what motivated the DRV can look there. We often call this a technical nomination--nominated at AfD or other process because it's the required next step. What matters is that the issues are discussed at the AfD, and the AfD argument was about just what it ought to be, the substantiality of the sourcing. The conclusions of the community was clear. I & many of us often close by saying "delete" or "keep" or whatever , "according to the consensus," meaning that the consensus was very clear and we don't disagree with it. A fuller explanation is needed when the opinions were divided, and an admin is explaining which set they're following; it's certainly necessary to explain when a close is made that appears to overrule what might reasonably be taken for apparent consensus. But sometimes the job of the closer is very straight forward, as it was here. It remains open to you to find better sources, or wait till they appear, and try again, bearing in mind the criticisms made at the AfD. But after such a clear delete close, the only practical way to avoid speedy deletion as a G4 will be to create the article in user space and ask here if it is OK to restore it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The only valid conclusion to the arguments provided at AFD. The policies around what it takes for an article to remain on Wikipedia are everywhere ... WP:FIRSTARTICLE is provided to pretty much everyone. To claim that the AFD did not list those policies does not invalidate the fact that the article did not meet those policies. I note that the article has been userfied - just like you would draft a University-level essay, this is a good time for the editor to draft this article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see I'm talking to myself here, but I'm not disagreeing. I am just trying to find out the policy reason for this consensus, and I am surprised it's so hard for anyone to give a clear one. The only attempt here is by Tarc (thanks for trying): "no reliable sources to establish notability of the subject." Just not the case. There are three, national, indisputably independent sources, and in each case the coverage is just obviously "significant" - main subject of article, article contains research, interviews. I just can't find policy which says an article needs more than this, and I'd be grateful if someone could point me to it or even let me know on my talk page. It's hard to pick a topic for an article if this can just be ignored by editors who (for some reason) are hostile to it. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I understand everyone would prefer me to just go away, but why is it so hard to tell me specifically how the article doesn't conform with this (this - to me - mystery is why I raised the procedural point about the way the deletion was proposed.
If some one was willing to say that Folio or DMN or Crain's are not in fact independent of DeusM or that the coverage in the articles is not significant, at least I could understand where this is all coming from. Anyone?WebHorizon (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Here's an idea: why not stop pissing people off and go fix the userspace draft? Call me crazy, but since it will be deleted shortly if it's not improved, I'd think you would take WP:RS, WP:CORP, WP:GNG seriously and actually improve your work instead of browbeating every respondent to this poorly-considered DRV. I know it's you're right but was is the right thing to do? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close/call for speedy close to this review. It is clear from the remarks at User talk:Beeblebrox#DeusM AfD that WebHorizon is fully aware there is a consensus, but wants it ignored because they believe consensus is wrong in this case. I understand my role in closing perfectly well, and it does not involve ignoring consensus. Neither my talk page nor this forum are AFD round two despite their attempts to make it so. It is this review that is deeply flawed, not my AFD close.Noting also for the record that I have already userfied this at WebHorizon's request. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than simply disagreeing with the consensus, I have been very civilly asking someone to tell me what policy it was based on, other than five editors repeating WP:IDONTLIKEIT in various forms. Clearly it is not based on WP:NOTE as currently drafted. It is telling that nobody will step up and deny that the article was supported by multiple, independent sources.WebHorizon (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Note: I think it's pretty funny that, while Crain Communications and Haymarket Media are not considered (here anyway) reliable, they are apparently considered notable.WebHorizon (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Yes, the fact that reliability and notability are two completely different concepts is hilarious. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, of course it's not funny, but in this specific case we attribute notability to publishers of unreliable magazines. Also, as I said at your Talk Page, please let's not make this personal. It's not about your skill as an Admin.WebHorizon (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Then perhaps you would care to strike out the portion of your comments at the top of this review that directly contradict that statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not challenging the value of your two years' service as an Admin. Anyone who is interested in the specific disagreement referred to above (headcount v. policy-based consensus), can follow the link to our earlier discussion. I was seeking to discover whether you had included deletes based on things like notability implies being notable for 500 years and this article might be based on a press release from the perceived consensus. There are plenty of deletes on that page: actual reasons for deletion are scarce. But this isn't at the end of the day about you or me.Regrettably, after posting this, I see Beeblebrox has made some seriously UNCIVIL remarks about me [[20]], closed the discussion, and asked me not to post on his Talk Page again.WebHorizon (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
I can see there is little value in discussing this with you, but "The closing administrator did not understand his/her obligation to distinguish policy-based consensus from mere headcount of keeps/deletes" is pretty clearly about me and my ability to properly close an AFD. Again, if it isn't about that, then please strike that statement. Or don't, since it's obvious to everyone but you what the outcome of this discussion will be no matter how fast you try to tapdance around the facts. As such I won't be commenting here further. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry this has degraded. All I did at your Talk Page - and here - is try to find out what the notability problem is. I am not deaf to the answer. Anyone is welcome to show me a diff where the question was answered. Do editors think the sources are not independent, not reliable or not numerous enough? If I know, I can see whether the article is fixable. The original AfD was a bog of non-policy reasons (the topic needs to be notable for 500 years, and so on). I am reluctant to drag this through the Reliable Sources Notice Board, which has generally been entirely supportive of properly edited trade magazines, only to find out there's another issue out there. Why the agony? I myself can't believe this dragging on. Someone here must have a simple answer to the question. I thought, as closing Admin, you were the right person to ask first.WebHorizon (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
to explain it to you very simply, Press releases are not RSs, and publications of whatever repute who reprint them do not make them the more reliable. Good journalists use them as a source for an independently written article. ("based on" not " derived from"). Most trade publications contain a mixture of proper journalism and press release copy. Telling them apart is a matter of judgment and experience, and in matters off judgment like this, Wikipedia relies upon consensus, in this case consensus of the editors at the AfD . How else can we decide? No one is has the right to speak as an authority. The problem with the article can be solved by finding additional sources that are clearly not press releases or derived from them. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates my problem with the way the AfD was handled. Although a press release was identified from the time the company was launched (standard practice to issue a press release), if anyone had looked at the three primary sources for the piece, none contained language from the press release, all featured interviews and information not in the press release, all were different. Nobody adressed those considerations, and WP:RS nowhere says that articles from reliable sources should be discounted if the authors may have had access to press releases. Of course not, because that would cause chaos. Hence my impression that the AfD was closed on a headcount rather than looking at the arguments. But I do thank you for responding DGG. If that is the sole reason for deletion, perhaps it is understandable that I am frustrated?WebHorizon (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion WebHorizon seems to have a personal interest in this article, arguing for it being kept every step of the way, from speedy deletion onwards. The consensus is clear that the article should not be on Wikipedia. I am involved as the admin who Speedy Deleted it, but I still feel that the deletion was correct, and no indication of notability has arisen since then - nothing that is independent/reliably-sourced/significant-coverage. As such, deletion was and is the correct result here. I'd be interested in knowing why WebHorizon is so keen on this article being present - is the editor connected with the company (either directly working for them, or for an agency representing them, etc) - as I type, only 26 out of their 147 edits (including 2 deleted edits) were not about either DeusM or Internet Evolution (both conceived by Stephen Saunders) - so 83% of their edits are about these two subjects (either directly editing the articles, or campaigning for the undeletion of DeusM) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Postscript The Internet Evolution article is also supported by non-notable awards and press releases, so I am considering putting that up for deletion soon, but as I must get ready for work, I'll do that another day -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not let an unfair record stand. Compare the percentages of my content edits, ie my edits of articles, not the edits aimed at trying to discover policy reasons for admin actions.WebHorizon (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizo n[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2011[edit]

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

Moved, due to process being interrupted: please go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 15.

{{collapse top|Nothing good is going to come out of a discussion that is interrupted in this way, regardless of who does it.}}

Deleted out-of-process by unilateral admin action while discussion was ongoing. At the time of deletion, debate was approximately 50-50 as to whether deletion was appropriate, indicating a lack of consensus and disagreement that the page was unambiguously inappropriate, as asserted by the deleting admin. The deleting admin deleted the page after !voting delete, invoking WP:BOLD but a) demanding consensus for re-creation (where except in BLP cases lack of consensus means page is kept by default) and b) failing to follow the BRD process when the page was re-created, instead deleting it out-of-process again and salting. There was no unambiguous policy-based reason for out-of-process deletion (another editor, not the admin, asserted that G10 applies, which is dubious because of the "serves no other purpose" clause and because of the lack of unambiguous attack). I've no desire to rehash the entire deletion discussion here, but I do believe that it should be allowed to proceed to whatever consensus the community decides. I have asked the deleting admin to reconsider his deletion and he has declined to do so Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Despite my light-hearted comment at the RfD, this was pretty obviously created simply to knock WQA users down a peg, so G10 does indeed apply. If there's another reason for the redirect's existence, I'd love to hear it. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind, it's not so much a comment on the users involved as it is general social commentary - similar to WP:PITCHFORKS. The title could also potentially be used for an essay, but that would also require the page be created in some form. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect was an implicit statement that if you report someone to WQA, you are a big baby. Which, true or not, has a much higher derision-to-wit ratio than WP:PITCHFORKS. If it redirected to an essay, that'd be a different kettle of hammers. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And changing where it redirected to is a matter for its talkpage, not for unilateral out-of-process deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Should we have that redirect? Probably not. Was there a good reason to disrupt the normal process though? No, not at all, it only created much, much more drama than letting the deletion discussion run its course could ever have done. This was not a G10 speedy candidate, not every negative or uncivil comment (or redirect) is a personal attack. User:Our God may be considered an insult to all believers in God (Allah, Jahweh, ...), but it has happily existed for nearly two years. Just have a 7 day discussion, and close it then as whatever the consensus decides, without all the additional fuss and drama. Fram (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV regulars will be unsurprised when I mention FairProcess here. My position in these cases is always that not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. Wikipedia's an exercise in collaborative encyclopaedia-building, and the "collaborative" part of that is important. The best way to drive away our members is to make summary decisions that deny them a voice.

    Personally, I don't see any point in that redirect, but the community has not given administrators very much latitude to perform summary deletions at all. We expect that deletions will only take place where certain strictly-defined deletion criteria are met, a prod has expired, or there is a proper consensus in favour of deletion. None of these things obtained. And one other point too: DRV's role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and it clearly wasn't. DRV has always taken a very dim view of "IAR speedy deletions" accordingly.

    In other words, overturn per Fram. Let's have a proper discussion that lasts the full 168 hours with everyone getting their say, so that this redirect can be deleted properly.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - such an attack creation is unworthy of any discussion at all - its close enough to a WP:G10 to be a reasonable rationale - speedy delete and salt - endorse. Even this deletion review for a week of comments is a waste of discussion and time (there is a huge backlog of copyright violations that is ignored) and then another week/ten days at discussion, three more weeks divisive discussion about an attack redirect - and you don't even support its existence - Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are you addressing that last comment to? Assuming it's me, I do in fact support its existence - not because I feel everyone at WQA should be attacked, as I don't believe that that's what this redirect does, but because it's a fairly accurate description of some of the behaviour related to WQA. An argument could also be made to redirect this elsewhere, but that argument requires the page to be undeleted. Nevertheless, those are arguments better addressed via RfD. Had this redirect not been deleted out-of-process, there would have been only one week of discussion necessary there to reach consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Should we have that redirect? Probably not." .and.. "Personally, I don't see any point in that redirect" - No it wasn't directed at you. A moments discussion of an attack creation is unworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • G10 requires that it serves no other purpose; in this case, I would argue that it does. I would also argue that it isn't a clear attack. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why is my interpretation less correct than yours? It's not a clear-cut attack, and therefore whether it's an attack at all is a matter of opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who runs to mommy? Babies. What is this redirect implying about people who post to WQA?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Babies can't run, and they're not the only ones with mothers. By linking posters at WQA directly with babies, you're the one implying things about them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn out of process deletion. Satire is not necessarily an attack. Shocking bad form by the deleting admin who voted "strong delete" before deleting it three minutes later. Admin should have the tools removed and once he is familiar with community standards of approppriate admin behaviour be asked to stand at RfA to earn the trust of the community. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, because one thing we need here is even more ways to belittle our fellow editors. --Conti|✉ 20:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial and unambiguous cases. This is neither. There is enough debate over whether it actually is an attack page and whether the title is useful in some other way to take G10 off the table. From past MfDs it is established that even long tirades which attack the character and motivations of a clearly identifiable group of editors are OK, so long as they don't name names. This one, which just pokes gentle fun at the tone of one of our notice boards and doesn't mention any editors in particular, is pretty tame in comparison. Reyk YO! 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn whilst I agree the redirect was not appropriate speedy deletion was not appropriate either. The page did not meet any speedy deletion criterion and Jimbo did not claim that it did. I don't think this falls under G10 since satire is not necessarily an attack and since it is a criticism of part of the project. The deleting admin had previously commented in the discussion (which was far from clear-cut), which means the deletion violated WP:INVOLVED as well. Hut 8.5 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary provocative. Gerardw (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as User:Gerardw is the third most active contributor to the dispute issues at the noticeboard that is the target of this redirect, with 784 contributions to resolving disputes there, (783 more than you) - I think he, as one of the targeted contributors of this demeaning redirect, has a right to let his beneficial contributions to the noticeboard do his talking for him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't make his comment any more on-topic. Nor yours. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note - the opener of this deletion review has during it, now created the redirect WP:Run to Daddy - as a redirect to Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo - this creation reveals this whole pointy issue for what it is - worthless and pointy - this should now be closed as worthless disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this should be interesting. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, we have had it all today, attacking redirects, attacking templates. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I wonder who it was started all the dramah? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the redirect - you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. I quietly created a light-hearted redirect with no fanfares. Whereas you ran from pillar to post asking all and sundry (and whoever else would listen) to get it deleted, ergo the dramah was all on you sunshine (the dramah you kept on a rolling boil). I notice you haven't done the same thing with Run To Daddy. Is that sexism? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't quietly create it, you created it and immediately went to Malleus's talkpage laughing about it, see what naughty thing I have done, quick before its deleted...WP:Run to Daddy is a redirect to an essay. Not one I would personally create or one that I support but unworthy of a complaint. Whereas your creation as you can see by the comments here, is. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When something is light-hearted it generally involves laughter. Now I know you wouldn't understand that concept. Yet strangely enough that didn't cause any drama either...until you saw it and reacted to it in the time-wasting way you did. Personally I think there's more to it than just this redirect, but my brain doesn't really understand Machiavellian techniques. But sorry bud, the dramah is still down to you...oh and Jimbo of course. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and resume RFD discussion. Not because I think the redirect is beneficial, but because I really do not think it should have been speedied when there was an active discussion going on with no consensus to do so. Before someone says something about "process for process sake" (I am sure there's an essay about that which someone will happily quote at me), I am in favor of resuming the deletion discussion (at which I will probably recommend it be deleted) because I think having his decision overturned here would be a useful message to Jimbo, and would perhaps discourage him from making similar disruptive unilateral decisions in the future. All of this drama would not have happened if he had chosen to trust/respect the community. If he had run across this redirect on his own, and speedied it, I would not have cared; but seeing that there was an active discussion with no consensus (yet), this supervote was a slap in the face of those participating in the discussion. And suggesting that this discussion should take place at WT:WQA shows a disappointing willingness to engage in gamesmanship. Redirect discussions belong at RFD. If Jimbo wants everyone to love and respect each other, we should start by respecting the people that were discussing this.

    So yes, as dumb as it might sound, I recommend overturning, undeleting, and continuing the RFD discussion, during which I hope the decision will be to delete. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion It's perfectly reasonable to speedy delete a redirect that was created for the purpose of belittling other editors. Peacock (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Undelete and return to the discussion that had already started. Then allow the community Jimbo "trusts" so much make the correct decision for the community whatever that decision is. His unilateral deletion makes a mockery of "Wikipedia is yours, I trust you" and is a slap in the face of the editors and admins who had already taken part in the RfD. Jimbo, just like any other admin, used his tools to get his own away. Any other sysop who did that would run the chance of getting desysopped pretty smartish. Also, who decided that "run to mommy" is demeaning? It's not if you don't use it. Some editors may feel comforted at the thought of running to their mum. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and return to RfD. This did not meet any speedy deletion criterion because by definition speedy deletions must be uncontroversial and pages must unambiguously meet one or more criteria. If there is an ongoing deletion discussion in which one or more users in good standing have expressed a good faith !vote to keep, then the page can not unambiguously meet any criterion (with the exception of legal issues, of which there were none here. The speedy deletion was therefore out of process. Every out of process speedy deletion harms the project, and it harms it more so than this redirect ever could. As someone who is likely to close a relisted RfD, I should point out here that I am neutral about whether the redirect is good or bad, but I firmly believe the question is for a consensus of editors at RfD to decide, not one administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I suppose there was some drama that I missed behind the creation of this redirect (and WP:Run to Daddy), but whatever it was, creating redirects that can only be used to attack those participating in a process that is part of Wikipedia is not helpful. It is quite reasonable to speedy delete such judgment failures. The appeals to bureaucracy above ("Every out of process speedy deletion harms the project") may be useful somewhere, but not when we are discussing a redirect intended to deride WQA. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MeatballWiki has a lot to say about what you're calling "bureaucracy". In MeatballWiki thinking, a summary deletion of this kind is called a BackRoomDecision. A user with special privileges decides that he knows best, summarily terminates the discussion, implements his decision in despite of the discussion, and then moves on. It's a bruising, damaging thing to do, because it appears so arbitrary and because it rides roughshod over what other, apparently good faith users were saying. We have a process for a reason. The optimum outcome isn't just to delete the redirect, it's to delete the redirect with a minimum of bad feeling.

    Besides, when an admin !votes for deletion and then summarily deletes on his own authority three minutes later, that's simply not to be borne. I really can't see DRV supporting that kind of thing under any circumstances at all.—S Marshall T/C 01:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Applying the rules that protect the project from admins deleting anything they personally don't like just because they don't like it is not an appeal to bureaucracy any more than prosecuting someone for ignoring a law that stops them doing what they want is. You describe the redirect as "intended to deride WQA", if that were unambiguously true then it would have been legitimately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G10. However, several editors in good standing believe that the redirect has other uses (e.g. satire has been quoted above). In circumstances like this, the Wikipedia way is to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS about whether it should be kept or deleted, not delete it anyway because you don't like it. The "justification" for speedy deleting this out of process was that it is "Inappropriate and offensive; not welcoming to new editors" - I can think of nothing more inappropriate, offensive and unwelcoming to new editors than speedy deleting something while saying "the rules don't apply to me", which is exactly what has happened here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn exactly per Floquenbeam. It is not at all lost on me that had this been done by another admin, we would be talking about desysopping. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Fram MurfleMan (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and resume RfD A G10 speedy does not trump an ongoing community discussion, not even from Jimbo. While I think the result is reasonable, I think the community's obligation to decide for itself what constitutes an attack page through the discussion that was already ongoing is more important. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - If this has been done by any other admin, nobody would have cared. Anyone who noticed would have seen it as consistent with the spirit behind WP:IAR. We've all seen deletion discussions with conflicting "votes" cut off by speedy deletions before. Deli nk (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By admins who first had !voted in the discussion? No, I can't really say that I have seen such deletion discussions which didn't get overturned at DRV or caused more drama. Fram (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say that I recognise actions overiding an active discussion during which no consensus has emerged as being at all consistent with the spirit behind IAR. For comparable actions see WP:ARBDATE#Mass delinking, Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn sadly. The process problems here are just too much to swallow. I'll happily !vote to delete this, but an admin participating in the discussion cannot then turn around and use the tools even if it is otherwise a decent IAR case. I'd not really object to blocking the creator of this for 24 hours though. This redirect is disruptive. Purely disruptive IMO. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given your opinion is not universally shared, this would make an appalling IAR case regardless of who did the ignoring of rules. Similarly the lack of consensus means that a block for its creation would hardly seem a fair block (ignoring that to block this late in the day would be punitive rather than preventative). Note this is not expressing an opinion on the merits or otherwise of the redirect, just that there is no consensus that it is "purely disruptive". Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A fine point. I believe it to be purely disruptive and would help in adding to the consensus that it is. I'd like to hear what purpose it serves other than disruption. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Floq and Thryduulf. Speedy deletions must be uncontroversial and within some very tight rules - if more than the article creator thinks it's a bad idea to speedy, then some other approach is needed. I'm sure it will probably end up deleted, but in this case we must take it back to RfD and let the community decide. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and let the RfD run its course. I agree with the comments of many of the "overturn" voters above – while the consensus will probably be that the redirect should be deleted, the deletion was out of process (G10 clearly does not apply and there was no consensus at the RfD) and should be overturned so the community can have their say rather than have one admin's opinion unilaterally imposed. If this had been any other admin we wouldn't have even had to come to DRV. Jenks24 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's a taunt, nothing more. Someoneanother 17:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why does a "taunt" justify an out of process speedy deletion? Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BURO. Someoneanother 19:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • From that page I quote, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion". What about this was so urgent and so preposterously bad for the encyclopaedia that justified ignoring the ongoing discussion? In what way are the processes for dealing with redirects that may not be appropriate preventing the imrpovement of the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whomever wrote that must have been smoking some serious shit. The bureaucracy at WP is not far short of governmental proportions. A guideline for this, a policy for that, rules that are counter to other rules, you must do this, you must keep to that, arbitration committees, ANI (which is pretty much a Quango). The list is endless. 'Half' the bloody admins (and Baseball Wotsisname) are so tied up with bureaucracy that they never write a word in article space. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • To a large extent the job of an administrator is to facilitate the writing of content in article space by others rather than writing it themselves. A large percentage of your article space edits appear to be clean-up and copyediting rather than content creation, so I'd have thought you'd understand this already. To quote Coren, "The skill set is very different, and I believe good content editing is best left to those who have more talent for it than I. Each of us brings something different to the project, and I'm much more of a "behind the scenes machinery" guy than others. For every ace pilot, there needs be people to man the tower and maintain the fighters – those of us who make sure they can do their job. I'd rather do a good job at the ATC than crash planes." (source). Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As far as my article space edits go, the result is skewed (and also a reason why my edit count is so low) because I spend most of my time creating illustrations. I answer requests at the Illustration Workshop and do replacements as and when I come across them in article space. Believe creating a vector illustration takes far longer than creating an article, then when I upload it I get one edit credit which belies how much work has gone into it. Regardless, I stand by my comments, both with regards to the bureaucracy and the admin edits, especially the latter. Spending one's time at ANI or WQA (not you in particular of course) does not supply anything that can usefully be read by someone visiting to learn about something, unless of course they want to learn about WP:BOOMERANG. Ah, but an Admin isn't a ATC worker, they're more akin to the janitor downstairs though YMMV. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh definitely as regards the janitorial thing - a pail and crossed mops is the admin coat of arms. And creating illustrations is definitely more worthwhile than a lot of the arguments that turn up on noticeboards. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but not indefinite protection. The characterization of this as a "taunt" is squarely on target. Were the redirect to have pointed to a relevant essay or similar commentary, as is now the case with Run to Daddy, summary deletion would not have been in order. The signal-to-noise ratio here is just far too low to be acceptable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why was summary deletion in order for a taunt? Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. I reject your assertion that the original redirect merited out-of-process deletion, but the idea of pointing to a relevant essay isn't bad. Do you know of an appropriate one? Of course, the issue of where a redirect should point to is one for the redirect's talk page, not deletion...Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:Run to Daddy points to an essay that says appealing to Jimbo is unwise. I'm not aware of an analogous essay saying posting to WQA is unwise. But, hey, if you want to write one... 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoosya Daddy? So running to Mummy is classed as demeaning whereas running to Jimbo isn't? In my view that's the absolute opposite. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The simple point here is that if any admin except Jimbo had deleted this out of process, it would have been restored and a fresh water fish applied to that admin's head. Unfortunately, too many of us have memories of how Jimbo treats admins that disagree with them. And now I've disapplied myself from restoring it, but hey, isn't it a shame that Jimbo couldn't have followed the rules that the rest of us do? Oh sorry, I forgot, he doesn't have to. Complete fucking shambles really, especially considering it would almost certainly have been deleted anyway. Black Kite (t) 21:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Blatantly out of process deletion. If there is legitimate disagreement between good faith editors, then it isn't grounds for a speedy deletion. Let the deletion discussion run its course. Buddy431 (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing in this thread that is even marginally helpful in building either the encyclopedia or the community. I'd endorse the deletion as an entirely out-of-process good action, but I don't really care to get involved any further. NW (Talk) 23:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- someone had a hissy fit. That's not the way to do things. We all know why. Too late to !vote? Even so... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{collapse bottom}}
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 November 2011[edit]

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

Dear Wiki folks,

Apologies for the lack of editorial decorum, if I'm not observing proper protocol... it's all a tad confusing to me.

Just noticed the "up for deletion" request by admin [?] and I'm seeking to prevent this from happening. I read that you/someone was/were having difficulties confirming our claims to historical authenticity and would be happy to respond to any and all queries broaching the subject. In spite of KU being a contemporary interpretation of much older Okinawa/Fujian-based practices, which come directly from my teachers[Richard Kim 1917-2000, Kinjo Hiroshi 1919-, et al], I/we are most assuredly fully accredited, widely published and established worldwide.

Alternatively, if there is/are other issues at hand I am willing to do whatever it takes to maintain our site listing.

I can be contacted c/o [email protected] or [email protected]

Sincerely,

Patrick McCarthy McCarthy Sensei (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koryu_Uchinadi&action=edit&redlink=1[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion Providing credentials is not really the issue here. No amount of question-and-answer sessions with the creator of the style will get past the issue of primary sourcing. To verify notability, and thus qualify the article for inclusion, we need reliable sources which are unaffiliated with this ryu. Examples would be: unsolicited article in newspapers, journals or martial arts magazines; television coverage in a documentary or news programme; scholarly discussion in papers by independent martial arts historians; or a few paragraphs in a book (written and published independently). So far, I have found none of these. McCarthy Sensei, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are not a valid source for this article (at least not insofar as demonstrating notability is concerned). Yunshui 雲‍水 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion , without prejudice to re-creation if proper secondary sources can be found. If the significance is as great as the supporters of this article say, then there should be such sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 20 November 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 November 2011[edit]

  • List of North American "Occupy" protests – Overturn and Delete. The consensus below is that the closer erred by misconstruing the applicability of the guideline WP:NOTDUP. Considered in the light of its text and purpose, it is essentially irrelevant to the list at hand, and without is hanging over the discussion the consensus to delete is clear. Note the this close is without prejudice to any future split or spin-out from List_of_Occupy_movement_protest_locations, nor does it purport to limit the applicability of WP:NOTDUP beyond the particular context at issue here. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of North American "Occupy" protests (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closer did not properly interpret WP:NOTDUP. I've discussed it with User:Panyd on their talk page and they've agreed that the interpretation of ambiguous and so we need some clarification.

My interpretation of WP:NOTDUP is that "arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion" refers to nominating a category for deletion if there is a list or navigation template, a list for deletion if there is a navigation template or category, or deleting a navigation template if there is a category or list.

User:Panyd's interpretation is that multiple lists can exist for a topic because per WP:NOTDUP "building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list". She believes that the sentence I've quoted above means that lists can overlap other lists; even if they do not expand upon them. (Apologies if I've misrepresented, but I think this summarizes User:Panyd's rationale. I'm sure they'll expand on their own below.)

I disagree with User:Panyd's rationale because I believe that an enhanced list can be built at List_of_Occupy_movement_protest_locations and split to seperate articles when it reaches an appropriate size. This argument was made in the deletion and by !votes alone the article should've been deleted. I think it was User:Panyd's misinterpretation of policy that caused them to WP:SUPERVOTE this as a keep.

We would like some clarification on WP:NOTDUP regarding this AFD. v/r - TP 22:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just adding my two cents. I actually don't agree with my original closing rational now, as TParis has adequately explained, at least to my mind, where I have gone wrong. However, my WP:SUPERVOTE was based on the weight of the arguments given at the time (e.g. the interpretation of WP:NOTDUP given by those who voted Keep as opposed to the rather weak arguments of those who voted delete). Were I to vote again, it would be as no consensus, but as I already closed the darn thing, I would very much like a review to get better consensus.
The sentence in question is this: Additionally, arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.. When used in the original debate by the keep votes, and in my original interpretation of the policy, the other is seen as interchangable with another (read the whole policy and tell me that isn't an easy mistake to make). So I suppose I'm looking for two things from this:
  1. Confirmation that the other is not interchangable with another which will allow myself and TParis to rewrite that sentence so that it makes more sense.
  2. Better consensus on whether the community feels that it is appropriate to keep this list based on a considered argument of the interpretation of WP:NOTDUP, on which this argument appears to hang. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, this list was split from the List of "Occupy" protest locations one and contains no information that doesn't already exist there. There would be no need for attribution if we were to redirect it back.--v/r - TP 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's marginal and arguable, but if it was up to me, then I would think that on balance, Panyd's close could stand. What is clear, from precedent, is that there is no overriding rule about a maximum number of lists we can have for one topic. For example minor planet has many nested lists to support it: there's the master List of minor planets from which depend many lesser lists such as List of minor planets: 99001–100000, and there's also a List of minor-planet groups. I think the main point with anything related to WP:CLN is that lists, categories and navigation templates need not strictly form part of the encyclopaedia at all; they can consist of ways to find content rather than having to be content in their own right.—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall - are you aware that this article duplicates content already in List of "Occupy" protest locations? Why not just have a redirect to that section of the larger list until it is more comprehensive? How many lists should be created? Where is the limit to that kind of madness?--v/r - TP 23:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of duplicative lists is the relationship between the master list of dinosaurs and its dependent list of African dinosaurs, list of European dinosaurs etc. The master list is a summary of almost everything that's ever been called a dinosaur in a reliable source, while the dependent lists duplicate the master list and provide additional context—timelines and so on. It seems to me that deletion requires more justification than mere duplication, as is implied in WP:NOTDUP already; it seems to me that a deletion under NOTDUP would require the lists to be similar in scope as well as content.

I think this is a confusing aspect of our rules, and I've already recognised that it's debatable. I'm conscious that I may not be being very clear myself either, so I'll try to express the same thought a different way. By analogy, we have separate articles on arthropod, arachnid, spider, tarantula and Mexican redknee tarantula. We could have corresponding lists: list of arthropods, list of arachnids, list of spiders and even list of tarantulas, and to me, this arrangement would not seem to violate NOTDUP.

Incidentally, I'm absolutely bloody astonished that all of the above are redlinks! (I found a redirect target for list of spiders later)—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in the example you gave, those are lists and articles overlaping. In this case, it is a list and a list overlaping (or rather split).--v/r - TP 19:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say—apparently not very successfully!—was that just as the articles are sort of "nested", so could the lists be. Spider, tarantula and Mexican red-kneed tarantula are similar topics at different levels of zoom. I don't see why we couldn't have equivalent lists at different levels of zoom. So coming back to the subject at hand, I don't see why we couldn't have an overall list of occupy protests, a list of European occupy protests, and a list of Greek occupy protests, even though the one might include the other. This doesn't necessarily mean I think it's a good idea to have lots of different lists of these protests; what it means is I don't think it's obviously and clearly wrong, so I feel as if the close was within Panyd's discretion.—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's why we do article WP:SPLITs. When the top article becomes to large for a reader, we split the articles into smaller parts. In this case, the new article neither expands on the original list nor is the original list too large to enhance.--v/r - TP 13:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, and I feel its force. The counterargument that I see is that the new list may, if allowed to develop, come to expand on the original list in future. We're not supposed to delete based on the present state of the subject material. We're only supposed to delete if the material would be unsalvageable even after substantial amounts of editor time and skill had gone into it.—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not deleting the material. We are allowing it to develop - where it was originally created. When the correct time to split comes, we can split then.--v/r - TP 14:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was alright with this one article about North America so we could have article prose about the whole region, but after the third article splintering off, it was really getting redundant. This one article about North America, is worth the keep. Two articles about North America and another about the United States alone, no. If it wasn't obvious, I endorse the closure that was made. I was more or less frustrated with similar articles popping up and most AFDs getting lots of WP:GNG-based keep !votes. Hopefully this will be resolved. — Moe ε 14:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • EndorseOverturn and delete Even though I was for deletion on the AFD, I agree with the closing comments on the AFD page and are sufficient to justify the continued existence of the article in question. Jab843 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Jab843 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the policy it is based on? The problem is that the policy does not seem to address, at least from my point of view, lists that are duplicates of lists. If that is correct, than the closing rationale is wrong.--v/r -TP 23:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the list duplicates another list, then there's another guideline that could be applied to it: criterion for speedy deletion A10. It's not a strict duplication, so the content should probably be merged, but a merge is, effectively, a keep with followup action needed. My endorsement of the close is no longer weak. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have revisited this topic and agree that the closing comments were not adequate, and several valid arguments have been shown to where the article should be merged and deleted. Also Moe make a strong argument that should not be looked over. Jab843 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. First of all, decisions on the structure/breakdown of list articles of this sort are as much routine editing decisions as they are deletion/inclusion decisions, and a closing admin should be more reluctant to set aside the expressed sentiments of the community. Second, the article in question is an utter botch -- its editors seem to believe, for example, that "North America" ends at the U.S. southern border, a notion rejected by those less innocent of geography. It is also less detailed and less comprehensive that the overall list article and the US list article; to prevent redundancy, the opposite should hold for a spinout article. Third, it's structurally inconsistent with the overall article, which uses a Canada/US/Latin America breakdown, a structure that appears to enjoy broader community support. On balance, the discussion appeared to reach a reasonable conclusion of redundancy, and the closer did not make an adequate case for setting that determination aside. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I don't believe the statement above, "that "North America" ends at the U.S. southern border", and never have. A false statement based upon assumption. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Well, by excluding all south-of-the-border sites, even though some were listed in the overall article, you certainly legitimated the rhetorical point. And even when you just stuck empty sections in in response to my comment. you've still missed an important region where protests occurred. Not to mention the obvious POINTYness of adding a section for Greenland. The article was a lousy job, fully justifying the community's 2:1 rejection of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it only includes the United States and Canada because the only articles written have been in those two countries. We have protests going on in the other countries and have articles on them outside North America, however most countries in North America don't have any individual articles. Mexico had a couple minor protests, Greenland has no legitimate Occupy protest that I know of and the other Latin American countries are like Mexico in terms of the protest with minor ones popping up in some places. I don't believe it's some kind of anti-Latin American sentiment like you are suggesting. — Moe ε 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. See the lede sentence in the article, "The following is a list of Occupy movement protests in North America that have articles on Wikipedia." Northamerica1000(talk) 16:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting any anti-Latin sentiment. I'm saying that the article was a lousy job which justified the community's rather clearly expressed rejection. There's no good reason to spin out a more superficial, less complete article from a general treatment, and that the closer didn't provide a sufficient reason to reject the community's expressed opinion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Closer misunderstands WP:NOTDUP, which is primarily about lists which duplicate categories. That is not the case here (and this was argued by several !voters at the AfD, so I'm not sure how it got missed). This list is inferior to, a duplication of, and in a different format than other lists, in particular List of Occupy movement protest locations#Americas and List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. The US version of the list has already been split out from the main article; if any other lists get too large for the main list, they can be split out by country also. There is absolutely no reason to simultaneously split the main list by country and by continent. While no one specifically voted to Merge, many voters expressed that this list should be merged and deleted, as it is overly duplicative of existing lists. The correct guideline is WP:CFORK, not WP:NOTDUP. —SW— express 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen and reclose. I concur that WP:NOTDUP is not relevant and that the keep close should thus be overturned. I think that delete has an edge over no consensus, but the discussion is complicated enough that I'd be happy to punt it to another closer. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The closer's interpretation of NOTDUP is clearly erroneous. T. Canens (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete WP:NOTDUP is perhaps the most widely miscited policy on lists. The close here was not in line with local consensus, broader consensus, or common sense. ThemFromSpace 04:30, 19 November 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.
Rebecca Pope (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I redirected this page after a somewhat contentious AfD. User:TRLIJC19 has object to my close, but had trouble with the DRV template which can be pretty tricky for users unfamiliar with it. Therefore I am filing this for him. He has stated Consensus was never reached and is still ongoing debate. Only two people pushed for redirect., but I stand by my reasoning in the close, though I'll be happy to expand upon it if anyone would like. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Redirect None of the !keep votes convincingly addressed the lack of significant coverage of the character (not to be confused with coverage for the actress), the close was more than acceptable. Mtking (edits) 22:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, and… The primary issue here is the closing of the AfD. I think that Eluchil404 made a reasonable judgment to reach a compromise decision instead of a no consensus. That said, the article is effectively merged into the character list, so I think the best next step is to discuss at Talk:List of Grey's Anatomy characters whether to split an article on Pope from that article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I endorse that too. The logic is that notability is not inherited from the actress to the character, and the fictional character is not notable, so she should not have her own separate article. However, the material should not be deleted because there is a reasonable alternative that the guidelines say we should prefer. Hence neither "keep" nor "delete" are the optimal outcomes. The closer's options included redirect and merge. I might personally have gone for merge over redirect, based on that debate, but in DRV terms this is not strictly relevant: the one can be exchanged for the other without a DRV as a matter of editorial judgment.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ND3 always seems to come in handy for this kind of close. The meta consensus on this type of article is clear merge/redirect to a list of article. Unfortunately, if there are no sources the only policy compliant close is redirect as the article invariably turns out to be OR. Spartaz Humbug! 02:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the redirect per S Marshall and Spartaz. Even if the article is insufficiently sourced, a non-administrator can mine the history of the redirect for elements to be sourced and either merged or as a basis for a future article that demonstrates that it meets inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A good, thoughtful close. Per S Marshall. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The AFD discussion reached no evident consensus, and the decision as to which fictional characters from a well-known work merit individual entries is a standard editing decision where community sentiment should not be set aside without compelling reason. While S Marshall is quite correct in noting that notability is NOTINHERITED from the actress to the character; the situation here is not so simple. The award nomination recognizes the notability of the performance involved, which quite reasonably be shared by the performer and the character performed. I'm also quite baffled by Spartaz's comment, since the close here redirected a at-least-sufficiently-referenced article to an unreferenced one, exactly the opposite situation to the one he describes. I'm bothered by inconsistent treatment in this general area; it seems inappropriate to me to establish stricter sourcing standards for articles on fictional TV characters than for BLPs on reality TV players; practice is much more tolerant of primary sourcing, either explicit or implicit, for the latter than the former, even though BLP policy requires more sensitive scrutiny. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect. It seemed to me that none of the keep !votes addressed the notability issue correctly, and therefore the consensus was that Wikipedia does not currently need an article on this character. Although I personally !voted delete, the redirect result seems entirely appropriate from the discussion. In passing I note that HW raises some good points about inconsistency, which deserve full discussion in some forum, although it happens that I disagree with him. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good compromise close, consensus against standalone article. I see just enough discussion of merging to the character list to avoid outright deletion, but not enough to close as merge. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 18 November 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 November 2011[edit]

10 November 2011[edit]

9 November 2011[edit]

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

This article was deleted despite the discussion with given questions and provided facts. We see that discussion transformed in constructive to political debate. Max Kaur (Jermakov) meets the requirements: This man is involved into Estonian politics for at least 15 years. Former vice-mayor of the town of Maardu. At the moment, this politician is a Chairman of the Law Enforcement Commission of the City Council of the Capital of Estonia (both it is a serious position considering that Tallinn is the Cultural Capital of Europe, 2011). Just to mention - Mr. Kaur was political advisor of the head of the popular party "Centre Party" Mr. Edgar Savisaar (I am not trying to use invalid criteria "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B", but I would like to mention that he was Estonian Prime minister from 1990 to 1992, got most of the votes at Parliament elections in 2011, at the moment - mayor of Capital of Estonia, ). He is most mentioned person of "Centre Party" in press. While the article and the politian we talk about met the requirements of "notability", our opponents started to use such expressions like "youth section of centre party", "small-time politician", "yellow journalism garbage", "his supporters should show up here... but this doesn't mean we need take what they say seriously" etc. It is absolutely non-professional and non-encyclopedic. We aren't discussing people. The article is about the well-respected man who is very famous in Tallinn and the main state of Estonia - Harjumaa, leading Institute of Society Development and giving lectures in ECOMEN institute in Tallinn. Moreover, this person has recommended himself on international area as a solid man, presenting Estonia in serious Worldwide organizations like International Human Rights Movement "World Without Nazism" (has offices Bruxelles, Moscow etc..), making lectures and reports - people of Estonia proud of such persons. I saw a lack of neutralism and justice while discussion. It was very abusively for me to hear such words like "supporter from youth section of party" from participants of so named discussion (it looked like a political debate). With a hope, I ask moderators to return the article. Johannes xz (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Johannes xz (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bgwhite's point was that this individual is on Tallinn City Council (source), which does appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN point #2 ("members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city"). In the debate, this point seems to have been ignored rather than refuted, so on the face of it the nominator here may have an arguable case, but I don't know whether, in this case, DRV will prefer the GNG over SNGs. Also, I don't speak Estonian and am not qualified to evaluate the sources. I suggest we ask for input from a randomly-selected editor from WikiProject Estonia who has not previously participated in a discussion about Max Kaur, in the hope that a neutral Estonian speaker will be able to give us a fair assessment of the reliability of the sources used.—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !voted to delete, but it was borderline & I expected a no-consensus close. Spartaz based his decision on the view that the sources were unreliable, which I think also, but not everyone did. I admit I was influenced in considerable measure by the argumentative nature of the discussion, as well as the dubious nature of the sourcing and the attempt to extend mere mentions to something more significant. At present I admit to a developing bias, I think shared by others, that the odds that a borderline article will and should get deleted is a function of the extent of promotionalism in the article and the discussion. It really doesn't matter that we might have articles of borderline significance--there are many places to draw the line, none with much better intrinsic reason than another. There are many ways to argue on the basis of the equivocal phrases in the GNG, which at this point I think worthless in both directions. Depending on whether one judges something notable on whatever one's own criteria actually are, it's usually possible to argue that the sources are or are not significant and third party or generally reliable. I could have argued that point either way for the present article. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Endorse. Not notable, purely promotional article - and the army of sock/meatpuppets didn't really help to form a positive view (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MVK2009). --Sander Säde 08:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear moderators! I would like to ask Your help in making this discussion more neutral and prevent other participants' attempts to give discussion a political colors and accuse respected in society people in using in political technologies. It is obvious that every politician uses political technologies and almost every official has a party affilation - it is obvious,but we also speak about an official, a politician, a public figure, who bring benefit to society - that is the point in article. -- Aleksss19 ( talk ) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Endorse per Sander Säde and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MVK2009. Claimed notability is nothing without verifiable reliable sources, and we have a strong bias against unsourced BLPs, plus a drawer full of WP:SPA suspected socks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close I think I noted that the spas/IPs and obvious meatpuppets had been discarded and the established users had sufficiently considered the sourcing and found it wanting. I will admit that I give GNG more weight then SNGs when we are dealing with BLPs because the community is now clearly averse to inadequately sourced BLPs and I believe we have to reflect that in the weight we give competing standards when we close discussions. I did not allow the obvious gerrymandering and COI issues any weight in the close as they are reasons to improve an article not delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Given the state of the AfD and (lack of) proffered sources, deletion is clearly reasonable. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:43, 18 November 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.
Mein Kampf in the Arabic language (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

not notable

Now that the most outrageous claims of this article have been removed or refuted, what remains is, in the words of the article itself, eminently non-notable. Here is a summary of the main points of the article:

  • The first translation of Mein Kampf was not approved by the Third Reich, and was never published.
  • The second translation was also not approved by the Reich. Eventually the translator self-published it. It achieved very little circulation, and played little to no role in Nazi propaganda to the Arab world. Some Arab intellectuals denounced it because it portrayed Arabs as an inferior race.
  • In 1967, the book was retranslated by a Nazi war criminal and published by Beisan in Beirut. In 1999, one bookstore in Ramallah reported that it had sold less than 40 copies in the course of August, making it the 6th most popular title that month. A bookseller at the Cairo Book fair in 2007 said he sold a lot of copies. (However, Mein Kampf does not appear on any published bestseller list of Arabic books - a fact that was deleted from the article because the sources were contested).
  • Israeli spokesmen have on occasion tried to link Mein Kampf with Arabs. Golda Meir claimed that Egyptian soldiers carried copies of it in the backpacks during the 1956 Sinai campaign. (There was no independent confirmation of this claim.)

Given the total lack of substance to this article, as attested by the article itself, the question is: why is it still around? The answer, of course, is that some editors are still trying vigorously to include sentences suggesting that Mein Kampf is a bestseller in the Palestinian territories and in other Arab countries - something that is unsupported by the article.

There is only one place for an article like this - the little trash icon in the corner of your screen. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Close accurately reflects the (overwhelming) consensus expressed in the extensive AFD discussion, and the argument here provides no basis for setting it aside. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This has little to do with the AfD discussion, which obviously closed in the proper manner considering the votes and arguments within it. What this has to do with is that Ravpapa is personally opposed to the topic, having made comments on the talk page in regards to the AfD such as, "You are right that "the community" considers this notable. And that is shameful." The talk page itself has turned into a huge WP:IDONTLIKEIT convention,including insinuations that people arguing to keep the article are trying to keep "Zionist propaganda" in Wikipedia. SilverserenC 13:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see why this article is causing concern, and the nominator's right to feel that there are many pro-Israeli editors on Wikipedia, and most Wikipedian articles that touch on the middle east are mildly pro-Israel. (This is at least partly because so many of the English-language sources come from the States). But a discussion like that can't possibly lead to a delete outcome; it would make a total mockery of our procedures. I'm afraid the way to keep this article NPOV is to watchlist it and prevent POV material from being added.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's relevant, but you happen to be wrong on your facts. There are many more anti-Israel editors than pro-Israel editors (to use your term) on Wikipedia. For that reason, Israel related articles tilt far more towards the anti-Israel stance as compared to the same articles in more legitimate encyclopedias like The Britannica. One example is that as far as I know no other country has to put up with something like this. Ma'on, Har Hebron is another example. More then 50% of the article's content is about its "illegality" while not one word about the historic Jewish connection to the area is mentioned. This imaginary Jewish and Zionist power does not exist on Wikipedia, just like it does not exist elsewhere, despite the claims of conspiracy theorists etc. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I agree with S Marshall's conclusion. But there has been a strong reaction against this article from many editors (see here talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language and the original deletion review). The main reason for the strength of feeling is whilst there are a number of reputable sources which make reference to the topic in passing, the only sources which write directly on the topic are Zionist propaganda sources. We must not let wikipedia reach these depths, becoming a coatrack for propaganda (of whichever colour). If we don't make a stand at some point it will continue to get worse. Again, I agree with S Marshall that the procedures in place will only ever result in no consensus, so let's see what happens and then consider suggesting a change in the procedures. The bar is simply too low. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then just start a new AfD. DRV is meant to be if there was an error in the closing of the previous AfD that didn't properly apply consensus. This is the wrong process for what you want. SilverserenC 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and I think a relisting would give the same result, as would another AfD. The close was soundly based on policy, and the reasons for wanting deletion are obvious enough, and obviously irrelevant. The arguments at this deletion review are irrelevant in face of positive indications of importance; whether it was or was not the Third Reich which published it is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is the fact that it achieved very little circulation, nor the fact that it had little or no impact on Nazi propaganda. Nor the fact that the book never appeared on a bestseller list of Arabic books, despite the claims of two AFP articles, repeated ad nauseum by others, which are in themselves based on impressions and fly in the face of objective evidence (published bestseller lists of Arabic books). There is, indeed, quite a bit of information (reliably sourced) in this article about how unimportant this book is. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's quite easy to find reliable sources that say things like "Hitler was the bestselling author of the century" or thereabouts, but you would be hard pushed to find finer examples of the transparent use of the pinpointing the enemy propaganda technique in Wikipedia than the line in the Mein Kampf in the Arabic language article that says Mein Kampf "ranked sixth on the bestseller list compiled by Dar el-Shuruq bookshop in Ramallah, with sales of about 10 copies a week" (and all of the variations that have been tried) and quoting the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a propaganda organization if there ever was one (that's their job and good luck to them), to "confirm" something about bookstores in the Edgeware Road in London. Whatever happens to the article, this kind of decontextualized drivel needs to go. If editors want to keep the article I hope they help to address the selective omission issues, place sales in a global context and improve it. It's also an attractive prospect for persistent sockpuppets so it probably needs eyes on it from experienced sock hunters. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why an attempt to delete this article outright, rather than merge it? Given WP:ATD it's a very steep climb to achieve a policy-based deletion result rather than just a merge into Mein Kampf itself. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own closure by default, as no attempt was made to resolve this with me as the closing admin before filing this request, and no argument is made why the closure incorrectly assessed consensus. DRV is not AfD round 2, as the saying goes.  Sandstein  08:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close We've been over this before many times. This isn't different than say having an article about translations of any major text (like Euclid's Elements or the Bible). This has been discussed many times now, both on the talk page and in the AfD. This DRV doesn't raise any new issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:16, 13 November 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 November 2011[edit]

7 November 2011[edit]

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

Article was deleted despite the discussion being inconclusive (6 votes pro deletion, 1 split and 6 keeps). I am one of the main curators of the page, but I was not informed and the discussion for its deletion just slipped past me. I believe the article is informative and should have a place in wikipedia and in my opinion the action taken should not have been delete, but the recruitment of experts in the English language to overhaul the article. The article, which had been in place for several years and had over 1,000 views per day, was subject to a lot of IP user edits which increased its contents often in the wrong direction and subjective but in good faith (which were not deleted in order to encourage new users, i.e. WP:BITE) — several case brought forth for its deletion were in fact these edits. As a consequence the page was too long and poorly connected, hence one proposal for split. It was considered informative, albeit disorganised and subjective in some passages. This could have been solved by removing several passages which were subjective and expanding on the discussion of the unique nature of the letters "w" and "y", which several users found problematic. Furthermore, this page actually acted as a hub, interlinking several smaller articles, which, now that the redlinks have been removed, have now been tagged as orphans. --Squidonius (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Squidonius (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I really wish my friend Spartaz, an admin admirable in every other respect, would realize the advantages of giving reasons initially when he closes non-obvious AfDs, including every AfD where there are good faith divided opinions. . It would greatly facilitate later discussion, and understanding of the reasons for keeping and deleting articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- By my count it's 6 deletes, one split and four keeps. But that's not really relevant since AfD is not a headcount and I don't think cries of "Tied vote! No consensus!" hold much weight. Reading the discussion, many people had concerns about poor sourcing, problems with original research, and felt the list was inherently subjective. These concerns were not addressed, and so I can't see anything wrong with concluding that the strength of argument favoured deletion. Reyk YO! 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion Deletion arguments were a lack of an encyclopaedic scope WP:NOT & WP:LSC with unsourced WP:RS original research WP:OR being added as a result as well as suggestions of WP:SYNTH content. Deletion arguments were backed by reference to policy and I have bracketed the policys after the subject. The keep side mostly relied on assertion and failed to effectively rebut the deletion arguments. Where they did refer to policy it was either misused or misinterpreted - for example arguing that LSC isn't a reason for deletion negates the fact that it is both a style and a content guideline with a clear inference is that content that doesn't meet the standard can be removed. If you did that here the whole list disappears, which = delete. Keep arguments based on a subset of IAR WP:COMMONSENSE are always going to fail as we can't possibly run any kind of credible deletion system without a consistent approach. IAR in deletion discussions always causes more trouble then its worth. There are several references this being a notable list or words being notable but no explanation of how this is the case WP:ASSERTION. Our conception of notability is tied into the GNG which is negated by preponderance of unreferenced content in the article and the failure to find a scholarly scope/inclusion criteria. Wikipedia consensus is bound by matching arguments to policy and giving much less weight to arguments that are either not policy based or do not reflect the actual policies. I hope the detailed explanation above explains why I found the policy based arguments were the deletion ones and why I therefore found for deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complaint lodge. Before replying, I would like to express my distress about how the matter was handled. I had stumbled across the article and had spent a considerable amount of my time trying to rescue it as I saw it of value — I am a biochemist and find a lot of the content of wikipedia a lot more unencyclopaedic — and tried to bring it up to standard: consequently finding it gone without being included in the argument angers me greatly. I strongly advice that next time a page with a significant amount of text and edits is proposed for deletion the main contributors be informed, I know that the main problem with wikipedia is the lack of community spirit, but this takes the biscuit. I strongly believe the article is worth keeping in some form and would normally argue for it, but the attitude here is not constructive: I found quite patronising the comment that I was not crying out "Tied vote! No consensus!" as mention and I found incomprehensible the list of acronyms (WP:AIR is wikiproject aircraft) spouted at me. --Squidonius (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, that is, restore to Squidonius's userspace. There were a lot of non-policy arguments on both sides. The thing is, it wasn't a terrible close or anything, and DRV is not supposed to be another AfD, so Bob's your uncle... usually. But, you know, Squidonius raises some points: it's a potentially really useful article, had a lot of editors, yadda yadda. There are a lot of articles like this -- List of commonly misused English words, Commonly misspelled words, List of common misconceptions, etc. -- and these are very popular articles, and people like working on them, and people like to read them, and they enhance the encyclopedia, and they are just, generally, a good thing provided they're well tended. Do we want to clear out all these articles? I don't. So how about userfying and seeing if Squidonius can clean it up and come up some way to overcome the WP:LSC problem, would that be an OK compromise,? Herostratus (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any chance of a temporary restore for DRV purposes? I'd like to see which sources were cited in the article (and to cross-check them against sources I have on my bookshelf), because depending on the exact definition of "uncommon properties" used, I rather think there might be an article to be written. For example, every word in the list of English irregular verbs has "uncommon properties", and there are scholarly sources about what those properties are and how they came about.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Google cache is showing a revision of the article while it was at AFD (at least to me). 74.74.150.139 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me too, but looking at just one revision can be a bit misleading. For example, Spartaz has given weight to the WP:LSC argument despite the fact that this clearly wasn't a list. Based on the one revision I can see, I can't make sense of that choice.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the article for the DRV. GB fan 13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Herostratus. I was quite surprised by the decision to delete given that the topic was demonstrated to be notable by alf.laylah.wa.laylah in the AfD. I can only suppose that Spartaz did not consider it likely that the lack of thorough sourcing would in fact be remedied if the article was left up. In other words the decision appears to have been a practical rather than a policy-motivated decision. Either way, given that the topic is verifiably notable (i.e. it meets Wikiepdia's basic inclusion criteria), let's userfy to allow Squidonius the ability to properly source it. Perhaps messages should also be left with some of the major contributors like User:DavidWBrooks, User:Ajd, User:Ichthyoid, and some of the other 147 page watchers. -Thibbs (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more complicated than this, actually, folks. The reason this is so difficult is because throughout the article's history, insufficient attention has been paid to the sources, leading to the development of a horrible hodgepodge of original research and unrelated topics, assembled beneath the wrong article name. The authors knew they were developing something worthwhile but they hadn't even figured out what it was properly called. So of course, once it got to AfD, the AfD participants googled "English words with uncommon properties" and (surprise, surprise) found absolutely no sources. And none of them thought any further than that, which is of course the usual problem with AfD, so we ended up here. Meanwhile, the actual encyclopaedic topic the authors were groping towards, which is called lexicology of English, is still a shameful redlink.

    Please incubate this material so that I can collaborate with Squidonius and any other interested editors to produce a proper, encyclopaedic article on this subject.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, do you really think it possible to produce a single article on the subject? The author of a conventionally written book has the privilege of being as arbitrary as they please about what gets included--books about words are in essence books about Words That Interest Me. We need to be clearer and more explicit, or we have difficulty working together. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? It's possible to produce a single article on astronomy, even though the number of things there are to discuss about astronomy are, well, astronomical! We write an encyclopaedia article by deciding what we can omit and what we can condense.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the topic is more akin to "Interesting facts about astronomy". DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Let's say the topic that has a place in our encyclopaedia and can be extracted from the text is lexicology of English.  :)—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lexicology of English may be redlinked, but English lexicology and lexicography isn't. As a one-sentence dicdef, it's nearly as shameful, though. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is considered too vague, I'd first userfy and then merge its contents with Logology (rather than Lexicology) taking Recreational mathematics as a model of sorts. As Squidonius points out, the article has served as a kind of hub and thus aided in navigation of the related topics it covered. There are distinctly notable word games and riddles that standing alone might not make for much of an article but whose loss within Wikipedia inappropriately limits Wikipedia's breadth of coverage. For example, the lack of a rhyme for the word "orange" has been reported on in reliable sources since at least the 30s and almost certainly long before that. To accommodate this, we've expanded an article on "Orange (word)" into a mini-article that would logically be better suited for wiktionary were it not for the notable commentary on its lack of a rhyme (which really doesn't belong in wiktionary). Rather than starting up an odd collection of "Placeholder (word)" or, worse, "Words with X property" stubs, a better solution would be to have some sort of a hub article either standing alone (as it was until recently) or as merged into Logology. To assuage DGG's concern of unboundedness, I'd say that the limiting criterion should be verifiable notability. Beyond that, I second S Marshall's contention that concise and thoughtful editing should manage any unhelpful sprawl. -Thibbs (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki The close was appropriate, but much of the content seems like it could be salvaged for Wiktionary. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Thank you all for all the comments. I was not aware of a "userfy" option to incubate the article, but I am keen on trying this. If so, I also very gladly accept the guidance and help of S Marshall. This would allow a complete overhaul of the structure and rewriting/deletion of many sections addressing the issues of referencing, properly explaining the reasoning behind certain properties or basic rules (e.g. Proper nouns are not included in dictionaries) and giving it a coherent logic. Regarding sources, The article title does not have many hits as it is a rather long name, but there are many books on the topic and even with google there are a lot of pages dedicated to the subheadings of the topic and I am not referring solely to "Scrabble words". --Squidonius (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. My reading of the AfD is that, while unacceptable as it stands, and possibly always unacceptable in this form, the article does contain some usable information which it is worthwhile to preserve in the appropriate place(s). Userfication gives interested users an opportunity to fix what can be fixed before bringing potentially troublesome content back into the main space. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as reflecting the consensus at AfD. Userfication of deleted articles is always available, but I'm not seeing much of a plan to address issues of lack of an encyclopaedic scope WP:NOT & WP:LSC with unsourced WP:RS original research WP:OR, so i doubt userification is going to lead to a viable article in the long-run. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Review some of the comments above. There is talk of adding more reliable sources to those RSes already used in the article and possibly of merging the sourceable info into "lexicology of English". That should take care of NOT, RS, and OR. LSC does not apply in this case as S Marshall clearly explained above. -Thibbs (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. In my personal opinion the article does contain some usable information which it is worthwhile to preserve.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy I believe S Marshall & DGG are both correct. There is a viable Article in this mess, but it may even need to be split into multiple Articles to achieve proper focus. Needs time and space to incubate a while longer. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having started the thread I copied the page to my page, User:Squidonius/English words with uncommon properties, I did not do this sooner as I want unaware that I could copy the source code from the past. As I mentioned above, any help/direction is welcome. As mentioned by me and DGG, one thing the deleted page did was link other pages together, so I cobbled together a proof-of-principle navigation bar template, which can help out the various articles while the deleted page is restructured/rewritten to comply with the comments about which will take a while. --Squidonius (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not the best thing to do. You need to maintain attribution to the rest of the editors on that article. The page will need top be moved to your subpage so the whole history comes along with it if that is the determination of this DRV. GB fan 12:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically, there are several ways to maintain attribution, and it's not strictly necessary to move the whole history, although that would be optimum. One could also provide a list of authors in a dummy edit. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. (And I see I've failed to thank GB fan for the temporary restore, so let me fix that: thanks GB fan!)—S Marshall T/C 14:26, 12 November 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.
Granville Automatic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article should be reinstated. Article was already under deletion review once and all notability guidelines were met and it was reinstated. Now, it has been redeleted for incorrect reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Granville_Automatic To counter the false information there, both members have been in notable bands. Olivarez founded Sugarland. Elkins was in The Swear. Granville Automatic is on PBS' Sun Studio Sessions. Elkins won Grand Prize (not third place) in the John Lennon contest. Album is not sold at shows, has not been released. Live at Sun Studio will be released on iTunes this month. Both band members have their own notable Wiki pages. This being deleted doesn't make sense since they are already both notable. Please consider reinstating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.221.45 (talk) 20:59, November 7, 2011‎

The article was deleted because of lack of reliable references. Can you provide them? If so, article can always get improved. --Tone 21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. According to her article, Olivarez was never a member of Sugarland, she just wrote a couple of songs for them. Elkins doesn't even have an article, but according to The Swear article the Lennon Prize was won by the band not Elkins. None of these people or bands are very notable, and there's a limit to how much notability can be inherited. Suggest waiting until the band releases some albums and gets some significant press reviews and so forth before creating an article on them. Herostratus (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I voted against them in the AfD, and the reinstater's blurb pretty much sums up why: the mild notability achieved by band members in their former careers plus their mild potential to achieve some in the future does not make up for the lack of evidence right now that this new band has achieved notability sufficient to merit an encyclopedia article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Energy Catalyzer – Keep closure endorsed without prejudice toward needed rewrites, including rewrites that end in a merge if a consensus for that option can be found at a later time. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Energy Catalyzer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Should have been closed as no consensus. The discussion does not evidence an agreement that the sources provide enough detail to write an article. There are also strong merge arguments made.

Beyond that, the closer has never in a substantial history closed an AFD as "no consensus" ([21]) and was forced to revise what was basically a super-vote when it turns out their premise was flawed ([22]). There is no reason that this AFD, which was massively polluted by off-wiki canvasing, and actual paid advocates (note SPAs) demonstrates a consensus to keep - at best, it's no consensus to do anything, which, while it defaults to keep, is still an important point of process, and needed education for future contentious AFD closers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by keep. The closing statement was later modified to reflect the fact that there had been an ArbCom case related to the topic. I don't think it was a good idea to put it to AfD in the first place, ArbCom decisions should be applied instead. --Tone 14:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should perhaps point out here this discussion on Tone's talk page: I Asked "I note that you closed the E-Cat debate 11 minutes after closing another AfD. Was this all the time you allowed to read the discussion and arrive at your decision? This would seem a rather short time, to me". Tone's response was "Regarding my time of reading, you'll see that many arguments are really repetitive so it does not take so long to read through and get a big picture. At least that's my opinion". [23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have reevaluated my decision later on and reached the same conclusion. Ok, now I am out of this discussion. --Tone 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, there were 96% of keep and 4% of delete. I have rarely seen such a high consensus for keeping a page, read it with your own eyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer --Insilvis (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your statistics are fabricated. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Saw you are in the 4% of delete:
Delete and banhammer a bunch of SPAs I have reviewed the sourcing. Aside from Ny Teknik, which appears to be a mouthpiece for the "inventors," and "New Energy Times," a pseudo-blog published by a frequently blocked/banned/whatever wikipedian, and a bunch of other blogs, SEO aggregates and credulous sources that repeat the blogs, there's also one reliable source - a blog by a Forbes contributor. There's a lot of text, and a lot of sources, due to the pressure by actual paid advocates who are engaging in what appears to be challenged as fraud by many. This is an entity attempting to sell units to the general public - and we're basically complicit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
--Insilvis (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are dramatically more than 4% of commentators arguing for delete. Please cease fabricating statistics. Thanks. My rationale for delete holds. Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insilvis, can you provide the raw numbers, and indicate whether your figure indicates the highly-questionable !votes from new contributors with no other editing history, and the !keep votes which were based on 'I like it', rather than on policy, as is required? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Occurences of '* Delete' in afd page: 5

Occurences of '* Keep' in afd page: 23 I.e. 18% for deletion and 82% for keep.--hughey (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was canvassing outside of wikipedia for the yes vote as is evident from the discussion. Wikipedia is not about the number of votes but the strength of arguments. It is not a democracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I see one hundred keep and four delete my conclusion is that the community decided to keep it. This is a fact. You can disagree with the decision, but the result is clear.--Insilvis (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have fabricated your numbers, yet again. There were not 100 keeps. There were more than 4 keeps. Please cease fabricating things. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it looks like those numbers are made up. And now, in before WP:VOTE, here are the actual[1] numbers: 53 Keep or Strong Keep vs. 11 Delete or Strong Delete. Almost a 5-to-1 ratio. Quite impressive, right?
[1] Methodological note: counted via regular expression. Not a perfect search, by all means, as it ignores contributions that weren't written in the keep/delete answer format, or contributions that were variations of the keep/delete format that I didn't think of (e.g. I allowed brackets around "strong", but nothing else), but as an approximation, I think it's reasonably telling. Here are the two regexes I used. Try them yourself on the source of the AfD page to be sure I didn't make them up.
grep -c ''\'\'\'\(*[Ss]trong\)*[[:space:]][Kk]eep'\|'\'\'\'[Kk]eep'' and grep -c ''\'\'\'\(*[Ss]trong\)*[[:space:]][Dd]elete'\|'\'\'\'[Dd]elete''
Minvogt (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the strength of the arguments, it's 100% clear to me that Wikipedia should have an article on this subject. We need an article about Rossi's energy catalyzer for exactly the same reason as we have articles on other notable hoaxes: because we are the information source ranking highest in google searches, and that puts a duty on us. If we take no steps to explode the myth, then if others are deluded by it, we will be complicit. Therefore, while I don't necessarily endorse the keeping of the article in its present form, I most certainly endorse the outcome of the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but There is no real question whether Wikipedia should have an article. Tone reached the only possible conclusion there. I did not participate in the debate, but it occurred to me that a question that should have been raised was whether this article is rescuable as a NPOV article, or whether it represents arrant propaganda for the theory, and would need to be totally rewritten, in which case it would be eligible for speedy deletion as G11. I don't want to confuse matters by doing this now, but if I saw it for the first time, I might well have done just that. I'm not clear about the mention of arb com, and I see nothing in the arb com decision cited that would have affected the suitability for AfD. The only remedy that passed was directed at a single editor--and is not relevant relevant. The only principle that would have specifically applied is "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought." -- it could be argued that the presentation in the article violated it, to the extent that rewriting was impossible and deletion necessary. The principles in the arb case about RS and so forth were just standard. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Having reviewed the various deletion arguments, they all add up to "delete because it's a cold fusion/free energy hoax that we don't want to publicize." Notability was not addressed in those arguments, for the most part, and unfortunately having this thing show up in Forbes, CBS, and MSNBC pretty much settles the notability issue. The problem now is to write an article that accurately states the real status of this thing, which is difficult because most sources are credulous or involved, if not both. Possibly such an article could be short enough to be merged into cold fusion (as I and another proposed), but given the way it is being edited now, that's obviously not possible. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point to the remarks made at the first, premature close [24]: "There seems to be a common sentiment in this discussion that, just because something is a scam, all claims to notability are void. That's not the case. The multitude of sources I'm seeing mention Rossi and the E-Cat extensively. Even if they were all making it up and it was a conspiracy, that made-up conspiracy would still be notable." Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but this really needs to be merged into Cold Fusion, because at the moment by having a separate article it gives the impression that Wikipedia is credulous of this complete load of impossible bollocks, regardless of how the article is written to be critical. Major scams can be notable on their own if they have some real-world notability; this one doesn't. If not, the article seriously needs to be re-written to ensure that the casual reader is completely aware that this is, indeed, a scam. Otherwise, we're failing our readership. Black Kite (t) 19:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious - how do you know that it's a "complete load of impossible bollocks"? Tmccc (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The process by which we can tell this is technically called "evaluating the sources".—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are presumably dispassionately evaluated? Declaring something as a "load of impossible bollocks" without detailing the steps used to reach that conclusion is an odd way of contributing to a serious discusion. At least there ought to be a list of wiki policies used when evaluating, and how these lead to the result. If this is not the case, then it ought to be discounted! This would never stand up in court ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmccc (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. On the basis of that post, and your contribution history, we can evaluate you dispassionately as well.—S Marshall T/C 17:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. On the basis of that post, and your contribution history, we can evaluate you dispassionately too :) 62.30.137.128 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on basis of sound arguments given by closer. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to null/WP:TLDR, which seems to be the argument given by the closer. However, even if the result were legitimately "Keep", the article could still be merged into Cold fusion. The ArbCom finding applies to editor actions, not to keeping or deleting the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The original closing decision was extensively discussed and broad consensus was reached.--Insilvis (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The consensus was that notability is given. More news articles are published each day. The closer assessed the discussion correctly. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with others that the article should be stubbified and then merged into cold fusion. At present it is based too much on primary sources and unreliable newspaper reports. Mathsci (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that I did request that the closing administrator check for single purpose accounts. Here is a list of those editing solely in this area, sometimes after a long break. Many of these should have been checked and tagged during the debate to help the closing administrator.
  1. Stengl (talk · contribs)
  2. Ldussan (talk · contribs) (one year break in editing before resuming on 29 Oct 2011
  3. 69.134.164.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  4. 86.125.176.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  5. NUMB3RN7NE (talk · contribs)
  6. POVbrigand (talk · contribs)
  7. 109a152a8a146 (talk · contribs)
  8. Brian Josephson (talk · contribs) (self-declared advocate)
  9. Tmccc (talk · contribs)
  10. Flintobrien (talk · contribs)
  11. Kv1970 (talk · contribs)
  12. 84.180.53.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  13. 71.161.192.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  14. Ewoudenberg (talk · contribs)
  15. Maryyugo (talk · contribs) (two year break in editing before voting in AfD)
  16. 79.179.42.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  17. Sterlingda (talk · contribs) (free energy advocate, 6 edits since Nov 2007)
  18. Star A Star (talk · contribs)
  19. Alanf777 (talk · contribs) (almost all content edits to this article, promotional userpage)
  20. Zedshort (talk · contribs) (self-declared activist, collecting on-wiki petition to send to White House)
  21. 217.149.200.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  22. 88.112.37.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  23. 152.2.132.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  24. Richardbamberg (talk · contribs)
  25. Jonzo (talk · contribs)
  26. Bmrpire (talk · contribs)
  27. 42.241.97.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Definitely something irregular happened with the voting at this AfD. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I have edited extensively in other areas well before coming to this article and also under 96.30.232.50 Zedshort (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is this ? I thought that the implying of conspiracy theories was exclusively reserved for the CF-believers fraction. ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you should refactor that statement and be more careful what you write in future. I do not edit cold fusion or related articles. Most of the accounts above are anolomous in some way; in some cases the contribution to the AfD is the sole edit. Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with checking a discussion for SPAs, but your methodology in compiling this list was sloppy, bordering on insulting. See my 'endorse' comment below, where I argue that you simply misstate facts, e.g. about the edit history of Ldussan. Quote from WP:SPA: "Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation—use with consideration." -- something you ignored thoroughly. Minvogt (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've obviously been included in this list simply because my username looks like an IP address, I don't have a user page, and I !voted keep. I've made plenty of edits before even stumbling across this increasingly silly discussion. I'm assuming that I was included in error. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all admins know enough to take account of obvious SPAs & do not need such reminders; we admins may be no smarter than anyone else, but we are not on the average much stupider. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not quite true, since this kind of thing is usually indicated by tagging during an AfD, which did not happen systematically here. Careful checking of individual accounts was required. That took me at least three quarters of an hour. Perhaps DGG could have done it quicker, but he didn't. Writing "we are not on the average much stupider" seems to miss that point. Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, either your checking wasn't very thorough, or you misunderstand the concept of an SPA. I've already asked you politely (on your talk page) to remove me from your list, as I'm obviously not an SPA, and I object strongly to that label. Your only response was to delete my post on your talk page without comment, which seens rather uncivil. I ask you again to please remove my username from your list, as it clearly doesn't belong there, and I consider it quite defamatory. I would remove it myself, but I do not want to edit other people's edits. I'm sure you see my point. Thanks. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the obviously correct closure based on the content of the arguments. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Having been closed twice by two different uninvolved admins with essentially the same conclusion (just reworded), I fail to see what other conclusion can obtained even by reopening the discussion. Few if any of the arguments for deletion were based upon any sort of policy (particularly WP:DP) and are more an attack upon the topic itself than upon even the quality of the article. Neither this Deletion Review nor the AfD are appropriate forums for arguing as to if this is an appropriate kind of topic for Wikipedia, which instead belongs on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or a similar page. I admit that there has been off-wiki canvassing going on, but the weakness of the arguments for deletion is really the matter here rather than vote counting or who may or may not have participated in the discussion. If the review is to examine the closing process, there may be some reason to hold this review, but otherwise I don't see how any other conclusion could have been made. The nominator of this deletion review certainly didn't make any sort of argument in the actual AfD based upon policy for why this article should have been deleted, nor has he given any reasonable basis for a review other than perhaps the off-wiki canvassing. The closing admins, in both cases, don't appear to have been swayed by those single-use accounts. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree with Mangoe's summary: deletion proposers failed to address the matter of notability and media coverage, which, unless the consensus would have been that an objective article given the reliable sources we have for now cannot be written at the moment, strongly suggests there should be an article on the subject.
In addition, I want to point out the following: while we don't have to turn off our brains when editing (or forget everything we learned in order to get a physics degree), keep in mind that WP:NOR goes both ways: if the sources we have report about a potential (even though unlikely) breakthrough in science/engineering, we can't simply delete an article based essentially on the argument that "those sources are wrong because they don't understand physics". Have some patience: if the device is a scam (which it might well be, I personally believe), sooner or later articles will appear stating precisely that, and we can quote them.
Finally, about the claim that opinion in the AfD was tipped towards a 'keep' result by single purpose accounts: I have no idea how many SPAs (on either side) really took part, but I strongly disagree with Mathsci's list of shame, which seems way too inclusive. For example the reason to include Ldussan on this list was: "one year break in editing before resuming on 29 Oct 2011" -- hardly reason to make an accusation of SPA. Then I looked at Ldussan's edit history myself, and it turns out that the previous statement is not even true (last edit was a minor edit in June 2011, and quite active participation in 2010). This is simply sloppy, and rather rude. Please don't throw around SPA-accusations thoughtlessly just because the consensus in a discussion you feel strongly about didn't coincide with your own convictions. Tone was justified in closing the AfD, I believe. -- Minvogt (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've only been here a short while, and the rudeness and venom being posted is amazing. All that's supposed to happen here is that we decide whether the entry is notable and whether the sources are sufficient. Tmccc (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are more reasons for why an article can be deleted besides notability, but that is usually the easiest method to objectively deny its existence on Wikipedia, hence a very common rationale for deletion. The "Google test" is commonly done to simply see if a topic has any references or articles on the internet or in common reference libraries. I've been involved with moving quite a bit of content between the various Wikimedia sister projects over the years, and there certainly have been pages created on Wikipedia that deserve to go elsewhere. None of that seems to be the case or even a rationale for deletion of this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It is notable there is another reference to the issue in the very well known PhysOrg.com website today (Nov 8 US time). Why is there a claim above that I am "editing solely in this area"? I have made two contributions to other issues, in the talk pages, one on radiation shielding in space elevator materials technology and the other on protestor numbers in Melbourne regarding the Occupy Movement! I am not aware if these count as full edits as I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. I have also done edits on Wikipedia articles as to books published by Black Pepper Publishing under a former user name some months ago (no one could know this of course). Sorry to raise personal issues. I am absolutely neutral on the hoax or breakthrough issue myself indeed wavering on the hoax side but that will certainly be resolved soon. In the meantime the article can be shortened and care should be taken not to add to it unless substantial developments occur. I do not think it is appropriate to merge it into other pages such as Rossi or cold fusion. Star A Star (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm scandalized by the behaviour of mathsci who felt very intelligent to make an accounting of the solely use intervenants. I personnaly did a lot of articles and contributions since 2007 in the french wikipedia under the "berpi" name, who was unavailable in the english edition. I made this intervention because the e-cat IS and remain a FACT ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmrpire (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooops Sorry ! --Bmrpire (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arguments about balance and neutrality are another matter, and a case can be made that the article is still too credulous, but there is no doubt in my mind that we should, in some shape or form, have a Wikipedia article on this topic. 86.176.214.139 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You realise this isn't another AFD but instead is a deletion review right? Your !vote for keep combined with your later comments may make people think you don't understand the difference which may lead to your opinions being discounted when it comes to determining consensus Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable and being covered by the media hence retaining the article is valid. Whether or not E-Cat is a hoax is irrelevant. Robert Brockway (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A postscript to this discussion (it doesn't seem to be going anywhere). One of the 'keep' !votes came from user:Sterlingda, who now claims to be responsible for setting up a website for Rossi's Leonardo Corp. [25] (Sterlingda states on his talk page that he is responsible for the PESN site, so I'm not outing him). Whether this is true or not seems currently to be in doubt, as Rossi's blog had a rather ambiguous disclaimer. None of this is remotely WP:RS of course, but it does rather imply a conflict of interest. The recent flurry of claims and counter-claims looks to me like the start of the end-game regarding the E-Cat, as Rossi now has to 'put up or shut up', and actually produce evidence of customers - which seem once again to be notable mostly by their absence. In this situation, we clearly need plenty of eyes on the article, and to be prepared for all sorts of spin (already evident on the talk page, with attempts to gain credibility for the E-Cat on the basis that National Instruments have apparently agreed to... wait for it... no, surely not... yes!... Sell Rossi some instruments! Doh!...). Can I therefore ask all the contributors that !voted keep in the AfD, and have backed the closing decision here, to help keep this dogs-breakfast of an article in some sort of shape until such time as we can actually find some sources that tell us what happened. And when the fog has cleared, and the cell door closes or the Nobel prize is awarded (yeah, right...), can I suggest that we take another look at the way we handle topics regarding WP:FRINGE in the context of 'leading-edge science'? Regardless of the merits of the article, or of the E-Cat, in isolation, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that Wikipedia itself has become a significant actor in this whole smoke-and-mirrors show. This clearly has consequences that require more thought than the usual recital of 'policy' that so often passes for debate here. Maybe we need to look at 'notability' again, and ensure that we don't unwittingly create it by stating that it exists... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy. I stated keep above and in the AfD and FWIW am keeping an open mind about the E-Cat (I neither believe in it nor disbelieve in it, really). I do want to work on the article as it is in a poor state but I'm reluctant to do so while it keeps coming up for AfD. Like many I am a busy person and don't want to waste my time working on an article which could be deleted soon after. Robert Brockway (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The government of Italy has issued a patent on the Energy Catalyzer. The article about the Energy Catalyzer should therefore stay in Wikipedia. If you think otherwise, hire a lawyer and sue to have the patent invalidated. AnnaBennett (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many non-sequiturs can you balance on the head of a pin? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, did you read the message by 86.160.85.195; "Please stop shouting and being rude." AnnaBennett (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. There is nothing 'polite' about abusing Wikipedia resources to promote hoaxes, hogwash, and wishful thinking. Do you really think that a patent is a 'validation'? If you do, I suggest you do some research into the subject. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, under Italian law it is a "validation". AnnaBennett (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be a review of whether the decision was closed correctly, not a new vote based on new arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. And given the clear evidence that the original closure was done by an admin who apparently doesn't understand what 'no consensus' closures imply (or doesn't think they are possible), only one logical conclusion can be reached - the AfD closure was flawed. Still, if the 'keepistas' make enough noise, maybe nobody will notice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using terms like keepistas is dismissive of the opinions of others. Why don't you try respecting the opinions of others even when they disagree with you? When I see dismissive attitudes like that it discourages me from spending more time on Wikipedia. Robert Brockway (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when you remove the primary sources, self-published sources, and the blogs, what you are left with are a few reliable sources that basically say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and "treat this as a hoax until this has been independently verified." If the claims made by Rossi have become notable, then I see no problem keeping this article and informing the public what the scientific community (reliable sources) has had to say on the subject - all while avoiding WP:UNDO Rklawton (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs considerable work but documents a controversial item of note. Yes, better citations as above, general editorial issues also as noted by previous comments, these all need to be addressed, but, the article should remain as documenting contemporary issues in science and law, even if it doesn't yet do enough to address them in form or substance. Sctechlaw (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I see no reason to destroy it. trending beliefs or disbeliefs are irrelevant of the credence this article has. the good old fashion excuse of notability is also irrelevant here, as this has caused quite a vortex of opinionated debate all over the net/italian news/ cold fusion news etc.--Namaste@? 11:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 14 November 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:JesseDirkhising.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The image gives the readers a better understanding of the crime and the victim Caden cool 00:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • relist I think a cite to a single FfD justifying the deletion probably isn't enough of a reason to delete given the discussion. I think a wider and better-attended discussion is likely after this DrV and would be helpful here. Put another way, there was no consensus formed and the application of NFCC here isn't so clear as to override that lack of consensus. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist all, probably after close of the RfC. Even if the close maintains the status quo,, a good argument can and should be made for these illustrations, and a fuller discussion will be necessary. Doing large scale deletions based on a single instance is not good practice, and these need further attention. The original FfD needs reversal also: it amounts to a supervote against consensus. But that too should wait till after the RfC. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the original FFD close was fine, because every single Keep !vote (bar possibly Flyer22's) didn't reference the issue of NFCC at all (i.e. why did the image pass #8). However, whether it a correct reading of policy or not is something the RFC may determine. Black Kite (t) 07:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll point out that there was a "doesn't improve understanding/yes it does" argument. As it's pretty much a matter of opinion, I don't really see either side with the stronger argument. I agree though that we tend to treat these by "equivalence class" and the RfC should solve this... Hobit (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trouble with this is that NFCC#8 is so damnably vague. People's ability to understand things in context is almost always enhanced, to a greater or lesser extent, by images. My immediate reaction is that the deletion looked a bit harsh to me, but that should of course be subject to the RFC outcome.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist all. re the above comments, I opened the RfC to clarify the matter (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 41#RFC: Clarifying policy on pictures of deceased persons). In the meantime (the following applies only applies to this one image, but if the circumstances of the others are similar relist them also): the image was deleted at a fairly underpopulated discussion -- there was one one "vote" (and that was Keep) Since there were no Delete "votes", should have been closed as Keep or No Consensus unless on strength of argument. Strength of argument is based solely on one of the following propositions being true: 1) Portraits of a person in an article about that person inherently fail WP:NFCC#8 or 2) Articles such as "Death of XYZ" are not really about XYZ per se. It's not at all clear that either of these propositions is true so the close wasn't in order. Looking at the RfC as of this writing, it's not at all clear to me that this deletion is supported by policy, consensus, or usual practice. Clarification of the policy would be ideal, but absent that then a clear consensus to delete must be obtained for each case. Herostratus (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Whether NFCC #8 is met or not is a matter of opinion, and 100% of the one person besides the nom commenting agreed that the picture belonged in the encyclopedia. WP:VAGUEWAVEs are not enough to sustain a deletion of a photo of a notable murder victim. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I cannot really say overturn to keep, when there was so little participation (though I certainly think that keep is the correct decision on the question) DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC),[reply]
    • You've already !voted, DGG. Never mind, I'll replace yours with mine below, and I'm not sure why this hasn't been closed yet. Black Kite (t) 23:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per my comments above. Black Kite (t) 23:29, 20 November 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 November 2011[edit]

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

Please see User talk:Master of Puppets#close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay.  Closing administrator argues there for the existence of a delete and merge outcome at AfD.  The nomination itself was a textbook example from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, combining WP:JNN and WP:JUSTAPOLICY.  Further discussion revealed that the nomination was based on a private theory of notability in which Wikipedia articles will have "extensive" coverage; and also that the contributions of newbies, or the lack thereof, are one of the measures by which Wikipedians define wp:notability.  The 2nd contribution, which for the benefit of the encyclopedia could/should have been a speedy close of the AfD, instead provided a WP:JNN !vote.  A third contribution followed with a WP:JUSTAVOTE.  The final delete !vote IMO misrepresents the concept of "in-depth" coverage as well as fails to consider the applicability of WP:ATD policy.  So three of the delete !votes are straight out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, the fourth delete !vote has not documented any research efforts, and no case has been made that the topic is objectionable.  And the case argued that some of the material is objectionable is an editorial concern which is not matched by edits to the article.  One of the keep !votes doesn't seem to stand up to review, leaving 2 keep !votes and 1 merge !vote to consider by the closer.  Not exactly an overwhelming consensus, but to close this as delete, or delete and merge depending on how you view it, is not policy/guideline based, and in addition does a dis-service to the encyclopedia.  I also suspect that a delete and merge violates our licensing requirements, so I hope other editors will clarify this issue.  Overturn to keep. Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please let me know where in my closing statement I argue for a delete and merge close. Because I don't. I state the close as a delete, and extend an offer to any editors interested in doing a merge. Please do not misrepresent my statements. m.o.p 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have been more careful with my statements than you are giving me credit, what I said in the first two sentences above was that you argued for the existence of a delete and merge on your talk page:
Please see User talk:Master of Puppets#close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay.  Closing administrator argues there for the existence of a delete and merge outcome at AfD.
Is this clear now?  And you never deny on your talk page that you are going to allow deleted material to be merged into other articles, right?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said I didn't see anything wrong with a delete and merge. Equivocating that with me arguing for it is ludicrous. m.o.p 23:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have no idea why you are using intensifiers like "equivocate" and "ludicrous".  How about answering my question, "Is this clear now" and resolving your initial point of concern?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's some sort of disconnect here. Obviously, something's unclear because I disagree with your representation of my closing statement. None of this is relevant. Just get on with the DRV. m.o.p 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the disconnect occurred in your first reply to me, at User talk:Master of Puppets#close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay, where I had stated what should have been a truism and asked if you agreed.  The response there avoids agreeing, just as your response above avoids answering a question that would build WP:CONSENSUS.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I come up with any words in bold, I just want to confirm something. I presume that when Master of Puppets offered to email the text to any interested editors, he was also volunteering to perform the necessary attribution fix afterwards. Is that right, Master of Puppets?—S Marshall T/C 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. m.o.p 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an endorse to me.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome, but restore and redirect to Hastings Aerodrome. I partially understand the nominator's irritation with some of the delete !votes: I've seen the anti-flight school bandwagon before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Flight Training. However, I think the nominator is overly dismissive of the delete !votes in this case. For example, AHunt's cursory nomination should be viewed in light of the extensive and persuasive comments he makes elsewhere in the debate. It is pretty much an incontrovertible fact that the keep side could not point to the actual existence -- as opposed to speculation -- of third party sources giving significant coverage to the article's subject. That being the case, it was quite reasonable for the closing admin to find a consensus to delete on a reading of the whole of the debate. In my view, we should restore the article and create a redirect, because (a) it's a viable search term, (b) it will restore the article's history to enable a merger that will solve any attribution problems, and (c) it is consistent with DGG's suggestion which was (quite properly) not challenged by anyone in the debate. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The close was a reasonable reading of the debate. MOP did right in not giving much weight to keep arguments like "if you delete this you have to delete a million bazillion other things", and "There must be sources out there somewhere, I just know it!" Reyk YO! 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for the closer m.o.p, on your talk page did I understand that you'd do an undelete and redirect if someone did the merge? If so, I'm curious why you didn't just redirect and let someone do the merge. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because general consensus was to delete - only one user suggested merging. If that option was pursued, then we'd go from there and work on a merge-able version. m.o.p 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that in general if we have a good merge target we should merge. But if you felt the merge target was flawed for some reason, doing what you did is certainly within discretion. Hobit (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete and redirect Looking at the AfD , the only formal merge !vote was my own & i certainly intended nothing like this. The consensus otherwise was keep. I think a merge is within the discretion of the closer nonetheless, considering the extreme weakness of some of the keep arguments, but the delete part of it was not. In my opinion Delete and merge might be considered a valid close if the history is copied over in some other manner, but that is my opinion only, and I think the consensus is clear that we normally interpret our attribution requirements so as not to do it. Delete and redirect is of course a valid close, and would be the usual situation for copyvio etc. , but that is not relevant here. This was a very clear example of not just a supervote, but a supervote against established policy,and not just any established policy, but against consensus on what is our basic copyright policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pointing out that delete and merge is probably a copyright infringement. So the closing administrator could be considered to be encouraging copyright problems. If the close did not suggest a merge then this would not be a problem. However I support a restore and redirect to overcome the attribution requirement of the license granted. Do we need to remind closing admins to read WP:delete and merge? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look up, you'll notice that I very clearly state that I'd do the attribution fix for a merge if one was requested. Thank you for dwelling on the hypothetical, though. m.o.p 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - I nominated the article for deletion because it had no references that established notability and in searching diligently for them I found none. Some editors argued passionately for "keep", with statements like "there is no need to delete the article that I created. If this article is deleted then why not delete 99 per cent of all articles on Wikipedia" and "It is not credible that a government regulated "air operator" with 16 planes founded in 1928 in a place with a newspaper hasn't been noted", but could provide no refs that showed notablity. The closing admin quite rightly weighed the strength of the arguments and saw that none of the "keep" arguments held any water and closed the AFD correctly. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification of the existence of this review has been made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a merger in the history of Hastings Aerodrome. There can't be an attribution problem if nothing has been copied. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the "attribution fix" and the editing guideline you mentioned, I don't see that the term "attribution fix" appears in WP:Copying within Wikipedia.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "attribution problem", but that doesn't appear as an exact phrase either. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material focuses on the basis of WP:Merge and delete, but the guideline as a whole is relevant. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The question remains, are there any viable delete !votes left after taking down those that are not policy/guideline based?  Three of the four delete !votes have been refuted without any attempt to rehabilitate them.  One delete !vote is disputed.  It appears that the nominator has waited until the deletion review to claim that he/she searched for sources before starting the AfD.  A careful reading of the comments of the nominator during the AfD reveals incessant claims that he/she was not satisfied with the sources in the article, but does not document a search on his/her own.  wp;notability is not defined by the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  WP:ATD is a policy, policies are "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  IMO, the closer erred in failing to take down delete !votes that did not consider WP:ATD.  And just on a common sense basis IMO the closer should have known that an organization a topic flying 16 airplanes; that has attracted enough attention of NZ government authorities to become certificated as an "Air Transport"; that attracts students internationally from India, the United Arab Emirates and Oman; that has been flying since 1928; and is one of the first air schools in the country, could not be deleted following WP:ATD policy.  The summary here is that this organization should never have been considered at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, well within closer discretion. The closing statement is similar to "delete, will restore for merging on request", which is common enough. DGG's merge recommendation was not rebutted, but it failed to explain what would be an "appropriate amount of content" to merge. The closer was correct not to discard the delete recommendations based on WP:ATD. WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) established that merge and redirect arguments have roughly the same weight as keep and delete – they're not trumps. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By omission, you seem to be allowing that Delete and Merge are equally acceptable outcomes for an AfD.  I don't think so, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not remove material from the encyclopedia.  Jclemens comments as such in a current DRV:
Comment Why an attempt to delete this article outright, rather than merge it? Given WP:ATD it's a very steep climb to achieve a policy-based deletion result rather than just a merge into Mein Kampf itself. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Both WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE policies show that material that can be kept or merged should not be deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the RfC? WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE were mentioned throughout the prompt, so participants should have accounted for them. Option #2 ("a large amount of extra weight") seems to match your position, but it had only a few supporters. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  There is agreement that one of the three keep !votes should be taken down.  My keep vote was partially disputed by one editor here by taking a comment out of context and without comparing with WP:NRVE, but no attempt has been made to refute it.  Three of the four delete !votes stand refuted.  Two of the four delete !votes have nothing on which to base a rehabilitation.  That means at most, and no one has attempted to rehabilitate the second delete !vote, that there are 2 delete !votes, 2 keep !votes, and 1 merge !vote to consider.  The alternative viewpoint is that there are 0 delete !votes, 2 keep !votes, and 1 merge !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that we need to divide Delete outcomes into "Archive" and "Delete", and that an "Archive" is what the administrator was really saying in this closing, the difference being that all editors would have access to Archived articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any user is free to request WP:Userfication or restoration into the WP:Article Incubator. In some AfDs, the closing admin is willing to restore in article space on request, but that isn't the case here. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those alternatives empower individual editors.  In both cases it is necessary to contact an administrator just to find out what is in an article.  Do we even have a list of titles of deleted articles?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Death Valley Driver Video Review – Close Endorsed. The nominator should read DGGs advice carefully. A renomination in a couple of weeks with a more closely focused nomination based on solidy policy grounds may well result in a better quality discussion that allows a clearer consensus to emerge. – Spartaz Humbug! 01:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Death Valley Driver Video Review (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I did not understand why TParis (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (5th nomination) as no consensus instead of delete and discussed his closure with him here. He noted that he gave significant weight to the assertion that notability is inherited.

He wrote, "The keep !voters base their rationale on the presumption of notable. The delete !voters argue against the google sources but don't even address that the website has interviewed notable people which leaves the presumption of sources." and "It's not inherited. It's presumed to have it's own notability based on the interviews of notable people."

The assertion that the delete side did not address whether notability is inherited from the website's having interviewed people is incorrect:

  1. Msquared3 (talk · contribs) wrote, "Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think conducting interviews with notable subjects is a criterion used by Wikipedia to determine if a subject is 'notable.'"
  2. Suriel1981 (talk · contribs) wrote, "It's a case of notability not being inherited from celebrities interviewed by the site. After all, famous people do interviews all the time across the range of media."
  3. I noted that the notability guideline WP:NWEB#No inherited notability states that association with notable people does not confer notability upon websites. I wrote, "DVDVR does not inherit notability from notable interviewees. The site itself has not received notice anywhere; thus, DVDVR is not notable."

After a relist, two editors (Neutrality and LibStar) were unswayed by the notability-is-inherited argument and implicitly rejected it by supporting deletion.

I base this DRV nomination on the reasoning that TParis gave too much weight to the assertion of a single editor, Dream Focus (talk · contribs), that notability was inherited from the interviewing of notable subjects.

Three editors explicitly rejected the notability-is-inherited argument, and two others did so implicitly. Had other editors supported Dream Focus' position that notability is inherited, TParis' argument that "there is a persumption of notability [based on inheritance]" might have merit. No one else—not even the other "keep" editors—supported this strand of reasoning. Overturn to delete. Goodvac (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to quote me, quote me right.--v/r - TP 12:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Since I have been asked to comment, I declined a prod on this article as it had earlier survived AFD debates, proving that it was controversial to delete and would need a discussion to resolve this. I did not believe myself that it should be deleted, so I did not start an AFD. I even asked for the article to be retained in the debate. I think that the close as no consensus describes what is the true result of the debate. There is no clear conclusion to delete and neither to keep. Neither of the sides convinced the others that they were right. I still maintain that there are enough independent sources to show GNG satisfaction. WP:stick may apply here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Looking through the discussion, I see both sides making reasonable arguments. Two of the early delete votes were relatively straight !votes without further discussion, one of which seemed to fundamentally misunderstand the notability criteria. There are 3 book sources that were raised by the keep side, and were never directly addressed by the delete supporters. I think net, the deletion side had stronger arguments, but not so much stronger as to overcome the numerical distribution of support. It is a close enough call that I think the discretion of the closer should be respected. I think a new AfD would be reasonable as it may help establish consensus, particularly if the nominator addressed the viability of the book sources when it comes to notability. Monty845 04:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your assertion that the AfD was deficient; I overlooked the book sources, but I've perused them just now and found that they contain passing mentions.
      In your edit summary, you wrote "Endorse, but without prejudice to starting a new AfD nomination". Would you be willing to support a relist of the AfD so that both sides of the discussion can flesh out their arguments? Goodvac (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be a bit overly procedural, but my understanding is that supporting a relist would suggest I thought there was a problem with the close, which I do not. In light of the no-consensus close, and the past history of discussions that resulted in deletion, I think it would be reasonable to renominate the article for deletion without waiting very long. The new AfD should not be predicated on the discussion here, and if that one also ends no consensus, then you should let it be. Monty845 05:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A relist indicates that the discussion was deficient, not the close, but fair enough—I understand your position. Could you add "without prejudice to starting a new AfD nomination" to your comment and bold it (just to make it clear)?
          I disagreed with TParis' rationale for "no consensus" but now understand per your comment about the book sources why a "no consensus" could be justifiable.
          I would prefer that the closing admin of this DRV relist the AfD. Accusations of WP:STICK would occur if an AfD participant like me renominates it. An uninvolved, neutral relister is needed so the participants can focus on discussing the merits of the article and the sources. Goodvac (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There were five of us that said keep and 6 said delete. There was clearly no consensus. The guideline pages all say at the top "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Its not an absolute law. WP:BURO and WP:IAR apply here. I think I made a decent case in the AFD for that. The not inherited rule does not apply here, only part of it taken out of context and quoted there. A famous person's website doesn't inherit their notability because its owned by someone famous. That says nothing about it being notable based on having a significant number of notable people being interviewed on it. Dream Focus 04:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the no-consensus close. I think any other close might have been a better reason for Del Rev--I've rarely seen the point of bring a non-consensus here. . I disagree somewhat with TP's argument as you gave it above: I do not think the interviews necessarily create a presumption of notability, just a good supplemental reason, or a strong indication that it might well be notable——but many arguments for keeping were based on there being sufficient sources, which do indeed create a presumption of notability. Myself, I have no particular opinion on the actual issue. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Dream Focus: IAR can't be applied without good reason, and no reason has been given to exempt DVDVR from the notability guidelines.
    With regards to the part of your comment about a famous person's website not inheriting notability, that is just one example from the guideline, which, in full, states:

    Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. For example, if a notable person has a website, then the website does not "inherit" notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person.
    Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote. (my emphasis)

    I pointed out in the AfD that DVDVR itself did not receive notice. Goodvac (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to DGG: The sources presented by the keep participants were rebutted as unreliable and non-independent, with the exception of the book sources mentioned by Monty845 above, which were overlooked. Once both sides discuss the book sources, consensus may be reached. Goodvac (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
why not try discussing it on the article talk p. If that fails, a non-consensus close lets anyone open a new AfD after a short time. It has the same effect as a relisting, but permits a time for thinking and talking first. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reluctantly. I'm not inclined to defer to administrative discretion when, in a contentious debate involving multiple editors and arguments, no rationale is given for the close at the time of the close. I'm further inclined to that approach in this case as it appears the administrator took only three minutes to close the complex debate (he'd closed another three minutes before, in a series of about a dozen AfD closures). Having said that, the same criticisms can be made of many of the delete !voters, who merely trotted out the usual lines. I think a delete close would have been quite bold on the state of the debate. I'd be open to having the debate re-closed, but I fear we'd be back here again: as DGG says, a delete close would have given rise to more reason for a DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no consensus in that debate, so it seems right to me that the debate was closed as "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to delete- Article was relisted a second time to get consensus, and consensus thereafter was to delete. Why relist anything if even complete unanimity after the relist doesn't count for anything? Reyk YO! 04:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, basically along the lines of Mkativerata's comment above. The arguments by both sides were (with a few notable exceptions) relatively weak, and many !voters (again this applies equally to both sides) seemed simply to express their own view without really explaining why they felt it was the case. I have some sympathy with Reyk's view, but the problem is that both users who commented after the relist didn't back up their !votes with any real analysis of why the sources were insufficient. Arguably the final relist was unnecessary and I would have endorsed a no consensus close at that point too, but that's beside the point. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 November 2011[edit]

  • Star Parker – I am speedily closing this request because it does not say why the deletion was wrong or why the deletion discussion was wrongly closed.

    To everybody who's coming here from an external site: Wikipedia has content-neutral inclusion requirements documented at WP:BIO. The discussion found that these requirements were not met, so the article was moved to a holding area for further improvement. You are welcome to help improve it there, taking into account our fundamental rules. After the deficiencies have been addressed, the article's restoration can be requested again in this forum. –  Sandstein  08:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone deleted Star Parker's page? This seriously passed review?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.12.64 (talk)

  • There seem to be sources for this activist. The AfD didn't seem to think they were enough, but possibly the participatnts were swayed by the neglibile content of the article. As mentioned by the last !voter, WP:Userfiction is probably the way to go here. There seem to be secondary sources that discuss the subject, but the challenge may be in finding independant such sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is an incubator article here. This review (and a string of indignant comments elsewhere) seems to have been triggered by the latest G4 deletion rather than the AFD in particular. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 23:23, 5 November 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 November 2011[edit]

  • Rachel Starr – Deletion Endorsed. The consensus at DRV remains that the close was proper based on both the local consensus and general principles. That it is in tension with the subject notability guideline WP:PORNBIO reflects more negatively on the guideline than the close, though even a good guideline will have exceptions. Bringing this back to DRV is unlikely to achieve a different result unless more and better sources can be found. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rachel Starr (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Restore. Meets the criteria for notability as set in WP:PORNBIO with multible nominations in different years. The person who deleted the article after this discussion. He mentioned that: There is also concern that the PORNBIO guideline may be too loose. So he made a clear mistake in not accepting the relevance criteria. So if I follow him she is unknown...OK. Then you should explain why she has Google hits. Otherwise the best arguments had Schmidt and he was ignored too. --Hixteilchen (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's this, the fourth DRV about this "actress"? Last one is here. I endorse Stifle's accurate and sensible close of the AfD and the outcome of the subsequent DRV, and see no reason to reconsider the well-established consensus from less than six months ago.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness this has only been properly discussed once, at the previous DRV. The first one was moot as a new draft was sufficiently different that G4 didn't apply but AFD deleted it anyway. This has had 2 DRVs and 2AFDs prior to this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse We are not required by WP:N to make articles on everything that passes the guidelines. For each type of articles, and for each individual article we can interpret them strictly of loosely, according to whatever the current consensus is. Stifle's closure in the afd was a statement that he thinks on the basis of the arguments presented that the consensus has changed towards interpreting the PORNBIO guideline a more strictly. I think he's correct. (I would also add myself to those at the afd who thought it should be changed in that direction -- I'd suggest changing "well-known award" to "major award" in the first part, and eliminating the criterion accepting nominations for awards. I'm not in the least opposed to extensive and detailed coverage of pornography and other sexual topics, but I think we've gotten unbalanced in this particular aspect.) At WP, the rules are not only what we write down, but what we customarily do: we're not bound by the written guidelines, and have in fact gone to the length of saying so as one of the basic rules. However, I do not think anyone should get angry at having it brought here: if we are correct that consensus has changed, it would be good to have this as a very visible discussion. The previous DRV was closed on other grounds. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Just to clarify my closing of the previous DRV, I was not only closing early for the attacks but also closing to endorse by the clear consensus of the discussion at the time of the close. Its quite clear that DRV no longer accepts PORNBIO over the GNG for the close of a pornstar AFD and as such its perfectly reasonable for the closing admin to depreciate keep arguments based on PORNBIO. If you really want this back you need to find some sources. If you can't, well.... Spartaz Humbug! 18:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse An SNG is not a suicide pact. It appears clear to me that Stifle not only understands this, but correctly read and weighed the arguments in the AfD. A guideline is just that, and common sense needs to take part in any notability decision, particularly when WP:GNG is murky. I do agree with the overall sentiment that this needs to have greater discussion somewhere other than DRV, as that the overall feeling on WP:PORNBIO seems to have changed. Trusilver 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and ban editor from filing any future porn-related DRVs, editors can't be allowed to hammer DRV over and over on the same subject. Particularly when nothing has changed since the previous one. PORNBIO in its current form is too vague and too broad about this "multiple nominations" BS. Tarc (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly do not ban him from filing for a deletion review; this is not abuse--the previous review did not solely focus on the issue presented here, but also on the unfortunate nature of the discussion. It was altogether right to ask for ask for wider confirmation. This is in effect a change in our guideline, and deserves full consideration. There seems clear opinion from different directions that such a change is overdue--but if nothing else, it has been valuable for both Tarc and myself to have the opportunity to say so simultaneously. Tarc, do you like my suggestions for changing the guideline: if so, we can proceed to reiterating the consensus on the guideline page also. The best way to clarify the relationship between GNG and SNGs in each case is an explicit statement in the SNG about what is intended. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, S Marshall and Spartaz you are well-known for mass deletion of porn actresses, show me one AFD you voted for Keep. That´s a fact. So when you don´t accept the rules and relevance criteria make new ones. But actually she passes WP:PORNBIO. That´s also fact.So lately when she gets one more nomination she is relevant enough. That you´re not regognizing her 15 Million google hits shows how you think. Applause. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. You don't get it do you? You are applying a standard that DRV no longer accepts. PORNBIO isn't compatable with the requirement for BLPs to cite sources. Community expectations have moved on but you haven't. That's the issue. We have done this so many times. Are you actually listening because the evidence is that you are not. Spartaz Humbug! 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At one time I thought that SNGs were simply intended to catch what the general notability guideline did not, but that's not really how it should work. You can't just rack up minor awards and especially not nominations and squeak in a biography creation for a person that would otherwise never pass the general notability. As for your initial question, while a non sequitur, I was curious as to the answer. So via snottywong's AfD checker, I see a lone keep for Christina Santiago. What it shows is that AfD is doing its job correctly by weeding out the non-notable crap and leaving the ones that are legitimately notable alone. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was no consensus to delete that I see in that AFD, the closing rationale doesn't even try to show otherwise. But the contingent of editors who personally feel bios like should not exist have taken notice of this one, so its recreation will be stalled for now. There are thousands of Rachel Roxxxs lying around, and more being created all the time as far as I can tell. Yes, basically I am saying attempts to keep articles like this deleted are largely futile in the long run.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and consider listing on WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reclose by same admin  The closing asserts that there exists a "consensus that the article should be deleted having considered the technical PORNBIO pass".  But what is the basis to claim this consensus?  That one of our guidelines is "retarded"?  Or that "many believe that WP:PORNBIO needs some tightening"?  So it is not possible to discern that the "concern that the PORNBIO guideline may be too loose...is a discussion for elsewhere".  As stated it appears that these actually are the reasons for the delete result.  If concensus has changed, then there are two possibilities, (1) the guideline needs to be updated, or (2) there is a problem at Wikipedia in formally changing consensus.  Whichever it is, WP:IDONTLIKE the guideline should not appear to be the basis of the closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:28, 12 November 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.
Robert A Foster (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Restore. The page is about a young English Actor who first lead role was as Henry in Just William (2010 TV serial) Just William has just been nominated for 3 Baftas. This page has had many visitors to the page and people are intreated in him, if people did not want to know about him, they would not of visited the page but they did and you could see this from the visitor history before the page history was delete the other day, he had 560 visitors in 30days. He has done TV work, a Short Film and Modelling. It had good referencing and links to BBC News, IMDB and links to other wikipedia pages too. It met Notability guideline and Wikipedia:ARTIST, I do not feel it is TOO SOON as stated by some, he has had internet and press coverage . In a nutshell this page should not have been deleted and is of interest to people who wanted know about this actor. Just william Cast BBC Website Image of William (Daniel Roche) with the outlaws Ginger (Jordan Grehs), Douglas (Edward Piercy) and Henry (Robert Foster) in Just William,Cast up date on Just William Someone has also used info from his wikipedia page to make a Facebook public figure page. Please look at links Cast and Info about Just William IMDB Boy with the Chocolate Fingers as you can see this is just a few links. Please remember lots of adults and children look at wikipedia to find out information and facts and just because it might not be what you like, some people did find the page interesting due to the amount of visitor.Gem09 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Robert A Foster (actor) page has been active for nearly 10 months, so why remove it now ?? More information had been added over this time by myself and others.Gem09 (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the close of "delete". I find it very difficult to understand why some people think that articles like this do not improve the encyclopedia. However, setting that aside, it seems to me that, although failing WP:ENT, the article arguably passes WP:GNG. So, I think we are in the area where editorial discretion may be used (either way) to decide on the fate of this article. At AfD the majority thought to "keep" and the arguments on both sides were (mostly) policy based. I think the reasonable consensus was to "keep". It is a severe disadvantage that the closing admin did not feel it necessary to provide a closing rationale and the reply on the closer's talk page describes "fail" as if it were a necessary result of applying the notability guidelines.[26] In cases such as this the guidelines are not based on hard "rules". I shall return here in a few days and change my !vote if a satisfying deletion rationale has emerged. Thincat (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't feel it neccessary to explain the rationale because the majority of the keep !votes were SPAs and not based in policy. MQS had the strongest argument. As you said, it feel within "editorial discretion" and I felt that MQS's argument made the discussion learn toward delete.--v/r - TP 17:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if we've got to be careful with BLPs, then we've got to be really very careful indeed with biographies of living children. If this wasn't an article about a child, I think I'd be !voting to overturn, but the fact that it's a child makes me ultra-cautious and conservative about it, and I'm presently inclined towards weak endorse.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree you have to be careful with biographies of living children but there are many other child actors on Wikipedia, this page does not give details of school or town where he lives, as do some pages for other child actors. All information is available from different sites due to him acting which has been put together in one place for people. More links- Robert A Foster IMDB,Robert and Isabel Website.Gem09 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see how the general caution for children applies to professional performers. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No British child is a professional performer. Our laws require that children (defined for this purpose as those under 16) are in education rather than practising a profession. (Some, such as the Harry Potter cast, are taught on set.) They can be well-paid for their amateur performances, but for all legal purposes, tax purposes, etc. they are students and not professionals. And I think that's the ethical stance as well. A child of this age has not made any decisions about what his profession might be.—S Marshall T/C 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse doesn't seem to meet the GNG. Press releases, blogs and cast lists don't meet the need for independent non-trivial sources in this context. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as original nominator. To me this seemed a clear case of failure to even met the minimal requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER:significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This actor has been in a single notable TV series, but it is actually unclear how important his role was. He certainly wasn't the lead, nor was he nominated as a supporting actor[27]. Apart from that his accomplishments were a TV advert and a role in an as yet unreleased short film[28]. All the 3rd party references amounted to the mention of his name, if that, as can be seen by the links provided above. There were no significant sources that discussed the actor in the original article - nor were any provided in the AfD. Tassedethe (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2010/wk51/all.shtml You are right Robert A Foster did not play the lead, but he was one of the five main leads, if you don't know the story of Just William (2010 TV serial) he played Henry an Outlaw and has been credited if you look on IMBD You seem to have a real problem with this page. why??? Everything was referenced and of interest which could be clearly seen from the number of visitor to the page, it may not be what you like but we all have our interests. He has done modelling since 2006 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4247744/resume and is listed on IMDB for Just William 2010 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1804877/fullcredits#cast as well as the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x50rn , you have to open the credits list up to see everyone. But please have a look and you will see a full list of credited cast. They do not list supporting actor, as in many TV/films.Gem09 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deletion review is not AfD part 2. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, a) Re-arguing the AfD here is inappropriate - the question is merely whether or not the closure was valid. b) It would have been helpful if the closing admin had put at least some explanation, because it is not clear from looking at the closure why it was closed in that manner; thus when looking at the close we have to second-guess the rationale behind it. So, TParis, re. "I didn't feel it neccessary to explain the rationale because the majority of the keep !votes were SPAs and not based in policy" - if you'd just written that in the closure, it would have been helpful. c) The policy-based arguments (viz. "doesn't meet WP:GNG") make sense to me; AfD is not a numeric vote; the 'delete' !votes seem to make logical arguments, I cannot find appropriate coverage either. TL;DR: decision was good, but at least a short rationale would've helped, TParis.  Chzz  ►  18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I figured it was obvious. The "not vote" tag at the top, the SPA tags on the IPs, and the "he did a short film also" parts. I just couldn't imagine how it could've been interpreted differently. But if several of ya'all are saying it wasn't so obvious then I should've left something.--v/r - TP 16:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Following my remarks above I have pondered over the information and opinions given here. I now think that, although a "no consensus" close would have been best, "delete" was, sadly, within administrative discretion. Anyway, the strong and responsible view here is that it was appropriate to delete the article. I personally find that rather strange. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 November 2011[edit]

2 November 2011[edit]

1 November 2011[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November&oldid=458236316"