The song doesn't exist. It's just a made-up song with a photoshopped cover. Bacardimayne (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close DRV is the place to challenge the results of deletion discussion if you think that the person closing the discussion did not evaluate the debate properly when making the their decision (Keep or delete) not the place to start an initial deletion discussion. Since there is not a decision on a deletion debate a discussion will need to be created first and the instructions on how to do so are at WP:AFD.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Deleted by User:Drmies as G11 advertising. I did not write the article, I am unaffiliated with the company, and I disagreed with his assessment. I can see from the Google cache that it had sources from Kotaku. I asked Drmies to undelete this and then list it at AFD if needs be, am disappointed that he chose not to. - hahnchen 20:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While the topic is of questionable notability and there are some facts that are mentioned that aren't neutral, by and large it can't be said that the article "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." My recommendation is that it be reinstated and sent immediately to AfD on notability concerns, not promotional ones. Bongomatic 07:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, send to AfD. The cache version of the article looks like it could be cleaned up. OSbornarfcontribs. 15:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is such a thing as speedy overturn, but I don't mind. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy overturn" is what happens, or may happen, when the deleting admin agrees. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is not censored. When thousands of sources say that the ISI have supported and continue to support terrorism and insurgents then an article on the matter is needed. A move to a more neutral title would have been the more reasonable option over deletion as was pointed out by the two uninvolved editors who commented. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The requested user does think that I am WP:INVOLVED. Also none of these comments were brought up at my talkpage, but instead just listed here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@DS, per the instructions given at DRV, you first need to discuss this with the closing editor if you think there was any error of judgement instead of putting it up here. --SMSTalk 20:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments were quite visible on the AFD page, why on earth should I bring up something you had already read? @SMS I did ask him, he just copied and pasted a lot of stuff from notinvolved. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following up here from DQ's talk page, speaking of which I think there should be a procedural notification formalized or something for DRV follow ups. I think DQ is completely uninvolved as he closed the previous RFCs in administrative capacity. Being aware and being involved is different. I'll also like to mention that DQ's previous RFC closures on this content were endorsed by two more administrators as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about whether DQ is involved or not, it is how he could conclude for "delete" when a majority said "keep"? JCAla (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this issue (error of judgement (if any)) should be discussed with the closing editor, DQ (which I see is not discussed thoroughly) before coming here. This is prerequisite for Deletion Review. --SMSTalk 09:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@JCAla: "Majority" is never a criteria for keeping an article. I'm afraid you may have to re-read the deletion criteria and have a better understanding of how AfDs work. The major point of contention is that none of the "keep" editors provided a clear rationale as to why thie article should exist seperately to Pakistan and state terrorism and the fact that it is WP:REDUNDANT. It is also clear that there is some WP:Conflict of interest involved on behalf of the several "majority" of editors who voted "keep". Mar4d (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Says you who desperately wanted the article deleted. ;-) JCAla (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Darkness Shines did try[1], but not for very long. Thincat (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
he seems to have tried sufficiently. Perhaps he shouldn't be asked if he has tried when it is obvious that he done so. But a claim of conflict of interest or an personal involvement by an admin can quite reasonably be brought here first in any case--it is much better than arguing with him on his own page whether he is over-involved. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Whether or not they support terrorismn, the titile is POV in the extreme and unacceptable, and I doubt any degree of consensus could be obtained to justify using it for the title of an article. The material is possibly usuable, but not for an article titled like this. Start over with a less polemical approach. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete closure as a reasonable reading of the policy based arguments in the AfD discussion. Accusations that the ISI supports terrorist groups or facilitates terrorism are easy enough to find in reliable sources, but it doesn't follow that a content fork dedicated to such accusations is necessary or desirable. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - seems a reasonable close based on policy and strength of argument. "I would have preferred a different outcome" is not grounds to overturn. ReykYO! 20:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
