Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2008 Deletion review archives December 2008 >


30 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template:Internet_memes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

Comments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_14#Template:Internet_memes were "no consensus" at best, certainly not "Delete." Inappropriate language and POV displayed by closing editor. Badagnani (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I took at look at this while it was up for deletion, and it certainly is horrible and I concur with the closer's comments. However, the consensus was fairly strong for a keep so that's what should have happened. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nominator's closure, which was a valid application of WP:IAR. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Nominator did not consider the option of splitting the template in multiple smaller ones with better defined inclusion guidelines. IAR does not apply when the closing admin appears to be biased. - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- There was no clear consensus to delete, and closing admin showed clear bias with the closing statement, comparable to the close of List of bow tie wearers. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to no consensus. There did not appear to be a consensus to delete and some of the reasons given for deletion could easily be solved by editing. Also, what are templates "for"? Protonk (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Protonk. That's exactly right -- the closer's rationale is the kind of thing that should be addressed by editing, not by deletion, especially against consensus. Mangojuicetalk 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator statement. Navboxes are tricky subjects. It can be difficult to evaluate whether or not navboxes are appropriate for articles, but in this case, I would submit that it is clear this navbox is inappropriate and outside the regular boundaries of what we expect to do with templates. There are at least three dimensions of this template which are not suitable for the template namespace. The first of these is that the template does not link together salient articles which have some sort of intrinsic relationship. Navboxes are used for this type of navigation. This is why a navbox for a List of US presidents is appropriate, or a list of successive office-holders of any office or similar, or even a navigation between albums produced by a band. One preceded another, another followed; there is a sequence. A navbox of legislatures of states would also be appropriate under this criterion, there is a salient, concrete, categorical continuity between the items, which is absent from the template being discussed here. The second of these is that the definition of the term being used for this navbox, "internet meme" excludes the possibility of categorical distinction between its elements. There is no intrinsic relationship between emoticon, rickroll, and dancing baby. There is no upward limit to the number of things which may be categorized under the distinction of "internet meme", nor are there any hard criteria for inclusion. The implications of these can be seen in a future iteration of the template which is subject to edit wars by editors attempting to push a borderline-notable phenomenon into undeserved legitimacy by inclusion in a template, and as there is no upward bound on the size of the template, it could conceivably (and arguably already has) become too large for easy inclusion on pages and become too vast and unwieldy to be used for any sort of useful navigation, therefore defeating its own purpose. Thirdly, there is already a list of internet memes, which obviates the need for this template. In my closing I did not imply that no possible templates could be forged from this list, however, I strongly asserted that this particular template is inconsistent with template guidelines in accordance with its original nomination. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of deletion of similar templates may be found at:
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31#Template:Culture_of_China
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_26#Template:Seconds_From_Disaster
Resulting Deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 13
I hope these are helpful, or at least help to demonstrate, some of the points I lay out above. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy explanation above somehow fails to address the issue, or show any acknowledgement or compunction for what what was (and what the community clearly views, whether or not the template was any good to begin with) as an inappropriate close. That is the most disturbing thing about this entire situation. Admins absolutely must adhere to our own rules, guidelines, and principles for our community to have any sense of fairness. Badagnani (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got no idea exactly whether or not to !vote to overturn here, but either way it seems like the best course forward is to split up the template into a bunch of different ones, such as {{YouTube celebrities}}, {{4chan culture}}, and whatever others are needed. To that end, I will be happy to usefy the most recent version of the template to anyone who asks in good faith, so that proceedings here won't hold up work unnecessarily. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really interested in work myself, but I would certainly endorse such a solution. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amicable to this solution, which would basically split the template up into several more focused templates. Therefore, I will endorse deletion of this template, without prejudice to the creation of multiple templates with a tighter focus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This ignores the question: was the closing editor out of line? It is of paramount importance that we uphold our rules, and that means voting according to the evidence in cases such as this; not do to so risks undermining the fairness that is so important to our project, and the smooth working thereof. Badagnani (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is not a vote on whether we are deleting or not, this is a vote, as Badagnani has stated multiple times, on whether the decision was correct in light the consensus shown on the deletion page. And it was not, for the reasons stated above. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I !voted to delete this template, but looking at the discussion, it can't be said there was a consensus to delete it - this should have been closed as a 'no consensus'. It also looks like splitting it up into several templates may be the solution that would achieve most support, but that can be discussed separately. Terraxos (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, no consensus to delete. Mike R (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


David R. Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Unjustified deletion of article due to objections made by the article's subject.

David R. Hawkins is a psychiatrist and New Age theorist based in Sedona, Arizona who has built up a sizable international following. Hawkins is a highly controversial figure who has attracted significant criticism from both scientific skeptics and from others within the New Age movement itself. A summary of Hawkins claims are that reason and critical thought (or any “vain opinions”) are of no use to humankind with regard to establishing spiritual, religious, philosophical or political truths and that instead absolute objective truth can only be determined by using applied kinesiology, or AK for short. AK is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as a pseudoscience and quackery which has repeatedly failed to produce results better than random guessing during double-blind trials. Additionally, two of the leading practitioners of AK, Eric Pierotti and John Diamond, do not believe that AK can be used in this manner and have heavily criticised Hawkins. Some critics have suggested that Hawkins might qualify as a cult leader (or least have cultish tendencies), such as the renowned New England Institute of Religious Research and his own former colleague Peter A. Olsson. Until July 2007, there was a large, well sourced, neutral and informative article on him here at Wikipedia at David R. Hawkins. I am not aware of any debate as to whether Hawkins warrants a Wiki article and clearly he is indeed worthy of one given his considerable profile and following, I don’t think notability was ever an issue. However his article was deleted in July 2007, seemingly (as far as I can ascertain) without any discussion by a moderator tired of dealing with attacks from Hawkins' followers and legal threats from the man himself (there may have been discussion on the article talk page but this has since been deleted as well so I can’t tell). Hawkins has a history of intolerance to legitimate criticism and also of threatening legal action against his critics (or anyone publicising the views of his critics), usually on spurious grounds. One successful example of Hawkins using legal threats is in the case of the aforementioned New England Institute for Religious Research which removed its criticisms of Hawkins from their webpage after he threatened to sue – apparently they spend most of their money on helping victims of cults and don’t have the finances to “defend freedom of speech”. It appears that Hawkins threatened Wikipedia with legal action on the grounds of copyright violation. The moderator in question, apparently “tired” of the arguments and threats, then deleted the article. To my mind this deletion was totally unjustified and was simply giving in to largely baseless threats and bullying intended to silence legitimate free speech. (Hawkins himself has apparently said that his problem with his Wiki article was actually that it gave links to Robert Todd Carroll’s criticisms of him, which merely pointed out that AK fails scientific tests and that he earned his PhD at the unaccredited diploma mill Columbia Pacific University, both of which are verifiable facts and not in any way shape or form libellous). If copyright violation was an issue (which is a dubious suggestion in itself from what I can gather), then it should have been a relatively simple matter to remove any and all direct quotes from Hawkins’ own books, CD’s etc, which should surely remove the problem (and Hawkins’ supposed justification for his threats). There is no issue of libel – there was nothing remotely libellous in the article as far as I can see, the statements about the Religious Research institute merely pointed out that they had applied a well-known cult leader psychological profile test to him with no mention of whether they actually concluded that he was exhibiting tendencies of a cult leader and this could have been removed (without removing the whole article) if deemed defamatory (which I seriously doubt it would be under US law), and the statements about Columbia Pacific University and the legitimacy of Hawkins’ claimed Danish “knighthood” are simply verifiable facts (to my knowledge, Hawkins didn’t actually bother to claim the article was in any way libellous anyway). If Hawkins objects to Wikipedia pointing out that science appears to demonstrate that AK doesn’t work or that he got his PhD from a diploma mill that has been shut down, then that’s his problem. It doesn’t mean the article should be deleted, it should be there as a neutral source of information about Hawkins for people curious to learn more about him. It is one thing to remove articles copied from other sources or remove libellous material, but for Wikipedia to give into spurious threats made by a self-confessed opponent of free speech (“we don’t need freedom of speech, we need freedom from speech” apparently) who is seemingly determined to remove any or all legitimate criticism of himself where possible is extremely sad. The author of The Skeptics Dictionary, the aforementioned Robert Todd Carroll, has himself written on the subject of Wikipedia’s deletion of Hawkins’ article and sees it in much the same terms. I would like to propose that Wikipedia users seriously reconsider and hopefully overturn the decision to delete Hawkins’ article and restore it, if necessary with any material directly taken from his own works removed and any other appropriate editing done to ensure that the article contains no material that conflicts with copyright violation or BLP issues. This is what should have been done originally, rather than simply deleting the whole article to placate Hawkins and his fundamentalist disciples. Wikipedia cannot be sued by Hawkins for simply stating verifiable, sourced facts that he decides he disapproves of.

The original article is mirrored [here|http://domainhelp.search.com/reference/David_R._Hawkins#_note-80]. Further information about Hawkins, his history of trying to silence his critics and the deletion of his Wikipedia page can be found here: [1] [2]. 92.10.158.234 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

  • Editors with access to OTRS can find the relevant ticket here. Right now, given the allegation of BLP concerns I'd like to see a neutrally worded and properly sourced draft before I would be willing to even consider this. Based on the nomination, I'd suggest that the nominator is too close to the subject to be able to provide a neutral draft. Endorse pro tem until something worth looking at emerges. Spartaz Humbug! 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. My recollection of the matter was that there were no obvious BLP violations in the final version. The biggest problem was that proponents of the subject were inserting extraordinary claims with weak sources and an opponent was adding negative material with equally weak sources. There is a general lack of objective 3rd party sources for the subject, but despite that fact he certainly seems notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. The article was deleted outside of process. I endorse overturning the deletion of the article and either fixing it or putting it through conventional AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; let's have a sourced draft first in userspace. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Why was this article deleted to begin with? The mirrored version linked by the nominator has 98 footnotes, and is generally quite well referenced. If there was contentious material in the article, why wasn't this dealt with in the usual way by removing the offending sections or stubbing the article? The stated deletion rationale was:
"you know what, no matter what everyone does or says, I am always getting emails about this being a BLP violation or some copyvio. Take your matches elsewhere, I am done with this."
This isn't CSD G10. This is just an admin sick of dealing with the article. Let's get this back and deal with the issues in the same way as we do with all the other controversial BLPs. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - I am not prepared to fully review the full article but the deleted one was a sourced stub. We could at least go back to that, and develop the article from there, carefully, in compliance with WP:BLP. Mangojuicetalk 15:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as the most recent version (admin only link) at least was stable. As long as there's a single stable version that can be reverted to, reversion is preferable to full-out deletion. Worst case here is that the article needs to be indefinitely and fully protected, which is still preferable to deletion. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, while the deleting admin has not responded here, he's indicated on his talk page that he would prefer to see a draft before restoration (diff). lifebaka++ 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can someone please post a copy of this article (protected, if necessary) while this is under review? I cannot really judge either way right now. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, a mirror of a long version of the article is here. The short version was a few lines. For the purposes of DRV, the key matter is whether it was properly deleted. Since it was done outside normal procedures that question appears to be "yes". If nothing else, we can start over from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if there was a neutral version to be rolled back too (as indicated by Lifebaka and Mangojuice) then I see no reason for deletion. It appears as if the deleting admin just got pissed off by all the POV pushers and purged the whole work at his discretion, which is not a valid reason for deletion. I would recommend the use of full protection in stabilizing the article as opposed for going for the nuclear option. Icewedge (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn' A deletion rationale of "you know what, no matter what everyone does or says, I am always getting emails about this being a BLP violation or some copyvio. Take your matches elsewhere, I am done with this." is a reason to ask some other admin to handle the matter , not a justification for deletion. As the person is clearly notable, removing this by administrative action is not a valid use of BLP policy. DGG (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Skyzoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I created this article from scratch with evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which was presumably lacking when an article on this subject was previously deleted at AfD. User:Orangemike speedy-deleted the article (A7), incorrectly I believe, and refused to restore it when requested, claiming that because of insufficient releases the artist was not notable, despite the agreed notability criteria at WP:MUSIC, not to mention the general notability criteria. Not being an admin, I do not have access to the deleted article but I wouldn't have created it if I didn't think ther was sufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources, which included a biography at Allmusic among others. Since sources exist and were included in the article, speedy deletion was inappropriate. Michig (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I should also point out that Skyzoo has, in contrast to the deleter's comments, released a 'proper' commercially-released album, which has been released and reviewed, in addition to a mixtape, which I believe I pointed out in the article.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • G4 criterion is "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". That's what the policy says, it does not state that creation of a completely new article about a previously-deleted subject is speedyable via G4. The original article was deleted due to lack of notability, a key factor being lack of significant coverage, which has been addressed in the completely-rewritten new article. This is not in any way a recreation of a deleted article. I don't really feel I should have to point this out.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Nothing Michig has said makes it sound as if the previous AfD discussion needs to be revisited. If Michig thinks notability can really be established, I suggest creating a draft in user space first to show so. Mangojuicetalk 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's worlds of difference between the sourcing of the older and more recently deleted versions. I'd much rather see another AfD, if deletion is still sought. I wouldn't be surprised if it fared well there, either. Overturn the G4 deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If there is reliable sourcing on the subject I would like to see a draft in user space beforehand. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and start treating editors better. The version Google has cached[4] is sourced to articles about Skyzoo in allmusic[5], hiphopdx.com[6] and XXL[7] among others. That = non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. (And more sources exist for this, e.g. [8]). Deleting because some entirely different article was deleted is bad, mkay? And backing it up with a personal interpretation of notability at odds with the consensus interpretation doesn't fly, needless to say.(Original article probably shouldn't have been deleted either, if editors put energy into sourcing and not clicking fancy buttons and opining, but that's another story.) 86.44.21.140 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging up the cached article. It's blatantly obvious that this was an incorrect A7 speedy deletion.--Michig (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per lifebaka that appears to be the case. Mangojuice doesn't seem to have felt the need to look into it. Frankly I'm distressed that Stifle has both tools and his given interpretation of G4. Perhaps I'm reading him wrong but I don't see any other possible reading. Could someone have a word? And I think I've heard it whispered that this place is not AfD part II - some admin comments suggest otherwise. Thank goodness for lifebaka (and now DGG) or i would darkly theorize that this depends on which side the admin action is on.
BTW, Corner Store Classic was reviewed and given XL status by XXL, which is quite unusual and should be in your article. Also the Skyzoo myspace claims mentions in the August 2006 editions of XXL and the sadly-missed Scratch. The Aug 2006 XXL, presuming the dates are correct, is the Reasonable Doubt issue, a lot of heads will have this - indeed I had it myself at one stage. A non-godawful hip hop wikiproject would serve this up, if only one existed. There's also this 2007 list of interviews.<--edit: new link Mind you, his myspace also says he's female and 108. Oh, and a crack team of no less than three journalists have ascertained that he really really likes macaroni and cheese! 86.44.22.176 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Elle williams 360.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD)

Image deleted and closed without discussion. Fair use of single magazine cover shows subject's work. This use is similar to the use of a music sample of recording artist, 2D Art for painter, comic cover for an illustrator, or quotation from a writer or poet. A fashion photograph is preferred for commentary in article about fashion model. The choice of ELLE corresponds to model's most significant client, as she was on the cover of the popular fashion magazine over a dozen times in 4 years and had a continuing relationship with editor and fashion photographer Gilles Bensimon, who worked at American ELLE during the same period. Full fair use rationale given on image description. Knulclunk (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


29 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

David Krikorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Verifiable Sources, Notable, New Information

Notability is able to be established as per this converstation User_talk:Sandstein#page_deleted:_David_Krikorian

ryan8403 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Politico[9]
Lou Dobbs[10]
Politicker Ohio[11]
WLWT Channel 5[12] [13] [14]
WCPO Channel 9 [15]
Dayton Daily [16] [17] [18]
Cincinnati Enquirer [19]
Portsmouth Daily Times [20]
Georgetown News Democrat[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
Ripley Bee[30]
The People's Defender [31] [32] [33] [34]
Waverly News Watchman[35] [36]
Clermont Sun [37] [38] [39]

ryan8403 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse delete. I don't share the opinion stated in the conversation mentioned above. The links above that are not password protected are more coverage of Krikorian's candidacy. Press attention from just running for office does not establish establish notability. This is a biography of one event. Other coverage comes up short. That was my rationale at AfD: not quite there on WP:N and falls way short on WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion As it stands all the sources fall under the "one event" category. If he runs again, and if he wins I would not be against creation. At the current time this politician does not meets Wikipedi's inclusion standards. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but first of all, running in an election is not the sort of thing intended by BLP1E as an reason for not covering it here & it is misuse of the criterion--its intended for trivial events of human interest coverage only. Had he been a major party candidate, I would say that running in a national election isnotable, and the local coverage sufficient. But he was an independent, and placed third. I think that's below the bar. DGG (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. On the basis that no argument has been raised at this DRV that shows procedural error in the AfD. In fact, broadly every argument in this DRV was raised at the AfD. The consensus to delete was established there and so the deletion should stand. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The above sources should be used to fill out the article about the election, but the closure of the AfD was correct; none of the sources seem to be about David Krikorian in any context outside the election. If some sources are found that satisfy that criteria, then I would change my vote to Allow re-creation.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Rolando_Gomez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AFD2)

Verifiable Sources, Notable, New Information

Overturn Ending the AfD was both premature and faulty and the delete decision was faulty as there was no overwhelmingly consensus to delete. In fact, there was plenty of positive support to keep the article, but was treated by the admin who deleted as a canvassing of positive remarks. The Wiki entry on Rolando Gomez was deleted on a 2nd Afd, [40], supposedly, on lack of verifiable sources and because of alleged "canvassing" of positive votes--since when does Wiki penalize the public, including a U.S. Government official from the Dept. of Defense, a high official, the Deputy Chief Public Affairs of Operations, United States Air Force who verified information about an ex-employee, Gomez? This was canvassing? This official had first-hand knowledge with no gain to be made from a former employee.

Gomez is a three-time author with chapters on him in two other books, all verifiable by Google Books, and listed here on Wikipedia by the University of Texas, San Antonio as notable [41] alumni.

Gomez was deleted after passing the first deletion review several years ago due to what appears to be one already controversial admin's (Ryulong) personal vendetta More than enough reliable sources, including pdf's, scanned photos, press releases and more can "now be found' here on one source page, [42] and the new page includes verifiable, external source links from credible sources. I might add Gomez added the Wikipedia link in all his three books under the resources pages for all photographers. I'm still not sure, as enough sources were listed during the second AfD, why no one bothered to update the article, though it was suggested in the Afd process by several, because that was all it needed to remain listed--before the link to the sources (more sources) listed in this discussion. Wiki's own policy states that if an existing article can be improved to prevent deletion, it should be done, not deleted. That was recommend be several on the 2nd Afd.

Even Wiki listed, and notable photographer Jerry Avenaim, [43] expressed his thoughts on the Gomez 2nd AfD, and even stated that he was a co-speaker with Gomez in San Diego at the Photo Imaging and Design Expo. I might add, on Avenaim's page, one of the reliable Wiki sources listed is a link to that photo expo where Gomez and Avenaim did two seminars/lectures together. Was the actual deletion because Ryulong doesn't like glamour photographers but loves celebrity photographers as he strives for more Barnstar awards on Wikipedia?

I request this page be reinstated and revised with the credible sources noted before and the new source page [44] listed with new verifiable sources. Gomez is notable as noted on the University of Texas, San Antonio Wikipage entry, by the University School System, a State of Texas Public School system. Gomez's books are all listed on Amazon.com and Google Books and are carried in many book stores world-wide, including Barnes and Nobels, Borders, Books A Million, etc. Three books, authored, not ghost written or co-authored, are sufficient proof of his notability along with feature stories about him by other news writers in Leica World News, Rangefinder Magazine, Studio Photography, D-Pixx and other magazines about Gomez and his photography. I might add, Gomez was the cover story for Rangefinder (his photos, but authored by a reporter for Rangefinder), Sept. 2006 and D-Pixx (European magazine) and co-illustrated a cover story with Pulitzer prize winning photographer Eddie Adams for Parade magazine, circulation 30-million printed copies, the Dec. 19, 1999 issue--link is also found to that cover story with credits on the new source page provided. 32.176.53.168 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not real savvy on Wikipedia's policy, when the admin (Ryulong) deleted it without a second nomination. The second nomination came to existence only after Ryulong was asked why a speedy deletion to an article that had been in Wiki over two years and had already survived one Afd? He then posted a second nomination discussion, then only allowed about five days of discussion before it was deleted again. There was enough discussion in those five days where anyone could have taken existing links and updated the article. During that discussion several links were posted to show new sources, Ryulong then deleted them immediatley and blocked those links from showing, including links in the new sources page listed above. The whole deletion review was treated with ignoring newly posted links to credible sources without cause. Several people acknowledged that the article should not be deleted, per Wikipedia's own guidelines, since the article had been up for over two years as an approved article and that the article merely needed updates to the new sources. Some of those sources, like the fact that Gomez is one of the original 30 Lexar Elite Photographers chosen six years ago, world-wide, were deleted, including the link to Lexar's Elite Photographer pages, yet, on Jerry Avenaim and Greg Gorman, those links are used as sources to validate their notable status for his Wikipedia page. Gomez, Gorman and Avenaim were all selected by Lexar as Elite Photographers, in fact, Gomez before Avenaim. How can one link to Lexar be justified as credible in one Wiki entry and not, or be deleted for the Gomez entry? That is one example.

Proof that Ryulong deleted the entries is hard to show as I saw it happen during the heated debate between him and another party. Ryulong quickly deleted the article but only placed it back into discussion when asked to do so--he was asked because he deleted an established article without any public discussion. Why would we ask him again when he's proven that he doesn't want the article by deleting entries as they were posted, discounting a credible source like Jerry Avenaim himself listed as notable on Wikipedi? Avenaim provided positive input in the discussion as did the Deputy Chief of Public Affairs of the United States Air Force, Jeff Whitted who included his government email address for verification. The Air Force official like Avenaim was accused of having something to gain, yet Gomez no longer works for Whitted and no one ever claimed what the official or the Air Force for that matter might gain or what Avenaim would gain. It's like a proven guilty till you can prove your innocence.

It wasn't a case to prove the article didn't meet the guidelines, it was more a case that Ryulong was right and you'd have to prove him wrong but he held admin powers that would delete, block and stop anyone from coming forward including Avenaim and Whitted. In a nutshell, why would Ryulong even consider this now, when he a) deleted the article on his own without discussion or consensus, b) brought the article back for deletion discussion (2nd Afd) only after asked and never made positive recommendations nor did he act on new information that would save the article, c) he discredited everyone that made a positive stance for the article and d) even deleted some new entries of possible sources and took all positive arguments from other posters as canvassing and gave no merit on the accusation of canvassing.

Gomez is a well-known and respected lecturer, author and instructor on photography with over 30 years experience with an email list of over 26,000 photographers on one of his website alone. His books have even made the Amazon.com top 1,000 best selling books, yet Ryulong treats the fact that Gomez' popularity with fans is canvassing. How can you have an AfD discussion if the minute people arrive to defend an entry they are accused of a canvassing act, including people listed notably here on Wikipedia with two of the same credible sources in their Wikipedia page? I see no point in asking Ryulong, which would be a second time on the same article. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, the 2nd Afd states, "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review')." There no longer is a talk page for this article, so the second choice in the 2nd Afd clearly states, "...or in a deletion review)." And as stated above, in review of Ryulong's prior history with this topic, it doesn't seem sensible to ask him a second or third time to reinstate this article as he was originally asked from the point he deleted the article without notice the first time. While he opened it up for a 2nd Afd, only after he expeditiously deleted the article without a discussion process, his comments are obvious he's totally against this article. It's obvious this article only required minor addition of sources, which were provided, but since no one added the sources provided in the discussion, it was deleted. This was an article defended by other admins against spam and other known graffiti attacks that Wikipedia monitors, for over two years while it was listed here. Makes you wonder why other admins protected the article to have one admin, on his own, quickly delete it on the auspices that no one was watching. Then when Ryulong's deletion was questioned, he lower the value of those that wanted to keep the article because according to him, they were canvassed. I stand by request for review and hope this article is reinstated and the work of previous admins that defended this articles existence over the years doesn't go to waste. 32.176.50.96 (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It is commonplace for admins to give little or no weight to very new and unregistered users in AFDs, and having done so, deletion was a valid outcome. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see you were one of the persons that requested deletion in the 2nd AFD,on the count of "lack of reliable sources." The credible sources were always deleted when entered during the 2nd AFD conversation, perhaps that led you to make your original statement back in Sept. 08' because you never saw them. Hopefully you'll be more proactive and reverse your thoughts since credible references are listed here now (if they don't get deleted as in the 2nd AFD) [45] that were deleted in that 2nd AFD during the actual AfD discussion. As mentioned below by Protonk in your defense, "If he closes an AfD as delete and someone wants the article kept, asking him to reverse the decision presents no room for compromise--or at the very least is likely to end in the article being sent to AfD. Any conversation about the article that isn't asking him to reverse his decision seems pointless." I can only hope you look at the facts, it wasn't about the weight of the supporters in question so much as the fact that actual links to the reason you originally supported deletion, links to bonafide, reliable sources, were deleted, including a link here on Wikipedia by the University of Texas, San Antonio. Not to mention links that were deleted, included the link to Lexar Media's site for "Elite Photographers" they chose around the world six years ago and still maintain and revise that list, yet that same verifiable links are on Jerry Avevaim's and Greg Gorman's Wikipedia pages for one of their credible sources. This seems like hypocrisy. 72.191.15.133 (talk)
  • Relist in hope of a better discussion. Some of the sources removed during the AfD, presumably as being spam, were probably relevant RSs for notability. I don;'t question the good faith in doing it, but I think it extremely unfortunate & does give the impression of editwarring to delete. This prevents the proper evaluation of the article. On the merits, it seems borderline, and some new opinions might clarify it. Sometimes the anons are right. DGG (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sometimes the anons are right" great statement, especially since Wiki is a "public" site and supported by "public donations" and many donators prefer to remain anonymous, for various reasons. As an example, sometimes if a person posts the name, "Mary Jane" they feel they could be discriminated against for being a woman. If they post, Miguel Hernandez, they feel they could be discriminated for being Hispanic. If they post in their profile they are a member of the NAACP, they could be discriminated against for having a dark skin color. If they post with a known name, say Larry Flint, for being in a business many regard as against religion, they could be discriminated against merely for who they are and what they believe. Anonymity carries it's own perception that often influences many, including admins on Wiki who treat it in a negative form, thanks to anonymous posters of spam and those that deface Wiki as anonymous users. Sociology influences people in many ways, sometimes unfortunately those with honest intent suffer from society's perceptions--perhaps that is why a site like Wiki, filled with daily traffic, only has a few people participating in this discussion--many people, as in most Internet forums, are just "scared" to post for the fear that those in power will chastise them publicly. Perceptions are everything it seems here on Wiki too. I laud Mr. Whitted and Mr. Avenaim for standing up in the prior Afd, though I'm sure they are not happy with the way they were treated in the 2nd AfD. In fact, Mr. Avenaim, I'm sure is on a "hit list" by at least one admin from the 2nd AfD and I'm sure his Wiki entry will have to soon withstand scrutiny of an AfD for standing up for a colleague. Perceptions are everything. Perhaps "adminship" should include proper sensitivity training like judges undergo for understanding when to recuse themselves or to ensure complete freedom from all prejudice and favoritism. Unfortunately pride and egos usually prevail. Did I say, perceptions are everything?72.191.15.133 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & Update While it may be common place for admins to give little or no weight to unregistered users in AfD's, no admin should delete valid resource links during an ongoing AfD that could save an "existing" article that has passed a previous AfD years before. Mr. Whitted chose not to join Wiki as a user, but gave his name and government email address, as many people do not want to join anymore sites than they have to, perhaps for privacy reasons or even spam, which Wiki fights everyday. One supporter even registered and gave his name, but because he was "new" less weight was given. Last I knew, Wiki was not "you have to register to view," as it's for public use and the public should be able to keep anonymity if they so choose--especially those that give donations. The weight should be in the validity of the argument or statements. Spam is obvious as is common sense. The said article did not change in those two-plus years. The said article went before a second deletion only after an admin decided to quietly remove an article by personal choice and when challenged, the article went before a second AfD. During the second AfD, the supporters all expressed that the sources were there, and when provided, the admin recommending the deletion, deleted the sources immediately and then blocked the edits. Even a link, here on Wiki, from a bona fide and respected university, the University of Texas, San Antonio lists Gomez as notable, [46] alumni--omitting this link as a valid resource is the same as saying articles on Wiki or not valid? This was one link deleted that did not meet the admin's requirement of a valid resource--it's a Wikipedia reference link! Even Wiki listed, and notable photographer Jerry Avenaim, [47] posted as a registered user and his input was given little weight and discredited. These are credible sources already in use for other approved Wiki notable photographers. If the admins had just updated the article with the new sources, it not only met Wiki requirements, but reinforced what was already there. Because of whatever reason, the admin spent more time debating the article instead of updating as Wiki recommends for existing articles to remain. Basically, the admin was counter-productive, not pro-active, which seems simliar to Stifle's attitude toward many of his decisions. Wiki unfortunately becomes a place of "admin" anarchy with this attitude, which unfortunately deteriorates the intent of the Wiki concept. Hopefully Wiki will return to the state of un-biased admins and not admins with egos and pride influencing their decisions. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Even if the supposed "canvased" !votes are taken into consideration, the policy based consensus is clearly to delete and there was no procedural error in the AfD that I can see. The closing admin was entitled to close with a delete. DRV is not a rerun of the AfD and the arguments being presented here now were all run through in the AfD anyway. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As mentioned before, it's not so much the canvassing accusation as it was that credible sources, including those listed on Wikipedia and used on other photographer's on Wikipedia, were deleted during the AfD process. A fair AfD process doesn't include deleting a topic on lack of credible sources while at the same time those sources are being deleted during the AfD process. How can an admin delete on the fact "X" was missing and when "X" was presented, that same admin deletes "X" because of personal reasons? Basically, the deletion comments were based on lack of sources, though those sources, when entered into the AfD were deleted and their edits blocked. Here is the list of sources now on one page, [48] Are they spam? No. Are they credible? Yes. They include actual copies of third-party, with nothing to gain, magazine articles and other credible sources--including a Wikipedia page from a credible, State funded university, the University of Texas. Is it proper to delete a credible source during an AfD process when that source (link) is an actual, undisputed Wikipedia entry of a University? I hope not. Editing during an AfD process to protect an admin's "opinion" that causes false opinions from other editors/admin is like tainting a jury on your side, or in better terms, tampering with evidence, aka, misconduct. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These points have been made already, and I don't believe they represent a procedural error in the AfD Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So deleting a link, a link right here to a long standing Wiki page itself, during an AfD discussion that could impact the outcome of an AfD is then what kind of error? Is this the way to conduct an AfD properly? Should editors be allowed to remove links during and AfD discussion so it would influence their AfD nomination in their favor? Let's hope not. Let's say we agree with your reasoning, then how do we correct the latter since the deletion was closed and locked as soon as five days happened which prevented further discussion? If the admin would have allowed time to better source the topic, which he agreed was all it needed, then by simply using the {{Closing}} tag, the article could have been saved from deletion as it had already existed on Wiki for over two years. Wikipedia's guidelines also state for repeated nominations, "If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." Time would have a made a great difference here. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it is hard to judge this without seeing the page itself, and while I don't want to endorse the view that deletion is fine because admins give low credence to IP editors (that should never be the case, articles should be judged on merit alone), on reading the above material, and in particular, this page, I'm not convinced notability is adequately asserted. Personally, I think it better for the article relisted and reviewed, but only weakly so. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I applaud the efforts of ridding wikipedia of truly unnotable subjects but this doesn't seem to be one of them and the alarming discrediting of all anons seems a bit bitey at best. Closer stated that concerns had not been addressed yet they had been with many sources and notability issues directly addressed. It may not have been a clear keep but neither was it a delete. We need to be more welcoming to newbies, they are here to build good articles as well. -- Banjeboi 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The primary reason given for deletion was a lack of sufficient, credible sources. But the sources which had been originally posted were deleted prior to the 2nd AfD. So yes, the resultant listing lacked sufficient sources. But that is solely because they had been deleted prior to the discussion. The original article contained many credible source listings. To purposely delete sources and then argue for the deletion of the article because it lacks those same sources defies logic and is inexcusable. This action is undeniable, and by itself should be reason enough to overturn the deletion and reinstate the article. But in addition, the admin and opponents demonstrated a personal bias, resorting to false accusations (I know I was not canvassed for support) rather than argue substantive points. The process was faulty and valid attempts to defend and improve the article were circumvented. Given the way this entire process was handled, reinstating the article is the only reasonable action to take. -Agletp (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. I see no procedural problem with the AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:08, 1

December 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment Here is a link that perhaps would explain what you missed, [49] The procedural problem was that invaluable links were provided during the 2nd AfD discussion that the original admin, Ryulong, would delete during the discussion so no one would see them, including a link here on Wikipedia that lists Gomez as notable from the University of Texas, San Antonio [50] (apparently Wikipedia is not considered a credible source) and a link to the Lexar Elite Photographers [51] yet the similar Lexar link that acts as a credible source for Jerry Avenaim's Wiki page is acceptable? (double standards) I will add, in that link and the various other links, including a copy of the article [52] written by Alice Miller, the editor of Studio Photography magazine at the time, Gomez is mentioned as being selected by the Dept. of Defense as one of the Top Five military photographers in the world in 1994. Now that is only three of many links that were deleted during the 2nd AfD discussion immediately as they were added and even several links were deleted from the article itself before the AfD by the admin in question. Of course the two-plus-year-old article was "speedy deleted" by Ryulong after he deleted links in it and when confronted, it went before a 2nd AfD and Ryulong would delete and block the credible links presented, some were in the original article, like those three above, and would only allow the remaining links he chose to stay during the review. His reasons, ironically, for the deletion was no credible resource links. Not only is this blatantly wrong, but an abuse of admin power. The original article in it's state before the nomination for 2nd AfD should have been considered, along with all the links provided during the 2nd AfD. Unfortunately all links, were not allowed during the 2nd AfD discussion to appear anywhere and were blocked. Thus the article appeared, during the 2nd AfD to not have proper sources. Is this the proper procedure you claim was correct? --72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While doing further research, the Wiki article on Gomez had a link proving that he was in fact one of the original 30 world-wide Lexar Media's Elite Photographers chosen six years ago and still at present as Lexar updates the list by removal and addition yearly. This link was removed from the article before the 2nd AfD by the admin who called for the 2nd Afd and also removed and blocked from the article during the 2nd AfD discussion--during the discussion--so those few that voted against it never saw it. Of note, the same Lexar [53] link is used in at least two notable photographers listed here on Wikipedia, Jerry Avenaim [54] and Greg Gorman [55]. Avenaim's page also lists as a reliable source two articles on him by journalist Jason Schneider who also authored the article on Gomez for Leica World News [56] and Avenaim's page also lists an article authored by Studio Photography editor Alice Miller who authored an article [57] on Gomez too. Again, when the 2nd AfD was being debated on the Gomez article, the admin who brought the 2nd AfD would delete and block these "credible & independent" links during the AfD debate--if they were judged on Avenaim's and Gorman's Wikipedia pages as credible sources, why not Gomez's page? Why were they not allowed to be included in the article before and during the 2nd AfD? These are at least three independent articles (credible sources) deleted and not allowed to be considered during the 2nd AfD. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The removal of people's opinions in a discussion is not a good path to deciding a consensus. I have been editing for over three years, and I have never seen a move like the one pulled by Ryulong (which I'm sure was well-intentioned) be supported by a Wikipedia consensus. A relisting seems necessary. (Full disclosure--I was asked to participate in this discussion , but I assure you if I had stumbled across this I would have had the same opinion.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can I get a copy of the article in User:Miranda/Gomez, since I am a non-admin and can't see the article? If overturned, I probably can improve the article's notability. Thanks. miranda 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there are no BLP issues claimed, I've restored a copy to your suggested subpage in your userspace. Kuru talk 02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Miranda, here is a link [58] to one of many outdated copies found on Google of the originally approved Wikipedia pages still carried by many sites (notice the deletion notice) and a link [59] to his most current bio. The links would have to be updated and the article revised with a more modern Wiki template, but most are found here on this page [60] of links to links, I would not just put a link to the links page on Gomez's article as that page specifically lists links to other sites that are credible and were used to justify Avenaim and Gorman here on Wiki too. You are amazing to step up to the plate, in the 2nd AfD many, including the original admin basically stated that's all the article needed, though they didn't do a thing and deleted the links as they were added during the discussion. Regardless, I hope the article is overturned and relisted so you can do your magic. If that happens, then I might regain my faith in Wikipedia again and start being a regular editor and contributor and shoot for admin status someday. Thanks! --72.191.15.133 (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While there is a clear potential conflict of interest going on here, he does however appear to have been covered by various people and is a significant player in his area expertise. It appears that this conflict of interest issue (and his newbie attitude towards wikipedia) has clouded people's opinion of this article in ignoring what sourcing there has been. Mathmo Talk 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion - but for the record, am noting that I was asked here to comment on this. I'd suggest someone tries to salvage both an article and a potential editor from this - maybe a userspace version could be provided if an account was created? Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion - like the above, I was asked on my user talk page to comment on this, but because of the circumstances, I'm not going to !vote, but I do want to say that it is more important to concentrate on the content itself than conflicts of interests and other fluff surrounding it that can be fixed by regular processes. Celarnor Talk to me 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - as with others, my input was solicited here. I certainly place no fault with the deleting admin, as articles with marginal notability and a demonstrated conflict of interest that then have a flood of new users comment in an AFD muddy the waters enough to hide productive debate. After really digging through the history here, I certain think there's enough material to make a case for inclusion, and another run through the process will not hurt. Hopefully we can facilitate a discussion on the facts and avoid the appearance of impropriety. Kuru talk 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This article should have been updated with proper sources, not deleted. There is more than enough sources to establish notability and should have never been challenged for a 2nd AfD to begin with. Wikipedia lately has been too trigger happy with cliques of deletionists. Let's get Wikipedia back to what it once was and doing this article justice would be a step in the right direction. I've witnessed Wikipedia in the past five year deteriorate with deletion tactics like this before and sadly it's making Wiki look like a political gamescape. --205.245.23.164 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My hat is off to the admin who chooses to close this discussion. As for the topic, this seems to be a detailed bio on Rolando Gomez. Also see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. N probably isn't the main issue on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 02:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This is what I see with Wikipedia today. Join, edit articles, get recognized, edit more articles, get nominated for admin, edit articles, make admin, delete articles, get recognition for being an admin with barnstars, the apply for the arbitration committee. Let's get back to Wikipedia not Wikidelete. This article should have never been deleted, it has more credible sources than most photographers listed on Wikipedia with it's first entry before it's 2nd nomination. Wikipedia is out of hand with deletionist, those that make admin with power. Inclusionist are those wanting to become admins. Back to Wikipedia the way it was in the early days. Simply put, overturn. --71.41.235.48 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I don't know anything about this article, except what is written above, But I can't understand all this deletionism. Is Wikipedia running low on disk space? Buy a new hard drive! The only reason to delete something like this is if it's an obvious promo for a non-notable individual.Likebox (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

De Sitter invariant theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|Actual AFD)

Overturn The closing admin would not discuss the close when contacted by Geometry guy but instead responded with curt comment. Ending the AfD was both premature and faulty. People were still discussing it, and the delete decision was faulty. There was no consensus to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaszk (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own deletion. From WP:OLD: "You can still add your comments to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time." As such, there is no prohibition in policy against closing an AFD when there are recent contributions to the AFD. The deletion was, in any case, not premature. The consensus, based on the comments there at the time I closed the AFD (and there was one added afterwards) was that the article should be deleted, and I closed accordingly. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While I respect the work that Stifle does in closing deletion discussions, it is reasonable to expect that someone who closes over 20 discussions in less than 10 minutes may make some mistakes. In this case, Stifle deleted a redirect, because the article had been moved during the discussion. When I pointed this out, no effort was made to reconsider an obviously hasty decision. Instead the editor has now pointed me to a statement that did not exist until 45 minutes ago. This is extremely disingenuous behaviour for an admin.
    Although Stifle could not have taken into account the edit I was making while closing the discussion, the closure was clearly premature. Many of BenRG's objections do not align with policy (even though I agree with many of his points) and User:Count Iblis had made a reasoned objection that had not been dismissed. Furthermore, many of the comments were out of date as the page had been moved (and the closing admin had not appreciated this page move), and discussion was ongoing. Geometry guy 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept that I modified my talk page instructions during the discussion, but what was there beforehand also said that I preferred people to just bring their issue straight here if they disagree with my AFD closures, rather than taking up matters on my talk. In any case, that is tangential to this discussion, which is a discussion about whether or not the deletion process was followed; as I asserted above, I feel it was. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Count Iblis, he made two comments in the original AfD. I think the first one was adequately answered by Headbomb and Jitse Niesen. The second was "Yes, but the theory that this wiki article is about seems to be founded on some Lie-algebra described in the link I gave above. I think one can have a wiki article that explains this formalism in detail and then mentions that a few physicists claim that the theory can account for dark energy." As Jitse Niesen mentioned, we already have an article de Sitter space in which to describe the mathematical properties of the space; Wikipedia articles aren't meant to stand on their own. We can't mention that a few physicists claim that this theory can account for dark energy because the claim has no credibility. It's not much different from claiming that differential calculus can explain dark energy. I do think that de Sitter space could stand some expansion. -- BenRG (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My attempt to post my edit has been reverted, twice. It would have been much simpler to add a comment like "This edit was posted after the discussion was closed", as is standard in most fora, such as WP:RfA. My assessment can be found here. I have (perhaps only temporarily) undeleted de Sitter invariant theories so that other editors can assess the deletion in the light of the AfD, the article, and my comment. However, I fully understand that deletion review is about the decision to delete based on the consensus at AfD. Geometry guy 21:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the sake of completeness, it was SoWhy who reverted it, rather than me or anyone else involved. Not suggesting in the slightest that Geometry guy was inviting people to infer that, merely that it should be noted. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies for not making that clear. See User talk:SoWhy#Reversion of post close AfD comments. Geometry guy 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To respond to your reverted edit: "Mathematically, the basic idea seems to be to study spacetime as a manifold by replacing tangent spaces and affine connections (modelled on Minkowski space) by Cartan connections modelled on de Sitter space." Yes, and surely you agree that that makes no sense on the face of it (it's mathematically fine but has no physical content). "[Wikipedia's] job is not to describe The TruthTM but to document human knowledge according to reliable sources." Look at intelligent design versus biological evolution. For every pro-evolution book that gets published there's going to be a pro-ID rebuttal. Do we teach the controversy? No, we give the scientists the last word, because they're right. In this case there are no responses from the equivalent of the pro-evolution side because nobody cares enough about this work to rebut it. The lack of interest in the papers is why we shouldn't and can't have an article about de Sitter relativity—shouldn't because it's not notable, and can't because there are no sources for the correct side of the debate. "I counted at least 12 references in peer reviewed mainstream journals." Are these papers that specifically discuss "de Sitter relativity", or just papers about de Sitter space? "There is no doubt in my mind that de Sitter invariant theories have been studied and are well documented by reliable sources." This comes back to my complaint below about renaming an article to a random page from WP:WANTED. I still think we should delete this particular article under whatever name it gets moved to. -- BenRG (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (technically, I endorse deletion). This article is poor shape, mostly consisting of lots of reference, with a sketchy summary presentation. From the AfD, it's clear that even the experts, who definitely understand more about this than I do, agree that the topic is unclear and that the presentation is poor. This seems to be a collection of related fringe theories (fringe from the physical, rather than the mathematical perspective) with strongly contested applicability to reality, but Wikipedia does cover such theories when sufficient sources exists. Some editors declared the current text unsalvageable, so the decision to delete was within the closing admin's discretion. Instead of generating more heat over procedural matters here, some light over this topic can be created by improving the article in user space. Collaboration is not limited to article space, and the editors that contributed to the AfD are more numerous than those that edited the article... Pcap ping 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I agree with Geometry guy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (preferably, re-close) (changed to "close DRV as moot", see below). Administrators should always be willing to explain the decisions they make. I do not consider Stifle's statement that "The consensus, based on the comments there at the time I closed the AFD (and there was one added afterwards) was that the article should be deleted, and I closed accordingly" an explanation; that's just saying what it means to close an AfD as "delete". I'm looking for an explanation how Stifle determined that the consensus was to delete, what the arguments were and how much weight they were given. An administrator who is not willing to explain the decisions made when closing AfDs should not close AfDs.
    As for the closure itself, it can probably be argued both ways. I find the "delete" arguments fairly weak, but they got quite some support. I'm only saying "relist" because I think that Stifle's decision should not be allowed to stand without any further explanation, but in fact I'd prefer it if another admin had a look at the discussion and closed it according to his/her opinion. I agree with Pcap that it's more important to work on the topic than to re-run the AfD. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to gain better consensus. Not that many people participated the first time round. --Salix (talk): 01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist/or just recreate I think we have enough editors interested in the fate of this article to make a new draft that isn't a complete trainwreck. That's probably the easiest solution around this problem. I want to make a comment in Stifle's defense in regard to the discussion of the deletion, though. He deletes a lot of articles (I don't mean volume per day, just total deleted) and he may face a number of discussions which are simply unresolvable. If he closes an AfD as delete and someone wants the article kept, asking him to reverse the decision presents no room for compromise--or at the very least is likely to end in the article being sent to AfD. Any conversation about the article that isn't asking him to reverse his decision seems pointless. I don't think it is a sign of intransigence or belligerence to simply direct people to DRV at the start. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The !votes for Delete appear to be little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article is clearly not hopeless and could easily be rewritten to meet Wikipedia standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm afraid I created the wrong impression with all my complaints about the wrongness of de Sitter relativity. I don't think that articles should be deleted for being wrong. I think this article should be deleted because (a) it needs a complete rewrite to accurately characterize de Sitter relativity, and (b) the rewrite can't be carried out because there aren't enough sources. The only nontrivial sources of information on this subject are from its proponents, so any article written from the sources is going to come out in favor of the subject, which is inappropriate in this case. I have no opinion about reopening the deletion discussion. If it is reopened I'll copy this comment there. -- BenRG (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that I think the move to "de Sitter invariant theories" was inappropriate. As far as I know people do study field theories in de Sitter space and we could have an article on that, but that has nothing to do with "de Sitter relativity" as described in these papers (despite what the authors and Delaszk believe). De Sitter relativity should not even be mentioned in an article about physics in de Sitter space, much less be the focus of it. I'd rather discuss this article as though it still had its original name—otherwise people could always avoid deletion by renaming their article to something from WP:WANTED. -- BenRG (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no arguments for keeping the material were presented, and reasonable arguments against keeping it were presented. (My !vote in the AfD would probably have been to restore the original copy of de Sitter invariant theories, leaving the copy/paste and history merge of de Sitter relativity deleted, and renominate that article for deletion. There's no content in any version of de Sitter relativity which needed to be kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn + Comment: Freeman Dyson discussed this very well, and I think his article might be the original source. He made the comment sometime in the 1960's or so that the Galilean group is physically fishy, because it decomposes as a semidirect product of rotations and boosts, and therefore should be replaced by the simple Lorentz group, which is much more natural. He then said, "all of them missed it", meaning 19th century people. He then asked, perhaps we should replace the Poincare group, which is a semidirect product of Lorentz transformations and translations, with a simple group, and noted that DeSitter space is the natural outcome of this type of reasoning. He mused that if people had done this, perhaps they would have discovered General Relativity earlier. I am racking my brain to remember the source, but Dyson's work is not obscure. Somebody will know. I think the original Dyson article should be the source, and the bad writing could be replaced.Likebox (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that your suggestion would turn the article into something quite different. This is kind of what I was complaining about above: it seems silly to move the article to a subject on which a good article could potentially be written and then argue that it shouldn't be deleted because a good article could be written on that subject. The article was originally called "de Sitter relativity" and was about a specific narrow subject that is called de Sitter relativity by its proponents and which I don't think is notable, or even physically coherent. I still think we should delete that article, under whatever name, and then worry about writing another one. -- BenRG (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • De Sitter invariant theories is too broad and would take forever to survey so for right now, I'm going to follow BenRG's suggestion and stick to the original premise. The article has been moved to de Sitter invariant special relativity. Not quite the same title as original but more appropriate to the content of the page. I still maintain that it is notable in its own right given the number of journal aricles. It doesn't have to come down in favour of the theory. All it has to do is describe what the authors say about it. Delaszk (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you folks are saying, but you must remember that Wikipedia's quality standards have improved a lot, which means that a lot of articles that used to be crappy have gotten much better as more people came across them and edited them. A major spur to editing is that there is a page on a subject already, but it isn't very good. If you apply the current high Wikipedia standards to new articles, you will end up deleting a lot of articles that have potential to be very informative. I believe that if this page is left alone for a while, it will get better, because Dyson's article is very good, and it will get inserted at some point. The modern attempts to keep the idea alive are probably less notable, but they are interesting too in some sociological way.Likebox (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as in acoord with the AfD. If someone else writes a different article on this subject, that would be fine; but the present one is incoherent illiterate apologetic. (According to de Sitter relativity may explain dark energy...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have misquoted that sentence. It doesn't say "According to de Sitter...", it says "According to [1] de Sitter ...". Your tag of "incoherent illiterate" is due to not reading the number [1] as part of the sentence. I will change it to make the meaning clearer. As for calling this apologetic - this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. In the AfD there were complaints that this shouldn't be treated as fact but as the the theories of the authors. Anyway it is quite right to use the phrase "According to". This is not established facts but theories that are being discussed here, and tentative theories at that. The authors make it clear that this is not necessarily the whole explanation of dark energy but that the kinematics of de Sitter space contribute at least some of the expansion. The papers are full of tentative statements and it is only right that the article reflects this. From "Is Physics Asking for a New Kinematics?": "In contrast to ordinary special relativity, which seems to fail at the Planck scale,"; "The question is not new — there are theoretical arguments suggesting that the Poincare symmetry might break down at ultra–high energies." Then there's the title of the article "Possible Kinematics". The wording of the article isn't apologetic, it is describing what the authors of these papers have said. Delaszk (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Is that what that was supposed to be? Anybody who uses that method of citing sources - especially without the mandatory comma before de Sitter - is not writing English. Come back when you have an English text, without special pleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as to "de Sitter invariant theories" and, not that it was DRV requested but, relist "de Sitter relativity" as AfD2 at AfD1 - While the de Sitter invariant theories article was timely tagged for deletion,[61] the article was not listed at AfD until the AfD discussion was three days old.[62] Thus, overturn as to de Sitter invariant theories. Regarding de Sitter relativity, that seems to be what the participants in this DRV discussion are addressing. The AfD discussion for de Sitter relativity was proceeding as a clear delete. However, Delaszk's redirecting the de Sitter relativity article 3+ day in to the discussion was without consensus and disrupted the discussion. The discussion participants prior to the redirect never really discussed de Sitter invariant theories and the ones after the redirect did not address the article listed for deletion but rather addressed a mixture of the listed article in combination of other text. Since the discussion was redirected to discussing a topic not originally listed at AfD before the 5 days ran, de Sitter relativity should be restored to its pre redirected state and relist de Sitter relativity at AfD2. Following process requirements is important because it is how people who wind up on what momentarily feels like the losing side come to accept the outcome of the process. The AfD for both articles were out of process and I think the better approach is to take the steps I outlined above. -- Suntag ☼ 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted There is no point reverting the article to a previous state. There is nothing in the guidelines that says that an article should be frozen if it is nominated for AfD. I have continued to work on the article since the AfD started and Likebox has now substantially rewritten the article. If someone thinks the current article should be deleted then let them start a new AfD, but don't start an AfD just for the sake of it, that would just be a waste of time. Delaszk (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guide to deletion suggests not turning the article into a redirect during the discussion. The results of turning the de Sitter relativity article into a redirect during the AfD discussion appear to have disrupted that discussion. The Guide to deletion also suggests not moving an article during the discussion. Your move of the DRV nominated "de Sitter invariant theories" to "de Sitter invariant special relativity" during this DRV discussion may have injected confusion this DRV discussion. Through the redirect and move, the "de Sitter invariant special relativity" article may have received enough material from the AfD articles that if this DRV is closed as deletion endorse, then it is possible that the closer may choose to delete de Sitter invariant special relativity and its redirects, making each subject to G4 speedy deletion. Alternatively, if the AfD close is endorsed by this DRV, the material from "de Sitter invariant theories" and "de Sitter relativity" would be removed from article namespace. The de Sitter relativity redirect appears to have been against the consensus at the time it was made. On thinking about it, it may be a waste of time to start an AfD2. Perhaps AfD1 should be relisted for another two days to allow discussion to continue to completion to decide what to do with the de Sitter relativity content. I revised my position above. -- Suntag ☼ 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-referential Comment on this discussion: The reason people wanted to delete this article is because they didn't understand the theory, and didn't bother to learn it before nominating it for deletion. The closing of the deletion was based on the less than satisfactory writing style, and I think it's because the original author speaks English as a second language. While I don't think that this theory is correct, it is like the LeSage ether, an interesting idea which has its place in history and in the literature. It is, in my opinion, more plausible as physics than doubly special relativity or Large extra dimensions. There is absolutely no objective way in which this article is less notable than any of the dozen or so other notable proposals for new physical laws in the last few decades.Likebox (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is on a notable topic, and it has been substantially rewritten. It should be evaluated anew.Likebox (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just saw that the article has been rewriten. There are no valid grounds for deletion anymore, so this DRV and any possible relisting for AFD is moot. Count Iblis (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now imagine I hadn't happened to stumble across this discussion. This article would have been deleted, and this stuff would never appear in Wikipedia, because the same band of people would gang up to delete it again and again every time anyone tried to write about it. This kind of bullshit is probably happening to hundreds of articles. Articles with sources getting deleted? What's the point?
Why not make a policy: to delete, a discussion should be unanimous minus 3--- (the writer, his buddy, and his sockpuppet), or by something like a 60% vote if there are lots and lots of contributors. As far as I can see, it's at the whim of any deletion crazed administrator right now.Likebox (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but I think this case is quite rare. The closing Admin does not just count votes, but has to read the arguments. A mere content dispute is no reason to delete an article. In this case, the article was close to be wrongly deleted because it was written in a way that emphasized the fringe points while the not so fringe points like the de Sitter algebra was only mentioned in a single sentence. Then the fact that an article on "de Sitter Cosmology" already exists further confuses the matter. And then the physics expert BenRG comes along arguing in favor of deletion.
So, that's a lot of simultaneous unusual circumstances. Compare this with e.g. a topic like Global Warming. The article Global warming gives the scientific perspective, but the global warming sceptics have complained that criticism is deliberately left out. But then the criticism is not peer reviewed and the article must focus on the science. Then someone created the article Global warming controversy. That article survived two AFDs, most people who are strongly in favor of only allowing peer reviewed articles as sources for the main global warming article voted against deleting the article on the controversy.
There are many more similar examples. This is how wikipedia is supposed to work and usually it does work this way. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I don't buy it. This is not a rare case.

Look at the discussion right above this one on Rolando Gomez. It's been closed now (as a keep), but read it--- it's instructive. Also read the article. His article went throught the exact same process: deletion, agony, submitting for deliberation, etc. Is anybody better off if there is no article on this person?

Is Wikipedia running out of disk space? Do they want people to chip in for a new hard drive?

I don't think closing admins are conscientious. I think "deletionism" is something that stupid and jealous people do because they are upset that "so and so has a wikipedia page and I don't" or "such and such has a wiki page and I don't like it". It's pure evil. It harms everybody.

In this case, read the original DeSitter relativity article: aside from a few well intentioned mistakes, nothing in there was fringe. It only operated under the assumption that the reader already knows what the De Sitter algebra is. It reads as fringe only to people who don't like the theory. But then, what are these people doing overriding a bunch of references and the patient effort of the original author?

"Global warming skeptical opinions" should definitely have a page. It shouldn't even be an issue. Don't these people remember that global warming itself was viewed just as skeptically only a few decades ago? Same with intelligent design, which by the way is often very different from creationism.

I think it should take a unanimous opinion of, say, five uninvolved admins, to delete an article. Think about it. Deletion is no work. Creation is hard work. Why would you allow easy frivolous deletion?Likebox (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next, I would like to call attention to the case of David Krikorian, two debates up. He is a pretty notable politician--- he made the ballot in Cincinnatti. He lost the election, but so what. So did Alf Landon. are we going delete Landon's page next? His Wikipedia page was deleted in a split decision probably for political reasons. This is censorship.
I tried to recreate Krikorian's article, but was blocked from doing so. This is not the policy of Wikipedia--- this is the policy of the Soviet Union. I deplore this effort to rid wikipedia of "non notable" topics. It should be stopped immediately. It's an excuse to stop Wikipedia from serving it's mission.Likebox (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my statement above--- in the end Krikorian's article ended up recreated. Next I will call attention to "awesome color", a band which has an album and a review of this album in a pretty notable magazine.
"Arnolds" was presumably either a list of people named Arnold, or an article on the fictional restaurant from the TV show "Happy days". I cannot recreate it because I have no expertise, but that's another bogus delete, in my opinion. That's it for this one day in Wikipedia deletion review history. Three bogus deletes, which would have been four if I didn't fix this article. That's not reassuring.Likebox (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I find out (by reading the deletion review) that "Arnolds" is a Duane Reade in Finland. Why should interested people who do not happen to be perusing deletion logs be prevented from knowing this?Likebox (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yucky. What a messy path to get to where we are today. Which is a possibly viable article that is very different from the one that was AFD'ed. I'm not certain whether or not the article of today should be around. I notice a lot of author repetition among the sources. (Han-Ying Guo and coauthors, U. Moschella and coauthors, and R. Aldrovandi and coauthors appear to be the three main groups in the 2000s, though I'm not certain I've identified the true lead author in all three groups.) So the number of citations, while large, isn't as indicative of notability as it might be, and I'm not an expert on Physics journals to know how significant the ones the papers are appearing in are, but several of them appear to clearly not be first tier (non-English language, various "letters" journals and others appear realistic possibilities for the first tier. I think in the end I believe the original AFD is no longer relevant. I can't tell whether or not relisting is appropriate; I think that should be left to editorial discretion. GRBerry 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GRB asked for my comment about the journals. Articles don't have to be in first tier journals to be valid or important. It is however rue that some journals make a practice of publishing relatively speculative or non-mainstream papers. People in the respective fields know which, but it's hard to document, and does not really prove that everything in them is equally dubious. Most very good stuff is in the very best journals, but some of it can appear anywhere--there's a long tail. The cited papers even in the first version are in respectable journals. The test for a specific paper is the citations to it. In a sense, physics a little special--there is traditionally one single journal at the top (Physical Review Letters), though this may no longer be the case. DGG (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article, though its title appeared to change constantly, did not have a core of well-referenced material on which it could be based. There was an odor of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. It is conceivable that mainstream physics might have taken a wrong turn, and it might have been possible (per Freeman Dyson) to construct general relativity differently. A set of what-ifs do not seem to be enough to build a real article on. The following sentence from the article seems to be typical of the type of presentation used: De Sitter himself suggested that space-time curvature might not be due solely to gravity[3] but he did not give any mathematical details of how this could be accomplished. As the nominator BenRG said, "De Sitter relativity isn't just new or untested, it doesn't even make sense as a theory." I don't object if someone wants to try to create a new article in their user space, and come back to DRV for a second try if they think they have overcome the problems pointed out in the AfD discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit an article I am really puzzled by the above discussion in general, which seems to be focused on he question of whether his theories are correct. I don't think that is the concern of wikipedia. Though this isn't my subject, it's clear from the article and the discussion that his theories are considered unlikely, but have attracted a considerable amount of discussion. That seems to me enough justification for an article. I don't, for example, see the relevance of EdJ's remark just above: the novelty, correctness, or origin of the theories are totally irrelevant to whether there should be an article. Our true concern is that the article represent fairly the current view on his theories, following a reasonable amount of space to explain what they are. That's not a question for AfD. I've seen too many articles brought to AfD when the true matter at issue is NPOV and balance. Of course, it is very much harder to write fair articles on controverted subjects than to simply delete them. DGG (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the topic about which an article should be written? Is it the thing that Freeman Dyson thought was an alternative pathway for relativity? Per WP:NEO we are not supposed to create new terms that aren't in general use. 'De Sitter invariant special relativity' is not a theory ever held by De Sitter, it's something else. This article has now had three titles in a short space of time, which may reflect the slipperiness of the subject matter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What?: What is going on here? Haven't we come to consensus? Or should I say, hasn't everyone come to their senses? There is absolutely nothing non-notable about this article. The subject matter is well defined--- it is the idea that the symmetry group of space is the DeSitter group, not the Poincare group. It has been discussed many times, starting in 1954, going through Dyson in 1972 (in Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society--- a top tier journal), continuing today. There is no NPOV issue, it is a speculative idea, and it is identified as such (and always was). There were a few balance issues regarding the individual articles discussed, those were all fixed. But mostly, the people who were arguing for deletion just never heard of this idea, and couldn't understand it. That's not a criterion for deletion. Have you people gone mad? If you want to delete it, start a discussion. The tag doesn't even belong on the page anymore.Likebox (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close DRV as moot. The article has changed so much after almost two weeks that the AfD is no longer relevant. It does not matter whether we endorse or overturn the closing of the AfD. Even if the closing is endorsed, the current article is sufficiently different from the original one that the result of the AfD is irrelevant and that the current article should go through AfD again if people think it should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Arnolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I listed reasons at Talk:Arnolds as I was instructed by the "this is the delete debate, don't edit" template, but hey, that was deleted too. Short version: the Arnolds is a big enough franchise (30 stores across Finland) to have an article, per "Note that very notable chains do not necessarily exist in multiple countries." in WP:REST. Arnolds is notable. 88.115.125.10 (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - 30 stores across Finland makes Arnolds important, not Wikipedia notable. If what is listed on the company's news page were set out in idependent sources, then Arnolds might have meet the notability requirements. However, those references and the ones listed in the article were reviewed at the AfD and dismissed as not sufficient to meet notability. Two editors switched from keep to delete on closer review of the sources. The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Comment - The way to get the article restored is to use reliable source material not addressed in the AfD in a new draft article. Being a company in Finland, that's probably where the source material is. Maybe post a request at Finnish Wikipedia to have fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolds sourced, then translated and copied to English Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 15:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP;REST is depreciated and not accepted as a guideline on notability. N & CORP are both clear. Notability is conferred by the presence of multiple in-depth non-trivial reliable sources. Having 30 outlets in a country of 5 million people in 415 municipalities that drinks more coffee then pretty much anywhere else in the world is not a sufficient claim to notabiliy to outweigh this requirement. Otherwise Suntag's contribution is your best bet. Endorse own deletion Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close within discretion, proper process followed. MBisanz talk 19:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Spartaz, while Arnolds is described as a "coffee shop" on their website, it certainly sells far more donuts than cups of coffee. And since Finnish people tend to buy their coffee from the supermarket instead of giving up for the Starbucks culture, I can name only one other coffee shop franchise in Finland. Fancy it having an article. Of course that one has to be deleted too; no sources listed, so it musn't be all that notable, right? Oh wait, one outlet in Istanbul. I can already see it raise into other spheres of notability. I think this is ridiculous and WP:IAR is applicable. --88.112.191.83 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Awesome Color (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This band is in criterias. See fr:Awesome Color and Allmusic (album). Sorry I'm not en WP user, so I could not understand the reason for deletion. Xic667 (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Scientology and sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AFD2)

I listed this article for AFD as it was basically original research using primary materials and non-reliable, non-notable sources with the only reliable secondary sourcing being related to tangential material. Initial !votes were keep but I had hopes that editors would begin to see my point. I was rather surprised when the debate was closed as SNOW by a non-admin after only 24-hours and a handful of !votes. Request that the AFD be relisted to allow for adequate discussion. Note that I requested this of the closing editor with no reply. Justallofthem (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support reopening this, as per Justallofthem's argument. I cannot see any WP:RS in the present article that would establish the notability of this topic as defined by the article title. This is not to say categorically that such sources do not exist. But I would like to see some topical sources brought forward by the article's defenders. Jayen466 00:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen - The issue of sources used was raised at AfD1. AfD1 was closed as keep with promises of fixing the article's references. AfD2 was listed ten months later and same issue of sources used was raised again. The keep thrust again was promises to fix the article. As the AfD numbers increase, the promises to fix arguments carry less weight. Even if the outcome likely were keep, I think it important to have the full five days to gauge the communities view on where the topic stands in relation to promises to keep. In addition, looking at the article, few of the sources are independent of scientology. By not limiting content entrance into the article to independent third-party, published sources, the effect may be to make a make a mountain out of a molehill, particularly in the context of the scope of all material on scientology. Without a full five days discussion at AfD2, we'll never know if Wikipedia is making a big deal out of a minor issue. The use of dependent sources avoids dealing with the issue of whether anyone cares about the topic or sufficiently cares about the topic relative to the overall main topic of scientology. Instead, for the most part, the article now presents material for which only a Wikipedia editors can be said to care about. Straight from Hubbard into Wikipedia is not the path the content should take. It needs the intervening effect of third party decisions as to what is important and what is not. If this were AfD1, I would say OK to the snow close. However, we're now at AfD2 addressing the same problem of sources use and receiving the same promises as in AfD1. Cutting short the AfD opportunity for people to voice their displeasure on the lack of progress in the article is not the way to go. -- Suntag ☼ 03:49, 29 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


GC Tooth Mousse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This article should not have been deleted, when I came across the AfD there was the nominator and one other delete vote and I provided what I feel is significant enough coverage to merit an article. After me a single other user (who based on his contribs only spent about 2 minutes considering the situation) came along and !voted delete addressing none of my sources. I would like the article to be reinstated per the following significant coverage:

"The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of GC Tooth Mousse in the treatment of patients with dentin hypersensitivity caused by various factors."

"Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a newly developed tooth-coating crème (GC Tooth Mousse), ....."

"Objectives: To investigate the potential of a commercially available dental crème containing casein phosphopeptide – amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP), ["GC Tooth Mousse" (10% w/v CPP-ACP) (GC Corp, Japan)]"

Its behind a Pay per view portal but given the introduction it is a full length magazine article about the product.
This article is only partially about GC Tooth Mousse, but it is still another two paragraphs of coverage.

I do realize that the article was in poor condition, which probably contributed too its deletion, but if undeleted I will do a bit of work to knock it into acceptable shape. Icewedge (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I appreciate the nominator's wish to improve the article into some sort of valuable article. Why not see where it goes.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per the new sources mentioned above. There is plenty there to create a verifiable aricle. MuZemike (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – There are sufficient sources of sufficient depth (cited above and in the AfD itself) to establish notability as per the general notability guideline, so Icewedge's "keep" rationale effectively counters the "delete" arguments in the AfD. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. AFD is not a court of law or a debating society and one does not win or lose; rather, it is an attempt to determine whether there is a rough consensus that an article should be deleted or not. When there is but a single person arguing for an article's retention against three proposing its deletion, deletion is the correct outcome. Only when the numbers on each side are close or equal should the closing administrator judge which arguments are more based in policy. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There was no procedural error in the AfD and the closure drew a reasonable interpretation of consensus. Per the deletion policy the best approach now is for the requestor to create the article again making sure notability is clearly established ("If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it... show that your new, improved work mets Wikipedia article policies."). Obviously userfication of the page to assist is an option. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 10:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did think about just recreating but I have had my work hit with CSD G4 before (even after more than a year had passed, and this is just a few days) and given the development of the article I think that a simple recreation is not the best option. If a one sentence article with no references gets deleted, that closure contains very little prejudice against recreation, however if a reasonably developed article with several sources gets deleted that does contain some prejudice against recreation. Also, I do assert that the AfD was closed incorrectly. I think that of the options available to Cirt she should have re-listed, I originally went her to request just that (but she declined) as, given that that all the sources were presented after all but one delete vote, consensus had not yet formed on whether or not the sources I found were a valid justification for an article. I feel confident that if it had been relisted a keep consensus would have developed. Icewedge (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and allow recreation - The close was within discretion. In view of the substantial new information above, plus Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, and that experienced editor (first post 12 October 2006) Icewedge plans to work on the article to put it acceptable shape, allow recreation. -- Suntag ☼ 16:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There were already enough references at the time of deletion to support keeping. The closer did not take account of the changes. DGG (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree with Stifle (talk · contribs) and QuiteUnusual (talk · contribs). Will defer to consensus of community. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While I usually respect Cirt's judgement, in this case the arguments should outweigh the headcount. There was a reliable source put forward, and there were no arguments for deletion which addressed that. If there had been an argument made that the source wasn't suitable, that's one thing, but there wasn't anything to oppose it. So, strangely enough, the correct close would've been "Keep", despite the majority of "delete" !votes.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not advocating Overturn since for all I know WLU evaluated sourcing and factored that into his reading of the arguments, which it seems to me an admin has a right to do if his judgment is generally good when doing so. But I comment to reject totally the arguments of Stifle and Cirt, that given this sequence of events discussion should be closed per a headcount. I'm not that bothered that it throws out a major philosophical plank on which Wikipedia operates, but it's so completely illogical and counter to best practice that I can't quite believe they support it. What circumstances, if not this one, does closing become not about a headcount? When the sources are supplied in the third-last comment and not the penultimate one? When there are five involved and not four? The thing makes no sense. You go by the principle that some comments can outweigh others or you don't: you believe the encyclopedia is best served by going by that principle or you don't. 86.44.24.253 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of problems solved by MacGyver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD 2|AfD 3)

Hi I would like to ask for deletion review of this article. I have discussed this with the admin who suggested that I bring this up here.

Many of the delete arguments were based on the idea that the article largely or entirely consists of fancruft. When I go to WP:FANCRUFT and read the very first sentence: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Based on that I don't see how this article could be called fancruft, as it is important even to people (such as myself) who find the actual show unwatchable.

The unique characteristic of the MacGyver character to demonstrate exceptional resourcefulness has transcended the show and even the character. This trait has become a part of ordinary society (in the U.S. at least) to the point where the word "MacGyver" is sometimes used as a verb when discussing situations where resourcefulness is required or demonstrated.

I'd also like to offer admittedly anecdotal information that I feel helps illustrate my point, if one looks at the amazon.com page for "The Unofficial MacGyver How-To Handbook" and looks at the list of other items purchased with the book as well as purchased by the purchasers of the book there is only one item that is actual MacGyver related fiction (6th season DVD set) while most are other books fall unto the resourcefulness category (i.e. "Sneaky Uses for Everyday Things"). I do feel that this helps show that people who find this content important are not necessarily fans of the show but are looking for information on the practice of resourcefulness that the MacGyver character has become the archetypal example of.

Regarding notability, there were several citations of books related to this subject in the AfD debate. The administrator noted these but felt that they did not suitably establish notability. Based on my understating of [[64]] I would think that these cittions should establiish sufficient notability.

In any case another search that is related to the one above but I don't believe is especially anecdotal. Looking at the search results for an amazon.com books search for the word "MacGyver" you will find the first page dominated by resourcefulness guides. Looking at subsequent pages, specifically the excerpts of the various fiction and non fiction books the reference to MacGyver is nearly universally used in reference to being resourceful. Literally dozens of published books showing the word MacGyver in that context with very few using the word MacGyver to refer to the show, the character or even the actor who portrayed the character. Thank You. - Raitchison (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - After the delete close, closer Tim Vickers agreeded to let the article be merged instead of deleted.[65] A. Nobody then merged the material.[66] The merge is identified in the history of List of problems solved by MacGyver by Tim Vickers.[67] -- Suntag ☼ 08:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to go for an overturn to no consensus, because there was none. Although I'm massively against the article, this discussion is about whether the AFD was closed correctly, and I can't conclude that it was. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse the current state of affairs (merged). Stifle (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support overturn to no consensus at least, and the restoration of this article per above, and I think the article should be kept also and would participate in any future AfD, and try to improve the article. Verbal chat 11:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleting admin seems to have merged and or redirected to the main MacGyver article on request. I think that is a suitable solution, but the close needs to be corrected to say no consensus. He correctly noted how three people mentioned several sources that establish the topic as notable, but went on to make a value judgement on their credibility before he closed. There were plenty of solid reasons at either side of the debate, but he didn't seem to have considered a merge when he made the close either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I missed the debate by mere minutes, and was composing a brilliant keep argument that would have been backed up by the very words and policy positions of the most prolific deletionist voice. Had the closing admin known about my intentions, he may very well have closed the discussion as keep. However, he's only permitted to base a decision upon the arguments presented, and I think he made an appropriate call which he backed up with his reasoning. It is entirely appropriate that he weighed the value of the arguments made; otherwise, it would just be a vote. He correctly ignored the repetitive arguments and discounted the ones that merely expressed opinion. In his view (and mine), there weren't any convincing arguments presented about why this information was an appropriate list. I gave the admin a barnstar for a his close, and if it's overturned I will argue to keep the article, but DRV isn't a chance to reargue the merits of the article.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 13:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument seems to go against the some very fundamental policies of Wikipedia:
      • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: Missing a supposed deadline by three minutes should not result in a final decision that cannot be overturned, and it should not be a reason that your keep argument should not be heard. (Personally, I've conviced an admin to relist an AfD that had been already closed as delete after I gave my keep argument.)
      • Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. If the article should have been kept, and you have a strong argument for that, no supposed rule should have prevented you from making that argument.
      • Consensus can change: No decision in Wikipedia is final and any decision is always open to review. If you believe that DRV is not a chance to reargue the merits of the article, then what, pray tell, is the proper forum for determining if consensus has changed regarding an article which may have been properly deleted at the time, but now due to new arguments or information should not remain deleted?
    • I'm assuming that you are telling the truth in that you actually had a strong argument to keep the article, so why not tell us what that argument was, regardless of whether you believe it should have any bearing on the outcome of this DRV? DHowell (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing - given the article has been merged, and this seems to be a sensible compromise, what is the point of this deletion review? PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion relevent content has been merged and the close was good as far as I can see. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn You nutcases! This article was deleted? This is something I tell my friends about. Damn you lot that deleted this.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you believe this diatribe is appropriate to Wikipedia...how exactly? Endorse result. The article is correctly no longer free-standing and whether the closing statement says "delete" or "no consensus" is of little or no concern. Otto4711 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, hi. I'm regularly wicked in AfDs and deletion reviews. I've had bad experiences with this lot and I always get my way eventually. There is a tendency to be inconsiderate towards others' interests when they appear to consist of "garbage" to them. Really, this article has to be resurrected.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — I see nothing wrong with the closing admin discounting WP:ATA arguments and focusing those rooted in policy and guidelines. MuZemike (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to disclose that MuZemike left a sort of note/warning/observation on my talk page. Now, now, uhhh.... now, really? Really, this article could actually be deleted? Notwithstanding the raging pedantry I'm seeing here and I'm sure I would've found in the original AfD were I to read it, isn't this Macgyver-specific article the reason why Wikipedia thrives? Uhhh... I'm feeling noxious dealing with this but really, this article can actually be deleted?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Multiple editors gave examples of reliable sources that discuss precisely the issues here. The fact that many people also called for keeping based on bad reasoning doesn't help matters. There's more than enough sourcing. It appears from the debate that the bad reasons caused editors to react in a negative fashion. That should be a lesson to people: adding in bad logic can hurt your case more than keeping silent. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. That sounds like a sensible decision and not at all incorrect. Anyone around here watched the latest Bond movie? It's awesome. It will make you want to re-watch Casino Royale. Alright, I'm glad consensus is moving along here. I've written an article on the essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" if anyone is interested. Check it out. It needs reviewing and perhaps a little copyediting.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the merge close - If there is consensus on Talk:MacGyver, the merged material can be spunout into List of problems solved by MacGyver. -- Suntag ☼ 08:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I don't like "fancruft" as an argument because it gets under too many people's skin. That's why my original delete !vote was written to avoid this, and why my counterarguments to the keep !votes were written to avoid this, too. Many of the keep arguments were not grounded in policies and guidelines and tended to shrug off WP:PLOT, which insists on a plot summary in the context of real-world context. This article did not accomplish that. It was an indiscriminate collection of every occurrence of the TV series's key gimmick. A half dozen examples on the main TV series article in the appropriate section could have easily given a reader an idea of how MacGyver solves his problems (MacGyverisms). We could easily include the MacGyverism books in a "Further reading" section of the main article since they did not really explore the real-world context, typically explaining the instructions to solving the problem. The books don't merit an article that had 70 kb worth of indiscriminate plot detail... it was specifically titled to be nothing but that. If it was "Problems solved by MacGyver", maybe there would be room for a limited selection backed by scientific plausibility (or lack thereof). Again, this information could be covered in MacGyver#MacGyverisms. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, for my mighty oat somebody better list those books clearly in the MacGyver article. I admit it is better that people pick up those books, but there was no harm in the List Of article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a "Further reading" section with this, but this one does not seem geared toward MacGyverisms specifically. Just talks about instances that are similar to how MacGyver solved problems, and I don't think that there is an explicit comparison. The article also has a couple of "MacGyverism" external links that seem to have even more examples off-wiki, so I still feel that a limited selection in the main article is enough to show readers instances of MacGyverisms. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. I think that represent the state of things-- this was one fiction AfD I did not participate in , because I could not decide my own position on it. In any case, how complete it should be is a qy for the talk page. There has to be consensus to delete--the default is against deletion. DGG (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse well-reasoned and accurate close. WP:ILIKEIT never trumps policy. Wikipedia appeared to be blazing the trail in documenting this subject, which is always a bad sign. This kind of content really belongs on a fan-wiki, not an encyclopaeida, because so little of it is sourceable in the terms used from any kind of reliable source.; virtually any such list will fall into the same trap as most episode guide articles, of being sourced entirely fomr personal observation of the primary sources. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly endorse the current state Whether we like it or not, these are the sorts of articles that make Wikipedia fascinating to outsiders. I would prefer that we have the same article with cited sources and some sign that we aren't the publisher of first instance. If that can be done, this article can and should be spun out. Since it wasn't done at the time of the AfD and consensus there appeared to resolve around merging the content, I can endorse that outcome. We should edit these articles so they can make us proud, not ignore them until the time comes to circle the wagons and "fight the deletionists". That only results in crappy articles and bad blood. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but support undelete/merge the close seems to be well reasoned reading of consensus based on the content of the AfD discussion but there isn't anything in the discussion that would seem to preclude the verifiable information being merged into the parent article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I vehemently disagree. I think this article should be spun out and left to build.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've already made that clear with your above comments. The article had been spun out and left to develop for more than three years without being built up enough for there to be a consensus for it to be kept. Guest9999 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So? The show isn't recent so you're not going to get the same level of participation as for some of the other TV shows. In the next two or three years someone might show up and work it up but if they don't see the article then how are they going to do that?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of users with knowledge of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and a track record of finding good sources for borderline topics have already tried to develop the article without being able to form a consensus accepted article. With this in mind I don't think that currently it would be possible to create such an article. If the situation changes in the future any interested editor can work on the section in the main article which could then be split off or start a new article afresh - as any editor new or experienced can do with any (sub)article. Guest9999 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is outrageous! Given that there is such interest in this topic why aren't there any reliable sources and why if there really aren't any reliable sources isn't some journalist/writer creature creating the reliable source we need? Maybe The New Yorker should be petitioned or some other publication. Yes, let's start a petition.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse current state of affairs. The AFD has already been updated to note the re-merge. Nothing further needs to be done. If future consensus on Talk:MacGyver is that the list has become well-sourced enough to be its own article, then by all means, spin it out. Until then, consensus is clear.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was no consensus to delete in that AFD. And TimVickers appears to be misinformed, because Wikipedia has no "notability policy" — so it's impossible that the comments by "those feeling that the article failed our notability policy" outweighed the comments by those who pointed to evidence of notability (nevermind that the editor who rewrote WP:N and made it a guideline is the same editor who changed WP:DGFA to say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument." — and, like Eris, has apparently left the building.) WP:DGFA and WP:N are both guidelines and WP:ATA is an essay (and a bad one at that). --Pixelface (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Hard to see delete as the consensus on the AfD and even with the merge - which seems to be just a delete 2.0 here - Wikipedia is not better off for removing this. Wikipedia handles pop culture subjects quite well in many cases and this spin-off article certainly seems notable and sourceable. Oodles of pop culture references abound even after the show was canceled. But just sticking to judging the AfD? Not clearly a delete and now the communities' energies have been spent to reiterate what was expressed fairly enough. -- Banjeboi 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion to no consensus (already done) but take no further administrative action with respect to the current redirect and take discussion to Talk:MacGyver about whether this should be a separate article or whether it should be merged as a section of the MacGyver article. I've argued and I believe that reliable sources would support a separate article, but until someone is actually willing to use those sources to build it up perhaps there should not be a separate article and any relevant information should remain in or be merged into the main show article. DHowell (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

American Nihilist Underground Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) | AFD2 | AFD3 | AFD4 | AFD5 | AFD6) Notable: mentioned in Spin, The New Yorker, Houston Press, and numerous death metal publications; controversial (which is why some editors have an axe to grind against it) but notable, especially since it has been on the web since 1993 and active, one of the founding and oldest underground metal sites. death metal maniac (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - the nominator has not demonstrated either a procedural error by the closing admin nor presented any substantive new information that would suggest that the article should be restored. The closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion and as noted DRV is not AFD round 2 (or 8). Otto4711 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, nor is it the job of the closing admin to evaluate sources independent of the analysis given within the AFD. This is not a procedural error. I suggest writing a draft with sources that are substantively about the organization in compliance with WP:N and WP:RS on a subpage of your user page. Note that simply being mentioned in a Top 25 list and the like does not constitute appropriate sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I was the original nominator of this at AfD. During the process the article was completely rewritten. Any consensus that obtained before that rewrite became irrelevant because of the rewrite. Because of the rewrite I withdrew my nomination (by no means expecting this to close the discussion early - one editor one opinion). The fact of the massive rewrite was flagged, and I believed a new consensus had formed in favour of keeping the article. It appears to me, despite the closer giving a rationale on his/her own talk page when challenged, that this was an improperly read consensus and that the deletion should be overturned. The closer has suggested that this be taken to Deletion Review, so I see no further need to negotiate with them. If it is then felt essential a procedural AfD should be undertaken to find a true consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the cache link reflects the "pre-rewrite" version of the article, as originally proposed for deletion, not the version at the close of the AfD, which may now be found at Lists of ships -- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Correct the result but don't relist. Agree with the reasoning; the first delete !votes are in regards to a completely different article than the latter keep-!votes, so any consensus of this discussion could never be determined by comparing the arguments of those batches. But the article has been recreated in the latter state already, so there is no reason to relist it back. But a note should be attached to the article and the AfD that the close itself was not correct judgment of consensus so we don't get G4-taggings and suchlike. Regards SoWhy 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I was the one who closed this AfD. While I personally believe that I interpreted the situation correctly, it is of course possible that I was wrong. I encouraged the nominator to take this to deletion review because I'm not horribly fond of the idea of reversing my own administrative actions when I'm still convinced that they were right. But I would take no offense should another admin like to overturn the deletion without going through all the bureacratic motions and I would not consider it wheel-warring. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rjd0060 correctly relisted the debate because of the major changes to the article and the rewrite was clearly marked within the discussion. None of the comments that came after the changes were in favor of deletion, so the result should be corrected (changed to keep instead of delete) to reflect that. - Mgm|(talk) 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn- the consensus had clearly shifted towards keep after the relist. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn apparently only one person wanted to delete the rewritten version, and didn't give much of a reason. The closing admin doesn't give a reason for this decision. I really hope this isn't just a case of a bean-counting, no-reading AFD close gone embarrassingly wrong... but there seems to be little reason given to delete the rewritten article. The delete comments, except for the late one which contained no argument, were all clearly talking about a fundamentally different version of the article. --Rividian (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing. If I read the logs correctly, the rewritten version was moved to Lists of ships before it was deleted so the only thing deleted was a redirect which has since been recreated. While that makes the deleting admin doubly guilty, for both for misreading the AfD and not noting that the article was not the one under discussion (how can a redirect be an indiscriminant list?), it makes the solution simple. The status quo is fine so there's nothing to do unless someone wants to ammend the AfD (a practice I don't much like) or make sure that things are clear on the articles (new) talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, I think you are correct so far, but I think a correction of the AfD's outcome would benefit us so everyone knows the new list is not against the AfD's consensus and that it cannot be targeted by G4. Regards SoWhy 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support that view (G4 proofing). I also do wonder at the technical parts of the closing of this AfD since the article, bizarrely (and pleasingly) survives! Do admins have some sort of "autoclose" bot that takes the task over, but that needs rather more careful supervision than may have happened here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing per Eluchil404. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Unified Gravity Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Business Listing Guidelines Satisfied


Dear Administrators, There is currently an article selected for deletion and being voted on called Unified Gravity Corporation. Currently there has been a lot of editors dinging the page because they feel it is not notable or has unreliable sources. The talk page cites some published information by the patent office and more importantly peer reviewed physics journal. This company is exploring alternative energy which I feel is a big issue these days and considering the area of energy research (nuclear), couldn't it be notable that this company is trying something different (the tests and tests data found in the patents). Despite what happens with the Unified Gravity Corporation page I just find it saddening that the editors who are requesting the deletion do not recognize a credible organization which are the US patent office and a European Physics Journal. While the content of the material the company is using may be hard to accept, do you feel the company satisfies the guidelines for inclusion. (I checked some of the editors own pages created and many do not have published sources or notbaility). Please advise if you feel I am perceiving the guidelines incorrectly. Thank you for your time. Gravityforce (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marriage Privatization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Marriage Privatization Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (added -- Suntag ☼ 08:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Administators, I am writing to request that a deletion be overturned. I have already attempted to work out the matter with the administrator who deleted the article in question. That administrator recommended that I challenge the deletion here. As you will see per the discussion I had with the deleting administrator, the deleted article did not have any discussion before deletion. It was deleted after only two days, and it was never marked for a speedy deletion. I believe the reason for this is that the article was inadvertently confused, or improperly grouped, with a shorter, related article, which was deleted after the appropriate AFD discussion. Both articles were deleted at the same time, though by different deleting administrators. I am only challenging the deletion carried out for Marriage Privatization. As you will see, the deletion discussion referred to for that article actually pertains to a different previous article. The article in question (i.e. the one that I’m asking you to consider for undeletion) is an expanded article that I wrote in order to address some of the concerns being raised during the AFD review of the first article. I let the reviewers of the first article know that the second was in existence, so that they could take a look and challenge it if they thought doing so was appropriate. No challenges to the second article arose. The topic of the article is “Marriage Privatization.” This is a topic that has been discussed by a variety of writers for over a decade and I provide reliable documentation for the different elements of this decade-long discussion. Many of the writers and forums to whom/which I refer in the article are notable, and are already the subject of separate Wikipedia articles. Again, just to be clear, I am not contesting the deletion of the article titled “Marriage Privatization Model.” I am contesting the deletion of the new and more comprehensive article titled “Marriage Privatization.” Despite similar titles they are substantially different articles with some necessary overlap. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Regards, Hermesmessage (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage[reply]

  • Seems to me that Marriage Privatization was more or less a copy-paste of Marriage Privatization Model (with some changes) as an attempt to make an end-run around the AFD. Endorse deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion under G4 - Writing an article that over comes the AfD reasons for deletion is a reasonable approach. However, DGG wrote at the AfD:

    "Delete. as essay--the sources are very general, LoZ's reason for keeping--that he wants to reference it in an article he wants to write elsewhere, is about as improper reason for an article here as imaginable, and amounts to a clear declaration that its essentially his own original research."

    I don't see how this can be overcome. The best way to go from here is to write a draft article in your user space at User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization and then return to DRV to request that it be moved to article namespace once you are done with the draft.     -- Suntag ☼ 09:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per DGG in the AFD discussion. Their contribution was the crucial voice. No Objection to a better sourced and cleaned up version being restored to article space and history restoration as required. Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Aeropolis 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Please consider my request for undeletion Aeropolis 2001. Now, ja:エアロポリス2001(Aeropolis 2001) is submitted AfD ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/エアロポリス2001 in JAWP. Because ja:エアロポリス2001 and de:Aeropolis 2001 ware translated from en:Aeropolis 2001 which was deleted, these articles have a GFDL problem. In my humble opinion, I read the translated text, but I don't think that the article meet definition of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL #1. The article has worth reading as one of the gigantic construction projects during the period of the japanese economic bubble. Please exuse my poor english. 125.4.73.41 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vulture's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Most of the reviewers said keep, yet the page was deleted 83.240.41.206 (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist I see a good deal of discussion, but no consensus about the exact status of the subject of the sufficiency of the references. Maybe another discussion will help. Given some of the doubts expressed, thee should be some effort towards finding a solution, not a non-consensus close. DGG (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, did you notice the instruction above to discuss the matter with the deleting admin before raising a full debate? No matter, the article I deleted was unsourced and therefore failed core policies of V & OR and the guidelines N & WEB. I can't see how I can have done anything else but delete the thing but, if you can find multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivail way, I will undelete the article on the spot. Otherwise Endorse own deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, given that, what would have been the point of the discussion--another step, and more hurdles, and then it would be right here anyway. DGG (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Wpdms nasa topo olympic peninsula.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache){{subst:[[Template:|[[:|article]]||[[:|article]]]]}})

This file was damaged during the 5 September image loss. It can be recovered on enwiki as a previous copy of this file was deleted here. Please undelete and mark it for transfer to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you! Ukko.de (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

U Card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

See also User:Linda Golden/U Card

I would like to request a History-only undeleltion for my University of Minnesota Stub: U Card. NawlinWiki deleted it because it was blatant advertising. I fixed the advertising aspect of the stub and simply stated the U Card's relation to the University, as well as background information about the card. Since it is a stub I thought it would be noteworthy to note the Campus card as a campus stub page. I know there isn't enough information to make a page, but a stub should work out just fine. The U Card is unique to the University of Minnesota, and not all campuses have the same program for their carding systems. Since it is a stub it is noteworthy and unique to the University of Minnesota. Please look at User:Linda Golden/U Card to examine the updated page. -- Linda Golden 01:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did create a stub with that title, and It was deleted. Now the updated version is on my User page at User:Linda Golden/U Card. I would like my page to be reviewed so that it can meet Wikipedia's standards, and be a stub off the University of Minnesota page as Coffman Memorial Union is. —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of notable people who wore the bowler hat – Result was redirect to Bowler hat and continue discussion at Talk:Bowler hat. I am leaving the content in the history because there is obviously considerable feeling that some of it is useful. I am not leaving the list as a stand-alone article because there is insufficient consensus to overturn a valid AfD. I am not redeleting because, even though most of the list is in the history of Bowler hat, a few additions aren't. There are various options: a better, probably shorter, fully sourced, stand-alone list with much clearer inclusion criteria, a fully sourced, even shorter list as a section at the parent article, or neither. Discussions as to which of those options is best can continue at Talk:Bowler hat. – Chick Bowen 02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of notable people who wore the bowler hat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The list has encyclopedic value, because it supports the article bowler hat by showing this piece of headwear in its social or artistic context in images on (many of) the articles listed. I've reverted bowler hat back to before the split-off so people participating here can see the list for themselves until this discussion is resolved. The AfD was an obvious miscall. It is clearly "no consensus" because the support on both sides (delete vs keep/merge) was almost equal. Also, work was being done to the article, with editors committed to further improving it and it could be revived on that basis alone. Benjiboi captured the essence of the situation. But the closing admin appears to have merely counted the votes without bothering to read or weigh the arguments: because he didn't explain his reasoning. Please take a look. And if need be, I'll chip in to help clean up the list. Please undelete it. Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting bowler hat, it may be better for this discussion to use {{TempUndelete}} on List of notable people who wore the bowler hat. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus- In looking through the AFD, I don't see a clear consensus to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undeleting this would be pointless. The content still exists in the article that it came from, and where it was being challenged on the grounds of verifiability. The fact that you yourself were able to restore that content in that article is evidence of that. Having a non-GFDL-compliant copy in another article is pointless, and restoring it achieves nothing useful. Stop concentrating upon processes and start concentrating upon content. It's saddening to see that none of the people who want this content are actually willing to sit down and work on making the list verifiable in the article where it actually was at the start. This is not editors working on making an encyclopaedia verifiable. Nor are either of the actions taken, both in splitting the content off into a separate article and then bringing that separate article to Deletion Review, the proper ways to respond when verifiability is challenged. Both actions are just wasting time that would be better spent working productively on the original article. The proper way to respond is to cite sources from which the content can be verified, and restore it, discussing on Talk:bowler hat as necessary. Continually side-stepping this discussion, both with article forks and Deletion Reviews, will not help improve the encyclopaedia. Even restoring the content "so that people can see the list" is not actually aimed at improving the encyclopaedia. One can just as easily give a permalink to an older version of the article, without editing the article for purposes of debate, rather than actual improvement. Please focus on actually rising to the challenge of verifiability, and on improving the article that started this so that it is clearly verifiable, rather than wasting so much time with deletion processes. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do my best to improve this encyclopedia. Whether the list is officially restored as a separate page or in the article it was split-off from makes no difference to me. As long as it can't be summarily redeleted as already having been AfD'd, I'm happy. But since it has been AfD'd, that needs to be overturned for it to remain in article space, and so I'm here asking that the deletion be overturned, because clear consensus to delete was not reached in the deletion discussion, and reviewing such discussions is the purpose of this department. The Transhumanist 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You still aren't getting it. It was already in article space, in bowler hat, and the deletion or otherwise of this article does not affect that. This article was just a non-GFDL-compliant copy of part of an existing article, created as an article fork in a misguided attempt to side-step a content dispute over verifiability, when the correct response was to have simply cited sources in the original article where the dispute was. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the permalink you wanted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowler_hat&oldid=253853409 - though it's not as developed as the AfD'd page. I've reverted my restoration of the content, as it was an outdated version of the list anyways. The Transhumanist 02:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus Correct me if wrong, but the list does NOT exist now in the original article. It was deleted. An inferior version exists in older versions of the article, but the sorting of the list I did into categories, and the refs added by Benjiboi are gone. If you know how to restore them, and would do so, please do. I don't mind them in the original article. But I think you're wrong. They aren't there.

    And yes, the list was challenged as to verifiability. And it was pointed out that most of the items were verfied in the Wikis they referenced, often with drawing or photo. A list can be have a significant fraction of WP:redlinks in any case-- there's no worse reference than that! See List of ships for an example. I also gave many others. And by the way, using the {{TempUndelete}} does absolutely no good if somebody has already deleted the article. I think the damage has been permanently done. Thanks a lot for wasting my work, guys. I'd have kept a spare copy, but it never occurred to me that in a place as full of junk as wikipedia, people would be so hot to remove beyond recovery, and against policy, a several-page article. Sheesh. SBHarris 01:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pages don't get deleted, actually. They're still in the database with a deletion tag so that they don't show up in Wikipedia proper. It's an easy matter for an admin to restore the page. The Transhumanist 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong, so here's the correction: The list is in the original article's edit history, and was edited out (not deleted) by editors who asserted that it was not verifiable from reliable sources. Instead of rising to that challenge and citing sources you have (a) edit warred, (b) forked the article to put your preferred content elsewhere, (c) not complied with the requirements of the GFDL when creating that fork, (d) made massive assumptions of bad faith about the other editors that were challenging the content, (e) misportrayed an ordinary verifiability dispute as a size issue, (f) misportrayed the deletion of this list article as somehow being a consensus to exclude the building of a verifiable list in bowler hat, and (g) failed to learn from all this, despite my encouragement to learn that forking is not the way to respond to a verifiability challenge.

      You're also wrong about what constitutes good sourcing in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source for itself. The edit summary in the very first verifiability challenge linked to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please read it.

      As for wasting your work: You did that yourself. You don't get to blame anyone else but yourself for this. You have brought this entire episode down on yourself. I told you at the start what would happen, because it's what does happen, and what has happened time after time in the years that I've been here. You forked an article out of a content dispute, and your fork got deleted. The correct response to a verifiability challenge is to cite sources to show that the content is verifiable. This would have involved editing the original article (without simply revert-warring) to re-grow the list, picking the content out of the edit history as sources were found, citing sources along the way to show that each entry on the list belonged on the list. (I observe from this diff, that you didn't even show that individual entries were verifiable in your fork.) If you had done that, your work would not have been wasted, and neither AFD nor Deletion Review would ever have been involved. By doing what you did, you caused all of this, wasted the time of both yourself and a lot of other editors, both in deletion and in checkuser/blocking/unblocking, and ended up without the article improvements to bowler hat that you could have done quite a lot of by now.

      As I have said several times, now: Please learn from this experience. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Learn what, Uncle G? You've quoted no good policy; only your own preferences. In WP:LISTS nowhere is it required that individual members of a list in a list-article have their own references inside the article, or that some reference is even supplied to verify the list itself. Indeed, because of the essential categorization and summary nature of lists, to require individual unit verification would be to require that subarticles on Wikipedia retain all their internal references in the main article, when spun off and summarized. That way lies disaster, and fortunately, as per WP:SS, it’s not policy. Again, there is no requirement that each and every member of a list (or even ANY member of a list) be cited and verified within a list article, or else the whole list must be deleted.

        Thus, the idea that deleted work on an article I did, was my own fault for not recognizing a policy which you seem to have just made up on the spot, is outrageous.

        Subarticle creation may sometimes not be the way to respond to verifiability challenges in general, but it’s certainly a handy way to respond to somebody who has a esthetic problem with a large embedded list (see WP:EMBED) section that he thinks (erroneously) requires a reliable source for it to exist AS A SECTION. This, since list articles even more clearly require no such thing (all they need is a LEAD—there is no policy as to what fraction of their contents require references). And creating a list as a subarticle and stand-alone list article, also solves the space problem, in which an embedded list is taking over a main article (this happens routinely; I can give examples and have). The original complaint in Bowler was (per edit summary from JBsupreme): “removing section which is not specifically attributed to a reliable third party source WP:RS).” But that reasoning contains a premise which is simply false: A section does NOT need to be attributed to a reliable third party source: only the elements of it do, and those must fall or stand individually, not by removing the entire section. That is particularly true of stand-alone LIST-articles, as I have made clear: only their elements need to be sourced, and that can be done by mere in-wiki link, if the link itself gives the source. For examples, see:

        List of trees

        List of birds

        List of placental mammals

        Now, I haven’t gone over every element in those lists to see if each and every link reliably sources them, but because I haven’t, that doesn’t give me license to tag the entire list-article for deletion. Nor does the fact that these lists contain no source which will source the items in them, means that the authors are attempting to make “WP a source for itself.” If you tag these lists for deletion yourself on that basis, you will get the rapid “learning experience” which you ask of me. (Other editors will provide you with it, I’m certain). In point of fact, the list of bowtie wearers to which my attention has been recently drawn, is very much an anomaly on Wikipedia, on which there are thousands of lists which don’t resemble it in the slightest. List articles, per se, don’t REQUIRE this sort of thing. If there are specific items on a list you’d like to challenge, the proper way to do it, is with a {fact} tag. If you really want to get rid of an entire ratty or moth-eaten list, as in List of ships you can afford to wait a few months to see if it’s cleaned up; there is no point in trying to speedy-delete it. As was done to this list.

        The demand that we speedy-delete lists you don’t like and can’t immediately see the citations for, in the list, amounts to arguing WP:LISTCRUFT. But that’s not WP policy, and is specifically repudiated in WP:SPEEDY as a source of policy on article deletion.

        I think that about covers it, except for you suggestion that I “edit warred” because I had a disagreement with two editors (both of whom turned out to be running socks, and one of whom is now indef blocked for it, as a newbie gaming the system). “Edit war” is just a derisive term for an edit disagreement you don’t agree with. In this case, I disagreed with, and reverted two people, one of whom looks very bad right now.

        As for the term “content fork.” I take it that this too is just another term sometimes applied indiscriminately and derogatively to a new article spin-off which somebody doesn’t agree with (in this case, you). But the fact of disagreement by editors on a split is not enough to define a bad kind of content fork: see WP:CFORK where this is clearly spelled out: Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. That didn’t apply here, and I’ll thank you not to suggest that it did.

        As for your years of experience, you’ve been here about 5 months longer than I have. I’m always glad to benefit from something I haven’t seen, though: tell me, what is this about “GFDL” that applies to sub-article spin-offs per WP:SS? SBHarris 23:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please explasin why you haven't followed the instructions above to first discuss the deletion with the deleting admin before raising a DRV? Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I skipped right to the section entitled "Instructions", and that essential step wasn't included there. Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention - I've fixed it.  Done And since we're already in the midst of the review, we might as well continue... The Transhumanist 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse Deletion If the nominator can't read the instructions properly themselves they have no business complaining if they think the closing admin didn't read the outcome of the discussion correctly. Anywaym Ttranshumanist has been around long enough to know that were are supposed to discuss stuff. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus - per my review request above. The Transhumanist 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I see no indication here that the closing admin misread the AFD. I have to wonder whether those in favor of overturning to "no consensus" are acting in 100% good faith or whether there's some WP:ILIKEIT creeping in. Otto4711 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - once you remove the favorable and unfavorable comparisons to other lists, the comments by editors that hate lists on principle, and the discussion by those that claim it's "unencyclopedic" or "indiscriminate" without any evidence to support same, the debate boils down to the question of whether or not notability for the topic was established. Some editors felt that simply wikilinking other articles was sufficient, but others maintained that references directly in the article itself that demonstrated the notability of the topic itself, rather than the fact that some notable people wear bowler hats, was sufficient. The closing admin used the judgment expected of administrators to make a determination; in this case the determination was that notability was not established. Perhaps had there been more convincing arguments about the potential of the list to demonstrate notability in the future, I would feel differently about this AfD being closed as "delete," but it appears that the administrator did a reasonable job of judging consensus in this case.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 05:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the information is trivial and non-encyclopedic. The material which was deleted is a mockery of what Wikipedia strives to be. JBsupreme (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is your personal opinion and totally irrelevant to DRV. Here we discuss if the discussion was closed properly or if the closer or commenters overlooked crucial information. - Mgm|(talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as non-consensus and have another afd in a month or so after people have thought some more. There is simply no agreement over whether this is relevant content for WP, and the closing admin should have recognized as much. As he gave no explanation at all, it wasn't unreasonable to come here. Anyway, as we always try to rescue articles and WP is not a Bureaucracy, we shouldnt let procedural problems interfee with review--if Spartaz wants to make this an absolute requirement, he should try to get the policy he wants, but I think there would be agreement that multiple reasonable routes of questioning admin actions is a good thing. For a matter involving the issues here, it would really have helped to give a reason initially. DGG (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness, if the nominator doesn't try and discuss the reasons for the close with the deleting admin they have no hope of understanding their reasoning. Raising a DRV right off is akin to saying that they have a completely closed mind on the matter and that's just wasting our time because the nominator can't be bothered to try and sort it out themselves. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was well within admin discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I would have made the same call as the closing admin. The discussion was leaning towards delete by a significant margin before User:Sbharris did some work on the article. The fact that an even clearer majority of the votes following those improvements were also for deletion means that this was definitely closed properly.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have undeleted all 23 revisions of the article that were still deleted, per Sbharris' request on my talk page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid closure and correct result. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but open to bringing back a list of names on the main Bowler hat article. In this case, restoring a list at the main hat article will probably not require keeping this list's history per GFDL, since the list is a split-out from the original article, with no novel writing. (Reverting to an old version does not require GFDL attributions, even if there were a brief split-out at some point.) Consensus was clear enough that the list should not have a separate article. The number of people arguing merge or delete far outnumbered those requesting the article kept outright, and they made reasoned arguments. The arguments for keeping were not entirely unreasonable, but they were somewhat general, and not tied so well to this specific list. Unlike the bow tie case (which I intended to vote delete after seeing the title, then changed my mind to "keep" when reading the article), this list does not contain a justification as to why the presence of a bowler matters, i.e. a reason for why this list is not simply indiscriminate. In conclusion, the consensus for deletion is present for the bowler hat case, it was not present in the bow tie case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - competently closed. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse closure I'd likely have !voted "keep" here, but I cannot imagine that this should have been closed as "no consensus", consistent, in large part, with the analysis of Sjakkalle. I am, though, with DGG on the procedural issue; I have suggested from time to time that we rid ourselves of the "courteously invite the admin to take a second look" instruction, for various reasons that I should sometime set out briefly, and I would suggest that at the very least we not permit the lister's failure to comply divert us from an inquiry that is now, rightly or wrongly, well and broadly before us (and that's from a PIIer). Joe 19:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
actually, I dont don't think we should get rid of it as advice, just as requirement . It's good advice, when people do ask, very often the admins do explain things satisfactorily and the person who asks gets a better understanding of what's wanted or at least realised the uselessness of proceeding further; sometimes the admins do in fact revert the closure; and sometimes if they do not they at least help the person make a better appeal. It's good advice--I agree with Spartaz there. But we makes all sorts of allowances for people making procedural mistakes--for the most complicated, we have a whole class of people clerking at arb com. Incomplete nominations at AfD are fixed, not rejected. If some one speedies or prods for an incorrect reason & there's a good reason, I and most reviewers simply change the reason. We don't want unnecessary barriers to deleting the junk, or to possibly keeping the good stuff either. DGG (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I have read the AfD, while still in progress, since I was thinking to close it myself but I thought it was difficult to take a decision. Rechecking now I think the decision is correct. If we can do something is to add some people in the Bowler hat article. The fiction part is not worthy at all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. While both sides employed arguments defensible under policy, there was an adequate supermajority of contributors supporting deletion.  Sandstein  18:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not all of the contributors have benefitted by reading the relevant policy about stand-alone lists? It is at WP:STAND. Particularly the idea that fictional parts aren't notable, in an encyclopedia which does a particularly careful job of documenting fictional universes, is very odd. The List of minor characters in Dilbert is given as an example, in the policy Wiki itself. If you don't agree with this WP policy, go and change it! Don't just decide to ignore it here, because you want to. SBHarris 21:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Decision to close the AfD as "delete" was a reasonable one. As for the list article itself, I believe that the list content could have been (and still could be) rescued, but in spite of improvements made the list is still an unsourced and unorganized jumble, and I have not seen evidence that there was a sound reason for splitting it off from bowler hat. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why did no one bother to merge back the original content to the article it was taken from? Discussion always seem to be black or white (delete or keep) with no one discussing alternative options. - Mgm|(talk) 21:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see discussion of alternative options in that AfD. I see approximately 8 comments in the AfD, including one by you and two by me, that identified needed improvements and/or called for merging the rescueable content back into the main article. Far be it from me to say why the article proponents didn't accept the advice. However, since most of the content is still in the history of the main article, it would not be particularly difficult to restore it there. Furthermore, there is nothing preventing the creator of this article from acquiring a copy of it now. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, and I did so, as soon as it was undeleted (it's in a /page of my TALK space, for example). I have no objection to re-adding it as an embedded list (WP:EMBED), but didn't want to act precipitously while this debate was still going on. I don't care where the information is, so long as it doesn't disappear. People can challenge individual entries in it, as they like (eg, nobody objects to Laurel and Hardy, Oddjob, and Magritte's paintings, do they?). As soon as it goes back in, though, it will more than double the size of the article, and somebody will want it spun off, as in WP:SS, List of people who have been beheaded, and so on. SBHarris 23:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As it happens, Wikipedia policy says I have to question every entry on the list due to the lack of sourcing.
            For future reference, next time an article of yours is at AfD, I suggest that you do whatever is necessary to rescue the article. Consider an AfD nomination to be a signal that something needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly. Don't think of AfD as a judicial proceeding; think of it as a problem-solving discussion. If you can modify the article in way that makes it unnecessary to continue the discussion, you are likely to be thanked, not criticized. --Orlady (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nothing in policy requires you to question everything that doesn't have a source. "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged" means that unsourced material can be challenged, not that it must be. Challenging material that you have no valid reason to dispute (other than simply a lack of source) is a waste of everyone's time, and leads to articles where every sentence has a footnote or a "citation needed" template; this is completely unnecessary. Also, the entries on this list link to articles, and those articles may contain sources which say whether the subject was notable for wearing a bowler hat; it is unnecessary for these citations to be both in the article and the list, as the items would be verifiable either way. DHowell (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus (with no prejudice for a shortened verifiable list at the main article). Keep voters had a solid reasoning in the idea that it is valid to make a spinoff article when a section takes up too much space. Delete voters had a good point in saying it was an unsourced mess at the time, however that is something that can be solved by editing rather than deletion which is the first thing described on several deletion pages -- don't delete something that can be improved. Once bad reasoning is filtered out on both sides, there's no clear majority. I would recommend closing admin who did this AFD to be very explicit about their reasoning in closing obviously contentious debates. That way there's no possible misunderstanding about your reasoning or intentions. - Mgm|(talk) 21:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now, everyone, on to killing the infamous List of Chinese people! SBHarris 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus I see plenty of reasons to clean up which is not a good reason to delete or even to take to AfD. The AfD didn't sway me as an obvious keep or delete so it would seem no consensus defaulting to keep would be most accurate. -- Banjeboi 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion- if AfD were just a vote, it would have to be closed as a no consensus. But it is not just a count of heads and the arguments for deletion were, in my opinion, stronger than those to keep. Reyk YO! 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion to no consensus but redirect to Bowler hat and merge content back into that article. While this article may have been originally created as a spin-out from Bowler hat, it was edited significantly during the course of the AfD, and I see no consensus that the list doesn't belong in some form or another in Bowler hat. Let the content be merged back and let the edits to that content, while it was separate, remain. For GFDL compliance, the edit which merges the list back should link back to the edit history of the separate list article. DHowell (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Kairos Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

G11: Blatant advertising SteveDavey (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because it was alleged to be 'blatant advertising' for the Kairos Foundation. This is completely incorrect, there was no intention to promote the organisation made at all, in fact once some basic facts about the organisation had been stated the text moved on to describe a user testimony from a cult watch website that spoke of the use of 'mind and behaviour control' techniques and apparent psychological manipulation during a 'More To Life' weekend, so the text was in fact somewhat critical of the Kairos Foundation.

As far as the criticisms made by Jimfbleak that the article contains unverifiable claims and sources of a dubious nature, I refute this. It is quite true to say that KF events have been described as transcending "all intellectual knowledge and historical speculation" - by The Kairos Foundation itself. That does not mean it is indeed true that the events actually do transcend all intellectual knowledge and historial speculation, merely that the Kairos Foundation claims that they do, and a url showing this claim being made was included. It seems inappropriate to me to suggest that anyone could write a balanced article about a political, religious or other organisation without including some direct documentation of said organisations stated aims, goals or purpose. I cannot accept Jimfbleak comment that "Putting the spam in quotation marks, or saying the the foundation claims.... is just dressing it up" - it seems to me to be an entirely different thing to say 'Coke... is the real thing' to saying Coke claims to be 'the real thing.' In writing the article I assumed that readers would be able to make their own judgement as to whether the claims the KF makes about its courses are reasonable or not.

The article included factual items about the Kairos Foundation including a description of its assets and revenue from a third party source. The use of KF publicity material was legitimate in my opinion, as i think it is entirely appopriate to include some direct evidence of an organisation's promotional material, since this is how it attracts participants. Whilst it was not perfect and was not researched in great depth, it represented a few hours work and I viewed it as a good starting point for a more detailed analysis. I would have been happy to revise the article in accordance with guidance from an experienced user, and I felt deeply dissapointed that it was summarily withdrawn without me or any anyone else being given a chance to improve or expand it. I think the kairos Foundation's notability should be obvious as they have a 27-year history, and extensive, international, membership and revenue. The allegations of mind control made via a New Zealand cult watch organisation and other testimony about negative effects of KF training for vulnerable indivuals also make for considerable controversy, and I think it is a great shame that external discussion about this group was quashed as soon as it had begun. SteveDavey (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)• (contribs) 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We know why the article was deleted; it's usual when listing a deletion review to explain why you think the article should not have been deleted. Can you please explain? Stifle (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion. While I am not convinced that the article meets the G11 blatant advertising standard, it would qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A7 as it does not explain how the foundation is important or significant. As with any speedy deletion, it is not a bar on an article ever existing at this title, and the nominator (or anyone else) is welcome to recreate the article if the new version passes inclusion standards. It would be worthwhile to cite reliable, independent sources when doing so, as that would provide a reasonable chance of the article not being deleted again. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Administrator Jimfbleak who deleted the article, posted a detailed explanation on User talk:SteveDavey. Without any reason provided, there's no reason to undelete.- Mgm|(talk) 18:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I speedied this for the reasons given at User talk:SteveDavey. It's not the worst example I've seen, since it has a negative views section and an attempt at referencing, but it still consists largely of unverifiable claims and sources of a dubious nature jimfbleak (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above. JBsupreme (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Air India Express destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Closed as "delete and merge". First, if this is to be merged, then the list should not be deleted but rather redirected. Second, I don't think there was a consensus for deletion here, the rationale given in the close looks more like the closer's opinion than an evaluation of consensus. Third, the closer writes that he took Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations into account, but that "given the age of that AfD and the fact that it was not unanimous, and given the arguments below, consensus, and policy, have changed."; well I cannot see that either consensus or policy have changed at all in this regard. Regarding consensus, the more recent, only a few weeks old, and perfectly comparable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Airlines destinations ended unanimously against outright deletion, the only question being whether to keep or merge. Regarding policy, a list of destinations is standard for all our airline articles. Deleting the list temporarily left the main Air India Express article in a very sorry state indeed, an airline article which doesn't even tell the reader where the airline flies (which is a fundamental part of describing the airline's business, perhaps more fundamental than the fleet they fly with). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 24 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
  • Ernest Daudet – Request declined. In xes request, requester provided adequates sourcing to prove that it should be relatively simple to just recreate an article at this title without overturning an 18+ month old AFD and restoring an article that will be of little to no value in the required re-writing. – Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ernest Daudet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Ernest Daudet is a very notable french writer, brother of Alphonse Daudet. You can see English sources [74]. Please restore and I will add. -- Remembrance of old (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diecast Car Collectors Of The Philippines (DCPH) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Please consider my request for undeletion of Diecast Car Collectors Of The Philippines (DCPH). The article is worthy of inclusion because it serves a purpose for the youth and for diecast collectors. As Killiondude told me that the page was remove because of its notability and if i can present third party sources about DCPH like newspaper print and online write ups about the group or magazine articles it could serve as a proof that DCPH is a notable group. Here are some of the the articles of DCPH online newspaper article online write up about the group newspaper articlethis is a scan document from a newspaper Business World January 16, 2008 issue. I hope this will help. DCPH is a group that builds camaraderie and serve as a home for filipino diecast collectors. If you find something on the article in which you want to remove or edited I am willing to change it. Thank you very much and hoping for your kind consideration. Frozenicecubes (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Stifle as per your request here is the page of my discussion with Killiondude [[75]] he did not reply again to my query thats why i thought having a discussion here will help to solve the issue. Frozenicecubes (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Killiondude did not delete the page. Jac16888 did. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Stifle I thought Killiondude deleted the page because he is the one who left a message on my talk page but i also send query to Jac16888 regarding the deletion.Frozenicecubes (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Sorry, the provided sources do not substantiate notability of this group per WP:N or WP:ORG. The picture caption mentions the group as a donor of monies to a charity, the online newspaper article is written from an insider point-of-view, and is more of a press-release type story. The other one is an outright advertisement. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - The article was speedy deleted because the article text did not indicate the importance/significance of the topic per A7. Instead of blazing six guns of blogs and websites and bad faith accusations, Frozenicecubes' very polite request includes links to reliable source material (albiet on the lower end). This says that Frozenicecubes knows what to look for. In addition, there is another entire write up on the Diecast Car Collectors of the Philippines at

    Salazar, Tessa R. (October 4, 2006). "Satisfy your fantasy car collection (without sweating a drop of gas)". Philippine Daily Inquirer. p. 2. Lead sentence: JUST BECAUSE YOU cant have one in the garage doesnt mean you cant have one in your display shelf! That seems to be the maxim of the Diecast Car Collectors of the Philippines also known as Diecast Car Philippines..

    There likely is more sources out there because this topic can be called Diecast Car Philippines and Diecast Car Collectors of the Philippines and both of these names can vary as diecast, die cast, or die-cast (see Diecast car#History), giving a total of six in which reliable sources could have used to discuss the group. In addition, the source material likely is in the Philippines, which does not have extensive online reliable sources like other countries. Also, I'm persuaded that this is the right way to go because Frozenicecubes uses "nice" in his user name. -- Suntag ☼ 03:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Suntag, I am willing to edit or modify DCPH page since this is my first wikipedia article :). Frozenicecubes (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The deleted page did not indicate in any way how the club is notable, important, or signifiant (see WP:ORG). Consider writing about it on your own website instead. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, it's worth noting that just like any other speedy deletion, the article can be recreated as long as the reason for deletion is addressed. Some recommendations:
      1. Wikipedia:Your first article
      2. Start with a userspace draft and get an experienced user to check it over before moving to the mainspace
      3. Include information that would be useful to the world at large, not (just) to the club and its members (in particular, the forum rules should not be included here)
      4. Try to write in a more formal tone
    • Good luck! Stifle (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Frozenicecubes (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Stevanna Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I am requesting an undeletion of Stevanna Jackson due to the policy and guidelines of WP:Bio .. here is the clear indication why that article should be undeleted due to Wiki's own guidelines : Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article.

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

Stevanna Jackson inspires a whole generation of young African American teens to strive to be the best they can be. Not just in the arts but in striving to achieve personal excellence in education. Aside from being related to one of the most famous entertainment families in the world, she has made amazing accomplishments on her own through hard work and tenacity. If you can tell me why the other hosts from The Disney Movie Surfers are notable enough to have their own wiki pages then I will let this whole issue go. Stevanna Jackson has been working as an actress since she is four years old. Beyond being a current host of Disney's Movie Surfers, she has worked with some of the biggest industry producers like Lorne Michaels, Tom Warner & Marcy Carsy of the Cosby show. She was also in a live Fox special with Carlos Santana. She also has been in 7th Heaven as Marie, featured on NBC's The Tracy Morgan show as Simone, and a few episodes of Zoey 101 as Tasha. There is still lot of other body of work which was not originally included in her Wikipedia page, however, there was the very basic information. Stevanna Jackson is an artist who is under the radar,but she by far sufficiently notable to merit an article. Furthermore, just because some wiki editors haven't done the research, it does not mean it does not exist. Currently, Stevanna Jackson is attending Harvard University class of 2012, that alone in itself "worthy of notice", let alone all of the other body of work.
Comment: Attending Harvard doesn't make someone notable; thousands of people attend Harvard every year. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a lot of editors/admins seem caught up in being right, they just dread being questioned and act like they are infallible, need I remind them that they are human and can and make mistakes all the time. If Stevanna Jackson must get deleted,pleas take a look at Tessa Ludwick. Not only it absolutely does not fall under the inclusion criterion, but it is so poorly written that it states that she had a few parts in the movie Thirteen and tell me how and why some of the other movie surfers, get and keep their wikipages, while the most notable one with a fan base does not?

I appreciate your consideration in advance for this unfair deletion, and respectfully request (after careful review of all of the facts), that the wikipage for Stevanna Jackson be undeleted and if Wikipedia can write a quality, well-written, sourced articles that meet the guidelines about her. I know this can only be a greater reflection on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasia 15 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the deletion - That AfD participants all agreeded on deleting the article because the topic has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See General notability guideline. The closer of that AfD could not have close the discussion in any other way. Google books, scholar, and news don't bring up any information. Even IMDB is light on information about her. Since her accomplishments have not been memorialized in in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, there would be no content to add to such an article. Comment Tessa Ludwick has received some write ups. See Google news, books, and scholar. Stevanna Jackson probably should get a new press agent. -- Suntag ☼ 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? When replying, you might also mention why the review is being listed so long after the AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion That the subject of this article is an up-and-coming star is commendable. That she is inspiring a whole new generation is super. Once that effort garners attention outside of wikipedia, and there are sources independent of the subject to draw upon, at that time, an article here will undoubtedly be appropriate. Until such time, however, it is not. Wikipedia is not the place to begin one's escalation to fame. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I don't know what the article looked like before being deleted, but if this is any indication of what we can expect, I see no encyclopaedic value in bringing it back. —Politizer talk/contribs 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I've read it, and just no evidence of notability jimfbleak (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


22 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Steven Cann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD2)

Has now played a professional game http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/7726987.stm. Now meets ponit 2 of this criteria. CumbrianRam (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joslyn Pennywell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AFD1) I'd like to undelete Joslyn Pennywell. I read the rules for notability and I think she meets the requirements. She has contributed to entertainement in an unique way (she holds the record for ANTM auditions, won quite a few pageants and was a victim of a scam which was talked about on msnbc), there are quite a few third-party sources takling about her such as: http://www.azurepageants.com/Joslyn.htm http://www.tftj.com/db/delegates.htm/783/Miss/2006 http://www.msusaonline.com/miss.php?model_id=833 http://media.www.thegramblinite.com/media/storage/paper926/news/2006/04/12/Focus/Kappas.Next.Top.Model-2665418.shtml http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24425209/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24425209/ http://www.ebonyfashionfair.com/assembled/history.html http://blogs.louisianasotherside.com/Tarah/post/2008/09/Chimp-Haven-Discovery-Day-Cancelled-Due-To-Ike.aspx and so on. Also on the discussion page no consensus was reached which means that she was at least considered to be notable by some users.--Whadaheck (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved this from the main DRV page and fixed the formatting. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Point of order. After looking, it seems the AfD is AfD1 even though it is named 2nd nomination. Perhaps it should be moved to the correct name. Also, for reference see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 22:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - RGTraynor's AfD comments seem to be right on point:

    "What I don't see is a single reliable, third-party, independent source that is, as is required, about the subject. ... if the sources don't meet WP:RS, wastepaper is all they are."

    That was endorsed by other editors and never sufficiently rebutted. She was at least considered to be important/significant by some users, but that doesn't mean she is Wikipedia Notable. The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. The closing admin seemed to go a step further and try to find sufficient sources, to no avail. Citing "blogs.louisianasotherside.com" in the DRV request seems to support RGTraynor's AfD comments. Also, the deleted article was said to be well sourced, so without more details, it seems likely that the sources listed in the DRV request were considered in the AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 23:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Is there reason to believe this was improperly deleted? No, not in the least. What this is is forum shopping from someone who didn't like the consensus result of the recent AfD. My whole quote from the deletion discussion is "I see a lot of references, yes. What I don't see is a single reliable, third-party, independent source that is, as is required, about the subject. Youtube doesn't qualify. Pageant blog sites don't qualify. Gossip blog sites don't qualify. A clip from MSNBC referencing several models doesn't qualify. Is there a print magazine article solely about her? A newspaper article solely about her? An interview of her on a mainstream, broadcast network? I don't see anything, no. There's this common fallacy running around XfD that an article with ten sources is "well-referenced," but if the sources don't meet WP:RS, wastepaper is all they are." This article was properly deleted. Whatdaheck doesn't bring anything new to the table except the same raft of blog and pageant sites, and has given no grounds to sustain overturning the deletion.  RGTraynor  00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Suntag. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus of those quoting policies and norms was clearly to delete. Views to keep were not based on policies or norms. Closure called consensus correctly so no reason to undelete. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 10:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Aimé. M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Deleted too soon, as well as during the rescue process. -- IRP ☎ 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 17, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (RfD)

I agreed with the deletion at first, but now, I'm starting to question it. I think it was an OK redirect to Digital_television_transition#United_States. Otherwise, it could be restored and revised to where it lists expected future events including this one. -- IRP ☎ 18:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is about a redirect though. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • see WP:CRYSTAL - usually we delete unless there is substantial reliable sourcing discussing the subject in advance. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IRP, Arthur Rubin's posting "Nonsense" in the RfD could be taken two ways, and I don't think it was meant to disparage you. I initially was using your comment to weigh the discussion and it threw me off since it was made after the discussion was closed. Please try to refrain from posting in closed discussions. Also have a little more faith in the closer's understanding of Wikipedia. Even though it seems unlikely that it will come about, making February 17, 2009 like February 17, 2005 could be done before February 17, 2009 happens such as under circumstances mentioned by Spartaz above. In fact, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL seems to provide some support for your idea. Year 2000 problem was something that became notable before it's January 1, 2000 event date. Comments in XfD discussions are not accepted at face value but given weight and weighed among the other comments. Knowing when not to reply is just as important to knowing when to reply. Your after-the-close reply to Arthur Rubin was not needed for me to find value in your contribution to the RfD discussion and I'm fairly certain that most of the regular DRV participants understood what you were getting at. We all get comments thrown at us all the time. The best thing to do is just move to some place else in Wikipedia for a while and let the slight pass, recognizing that most Wikipedia's will see the situation for what it is. -- Suntag ☼ 23:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - With so little participation in the RfD both in number and comment, it would be easy to substitute our own judgment. However, DRV is to review the close and whether it interpreted the discussion correctly. Redirects may be deleted if "unlikely to be useful." See WP:RFD#DELETE. However, that and the other reasons for deleting listed don't seem to help. With Stifle's comment above regarding WP:CSB, the RfD makes more sense. The nominator chose leaving the date red over directing the date to something United States. 147.70.242.40 mentioned that dates are made redirects only for something out of the ordinary. Both these really are discussing systemic bias of making February 17, 2009 mean United States. February 17, 2009 happens all over the world, everywhere in the world. The U.S. is one of the largest contributors' demographic groups at Wikipedia. From this Wikipedia groups perspective, yes February 17, 2009 is a significant date and redirect to "Digital television transition#United States" makes sense, but it would seem to neglect the point of view efforts of encyclopedia as a whole. Both delete positions seemed to say that, but not in so many words. I don't give much weight to the Delete per IAR position and the delete per precedent comment. The keep reasoning didn't address the redirect as a redirect. On balance, it seems the delete reasoning outweighted the keep reasoning, which means that the closer interpreted the RfD discussion correctly. -- Suntag ☼ 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for the reasoning by Suntag. As a further note covering dates has changed since 2006. There are no articles February 17, 2008 and the like anymore. Rather events are bundled almost exclusively via monthly articles such as February 2008 which embeds info from the Portal:Current events. Future dates don't exit in the portal (see e.g.Category:2008 by day) but February_2009 redirect to a section of 2009 which lists the above mentioned February 17 event. Actually I am pretty sure somewhere the is further discussion why we sometimes write on future scheduled but do not consolidate it in the form of mainspace date pages or redirects. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Myka Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I discussed this with the closing administrator, Stifle at his talk page User_talk:Stifle. Stifle responded with a reply at my page User talk:tvccs. I disagree with CSD decision and rationale(s) expressed for the following reason(s). I apologize in advance if this item has not met all the normal formatting for log inclusion, as it's the first time I have attempted a deletion review, and ask that those more knowledgeable than I correct whatever formatting deficiencies exist.

The key reason is the citation of "first party source" as a reason to exclude as a source Ms. Miller's Biography as provided at the Web site for The Harmony Project. Although Ms. Miller is the Executive Director of same, that does not mean the biography posted there is somehow invalid, or in need of being repeated on an additional "neutral" Web site to be considered valid. The Harmony Project is a multi-million dollar 501(c)3 licensed non-profit corporation with a Board Of Directors consisting of musical and charitable luminaries from Greater Los Angeles. As such, they chose to hire Ms. Miller as Executive Director based on the very information contained in the supplied biography, which was thoroughly investigated and vetted before their decision. Ms. Miller's reputation as the Executive Director of the American Youth Symphony in Los Angeles, as well as her work for the Henry Mancini Foundation, were also well-known known in the community prior. Her role as the Executive Director for The Harmony Project should qualify her for inclusion and notability alone. Much of this same biographic information is included on other Web sites of which Ms. Miller is not the Executive Director, including [76].

Ms. Miller has also performed and toured in North and South America as part of various musical ensembles, and has played with many notable musicians as only partially listed in the article. She is very notable, and has been noted, for her work in bringing oboe and english horn to very non-traditional musical settings, as listed in the article. That effort has been noted in references and reviews on multiple occasions, and if needed to establish same, I can add those to the references provided, including [77]. Ms. Miller is a recognized virtuoso on her instruments, and is asked to play in a wide variety of high-level musical settings because of her recognized abilities and experience as only partially listed in the article.

I would also add the following as reference to MySpace Musician Pages, and comments from Stifle listed on his page about same. I know many hundreds of jazz and other musicians worldwide, and work with dozens of musicians in the Los Angeles area on projects including MySpace pages. Many prominent jazz musicians now use MySpace exclusively as a way to connect with fans worldwide because of its ease of use and lack of cost, and have often discontinued their regular Web sites. In this case Stifle points to a desire for another page as needed for consideration of MySpace as a valid source, and Ms. Miller's Orion Winds ensemble, of which she is a co-founder, was provided in the References listed on the original article. I would also add that the inclusion of article references from the Los Angeles Times and International Musician were included as verifications of the Ms. Miller's role as Executive Director of The Harmony Project and prominence in the local and musical communities.

In sum, Myka Miller is equally, if not more, notable than thousands of similar musicians included and detailed on Wikipedia, with a much more extensive list of prominent collaborations and recordings than many others, not withstanding her role as Executive Director of The Harmony Project and the American Youth Symphony prior. An Advanced Search at Google shows nearly 400 references to Myka Miller, and she is fully deserving of being included on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Tvccs (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own deletion. The article as written did not make any serious indication how Ms. Miller is notable. I suggested to the user that he create an article about the Harmony Project and include details of Ms. Miller there, as the organization certainly seems to be notable. Of course, as with all speedy deletions, the page can be recreated if it is improved and notability shown. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I reviewed the cache version. I read it twice to see whether I could derive an importance/significance from the artiicle as required by A7. Both "most noted for her willingness to feature the oboe and english horn in non-traditional musical settings" and " co-founder (with Jenni Olson Scott) of the all-female woodwind quintet Orion Winds" lacked context to show an importance/significance. The phrase "appeared and/or recorded with" was more of an event rather than an importance. Speedy deletion under A7 seemed appropriate. Comment A better approach to the topic for Wikipedia would to use source material from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. No matter how hard you push, blogs and website sources will only bring significant resistance from Wikipedia editors. In short, be the sun, not the North Wind. -- Suntag ☼ 02:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


21 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

ZOMG! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

None of the concerns in the nom were properly addressed and the debate was clearly showing consensus to redirect rather than default to keep. Closing an AfD based on vote counting is out of process and the closer could have chosen to relist, in fact that is the preferred option in cases like this rather than close it as no consensus. Overturn and redirect instead.Withdrawn Fine, things aren't what they used to be. I've been here a long time, several years in fact. I'm well aware of how things work and I did try to redirect it first but was reverted. Back in the day these articles would get deleted with little or no opposition. That's changed. Point taken, lesson learned and moving on. No reason to waste more time on this now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closing admin. There are a few points I'll address here.
    1. The article was listed on Saturday, and I closed it today, the following Friday. That's six days, or more than the five days required by policy. This objection removed due to reformatting of the DRV argument. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "No Consensus" was the only possible close based upon the comments made. Despite the claims made above, there were three "Keep" arguments (including that of User:Uncle G, who chose not to bold the word in his comment), only one of which (MuZemike's) was comprehensively rebutted. Of the other two, one was left alone, and the other had a rather unconvincing and offtopic response. As far as redirecting it, only two users (out of the nine who participated in the discussion) advocated such a move, so I think it's slightly bizarre to say that "the debate was clearly showing consensus to redirect".
    3. Even had the discussion been given another ten hours as advocated in this comment, it's hard to see how a consensus could have been established.This objection removed due to reformatting of the DRV argument. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Contrary to the argument made above, the relisting policy clearly states that it is only desirable to relist a discussion if "an XFD discussion has only one or two commenting editors (including the nominator)". The discussion in question did not meet the criteria listed here, so a relist would not have been appropriate. Even had I chosen to IAR that, I consider it unlikely that an extra few days would have produced additional discussion and produced a consensus.
    5. If the person who brought this to DR had brought this up with me politely on my user page, as it instructs in the instructions on this very page, I probably would have been happy to relist the discussion for a couple of days as a show of good faith.
  • I won't lose any sleep if the call is to relist, but I strongly object to overturn and redirect based on point #2 above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    For the record I changed the nom 22 minutes after I posted this and 13 minutes before your response so #1 and #3 in your response is moot. Uncle G posted 3 reprints of press releases which was discussed without a response from Uncle G. Self-published sources was a main reason for deletion in my nom yet this was ignored. When were the concerns in the nom addressed? They weren't. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; fine to let it evolve for now. Hardly "clearly" showing consensus to redirect. --A D Monroe III (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus. I do not see "clearly showing consensus to redirect". There were calls for a major cleanup. See if it happens. Consider relisting in a month or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as there was no consensus. Nothing stopping you or another editor redirecting, merging, or starting a discussion on the article talk page which may lead to one of those outcomes. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emdorse closure, that group did not reach consensus on any point I could determine. I would have closed it the same way, and Stifle is entirely correct that you may seek to gain consensus and merge/redirect through the regular editing process. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:47, 21 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Perry the Platypus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I discussed this with the closing administrator, MBisanz at his talk page at User talk:MBisanz#Reconsider AfD (Perry the Platypus), but after four days the administrator did not reply to my last post. My concern is that the closing administrator looked just at the number of votes and when the votes occurred, instead of looking at the arguments presented by the editors. Nothing was changed to the articles subsequent to the relisting that would signify that the "Delete" opinions were no longer worthy of their arguments. Aspects (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Ferb Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))[reply]

  • Endorse closure. MBisanz could not possibly have closed this any other way. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure agree with stifle, reviewed AfD and article... it's a keeper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep was appropriate. And you're misrepresenting an excellent admin by saying he only counted !votes. Read what he wrote to you on his talk page again. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I brought about this deletion review because I feel the closing administrator incorrectly closed the AfD in two ways. The first way is that the admin found consensus not by looking at the strength of argument and underlying policy but instead counted heads. I always thought it was the role of the closing administrator weigh the arguments presented by both sides and not simply count the votes. If he did look at both sides of the argument it is hard to gather that from either the closing sentence, "The result was keep.", or from the discussion on his talk page where he talks about the amount of votes and when they were cast. The second way, is at the very least the admin disenginiously closed the AfD as Keep when it could have been closed as no consensus, as he stated on his talk page, to minimize ambiguity and future confusion. Aspects (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of arguing about it, you should be apologising to MBisanz for misrepresenting him. Any disingenuousness here is entirely by you misrepresenting what he wrote. By accusing him of disenguity you compound your baseless accusations. The AfD was appropriately closed. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any "bad faith" going on here, just a lack of complete communication. I have often wished that closing admins would state reasons behind the conclusion of an AFD rather than just the result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (keep). At worst keep (no consensus). No prospect for deletion. discuss other options on the talk page. Agree with Paul McDonald, I wish closers would always give a decent explanation, clearly better explanations are needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin First I weighed the nature of the comments, that deletes were changed to keeps and that the comments made in the second five days said keep. Second, I weigh the count of each side to check if my initial close is supported by the numbers or would require an explanation as to what arguments I found most convincing and why I did not find a numerically superior argument as convincing. In this case the numbers confirmed rather than contradicted my initial close, so I just clicked the script and closed as a straight keep. MBisanz talk 12:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Difficult to envision any other close given the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, consensus was clearly for keeping. I couldn't see much rationale for deleting in the AFD nomination, and the only other person arguing for deletion made a rather vague and cryptic "Delete and salt per WP:FICT" argument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Just as a side question, do my and User:LouScheffer merges count as Keep in this AfD because I was under the assumption that voting Merge was for keeping the information but not keeping the article and would therefore be counted as a Delete? Aspects (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In one sense "merge" is usually considered as an opinion against outright deletion. However, in a discussion of whether to merge the article in the aftermath of the AFD, the presence of well-argued merge votes in the AFD definitely lends some credence to the idea of merging. An AFD with some arguing keep, some arguing merge, and some arguing outright keep, will often be closed as a "no consensus" (or even "keep") by the closing admin, and then wind up with merge a little later after some talk page discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge" should be interpretated as a variation of "do not delete". See WP:MAD for why "merge" and "delete" are generally incompatable. AfD is not primarily for deciding on mergers, but it can easily be the final consensus. If there was not consensus to merge apparent at AfD, but it is still a good idea, propose it on the articles talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Passion Pit (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Not meeting band requirements I got on Wikipedia and I searched for Passion Pit to find that the band has been removed from wikipedia. I think that this band at least meets one or more of the requirements for a band, such as notation from a organization. Epic Fu has featured Passion Pit on an episode and I believe that fits a requirement. I am wondering if this should be un-deleted from Wikipedia. Thank you very much. Anarchy 228 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All else being equal, I like to follow due process myself. However, here we are and I don't see any indication of bad faith in bringing forth this discussion. That said, a quick google search for me gave a whole bunch of articles, including a NYTimes entry. Not being an expert on what makes a band notable, I'd say that just on the sheer volume of entries that there is a case for notability here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for Anarchy 228, let's see what he can do with it, and bring it back here if in doubt about it meeting a notability standard, WP:N or WP:BAND. Google results don't look promising to me, too much promotion, not enough independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy FFM made the right call here, but the material can be userfied for a short period of time to let the author prove their sources, not hopeful that such sources exist. MBisanz talk 12:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment *sigh* apparently I was on real roll last night. :/ Restored to User:Anarchy 228/Passion Pit. Sorry about that. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:35, 21 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of bow tie wearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD 2|AfD 3|AfD 4)

There were basically two sets of arguments here. There were a number of votes to keep that argued that the article is based on reliable and verifiable sources from such publications as The New York Times (see "A Red Flag That Comes in Many Colors") and The Wall Street Journal which are among a number of articles that talk about bow tie wearers and the significance of wearing a bow tie. Without exception, the delete votes were variations of "I Don't Like It", such as "trivial", "Indiscriminate", etc., without regard to the arguments presented or the more than 100 sources provided in the article. The closing administrator has tossed in what would be a rather poorly-thought out vote for deletion and presented it as a rationalization to close as delete, allowing this to be sorted out at "the inevitable DRV". It is not articles like this that bring Wikipedia into disrepute. It is administrators who substitute their own personal biases and preferences in lieu of any semblance of Wikipedia policy that is the real problem. Overturn and whale slap is the appropriate action here. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just comment here: The votes for keep and delete both relied on policy equally, just different interpretations thereof. I would also add that a DRV was inevitable given the strength of opinions being expressed, even if the article had closed 37-35 in favour of deleting. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The topic is not exactly weighty, but is treated in printed, reliable media. Perhaps the effort expended on this article is disproportionate to its importance, and perhaps from the quality of the rest of Wikipedia, we might expect at most a stub here. However, that does not necessarily mean that the minimum notability criteria were not met, as judged by coverage in secondary sources, and once those criteria are met, however marginally, then the article may be extended to any length justified by the quantity of material to cover the subject.
    Further, I suggest that if the closing admin thought a DRV was "inevitable", then this reflects the lack of consensus to delete, and an inappropriate response, discarding the reasoned thoughts of both some who had not contributed to the article and some who had. You may disapprove of the NYT for running articles on this 'trivial' subject, but if they choose to do so, and in so doing reflect the significance of the topic in a particular specific field, then Wikipedia as a "specialised" encyclopaedia has every right to document the interest that some have in that topic, however obscure or how few they may be.
    To clarify, my point is thus that the closing summary implies a strong consensus or clarity in the outcome of the debate which was not present, and insufficiently acknowledges, let alone address, the concerns of roughly half the debaters. The only actual argument given ("Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate.") is so utterly incomplete as to make it unclear whether the debate was even read or not. —Kan8eDie (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At last count, there were 37 votes to keep, 30 to delete, 3 to merge, 2 to delete and/or merge. 37 is greater than 30 so how did the user get delete from that? Furthermore, they just had a deletion review and the result was keep. Even the original poster admitted that the article had been improved since the discussion.SPNic (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - agree entirely with Alansohn - the closing admin exhibited no evidence of having even read the discussion. Occuli (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Staying neutral on the restoration, I don't think any action should be taken without a statement from the closing administrator. Assuming the discussion was ignored is on the edge of WP:AGF, but it's true there wasn't much of a rationale provided. I'm sure everyone would benefit from an elaboration. :-) --Koji† 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore That luxury is not available. He/she is either offline or merly reading (no recent posts). I believe this closure falls under criteria 4, given the contentious and seemingly un-admin-like nature of the closing comments. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's available if you have any patience (usually taught around preschool-ish, I got that lesson when I went back to school for my GED though). I'm not sure where you're getting the sense of urgency here, DRV isn't a snap of the finger; it's meant to further elaborate on the points taken into account (or perhaps lack thereof).--Koji† 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Believe a possible WP:DGFA violation (just learned about this policy by following along with the argument, see most recent comments below) merits some degree of impatience. I would argue one of the tell-tale signs of a great Christian is a certain kind of impatience. Christ showed this at times. Reinhold Niebuhr, who was arguably the greatest American Christian mind of the 20th century, was famous for his impatience. And the Christian historian Reijer Hooykaas is another figure who comes to mind as a Christian thinker who garnered respect for his impatience. Be worried about wikipedia if some of its editors didn't exhibit some impatience sometimes. (Also not at all claiming to be a great Christian. I'm not. I sin like it's going out of style. :-) ) --Firefly322 (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do these opinions about what constitutes a great Christian have to do with the matter in hand? Wikipedia is not a theocracy, nor are the content, deletion or review guidelines influenced by Christian history or scripture. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - It was obvious from reading the discussion that no consensus for action had emerged; several alternatives had been proposed on the delete Talk page. Regardless of the merit of the article, it's clear that the results of the discussion were essentially ignored. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The relevant policies are quite clear here, the debate was heading towards a 'no consensus'. However, policy always overrides consensus in these matters. I will reserve further comment until the closing administrator makes a statement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is not wishful thinking. The number of votes does not matter a blind bit if the article is against policy. I'll quote the deletion guide for administrators... "that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus". "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy". Consensus is not determined by counting heads. Instead, a deletion must take into account arguments that contradict policy, or arguments based on opinion rather than fact, and must discount them. A brave close by the admin, but a sound one. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're asserting that the article violated at least one of
  1. verifiability
  2. original research
  3. copyright
  4. neutral point of view
and you presumably have obvious examples. Let's see them. htom (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to debate the deletion of the article; that's been done. DRV isn't for discussing the article's merits. It's for discussing whether or not the closing administrator was out of line in closing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is your own argument that the closing administrator is not "out of line in closing" if the "article is against policy". So by not supporting the premise that the article is against policy, your argument that the closing administrator was not out of line falls apart. DHowell (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or of course, the policies we've shown that it doesn't pass. Two sides to every debate, dude. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which policies do you believe you've "shown that it doesn't pass" and exactly where have you done this without relying on "arguments that contradict policy, or arguments based on opinion rather than fact"? I apparently must have missed that part of the debate. DHowell (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I'm not stating my feelings or my position during the debate, just interpretting the consensus as per the DRV guidelines. I think that in the first place, the AfD was procedurally premature as it had just been nominated for deletion 2 or 3 weeks before and was kept. In addition to that, the debate was far from conclusive either way. Most of the Keeps cited the fact that various sources covered the subject of people wearing bow ties and this contributed to notability. Deletes felt that the list was too indiscriminate usually, despite the fact that everyone in the list was covered by sources stating that they wore a bowtie in a somewhat notable fashion. Looking at the debate, I'd say there was no consensus, and the article should be kept as a result. There wore more keeps as well numerically, and although it is not a vote, it still contributes to their being no consensus. Also I'm interested in what the closing administrator has to say and that may affect my decision. --Banime (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Belligerent and lazy close, almost entirely dismissive of either side of the argument. Admin should be ashamed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see what they have to say before shaming, shunning or otherwise dismissing their work. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, Benji, Ryulong already told us what he was going to "say at the inevitable DRV", quite unambiguously. I suggest you re-read his closing comments, such as they were. I stand by my characterization.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Closing admin has now said "There was no real consensus either way" - I was hoping they would add something like "oops" or "my dog stepped on my keyboard" or a more diplomatic version that they erred and misapplied tools. I'd rather see admins face a mistake and work to correct it than to go on mucking things up that have to be cleaned up thus spending resources of the community. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep; Bad judgment entirely in several respects.There was a first Afd, with a non-consensus close, in Jan 07; quite reasonably, it was nominated again, and had a close as keep, in June 07. OK, consensus can change, there was a third, in Oct 08, with the very sensible " For some reason that I cannot comprehend, this is a keep. Ah well.. " close by NuclearWarfare on Oct 23, 2008. But unfortunately he wasn't an admin, so it was nominated again, and closed by Ryūlóng on November 19 2008 with a close, which he knew would be objected to: " Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too". The role of an admin at afd is not to judge whether articles should be deleted. The role of an admin is to judge whether wikipedians think that articles should be deleted. In doing this, it is right for them to consider opinions that have some basis in policy, ignoring idontlikeit and similar arguments. When when two policies conflict, or when policy based arguments are raised in different directions, they do not get to conclude which one is right. Most of the time, it will be clear which side is the general opinion, and then, like NuclearWarfare, they should say just that--whether or not they agree. If there is no such consensus, then that's what they should say. At requests for AfD we see if admin candidates understand the basics of what is policy or not. We do not examine to see whether they are such experts as to decide between competing policies--there is no individual wikipedian entitled to claim such knowledge; rather, in contested questions we go by the community. People will inevitably tend think in disputed matters that the opinion they happen to agree with is the one supported. for fairness, perhaps we need a rule that in contested afds nobody should close except against their own opinion. DGG (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to close - The closer injected their personal opinion in the close rather than interpreted the discussion. It is too late to unring the bell, so overturn to close. What a waste of time. -- Suntag ☼ 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and keep per consensus, as the closing Admin ignored such consensus to keep and substituted his own opinion. Even had he simply expressed his view at the AfD and opted "delete", it would not have outweighed the consensus to keep. Overruling a decided consensus runs diametrically opposed to what the AfD process is all about... specially for an article that had just 2 weeks previously been "Kept" as the result of a consensus at AfD. Bad form... bad form. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Consensus hardly supported a delete. I was more than shocked at this - that the closer also stated this DrV was going to happen likely was a sign that a different approach should have been taken. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article is kind of coatracky but usually a closing rationale that says "i expect this to be at DRV" should not be used to declare a consensus to delete. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The relevant policies override consensus. JBsupreme (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn / Restore I especially agree with Alansohn, Kan8eDie and DGG. Dozens of editors took the time to comment and to respond to others comments in a long discussion. Serious arguments were offered, questions were raised and answered, facts were put forward about sourcing, policy was argued over, researched and cited. Time and effort were spent not only in the discussion but even in improving the article further. The closing administrator, Ryulong, gave no evidence whatever of having read or understood the discussion. The two-line closing statement was inadequate -- and, frankly, deeply disrespectful -- to all those editors, and added an extra kick with the disparaging comment, Really. A "list of bow tie wearers.".
    When there's no consensus and when the "Keep" side has arguments that cite policy -- even if only to give a credible interpretation of it -- the closing admin should respect the fact that there is no consensus and default to keep. (Or, as in this case, when the keep arguments are so much stronger than the delete arguments, declare "Keep".) It wasn't Ryulong's job to substitute his or her judgment for that of the 70-plus editors, but to judge consensus and only overrule it if policy was irretrievably violated by the article's existence.
    Ryulong stated: Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. If these 12 words are supposed to be a policy argument, the only policy that WP:DISCRIMINATE applies to is a section of WP:NOT, and the only phrase in that section that applies to this AfD would be merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That vague policy statement isn't enough to impose an administrator's judgment, overruling the results of a deletion discussion. Ryulong hasn't deigned to favor us with a detailed explanation, and it's not worth trying to guess what other policy the closing decision might stand on.
    For the closing to be upheld, the reasoning should be not only more cogent than all the Keep arguments, but show that all of those alternative readings of policy are not nearly as reasonable as his own. I can't wait to see that superior wisdom. -- Noroton (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep: Absolutely no consensus to delete. And, as I pointed out in the AfD, the phrase, "list of bow tie devotees" is even sourced--which is more than what can be said about most WP:L's--so it is hardly indiscriminate per WP:RS. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep there was no consensus to delete the article. Also consider admonishing and possibly de-sysopping the closing administrator. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep; I just elaborated on the membership requirement on the topic page itself. It was not indiscriminate, and the change made that even more apparent (through wordiness.) The closing administrator doesn't need to say any more; his current words and action are more than enough to show his motive. He doesn't like it, I get it. There's no accounting for taste. Restore. htom (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Wow the inclusionist cabal got here pretty quickly. As per the talk page discussion after the closure, the 'Keep' votes were a summary of all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT), . The only arguments citing policy were arguments to delete (WP:N, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). This is why AfD isn't a popularity contest and why Wikipedia isn't a democracy and this is why we have administrators to judge consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can chant INDISCRIMINATE as much as you like; it wasn't an indiscriminate list, and the deletionist cabal's chanting (a half dozen of you, within ten minutes of the AfD listing) doesn't make it so. There were many people who were otherwise notable who were not on the list. htom (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:INDISCRIMINATE is Wikipedia policy, not an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The article can have all the sources in the world, but if the topic is not notable, the topic doesn't belong. That's the essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Themfromspace (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In order to use that policy, it's got to fit, and it doesn't fit this article. The concept of notable people wearing bow ties is itself something that was footnoted to multiple reliable sources that covered the subject in a substantial way. So the article not only passes WP:N, but any possible interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your quote from the policy could just as easily fit List of presidents of the United States, since that article's "[m]erely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make [the article List of presidents of the United States ] suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Can you explain why one list is indiscriminate and the other is not? -- Noroton (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec) WP:NOTABILITY Policy:

          This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

          INDISCRIMINATE lists five things that are to be excluded: Frequently Asked Questions; Plot summaries; Lyrics databases; Statistics; and News reports. Which of those was this article? And while I'm quoting policy,

          Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so ... Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

          htom (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per lack of consensus. I argued strongly for deletion in the AfD as it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list and thus inappropriate for the encyclopedia and I stand by it (there are three things required to have an article -- something that's notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic -- and I think it's clear the article failed the third), but it's clear from the AfD that the result should have been no consensus despite my beliefs. The arguments that the "score" of 37–30 should have resulted in a keep are completely missing the point that an AfD is not a vote, and the "score" doesn't matter. Despite my beliefs about the unencyclopedic content, however, I think it's clear that the AfD was no consensus and thus its deletion was inappropriate, regardless of what the "score" was.  Xihr  05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep as "no consensus". While I somewhat agree with the sentiment of the closing administrator, his closure does not reflect consensus. There were numerous well-argued "keep" opinions, many pointing to coverage of the topic in reliable sources. These cannot easily be dismissed.  Sandstein  05:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I promised: Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryulong, do you have an argument to go along with that opinion? -- Noroton (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no real consensus either way. Seven votes (that's right, I went there) does not mean anything in the long run. As an administrator, I used my discretion to close as I saw fit, and as I saw the subject of the list. I had never seen this list before. I was asked to review the situation, and I did what I saw fit. Is Wikipedia going to lose something from the deletion of this list of people who have been known (and oddly well referenced) to wear a bow tie? It certainly doesn't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. I don't think Britannica, World Book, or Encarta say, "X wears a bow tie, as do Y, Z, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, ß, Æ, Ø, ə, ll, etc." Sure, they may have a photo of a noted person who has worn a bow tie, but not a whole list of them as extensive as the Wikipedia one. As such, I stand by my deletion. It may have been not what you all wanted, but that's what always happens to some extent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "No real consensus either way" means we don't delete the page. That's policy. Administrative discretion means you have some discretion in determining whether or not there was a consensus to delete. It does not mean you get to impose your own opinion when there is no consensus. As for comparisons to print encyclopedias, well Wikipedia is not paper. DHowell (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think Britannica, World Book, or Encarta say [...] You fail to address the argument in the AfD that WP:FIVE specifically states that Wikipedia is meant to be more than a general encyclopedia. It is supposed to encompass specialized encyclopedias and this article could easily go into a specialized encyclopedia on men's fashion. Your statement also flies in the face of WP:NOTPAPER which is official policy. Just how many of our 2.6 million articles would pass the test you set up? Would any of the articles in Category:City of Heroes, for instance? (That's the category of articles you mention on your user page that you'd like to work on. Why is it that your interests are supposed to be more important than the interests of people curious about bow-tie wearing?)
          It certainly doesn't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. We don't delete things because one administrator thinks they don't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia, and "doesn't necessarily benefit" isn't the standard and certainly isn't deletion policy. What Wikipedia loses is a topic that has been of proven value, as demonstrated by reliable sources: the topic of notable people whose bow-tie wearing has become notable a topic that, as proven by the sources referenced in the article is influential in both fashion commentary and news articles about the popularity of bow-tie wearing because sales can go up when men become intrigued by bow ties seen beneath famous faces. This was further reinforced by the sourced references to bow-tie-company websites, where famous people were listed -- showing that this exact subject is a well-sourced phenomenon of some importance in the real world. This was all brought out in the AfD that you say you read.
          I used my discretion to close as I saw fit Your "discretion" ("power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds") is bounded by deletion policy and is supposed to follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which states, A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy. Outside of consensus-endorsed deletes, you get to delete if -- and only if -- policy is irretrievably violated. You haven't shown that any policy at all was violated. If you aren't being discreet, then discretion isn't what you're exercising.
          You've also been combative in your closing statement and combative in your statements here, which is offending many editors. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And another thing: but not a whole list of them as extensive as the Wikipedia one So what. No policy or guideline demands that. It isn't our job to be mediocre but to excel. From the first line of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia Even your discretion within WP:IAR is bounded by the limits of improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Your close was policyless, Ryulong. -- Noroton (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Neither the closing administrator nor anyone who has commented in this DRV has so much as suggested that there was consensus to delete this article. Instead, there is an assertion that the article violated "policy", but I have seen no coherent explanation of which policy was violated, other than the nonpolicy of something that seems this trivial to me couldn't possibly belong in an encyclopedia, could it?. Unfortunately, this entire AfD (from the nominator's noncredible claim that he was totally unaware that there had been three previous AfDs -- including one 2 weeks earlier, to the rapid appearance of "delete" comments within minutes after the AfD was started, to the closing administrator's dismissive remark about the "inevitable DRV") has the unpleasant smell of having been a group effort to disrupt Wikipedia to prove the group's collective manhood. This kind of "mine is bigger than yours" behavior by administrators should be rewarded by a slap with a very large fish. --Orlady (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's just full of bad faith there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you read the AfD discussion before you closed it? There was plenty of discussion there of the phenomena to which I refer. --Orlady (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I quite agree with Ryulong. If you have actual hard evidence to show that several of our most experienced administrators and editors are all working together to disrupt the project for some unspecified purpose, then show it. Otherwise, assume good faith and stop insinuating false claims. There is no cabal, unless you go looking for one. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Evidence?
            This article is entirely original research. Almost everyone has worn a bow tie at some point, and this article is an indiscriminate collection of information, contrary to WP:NOT. A case in point would be the 'list of big-busted models' article that was earlier deleted. How many times must one wear a bow tie in order to be included?. The "Attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" should be merged back into bow tie and the list deleted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            (Disclosure: I've never worn a bow tie.) We don't need this. It's an embarrassment. If a given individual was known for his bow ties, then they can be mentioned in the article about that individual. Delete. DS (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Neutral- I just wanted to point out- the last AFD for this list closed not even a MONTH ago. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            I wore a bow tie once. I don't see any of my wedding photos in this article (probably just as well). More seriously, anything encyclopedic here could easily be shifted across - with no GFDL issues - to Bow tie. Delete. Black Kite 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Merge all useful content to bow tie. There is good content here, however the list is entirely indiscriminate and what content we do have would be much better off in the bow tie article, which I note needs a wider perspective on things anyway. A short list could be included in the bow tie article. Listing people who wear article of clothing X isn't very encyclopedic. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Delete - seems mostly non-encyclopedic The muffin is not subtle (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Strongest of Deletes maybe now that Noroton "fired" Wikipedia we can get this off. Seriously, like the nom said, this is an embarassment. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Delete Well referenced, but a dictionary article can be well-referenced too; the point is that this is too trivial of a list topic. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
          • For something not a conspiracy it collected a lot of deletes in the first ten minutes. (quote edited from the AfD 4 page.) htom (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for more "evidence" here are some of the statements about this discussion that turned up on user talk pages (names removed to keep this impersonal) that gave me the strong impression that this AfD was not a civilized effort to obtain consensus, but rather a demonstration of which members of the pack are the alpha males:
"If I was a bolder admin, this would be a straight WP:IAR delete, then a fight to the death at WP:DRV."
"Damnit, [name deleted]. You've got balls. I salute you."
"For your gutsy closure on this AfD, I hereby award you the (brand new) Admin's Barnstar!"
--Orlady (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-I would just like to point out my comment in the AFD was NOT a delete. When I said Neutral, I meant I'd had no opinion at the time whether or not it should be kept. My only purpose in commenting at the time was to bring up the recent AFD that had been closed as a keep. Even Assuming Good Faith, it still seemed silly to me to have another AFD so soon after the last. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And? The first five "restores" here were all within an hour. I don't see anyone accusing you of any conspiracies. I'd also note that two of the arguments here weren't in favor of deletion - I was for a merge, and Umbralcorax has already stated that s/he was neutral. Quick responses like this are not unusual. Again, stop digging for dirt when all you're going to find is bedrock, and let's all get on with the topic at hand. Tossing about accusations is not conduct becoming of a good editor. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had the page on "watch", was part of the discussion, and was extremely surprised that it was deleted. The fact that the first five restores got here so soon can only nean that they shared this concern. And looking above, even the editors arguing for delete are concerned that the closure and deletion was an error of judgement. With respects, consensus here indicates that the deltion should be overturned. Will this consesnsus be ignored as well? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstand me. I merely wanted to make sure that my Neutral vote from the original AFD wasn't considered as part of the deletes, as it looks like OtterSmith may have done (if that wasn't the case, then my bad). Other than that, if my comment about it being silly ruffled your feathers, that wasn't my intention. I never said it wasn't legit or that it wasn't in good faith, i just thought that it was, well, silly. If it hadn't been so close to the previous AFD, then its probable I never would have commented at all. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No bad intent on either side, as far as I'm concerned. I noticed that you were neutral, didn't want to be accused of deleting others who had posted in the initial flurry of deletes, and so left your voice there (as I would a keep voice.) Some of these things you can't win. Sorry for any confusion. htom (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Sorry if I came across as harsh or defensive. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion - Firstly, the opening argument that those on the side of deletion were simply arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be countered simply by noting that the same number of people on the keep side argued WP:ILIKEIT. Secondly, the issue of criteria still looms over the whole article as it was not as clearly defined in the opening paragraph as it might of been, this in and of itself isn't a criteria for deletion but when you look at it closely it is hard to see how you could possibly have a stringent set of criteria for a list such as this as the topic description itself is rather vague. How do you define known for exactly and how can you keep this from being abused? (This has been discussed numerous times on the AfD page but I am yet to be convinced by any of the responses I have received). Thirdly, just because something is well sourced does not mean it deserves an article nor does it mean it is notable. There are many frivolous topics covered by respectable news sources as they have to produce new material every day and you have slow news days. Though the vote tally lists the consensus as keep to do so based on the strength of the arguments presented and in the face of policy would have been irresponsible behavior from the administrator involved. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 06:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I can understand the argument that it is an indiscriminate list...if it were indiscriminate. By setting its inclusion standards, it is, by very definition, exclusive. Moreover, 3 prior admins felt that the list deserved to stay versus the 1 who decided deletion. Keep it. — BQZip01 — talk 06:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Really. Just because you don't like the information doesn't mean that it is "indiscriminate". And if you are already anticipating "the inevitable DRV" in your closing, you've more than likely made the wrong decision. DHowell (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, and everyone stop counting votes. AfD is not a vote, and consensus can at times go against the majority. This is one of those times. Many (at least a dozen) of the "keep" arguments focused on WP:NOTAGAIN, which is an invalid argument unless the nomination was clearly made in bad faith (which this certainly wasn't), and had little or nothing to do with the article itself. That in itself leaves us with a "no consensus" close, which can certainly be left to the mercy of the closing administrator, or a clear "delete"; a fact further assisted by many of the remaining "keep" arguments focusing on WP:INTERESTING and other arguments listed in WP:ATA. The policies cited against this article across the discussion are firm: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CRUFT, WP:SALAT. Articles such as this are unencyclopedic - I will admit, as I did in the discussion, that this one did happen to have some encyclopedic content, however I will state as I did there that it's better off in the bow tie article rather than as a separate list. We also need to keep in mind the accessibility of this information to readers; someone looking for people wearing bow ties is going to search for "bow tie", not the typically super-case-and-spelling-sensitive "List of bow tie wearers". While I agree the closing statement could have been MUCH more diplomatic, the result of the debate was correct. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, if an article has some encyclopedic content that belongs somewhere else, that's an argument for a merge, not a delete. DHowell (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That in itself leaves us with a "no consensus" close, which can certainly be left to the mercy of the closing administrator No, we do not rely on the "mercy" of the closing admin. That would violate Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, which states, If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept. In that quote, "rough consensus" links to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus which states that admins may delete even with a no-consensus result -- but only if the article irretrievably violates policy: A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions. Administrators do not have permission to close outside of policy violations. Even WP:IAR limits us in violating policy only to further the goals of the encyclopedia, and that violation would need to be justified and be subject to consensus. There is no case for delete and no consensus here for it.
      And you mention policies cited in the AfD. But of the ones you mention, only WP:INDISCRIMINATE is actually part of a policy, and it hasn't been shown that it actually applies to this article -- to the contrary, it's been argued well that this article passes the only (vague) statement in that section that could possibly apply here. -- Noroton (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment about the "inevitable DRV" - Everyone stop for a moment and think. How many times have you seen a really close result such as this, or a really long debate such as this, NOT end up at DRV, regardless of the result? Whichever way this closed, someone would have brought it here. No, stop, actually think about it. Yes, there you go, now the light has turned on. As I said just above, the closure could have been more diplomatic, however I do not believe Ryulong was intending to be at all dismissive by saying that. I myself have said a similar thing here, in another controversial debate. That one is an exception to the rule as it did not go to DRV, but the point is still valid. Simply because the closing administrator expected the debate to go to DRV does not mean they're closing something in bad faith or they're deliberately making a WP:POINT. It just means they're being quite practical about the whole situation and they know how drama on Wikipedia works. And that is a valuable skill for an administrator to have. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better response for an administrator believing that any decision at all would be brought to DRV, would be to relist for more discussion, or to just make their argument in the AfD and let someone else close the discussion. DHowell (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, your closing was infinitely better than the one here. While you anticipated a potential DRV, you staved it off by giving a rational explanation for your close, and indicated that you were open to discussion of it. There is a huge difference between "Before you take this to DRV, please consider these points, and please discuss with me if you disagree..." and "I don't like it! And when you inevitably take this to DRV, I'll say I don't like it again!" DHowell (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't relist discussions that have gone on this long. Relisting is only for when there haven't been enough comments for even a "no consensus" close. The discussion needed to have been closed; as I said, it could have been done better, and you do have a point yourself in saying a comment rather than closure could have been made, but again, I feel this would have happened anyway, and mentioning that fact is only being practical about it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The implication of your original argument here was that even a "no consensus" close would have been controversial and resulted in an inevitable DRV. If this was the case, then regardless of the actual volume of discussion, there hadn't "been enough comments for even a 'no consensus' close." No controversial discussion absolutely needs to be closed at any particular time, after all, there is no deadline. (Personally, in this case, I don't think that a "no consensus" close would have necessarily resulted in a DRV, and so would have been appropriate; but a re-list would have been perfectly within administrative discretion, given the ongoing controversy.) DHowell (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer in closing the AFD or commenting above at this DRV seems to made little or no attempt to way the arguments made at the AFD, but instead has just taken his own opinion and used that. There was certainly no consensus to delete this article nor was any overiding policy argument made by those arguing for deletion that was not addressed by at least some of those who argued for keeping. Admins should not just put their own opinion above those who comment in AFDs or it is completely pointless to have AFD at all. (It also really discourages editors from contributing to wikipedia when their views are just ignored despite there being a reasonable policy argument.) Davewild (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this current DRV reminds me greatly of oh... this
    • List of bow tie wearers – Closure endorsed, for now. There is clearly no current consensus to delete this article. However, I think Lid and Otto4711 have legitimate points about whether this might represent indiscriminate information. The problem is that the sources cited in the article, while they point to the notability of particular neckwear choices, do not establish the notability of the means of categorization in itself. Has it really been established that whatever Karl Marx and Pee Wee Herman have in common is not trivial? There are still outstanding questions for a possible future AfD to consider, and for now this should be thought of as no consensus. – Chick Bowen 06:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Same situation, except it went the other way however the arguments remain the same - votes of interesting and I Like It vs votes of policy with firm backing. The future AfD had the questions, they were considered, and the result overruled the votes without a basis in policy. –– Lid(Talk) 08:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you read the discussion and came away with this conclusion, but I'll note that this Sioux City Journal article does seem to establish "that whatever Karl Marx and Pee Wee Herman have in common is not trivial" (i.e. it is discussed significantly in reliable sources). DHowell (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • NBC News economics reporter Irving R. Levine, according to Wikipedia, began wearing a bow tie in 1994 when he delivered a commencement address. "I needed help in tying it," he said.

        The same Web site reported that Central College (of Pella, Iowa) graduate Harry Smith of CBS used to make his bow tie fashion statements on television in Denver before going to CBS nationally. Once there, the network executives asked him to retire his shorter ties as Charles Osgood had cornered CBS' bow tie market.

        This article is citing wikipedia, and judging by its content it is citing the very list that was just deleted. In another twist in events the list here is using notability from the fact it was an article on wikipedia, not the other way around. Apart from which that article does not support a complete listing of every person/individual/fictional character that wore a bow tie, it supports a section on the bow tie article but not this indiscriminate list. –– Lid(Talk) 09:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Fortunately, there are better sources than that that discuss how bow tie wearers in general are perceived as a coherent stereotype. I added analysis of bow tie wearers by one of them, Russell Smith style columnist for the Toronto Globe and Mail, to the article. In an amusing irony, this content was removed by Orlady (talk · contribs), one of the people arguing for keeping the article, on the grounds that discussion of the stereotypes that people have of bow tie wearers as a whole, which link together the individuals that wear bow ties as parts of their public personae and that make this more than a trivial connection amongst seemingly disparate people, didn't belong in the article. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In any event, the article still contains the New York Times quotation, "A list of bow tie devotees reads like a Who's Who of rugged individualists," which seems in my estimation to "establish the notability of the means of categorization in itself." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not see any irony in my having removed that citation. I was trying to maintain the article's quality by removing some of the semi-relevant content that gets added to it -- the presence of which was in fact the basis for some of the arguments that the entire article should be deleted. I believe that the citation I removed from the article was this URL. The Russell Smith item is about the fashion trends related to bow ties and the image connotations of bow-tie wearing. It says nothing about famous people wearing bow ties or the effect of famous people's bow-tie wearing on the popularity of bow ties or on people's judgments of the bow tie. Considering that the list article cited and discussed several other reliable sources that focus directly on the topic of notable people and bow-tie wearing, I judged the Russell Smith citation to be excess clutter for this article. I see that you added it to Bow tie, where I agree with your judgment that it is a good addition. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The presence of reliably sourced analysis of images of bow tie wearers was actually a usable as a good rebuttal to the point, repeated yet again above, that there is no actual category of "bow tie wearers" that sources discuss. The irony was your taking it out in the face of people making this point yet again. The major source was actually Smith's book, which treats the subject in more detail than the on-line article. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lid: that article does not support a complete listing of every person/individual/fictional character that wore a bow tie, it supports a section on the bow tie article but not this indiscriminate list. No Wikipedia policy or guideline mandates that every item on a list needs to be found in a single source. Policy was the only justification for not following a no-consensus keep, and opponents have not been able to find a policy that was violated. -- Noroton (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I strongly believe that this article should be deleted, but sadly, there was no consensus to do so. DRV is not AFD round 2; the AFD had no consensus to delete. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. The closer's rationale "Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate" is a personal vote, not a summarisation, was justified here later as "There was no real consensus either way...I used my discretion to close as I saw fit, and as I saw the subject of the list.". This debate had more than enough valid opinions registered to be able to draw a neutral conclusion of no consensus. Admin discretion should never have come into it. MickMacNee (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional reasons to overturn:
    • The closing admin implies that the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, this is not a new argument; it was put forward in the original AfD, as were counterarguments. What I see is the closing admin stating his opinion and acting on it, not weighing the arguments against the counterguments with WP:CON in mind. I assert that the list is not indiscriminate, but as far as WP:CON goes (in the AfD), maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Okay, so via WP:CON, the applicability of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is unclear. But even the closing admin admits that the applicability of WP:V is clear: "Just because information is sourced..." With a core policy, namely WP:V, applying, and with a non-core policy, namely WP:INDISCRIMINATE, being of uncertain relevance, the implications of the core policy trump those of the non-core policy. The article passes WP:V and may or may not pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE; and because WP:V is core, the article must be kept.
    • Because the closing admin anticipated "the inevitable DRV," he is arguably at least close to violating WP:DGFA, which states in bold, When in doubt, don't delete. There is precedence for this reasoning at the nucular AfD and DRV. The AfD's closing closing admin knew of "the risk (?) of being overturned on appeal," prompting the DRV's overturning admin to comment, "if you think there is a good chance that the XfD you are closing will be overturned on appeal to DRV, and not just appealed. That seems to be a pretty strong indication that you are violating the deletion guidelines for administrators' imperative to: when it doubt, don't delete." While the closing admin on this AfD didn't explicitly state that he predicted an overturn, he admits, "There was no real consensus either way." If there was no consensus to delete, then it would seem reasonable to predict that the AfD would be overturned as no consensus. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those of you who insist on pointing to WP:NOT, you could just as well point to the WP:NOTPAPER subsection as to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE one. Sure, a list of bow tie wearers may be less profound than what you'd expect in a paper encyclopedia, but it's still more substantive than celebrity gossip on E!. No reason to be absolutistic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah (thanks, Noroton). And per WP:DEL, which the closing admin implicitly admits to violating when he says, "There was no real consensus either way": "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. There was no consensus in the recent AfD, but the article did not clearly violate any policies, so the default decision should have been to keep the article. Furthermore, at the time of deletion, the article was sourced, largely to reliable sources which supported the list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is just a rehash of the AfD. The correct interpretations of WP:NOTE, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:RS etc were applied, and the AfD closed correctly. Verbal chat 10:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, restore article - The closing statement made no reference to the actual arguments used by either side, was casual and dismissive, and attempted to pre-empt this debate. A majority - all be it a slim one - of the commenters had supported keeping the article. There were reasonable arguments on the other side; I felt they were adequately answered, but the closing admin is not obliged to agree with me. However, I don't think it was true, and it was certainly not claimed or demonstrated, that the policy arguments on the 'delete' side were better or more reasonable. Much though I would like to imagine there was a clear consensus for keep, I don't think so; hence my recommendation of 'no consensus' as a fairer verdict. I also believe that the original nominator's action in bringing the article to AfD was premature, given how recently the article had been there; the fact that the nominator is an admin merely means he should know better than to ignore WP:BEFORE; I would not have objected if another admin had speedily closed the debate on this basis. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. (Disclosure, I argued keep in the afd). DRV is of course, not a rehash of the Afd, but a review of the process. . While an admin reasonably may delete against consensus in the face of a clear violation of a core policy - COPYRIGHT and BLP come to mind - here there was simply an argument over which one of a number of competing policies and guidelines should apply. This discussion was screaming for a no consensus close, and given that such cases default to keep, here the closer erred in deleting the article. WP:CONSENSUS is policy too. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I am not sure what to think of this list, but not even the closing admin claimed there was a consensus to delete. In fact, they now said above: "There was no real consensus either way." The closure was based entirely on a faulty policy argument that had already been answered in the discussion. But of course the prejudice of a single admin who can't be bothered to read a long deletion discussion is much more important than the result of the discussion itself. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Closing admin exercised judgment in making the decision, but judgment is supposed to be in determining if consensus exists to take an action and nothing more. Admin agrees that no consensus exists, presumably after discarding the numerous "votes" and non-arguments presented in the debate and considering only the well-reasoned arguments; therefore relisting is appropriate. --otherlleft (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DHowell. Mike R (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks as though I'm finally going to have to write that page that I've been meaning to write for some months now. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn. This was a poor deletion on behalf of the deleting admin. There was absolutely no consensus for delete on the article's nomination page. Two weeks prior, the result was keep. It never ceases to amaze me the clear lack of responsibilty and common sense I run across in these deletion decisions. No consensus. DigitalNinjaWTF 15:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- At absolutely the worst case scenario, this should have been closed as a no-consensus. There were plenty of valid arguments for keep in that AFD that I think the closing admin did not consider in making the decision to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was clearly no consensus in that debate, and barring spam/blp/sock/csd etc. issues, deletion discussions which fail to generate consensus should not result in the page in question being deleted. Respectfully, the skomorokh 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Xhir, Sandstein, Stifle, etc. While I missed the AfD and would have voted to merge any truly important to bow tie, this AfD clearly had no consensus at all, and was a fairly poor close. I would not protest an immediate relisting of the AfD for continued discussion. GlassCobra 17:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Silly numbers: I just poured AfD4 into MS Word, and it's about 40 pages. (!) This discussion is about 18 pages, and growing. (The article, itself, via the cache, is about 20, but the photos inline with rather than parallel the text, and make the page count a great deal larger than the text would be.) htom (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Might I recommend a "Speedy overturn" due to the closing admin's apparent violation of both WP:DEL (see [78]) and WP:DGFA (see [79])? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep as no consensus. I think the closing nom might be injecting a bit too much personal opinion in this, and the closing comments make it clear it wasn't closed in an objective fashion. I would strongly oppose a relisting as it was listed just a couple of weeks after the last AFD, which ended in a KEEP/NAC, and this is the 4th AFD total. Give it a while. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep. The closing admin not only ignored the consensus and cited his own opinion for closure, but taunted the participants in the discussion with the snarky remark of seeing this taken to "the inevitable DRV." Ecoleetage (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if closer wasn't concerned with consensus but just wanted to give his opinion, he should have left a comment in the AFD, not the closing statement. Personally, I think this is a silly use of a list and would probably vote to delete... but what do I know? I've got an opinion but I admit it might be wrong... the closing has some obligation to be objective. --Rividian (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on concensus: 37 votes to keep, 30 to delete, 3 to merge, 2 to delete and/or merge is actually a 37-35 split on keeping the article, rather than a 37-30 split. 37-35 is a "damned close-run thing", and even 37-30 is pretty close - especially when you consider arguments such as "Keep. All wearers are now referenced.", which doesn't argue against the key reason for deletion at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. We go with the admin's interpretation of policy, assuming, of course, that the admin is acting in good faith. Which he was, wasn't he?. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) That opinion is incorrect, as even assumimg good faith in his actions, the Admin acted outside of policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A closing admin whose rationalization for deletion was "Really. A 'list of bow tie wearers'" comes as close to bad faith as one can possibly conceive. This was not a policy interpretation; this was a vote by the closing administrator, imposing his personal opinion and disregarding consensus. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] WP:DEL is policy, the last time I checked. And DRV doesn't exist to indict bad-faith admins (though I agree with Alansohn that this is a questionable case); it is here to address potentially faulty AfD closes. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We go with the admin's interpretation of policy Cavalry, what policy did Ryulong cite? Can you give a diff for that citing of policy? I don't know where Ryulong ever cited policy. -- Noroton (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) and yes, good faith in his motivations still allows us to question his actions. Good faith does not make an Admin right. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is the closing admin's reasoning, in his words: "The result was delete. Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too." Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but it appears the statement begins by ignoring consensus, which is followed by sarcasm, which is followed by disregarding WP:RS, and ends with more sarcasm. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate." That isn't sarcasm, that's WP:N and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Themfromspace (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't an explanation, either. It's an assertion (of points already made and already shot down convincingly in the AfD discussion). Sorry, it won't do, as this DRV is proving. The closing admin's statement might just as well have said the discussion violated the Law of Gravity or the Laws of thermodynamics. Unless the reasons for the conclusion are glaringly obvious, and evidently they aren't, a closing admin needs to explain. The explanation we've got so far doesn't nearly justify the decision, hence the many "overturn" !votes. -- Noroton (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You complain that he didn't cite policy, but when it's proven that he did (in a way) you respond with "Sorry, that won't do.". You might as well slap a big sticker to your forehead that says ~STUBBORN ------~ and— NO!! *smack* BAD KOJI!! You stop foul-mouthing the other editors! Just watch from the sidelines like you were earlier!!--Koji† 20:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
when it's proven that he did Where is it proven that Ryulong cited any policy? (And don't call people names. It can get you blocked. I'm removing the slur, even though you seem to have meant it in a lighthearted way -- it's still an insult.) My comment just above was meant to say, "even if the closing admin had cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE ..." And no one's been able to make a case for that "violation" that can withstand scrutiny. -- Noroton (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Themfromspace, the closing sarcasm was "And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too." Inevitable DRV? And, quite frankly, it was also a misinterpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For those who didn't see the original article, you can locate a cached copy on Google -- take a good look at it and you will find something that was very well organised and carefully written. I hate hodgepodge lists and routinely !vote against them in AfD, but this was not a hodgepodge. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I misread the comment. In regards to that I'd have to say that any administrator decision against the pure tally of an AfD as big as this would be bound to go to DRV, so the admin was stating fact rather than sarcasm (for proof just look at where we are now). Themfromspace (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For a lack of any better place to put this (after all, the article and talk page are currently MIA), here is another source that would seem to justify the existence of this article. Not as explicit as the New York Times ("A list of bow tie devotees reads like a Who's Who of rugged individualists"), but have a look at the bottom of the page. Lo and behold: A list of bow tie wearers! Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we are all on the same page (no pun intended), here is the article, via a cached page on Google: [80] As you can see, this article is extensively researched and properly organised. This falls miles beyond WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ with that description. The discussion (clearly defined and titled) of people who wore bow ties "when it was fashionable" was provided only as context to the list. In its entirety, it read as follows (source callouts and wikilinks omitted for readability): "Bow tie wearers of the nineteenth century Bow ties were common in the nineteenth century. For example, portraits of U.S. presidents from Van Buren through McKinley commonly show them in bow ties. Wearing of a bow tie was seldom commented upon and did not form part of the public perception of figures such as the American inventor Thomas Edison or Communist theorist Karl Marx." --Orlady (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of the list (but not of the editing history) the "non-notable and indiscriminate" membership; Bali ultimate, are you in favor of my running through Wikipedia putting AfD on those pages, citing your declaration of their non-notability? Did you even see the list before the proposers' deletions started? htom (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting ridiculous. Will an admin please be bold and restore this article? It's glaringly obvious that at least for this discussion, the result is overturn. DigitalNinjaWTF 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion How can we even pretend to be a real encyclopedia when we have these lists that have no real usefulness? And I see no consensus to overturn the decision despite some comments from editors who must have a different definition of it than is commonly used. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore it is not acceptable that a single administrator can delete an article for which there is clearly no consensus for deletion. I thought the aguments for keep had the day in terms of policy arguments as well as numbers. Even if I am wrong, it is still only a no consensus which should have resulted in no deletion taken place. The closing comments clearly show that this admin is opinionated on this article and therefore does not qualify as uninvolved. SpinningSpark 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not an exercise in snout-counting. --Carnildo (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policies and guidelines exist in part to prevent all this predictable drama within which we now find ourselves embroiled. The editor/admin who created the recent afd should have followed WP:BEFORE and the admin who closed it should have followed WP:DGFA (when in doubt don't delete). The delete side seems to be using a form of coercive persuasion by not restoring the article and perhaps making it extraordinarily uncomfortable for decent admins to just do their duty and restore the article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm amazed by all the use of personal opinion about WP:INDISCRIMINATE by the deletion-endorsers here. Do I seriously need to remind you that in a DRV, we're discussing the AfD itself and not the article in question? Per my reading of WP:DEL, except in the case of WP:BLP's, it is inappropriate to be discussing the article itself at this point (though I myself am guilty of the occasional tangent). The relevant policies and guidelines now are not WP:N or WP:NOT but rather WP:DEL, WP:DGFA, and WP:CON--i.e., the policies and guidelines that pertain to AfD's and not to articles (although WP:CON applies to talk pages as well, of course). We're operating with a different frame of reference now. That is why you see people like Stifle, who !voted to delete in the AfD, now !voting to overturn the deletion. I have argued that the deletion is either a certain or probable violation of WP:DEL, WP:DGFA, and WP:CON. For example, the admin knowingly deleted a non-WP:BLP without consensus to delete, and is therefore in direct and unquestionable violation of WP:DEL. I have yet to see these arguments refuted (although the AfD nominator did make the bizarre claim that the deleting admin's violation of WP:DEL, a policy, doesn't even matter as long as the admin was acting in good faith). Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bleh. In case I was too vague about how I inferred from WP:DEL that the DRV should not be about article content unless it concerns a WP:BLP, I refer you to A) Wikipedia:Del#Deletion_review in general, but especially the line, "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review" (read: Content-based closes may be better addressed by rewriting than through DRV); and B) from Wikipedia:Del#Deletion_discussion: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate" (read: Only with regard to WP:BLP's should content be more salient than conesnsus in deletion discussions.) In any event, my point was that this is not AfD #2 (well, #5 in this case), and yet the deletion-endorsers here tend to be giving reasoning that is more appropriate for an AfD than for a DRV. 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And what is this stuff?: [82], [83], [84]. Clearly they are pleasant and diplomatic. But given the facts of the matter, technically and policy-wise they too are bizarre (surely a good policy interpretation of "close results" signals when in doubt don't delete), DR isn't normally the place for ARBCOM campaigning, if that's what this stuff is (make the under the gun admins feel better about themselves, i guess). Would-be crats should not be putting pressure on this situation. It's fine to stand up for someone, just remember what happened when the ultimate policy enforcer/the ultimate admin said "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," George Bush (the executive branch of the U.S. government) showed extreme good faith towards Michael D. Brown#Hurricane Katrina. All should and can respect Bush in standing up for Mr. Brown. Nevertheless, this didn't make the situation any less of a snafu or fubar. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Case You Missed This: Perhaps we didn't already notice (and it is easy to overlook it in this long, long discussion), the closing admin has freely admitted that there was no consensus, that he ignored the lack of consensus by his inserting his own opinion into the mix, and used an WP:IDONTLIKEIT defense to justify his actions: [85]. What more needs to be said? Let's put the article back where it belongs and get on with other things. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The "rationale" given by the closer is not a rationale at all. He just ignored the debate and did what he wanted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. I think there were a lot of opinions on the keep side that could be discounted by the cloising admin on the basis of non-policy related contributions but its obvious that the careful balancing of competing views that this discussion required was absent and instead the closing admin decided to close it how they personally felt. I do believe that admins have wide discretion to discount non-policy based arguments and also to choose between closely competing outcomes but this discretion should not be used in the absence of careful deliberation. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Well (Church) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This article was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, although it contained very little, if any, promotional content. The deleting admin declined to restore it when I pointed this out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted I was the deleting admin. When Phil nicely pointed out that it was no longer blatant advertising—which I agree with—I pointed out that it still fails WP:CSD#A7 (does not indicate why its subject is important or significant). I offered to restore to user space, but he indicated he doesn't know anything about the subject. Other contributors have few edits or are indefinitely blocked. —EncMstr (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Doesn't really read like blatant advertising to me, and I can't at all support placing churches--or other places of worship--as A7-able (for the same reasons schools are exempt, it's likely to be contentious). Likely, however, an AfD is in order after restoration. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List I'd have to agree that if the closing admin agrees that the G11 was not proper, then this should be listed at AfD. As above, I wouldn't place a school or any sort of church as A7. If its truly not notable then an AfD can determine that, but a speedy in this case should not have. --Banime (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The one spammy sentence, which can be excised, reads: "The Well emphasizes its casual environment, patronage of the arts, and vibrant Sunday morning worship services." But the rest of the article does not read like advertising copy. If restored, the article can always be submitted to AfD.  Sandstein  05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD. Doesn't meet the CSD at this time. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the editor who placed the speedy deletion tag on it. The reason I went with G11 was the article was written by User:Garyalloway; Gary Alloway was listed in the article as an employee of the church. I'm personally fine with an overturn (other pairs of eyes are the main reason I didn't just delete it out of hand), but I definitely think an AfD would be in order if it is restored.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm not saying that this article wasn't properly deleted, but it seems to me that the person editing it is irrelevant. Now it needs to be POV-proof and the person needs to be up front about it, but there isn't anything against doing so in Wikipedia (this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right?). If he's a member, fine. He/she may have some good info to show how the church in question is important. I can't look at it now, but it seems to me that restoration and/or an AFD is certainly in order. — BQZip01 — talk 16:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, as discussed above, not really a G11 anymore, and A7 does not apply to churches. COI is not a good enough reason for speedy deletion, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Offer to Help Hey, why restore an article if you're only going to send it to AfD? I never saw the original article, but I did a quick Google search and found enough information to make a decent stub. If you want the article restored, put it in my user space and I'll rewrite it so it doesn't look spammy. I've rewritten a number of previously deleted articles, so this is no bother for me. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Okay, the subject is back online at The Well (church). Granted, it is a stub. But I think it makes the grade -- it has been the subject of several articles, including a nationally syndicated feature on the Knight-Ridder syndicate. I hope this solves the problem. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List - thanks to good work by Ecoleetage, the new page is sparkling, squeaky clean. Consequently, taking a view on the deletion of the original page is now moot. However, notability for the revised version still looks rather thin so listing it seems the way to go so that a community view can be established. Smile a While (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hope not -- the new stub clearly passes WP:RS and the new article has strong coverage from the Knight-Ridder news syndicate, which cites it as a leading example in the emergent church movement, which confirms notability. I will continue to scout out additional references and make sure no spam gets tucked in, but otherwise I would like to think The Well can stay on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. What makes this church notable? The article we now have just shows that it exists. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the new article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Well (church) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best course of action, I think, but let's see what the community has to say. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Allele (band) – overturned due to the presence of a third party source not taken fully into account during the discussion and close of the AFD. Participation in the DRV is not very great, but the reason given to overturn is reasonable enough. I'll amend the AFD result to "no consensus", and a new AFD is at editorial discretion. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Allele (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

While digging through the prod archive, I came across Point Of Origin (album) which said this band was deleted. The nominator in this deletion debate didn't explain why the band didn't meet the criteria in his opinion. All the commenters who supported deletion did not give a reason either while proponents of keeping the article cited Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles criterion number 6 (someone followed that up with claiming that criterion number 5 was required when the guideline clearly states that just one criterion needs to be met.) The final comment that mentioned Google news sources was never commented upon by the other people in the debate. I therefore believe that the comments made to support keeping the article where stronger than those for deletion and that the deletion should be overturned. Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. The AFD process attempts to gather a consensus, or in other words determine the feelings of the community concerning an article. It is not a competitive debate that is "won" or "lost" on the strength of arguments. When there is clearly more support for deleting an article than there is for keeping it, then deletion is the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It might not be a competition for raw votes, but it is about the strength of the arguments (it's not called a debate for nothing). The arguments for deletion were non-existent and in the one case there was one, it wasn't rooted in policy. - Mgm|(talk) 14:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware that it's called a debate. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn regarding the band article - Paul Erik's little independent third-party coverage comment was part of the AfD and does show third-party source material. However, the closer said " As of now no third-party source has been found," so it appears that the closer missed Paul Erik's comment. For what its worth, the band does maintain a press list at allelemusic.com/press, which might lead to some non press release, independent material. -- Suntag ☼ 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Original nom here. I haven't participated in a DRV before, and it's been 9 months since i tagged this article. Could an admin possibly restore it to my userspace so I can refresh my memory? Thanks! Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As it's been nine months since the deletion then it's entirely possible that the band is now more notable. That is, you cannot rely on ghits now as evidence that the AfD missed evidence of notability. As far as I know recreation hasn't been prevented. Therefore, why don't you just create the article again or request userfication? Although technically time is no bar to a DRV I think in cases like this it is almost pointless debating the merits of a deletion so far in the past. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three hits in the linked Google news search are all from '05, so I think it's reasonable to assume they appeared there 9 months ago. I've put the AfD'd version into my userspace here, so that non-admins have access to it (lacks history, though). If anyone is willing to work on the article in their userspace, I'll be happy to userfy for them; Quite's correct that an article should be able to be written with the sources found so far. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure. The closing admin's comment gives a clear indication this closure was not based on discussion, but rather his personal opinion. On a side note: I don't think it would be a good idea to run the debate yet again. It's better to let someone else close it with an extensive reasoning (or perhaps get a group of administrators to each make a call and take the concensus from that). - Mgm|(talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Not sure what happened here, but this was supposed to be a comment to the list of bow tie wearers review. - Mgm|(talk) 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


18 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Fernand Goux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The page was originally deleted in conjunction with another when it should have been discussed on its own. Secondly, the reason given was a lack of sources, but there are now two more. 212.183.134.210 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:akanemoto (edit | [[Talk:User:akanemoto|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) User:atsushi2 (edit | [[Talk:User:atsushi2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) I create this pages. This pages include many pages and revisions. I want to see the pages. please restorning. --Schwarz2 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)--Akanemoto (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lex Wotton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Hello, this is my first time here on this page. Apologies for any incorrect placement. This is about a page of a well known Australian Aboriginal figure that has been deleted. The Lex Wotton page was created last week and almost immediatley a member had placed a deletion request on the page with the reason given that Lex Wotton was not notable enough etc. Also he said cover article and not the person as well as saying that Wikipedia is not a soap box and not Lex Wotton's website etc. The page has been wiped and a redirection placed so it goes to 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Well for starters my input on the article and creation was for the sole reason of a notable person, well known and controversial was not yet entered into the Wikipedia database. Lex Wotton became more widely known as a result of the Palm Island riots that took place becuause of the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee, a young Palm Island Aboriginal man. Lex Wotton was then on the front page of major Australian news papers as well as a feature in some magazines. He even was on the cover of The National Indigenous Times as well as featured in other issues of the magazine [87] & [88] Wotton has appeared and spoken at various venues around Australia in its major cities about the ongoing problem of Aboriginal deaths in custody. His trial and conviction and imprisonment is well doccumented as well as being a source of controversy and debate. Indigenous activist groups around the globe have expressed their concerns and support for him. Just an example of one other. Unions, Actvists, Politicians both leftwing and right wing, have taken his plight on board. There have been rallies and protests in major cities regarding his conviction. A search via any of the major search engines will bring up many many articles as well as thousands of references. Please have a search of Lex Wotton via the search engines. What do you think ? Is he notable enough ? Is he worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia ?Your views would be greatly apreciated. Thanks. (Electromechanic (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oppose closure, Oppose redirect, *Take the time to investigate the profile of Lex Wotton - Firstly the person who was so keen to have the Lex Wotton article buried used the excuse of non notability. You say that "the one event in his life, the trial so overwhelms the other published events in his life" and that "the other published events in his life that the outcome could not be a balanced Wikipedia biography article. Well I beg to differ here. Lex Wotton is highly notable not only for his part and portrayal in the Palm Island Riot, not only for his trial which has attracted much controversy but also his status now as a person who major organisations and high profile people have taken on board his plight, campaigned his for release. When inserting just Lex Wotton and nothing else into the popular search engine GOOGLE , the very first thing that comes up on search is this and its also shown here below.
Details and analysis of Google search results

Drop the Charges Against Lex Wotton! - Melbourne Speakout | Sydney ...
in support of Lex Wotton on Saturday 22 Sept 07 at the old GPO to ... state continues to target
respected Palm Island man, Lex Wotton, whom ...
sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/drop-charges-against-lex-wotton-melbourne-speakout - 53k -
Cached - Similar pages

Verdict in trial of Lex Wotton, Palm Island leader - Andrew Bartlett
24 Oct 2008 ... On Wednesday I attended a rally outside the Brisbane District Court, held to
show support for Palm Island man, Lex Wotton, whose trial had ...
blogs.crikey.com.au/bartlett/2008/10/24/verdict-in-trial-of-lex-wotton-palm-island-leader/ - 29k -
Cached - Similar pages

Lex Wotton on Trial at slackbastard
9 Oct 2008 ... Lex Wotton is a Palm Island man currently on trial in Brisbane. ... Lex Wotton,
by contrast, has already served three months in jail and is ...
slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=1401 - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

Police Union attacks MP Mike Reynolds over Palm Island | The ...
26 Oct 2008 ... Speaking after Palm Island man Lex Wotton on Friday night was found guilty of
inciting the riot, Mr Pope said justice had been served, ...
www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24549054-952,00.html - Similar pages

Aboriginal activists and release riot leader Lex Wotton | The ...
1 Nov 2008 ... ABORIGINAL activists are calling for the release of convicted Palm Island riot
ringleader Lex Wotton - due to be sentenced on Friday - at a ...
www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,27574,24586027-3102,00.html - Similar pages
More results from www.news.com.au »

Green Left - AUSTRALIA: Free Lex Wotton!
25 Oct 2008 ... Aboriginal activist Sam Watson has called for major rallies in cities across
Australia in response to Palm Island Aboriginal man Lex Wotton ...
www.greenleft.org.au/2008/772/39826 - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Green Left - AUSTRALIA: Free Lex Wotton!
Nov 2008 ... Palm Island Aboriginal man Lex Wotton was sentenced to six years’ jail for “riot
with destruction” on November 7 — just four days after 22 ... ...
www.greenleft.org.au/2008/774/39942 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from www.greenleft.org.au »

The World Today - Alleged ringleader of Palm Island riots runs for ...
28 Nov 2006 ... CONOR DUFFY: Lex Wotton is accused of leading the riots that saw the ...
Lex Wotton says the current council has wasted time attacking the ...
www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1799437.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

So what we have here from the first eight out of ten search results shown in the order that they appear is

  • One article calling for the charges against Lex Wotton to be dropped.*
  • One article posted by politician Andrew Bartlett giving his view about the action against Palm Island leader Lex Wotton.*
  • Information about a Free Lex Wotton rally for November 1 and some viewpoints posted about his trial.*
  • A Courier Mail article by Kay Dibben and Brett Judge *
  • A Courier Mail article about Aboriginal activists calling for Lex Wottons release. *
  • An article from The Green Left newspaper about Aboriginal activist Sam Watson calling for major rallies in cities across Australia in response to Palm Island Aboriginal man Lex Wotton being found guilty on October 24. *
  • An article from the Green Left newspaper calling for Lex Wotton to be freed. *
  • An interview archived on the ABC website regarding Lex Wottons plans to run for mayor of Palm Island. *
So if the popular search engine Google is anything to go by then the results here give an indication that there is more about Lex Wotton than just the trial or the riot. If we were to use the reasoning " The one event in his life, the trial, so overwhelms the other published events in his life that the outcome could not be a balanced Wikipedia biography article.", then it could also be said that each of these people below are notable for only one event and therefore not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
This could mean a massive clean up, deletion of other thousands and thousands of articles. But ..... Lex Wotton is not just notable for " The one event in his life, the trial" .... Is he ? Lex Wotton "events in his life", the "published events in his life" and the other events that are being published and no doubt will continue to be published as his story continues and grows. Lex Wottons life is one of multiple events as shown in the media. -- Electromechanic (talk 10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware that deletion review is a venue for calling attention to instances where the deletion process was not followed. You have already had your chance at the AFD discussion to put forward your arguments for keeping the article. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electromechanic, I thought my DRV comments above would help you better understand what was going on. Instead, it caused you to refute them, which isn't the purpose of DRV. I struck some of my comments above. The purposes of DRV is (i) to review whether the closer interpreted the AfD discussion incorrectly and (ii) present significant new information has come to light since a deletion discussion. The information you have presented in this DRV was available and considered at the AfD discussion, so it is not "new information that has come to light since a deletion discussion." You seem to agree that the closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly, but disagree with the outcome. Wikipedia Consensus policy allows us to disagree with the outcome, but none the less requires the project to accept to outcome. If you think a valid Wikipedia biography article can be written on Lex Wotton, feel free to develop one in your user namespace (such as at User:Electromechanic/Lex Wotton (draft)) and then return to DRV asking that the draft article be moved into article namespace. -- Suntag ☼ 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Could not have been closed any other way. Is there any reason the article Trial of Lex Wotton, recently created and looking great, wouldn't do? Also, as a note, I've changed Lex Wotton to redirect there, as it makes a lot more sense. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The question is whether the article on someone known primarily for a crime should go under his name directly, or under a heading which does not begin with him. If the crime is truly notorious, we do use his name, otherwise we try for something with the name less promnent. I think trial of... a reasonable compromise. DGG (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure, after reviewing the AfD, I see a clear consensus to redirect, citing BLP1E concerns. With that said, I do not oppose changing the redirect to Trial of Lex Wotton, which seems to be developing quite nicely. Disclosure: I did participate in the original AfD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dosatron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Dosatron, a manufacturer and distributor of chemical dispensers, is the established leader of its industry, and while previous entries written about this company have not been appropriate for Wikipedia (reading like a promotional ad, rather than a factual article), I would like the opportunity to create a new article that is in keeping with Wikipedia's quality and objectivity standards. Since Dosatron's biggest competitor, Dosmatic, is currently allowed a fact-based stub entry, it seems only fair that Dosatron be extended a similar priviledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenderGirl (talk • contribs) 14:42, November 18, 2008

  • Read WP:COI first, btw Endorse Deletion Secret account 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm missing how the last deleted revision (here, admin only link) was really at all spam, much less blatantly so. A stub and probably not notable, yes, but not spam. At the same time, I'm not sure that the nominator is necessarily the best person to write up a stable article (considering this is the account's first and only edit ever). I'd guess my "official" position in this specific case is to smack the deleter with a trout, and wait for a draft version. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lifebaka, I would be more than happy to draft a page for mod approval prior to re-establishing this page; although I am not an established user, I can guarantee that my version will be neither spammish nor advertising. However, if you don't see anything wrong with the deleted version (which I cannot review, being a non-admin), I would suggest just re-instating the previous version. Also, if you'll forgive a newbie question -- what does it mean to "smack the deleted with a trout?" -- GardenderGirl 18:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Brando Advertising Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Official website

In relation to the following discussion Brando Advertising Agency how can I proceed? I want to make changes to the article like you advised however the page has a protection lock on it so I am therefore unable to make the required edits to make the page acceptable to be displayed on Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do? Thank you for your time. Creativeboxes

  • The deletion review remains open for five days. After that time, an uninvolved administrator will review the discussion and, if it supports restoring the page, will do so. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:TAMUQ_Profs_and_Students.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD)

This image was a photograph taken by someone with my group at Texas A&M Qatar after I asked him/her if they could take a picture of us using my camera. After taking the picture (and 2 others that didn't work out), my camera was handed back to me and I said, "Thanks" and was told "no problem". This image belongs to me and any reasonable person would say so, even under copyright law. Furthermore, there was never even an IfD discussion regarding it (at least none of which I was informed) — BQZip01 — talk 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the issue. The issue was that the image was tagged with a non-free content tag, not with PD-self, GFDL-self, or another free content tag. That tag was added by another user, not by BQZip01 himself, but BQZip edited the page plenty of times without ever reverting that tag. If you want to release the image into the public domain, under the GFDL, etc, that's fine and we can use it. If you don't, we can't. The reason the image was deleted is because it was tagged as a replaceable fair use image, not because I really care about the circumstances under which you, your friend, or anyone else took the photo. --B (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess I misunderstood. Thanks for the fix! — BQZip01 — talk 02:57, 18 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)) User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)) (MfD2) (added MfD2 at 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag ☼)

I believe the deletion of the last draft was not a right decision for many reasons which include among others:

  • The page exists only in my account pages, no other articles link to it, marked as draft on the user's main page and it is clearly still under development.
  • This is a draft for an article. The original article was deleted from the wikipedia and before that it lacked a lot of materials. Because of that, and because I know that Zionists in general are very sensitive to this topic. I decided to make a draft for the article in my account and tried to develop it as much as possible before transfering it to the main articles space.
  • The draft was put for MfD debate under a request from a pro-zionism wikipedian(Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism_and_racism_allegations) and the final result was Keep with almost consensus.
  • After failing in first MfD, another one was made (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (2nd nomination)). Only 3 persons participated in the voting and there decision was to delete the draft.
  • Recently I decided to make a new version of the draft and to begin working on it again, to remove substantial blocs of the original draft and to add entirely new sections, but for sorrow, Jayjg -who is a well respected wikipedian but a very biased one when it is related to Zionism or Israel- deleted the new draft while I was still in the early steps.
  • The page was deleted under the claim that it as a Recreation of deleted material, while it is not, and the two materials differ substantially. (you may compare the original draft and the new draft that you deleted). According to Wikipedia:CSD#G4 ...a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version... doesn't appply in this case.

For all the above reasons and many others, I hope you will undelete the new draft and will give me the chance to work on it until it becomes suitable to be transfered to the main space Aaronshavit (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - I've reviewed the deleted versions, and I'm satisfied that they're close enough to one another to qualify for G4. As for the argument that it was userfied, that was also true of the version deleted at MFD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No point in reviewing all the previous deleted versions. Please note that I am only talking here about the last draft, it differs substantially from the previous version that was deleted by the MfD vote. --Aaronshavit (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The MFD was fine and the message is clear — this type of content isn't wanted in userspace. Please use your own website. Stifle (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support re-instatement of this article and defend such use of UserSpace. I don't have great hopes for this article, but I have and will contribute again, trying to improve it and/or keep it to policy. It's a valid use for a modest portion of disk-space. It's certainly much, much more valid than this, which seems aimed at damaging AGF. If that other editor, GHcool is being treated differently because he's contributed generously to the funding drive, then that's perfectly proper - but I've never yet noticed my contributions making any difference to how I'm treated. PRtalk 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Aaronshavit has notified several editors of this thread. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Procedurally proper, content appeared to be exactly what's not wanted here. IronDuke 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - MfD deletions are different from AfD deletions. Both include content deletion, but MfD outcomes can extend well beyond that. MfD can even stop work on fundamental, longterm projects at Wikipedia (see, e.g., Wikipedia:BJAODN). From the comments of the others above, MfD2 appears to have been sufficent reason to delete the user subpage because MfD2's outcome extended well beyond mere recreation of deleted material. Here, the deletion was not a speedy deletion (even those G4 was the reason given); the deletion was an enforcement of the outcome of MfD2. If the outcome were otherwise, users could play follow the bouncing ball by making changes to user content that was deleted at MfD and posting that content to their user pages. -- Suntag ☼ 18:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

August 1, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Wikipedia has NEVER had a provision for articles about individual dates. At best, there are articles for individual months, like August 2003. The closing administrator in this case seems to be unaware of the Wikipedia format on this, and closed this as a "no consensus" with a default to keep something that isn't permitted at all. To me, it doesn't even appear that the administrator read the discussion, which suggested merging these back to the parent article. While there could be a policy change that allows for articles about August 1, 2003; August 2, 2003; August 3, 2003; etc., something like that should be done in the form of a discussion, not by a lone person who is unaware of how things have been done. Mandsford (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - For this topic, there was a 13 March 2008 centralized discussion at Removal of many individual date articles. -- Suntag ☼ 12:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in the habit of reading the discussions that I close. What I see is a number of "delete" and a number of "merge" opinions, along with a few "keep"s. Given that "delete" and "merge" are incompatible outcomes, and that there appears to be no project-wide consensus on how to deal with such articles (see Grutness on my talk; Mandsford has unfortunately not provided links to the apparently pertinent policy that he refers to in the AfD and on my talk), I was compelled to close the AfD as a technical "no consensus." As I have mentioned on my talk as well, though, most participants of the AfD would probably not mind if someone were to boldly merge these articles to August 2003.  Sandstein  23:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The principal use of AfD is determining whether there is consensus for deleting the article or not. There is clearly no such consensus here. As the closing admin says, "no consensus" allows the community to decide what flavour of keep (keep, merge, redirect) it wants. There is no need to reopen the deletion discussion to decide that. -- Jao (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus closure as there was no consensus to delete, and that is all an AfD closing administrator really needs to determine. Nothing in that closure said a merge was inappropriate, and a merge requires neither AfD, nor a DRV of a no-consensus close. Either just do it, or discuss on talk pages, WT:DAYS, WP:PM, Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles or any other more appropriate forum if you wish to seek consensus for a merge. DHowell (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close As one of the few keeps, I note that Wikipedia has always had a provision for articles like these. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and any (registered) user can create any article they like. These articles have been around for several years, long enough for them to be part of "the way things are done." Such decisions should not be matters of policy, but of consensus, and there was no delete consensus. Jao mentioned transclusion at the AfD, which is sometimes done and seems to me the ideal way to organize things, transcluding all or some of the content into a month article.John Z (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand that 'merge' is generally recognised as a variant of a 'keep' !vote, so I am not surprised at the closure, nor do I disagree with it on that basis. I would however say that looking at the discussion again, the actual consensus ought to have been 'merge', if it was treated not as a black or white delete/keep. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the March AfD cited by the closer shows that there is no consensus as to how to treat these articles. While merge is probably the plurality position (and something of a compromise between the Keep and Delete camps) a plurality isn't necessarily consensus and an "outside the box" idea such as transclusion may be a better way forward. In such cases I feel that it is better to close as no consensus (or Keep) and leave merge discussions to another venue where straight deletion is not on the table since that can distort positions (especially when determined by the lables of the bullet points). Eluchil404 (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse non consensus close It's usually not all that productive to bring a non-consensus close here. If one thinks it should have been delete, one can try again in a few months, in the hope that consensus will have formed. In my opinion these articles are appropriate content, and further discussion will I hope lead to an undoubted keep for them all. But I wouldn't want to bring a new AfD, because we first need a more general discussion about them. Wikipedia does fill some of the functions of an almanac, & almanacs have always included chronological lists of important news events. There is no requirement that "notability" be proved for the dates, because the articles are essentially lists--if there are notable things happening on a day, as shown by Wikipedia articles on them, the days are notable. The approximate rule used for other chronological articles, that the dates must be such as there will generally be 2 or more listings for each in a series, would seem to hold I don't think the true implication of not-paper combined with Moore's Law have been understood yet. (In terms of how discussions should be closed, I heartily endorse the Sandstein did this, and the explicit criteria he used, which I suggest be incorporated into our guidelines-- non-consensus is often the exact statement of a situation). However, I do not agree with his suggestion of a merge, since we could rapidly find many more articles to list on these. DGG (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - My understanding of the bulk of the 'merge' votes in this case is that the information should be kept, but that the individual day articles are too specific. I perceive the strict 'keep' position as being a clear minority, and I'm not sure I accept the reasoning given in the closure notice. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I suspect whichever way this had been closed it would have come here; no consensus is correct. Users can and should consider merging the articles to a monthly one. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In follow up of this 00:58, 18 November 2008 post, Grutness redirected the articles listed in the "August 1, 2003" AfD to the August 2003 article. -- Suntag ☼ 12:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Sandstein extension of his close (above) that "delete" and "merge" are incompatible outcomes gives a valid no consensus close. While I think "delete" and "merge" can be compatible outcomes that leave executing the merge in the hands of the closer, a merge position at AfD also can be vague because it leaves unresolved decisions in the hands of the closer. In otherwords, Sandstein's view that "delete" and "merge" are incompatible outcomes is not wrong, even if others might disagree with it. The AfD closer is entitled to exercise their jugdment. In this case Sandstein acted on a valid understanding of policy interaction to justify a no consensus close. Further, Sandstein's taking the copending March 1 AfD into account showed exceptionally good judgment since both delection discussions were similarly situated. As for Grutness redirecting of the articles after the AfD close, I don't think it can be reverted based on a no consensus outcome at AfD. In other words, I don't think that the no consensus AfD for this particular topic can be used at DRV as a basis to act on Grutness's redirect. -- Suntag ☼ 12:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Brando Advertising Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Official website

User:Pegasus deleted Brando Advertising Agency stating it was blatant advertising. However after talking with him he stated that he might have been overly harsh and to talk to you. I understand that when I 1st posted the page it was not in the proper wikipedia style of writing but I have now made several edits and the contribution is completely factual based now. I think the last edit which was deleted was unfair as it is exactly the same as the other Ad Agencies you have listed in your Advertising Agency category and therefore should be included. I don't think the latest edit is at all advertising for the agency, it's only listing the facts for people who maybe interested in Ad Agencies in Dublin which I don't think there is enough of (if any) listed in wikipedia. I would greatly appreciated if you would review this deletion based on the last edit and re-add it to the advertising agency category list. Thank you for your time. Creativeboxes (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deleted article listed [89], [90], [91], and [92] as sources. Apparently, the sources call the ad firm just "Brando". Rather than listing the facts, the cached article listed opinions about Brando made by the Brando Advertising Agency:

    Brando want to be Ireland’s biggest and most creative Tradigital agency and they are hiring people who can help make this happen. They are an agency driven by what they do and they are passionate about making the very best of their skills and expertise. And they want to attract people and businesses that feel the same way.

    -- Suntag ☼ 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last deleted revision isn't quite what I would call blatant advertising; rather, the advertising is relatively veiled. It's well within the limit where I'd just decline the speedy and move on. So, I'm afraid I'll have to advise that we overturn the deletion, and allow Creativeboxes to work on the article to avoid an AfD (which, if nothing about the article changes, seems likely). Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Lifebaka; didn't meet G11. I live near the quoted address and can confirm it exists; hopefully CreativeBoxes will be able to keep the article from being deleted at an AFD. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The version last deleted was not exclusively promotional, and did contain at least the core of an article. The initial version first deleted as G11 was appropriate for speedy deletion, and I too would have deleted it as such. I don't think the improvements were adequately taken into account. The sources in the latest version are perhaps not totally independent of public relations, but inadequacies in sourcing are not reason for speedy. Its unpredictable what will be happen at afd, but people need time to write articles & one ought to recognize efforts at improvement. DGG (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - G11 applies to a page as a whole. While the page contained sentences that exclusively promote Brando Advertising Agency in a way that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic, the page as a whole did not. The siliconrepublic.com news artice cited in the deleted article does contain some reliable source material, which was used in the article. The page easily could have been stubbed rather than deleted. The view above that "listing the facts for people who maybe interested in Ad Agencies in Dublin which I don't think there is enough of (if any) listed in wikipedia" shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not here to provide information to any particular group of people or to fill in the gaps other media may miss. Wikipedia is noting more than a summary of existing source material that is independent of a topic. Developing the Brando Advertising Agency article along these lines will help ensure it's presence in Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 12:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:HecateDieuxAntiques.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD|article)

This image was converted to PNG and moved to commons. The commons image was lost by the 5 September 2008 image loss [93]. It is used on several wikis, so please undelete. Would be great if anybody could even move it to commons again. Thank you! Ukko.de (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of left-handed people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

(AfD1, 7 September 2004), (AfD2, 28 September 2006 ), (AfD3, 30 May 2007), (AfD4, 4 September 2007).

The AFD is here. Spartaz Humbug! 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following a question on Mathematics reference desk I found there there was no no way in wikipedia to find any info on people who are left handed. While there are problems with the list as of its last revision: it is unreferenced and its inclusion criteria is too wide. These problems can be overcome, List of people diagnosed with dyslexia has been kept well referenced, and a stricter inclusion criteria could be devised. There is interesting information such as the fact that the a large number of recent US presidents and candidates (HW Bush, Clinton, Regan, Ford, Obama, McCain) and some of our most famous artists (Dürer, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Picasso, Raphael) have been lefties.Salix (talk): 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think you can write one which doesn't have the same failings, feel free to try it. Consensus was properly read in the AfD, so there's not much more I can tell you. Well, except that I personally think that a category can just as well do what you're looking for here, and wouldn't have the same sourcing burdens (if one doesn't already exist, it probably should, too). Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The AfD could not have been closed any other way. Recreating would require substantial new information. "Problems can be overcome" was known at the time of the AfD and is not substantial new information. Rather than using the intersection (i) they are famous and (ii) happen to be left handed, I think that the sourcing would have to be limited to those that show that the person's handedness was responsible for or at least influenced the reason why they became notable. You can always start a draft article at User:Salix alba/List of left-handed people (draft). -- Suntag ☼ 16:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No reason has been presented why the previous consensus should not be maintained. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn t et it be worked on before another afd. The relationship between left-handedness and success at various professions has been discussed in bios of many people. I think a suitable list could be prepared. No serious defense of the article was attempted at the afd over a year ago. If articles that pass afd can be renominated after a time to see if consensus has changed, the same should happen in the inverse case. DGG (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment - Category:Left handed athletes was listified by cfd of 2008 May 21 (to List of left-handed athletes) so it is unlikely that Category:Left handed people would survive. (There is Category:Southpaw boxers.) Occuli (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One point that is perhaps being overlooked here is that a list of left-handed people wouldn't have helped the reader at the reference desk. Xe was looking for information that connects left-handedness and mathematical ability. Ironically, that is something that has been a subject of serious study, and an article on handedness and mathematical ability, based upon things such as the works by Geschwind, Galaburda, Annett, Kilshaw, and others would have actually helped the reader more than a simple list of mathematicians who happened to be left-handed (especially given that any conclusions drawn from the list wouldn't have neutrally represented scholarship on the subject, which in fact has mixed opinions). It would certainly have helped the reader more than a grab-bag list of people who happened to be left-handed, from which the reader would have had to pick out the mathematicians, and make guesses as to the links or otherwise between the twain. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The vote count at the final debate was 20 delete (plus the nom) and 2 keep. I can't imagine how this article could be anything outside of an indiscriminate collection of information. Themfromspace (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Why are we even wasting time on this? JBsupreme (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. When harmless, wikipedia processes should attempt to be symmetric. Allow for the reciprocity of application in testing consensus. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Information such as that discussed by the nominator is best described in prose in any of the various articles on handedness. Chick Bowen 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Vince Mira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I believe he is, indeed, notable enough for an article. Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally deleted by User:Malcolmxl5. I requested over two weeks ago that he reconsider. He appears not to have edited since that time, and I really have no idea if he's coming back, so I figured this was the place to take it up. Here is what I originally wrote on his user talk page:

BEGIN COPIED MATERIAL

Hi, I just went looking for an article on country rock musician Vince Mira and noticed you had deleted it as non-notable. I think that was probably a wrong verdict, though the article as written may not have established notability. I recently took (and uploaded to Commons) three pictures of him performing as part of the launch event of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' "Seattle, City of Music" intiative, a reasonably prestigious gig (others on the bill included Blue Scholars, Tilson of The Saturday Knights, and New Faces; photos in Commons:Category:Launch of Seattle, City of Music, city gov't press release about the event at http://www.cityofseattle.net/mayor/issues/cityofmusic/ (weirdly) gives him top billing & has his photo, news coverage mentioning Mira at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/musicnightlife/2008330176_zmus30cityofmusic.html and http://lineout.thestranger.com/2008/10/notes_from_the_seattle_city_of_music_pre (the latter a blog, but one written by the staff of The Stranger). I think that's enough; if you don't, I could try to research him more. I didn't know his music until Wednesday: all I'd heard before that was "young guy, sounds like Johnny Cash".
If you could reply on my talk page, that would be appreciated so I don't have to watch yours. Thanks in advance for any help. - Jmabel | Talk 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

END COPIED MATERIAL - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, no evidence or suggestion given that he meets WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid A7 (though refusing to delete would probably have been better, since the guy appears notable). If you really want an article on the guy, go ahead and write it. An A7 deletion does not at all preclude later recreation of the article (hoping, of course, that A7 wouldn't still apply). Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:01, 17 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Live Evil (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Was deleted under speedy delete G12 (Copyright Infringement) because someone alleged that the plot description was copy-pasted from twitchfilm.com. But the plot wasn't copy-pasted from twitchfilm.com, the plot description is from the official movie's promotional materials and that is where twitchfilm.com copied their plot from as well which they clearly state on their webpage. Furthermore, a movie's promotional materials are provided by the copyright holder to be used by third parties to promote a movie and reprinting them is considered fair use. But regardless of anyone's perceived copyright issues with the plot description that was used on the Live Evil page, a horror film that stars Tim Thomerson, Ken Foree, Tiffany Shepis, et al, defintely has enough merit to be listed in Wikipedia so the whole listing shouldn't have been deleted. JohnnieYoung (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • So it violates a different copyright instead. And if not, then it violates WP:NPOV (quoting promotional material directly). Endorse either way. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion We cannot have copyrighted text. If the text is properly released then we can consider using it as a basis for an actually neutral article. But even then it is far from clear that this movie would escape A7 anyways. One is of course welcome to work in userspace on writing a draft of a non-copyvio article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, copyright violation. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Ditto the above. Plus, if the material was from a movie's promotional materials, it is not independent of the topic as specifiec at WP:N. Topic's can't supply material for their Wikipedia article. They have to do something that motivates independent publishers to write about them. Then, Wikipedia will summarize those secondary sources. -- Suntag ☼ 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Church of God, an International Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Was at first speedy deleted under CSD G11 (Blatant Advertising), but there was no advertising (the non-profit organization had a listing exactly like all the other organizations in this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God). I contacted the deleting admin, who restored it very briefly (during overnight hours) simply to delete it again. This time he said it was for G12 copyright infringement but the material within quotation marks is public domain and is also posted with permission of the original writer. I have tried to resolve with the deleting admin, but he cites policy that articles removed for copyright infringement are not allowed to be restored to a workspace for editing. I have since had it restored to my workspace for editing by an admin who was willing to help me work through the problem, but I would still like a review of the original material for the reasons stated above. I'm happy to make necessary changes to conform to Wikipedia rules but am beginning to suspect a personal vendetta from the deleting admin since it seems that this entry is being singled out from the other listings under its general heading. Richard Abrahams (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hannah Job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Tony Bignell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) - originally a separate DRV -- Suntag ☼ 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has been speedy deleted under A7, but provides a reasonable indication of why the subject might be notable (having appeared on a TV show on a major TV channel). TigerShark (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... which I read as "British Actress virtually unknown despite her role in a low budget graveyard slot sitcom on a low viewing digital-only channel". Where are the non-trivial independent sources? In fact, non-trivial content would be good. There are fewer than 10,000 Google hits for the show and only 91 unique Googles for the actress, of which all seem to relate to the series, so a redirect seems absolutely fine at this point. No need to waste any further time as that is an editorial decision. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absence of reliable sources would be a lovely argument at AfD, once the close is overturned. The question is here is if the original speedy deletions of these articles were justified under CSD A7. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also a valid rationale per WP:BLP, but see above. Redirect works just fine, nothing further needed. Since the article on the show is also in dire shape, particularly for sources, and since 100% of the show's entire fanbase already appears to be active there, perhaps they could start by fixing that article up before starting non-articles on the individual actpersons. Might be a while before they make it big, "Coming of Age was called by one critic 'the worst TV programme in broadcast history'" according to our article, and it's got some pretty stiff competition there. Meanwhile, nothing to see here, move along please. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appearing in 'the worst TV programme in broadcast history' might well be a strong claim of notability. Can you point to the portion of BLP that would justify speedy deletion of this article? Alansohn (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better still, can you point to any sources independent of the series? No? If you can't, then a redirect (whihc is what we have right now) is just fine, and this debate is a complete waste of time. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect. Clear assertion of notability makes these invalid A7's. Better to leave the history intact in case a future writer wants to use it in the event that they become notable. No need for AfD since Redirect is a species of Keep if the history is intact and there seems no reason that it shouldn't be. Nor have any BLP issues requiring deletion of the history been raised. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Tony Bignell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Has been speedy deleted under A7, but provides a reasonable indication of why the subject might be notable (having appeared on a TV show on a major TV channel). TigerShark (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aaron Michael Lacey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD 2) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

  • Undelete. I was looking for information on Aaron Michael Lacey and I noticed it got deleted it for lack of notability simply because he did not win an Emmy. Since when does notability require someone to win an Emmy? I looked at a the deletion review page and I can provide proof of half of those claims that were said were false. I have DVD's of the show "In Our Lives" and I can prove it if you would like. Those news articles in Google News not appearing? why yes, since most if not all of the news articles were published in the early - mid 1980's and therefore would not have been published online. I can try get scanned copies of those articles if you would like. I can't do an IP check on him, but if it does not match the area of Sterling, VA, then you can safely say that it wasn't the actor writing the page, and therefore does not violate WP:COI. From my personal talks with him almost daily, I can almost safely say that he is not at all like User:AMLFILMS. Also, i read a comment on the page that he "hasn't done anything but extra roles for the last 15 years or so." 15 years back only goes into the early 90's. That ignores all of his work in the 1980's from which "In Our Lives" was aired. Rootbear75 (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no procedural error in the AFD. The article was not deleted simply because this person didn't win an Emmy. It was deleted because of a lack of reliable sources that demonstrate notability and no indication that he meets WP:BIO. If you have reliable sources that are substantively about this person, then I suggest writing a new draft of the article on a subpage of your user page, e.g. User:Rootbear75/Aaron Michael Lacey that includes the reliable sourcing. Once the article draft meets the appropriate guidelines for inclusion, it can be moved from your userspace to articlespace. Otto4711 (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will attempt to get the newspaper articles stating him as soon as I can. If i manage to scan those and upload them will it matter where they are uploaded as long as the date, paper, and other verifying information is displayed? Rootbear75 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closing admin called the consensus right, so I see no reason to overturn. A lot of effort went into providing reliable sources during the AfD and none were turned up. As an example I looked up a "notable" extra, Pat Gorman [94] and he has no WP article despite 30 years of literally hundreds of appearances, so I see no inconsistency either. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletion was seven months ago. Why such a long delay in listing here? Stifle (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle, why does that make a difference? Suppose someone argued: This article was written 7 months ago and nobody protested. Therefore it should not be deleted. DGG (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)][reply]
    I'm not raising it as a process objection; I am just curious because it is unusual. Your argument is a straw man; deletions are usually contested here very soon afterwards, whereas articles are regularly AFDed having existed for months or years. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:I brought the deletion up because I had not previously known about the actor before this time. Rootbear75 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I'm going to have to go with endorsing this deletion; I'd recommend a userpace draft. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - From Google books, looks like his big role was in Twelve Monkeys (1995) as WWI Sergeant. From IMBD, he also was in Forrest Gump, Transformers, Live Free or Die Hard, Red Dragon, The Good Shepherd, The Kingdom, The Recruit, Evan Almighty, Clear and Present Danger, Dave, Road House. etc. A google search for him brings up an impressive list of websites. Seems to be working overtime to get exposure. -- Suntag ☼ 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I actually have talked with the actor personally and he has admitted and shown to not have the computer literacy to create all of those sites. In fact, he has come to me for some computer technical help. Rootbear75 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. In the second AfD, there was a clear consensus in support of deletion. As Otto suggests above, the article can be re-created at a later date if sources that clearly establish notability are found. The subject may become notable in the future even though he doesn't seem to have achieved that yet. Consensus can change. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The original close of the first AfD was predicated on the premise that he had won two Emmy awards, which I would agree is a pretty strong claim of notability. That this claim was found to be incorrect meant that there had to be some other claim of notability. While he may well have appeared in many films, the individuals participating in the most recent AfD overwhelmingly found that there was no evidence to support notability, nor did those supporting retention supply reliable and verifiable sources to support such a claim. There appears to be nothing out of process here or any reason to overturn the result. As noted elsewhere, despite a request that the article be salted, there is no reason that bigger parts (or even appearing a little further from the edge of the screen for a few more microseconds), increased media coverage or actually winning an award could establish notability. I will also question the edit history of the editor User:Rootbear75 whose entire edit history (with an exception or two) seems to revolve around this one article as an apparent SPA, if not a possible sockpuppet. Alansohn (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sandor (fictional character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Closer seems to have ignored the policy- and guideline-based arguments for deletion as a violation of WP:OR, WP:WAF and WP:GNG in favor of a handful of trivial mentions of the character in a couple of books. Everything offered by the keepers including the one- and two-sentence "sources" was refuted by an analysis of the proffered sources and the closing admin erred in giving any weight to the refuted arguments. Otto4711 (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close as no consensus. The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability, which is the appropriate rebuttal to claims of WP:OR. There appears to be no out-of-process issues with this close. Alansohn (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try actually reading the sources and then read WP:GNG which specifically and explicitly disqualifies the sources listed as establishing notability. The Kane merely establishes the existence of the character and recounts the plot. The Klute does the same. The Benshoff is another plot summary. The Humphries is three sentences out of a 216 page book. The Willis is three sentences in a 474 page book. The Leeper is one sentence on a website with no apparent reputation for reliability. The procedural errors made by the closing admin are: closing admin did not appropriately apply WP:WAF, which states "There are notability prerequisites to be met by all subjects to warrant articles specifically about them"; closing admin did not correctly apply WP:GNG, which states: "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...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive....Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." This failure to properly apply our guidelines is grounds for overturning the close and deleting the article. I put to you the same challenge that I put during the AFD and explain how these two- and three-sentence mentions in multi-hundred page documents, which do little or nothing beyond establishing the existence of the character, the actor who played him and a recounting of the plot, satisfy the aforementioned guidelines as anything other than plainly trivial mentions and how the failure to give appropriate weight to our guidelines in favor of exalting trivia is not reversible error. The closing admin clearly did not evaluate the relative strengths of the keep vs delete arguments and apparently just closed it on the basis of 3-2 being close to a tie, despite the keep !voters being unable to persuade anyone to agree with them following the relist as opposed to the delete arguments which gained additional support. Otto4711 (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source support a claim of notability, which is established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Remember, this is a matter of notability here, where sources cannot be simply ignored. I appreciate your efforts to refight the AfD all over again, but the closing administrator was within his authority given the sources provided. Nor does putting multiple words in italics help your argument. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, I did not ignore the proffered sources since I not only reviewed all of them in expanding Dracula's Daughter but I offered an analysis of them during the course of the AFD to explain why they do not support the independent notability of this character per he plain text of WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, weak overturn. Aside from DGG, the only "keep" point made was by our friend 63.3.X.X--which just amounted to ILIKEIT anyways. Then we have to weigh the nominator's argument and the two arguments supporting deletion. However, it doesn't seem outside the realm of the admin's discretion to declare that there was no consensus. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close Not sure that's how I would have closed it given the opportunity but it is a reasonable close and there are academic sources talking about the character which goes a long way in my view. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Even simple logic says that there is a likelihood of reliable source material for the topic. The film the character was in was a popular film that has been around 72 years! Somebody is going to write something about the character. Simple string searches of Google books, scholar, and news reveal enought reliable source material from which to mine a Wikipedia article. There also is a likelihood of offline source material. -- Suntag ☼ 04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sigh> I guess it's easier to count Google hits and make assumptions than it is to, you know, read. Did you know that other Dracula movies completely unrelated to this movie have a character called "Father Sandor" in them? Did you take that into account as you were counting raw Google hits? No? Oh. And I'm sorry, what part of our policy and guidelines say that the assumption that there are probably offline sources, in the absence of any actual sources, is sufficient to sustain an article? Otto4711 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure. There was no consensus to delete, and deletion review is not for use just because you disagree with the outcome of the debate. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close Look like a perfectly logical conclusion with 3 deletes and 2 keeps, with both sides presenting reasonable arguments that differed mainly in how they interpreted "significant" sources. Considering the small number of people participating, there didn't appear to be strong feelings one way or another. Nothing looks abnormal here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have been generous in your time to reply to every single comment in this discussion, I had already discerned that this was your opinion before I entered my observations. But thank you anyway. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Shirley the Loon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I have several reasons for listing this. First, 4 voted for "keep" while only 3 had "delete" (1 had "merge"). Second, the keep reasons were pretty valid (I read through it), and the last is she was a pretty notable character. I concede that this article either comes back (as well as Sweetie Pie, which had a lack of comments on the AFD discussion), or no WB cartoon character gets their own page (not even Bugs Bunny, as much as I like him). And if the deletions are overturned, I propose that TTN be banned from ever nominating a WB Animation-related article for deletion. FMAFan1990 (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discuss the nomination, not the nominator. This could have been a no-consensus close, but it could have been a delete close. Spartaz is right that sources have to be available on the subject--it isn't sufficient to say that "the show won an emmy, therefore the characters are notable". For most of these disney shows, it is entirely possible that significant coverage of the characters would never be created (No one would spend pages and pages in a RS on these shows, for the most part). Therefore it doesn't work for us to assume that significant coverage exists, editors need to show where it exists. I endorse this close, though weakly. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd thought that merging was the accepted compromise in these situations, so I don't see why we can't do that here, if there's a good target (such as a "list of ______ characters" article). I believe that closing as merge would have been perfectly valid in this case, and is preferable to full deletion. I agree with Protonk that this could equally have been a "no consensus" closure (and would have closed it that way myself), but that delete is possible as a close as well. And, given what I've seen at ANI about TTN before, a ban discussion about him isn't likely to get anywhere fast, so I'll just ignore that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Doesn't anyone bother discussing these days before raising a DRV? With regard to the close had there been any kind of sourcing a merge would have been the result but since unsourced unverifiable material is plain original research we don't merge that. Endorse own close Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closer's decision was reasonable given the case stated during the AfD. Personally, I think if the OR is stripped away there would be little more than a stub left. Anyone could have done (and still can do) a "merge" of any verifiable content. The Google cache is still available so can I suggest that whoever wants the content retained goes ahead and does it? Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Looks a reasonable close to me. A merge into some sort of List of... article would also have been unexceptionable. Black Kite 23:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you all forgetting there were only 3 delete votes against 4 keep votes? That should qualify for a no consensus. FMAFan1990 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Deletion debates are closed using a rough consensus that is measured again comparing the arguments raised against policy. We don't count heads at all - or shouldn't anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. When the number of editors on each side of an AFD is close, the administrator who closes the discussion is entitled to look at the strength of the arguments and at Wikipedia policies, before coming to a decision. Spartaz acted within policy. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeThere never was any reason not to. Spartaz is absolutely wrong that content to be merged into another article needs to be sourced from secondary sources--for this sort of material primary sourcing from the work itself is quite acceptable, and probably in most cases preferable. . If it's challenged in a particular case, that;s what we have article talk pages for. The task of an admin is to close deletion debates, not ruling whether one policy is right or wrong or preempts another, but on the basis of the reasonable policy based views from established editors--he's a moderator, not a judge. If, as the closer did, he thinks that one policy is more important, he should join in the debate. He should not close the article to favor his own view. it is just as wrong for him to do so as it would be have been for me to close it as keep. People who have decided opinion about fiction articles should probably not close contested fiction debates at al, unless they close them against their own view--that sort of known neutral position is the basis by which administrative actions are accepted by the community. Even if the closing is right, it is better is someone else does it. If anyone thinks this principle is wrong, I suppose they wouldn't mind if I close the next evenly divided fiction debate in favor of my own view. DGG (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with this. Let's put aside the merger issues and focus on the claim that Spartaz should not be closing afd's on fictional characters because he has some opinion about them. I don't think that the admonition should be worded that strongly. Closing AfD's where the admin has some opinion on the subject is on the spectrum of subjectivity, but it is much closer to impartial than, say, if Spartaz were to have an actual "conflict of interest". If spartaz worked for Marvel and closed DC character AfDs, I would protest. Having an opinion about whether or not we apply a community guideline or widely accepted policy is not the same thing. I understand that you abstain from using the tools (very broadly defined) where any impression of impartiality can be implied, but that standard of behavior is neither universal nor expected. Furthermore, the prevailing assumption about deletionists is that we use the rules as "cover" for a dislike of fan/trivial/etc content. It is only by operating under this assumption that we can make the claim that bias over content can influence a debate. In other words, if we assume that spartaz doesn't care about a particular style of content, it is a bigger hurdle to jump in showing that he has some "bias". We would have to show that he holds some view about WP:N that is outside consensus and that he is using his role as an admin to force that view on the content. If, for example, he thought that all articles must have 7 sources, each from a peer reviewed journal, that would count as a heterodox view on WP:N. Instead, if he held the opinion that WP:N should be roughly applied as it is currently written, that would be in line with community consensus. So, in response to your last offer, if you think your view about inclusion of articles matches the community consensus, close away. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this last night and spent some time checking policy but decided to sleep on the reply. Both V and MERGE are silent on the subject of required sourcing for merged data but In would very much like to see the guideline that states that unsourced material can be merged to an article. I'm pretty sure that the custom and practise is that merge material requires sourcing and I'm positive I'm not the only admin who closes on that basis. To draw the conclusion that because you don't like my position on this I shouldn't close fiction AFDs is perverse. You need to back up a statement like that with reference to something that supports the position that merge material can be sourced to itself. I do not have a record of my closes being reversed for poor judgement. I do have a good record of listening to concerns raised and re-reviewing my closes if there are valid issues to look at. I don't accept that this is an environment for you to reasonably argue that I'm some kind of rogue admin with an agenda on fiction to push. I find this rather an offensive claim but not surprising given your recent slide into routinely attacking the motives of closing admins at DRV discussions. Frankly this is something that doesn't reflect well on you. If you want to discuss this further I suggest you raise it at my talk page but I'd also expect you to provide some evidence to back up your claim. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, let someone independent close it I hate overturning, but don't have much of a choice here. The closing argument actually sounds like a !vote within the discussion, making it not independent as a close should be. By claiming "it is inadequately sourced", you are ignoring that wp:v says it must be verifiable not already verfied and putting yourself into the debate. This is not the objective role that closing requires. I don't see any bad faith, but it does look like you made a judgement call outside of the discussion/consensus. By the way, someone has already recreated it at Shirley McLoon in spite of the existing redirect. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do people who have never interacted with me think they know what my biases and intentions were when I closed the discussion?´If you check my talk you will already see a note from DGG to alert me that my closing statement was obscure and a note from me confirming that I hadn't expressed myself well. The o´nly reason why I haven't changed it is because I don't believe its right to change it while the discussion is on. My thoughts and conclusions are in my response here and they reflect the discussion against policy so if your only basis for overturning is 4 obscure words in a closing I would respectfully rwwuest you review the close in the context of my statement here. Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not think I know your biases, and I made i clear I trusted your faith in the closing. Whether it was not being objective, or just making it LOOK like you were not objective, it was bad judgement to close that way regardless of your biases, motives or thoughts on the subject matter. My concern is that the process is, and LOOKS objective to everyone else. In this case, it doesn't. Not a crime, but a judgement error either in thought or in wording. Again, I don't see bad faith and I HATE voting to overturn because I know I can't be inside your head, but I do see something that might be better closed by someone else, even if they came to the same result. It isn't about punishing you as there is no need to. At this time, it looks like I am the only one who thinks this is the best solution, so I wouldn't let it trouble you too much. It isn't personal. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why on earth do you think the close was bad judgement? I had two choices per policy from the discussion - Merge or Delete. I ruled merge out because the material to be merged was not sourced. This is not a perverse position. Other admins also take the same view and its a line consistent with our core policies NOR and V. DGG states above he disagrees with this but hasn't cited any policy or guidelines to support that view and now you say that I'm biased and that my judgement is poor - no doubt because of the comments that DGG made earlier. I think there has been more then enough support for my close from other users to show that while there may be a valid discussion to be had about the sourcing of merge material the decision I made was a rational outcome from the choices available - given that policy is silent on the question. I don't think it is valid for you to simply state that I appear biased (why?) and that my judgement was poor (why?) without providing evidence to detail to support the statements. Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My original statement still reflects my perspective. I am not going to do a line by line argument with you on this as I do not feel that it will be productive. We simply disagree and no amount of discussion will change that. You, the closing admin, and anyone else is free to completely discount my observations if they so choose. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, then redirect and merge. "Inadequately sourced for an independent article" does not mean that deletion is the only option on the table. Merging seemed to have stronger support than deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Step Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Undelete. The band has been cited with sources such as Bobby Reeves of Adema/Level along side of fullthrottleradio.com and is listed on a Portuguese radio station, the person who performed the deletion stated no reason for her deletion other than the sources guidelines, after I pointed out the sources she redirected me here. I do not see why this has become an issue months after the creation of the article. The article was backed by plenty of credible sources and had enough information to state relevance to the music articles of wikipedia. -- Jarrex 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, it is not under the name of Step Zero, it is under the singer's name Martin Harp because he is the one who submitted it.--Jarrex (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's published by an independent and reliable source, it can't be cited on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a direct message from Bobby Reeves himself.--Jarrex (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It must be published by an independent and reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say this goes beyond what A7 is capable of, but given everything I've seen so far the band is definitely not notable yet. So, while I would have to !vote to overturn the deletion on these grounds, I can tell you all that will happen afterward is that it will be deleted again at AfD, which would just be a huge waste of your time. I suggest withdrawing this nomination and waiting for sufficient reliable, third party sources to write about the band before recreating the article. I won't stop you if you want to do otherwise, but I know you probably won't like the outcome. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not strictly valid for speedy deletion, but there's no point in undeleting this only to redelete it again at AFD, as it doesn't really stand much of a chance there. Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There was no real claim to notability in the deleted article, other than members of the band saying how unique it is on the band's own MySpace. Technically, including a quote from the band saying they are "truly unique" is a claim to notability. It is, however, worthless in context. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse Would have been better if it had gone to AFD, where everyone would have said "speedy delete" because it is a well formatted and nonreliably sourced article on a non-notable band. The claim of notability was a theoretically sourced 'soon to be released' album, which is weak enough that I can see why someone would say it isn't even a claim of notability at all. This was a judgment call that pushes A7 to its limit, but I don't see any abuse and can see why he chose this method of delete, even if I wouldn't have. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:51, 18 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]

14 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

You (Schiller song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The single was released and entered the charts. Sources: [95], [96], [97], [98], [99] Jonny84 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added sources for the German Singles Chart ([100]) and the Austrian Singles Chart. Both are official national charts. The single peaked at #19 in Germany and at #63 in Austria. Further sources: [101], [102], [103]. Futher informations about the single: http://www.discogs.com/release/1516556 Jonny84 (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I can see from the links that it has charted now. However, (quoting WP:MUSIC#Songs): "Most songs do not merit an article... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article (my emphasis); articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". This single is clearly not meriting of its own article at this time. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few informations [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109] to expand the article. articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" - sure, but the article was deleted instead of making a redirection so I couldn't merge it to any article. Note that the version in the cache is older than the deleted version. Jonny84 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the sources cited in this DRV, I would support userfication or history restoration behind a redirect to facilitate merging any appropriate material. While it still doesn't meet the guidelines as a stand-alone single material about this song should be covered in an article about the album it came from. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


13 November 2008

[edit]

12 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

D&D Precision Tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

References were provided for this cutting edge technology company from the 1970's and 1980's relaive to Dunn & Bradstreet, National Tooling & Machining Association, Society of Manufacturing Engineers and recognition fron the Bellflower, CA Lions Club International and the Norwalk, CA Chamber of Commerce. Deleting this article is deleting history. User:DonDeigo 14:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. As background, D&D Precision Tools was a manufacturing job shop in Bellflower, California between December 1978 and 1987, at which time it was acquired by Research Enterprises of Sherman Oaks, California. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL doesn't show anything, so there doesn't seem to be any history being deleted. Also, it might have been copyvio from doryoku.org, but, on the other hand, doryoku.org may be a Wikipedia mirror. -- Suntag ☼ 02:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and consider speedy close. Deletion review is a location to explain how the deletion process was not correctly followed. It is not a place to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) that belong at the AFD. This DRV nominator's behaviour at said AFD was also poor. In any case, the closer could not possibly have come to any different decision with all but one of the AFD participants supporting deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The DRV nominator was the only one opposed to deletion, so I think we can safely say there was a rough consensus for deleting. No evidence was produced that the company meets WP:CORP guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Correct process followed, consensus achieved, no evidence offered that justifies an overturn. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 14:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

After the AFD was restarted a second time, User:RMHED performed a non-admin closure about 2 hours later, stating it closed as keep as there was no obvious consensus to delete and that any merge discussion should take place on the article's talk page. I agree there was no "delete" consensus, but if a merge were to occur, there is a likely need for this page to be deleted. Both the speedy close after the second restart and the reasoning make this closure (particularly by a non-admin and in the timeframe given after a restart) a highly questionable use of a NAC. MASEM 00:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure (keep pagehistory intact). This was not a second AfD, this was a relisting. Once a discussion has run it's five days, it is subject to closure at any time - a relisting does not automatically mean that it will suddenly run for 10 days. In this case, the consensus is remarkable clear with only two people arguing to delete the page and 16 people arguing for some flavor of "keep". The discussion was civil and well based in policy and precedent. I am not normally a fan of non-admin closures (because the discussions are frequently more complicated than they appear) but I can see no way that this discussion could have been closed differently.
    The decision now of whether to "keep as is" or "merge" should be sorted out on the respective article Talk pages. Note: Even if the AfD discussion did finally reach a clear "merge" decision, it would be no more binding than an equally-well attended discussion on the Talk page. As has been said frequently before, AfD has no mandate to decide on ordinary-editor actions like mergers, removal of content, decisions to redirect, etc.
    One last point. If the final decision is to merge the page, deletion is the very last thing that we would want to do. Mergers conclude with redirects and deliberately keep the pagehistory intact so that we can be sure that we are fully complying with the attribution requirements of GFDL. To delete the page would be to delete the contribution history of the merged content. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure And I'm also endorsing the first closure by Alexnia. (which he self-reverted) AFD is a discussion on whether or not an admin should push a delete button and at the time of the first closure, nobody but the nominator was arguing for that button to be pushed. At the time of the second closing, only one other editor was arguing for deletion. All and all the discussion ran for 7 days and there was no consensus to delete. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse preferably speedily. mergers should never result in the deletion of the merged page. See Help:Merging and moving pages. We keep the old page history intact even if the redirect is unlikely in order to preserve the page history for GFDL reasons. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Ran full time, and there was clearly nowhere near a consensus for outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The only procedural error alleged was an early closure, and WP:RELIST clearly states that a relisted debate may be closed at any stage and need not run for a further five days. To be frank, Alexnia should have left the keep closure intact rather than relisting it. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO Alexnia's close was proper but he reopened it because of the nominator's objection to his close on his talk page where he could have done a better job of defending the close. Instead of saying I counted more keeps then merges he should have said nobody but you was arguing for deletion. Even though the nom couldn't have gone any other way he was giving the nominator the benefit of the doubt. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, discussion on a merge (which can never result in the page being deleted anyway) is still possible on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really It's no use to make a fuss about my declaration I made on my talkpage the nom objected my NAC closure and seeing that I was not a admin i thought it would have been better to let an admin decide. Regarding my poor defence the afd rahther ended up in a merging discussion. I think in a situation like this my state ment "I counted more keeps then merges" was right. I'm deciding not to do any Nac closures anymore because it only leads to users objecting my Nac closure because I'm not an admin, not even rergarding how obvious the Afd is. Alexnia (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close Nominator claims "but if a merge were to occur, there is a likely need for this page to be deleted". This makes GFDL a sad panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A page merge could use a history merge which would keep the GFDL compliance but still result in the deletion of said page. --MASEM 22:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but there's rarely a very good reason to bother doing that, and it still doesn't require an AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • … and there are good reasons for not doing history merges unless they are absolutely necessary. They make a complete mess of an article's history, for example. In all of my time as an administrator, I have only ever needed to do history merges for repairing bogus copy-and-paste "moves" (including botched transwikifications, which are a subset of that). I have never had another use for them. An ordinary merger, done the ordinary way, is the the way to merge articles, and requires no administrator tools, nor even an account on the wiki. Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The close statement "any merge proposal is best discussed on the article talk page" is flat out wrong because AfD brings a wider range of people with less personal interest in the topic. I probably would have close as no consensus or merge. The keep close seems within the closer's discretion of interpteting the discussion. Once an article has been listed at AfD for more than 120 hours (five days), it can be closed by anyone who can reasonably derive a consensus (or lack of consensus) out of the discussion. The close should not have been a NAC close, but the remedy for that is that any admin may change the close. -- Suntag ☼ 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not oppose a change in deletion policy so that merge proposals that were not clearly consented to or rejected on the talk page, were in fact discussed at afd. It would only regularize the present situation. I would suggest accompanying this with another change, that there be explicitly 4 outcomes for afd, keep/merge/redirect/delete -- with merge meaning merge all the content. Again, this would only regularize the current situation. All this would still of course leave the qy of how much to merge with no real way to enforce decisions--there have already been too many cases where a merge close is followed by an almost total deletion of content, but at least it should deal with the problem of a keep followed by a merge followed by a deletion of content. As for NAC closes, too many of them come here, which would not be challenged if they were from an admin. I suggest we simply prohibit non-unanimous NACs. DGG (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The vast majority of DRV's are from admin deletions usually incorrect CSD's, NAC's seldom feature on DRV. If you wish to change the NAC guideline or indeed implement a new policy prohibiting NAC's then you'd need to start a discussion and attempt to get a consensus for it. RMHED (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further on RMHED's point, if there is a solid rejection of a NAC at DRV, than the non admin should get the hint to not close AfDs for a while until they get more skill. In this case, it seems that RMHED will live on for another day to do more NACs. -- Suntag ☼ 11:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware I'm making only a preliminary suggestion about a change in the stated policy, that would need much further discussion elsewhere. DGG (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I understand it, merge at AfD means merge useful content, not move content not meeting Wikipedia's standards from one location to another. It is another way of saying get rid of the crap, keep whatever the closer feels meets Wikipedia content standards, and redirect this article to the merge targe so we don't continue to fill up this space with more content not meeting Wikipedia's content standards. Where the content is not sourced to independent, secondary sources, there wouldn't seem to be anything to merge. -- Suntag ☼ 11:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • content of some types within an article does not need to be sourced to secondary sources. It's material indicating independent notability that needs to be so sourced, not article content DGG (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to some comments above: a merge can never result in the page history being deleted, but it can result in the page being deleted, as follows:

  1. Merge articles A and B
  2. Move B to Talk:A/OldHistory
  3. Make a note at Talk:A about the old history.
  4. Delete the new redirect at location B, which has only one entry in its page history

This procedure was, when I gained adminship, discussed in one of the admin guides for deletion discussions. It's the correct procedure to follow if there is consensus that not only does B not deserve an independent article, it does not deserve even a redirect, probably because the redirect is an unlikely search target. I have already explained in detail in this post why I feel merge is a valid AFD outcome. Regarding this particular case, there's no need to revisit the AFD now, but in general an AFD should only be closed by a non-admin if there is a clear consensus for maintain the status quo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please see Uncle G's comments a few lines up about why this is such a bad idea in most cases. It's theoretically possible but it is definitely not the preferred or routine practice. Rossami (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors may be interested in the recent discussion WT:AFD#Mergers at AfD, where CBM made his detailed post. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The procedure outlined above seems unneccessarily complex and bureaucratic in almost all cases. There is no need to tidy up the main space in this way—"redirects are cheep". After all, the effect would be to turn any remaining (or later created) links to the merged article red, thus encouraging its recreating, precisely what the merger decison sought to avoid. With regards to the WT:AfD discussion I would say that I have no objection to merge as an AfD outcome (though I view it as a clear subspecies of keep), but see it as an inadequate reason for an AfD nomination since if that were to become standard practice mergers preformed without an AfD would be seen as "lacking consensus" and AfD's scope and power would increase greatly. A prospect I deem unhelpful to the project. But, of course, WT:AfD is the proper place for that discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree Nothing wrong with discussing mergers or redirects at AFD or even close as Merge or Redirect but IMHO an article should not be nominated unless the nominator wants an admin to push a delete button. (though he could say that a merge or redirect is an acceptable alternative) Also, merge !votes are a variant of "Keep" and the closer, admin or not, should not be bound to close as "Merge" even if there are a significant number of them. In practice, I personally wouldn't close Keep if the "merges" far outnumber the "keeps" and/or the "keeps" aren't soundly based on policy or precedent. A lesson I learned the hard way.
          • Redirects are a little trickier as I have seen "delete and redirect" !votes. When I review for close. I view these as "deletes" when deciding if the AFD is "nacable". Also, perhaps Redirect closes should be somewhat enforceable and at the least those who defend these could be exempt from 3RR. Ron Ritzman (talk)
        • Re Eluchil404: you're right that in most cases the procedure I outlined isn't needed. However, from time to time I see comments to the effect of "it's impossible to merge and delete", and so I wanted to point out that it is perfectly possible. In rare cases where that procedure are needed, article is orphaned, or almost orphaned, and the title of the article is a completely implausible search target. A vote to "merge and delete" basically says "Merge the articles. Then, since the old title is such an unlikely search term, skip the RfD and delete the redirect too." Of course this is only reasonable is the old title is unlikely to be recreated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:30, 13 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hammes Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Hammes Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) User:Jmh153/Hammes Company (edit | [[Talk:User:Jmh153/Hammes Company|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (Userfied version, for reference)

I don't understand why this company would be deleted. Should I have called it "Hammes Company"? I wasn't sure. Anyway, I think they have done a good job making a positive contribution to the country. I don't know why this was deleted, but could someone undelete and let me edit it so that it passes any sort of problems? I'm certain that I can make it a positive addition to Wikipedia, and that's all I wanted to do. You can change the title to "Hammes Company" if that works as well. Please let me know. I'll try to leave that note on the admin's page who deleted it, but her talkpage is kind of confusing! Jmh153 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

If you could "userfy" the page for me (I guess under the name Hammes Company, so it's correct), then I could edit it so it can be approved? Let me know what needs to be done so this page can stay! Thanks for your time as well! Jmh153 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The specific page you have complained about, Hammes Co., was not an article, but a redirect. This is a linking mechanism. The article you actually posted was at Hammes Company. But a previous article was at that name, and that previous article was deleted after a deletion discussion. Your article there was deleted as a recreation of the article deleted in the older discussion. The debate here is now turning towards whether that deletion of your version (as a recreation) was proper or not.
So the debate to this point has mostly been sorting out the history of what happened, what was deleted and at what names. Now that it's mostly sorted out, the debate of the propriety of the deletion that appears to be at the core of your complaint can commence. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the debate is turning towards whether the latest G4 deletion was proper, I have restored and userfied the article at User:Jmh153/Hammes Company. Now the whole history can be seen by anyone wishing to express an opinion. The original AFD deletion was very early on Sept 7, with several recreations being G4ed over the next couple of days. JMH's version was initially created on Oct 29. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone create the userfied version of that page so I can edit and then present in front of the moderators of Wikipedia? Or possibly un-lock the Hammes Company name so I can finalize it? Jmh153 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. (See my post just above this.) You asked for it while I was writing up my summary of my userification actions. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! How do I get the User: part off of the article now? What's the next step? Jmh153 (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your next step should be to let this DRV debate play out over the next few days, and continue to edit the user space version where it is to improve it's chances of surviving another deletion debate, if that is the outcome of this review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! I'll do what I can on my end and hope that this review comes out positively. Jmh153 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 and start a new AFD as per Athaenara, the admin who executed the latest G4. The new version is massively less spammy to me, and is definitely majorly different than the previously AFDed version. And when the G4 deleting admin opines for allowing the recreate and holding a new deletion discussion, that speaks volumes to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move User:Jmh153/Hammes Company into article space - I added some referenced info to the draft. It now has some structure and is ready for the big time. -- Suntag ☼ 02:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did the recommended and put your information in chronological order. Can someone please make this "Hammes Company" now, instead of "User:Jmh153/Hammes Company" now? If not, let me know what else I should do. Jmh153 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be up to whatever admin closes this review. These generally run at least five days. Until this review is closed, there's not a lot more you can do, sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As would a Restore result from this DRV debate, even without the AFD afterward.  :) - 14:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasAndroid (talk • contribs)
Good point. I moved the page back into article namespace as per the apparent consensus here. Should "Hammes Co." be a redirect to it? — Athaenara ✉ 15:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Creole_(markup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This deletion happened very much under the radar screen. The Creole markup is used by many wikis. It has been discussed on several conferences. Papers have been published on the subject and such illustrious people as Ward Cunningham have spoken out in their amazement that this article was deleted. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wondering a couple things:
    1. Why was the admin who deleted this page neither consulted prior to bringing the matter here nor notified of the deletion review listing, as the instructions require?
    2. Why the 5-month delay before listing this deletion review?
    3. Are you aware that deletion review is for calling attention to failures to follow the deletion process, and is not, for the most part, a venue to advance new arguments (or re-advance old ones) which should properly have been made at the AFD discussion?
    Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad 1. I tried to find out how to revoke the deletion and wasn't even able to find this page, until Gerard pointed it out. Wikipedia processes are simply complicated so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. If you know how to find out who needs to be involved, can you please pull them in?
    Ad 3. If this is not the right place to revoke the deletion, where and how to do it then?
    Dirk Riehle (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. He managed to find this place and make this listing without any problem; it seems difficult to understand how he would not also notice the bolded instructions saying "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look" and "Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster".
    2. has not yet been addressed.
    3. From Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome".
    Simply, deletion review is a "safety valve" in case an admin goes off and deletes an article against consensus or in violation of the speedy deletion process. In legal terms, appeals can only be taken here on a point of law. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Stifle for bringing this to my attention. I second his questions. Also, the unchallenged AFD cited the lack of 3rd party sources, an issue you have not remedied here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no errors in process in the AFD, no new arguments or evidence presented here to support restoration. Suggest the nominator write a draft in namespace with proper sourcing if it exists. Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original page was a stub and needed more elboration. Why it was deleted is unclear to me. As to additional arguments, more wiki engines have adopted Wiki Creole since then, and more papers have been written. I can cite my own additional research papers if you like:
  1. Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Rama Gurram, Matthias Kaiser, Mario Lopes, Umit Yalcinalp. An EBNF Grammar for Wiki Creole 1.0. In ACM SIGWEB Newsletter, Volume 2007, Issue Winter (Winter 2007), ACM Press, 2008. Article 4.
  2. Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Umit Yalcinalp. An XML Interchange Format for Wiki Creole 1.0 In ACM SIGWEB Newsletter, Volume 2007, Issue Winter (Winter 2007), ACM Press, 2008. Article 5.
  3. Martin Junghans, Dirk Riehle, Rama Gurram, Matthias Kaiser, Mário Lopes, Umit Yalcinalp. “A Grammar for Standardized Wiki Markup.” In Proceedings of the 2008 International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym ‘08). ACM Press, 2008. Forthcoming.
Dirk Riehle (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just rewrite if it has references and the deleted version didn't, it will not be subject to speedy deletion. That's the odd thinking about deletion review--almost always you can just go and rewrite. Of course it may end up at afd again, but no matter what we said here, it could still end up at afd again. and, I think it very unworthy of us to raise procedural objections to people who are trying to rescue articles no matter how long after. DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. There are some scholarly papers.[110] However, they need to be independent of the topic. I did find an article using the topic in a footnote: "One project, entitled Creole, seeks to create a common wiki markup language enabling users "to transfer content seamlessly across wikis."[111]. -- Suntag ☼ 02:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; no reason I can see to overturn. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


10 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Aql.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Largest and longest established provider of its kind in the UK, leading the deployment of Geographic SMS numbers - I would not have considered this page to meet criteria for Speedy Deletion although agree it's content could be revised. AQL is a provider of messaging services to companies such as BT PLC in the UK and therefore is not insignificant in their contribution to the UK Telecoms industry.

78.86.109.169 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd call that a G11 and possibly also an A7 myself. Endorse deletion, though you should of course feel free to write another version. I suggest looking at the featured article of the day (or another featured article) for an idea of what to try for. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not seen the original page, just found a couple of broken links to it ... Emphasis on the importance of the company (and complying with A7) should be relatively simple. As for G11 I've not seen the original page, but I feel an article about it and it's history is as relevant as ones about companies such as Lumison and other such long-established ISPs/ITSPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.109.169 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On 10 Nov, this nomination was briefly and partially overwritten by a malformed nomination of another page. This discussion has been restored. Rossami (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now had a chance to review the deleted versions of the page. The substantive content was added exclusively by user:Aqlimited. That user has since been indef-blocked for conflict of interest and spamming of other articles. If you think that a proper encyclopedia article could be created on this company which would demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria, I recommend that you just be bold and do it. The page is not protected. I don't think the deleted history of the page will be much help to you in this case, though. The "references" provided in the deleted content did not actually substantiate the claims made in the article. This page is better started from scratch by people completely independent of the company. Rossami (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Valid speedy on several grounds. I agree with Rossami, we'd want to see an article first before reinstating--there isn't enough here to make it probable that any of the versions of this could be adequately improved. DGG (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the very definition of G11. Article started with an external link, and was full of advertising and puffery. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suggest Redoing article from scratch, note that it's a new article (it can make things a lot harder for you if people think it's just the same old article resurfacing)...Camera123456 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Freebiejeebies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Correct version under discussion: User:Oscarthecat/Freebiejeebies

A well sourced and objective article 163.1.212.48 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site is highly notable and has been featured by T3 Magazine. All links will be on the deleted page. It is the largest site of its kind in the UK, and the largest equivalent in the US has a page at Gratis Internet. I think several individuals showed malicious intent in marking this page for deleted and it was not properly reviewed before deletion. Thanks. 163.1.212.48 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been open to suggestions from the very beginning. I believed the whole point of Wikipedia is for articles to be improved over time, not just deleted when a couple of users have an 'opinion' and decide to go for the most extreme option and delete it. If you restore the article then I can edit the tone as you suggest and hope this will calm things down. Simon2239 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Simon2239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Why add this tag? I am new, of course I haven't written half of wikipedia yet!!! I created Coca cola christmas advert which has now been extensively improved by the community. Perhaps the way admins have treated that page is a lesson? Incidentally it was the same user that marked that page who also marked Freebiejeebies. Not a coincidence. Simon2239 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, you did not in fact respond to suggestions that the article needed more sources; we discussed this on the talk page before it was removed, and you asserted there that the site is one of the largest of its kind, or even the largest (sorry, I don't remember your exact words) in the UK - which would certainly mean it's notable. So my suggestion would still be to find sources in addition to the T3 review of the site. It doesn't have to be online sources; a reference to an article or a review in a printed, reputable newspaper or magazine would also be fine. There were no such sources on the page the last time I saw it. It seems as if you have interpreted my comments as attacks on you, which wasn't my intention at all - I'm really sorry if I've come across as overly pushy. If I may make another suggestion, you could create the article on a sub-page of your user page, which would mean that you could work on it without worrying about othe editors and their intents. --Bonadea (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You marked my page for Speedy deletion. That's pretty pushy! Before I could have time to so much as search google you'd had my page deleted! Completely ridiculous and unjustified, you could have managed the situation in a much more reasonable fashion. I am afraid that sourcing it as the largest is difficult in any way besides hit counts. I doubt listing the hit counts of every website of this type on the web to prove that point would win more support. Also, apparently massive independent forums are also not sufficient references. Simon2239 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not having been part of these discussion I concur with Bonadea. The way to create articles, even the shortest of articles, is to ensure that they are cited from reliable sources. I am certain that no-one would be able to make a substantive objection to a neutrally written, well cited article, however imperfect, and that such an article, assuming that the topic is inherently notable, would be a useful addition. Part of the issue here was not only the article itself but the flurry of ill considered activity that surrounded it. Simon2239's belief about the point of Wikipedia is correct. However this process is to review the actual deletion, not discuss philosophy. As one of the proposers of speedy deletion I can say clearly that I would not have proposed it had it appeared to me to be anything other than an advert. I am happy to be swayed by a new article, which I suggest be drafted in userspace pending whatever is the usual procedure to move such a draft over the SALTed article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My article is on a single website, not the history of the White House! I was happy that sourcing a reference from an international magazine and a large forum community dedicated to websites such as this would be more than enough to satisfy. Certainly if the article Had been about the history of the White House, then slightly more references would be required. There are undoubtedly plenty of other articles with less references that have no such deletion orders. Simon2239 (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am responsible for the last two speedy deletions of the article and the WP:SALTing to prevent repeated future recreations. (it had previously been speedy deleted many times previously). Doesn't appear to be notable ("highly notable" above-why?). Appears to be merely an advertisement. Sources offered are either lacking (don't mention freebiejeebies) or are merely forums, failing WP:RS. I stand by my decision to remove the article as it stood. Perhaps an AFD would have helped, although I'd be quite suprised to find it surviving such a discussion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am new to wikipedia, don't expect me to know SALTs from AFDs from WP:RS from 'notability' in the non-dictionary sense. I believe a point blank deletion was quite out of order. Where a similar page exists and has similar content I don't think deleting the page was justified. Your comment ignores the international magazine publishing and I do not reference freebiejeebies as a source for integrity.Simon2239 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please note that the 'cache' appears to be a much older version of the page, which I would have agreed required deleting. I don't know how wikipedia works well enough to know if everyone can see the version that I wrote which was deleted?Simon2239 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'veposted the version that was deleted at User:Oscarthecat/Freebiejeebies if that helps. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this point, you should also read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The purpose of this DRV is to judge if the right process was followed to arrive at the deletion decision, it isn't supposed to be a re-run of the arguments that lead to the deletion. You are either arguing to overturn the deletion, have the article restored then listed at, say, WP:AFD for a thorough review or to endorse the decision. Reading the deletion criteria and the original article leads me to the conclusion that the criteria were correctly applied - hence I'm endorsing the decision. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I certainly do not believe it met the criteria for speedy deletion. It has one good source and I believe was relatively balanced in its representation. I do not have a problem with it being reviewed and altered, but believe it should be re-instated for discussion ie. the speedy deletion decision should be overturned in favour of a much more open approach. Simon2239 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to go for an overturn on this one, and send to AFD. The article had some level of balance in its coverage (therefore not G11), and Simon2239 presents some valid assertions of notability (defeating an A7). The article stands a chance, although perhaps not a very good one; let's give it that chance. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn followed by immediate send to AfD for a full discussion and formal consensus on the rationale for or against deletion. After a lot of thought I can understand Simon2239's objections to the deletion. I think a spirit of fair play is required to be shown. It also gives him a chance to enhance the article to demonstrate within it the notability he asserts so eloquently. While I still view it as an advert, I feel it is worth letting it take its chance. I do not feel that the deletions were incorrect, I simply see a need to let a wider consensus take shape. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Endorse (Per request below) - The draft user namespace article now listed at the top of the article overcomes the G11 reasons for speedy deletion and no other speedy deletion reasons apply. - Fairly clear G11 deletion. Most of the article was made up of: "You need to sign up for one of their offers," "you need to distribute to others", "You need to read the terms and conditions and ensure you adhere to them,", "Currently the free gifts available are £100 Amazon.co.uk vouchers, £200 Amazon.co.uk vouchers, £500 Amazon.co.uk vouchers, Xbox Games, (etc.)", "You will need to get the required number of people to sign up", "If you wish to become involved click this". -- Suntag ☼ 02:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag ☼ 16:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try not to be so snippy. Like all Wikipedia deletion discussions, the topic and any modifications to the topic are listed at the top of the discussion. The DRV request was to comment on the deleted article, which I did. After my post, you added the link to the draft user namespace article to the top of the discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 16:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Barack-obama-mother.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise closed this IFD discussion even though there were multiple objections to deletion and no consensus to delete - a violation of the cirteria for closing the discussion set out on the project page. The same user then deleted the image under discussion. I believe the image should be restored pending the proper conclusion of the discussion. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the case at all. The discussion clearly shows consensus that the image satisfies nine of the ten requirement under NFCC. The only debate in the discussion is whether the subject of the picture satisfies the significance requirement, and on that point there is no clear consensus in the debate. And the discussion there does not concern the significance of the individuals (which nobody disputes), but of the particular individual moment the picture illustrates, which is irrelevant because the picture stands as an illustration for Obama's childhood in general. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The question, which has not yet been resolved, is whether the photos are significant enough to warrant their use. There are no free equivalents, etc.... So point #8 is still unresolved (even if I think the photo meets this requirement easily). -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really feel it would be very helpful for me to comment on the close, as I'm not very familiar with the NFCC myself, but I would like to note that I am attempting to contact Obama (or more likely someone from his campaign) through Flickr currently to see if we can get that photo for free or get something else free that would serve the same purpose. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't gotten a response, that appears to be a bust. Anyone else wanna' give it a go? lifebaka++ 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - That was the largest collection of WP:ILIKEIT arguments ever. This ifd should be used from now on as the best example of how admins should judge ifd decisions: Taking into account policy-related arguments and ignoring the head count. None of the 33 keep votes had any substantial policy-relevant argument, and Fut.Perf decision is uncontroversial. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever you think of the other 32 keep votes, I ask that you do not characterise my vote in this way: my argument was that the picture provided an irreplaceable resource, i.e. that there was no free equivalent and that it was highly significant (criteria 1 and 8). I'm not saying that you have to overturn everything for my statement alone (especially as others mentioned ways in which this might be replaceable), but please don't see mine as an ILIKEIT. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to note how interestingly 86.166.86.153 (talk · contribs) only warned users that voted "keep" about this review. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin's rationale. Here's my breakdown of the different kinds of keep votes:
    • Nyttend and numerous later voters who chimed in with more or less sterotyped repetition of the same argument (calyponte, 98.212.98.26, Ryanaxp, 84.149.245.150, Bellagio99, Cabiehl): argued that the image shows something about the "connection between mother and son". Like Nil Einne, who refuted this argument, I can't follow this, at all. What, specifically, is the image showing? That she didn't perpetually frown at him or beat him every minute of the day? That she could smile at him even though he was black and she was white? The way this mother is holding her child and smiling at him looks precisely like any other young mother holding any other small child in some cheerful moment in all this wide world. The idea that this one image lets us understand something specific and non-trivial about their mother-child relationship or the way he grew up is preposterous.
    • Pmbcomm, FlyingToaster, 82.1.151.34, Mareino said it was unlikely anybody would claim rights to the photo. That's quite implausible, the photo is quite obviously copyrighted, and evidently valuable at this moment, both emotionally, one supposes (for Obama's family), and commercially (for journalists), so yes, you betcha people will care about who publishes it and how. If somebody claims Obama released it for anybody to use for any purpose, then we need to see a specific license saying so.
    • Numerous other votes that just claimed the persons and their relationship were notable, not that the image conveyed crucial information about them (153.108.64.1, missy1234, 71.236.242.245)
    • Votes that argued the symbolic value of the image, in its very commonness and unspecificity, rather than any concrete crucial information conveyed (77.31.194.107, Editsometimes, 207.127.241.2, 12.214.34.206, EconomistBR)
    • Votes that were nothing more than ILIKEIT (Proyster, 68.196.57.204, 201.240.56.251, 70.153.125.126
    • Aeon17x and Unak78 pointed to the precedent of another Obama childhood photo, but didn't specify what this image added over and above the other one that was kept
    • Votes that consisted just of a rehashing of stereotyped catchphrases of fair use rationales, without specifying how the whole set of NFCC was met (Richardrj, KoshVorlon, 153.108.64.1, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
    • One vote that claimed the image was valuable for assessing some conspiracy theory about Obama not really being Obama. Aside from the inherent absurdity, we don't keep non-free images for enabling WP:OR.
Well, sorry, for me all of this doesn't make for a well-informed policy-based consensus. The delete votes were clearly better argued and more coherent. I haven't even started to check how many of the keep voters were socks/meatpuppets/fly-by anons/double voters et cetera. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so which of the NFCC conditions does this violate? The only argument the deletionists have put forward is a variation on 8 - that the image is not significant enough to warrant its use. Coincidentally, that's the condition that's the most open to interpretation. The "ILIKEIT" crowd, as you describe them, seemed to be trying to give justification to its significance (8). I would have at least asked for justification on this point before deleting. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S.: As Damiens.rf has found out in the meantime, there was also external canvassing, on Digg, apparently initiated by Aeon17x (talk · contribs), who is hereby officially troutslapped. [112] That obviously explains the sudden influx of clueless IP voters, and justifies all the more my decision to disregard most of their opinions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this justifies it, but that appears to have attracted little attention. If offsite canvassing is the reason for the high turnout, I believe there's likely more of it out there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt it had any effect too. When I posted it back there I thought Digg had an error since I couldn't find it in the queue. Turns out, it showed up in the second page of upcoming news. At 3 AM. Yeah.
As far as I'm concerned I'm going with what the admin called here, as it stands there really is a lot of other pictures that can represent Obama, Obama's mother or his childhood with much less drama and policy involved. --Aeon17x (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there aren't. But if you find one, please share! 153.108.64.1 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one and this one depicts Obama's mother side of the family. --Aeon17x (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several problems there. Firstly, none of those are free images. So the same arguments can be made against those photos. Secondly, Obama is older in the image you link to - this photo is the only one of him at a younger age. Thirdly, Ann is not very recognizable in the photo of her with Obama (sunglasses obscure her eyes). A recognizble photo of her is not unreasonable in an article about Obama's early life; however, the second photo does not contain any image of Obama (and thus is less appropriate for an article about Obama).-- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • That's just your opinion, and mine is different. Both our opinions on the material are broadly irrelevant to a DRV. The consensus of the AfD was that it should be deleted and the admin correctly identified this consensus. Hence the deletion should stand. There can be no policy violation of NFCC in deleting an image anyway. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not mention my opinion on the material. It is a simple statement of fact that only NFCC#8 was raised in the discussion as a reason for deletion, and there was no clear consensus in the debate that the image breached NFCC#8. I think the lack of consensus is clear in the admin's closing comment ("Arguments by Danny, Calliopejen, Howcheng and others carry the day here"). That statement indicates the admin simply decided which side of the discussion he personally found more convincing, not what the consensus was. Is it the remit of an administrator to adjudicate in such a way? Furthermore, the admin has now listed above a number of reasons that he believes the picture violates NFCC (that is a copyrighted commercially valuable image). None of these were raised against the image in the debate, there was no consensus on them in the debate, there is just that admin's personal opinion. So it is clear that his decision to close the debate and delete the image was not based on the debate, but on his personal opinion as to whether the picture violates NFCC. So, the deletion was not the result of the IfD discussion, as the admin responsible has made clear. The image was deleted in spite of that discussion. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if I misinterpreted you. "It does not fail NFCC 1 or 2" sounded like an opinion. Writing, for example, "the AfD was clear that it did not fail NFCC 1 or 2" would have sounded more like a statement of fact I guess. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is debate about NFCC 8, which I address below, I don't see at all how 1 or 2 is violated. With respect to 1, if anyone has a free equivalent of this photo, please post it and the matter can be settled. Otherwise, it is rather pointless to say state that there exists a free equivalent without evidence to back it up. Condition 2 argues that posting this photo will destroy a commercial opportunity. I'm not aware that the Obama camp was licensing this photo and don't believe it ever would. So that's really a moot point as well. But prove me wrong! Otherwise, there is no legal or fair use argument against the photo; the only debate point is whether the photo adds enough to the article to outweigh philosophical opposition to its use. I feel it does, for several important reasons, as described below. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. When the balance of "votes" in a deletion discussion is close (after discounting, if necessary, canvassed, very new, and unregistered users), the closing admin is within his rights to grant greater weight to arguments which expound a policy-based reason for deletion or keeping. In this case, nobody successfully made out a reason why the image met all of the non-free content criteria, or specifically #8. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate Photo. The photo meets all the criteria for fair use (low res, doesn't decrease value, etc...) The only argument against the photo (at all) is that of significance (#8): "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." Although "signficantly increase" is a term open to debate, I believe the following reasons justify the photo's value:
  • Firstly, the photo is an image of Barack Obama at a young age. The article is about the early life of Barack Obama. Hence, in an article about Obama's youth, this image contributes strongly to the subject matter at hand.
  • Secondly, there is only one other photo of Obama in the article. In that photo, Obama is 11 years old. In an article about Obama's early life, it is not unreasonable to include an image of him at a younger age as well.
  • Thirdly, the current (and only) photo is of Obama with his father, who was a much less relevant individual to Obama than his mother. As Obama grew up in a single parent household, showing him with his single parent is also illustrative of this fact. Yes, the photo is beautiful and touching, but that doesn't discredit it from being valuable or contibuting. A picture is worth a thousand words, after all.
  • Additionally, it worth adding that discussion on the subject was hardly complete when the image was deleted. Given the signifcance of the subject matter, more debate should have taken place prior to deletion. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: On a seperate note, the admin in question (Future Perfect) has a history of rapidly deleting images that do not meet a his very strict interpretation of fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Can we at least have another admin look at whether the image is "significant"? -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You already get that via this DRV. Although Future Perfect is not barred from closing the DRV, it is unusual and the closer will almost certainly be a different admin who will base their decision on this discussion and the original AfD. Unusual? Quite TalkQu
Just to make this clear, of course I won't be the one to close this DRV, most definitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, handily fails WP:NFCC as detailed in IfD and reasoned by administrator. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - IfD is simple. WP:NFCC justification must come from Wikipedia reliable source material, usually one or more reilable sources discussing the photo in question. Without using Wikipedia reliable source material to justify a image under WP:NFCC, the keep arguments amount to nothing more than the subjective, perhaps original research, opinions of Wikipedia editors. I did not see anyone at the IfD citing to a Wikipedia reliable source in support of keeping the image. The closer could not have close in any other way. If you really want to keep this photo, first, find some Wikipedia reliable sources discussing the photo and present those at DRV to see whether that new information might be enough to restore the image. -- Suntag ☼ 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCC 8 - No one has presented any Wikipedia reliable source material to establish that the images presence in the article would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Editors have claimed that it would. However, editor subjective opinions are like noses - everyone has 'em. None of the statements you made in your 15:12, 11 November 2008 post above are sourced to a Wikipedia reliable source. None of that can be used in the article and, without text discussing the photo, the photo has no text content justification for being in the article. If you list in this DRV discussion the Wikipedia reliable source material discussing the photo, then there may be a basis in that source material to meet the requirements NFCC 8. (P.S. If you have an external link to the photo, then perhaps I can find some reliable sources discussing it.) -- Suntag ☼ 18:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.



9 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Thomas Whitelegg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Was apparently deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Davis. FYI, an engineer is someone who designs locomotives, not a driver (someone who drives them). How the Americans got the two confused I don't know! I also do not know the content of these pages as they were before, so if someone could give me that, thx, otherwise I may write it myself. See [113] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs)

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

Robert Harben Whitelegg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

As above. -- Tony May 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore equally eminent, though not as much of a pioneer. . TW's son and successor. There are multitudinous sources for everything connected with UK railways, and reasonably so, considering their historic role in the development of technology and commerce. This was a really careless group AfD without sufficient attention or attempt at sourcing. DGG (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - Consensus at AfD was determined correctly. However, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows some info, none of which were considered at AfD. Also, the AfD was 1-1/2 years ago and failed to explore why a train was named after Robert Harben Whitelegg. This may have turned up more reliable source material since such an event likely would be covered in a Wikipedia reliable source that would include biographical material on Robert Harben Whitelegg. Also, having a multi-million dollar train name after you presents a likelihood that sufficient reliable source material will be available for a Wikipedia article. The AfD nominator's view was opposite of this, but offered no support to show why having a multi-million dollar train name after makes it unlikely that sufficient reliable source material will be available for a Wikipedia article. That doesn't make much sense. Suntag ☼ 01:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Tropical Greenhouses for Vegetables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Author claims no copyright violation as he / she owns copyright. Raised by Ghgwh37, I'm just fixing the report. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 28 September 2008 Rkitko (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tropical Greenhouses for Vegetables" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: from http://cuestaroble.com/Documents/SAMPLE%20PAGE%203%20TROPICAL.pdf)

Sir: Based on the above link, my article on tropical greenhouses was Deleted, per Rkitko. I am the author of the wiki article, and the author of the supposed "blatant copyright infringement" article. I have not copyrighted the article on my website, cuestaroble.com,(which I am the author of, by the way) thus there is no copyright infringement. This article should be replaced as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghgwh37 (talk • contribs)

Cross-post from User talk:Ghgwh37:
Hi, Ghgwh37. I prefer to communicate on Wikipedia, so I'm replying here rather than through e-mail. I assume you're talking about Tropical Greenhouses for Vegetables, which I deleted on 28 September 2008. Assuming good faith that you do own the copyright to this article and wish to release, we need to verify that. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials on instructions of how to reinstate the article. Note that when they discuss e-mailing the permissions OTRS system, your e-mail should be one associated with the site, such as "siteowner (at) cuestaroble.com". You can understand my confusion as to the status of the copyright, as in the pdf it states "University of California (ret.) © July, 2008", the © denoting copyright.
Aside from the above issue, the article written duplicated information in other articles such as greenhouse and solar greenhouse (technical). It also didn't conform to many of the style guidelines established in the manual of style. It also appears to violate our original research policy in part and our policy against how-to content or instruction manuals. I hope all of this information helps. If you want any assistance in rewriting the article for use in the encyclopedia, I'll gladly help. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sketches of a Young Man Wandering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I would like you to undlete my post Sketches of a Young Man Wandering. This was a post and reiview for one of my favorite books. Brandy Lewis (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Blatant advertising, no compelling reason to undelete. MBisanz talk 10:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Aside from the page constituting an advert for the book, Wikipedia is not for reviews (see WP:NOT), and you should consider writing book reviews on your own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Echoing what Stifle said, I am happy to provide the content back to you if you would like to put it up on a personal website. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse but permit recreation if there are published 3rd party reviews after the book has actually been published. A new small publisher's apparent first title, but not necessarily a vanity publisher. In general, attempted articles for books that have not yet actually become available in libraries pr attracted press notice are considered as mere publicity. 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Fiercely endorse - Having witnessed the demise of good literature in this country I am happy to say that a new voice has emerged!?!? That's not even a review, it's an ad; and for a clearly NN work at that. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Also, it was a copyvio[114] of eharlequin.com. -- Suntag ☼ 01:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Schaffer paragraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Jane Schaffer paragraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The Schaffer paragraph is a form of writing used in middle and highschool. It turns up tens of thousands of results on Google and is an invaluable page to an encyclopedia. The article was properly sourced with notable .edu sites and was highly viewed before it was deleted (judging from the amount of vandalism). The article originally was Jane Schaffer paragraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but was moved because Schaffer paragraph is more widely used. It should be undeleted because it had many page views and was written in the similar style and contex as the Cornell Notes article. I originally looked on Wikipedia because I wanted to find out more information on the paragraph (other sources did not explain it well) but we did not have one written yet. The article was deleted afterwards because the deleting admin was doing a deleting run (from what I can tell) of things pertaining to Jane Schaffer and deleted it thinking it was advertisement (see our discussion here User_talk:Penubag#Jane_Schaffer_paragraph. -- penubag  (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion and send to AFD. The article was not an advertisement, nor did it meet any of the other criteria for speedy deletion. It's open to debate whether it would be deleted at AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, no preference with respect to AfD. Agreed that the article was not speedy eligible, and the first JSTOR article seems to support notability. Looks like a perfectly good stub. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Incorrect speedy from an admin who--while very much my friend-- takes sometimes a very broad view of G11. I'm glad to see that others agree with my general feeling about some of his interpretations, which he & I have discussed in a perfectly friendly way many times over by now. . He should have been notified of this review when bringing it here, even though he did suggest it himself several months ago. -- I just notified him on his talk page. DGG (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, like DGG says, I suggested it months ago; I'm always willing to abide by consensus when it becomes clear I was in error. (There's no tradition of infallibility in any of the belief systems I subscribe to.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Per Stifle's review. Orangemike, if you want to restore the artice, you can close this DRV yourself (which always is better than letting things drag on). Comment There is a draft article at User:Penubag/Schaffer. -- Suntag ☼ 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Chaim Walkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Rabbi walkin is one of the most well-known and famous in Israel and the US. Born in Shanghai, China, Rabbi Chaim Walkin began his life during the miraculous escape of the Mirrer Yeshiva in WWII. coming to the US at 1946 as a kid who survived the war, thru Poland, Japan, and China. The New Yorh Times wrote and article front-page pic. about Chaim Walkin getting a citizenship. He studied at Telshe School in Cleveland, continuing at the Mir in Israel, becoming the Dean of rabbinical school Yeshiva Ateret Israel in Jerusalem [600 students]. maybe b/c it's mostlly inside the jewish area, you happen to not know about it. I will recommoend to bring the page back. you can look him up by google "rabbi chaim walkin". I think you can see him on youtube. since the entire jewish community world-wide speak hebrew and listen to him in this language, therefore it will be hard to show all the info.

here some info about the rabbi links:

  1. http://www.1800eichlers.com/Browse-by-Author--Artist/Walkin--Rabbi-Chaim/c-1-131-812/
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths [look for the paragraph that starts with "in his book, Daas Chaim, Rabbi Chaim Walkin...]
  3. http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=life/spirituality/terumah2 [see paragraph: "to answer this question, rabbi chaim walkin..]
  4. http://www.nehora.com/index.cfm/product/3642?CFID=31097920&CFTOKEN=61225369
  5. http://www.machonyaakov.org/staff/#bio [see rabbi IMMANUEL BERNSTEIN bio: "receiving Rabbinic ordination from Rabbi Chaim Walkin in 2001"]
  6. http://www.azamra.org/HTML/kidshealth.htm [see under "EDUCATIONAL ADVISORS:Rabbi Chaim Walkin, Dean of Students, Yeshiva Ateret Israel..]
  7. http://www.raananakollel.org/audio_c_wolkin_elul.html
  8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waLQyZUUVb4&feature=related

this is just a quick search online. I can look up for more. --89.139.53.155 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at each of those:
    1. … is a book listing, with no informational content about this person.
    2. … is Wikipedia, and not a source.
    3. … is an article about something else, and tells us nothing about this person. It quotes xem; it does not document xem.
    4. … is another book listing, again with no informational content about this person.
    5. … documents another person, telling us nothing about the person at hand.
    6. … is a promotional brochure for about something else, and tells us nothing about this person. It provides no documentation of this person's life and works.
    7. … has no prose content. It's a sound recording, purportedly of this person speaking, and as such again not actually documentation of this person's life and works.
    8. … has no prose content. It's a video recording, purportedly of this person speaking, and as such again not actually documentation of this person's life and works.
Ironically, the one thing that actually would be useful as a source, a newspaper article that you state is actually about this person, documenting xem, is the one thing that you haven't cited.

You aren't making a case for having an encyclopaedia article. For a biographical article to exist, there need to be independent and reliable source materials documenting this person's life and works, from which such an article can be created in the first place. You aren't citing things that are even remotely close to being such sources. Please cite some proper sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete One does not have to make a case for an encyclopedia article to avoid speedy deletion. all one must do if give some indication that might meet notability guidelines--if its disputed whether it does, afd is the place. Actually, I think he is very likely unquestionably notable, as the head of a rabbinical school (I presume this is the meaning of a "Dean" -- such has been repeatedly held to be notable.) For routine biographical facts, official websites are fine, per WP::PROF,DGG (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but it's a good idea to point the potential re-creator of the article in the direction of what to cite in order to avoid the otherwise almost inevitable AFD listing that both you and Stifle are talking about. If the creator can be encouraged to approach writing the article in such a way that it avoids a round trip through AFD in the first place, so much the better. Speedy deletion is also not a bar to someone creating, right now, a good, robustly sourced, stub article on this subject. In many ways that would be a better outcome than simply undeleting the prior article, which cited no sources at all. Uncle G (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per DGG. A mere claim of how the person might be important defeats an A7 speedy deletion; it's open for anyone to list this article at AFD if it's restored, but it's not so certain that it would be deleted there. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the text as it existed at the time of the deletion pretty clearly qualified under CSD criterion A7, allegations of significance have now been made. Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AfD where Uncle G's concerns about sourcing can be fully evaluated. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the speedy deletion - The A7 importance/significance claim needs to be in the article, not outside of it. A7 is a simple thing to overcome and if the editors interested in the topic couldn't even do that, then that seems to validate Uncle G's position and why we have A7 in the first place. -- Suntag ☼ 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Wikipedia notability, I only found one Wikipedia reliable source in the past 20+ years, and that only has a short quote from him: Infield, Tom (October 9, 1983). "A City Is Bord For Followers of 'True Judaism'". The Philadelphia Inquirer. pp. A2. Retrieved 16 November 2008. "The Talmud instructs Jews not to make provocations of any kind; this is the reason," said Rabbi Chaim Walkin, spiritual leader of the yeshiva, a religious school, in Petah Tikva near Tel Aviv and a self-described ardent disciple of Rabbi Schach. "Being that we believe the words of the Talmud are as eternal as the Bible itself,[ we are bound not to do anything to provoke the nations of the world. . . . Any settlement on the West Bank is a blatant provocation." {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help). Also see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. There doesn't seem to be enough info to maintain a Wikipedia article. -- Suntag ☼ 11:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have two newspaper articles. should I post them here or Email it to one of you guys? --85.250.49.147 (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Post links here please. Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have them online, I have it as a picture file. [should I upload it on an image-website?]
Please. Spartaz Humbug! 09:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no response shortly I guess we will close this. Spartaz Humbug! 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so. We need specific cites to these sources, not just assurancess of their existence. In any event, this deletion and its endorsement shoudl be without prejudice against a rewritten properly sourced version of the article demonstrating notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Berg v. Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

See 08-570. This could now turn into a SCOTUS case a lá Bush v. Gore. bender235 (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Clear consensus to delete; if the Supreme Court grants cert then that would be grounds for the creation of a new article but would not invalidate the original AfD. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No reason given how the deletion process has not been correctly followed in this matter; DRV is a place to go when the deletion process has not been properly followed, as opposed to a place to get a second hearing in the hope it will be more favourable. As Mackensen suggests, if certoriari is granted, it'll be a different story. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.' that would seem to mean it's not going to be a SC case, right? --Rividian (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I argued for retention of this article I disagre with this deletion. I think that the lawsuit got enough coverage that it should have an article. However, deletion seems reasonable, and DRVing based on the possibility that it might get cert is not enough. If it gets cert (which I strongly doubt) then we will have an article on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Proper process followed, consensus to delete was clear, closing admin called it right. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to an appropriate article containing discussion of the (frivolous) challenges to Obama's eligibility. (FYI, Mackensen is correct that Justice Souter denied an emergency in-chambers application for a stay rather than the certiorari petition itself. A single Justice cannot finally dispose of a petition. According to SCOTUSblog, the defendants' response to the cert. petition is due on December 1, after which the petition will be considered by the full Court, although the chances of its being granted are infinitesimal.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - not even notable in the sense that "gold-fringed flag" theories are notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was properly interpreted, and as U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick said, the case is "frivolous and not worthy of discussion." But I'm glad it was listed here, since it brought the AfD to my attention, and the bold prediction that it "is a very important case involving the US Constitution that will more than likely cause Obama to lose the election". --Stormie (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I argued keep in that AfD and provide plenty of reliable sources to establish that the topic met WP:N. However, it seems the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The sources I found only went back to Aug. 22, 2008, there were some OR and POV issues, etc., etc. which seemed to turn off most editors. There even were some Ignore All Rule smell/importance delete positions. Even after I posted all those references, it didn't seem to sway the subsequent !votes too much. As Newyorkbrad points out above, there is room in Wikipedia for sourced content on this topic, but perhaps not presently in a free standing article. -- Suntag ☼ 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


7 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rossami (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limbomaniacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Same procedure as below. Want to use it as a basis for a new article. hexaChord2 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any chance of a source which suggests these guys might meet WP:NMG? Stifle (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sole useful edit has been copied to a user subpage. Note: That first edit included an apparently fictitious pagemove-vandalism warning and an inappropriate otheruses tag. This raises the probability that the edit was itself a copy/paste and may not be reliable. The contents should be carefully scrutinized and independently verified before being used anywhere. Rossami (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Freekbass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Please undelete and put to my namespace. I want to take this as a basis for a new article. HexaChord (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commando Krav Maga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Article was put up for Speedy deletion again however the article was re-worked and any advert was ommitted. Many additional references were added and subject is worth notability in the world of martial arts. Commando Krav Maga is an independant system from the general Israeli fighting system of Krav Maga and should be listed separately instead of as a sub-heading. Combatsurvival (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and keep. I know nothing about the topic, but I see a well-written and sourced article. Since I wouldn't know it from anything, my reaction is that it looks notable, verifiable, and otherwise an example of an article worthwhile in Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this discussion. The article was discussed and decided in an AfD in June 2008. It was recreated earlier today. While it was tagged for speedy-deletion, that speedy was declined. There is nothing for Deletion Review to review. Incidentally, the rewritten version is now up for a second AfD discussion.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Archibald Leech (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) John E. Fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Max Holm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Graydon Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) William McCracken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Harold Hunt (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Bill Carroll (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Jim Paramore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Jake Cabell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Article was deleted en massse as described at the West Precedent Essay, listing Walter J. West (among other articles) as precedence to delete. West and many of the other articles have subsequently been restored. Upon further research,significant improvements, information and additional sources have been found and added to the article. Please review at User:Paulmcdonald/Archibald Leech (football coach) for details. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, the improved article says he "stayed on as a professor at the college" aftee his one year as a coach at Geneva College. Professor of what, and what business? (checking from the refs, I see he was a [physician, and VP of a local bank). What part of this career is notable? I'm going to use this article for some more general questions.
  1. is being the coach of one of the less important football teams for one year notable by itself? If it is, why isn't being a professor for one year at a small college notable by itself. WP is not a faculty directory, and ditto for sports.
  2. is being an important player on a small college team notable by itself? Is being the starplayer of the year on a school college team notable by itself. DGG (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is in reference to Archibald Leech --the combining of the Del Revs, below, made my qy unclear. DGG (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have combined these related requests into one DRV. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted in each case; verifiable but not notable (by reference to the agreed community standards, as against CFBN etc.). Stifle (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe that combining these into one discussion is a very bad idea. Part of the reason that many of these articles were deleted in the first place is because they were combined into many AfDs all at once (I believe the total count was 72 articles in a short period of time). So far, a full one-fourth of those articles have been rapidly restored or merged into other existing articles when they were found to have professional careers or other widely recognizable feats such as induction in the college football hall of fame. The bulk nomination process, in this case, was a huge hindrance and not a help. If it is insisted that these articles be handled as a bulk discussion, I will ask them to be closed by the nominator (myself) and then re-introduce them one at a time so that they can be discussed each on their own merits.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we need to cede some to practicality. The prospect of making 9 different comments on 9 different DRV threads on 9 relatively similar subjects was daunting. We are likely to see more participation with one discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd support allowing recreation of Bill Carroll, as he was head coach at at the University of Oklahoma for the Track & Field and Cross Country teams. That's a HC position at a major university as opposed to the others. Neutral on the rest for now, although I personally wouldn't mind them being recreated as an argument can be made for their notability. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem restoring the following: User:Paulmcdonald/William McCracken, User:Paulmcdonald/Bill Carroll (football coach). I'm on the fence about User:Paulmcdonald/Harold Hunt (football coach). The rest seem very thin on biographical material in the sources--mostly sourced to lists of wins or material from the college. I could very easily be wrong about Harold Hunt (as I can't see all the sources and the thing mentioned in the lead might be enough), but most of them don't seem to be covered in reliable, independent sources in significant detail. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate When they have different degrees of notability, the discussion cannot usefully be combined. I suggest we start over, first doing the ones for whom specific individual notability has been claimed by various people above. DGG (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed I'd like to ask an admin to close this and I'll resubmit, one at a time and not submit the next one until the last one closes. There are multiple schools, multiple time periods, and -- as DGG says, multiple degrees of notability. There's just no way to lump them together into one discussion and still be fair.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do you one better. I've restored Harold Hunt (football coach), Bill Carroll (football coach), and William McCracken. The rest are borderline to not notable, so relist them at your convenience, but as they stand I don't think it would be worth your while to bring them into mainspace. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Pligg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I don't know if im doing this correctly.. But I want to write a review on the Pligg CMS (http://www.pligg.com/). Found out about it http://webdevnews.net/tag/pligg/ then set it up http://www.howtoforge.com/news_voting_with_pligg Thanks this would be my first article. I found it to be locked, went to the IRC channel they redirected me to this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryMcFarts (talk • contribs)

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

Europa Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This company is notable film production and distribution company for France and Japanese market. Pierre411 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note this appears to be Luc Bessons distributiom company in france and has interwiki links to articles in French and Chinese. fr:EuropaCorp & zh:歐羅巴影業. None of the articles has sources so far. Spartaz Humbug! 06:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As deleting admin, I am so very much surprised that this the creator of the article made this request without asking me first why it was deleted. Others will know what to say so I will now hold my peace. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion as a valid application of criterion A7. The sole usable content of the page was "Europa corp is a french distibutor of films directed by Luc Besson." (The list of their film offerings was clearly inappropriate advertising-like content. The link to the IMDB page and to the company's webpage demonstrate merely that an organization by this name exists. No evidence was available through either link about the company itself. I find no assertion of any significance.
    Note: the fact that the prior version was speedy-deleted should not be taken as a prohibition on writing a new, sourced article. Be bold. When doing so though, please be sure that the company meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criterion for organizations. Rossami (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturnsee below Reasonable attempt to start an article. A company distributing such major films might well be notable, and the place to discuss it is AfD. DGG (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse perfectly good speedy deletion per Rossami. As always, speedy deletion is not a permanent bar on the article's existence; recreation is in order if notability is asserted (although it would also need to be proven in order to keep the article in the longer term). Stifle (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid A7, but I would like to note that this was nominated two minutes after creation, so there was still every reason to believe that the article was being worked on and expanded when the tag was slapped on it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • List at AfD. All good faith contested CSD#A7s should be allowed an AfD discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation per me and stifle--the simple solution here. DGG (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Nick Savoy – There are so many comments by users with few contributions that do not really city policy reasons that its really hard to reconcile a policy based consensus with the overall level of opinions cast. While by no means disregarding or disrespecting the opinions of the new commentators, I have been swayed by the fact that the experienced users have pretty much all argued to endorse the deletion. Deletion is therefore endorsed by the last version will be made available on request to any editor who would like to work on this in their userspace. I think it would be much easier for the article to be undeleted if we are presented with a well written version of the article that is fully compliant with core polcies to review. – Spartaz Humbug! 18:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nick Savoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Savoy, Nick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

He is a prominent member of the seduction community with reliable outside sources to verify. His page conforms the standards of Wikipedia, better than the other seduction gurus' pages. The deletion of this page was done for invalid reasons other than just looking at its history of the page. The current is new and updated to meet the WP standards. After approval of two administrators, the page went live. Can anyone revive this page? Camera123456 (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1- The AfD for this article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savoy, Nick ZsinjTalk 10:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I should have pointed it out. However, I do want to emphasize that this is NOT challenging the original AfD. Rather, this is a new article that (in theory) fixed the problems with the original one, such as linking directly to third-party sources. Also, it takes into account all of the new media pieces (FHM, Maxim, Globe and Mail, Radar, etc.) from the past 8 or so months since the original article was deleted. Thanks and sorry for the confusion.Camera123456 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2-
  1. — 38.98.1.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  2. — 70.59.194.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  3. — 91.150.223.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  4. — Coaster7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  5. — JerryMcFarts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  6. — Passion8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  7. — Pierre411 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  8. — Shylesson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  9. — SjefC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  10. — Thefayth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  11. — TimmyBx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Note It's not surprising that many people who are familiar with Savoy's work have come here. There is a public post about it on The Attraction Forums (www.theattractionforums.com) which I'm sure has generated visitors. That shouldn't take away from the significant number of people with a long editing history here who have also expressed support for the page like WoodenBuddha, Mathmo, SecondSight and others below. Dismiss some opinions if you like, but they really shouldn't count AGAINST the work we're doing. Otherwise, it would be too easy to shut down a page by logging on anonymously to support it.Camera123456 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note In addition, some of the people cited in that last don't appear to have been involved in this discussion here. I'm not sure of their relevance, except that it makes it look like Coaster7 and I are organizing sock puppets - an unfounded accusation made below, which seems to violate wp:agf.Camera123456 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted) pending the presentation of independent, reliably sourced evidence. This was a complicated close and it would have been helpful if the closer had put more of his/her analysis in the closing comments. As is, we are left to reinterpret the closure rationale ourselves.
    In my own analysis of the closure, I discounted several of the comments as either deliberately duplicative or suspiciously new users. The comments of established users all focused on the lack of sources demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies. None of those arguing to keep the page provided answers to those concerns. (Some examples of passing references and human interest news stories in which he was used as an example or source were offered but, from the comments of the participants, those were not considered sufficient. For the purposes of establishing notability, sources need to be primarily about the subject, not merely examples used in an article about a larger topic.) No new evidence has been offered here. I find no process problems with the closure of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I was contacted via e-mail to assist in restoring this article, which was supposedly deleted for no reason (now I find it had been through AFD). Arriving at it taking a read (I found it to be already here at DRV), I have read the rationale for retention, as well as the previous AFD and the comments above. I fail to see notability in this person. Pending a major rewrite and a lot of sourcing, I cannot see this article being kept. In addition, the article reads like a PR-esque bio, not exactly of encyclopedic quality. I would go so far as to say these comments also apply to Love Systems, but that article is not in question here. ^demon[omg plz] 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I'm sorry, I should have been more precise here. The original article several months ago was deleted because of lack of notable sources. This was in part because the original authors, of which I was one, linked to major media sources through Savoy's own bio page (saved me the work of searching for all of them). It turned out that this looked like a lot of self-published sources, so this time around, I made sure to link to the original sources themselves. In addition, there have also been a lot more media appearances including the headline story for the Dr Phil Show, Spike TV, two stories in the Globe and Mail, Maxim, Radar Magazine, a regular monthly column in FHM Online, a two-part extensive newscast on Fox News, consulting to the VH-1 Show The_Pick-up_Artist_(TV_series), as well as a smattering of more minor publications, and so on. I spoke with some Admins before reviving this project, and tried to be careful to do it right this time. I also had some conflict with one of the Admins who i thought was being unhelpful and rude when I was first new to Wikipedia, who is the person who deleted it again this time around. I don't want to get into another fight, but this is what happened on his talk page this time. It seems like the page of "Nick Savoy" got deleted. I've modified the page so it met the guidelines of wikipedia, and after approval of several wikipedia contributors (Mathmo and SecondSight), the page went live. The page was not an exact replica of the old "Nick Savoy" page, but modified so it met the standards and cleaned up. Could you please revive the page? Camera123456 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC) * He still sounds like a thoroughly nauseating guy. Take him to deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC). I didn't think that an opinion of whether someone is "nauseating" was supposed to matter one way or another. In addition, Nick Savoy has been listed as a prominent member of the seduction community (Seduction_community) and is referenced on several other pages - not by me - including mystery method and publications in the seduction community (which I can't seem to find right now). The page is a work in a progress, I pop in every couple of weeks, but there is some negative stuff and a controversy section and I'm looking to add more. Finally, to respond to Rossami's specific comment, most of the major media pieces referenced (Dr Phil, Radar, one of the Globe and Mail pieces, Fox News, etc are about Savoy and Love Systems, not general interest pieces. Finally, I would compare all of the third-party notable sources here to other pages such as carlos_xuma, zan_perion, pickup_101, Juggler_(pick-up_artist), Owen_cook, etc. Not that two wrongs make a right, but these people are all listed as "prominent members of the seduction community" and appear to have less third party notability.Camera123456 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a major reason to reverse the AFD, but I could see it going either way. Neutral. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion — the flood of sock and sleeper accounts which has shown up has changed my mind. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should these extra users change your mind? Please take less notice of them and more heed of the arguments put forward by the long term members who have voted for this article to be kept (such as myself). Besides, those recent editors can still have made well thought out points that shouldn't be ignored such as Coaster7 saying how the article which was deleted only had references from the lovesystems website? Thus it is understandable how it could have been deleted, yet this current new article is much more well rounded and covers all the major points of problems from before. Thanks for your consideration. Mathmo Talk 10:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - looking at the list of Selected Media Appearences, it seems he hits Notability at this point. Seems like the last debate really came down to that, and a lack of notable sources. I like to think of Wikipedia in terms of Use Cases - why are people using it? In general, to further research a topic they've heard about. Several radio interviews, a couple of TV interviews, numerous print articles - at this point, there's going to be a fair number of people who want to know more, and a publically editable article from a trusted source seems like a good start. Honestly? The article could do with a LOT of work - perhaps that could be made a condition of the undeletion. But "article needs work" is not the same as "keep deleted". Someone talked previously about a 'Walled Garden' - a small amount of research suggests that this is either laziness or inability to find the original sources where the references link back to the Love Systems site. Again - a sign the article needs work, rather than a sign that it should be nuked. WoodenBuddha (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I'm with WoodenBuddha on this point. At the last deletion, the point was that the links were all pointing to just one source so it lended no credibility. In addition, no third-party notability was enforced at that point. However, the new page strictly follows the notability and third-party sources to verify it's notability. If the articles needs some editing, please edit the article with notes that it needs to be edited, but don't delete it. Gives others an opportunity to edit the page so it does 100% comply to the WP standards. Undelete. Coaster7 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC) — Coaster7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Overturn, has had many media appearances in recent times (for instance Dr Phil etc). Mathmo Talk 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The article, as explained already by Camera123456, has been rewritten to address the concerns stated in the original AfD. The new article cites several sources that more than address WP:N. Some of the specific information in the article could use citations, but that's a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. From reading the history on this one, it really sounds like there's a specific admin with an axe to grind, rather than any legit argument to delete. --Tkrpata (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I posted some cleanup points that are likely important to this discussion in the talk section, but there are other points that should be added. From the various appearances it is clear that Savoy is one of the central figures in the Seduction Community, although there are sections of the page that include a little too much marketing information on products, instead of focus on his contributions to community knowledge. The court case directly between Savoy and Mystery of VH1, which is talked about on the Mystery Method Corp page, should be added as that can be independently verified through court documents through sites like justia.com. Although in general there are few good primary sources in this industry, it is important to maintain a reliable repository of information on the major persons in the community as best we can. Savoy is one of the few figures who has any recognition outside of amateur blogs. Passion8 (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — Passion8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note Wow, I really appreciate the feedback. I was so proud of everything I'd done so far, I had no idea how much was left to go. It's great to get so many experienced wiki editors in here to help make this page (if it survives) excellent. I'm excited about refining, adding more specific knowledge contributions, copying or summarizing the MM controversy section, and so on. I'm going to make this page perfect before I build any other pages though :) Camera123456 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Tkrpata. Article is improved to the point of being policy compatible. I don't understand why some editors don't think it is notable, because I am seeing a bunch of sources conferring notable in the article, plain as the light of day. I can only guess that those editors scrolled straight to the References section, and missed Select Media Appearances section. I will quote it here:
    • FHM Online Article [115]
    • Appearance on Dr Phil episode "Women Beware" [116]
    • Games Radar Article [117]
    • Spike TV [118]
    • Maxim.com Article [119]
    • Right Wing News Interview [120]
    • Interviewed by CBS Radio [121]
    • The Ranger Online Article [122]
    • Interview with Brink Magazine (Hong Kong) [123]
    • Quoted in the Globe & Mail [124]
    • WWWT radio interview [125]
The problem is that these sources (which include appearances in national news and TV) aren't properly incorporated into the article, while only one of the current sources actually referenced is a reliable source, which may make the subject appear less notable than he actually is. This is a problem with the way the article is written (in addition to some original research and tone issues), not with the existence of this article. The solution is for the article to be undeleted and improvement continued. The sources above should be cited as references in the article, rather than being in a Select Media Appearances section. Primary editor seems enthusiastic about improving the page and making it policy-compatible, and it's a shame that he appears to have been bitten --SecondSight (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The articles needs some cleanup but the main editors seem enthusiastic in improving the article. There's no need to delete this article, since the third-party sources show his creditability and notability. Improvement in writing and style is necessary to make it look more like an objective Wikipedia page (seems like the editors have been working on it meanwhile since the deletion review). No need to delete this article. TimmyBx (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — TimmyBx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Undelete According to the criteria for speedy deletion, the administrator pointed at G4. However, the following quote does not apply to this article: "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The current article is substantially different from the article that was deleted several months ago for valid reasons. Thus, the claim of having a "substantially identical" article does not apply.Handrem (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — Handrem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Update A few of us have jumped in and done most of the proposed revisions (though I personally plan to keep working on the methodology stuff - it's just not the easiest to always be able to summarize since it seems to have changed over time. Anyway, I added the requested by Passion8 section on the involvement with Mystery and Mystery Method as best I can, but would appreciate any help on that section too, since those court documents are long.Camera123456 (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - All the blogs, websites, and sock and sleeper accounts (per Stifle) do not add up to sufficient Wikipedia reliable source material to overcome the AfD deletion resions. Interviews of Savoy, at least his responses, are not independent of Savoy. The one Wikipedia reliable source I found, theglobeandmail.com, is used in the article only to source where Savoy lives. I don't see the above noted significant Wikipedian efforts to improve the article improving the article to meet Wikipedia article standards or overcome the reasons for the AfD deletion. -- Suntag ☼ 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Savoy's page is more prominent than most other people of the seduction community. He has more media appearances than other people and from reliable sources such as an appearance on Dr Phil. If you compare his page to Carlos Xuma (who is only filled with commercial links), Lance Mason (which redirects to a company with less sources), and Tyler Durden who only has sources influenced by him, it's clear that most seduction people pages aren't perfect. All these people are on the list of "pioneers of the seduction community". It should be clear that this deletion will affect other people in the seduction community with articles on Wikipedia. Instead, we should all improve the articles to comply to WP standards. This page underwent those changes and should stay up.Coaster7 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC) — Coaster7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Overturn This is unnecessary. The current article is vastly different from the AfD article of couple months back. The sources look fine too. Compared to most other biographies on Wikipedia, this one should stay. According to the be bold article, that is what the editors have done to overcome this deletion review. Keep the page. Thefayth (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC) — Thefayth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but userfy. I'm not convinced he's notable, as the current sources are mostly on his web site and not obviously tracable to real sources (i.e., we can use a page on web site to note a courtesy copy, but we need the original broadcast information for copies of broadcasts, and the original publication data for copies of print articles.) If all the information in the article were sourced, I'd lean toward notability. For what it's worth, we are not deciding whether the deletion decision was correct, but whether it followed the correct process. (As an aside, the lawsuit should not be mentioned unless there are third-party (neither Savoy's nor Mystery's organizations) sources that it's notable, per WP:PRIMARY. Similarly, his relationship status shouldn't be listed unless a third party finds it notable, or it's noted on his web site.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Aren't we? This is NOT the same page as the one that got deleted last year or whenever it was. It's a new page. Or if someone slaps up a bad page about a topic, and that page gets deleted, does that mean that no one can ever make a page on that topic again? That the only grounds are that the wrong procedures were followed when it was deleted the first time? I was involved last time, and while I found the Administrator's comments suggesting a personal involvement or antipathy to the subject, I don't really want to get into that again, so I'm prepared to accept that the deletion of the previous page was appropriate. But now a bunch of us have been doing a new page. If this isn't the right forum for it, what is? We're still working on changing all of the references, many have been changed already as you can see in the newest version.Camera123456 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete The page is fine and conforms to the standards. His sources seem to credit his notability and the page is now rewritten in npov.Ajaykumarmeher (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography , «The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field». The seduction field is widely known due to media coverge and books, and Mr. Nick Savoy has definitely made a contribution for the field worth of mentioning, which include, quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals «(...)originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.» and that are explained in detail on his page. Mr. Savoy also fits the basic criteria having been «(...)the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.» from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria An1MuS 10:58, 13 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

LYME_(software_bundle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

If LAMP has a page then LYME should have one also. Also see the following http://21ccw.blogspot.com/2008/02/lyme-vs-lamp-i.html Dmckeehan (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crustation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

well connected band in trip hop scene

Page cancelled for the band felt as "non notable", however the members often played with very notable trip hop musicians like Adrian Utley of Portishead, Massive Attack and Smith & Mighty. Their first records were for Cup of Tea Records, a label which hosts bands like Monk & Canatella, Statik Sound System and Purple Penguin. They are not very known since they disbanded after 1998, but some other bands (like No Age or Wives) even had only demos for minor indie labels of minor scenes when they first got their pages. According to AllMusic: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=CRUSTATION&sql=11:wifixqwhldae~T1 instead Crustation are well connected with the Bristol movement, the trip hop scene. :) They also released commercial videos, like this:

Directed by Gary Evans. Some other minor sources here:

Connacht (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taylor Toth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Speedy deleted although the article clearly established he was 2002 U.S. Champions in Juvenile Pairs and the 2003 U.S. Champions in Intermediate pair (with Kylie Gleason). Did not deserve a speedy, maybe an Afd. Restore please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs)

  • Well, the article on the figure skater got hijacked by someone for their band and the deleting admin didn't seem to have noticed that. Simply contacting them would probably have cleared things up.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not used to challenge deletions. I was not aware of the band stuff. How do you have access to history of a deleted page ? The nominator failed to see that and is wondering if the article is going to be kept deleted because the due process has not been followed ? do we judge procedure or substance ? My apologies for failing to follow the right process. Hektor (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we had no access to the deleted page history we couldn't restore it, which I will do now for better visibility and since i can't imagine how the deletion was anything else but an error as the article was vandalized by an IP (that had already edited the article in the past) with random band info. Unless other info comes up this can then be closed accordingly later. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again and my apologies for not following the procedure. Hektor (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

LA Direct Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Article was speedy deleted as a non-notable company, despite having a couple of reliable, independent sources and further coverage linked to in the external links section. The article should at least be taken to AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OverturnAbstain now Endorse. Disclaimer: I can't see the deleted article.. A search of the web suggests the company is reasonably well established and but reliable sources are probably not obtainable. Hard to tell for sure as I don't really know which "porn" journals are reliable. Worth an AfD instead. Found only one source after more than an hour of searching and that's about the owner, not the company [126]. Sorry for time wasting! Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deleted article met the requirements of CSD:A7 in that it did not make any assertion as to the significance or importance of the company. As ever, a speedy deletion is not permanent, and anyone wishing to recreate the article including proper details of how the company is notable can go right ahead. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An assertion of notability would be something like "LA Direct Models is the largest adult modeling agency in the United States" (a claim made in this article, although this article in and of itself would not satisfy WP:N since it's not substantively about the company). Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my understanding of WP:N, a subject is notable if it has reliable independent coverage. Nowhere does it say articles have to contain certain sentences. The article did contain reliable independent sources; if their reliabilty is disputed, they should be debated at an AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that articles had to contain specific sentences. They do have to contain some reason why the subject is notable, and that reason needs to be supported by reliable sources. The article as it existed stated that this is an adult modeling agency, stated who founded it and when. Nothing here to support a claim that this agency is any different from any other agency. Otto4711 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for fuck's sake. Yes, the guideline WP:N does set out notability guidelines. However, the policy Wikipedia:CSD#Articles (which trumps guideline) states that an article may be deleted without discussion if the article is "about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." (emphasis in original) It goes on to explain that "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." (emphasis added) The article that was deleted did not give a reasonable indication as to why LA Direct Models might be notable. In the time you've spent arguing here you could have written a brief article that includes a reasonable indication of why LA Direct Models might be notable. I've spoon-fed you an example of a reasonable indication as to why it might be notable. Why not just go write the article if you feel so strongly that the agency is notable? Otto4711 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That policy also states that the CSD criteria is a lower standard than WP:N. Therefore we shouldn't be speedy deleting articles that pass WP:N. What I feel strongly about is articles being incorrectly speedy deleted. If I was a newbie I wouldn't be sticking around to make an improved article. Epbr123 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were a newbie you could be forgiven for not understanding that an article has to include something that explains why the subject is important. But OK, you go right along shouting at the rain instead of, you know, actually writing an article that passes policy. Christ, by now you could've even copied and pasted the assertion of notability I gave you. Otto4711 (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unlikely to be deleted at AfD. AfDs tend to focus on source availability, rather than personal opinions on what counts as an assertion of notability. It's been proven that reliable sources exist for this subject. Epbr123 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Mitchell Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Has now played a senior game (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/7697249.stm) Kingjamie (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orr Dunkelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This was a biography stub page. Original AfD was requested by an invalid user with no contributions at all. The user had completely disappeared and it looks very suspicious. There are still six active red links to this biography stub. Fuzzy (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Disclaimer - I can't read the article. Even if the original nomination was bad faith, the consensus to delete was clear and in good faith. Regarding the six red links - pretty much they are within references to papers Dunkleman co-authored and are not instrinsic to the article. IMO. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 15:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As the closing admin said, recreation is welcome when notability is established. And for the record, unless you get banned, there -are- no "invalid users". --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is a solid deletion following an unremarkable AFD. If the DRV nominator wishes to userfy and improve I am sure we will move it to his user space. In fact, the closing admin would likely have already done so if asked. JodyB talk 21:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Once a regular user supports the deletion of an article, any arguments as to the good, bad, or indifferent faith of the nominator are moot. No other closure would have been any way sensible. Stifle (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark. I'm not going to write Orr Dunkelman's bio, as I don't know him (I know Eli Biham, and following a links I saw that Orr Dunkelman article was erased, while I remembered it was there last time I read it). Keeper76, the admin who erased the article, is in a long wikibreak, and I could not contact him and query the deletion. The problem I had with the deletion was that the RfD was issued by what looks as a sock puppet. Since I cannot read the deleted article, I cannot comment on notability. Usually after deletion the "what links here" articles should be fixed, and a red link arose my suspicion and was the reason for this DRV. There is a bot that should take care of those things IIRC. Fuzzy (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sockpuppets are allowed. The question is, if this user was a sockpuppet, was it one that was acting contrary to policy? I don't see any evidence that they were. Looks to me like a reader saw an article they thought should be deleted and created an account to do it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Marc_lachance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Notability proven by adding reliable sources; nominating editors did not reply to comments before closing admin deleted the page; admin was unwilling to reconsider their decision and suggested the listing here. • Freechild'sup? 06:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I have temporarily restored the article to allow review of the sources for deletion review. However, the Articles for deletion was a judgment call as to the subject's notability, and the consensus was against his notability, so I believe the deletion was closed correctly. Looking at the sources, the subject is verifiable as an associate professor and trombonist, but the sources don't clearly establish notability either as a academic or as a musician. For example, his "contributions to the field of multiphonics" are cited only to another person's doctoral dissertation citing the subject's master's thesis. The dissertation, in turn, only includes a single sentence that refers to the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user space: Delete from main site, but save in user space. There is not very much here yet. The article needs improvement and very much more information of concise nature to substantiate the notability of the subject. For example there is no timeline, there are almost no dates. Additionally even if the article is improved and resubmitted, the notability might still not be significant. There is no way to know without properly citing why the subject is notable. What are the subject's fields of research? What ground has been broken, specifically? What projects have been completed, and how many, what were they, and when, what dates? It's a good assumption that his thesis and published papers need to be directly referenced here. There needs to be a bibliography of his publishings, at least. The list of references do not presently include even one published paper by the subject of the article. VictorC (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the outcome of the AFD discussion, with which I am satisfied. No objection to userfication. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Don't bother moving it to my userspace - I'm not that invested. Rather, as an inclusionist I believe every topic should get a fair shake, and that's all I was calling for. • Freechild'sup? 14:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the article does nothing to affirm any level of notability, and I don't see the subject meeting WP:PROF or WP:MUSIC as noted above. The closing admin's decision appears to have been a reasonable interpretation. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and recommend terminating this discussion and deleting article based upon the nominator's comment above. JodyB talk 22:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nepalese_Youth_Opportunity_Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Page has been revised to eliminate bias. Facts are supported by references. Admin suggested posting to WP:DRV Refugeoftheroads (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (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 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Astrosociology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD2)

A notable subject, difficult to find reference to because of one Dr Jim Pass high hit rate on search engine. Deleted as non notable with 8 delete votes and 7 non delete votes. Suggested by closing admin to recreate the article as Sociology in outer space which is not the entire subject and completely original research provided by a voter in the deletion discussion. Some claims were that Dr Jim Pass created this topic in 2004 (nonsense). A sadly overlooked and under-regarded topic but, the study of human behavior as affected by the awareness of space, nontheless:

[133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] Although good references to astrosociology are difficult to seperate from reference to Dr Jim Pass and his website, the truth is out there. Although the deletion panel made comments such as "A search of Google Scholar shows a book suggesting that astrosociology" would be suitable for a student and therefore it is not notable on the highest level vis a vee delete the article (what??), I looked at the same search the guy linked and found dozens of references some old and the newer ones suggesting that this guy Dr Jim Pass was making the subject notable indeed (including many seminars at AIAA) A search of Google Books shows two 1960s NASA books, an African culture book, and quite a few others mainly American university books all about or in large part about astrosociology (which is minute for the topic). The deletion panel claims that astrosociology was started by Dr Jim Pass in 2004. Nonsense, and very common nonsense on the internet, but nonsense anyway. Even he claims he intends to broaden the subject not claims to have created it as reported in the deletion topic (and also misreprested as such occasionally on search hit sites). One of the editors on the deletion panel claimed that after two years the article can show a proper source or not. The only reference source on the article was www.astrosociology.com and a search for astrosociology shows over 3500 hits from all sorts of websites (mainly educational) almost entirely referencing that website as some sort of authority. I agree that the article was not sufficient and perhaps not much work was ongoing on it but it certainly has some strong points of support regarding reference and notability. The arguement for the deletion was to the contrary of these facts. The first time I remember setting eyes on the term "astrosociology" was on this deletion request but for me it is an obvious topic covering the effect being aware of space has had on human behaviour. It is surprising that the topic lacks reference or notable works and that should be acknowledged routinely I think with astrosociology as a prime example. Space topics have had countless dramatic effects on human behaviour. Search engines make it appear that Dr Jim Pass is the only basis of astrosociology but that is obviously not the case. Part of the deletion panel put forward deletion on the basis that "astrosociology is not a recognised discipline in the field of sociology" but neither is astrology in the field of astronomy (both covered by astrosociology lol).

~ R.T.G 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Itsmejudith's suggestion did not carry the day. At least, it wasn't implemented. She suggested renaming and retaining the article. It was deleted. II | (t - c) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be nonsensical, astrosociology relates not only to outer space and not only to Dr Jim Pass (please note that many of the deleting arguments were incorrect in basis). Sociology in outer space would be distinctly defined by science fiction and the Mir station. Astrosociology would cover SETI, NASA, etc. Please note I entered this here because a) 8 vs 7 is not a concensus, b) the deleting arguments made false claims which must be questioned. What about these two points? + point "Sociology in outer space", well only one guy mentioned that and he appeared to make it up...? Is that a regular concensus or a test one ? (lol) ~ R.T.G 01:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The anon was mine. My IP rotates and I had some trouble with my account although all of my constructive work is on Simple English. ~ R.T.G 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Disclaimer: I can't view the original article. The second AfD is more strongly biased to delete than a vote count suggests: The keeps are "weak" or "if renamed and subject changed". Process followed, closer got consensus right, no new evidence supporting an overturn. IMO. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not broad and focused on the recent work of Dr Jim Pass, citing only from one website, but it was all valid and didn't plug that guy although he does talks for AIAA and stuff. It was on topic just far from complete in any way. ~ R.T.G 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. When the number of contributors supporting keep/delete is roughly the same, the closing admin is entitled to refer to the strength of arguments (both expressed, such as "weak keep", and how relevant they are to the debate and to Wikipedia policies). The closer acted entirely correctly. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will offer to attempt tearing them apart by referencing the WP policies and with lack of response after a day or so I will just list it all to see what people think. Particular incorrectness was found in the search engine referencing policies per the delete arguments. ~ R.T.G 15:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this one is plain ignorant of my reasons for entering the article. Quote "new field", "new academic field", "new term". I claim to have supplied evidence that the deleteing comments were incorrect. If you do not wish to look in to that, you shouldnt really enter any opinions. ~ R.T.G 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had imagined you would like to improve the article to respond to the problems found by the AfD reviewers. (DRV discussion sometimes leads to a plan for revising the article). Apparently you don't believe they found any valid problems, and the article should be kept as it stands. You're entitled to stick to your opinion, but then, we're not required to overturn the AfD either. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that the article needs improving but also have found evidence that the deletion contributors were, for the large part, incorrect partially in the same manner as with your own input here. You really don't have to check out the information I have provided before you give an opinion but that's not a very constructive review. I am not saying you should not give your opinion for the deletion of this article, only that you should try to relate your review to the information I have provided or the review was of no point. Not what I believe, what I have found I am not notable in any way to give my personal opinions any weight for that sake (lol). I have supplied proof of 1960s NASA references books with sections of Astrosociology and essays written in the 1980s. Dr Jim Pass only began his work in 2004 establishing that it is not a new field. As for the notability of Dr Jim Pass, it seems he is entirely notable and the assertion on the article suggesting he claims it to be his own new field is misleading by his own website. I am not familiar with astrosociology at all so I hope my efforts to reference it can be acknowledged a little bit. Your last sentence confuses me somewhat. Perhaps I waste my time but I assume good faith nontheless. ~ R.T.G 16:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to impose ironclad rules on the DRV process. This is a stage where problem-solving is known to occur. If the reviewing editors can see a path for keeping the article, after necessary changes, they will often agree to that. So far you haven't asked for the article to be userfied (placed in your user space to allow further improvement). That request is often granted. However you seem to be very concerned about the original deletion being unjust. From my own experience, the original deletion decision is not unjust, but is quite typical for articles that are very narrowly sourced. If you know something about this field, I'm puzzled as to why you wouldn't volunteer to get more sources and come back here when you are ready. That could lead to an acceptable compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, I just happened to troll across the deletions, looked into this, found the arguments to be incorrect and felt obliged to make people aware of that. It's not very important. Leave it until someone makes a complete article. ~ R.T.G 18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Aasis Vinayak PG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This was a long standing one. But it was recently deleted. The person is a FOSS activist and a leading technology columnist in India. He has made many other contributions also. Please see the old article for more info and references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthika.kerala (talk • contribs)

  • Very weak relist at AfD. The AfD doesn't look like consensus, but possibly all the Keep statements were puppets? If so, I'm for endorse deletion as proper process has been applied. I'll leave it to the admins to determine re. socks and value of the deleted content. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks more like the AfD wants the article to be rewritten (a point on which I must agree, the prose was... bad). If you want, I'd be happy to userfy the article for you, so you can work on it and move it back into the mainspace after a few days (I doubt it'd take longer). Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It is customary at AFDs to discount the opinions of very new and unregistered users; nothing presented at this DRV shows how the deletion process was not followed and DRV is not round 2 of AFD. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/keep: The article was re-written. And there was no consensus on deletion (in fact no discussion was there after the re-write). I think it is better to restore it and keep a "wikify" or "re-write" banner on the top. Only one person has suggested deletion and another changed his opinion to re-write. Further the article has relatively good number of credible references. Sforshyam (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)— Sforshyam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Overturn/keep but re-edit required: I agree to Lifebaka's view. But I think the re-write is not complete. Still few more POVs have to be removed. Anyway, the article fits very well to the notability criterion of wikipedia. So keep the article. Sforshyam (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)— Sforshyam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I'm sure you agree with yourself. However, a couple notes: please don't use the bolded "overturn" at the front of multiple comments as it may lead the admin who closes this discussion to believe that a position has more support than is in fact the case, and please note that this discussion focuses on how the deletion process was not followed correctly, not a second chance to make arguments for retaining the article. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Do not overturn. Reason: The article is just a piece of personal advertisment using puppets. Let Asish Vinayak concentrate on his studies and research rather than on personal advertisment. He (and puppets) can very well contribute to other topics. If he is really intelligent and genuine let time proves that. But, if he is really intelligent, this type of notability is not good for him. When he become really notable somebody will start an article about him (and about his creations/inventions). Let that happen in a positive way. --Shijualex (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The original article has the air of being an advertisement. (For instance, the physics papers listed were preprints, not journal papers). The AfD discussion seems to have participation by some editors with a conflict of interest, or who have a connection with the subject. I believe that the AfD closer was right to discount votes by single-purpose accounts. Remember that full professors often satisfy WP's notability requirement for academics, WP:ACADEMIC, but undergraduates need to be very prodigious to reach that level of accomplishment. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Falling Sand Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Look at how many games of this kind there are and then tell me it's not notable! 'FLaRN'(talk) 04:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martino de Judicibus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The AfD was closed as a merge to Ferdinand Magellan (in the absence of an article on the voyage itself). Some time later the page was deleted, citing the AfD. However the redirect and history should have been preserved (a) for GFDL compliance and (b) as it's a plausible search term. The deleting admin has announced an indefinite break, so I'm bringing it here instead. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


2 November 2008

[edit]

1 November 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Simple Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This longstanding article was stripped of copyright violations recently. Since all that remained was a basic description of the product (allegedly), the deleting admin felt it was blatant advertising. This is not supported by CSD 11, which states that being about a product it not the same as blatant advertising. In the larger scheme of things, I edited this page a long time ago and added a couple references (I think). I did not add copyright violations. So clearly there was some content available that could have been added, but was not. This is a fairly prominent cleaning product in North America; notability is not really a question. Sources are available for it. The deletion was questioned by Neil916, who wondered why an AfD wasn't used and said "I'd really be surprised if there was consensus to delete". There would have been at least 2 keep votes at that AfD. A userfication is not available. I would be happy to have one at User:ImperfectlyInformed/Simple Green, but only if the history is included in that userfication. II | (t - c) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn I rewrote the article, adding back some of the references which used to be there. I suppose asking admins to troll through article histories to see good parts of the article is a bit much. I still don't like the carte blanche granted by speedy deletes, or the fact that this entire discussion revolved around an article which I couldn't see -- only a cache (who knows how recent) from Google was available. And most of the deleted articles being reviewed here don't even have that. I guess this is a place where users (rather than admins) aren't really expected to carry much weight. And some of those users who do comment here seem happy to learn about the deleted articles secondhand. II | (t - c) 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A look at the deleted article suggests that it was at least somewhat promotional for the entire life of the article. I'm not entirely sure that I'd have called it blatantly promotional, however, in the final version, though it was lacking in sources as noted by Akradecki. I'll have to go with a weak restore and take to AFD though, as I suspect it's got potential for sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Keep. As I mentioned on the deleting admin's page, the article had many flaws in it, including an overly promotional tone and an edit war between IP addresses registed to the Simple Green company and the Clorox Company, a competitor. My limited involvement in the article revolved around cleaning up the vandalism and POV-pushing in that edit war and attempting to clean up afterwards, including hunting down and linking to some references. There was still a ton of work to do on the article. I'd considered spending some time when my real-world schedule cleared up, so I left it on my watchlist. The drive-by deletion of this article really shocked me, however, as this was far from an article about a high schooler's garage band or a new web page someone started after purchasing a $35 get-rich-quick information booklet. I expressed concern on the deleting admin's talk page suggesting that if he thought that the article was inappropriate, AFD would certainly have been a better choice, as unlikely as it was, in my opinion, to be actually deleted. His response suggests to me that he read the first couple of sentences of an article that had just undergone a major content pruning and didn't review the article history. Bring it to AFD if you must, but I don't really see the point, given this product's prominent market position, plenty of controversy and press coverage surrounding the maker's claims of safety and environmental friendliness, and so on. The deleting admin made a half-hearted gesture by offering offered to put the article in a sandbox on my userpage, but since I'm unlikely to spend much time rewriting that article in the near future, I'd rather tag it appropriately and leave it in article space so the editing public can improve the article...isn't that the point of a wiki, and article improvement tags? I'll admit that I've been stewing about this deletion for a few days, hence I haven't gotten to bringing it to DRV myself because I was planning to privately request a second opinion from an impartial party about whether they thought this was an appropriate deletion before making a big stink about it, but User:ImperfectlyInformed has provided that second opinion for me. So here I am. This article should be restored. Neil916 (Talk) 06:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This isn't a G11. It may not be notable and it does need to be rewritten, but it isn't a speedy candidate. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. I think the product is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Any advertising-style content should be removed through normal editing processes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a new article There is no question the product is notable, however, the previous articles of the article we cannot restore at all. As I pointed out to II, the history section was a copy and paste from the UK website, and other information was copied word for word from other websites without credit to the original source. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AfD. While written in an inappropriate tone and with some poor content, it was not "blatant" advertising. The decision to temporarily delete in order to remove the copyvio content from the page's history was reasonable. The decision to delete everything went too far. The assertion that all the content was copyvio does not appear to be supported by the edit history. This is a page that AfD should sort out. Rossami (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start over per Zscout370. It'll be easier. The history is too tainted with copyvios and spam to be useful. I see very little salvageable content in the recent revisions; mostly overly promotional content that would have to be entirely rewritten (and may be a copyvio) and a fair bit of original research, all lacking in secondary sources. I'll also note (again) that in the time spent arguing here and with the deleting admin, and trying to change the deletion policy to get this undeleted or sent to AFD, it could have been rewritten several times. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin...this wasn't a "drive by" deletion as has been alledged. Actually, I put a lot of thought into it. Some observations...G11 doesn't take into account notability. Yes, it's a widely known product, and probably should have an article. However, this wasn't it. There was so much COI editing, as well as predatory editing by reps from the company's competitors that the history was full of copyvios and other edits that just shouldn't be there. Even with the material removed, it was, in my opinion, still way to spammish to be effectually rewritten. For instance, the lead sentence read "For North American consumers, the most recognized product in the line of approximately 25 Simple Green products is a concentrated all-purpose cleaner and degreaser." That reads like a promo piece, and the rest of the article was little better. So, with the problems with the history, and the problems with the article, I felt that the provision of G11 that reads "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic" really did apply, and thus I speedied it. I have no problem with someone rewriting it from scratch, but I stand by my view that this article shouldn't be in the encyclopedia as it stood. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I just want to clarify that when I used the phrase "drive-by deletion", I wasn't referring to a deletion that was undertaken lightly or overly hastily, but a "deletion on sight", where an article wasn't tagged by an editor for deletion and then a second, independent and uninvolved admin reviewed the tag and the article, agreed with the rationale, and then deleted the article. Sorry if I wasn't clear on my usage of the phrase. Neil916 (Talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all actions taken to date (including recreation), and close as the current status seems to be fine. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk:Simple Green needs undeletion. --NE2 13:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ancientindia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Request userfication User:Kishorepatnaik, who created the page, is requesting userfication to work on the page and bring it up to standards before puting it in the articlespace. The admin who deleted it, User:Gwen Gale, declined the request to userfy, citing conflict of interest issues with the user who created the article. He seems to be somewhat of a new user, and is unfamiliar with many Wikipedia policies and practices. I am officially neutral on the matter, and am bringing it here for further consideration. Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave deleted. Reasonable candidate for speedy delete, policy followed, no reason to recreate in user space. As an aside, I can't see the deleted article myself, but the thread suggests that the proposed article will not meet Wiki policies / standards at this time no matter how much work it gets. The subject matter (having checked the web site I presume the article referred to) is also clearly non notable. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gwen - that's the site that I presumed the article referred to, read, considered and used as the basis for my comments. I deliberately pointed out my lack of ability to make a fully sound comment as I like to be open (although I wouldn't have said "dubious" as it sounds a little pejorative!). Happy to withdraw my view if the consensus is only Admins with access to view the article should comment. Thanks. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 14:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - Userfication by an admin is optional, so Gwen was within her right to not userfy the material. However, there are insufficient warnings on User:Kishorepatnaik's to conclude that Kishorepatnaik will misuse the userfied material to violate copyright, make personal attacks, invade someone's privacy, or spam others with it. As for the material itself, the material does not raise issues of copyright problems personal attacks, invasions of private information, spam, and posts by banned users. Wikipedia:Userfication does not prohibit userfying material that likely does not meet WP:N. I don't see a basis under Wikipedia:Userfication to not userfy the material. WP:BITE might be a good reason to userfy the material. -- Suntag ☼ 15:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no personal attack warnings on Kishorepatnaik' user talk page. Also, I carefully looked over each of Kishorepatnaik's post from 06:16, 1 November 2008 on and don't see any posts by Kishorepatnaik that meet Wikipedia:No personal attacks (please provide diffs if you feel otherwise). Kishorepatnaik has been editing since 4 December 2007. I see someone who increasingly felt frustrated at the situation, particularly at being told to read Wikipedia policy and report back to you on his progress in that. His responses to you became increasingly more personal, but did not seem to reach an attack level. Userfication by an admin is optional, so you were within your right to not userfy the material. A better, early on response by you may have been "I am not going to userfy this content, please stop asking me." A better response by Kishorepatnaik would have been "OK" and then asked another admin at Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Stay cool is a first step of dispute resolution and this went from a lack of personal involvement to a dispute with another editor. I still think that the content should be userfied to Kishorepatnaik's user subpage. Once it no longer meets WP:User, it then can be listed at WP:MFD. A better outcome would be for you and Kishorepatnaik to resolve the hurt feelings. -- Suntag ☼ 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Wikipedia:Userfication allows userfication of the article content. If I were an admin, I would not userfy the content for the reasons you listed. This DRV discussion is pointless since even if there were consensus that the content should be userfied, who would userfy it? Any admin? They already can userfy it. If there were consensus that the content should be userfied and no admin userfys it, then what? This discussion does not belong at DRV. I'm sorry that this discussion continues and causes you to reply. Someone should close this discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 06:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on a more broad note, is this really something DRV should be reviewing? Gwen's decision to not userfy was correct since it was within her discretion. Since userfication by an admin is optional, how can DRV really say Overturn the decision to not userfy and force Gwen to userfy the content. I'm not diggin' this type of DRV discussion at all and don't think it is within the scope of DRV. DRV should formally declare userfication requests as not being within the content deletion review scope of DRV. -- Suntag ☼ 18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave deleted, do not userify I've read User:Kishorepatnaik's comments and he seems to have little interest in discussing or acknowledging policy and guidelines. The article itself is simply publicity for one of his Yahoo groups, and I note that he is also adding it as an inline citation for various articles [140] Doug Weller (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave deleted. The article was just a short article about a Yahoo! Group with no independent reliable sources to establish notability. If the editor who wants the article userfied can identify some independent sources to get this page out of {{db-web}} territory, I would consider supporting userfication, or even full restoration if the sources are really impressive. But for now, I would just leave the article deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November&oldid=420277426"