Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2008 Deletion review archives November 2008 >


31 October 2008

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

Boston Tea Party (political party) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I contend that this article adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines, and that the argument that it does not resolve problems brought up in AfD has no grounds. Arthur Rubin, the admin who deleted the article, said "Take it to WP:DRV, if you disagree", thereby indicating that he has no wish to discuss the matter with me. I have never discussed anything with Arthur Rubin. -- Isaiah Sage 08:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sustain denial of speedy This is a recreated article, Gwen Gale declined a G4 on the basis that sources have been added; the key source added was from the Miami Herald. and it included the information that its presidential candidate "is on the ballot in Florida, Tennessee and Colorado and a write-in candidate in more than 10 other states. It is the first time his party has had a presidential nominee". Since the deletion rationale was on the basis that nothing had been proven beyond mere existence, the new article meets the test for resolving the problem. I suppose a new AfD could be started, but I think it would quite possibly be kept. DGG (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This does not fix the fundamental problem that the party is of no significance whatsoever, as reflected by a profound lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article - coverage in the sources presented in the current iteration of the article demonstrate notability. I agree that it's thin and I would like to see one more fairly substantial source at least but what's there is sufficient. Otto4711 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/keep per the October 31, 2008 Associated Press article which constitutes non-trivial coverage from an independent reliable source.[1] the skomorokh 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Keep as the New Statesman and AP (via the Miami Herald) articles are on-topic, in some depth, and from reliable third-party sources so the notability and verifiability thresholds are met. - Dravecky (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/keep due to addition of independent sources. This political party has received some coverage in independent sources, and about 12 million people are going to see it listed on a November 4 presidential ballot (or already saw it, if they voted early). I think some of them might wonder what this party is about and want to look it up. That's an area in which Wikipedia can be helpful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Keep Reliable and verifiable independent sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the existance of multiple, non-trivial sources would indicate to me that this would possibly pass an AfD. As such, I do not feel it is suitable for speedy deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; although not invited here, I think the article would still fail a new AfD for the same reasons as the previous one. It's not technically a "re-creation" of a deleted article, as it has different sources which only have a passing mention of the Party, but I think it should be deleted under G4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 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.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Caliper Corporation (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

This page is similar to many other company pages, & we feel it is not blatant advertising. It was specifically written to provide information only. The administrator who deleted this noted on his talk page that he would try and review this, but never did,[2] and his talk page states that he rarely has time to manage his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecographer (talk • contribs) 20:58, October 31, 2008

  • Comment - is this in reference to the company at caliper.com? -- Suntag ☼ 22:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the nominator's/creator's edits involve adding a mention to the corporation whose article was deleted. And who's "we"? MER-C 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question - Does your company meet the notability guidelines for corporations? If yes, please explain how it does (providing sources helps your case out). If you can, we can help you recreate the article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article was not speedied as A7, no indication of notability; it was speedied as G11, entirely promotional. I've looked at the article, and it has no promotional material or language whatever, just a description of the company. Invalid speedy, regardless of notability. Burt there is a reluctance here to restore articles even after improper speedies if the subject is very likely not to be notable. Now, the references included a third party full signed review from Infoworld with the headline "Maptitude offers unbeatable mapping value for Windows". Maptitude is one of their main products; I consider this a perfectly adequate indication that the company might be notable, enough to pass speedy at any rate.. The company's home page contains the information that a number of states including Alaska and Hawaii used their primary more expensive product as their principal planning software, another good indication of notability. Unfortunately, the article left this information to the references, and neglected to mention it in the text. If anyone had bothered to check the references they would have been able to offer simple advice on how to improve the article sufficiently. I think it'll pass our notability standards after that, particular with the addition of reviews of their other products. I see no reason to send it to AfD if they are added. I note the admin who deleted this did it without prior nomination, a practice that ought to be forbidden at least for G11 and A7, where the concurrence of 2 people make for more reliable decisions. As for the question sure to be raised about asking him the talk p. has the message that that postings left for him are unlikely to be replied to quickly--he is actually around and responding promptly, but a newcomer might have talked that warning at its literal word. I am also concerned that some commentators above may not have examined the material either. DGG (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't examine the material, so thanks to DGG for summarizing it and overturn based on the above. Paxse (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 100% valid A7, also WP:SPA / WP:COI / G11 concerns, but fundamentally the fact is that this article made absolutely no assertion of the significance of the company and neither does the requester above, who states merely that (a) it exists and (b) other crap exists on Wikipedia. Neither is persuasive. There were two "references", both of which were trade body directories. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as per Guy I've read the deleted article and see just a simple "I am here" stub about a company that asserts zero significance. Whether Speedy G11 or A7 is not really relevant...I would have speedy A7'd this as well - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - In view of the above, the Speedy Deletion was appropriate under A7. The deleting admin need not be correct in the speedy deletion reason listed in the deletion. So long as any of the speedy deletion reasons apply, the speedy deletion was valid. -- Suntag ☼ 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm also at a disadvantage here not being able to read the deleted article, but if it contained a reference to the Infoworld source linked above then it certainly wasn't an A7 - the reference itself is an indication of importance/significance as required by A7 - and nobody seems to be arguing that a G11 was valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AfD. I am deeply skeptical that this organization will meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for companies, especially given the conflict of interest issues raised above. But those are questions best sorted out through community discussion. I can see the arguments in support of speedy-deletion under criterion A7 but think that this case is close enough to the line that discussion is required. Looking at the last deleted version, I can not support the assertion that the page qualified under G11, though. "Blatant" advertising is a substantially higher standard than we saw here. Rossami (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG, list at AfD if desired. If I could see it, I might say otherwise, but given that at least one admin thinks it isn't a valid speedy, it should come to everyone. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 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.

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

AFD wasn't given the full 5 day period (it was closed the same day it opened) even though the opinions of the commenters were still all over the places. Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The AfD did run for 5 days - it was relisted once. No other issues of procedure are raised.  Sandstein  20:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I couldn't find where the topic was closed. Please post diffs to show that it was closed the same day it opened. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how I feel about this one yet (I haven't read the AfD), but it was created on the 25th and was closed on the 31st. That's five days. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how I managed to botch that. Still, I disagree with the assesment there was concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - though I agree with Mgm about the lack of consensus. I argued to keep myself. However, 5 days were up and there are a HELL of a lot of AfDs these days. Some poor bugger has to close them all. I approached the closing/deleting admin afterward and explained the logic for leaving both articles as a redirect (easy for browsers using the 'pedia). S/He agreed and very politely left them both as redirects instead of deleting. Mgm, that was your vote - you won! (and convinced me as well :) Paxse (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but there is probably material to be had, at least in Swedish sources, and a proper article describing his life can be written. The illegitimate sons of monarchs usually do play a significant role--since he died in his 30s as a Merchant in china, he probably does have a notable career at least as a merchant.DGG (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly - but I couldn't find (or read) the sources to do it during the AfD. The redirect leaves expansion as an option later.Paxse (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should history restoration be put on the table? While the redirect is probably the best choice until the putative sources can be found, having the history readily available might make recreation easier if warranted. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn It should have been closed as no conesnous to delete probably, and IMO, a redirect (keeping history) would have been enough as sources would seem likely to exist. But just on the bounds of admin discretion. Also, if the closer had explained a bit about his/her thoughts on the arguments rather than just stated an opinion which was (as I read it) "just not notable" I'd be happier here. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as AFD closing admin - no objections with the history, such as it is, being restored behind a redirect, although there is nothing there that isn't in the Oscar I article already. Also no objections if someone can find more sources to produce an expanded article on either Max or the other son and wants to recreate it. fish&karate 09:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as no indication has been made as to how the deletion process was not followed. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 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.

Glimcher Realty Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Speedy deleted as A7/G11. Contained a valid assertation of notability by citing a couple sources and asserting notability with "As of 2007, the company's properties consisted of 23 malls (with a total leasable area of 20.6 million square feet), and four community centers (with a total leasable area of 1 million square feet).". Furthermore, I'm finding plenty of sources online, and almost all of their properties seem notable enough for a page. Deleting admin has been asked about this back on the 24th by another editor and doesn't seem to have responded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List at AFD. I'm not convinced they're notable, but the speedy deletion seems inappropriate. Notability is asserted, and the tone doesn't seem spammy to me. And if TenPoundHammer is right that there are sources out there, then it shouldn't have a problem with surviving an AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay then. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:45, 31 October 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.

Category:College radio stations in Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

A similar category from a different state was listed for a minor change at WP:CfD. That discussion turned into a blanket discussion of all college-radio-station-by-state categories; with minimal discussion and no notification to other WikiProjects or the category creator, it was determined to delete the categories. I don't see any fault in this situation, but merely an unfortunate collection of coincidental circumstances that led to a decision without sufficient notification or discussion. It's my hope that this DRV is relatively uncontroversial, and that a relisting will result in a more robust discussion. Pete (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note discussion at Category talk:College radio stations in Oregon.
Further note: the original CfD was here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 25#Category:College radio stations in Georgia
  • Relist and notify all interested parties, as nom. I don't have a very strong opinion about whether or not the category should exist, but there are compelling points of view from parties who were unaware of the original decision. -Pete (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist so this discussion can bring some closure and the limited time and attention of both projects involved (and all other interested parties) can be returned to productive efforts. - Dravecky (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete first to maintain the status quo and Relist - First, if you look at the deletion log, the cat was originally deleted per some sort of rule propagated by a WikiProject. Only later was it mentioned that some how there was a CFD. ALong those lines, this category was never listed at CFD, it was merely mentioned. It is analogous to in an AFD about person A, and then person B who has the same attribute is mentioned in the AFD and some people at the AFD say it too should probably be deleted. Then that's it. Nobody lists the article about person B at the AFD nor is a notice placed on the article to inform people that, "hey people are discussing so lets all get together and discuss this because we are hoping to create WP:CONSENSUS in a transparent manner". This way people who might be familiar with person B can come in and at least have the opportunity to make the case why person B is different from person A and should not be deleted. Otherwise we are allowing for collateral attacks on cats/articles instead of striving for community WP:CONSENSUS through actual debate with the community, and the community needs notice in order to participate, which didn't happen in this case. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The Radio Wikiproject was aware of this. [3] Seeing as there were discussions at the project and CFD, relisting is not necessary. --Kbdank71 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear in the nomination: it's WikiProject Oregon that wasn't notified, as well as Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) who created the category. From what I can tell, it's not required that related WikiProjects and category creators be notified, but in this case, the lack of notification caused a significant perspective to be left out of the discussion. -Pete (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kdbank71, may I ask that if a group of a couple people get together and decide something should be deleted, then one of those people can just go ahead and delete something without going through the formal processes outlined at AFD and CFD? Aboutmovies (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AM, can you double-check what you wrote there? I can't understand the question. -Pete (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three people decide something should be deleted. One of those people then deletes that. Never is the item properly listed via the formal process outlined for that type of item (AFD/CFD). Is that proper? Aboutmovies (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Category:College radio stations in Georgia was listed at CfD at 01:49, 25 May 2008. Category:College radio stations in Oregon was added to that CfD 01:46, 27 May 2008 and the CfD was closed 22:50, 5 June 2008. Since all the !votes were consistent and sufficient time was alloted to consider Category:College radio stations in Oregon, Category:College radio stations in Oregon fate was properly decided by the Category:College radio stations in Georgia CfD. In other words, Category:College radio stations in Oregon was validly upmerge at CfD (assuming that Category:College radio stations in Oregon was properly tagged with a CfD deletion notice - something an admin can verify for this DRV). CfD suggests, but does not require, personal CfD notifications. I do not see any procedural flaws in the CfD. The 23 October 2008 speedy deletion of the above category by Bearcat was supported by G4. -- Suntag ☼ 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the CfD as to Category:College radio stations in Oregon and Overturn the 23 October 2008 G4 speedy deletion. - Per Aboutmovies's 21:30, 31 October 2008 post above,[4] Category:College radio stations in Oregon main page was not tagged on or near 27 May 2008 with {{subst:cfd}}, {{subst:cfm|OtherCategory}}, or {{subst:cfr|ProposedName}} as required by CfD Procedures. Since the notice portion of the CfD process was not followed, the CfD was not valid for Category:College radio stations in Oregon. -- Suntag ☼ 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – (assuming the Oregon cat was not tagged) it's a requirement to tag a category before deletion via cfd. (The linked cfd discussion is by no means unanimous anyway.) It's not clear to me why WikiProject Oregon is deemed to be subservient to WP:RADIO in this matter. Occuli (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not clear to me why other people are deeming WP:ORE as having precedence over WP:RADIO in this matter. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And on a semi-related note and just for the record, it's WP:WPRS (the Radio Stations project) not WP:RADIO (the Radio project) in the mix here. - Dravecky (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat why do you think people are deeming the ORE as having precedence? Is it because the person you are replying to said "assuming the Oregon cat was not tagged"? I believe they are simply pointing out that the Georgia cat was tagged, and if the Oregon one was not, then the Oregon one could not be deleted as it was not tagged, you know per the instructions on how CFD works. And at the time if you had simply followed through in finding the best way by working with other wikiprojects to find a good way to categorize (say WP:ORE and WP:UNI who would be the other "stakeholders" if you will with the cats), then all this could have been hashed out in a normal CFD months ago. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess, Bearcat is referencing the edit summaries left by the editor that recreated this category where this sentiment was expressed, albeit in a confusingly contradictory manner. In any case, while I know that WP:NME is only an essay, not policy, I find it ironic that this specific case is clearly address: "Subcategories by genre, network or ownership group may also be created (e.g. Category:College radio stations in the United States, Category:CTV network stations). However, do not combine geographical and non-geographical subcategories — for instance, do not create third-level subcategories for "College radio stations in Oregon" or "CTV network stations in Ontario"." - Dravecky (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First then what does Bearcat's edit summary "‎deleted "Category:College radio stations in Oregon" ‎ (per Radio Stations Wikiproject, format categories aren't broken down by state.)" mean when he deleted the category in the first place mean in the context of project superiority? That summary is exactly why my subsequent edit summary said what it said. And as explained in detail at the RFC, Bearcat has been informed about the intention and meaning of that summary (which no project has superiority). Further, if you like I can point you to an AFD or two that shows I have been advocating prior to this radio issue that WikiProject rules mean little as they can conflict with others, thus they should not be used to justify deletions as Bearcat explicitly did.
Second, then how does breaking down radio station by state not violate your "do not combine geographical and non-geographical subcategories"? Radio station=not geographical, state=geographical. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very large categories of a basic type are routinely broken down on national and, in some cases, significant sub-national divisions but what is strongly discouraged is a third-level subcategory such as the one under discussion here. - Dravecky (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since admin Pete confirmed the lack of CfD notice on the category page, that establishes that the CfD was not valid for Category:College radio stations in Oregon. -- Suntag ☼ 18:30, 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.


30 October 2008

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

Mixtape Messiah 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Very informative article. Really good mixtape, many other articles that should be deleted but definately not this one Dc 0808 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Against deletion Great mixtape, I thought this was Wikipedia the most informative site out there and you delete your Mixtape Messiah 4 article. The admins on here need to stop being biased and undelete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc 0808 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against deletion - This mixtape has MTV.com as a resource and some well-known reviewers plus this is the second most popular mixtape series in hip-hop(next to Da Drought Series by Lil Wayne) I even think that people who have good knowledge of hip-hop as a whole should only be able to evaluate whether articles should be deleted because clearly this MBisanz does not know what6 he is doing as far as this mixtape article goes.Xx1994xx (talk)
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin read the AFD just right, and there's no reason given to reverse it. (Note that the "insult the deleting admin" technique doesn't usually work well in getting a deletion reversed.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against deletion* - it is not an insult it is just my opinion plus the previous mixtapes, mixtape messiah 1,2 and 3 are not deleted and you can't have part a series have an article and delete the other half and dont think you can delete the others because mixtape messiah 1 is a retail album being the best selling mixtape to come out of texas so it is very notable, you have an article about an album/mixtape that is part of a series then you must have the rest of the series.76.101.122.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Against deletion - This article should be kept Mixtape Messiah 4 is part of a popular mixtape series and all parts of it needs to be kept.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"nd archive this as a classic example of puppetry" how so? You guys are just haters man...get over yourselves.

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.

Vienna fingers (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

Proposing for relist. Made request for specific hit context inferring notability rather than 'X many Google hits,' but the only responses were an item that would belong in a trivia section, and "is cited by major media as one of the flagship products." Discussion was closed and article kept without further context being provided. Asked admin about it here and got response here. arimareiji (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • sustain the keep. already listed the full 5 days, and then relisted--whereupon a keep consensus quickly emerged. -- and rightly so,considering the available citations from multiple sources, and the clear indication there could be many more. Consensus can change, but since it seems to be changing if anything in favor of such articles, I would not advise trying again for at least 6 months or so.DGG (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the keep. I'm basing my decision based solely on the AfD in question, and it looks to me that "keep" was the right conclusion based on the points provided by each of the editors. While there are reasons to delete, there are also reasons to keep and the consensus (as I see it) was resolved correctly. I see no reason to change at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DRV should not be used as an AfD do-over. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure if it's incorrectly tagged, but there's no link from Vienna fingers to this discussion. I agree with Arimareiji about there being problems with the validity of arguments at the AFD; the Google News search in particular finds lots of hits, but primarily as trivial passing references in lists, party tips, etc at the level of "Try fruit like strawberries and cherries or pretzels, biscotti, marshmallows, vienna fingers or mini cream puffs. Less work for you, more fun for them". There's very little there that I'd call secondary sources about them. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am putting an "Under Construction" tag on the article and will work on rewriting the article (it is, admittedly, in need of serious input). Hopefully, that will put an end to the grumbling over the merits of this entry. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I fixed the DRV link from the article page, and I redirected the article to Vienna Fingers -- we had the wrong spelling of the product all of this time (there is an uppercase F -- "Vienna fingers" refers to Austrian hands). Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could someone explain to me what Wikipedia "consensus" is? Above, people refer to the "consensus" that developed in a few hours after relisting in the original AfD, but the "consensus" referred to is three people saying "I agree" - no new arguments, just votes.
    Did I misunderstand what "consensus" means in actual practice because of having read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ("primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting") and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD ("The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments")? I've only been here since July, and if I misunderstood the meaning in practice - i.e. weight of votes, rather than weight of logic - I want to know so I can stop making incorrect assumptions. arimareiji (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
  • New evidence that the discussion itself was flawed - one of the primary arguments in the AfD was "Plus, regarding Neil Simon's mention of the cookie in "The Odd Couple" -- that play was written in 1965. The article clearly needs enhancing, not erasure."
    This is the actual quote, to show how topical it was:

    "Get something to eat first. Like some nice, hot Ovaltine?... How about some Vanilla Wafers or Vienna Fingers or some Mallomars? You like a nice box of chocolate Mallomars?"

Oscar: "How about vanilla wafers? Or Vienna fingers? I got everything."
The Odd Couple: A Comedy in Three Acts, By Neil Simon. Published by Random House, 1966, Original from the University of Michigan. Digitized 3 Mar 2008, 116 pages (provided by another editor in another thread)
-- arimareiji (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quote! I added it, along with proper referencing to a published text of the Neil Simon play, along with several news articles relating to the subject. Please note -- this is strictly a stub and will probably never get to GA (let alone FA). But on its own merits, it has become fairly clear (both in the AfD discussion and in the ongoing editing process) that there is notability here. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't see how nontopical it is to say that Vienna Fingers deserve an article because of one product placement in a 1968 movie? If I were a subscriber to the pernicious WP:POINT school of thought (I'm not), I can think of several thousand product placements that need their own articles now. arimareiji (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edited because it was subsequently shown that the original line in the play didn't include "Mallomars." I don't know about you, but I can only think the subsequent addition was for humor, providing circumstantial evidence that original intent was not product placement. Try saying "Mallomars" three times fast, and you'll see what I mean.) ;-) arimareiji (talk)
Considering that no person argued that the article's survival rested on a single line from a 43-year-old play, I don't follow your argument. In any event, I am in the process of expanding the article, and I've added information that everyone missed the first go-round -- including the documented fact that the Vienna Fingers product line was generating $50 million a year in sales when Keebler purchased Sunshine Biscuits. More fun facts will follow. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can assert no one made that argument. Look at the beginning of this thread, that's a quote from you. arimareiji (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the discussion consensus correctly. It looks like the AfD was close seven hours early, but given that the relisting resulted in keeps, the AfD substantially completed with no process error. Comment - If there still is a need, a reasonable time before relisting at AfD2 would be around after 30 January 2009 (three months from the close of AfD1). -- Suntag ☼

Withdrawn. I still maintain that there has been a disturbingly high incidence of "votes," and that AFAIK these shouldn't count wrt determining consensus. But the editing that has been drawn to the article demonstrates that it's at least worthy of a stub. Is it appropriate for me to remove the DRV tag from the article? arimareiji (talk) 21:01, 31 October 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.

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

Significant improvements to article at User:Paulmcdonald/Wally Bullington. Article was originally deleted and deleting admin normally prefers to go to DRV rather than discuss (which is okay). The original deletion review for the article occured during a bulk deletion run on articles and referenced Walter J. West as precedence to delete. This article has subsequently been restored. There is an essay on the subject of West Precedent that may also apply. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:05, 30 October 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.

Princess Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Princess protection program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Princess Protection Program. (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

should not be deleted --gdaly7 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Bout an hour after I posted, yeah. So, generally, I'm afraid I'll have to endorse all deletions here, lacking any good reason to overturn the original AfD or subsequent G4's. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even before they release the movie, there will be verifiable content. I agree that merely because the film release itself is an event in the future does not mean that things are not happening now. If someone found enough reliable source material for the topic (and used that to create the Wikipedia article), I would not object to permitting recreation, too. -- Suntag ☼ 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. An unseemly rush to be the first in the edit history on some item which is entirely premature as far as inclusion in an encyclopaedia goes, with obsessive recreation in the face of obvious consensus - a very bad idea. Virtually nothing can be written on this subject which is not speculative or poorly sourced. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 1 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 October 2008

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

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

I'd like to request un-deletion of my article Freeway (eCommerce). While I agree that the first version of the article might have been considered advertising, as the software has been inadequately described due to my inexperience, I don't think so of the second version because I have toned it down to mere description of the software features.


I have read more about Wikipedia policies and rewritten the article to be more neutral, but it was deleted as "reposted spam". This happened while I was having a conversation with an admin (RHaworth) on the talk page after contesting a PROD, where I tried to explain that I was looking to improve the article not spam Wikipedia as well as the point that the article contains facts about the software as well as references.


If Freeway's notability is a concern, there was already an article in the References section interview with Freeway's author (this was while Freeway was still called osCommRes). Independently of this, there is for example article in Web Host Industry Review magazine that compares Freeway to other similar software.

To my understanding, this satisfies the rules in Wikipedia:Notability (software), especially since similar level of notability is established for similar software, for example Magento or PrestaShop.

Thank you. techwriter75 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 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) 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your response. I apologize for not seeing the instruction - had I seen the instruction I would contact the Administrator first. The thing is I had a discussion with another Administrator about why I thought the page shouldn't be deleted on the talk page. The second Administrator deleted both the article and the talk page with an ongoing discussion (the 1st Administrator was requesting further information before deciding whether to finally delete the page or not). techwriter75 (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your quick reply. I would endorse the deletion per lifebaka below and recommend that you wait for someone else to write about the organization, as you're involved with it. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article still was relatively spam-y in nature, and I'd put it within administrative discretion as whether or not to delete it. So, I'm afraid I have to endorse the G11 speedy. Unfortunately, judging by your username, you may have a conflict of interest in regards to this subject. If this is indeed the case, I suggest waiting for someone else to write an article about Freeway, to avoid the appearance of bias. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion as the deleting admin. As for not contacting me first, if Techwriter had contacted me, my response would have been "after further review, I continue to believe that the article, as nominated, qualified for deletion under G11. Further, I have concerns that your username indicates that you are associated with the company, so in compliance with our conflict of interest guidelines and our FAQ for Businesses I must ask you to consider not writing about your company or its products." I would have further offered that if this person still disagreed with me, that they'd be welcome to take it to DRV, so here we are. It's a COI promotional piece, even if some of the promotional tone has been removed. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your participation in this discussion. I think I've learned a lot about Wikipedia today. As far as I am concerned there is no need for any further actions. techwriter75 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 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 October 2008

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

The Oz Principle (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

Writing to request that the page, "The Oz Principle," be unprotected so it can be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.176.169 (talk • contribs)

  • Commment - This is about the book The Oz Principle. Prior requests are here and here. For background, see Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- Suntag ☼ 00:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and allow re-creation. The book appears to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. However, the new version should not be written in a promotional/advertising style. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a page has been deleted so many times that an administrator has seen fit to protect it from further recreation, a request for unprotection is customarily accompanied by an acceptable userspace article draft which will save the article from being redeleted yet again. I'd like to see such a draft. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that notability has ever been a concern regarding the deletion of this page, so I'm hesitant to just unprotect on the basis that the book is notable. I'd also prefer to see a userspace draft first, in this case. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration It has never gone to Afd. This is not AfD 1. I am personally prepared to unprotect it immediately, though I do not know if I will !vote to keep at the Afd. It's absurd to decide on that here. With respect to notability. both the principal book and the follow up are in over 500 Worldcat libraries, which is sufficient to make a case for notability, though I'd like to see also some substantial reviews. Of course, there is no speedy provision for deleting books as having no claim to notability--even if there were, this would pass it. It was deleted as G11 both times. The latest version of the article had one descriptive paragraph on each book, one on the main author, and one on the company. This is what to me gives a flavor of advertising. But I think they were both interpreting G11 very over expansively, and I do not consider that it ever was a valid G11. Personally, I very strongly dislike self-help books of this sort as a genre, and I'm somewhat suspicious of claims for them at Wikipedia, but at least part of this was a descriptive article. DGG (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional allow creation - On one hand, protection of the page seems a little heavy handed since we're not seeing the usual tricks to get around deletion of the page (such as creating the page under a slightly different name). The tipic clearly is notable and can have a Wikipedia article on it. On the other hand, the DRV requestor has only had one edit, namely this DRV. Also, this is a topic likely to bring the devotees and their original research and other issues. On balance, page protection has served its purpose and there is not so much trouble surrounding this topic that we need to continue page protection. I think Wikipedia processes can handle the article. If DGG (or some other regular editor) is willing to post at least a sorced sentence or two on the topic, then allow the article to be created. -- Suntag ☼ 03:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected pending the independent review of a draft version. Normally, I would give a page like this the benefit of doubt but the very recent and blatant attempts to violate both G11 (advertising content) and copyright (much of the material in the deleted versions was lifted from here) has exhausted our obligation to assume good faith. The recent history justifies the extra review.
    Incidentally, it is not at all clear to me that this book would meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for books. It's sold by Amazon and has some reviews but few that meet the reliability, independence and non-triviality requirements. But that would be an issue for AfD to decide if a non-advertising version is ever created. Rossami (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and allow review when a sourced, provably neutral, non-conflicted userspace draft is ready for review. Thus far all we have seen is astroturfing and spam, so a workable draft is a minimum necessity here. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 1 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.

Merlin (project management software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Competitors continue to have their pages. We can change ours to satisfy. I would like to request that we undelete this page since our competitors pages are still active and it is not fair. We are willing to make our page identical to our competitors if that means we get to keep our page. Sorry if I am doing something wrong in here, I am still new at this. -- Situmam 14:32, 28 October 2008

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.

Emmalina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))Delete) (AfD2 No Consensus) (AfD3 Delete) (DRV1 unprotect the redirect) (AfD4 Delete)

Userfy only - PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT ASKING FOR UNDELETION - in the AfD it was suggested that because the article was well-cited and verified that there could be room to move the information to another page. I wish for the page to be userfied so I can think about where to put the sourced information. The closing moderator has repeatedly refused to do this. JRG (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Looks like a pretty convincing consensus to delete to me. There's only one "keep" and one "userfy" comment which are both from User:JRG and one "weak keep" and a "Merge" from other users. Then on the other side there's 11 people arguing to delete based on BLP, BLP1E and notability. Plus the article subject has repeatedly requested deletion. I don't see how it could have been closed any other way. As for userfying, while there is such a strong "delete" consensus, it seems to me that you should decide exactly what you want to do with it first before asking for the closure to be overturned rather than asking for a deletion review "so (you) can think about where to put it". I personally think we're too liberal with userfying BLPs and I don't think its appropriate to userfy articles deleted with a clear consensus under BLP without some agreement about what is going to be done with them as they continue to show up in Google searches. Sarah 08:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I personally think"... "I think" - but what about thinking of others? The information in the last version of the page is sourced. Why can't I retrieve the sources to be used on a Youtube notability page? JRG (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "but what about thinking of others?" - I am thinking about others - I'm thinking of the subject of this article who has to live with this sort of rubbish article. Sarah 03:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure / Comment I was asked on my talk page (prior to the opening of the DRV) to userfy this page, normally I would have no problems with such a request but as a BLP is involved and its subject, who is of marginal notability, has requested deletion, and as the closing admin had already declined such a request, I didn't see a reason to accede to it. Orderinchaos 09:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure IIRC, she also personally requested that the page be deleted in previous discussions. I personally think we should honor her wishes and her privacy. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and no userfication per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read, everyone, and especially the closing moderator - I am not asking for this to be undeleted whatsoever - I concur with the closure that it is not notable; I want the page userfied so I can put the information elsewhere. Please note the subject requested deletion back in 2006, some years ago now, and has not edited since, and since then has also uploaded an image of herself to go along with the article. Issues relating to privacy were removed from the article and I do not intend to add them again. Please note BLP does not apply as it is about an internet meme, not a real person as such. There was discussion in the AfD about creating a Youtube memes page. Please note there is a list of youtube memes elswhere on Wikipedia which links to this page - I am only trying to link at least to the fact of the effect of Youtube security breaches. Please stop being slack and let me userfy this page. As a compromise I am willing for only the very last version of the page to be userfied and not any of the history - according to Emmalina's own wikipedia talk page the concern she had with the article was all the personal details being included on the site, not its actual existence (see here). As far as I know they have been removed - and any userfication request can have any of those details removed if they are still there. JRG (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This still doesnt change my mind that this subject should stay closed and should be done and over with. Userfication because you didnt get your way originally is no reason to retrieve the information to put it where "You" want to put it. There are plenty of references to retrieve from Google or any other reliable search engine without resorting to go through the deleted content. Sure, she may seem notable only for a one or two sentence mention of her on the main youtube and/or related Youtube meme article, maybe even referenced as there are plenty of references for you to google up without having to go through the deleted history. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 03:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a problem with restoring the last version to your userspace and that is the GFDL. If we moved the last version of the article to your userspace it would look like Flewis wrote the whole thing in one edit and none of the actual authors would be credited with their work. Emmalina uploaded the image on 2 July, 2006 and asked for the article to be deleted on the 13 August 2006, there's no other images in her contributions or her deleted contributions, so I think you may have your timeline backwards there. Additionally, you still do not adequately explain what you intend doing with the article. The result of the AFD was very convincing and I don't think we should userfy an article deleted under BLP so that it can sit around in it's current form while you ponder what you want to do with it. Also, saying this article is not covered by BLP seems rather disingenuous to me and certainly the people at the AFD who voted delete per BLP and BLP1E disagreed with you and I'm rather sure that Emmalina would also disagree with your assertion that the article is not about a real person. Sarah 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request is to userfy the page. Please address comments to that DRV request. -- Suntag ☼ 15:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not userfy - The page was deleted and no evidence has been presented that userfying the page may lead to a Wikipedia article. Also, under Wikipedia:Userfication, material that is objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof should not be userfied. As noted above, "a BLP is involved and its subject, who is of marginal notability, has requested deletion". In addition, userfy "so I can put the information elsewhere" does not meet Wikipedia:User page. Emmalina's information already is at List of YouTube celebrities, which could use a good prose expansion. These seems to make the material objectionable as content in a user page, particularly where no evidence has been presented that userfying the page may lead to a Wikipedia article. Comment Prior to this DRV, any admin could have userfied the page depending on the administrator's judgment. The trouble with requesting userfication at DRV is that once a DRV consensus is established that the page cannot be userfied, no admin can override the consensus. -- Suntag ☼ 15:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin I declined userification based on the BLP concern, possibly another admin could email him the deleted material with the stipulation he run it past an admin before reposting. But I'm not sure about that. MBisanz talk 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deleted out of policy. There is no policy for deleting in response to the subjects request. Misinterpretation of BLP. To be exact, interpreting it according to a rejected BLP policy. DGG (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, I'm not seeing where at the AFD anyone mentioned the subject asked for deletion, nor was I aware of any request when I closed it. MBisanz talk 03:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • [6] & links therein. DGG (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On my reading, only a couple of people referred to the subject's wish to have the article deleted in their !vote comments in that AFD. I think it's a bit much to assert that the deletion was an "out of policy" "misinterpretation of BLP", and that the article was deleted "in response to the subjects request" because a couple of people mentioned the subject's wishes in their rationale to delete. That totally dismisses, and even distorts, the rationales of the other 14 or so people who participated in the discussion and the comments by the closing admin, none of whom even mentioned the subject's wishes and instead endorsed deletion on grounds of notability and "one event". And the way the second person phrased their comment as an "also" suggests that the subject's wishes was merely a supplementary reason, rather than their primary reason for endorsing deletion. Sarah 15:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be a correct closure based on the large number of editors who all raised BLP1E concerns vs. only two who spoke in favor of keeping. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody ever specified what the blp concerns were, despite multiple requests. I gather they were something that that had been earlier inserted in the article, but was removed by the time of discussion. If they were too dangerous to stay in the history, thats dealt with by oversight, not deletion of the article. A public blogger with a self-advertising web page, who should be protected from publicity?! DGG (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Several specifically mentioned "WP:BLP1E". This is not a BLP content concern so much as a notability concern. It means "this person is only notable for one event, and should not have an independent article." Comments such as "flash-in-the-pan youtube meme" support this position equally well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline move to userspace. If this were a routine deletion request, I would normally support it. In this case, however, the subject of the page is a private individual who has specifically requested the deletion of the page. This is not George W. Bush or some other clearly public person; she's a non-notable blogger with a You Tube video. WP:BLP does not require us to delete pages just because the subject requests it but BLP does set an expectation that we will respect the privacy rights of the subject of biographies. If she were clearly notable, it would be different. The AfD decision on that point, however, was clear. Having determined that she's not notable, we have no good reason to deny her privacy request. Rossami (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and do not userfy. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 1 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 October 2008

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

List of digital television stations in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Was deleted with the reason "not a helpful presentation of this information; digital channel numbers should be integrated directly into provincial lists, not a special list to themselves", with no evidence of discussion, consensus, and I am not sure that's a candidate for speedy deletion either. ViperSnake151 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hroðulf did not say that there's already been an AFD; he said that if subjected to AFD this article would fail the WP:SNOW rule. Specifically, see the part which states that if an article is speedily deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are parallel to this. List of digital television deployments by country is a misnamed article about where the regulatory aspects of digital conversion stand in different countries, Melbourne digital television technical parameters is a list of the technical aspects of the specific digital transmitters operating in Melbourne which is at best unlikely to survive the current AFD, and Red Button (digital television) is an article about a particular feature of digital television sets. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - per Stifle. No valid CSD basis. --Smashvilletalk 18:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion and list to AfD. The page seems to me to be a pretty indiscriminate directory listing (a violation of WP:NOT) and I doubt that it will survive AfD but it clearly did not meet any of the deliberately narrow CSD criteria. Rossami (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under WP:SNOW, there's no real reason either to create or to restore an article that can never be anything more than a duplication of existing content. Canadian television is not and never will be divided into separate classes of digital and non-digital broadcasters. The only distinction that exists is "stations whose digital transmitters have already begun operation" and "stations whose digital transmitters will be coming online in 2009 or 2010" (a group which encompasses every single television station that isn't part of the first group), and we don't need a list for that. The list provides no information that isn't already present in other articles. It's organized on the basis of a distinction that only temporarily excludes some stations from the list, as every single television station in Canada is already in the process of converting to digital transmission. And its title isn't even particularly useful as a redirect anywhere. As such, it's simply an unnecessary content fork which serves no real purpose. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 31 October 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.

Natalie Portman's Shaved Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Also natalie portman's shaved head; both titles were protected after multiple A7's (the silly name probably didn't help). Requesting unsalting based upon the metric tons of press the band has gotten - e.g.[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], etc; there's more in Google News. Chubbles (talk) 15:09, 27 October 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 iconic smokers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

AFD was No Consensus admin did not have authority to delete 204.52.215.93 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a misunderstanding. The original AFD was under an old page title. The page was moved to List of famous smokers and later deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination). The deletion log for List of iconic smokers is from some later half-hearted attempts to start a page at the original title that only contained one or two names. Please look at the discussion linked above and then decide whether filing a Deletion Review is appropriate.--chaser - t 07:34, 27 October 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.

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

According to the Afd guidelines, the discussion should be done to form a concensus. With 5 keeps and 6 deletes, it's clear that there was no consensus, yet the page was deleted. Ordinarily, I wouldn't even necessarily object to that, but I believe in the case of a lack of concensus, the admin doing the delete should explain the reasoning. In this case, all that was given was "The result was delete". It's clear that I was on the "Keep" side after doing a fair bit of reading on the subject, so I ask that someone completely uninvolved with the situation take an unbiased look. Kickstart70TC 03:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deleteAmong the keep arguments were the award of the unimportant " Colorado Business Woman of the Year" to the founder, and the amazing "The references cited, precisely because they are not all about Emergenetics, support the policy of 'Neutral point of view'," -- these were properly discounted. The parts of the article that were justified were, indeed, about psychometrics in general, or about other tests, and nothing notable was shown about this product. Two of the keeps were spa's. A proper close. DGG (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Of the five keeps, three were SPAs (with five contribs between them). Another keep was based on the number of references, rather than their quality, and the other on an "it's useful" rationale. Four of the deletes were based on the analysis of, and searches, for, independent reliable sources, and the other two deletes were based (partially or wholly) on concerns that the article constituted spam. In addition to the six Deletes, there was one Redirect based on non-notabilty. I'm having to fill in the gaps because the closing statement was brief, but it reads to me like a sound closure and well within deletion policy. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as only possible outcome. The keep arguments are very weak, and consensus is not a vote-count. It is true that a closing statement would have been nice, but I don't consider it terribly necessary in this case as the decision was actually fairly obvious. I've notified the closer of this DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closing admin here, there were 7 deletes, 5 keeps, and 1 redirect. Some of the keeps tended towards OtherStuffExists and "meets policy", without showing how it met policy. The deletes presented more detailed views of policy. MBisanz talk 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Upon further review, you are right. I still think my (even a little too exhaustive) reading of webpages discussing and using this tool did prove notability, but clearly that's just proving it to me. Would still have liked a more complete deletion reason, but I'm not gonna push that point. Thanks for all of your efforts (including the closing admin, of course). --Kickstart70TC 03:09, 28 October 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.

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

I contest the notion that this discussion shows consensus to delete the article, and propose that the close be overturned. Closer Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · count) stands by their decision, on the grounds that the delete proponents (nominator + weak delete from DGG (talk · contribs)) had the superior argument. So this DRV is a test of the competing principles of closer as consensus-assessor and closer-as-judge. the skomorokh 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my close, even if there weren't the issues of canvassing here, AfD is not a vote. Skomorokh has really not come up with any other reason that my close was incorrect other than not counting heads, to which I freely admit—AfD is a discussion based upon strength of argument. In addition to this, two of the "keep" arguments were made by those who were canvassed, and another one by an account with few edits. In the remaining arguments, DGG and Amalthea's concerns regarding sources were never really refuted, certainly not by anyone pointing out substantive source material. Nor did Skomorokh do so when asked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, you conflate assessing consensus with counting heads. Strawman. the skomorokh 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Let's be fair here. What is the operational rule for administrators in closing controversial discussions? In the absence of unanimous consent or overwhelming consensus, what do we do? How, in those cases, do we "assess consensus"? Protonk (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In such a case, the admins' deletion guidelines indicate that we should evaluate rough consensus (including properly weighting opinions that were potentially canvassed or from possible single purpose accounts), to be impartial (i.e. to not close an AfD in an article one has been involved with), and to evaluate the basis in policy and fact of the arguments which have been presented. Generally, if one side has a strong policy and fact based argument, that is the side which will prevail. In this case, after looking at the discussion, the sources, and the article, it became clear that the "delete" arguments were based in policy and fact—the lack of substantive source material. The fact that this was never really refuted by those arguing to keep (which would have been as simple as presenting substantive and reliable sources) was also a substantial factor. That was the main determining factor. This was not an easy discussion to close, and did require thought and careful checking, but I do believe in the end I did come to the correct conclusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse barring demonstration that there was a single reliable source that discussed the subject in significant depth. Consensus is reflected not just in a head-count at AFD, but also in the guidelines and policies that reflect the project's consensus in general.--chaser - t 07:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as AfD nominator. I too think that no opinion to keep could show that the subject passed WP:N or any of the specialized notability guidelines that I checked, so per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus I think that this close was in accordance with policy. --AmaltheaTalk 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse many of the keeps amounted to, I know this guy and i like him. Given the canvassing, a reasonable close. But if better references to published material about his books can be found, no objection to recreating. To say my "weak delete" amounts to a keep would imply that I've been getting a rep as a rabid deletionist. DGG (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there does not seem to be a single "keep" which expresses a desire to save the article because the editor knows and likes the subject of the article. Instead, each states that they believe the sources are within the bounds of notability and verifiability; some say only barely so, but the point stands. What gives you the impression you've come to?--Cast (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Who is saying your weak delete "amounts to a keep"? Your - I'm sorry, tangentially relevant - comment regarding libraries was the only response in the AfD that called for deletion, and yet seems to have single-handedly justified a delete close. the skomorokh 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable closure; plus, if DGG recommends deletion, the article must be beyond all saving. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because if DGG says so, then it's got to be true. No need to double-check. In fact, no need to check even once. Don't go with the facts. Go with your gut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.91.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - This is about the Canadian anarchists born in 1982. There seems to be no English Wikipedia reliable sources for Bruno Masse or www.bmasse.we.bs. The rejection of the sources used in the article as not being Wikipedia reliable sources seems reasonable. If there is information on this topic, it likely is in French and not easily accessible via the Internet. For there to be a Wikipedia article on this topic, someone likely will have to do some ground work finding print source material in Canada. -- Suntag ☼ 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose closure as there was no consensus. Per wikipedia policy, we don't need any English source, sources in French are the same as for any other language.--Sum (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. To answer the nominator's question at the top of this discussion, closers are not only allowed but required to validate that the opinions offered in a deletion discussion are based in fact, policy and precedent and to weight unsupported opinions appropriately. Deletion discussions have never been about nose-counting. That's why we explicitly don't vote on these matters. In this case, the closer's decision is in keeping with the demonstrated facts and Wikipedia's policies. I find no process problems in the debate and no evidence here or in the discussion to justify overturning the discussion. This was well within reasonable administrator discretion for a closure. Rossami (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was one of the votes that was "canvassed", and would note that I explicitly stated in my rationale that I was voting to keep in spite of, not because of, that canvassing. The existing sources in the article were most certainly sufficient basis for a notability claim, and it's not incumbent upon me to provide a detailed analysis of each individual source. I'm not going to express an opinion one way or the other here, but I do feel the need to point out that under the rationale explained here, my !vote would likely have been discounted or ignored in spite of the fact that I already addressed every concern under which it would have been dismised. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 30 October 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.

So Good (TVB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

After an administrator deleted an article believing that it is a website when it is a cooking show broadcasted on a national channel, I asked him to explain but he ignored me. I feel that that speedy deletion is completely misguided as I had limited knowledge about that program at the time, and that link will prove that the show does exist as well as this, plus somebody told me that there is a Chinese Wiki article about that show Banana Jim (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few things are going through in my mind here. To start, this is rarely a good way to get someone's attention to fix a problem you have. Being polite will get you much farther. On whether or not to restore the article I'm of two minds. On the one hand, an A7 was invalid, as it cannot apply to television shows, and none of the other CSD applied. However, on the other, to be frank, the article sucked, and could simply not have survived an AfD in that form. If the solution is amiable to you, I believe the best way to resolve this is simply to write another version of the article that, put simply, doesn't suck. You might want to try looking at the featured article of the day to get a sense of what we'd like all our articles to look like, and you'll want to make sure you're following the necessary policies and guidelines. I've notified Deb of this DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. While not strictly within the speedy deletion guidelines, this article has effectively no chance of surviving an AFD, so undeleting it only to redelete it five days later would be process wonkery. Speedy deletion isn't a permanent ban on anything ever existing at that title, however, so if you want to write another version of the article, as lifebaka suggests, go right ahead. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit I was mistaken in thinking this was web content. However, it does seem to me that there is little meaningful content in the article as it stood when I deleted it. Obviously I would have no objection to restoring it if the contributor felt they could make improvements to bring it up to standard. Deb (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having seen the deleted content, there is nothing worth saving, so keep it deleted, without prejudice to a better article being written by someone who does not have only limited knowledge about the program, or who can find reliable sources showing notability before writing an article. BencherliteTalk 03:16, 1 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 October 2008

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

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

The assertion of notability in this case is not based on the restaurant's no-tipping policy. Rather, the restaurant has received fairly substantial coverage in print media, most significantly in a New York Times magazine feature article. I believe this fact more than satisfies the inclusion criteria for standalone articles, according to WP:N. As for the {{prod}}, there were two things wrong with it. First, it should been an {{notability}}. According to WP:N, {{prod}} should be used when appropriate sources cannot be found to demonstrate the notability of its subject. This article was appropriately sourced to the New York Times magazine. Second, User:Dr.frog failed to place an alert on my talk page, so I was unable to respond to the {{prod}} in a timely manner. Beefyt (talk) 19:31, 26 October 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:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD|}}{{subst:[[Template:|article||article]]}})

Image was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and I believe it needs a full discussion within an actual ifd to decide if it in actuality should be deleted.   Justmeherenow (  ) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Public image and reception of Sarah Palin

Purpose of use

To visually identify the biography Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down in the article dealing with the public image of the subject of the biography, within an infobox within a section of the article which deals specifically with published research on the subject, for the purpose of illustrating the most prominent example of such works, and to provide a visual image of the work for which critical commentary has been provided in the article, specifically from The Politico newspaper. Including the image increases readers' understanding of Palin's public image, through this key biography. The cover is not simply decorative, but illustrates Palin's persona as everywoman reformer.

Replaceable?

The image is a book cover, therefore no free alternative is likely to be available now or in the near future.

I challenged via a "hangon" tag the proposed speedy deletion of the image of the book cover; but instead of my challenge facilitating there being listed a discussion, the image was simply deleted, which action I wish to appeal as a process violation, due both its lack of transparency and its lack of providing an appropriate venue of discussion.   Justmeherenow (  ) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my deletion. The image was listed as a replaceable fair use image for greater than 2 days. After that point, the instructions in the category suggest that it can be deleted as an I7. IMO, the cover image is fair use only in an article about the book. We don't have one, we just have a subsection of the palin article. We don't need an image of the book to illustrate that such a book exists and covers Mrs. Palin. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tagged the image as not replaceable upon its being uploaded, many weeks ago. Furthermore, the applicable WP policy says, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." It does not say that an entire article must be written on the item and a quick survey of Wikipedia's established practice would reveal a high percentage of cover images in the section of an article, while not illustrating an article in its entirety.   Justmeherenow (  ) 19:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you say the cover was the subject of critical commentary and cite this article, you are not correct. The commentary there refers to the book, not the cover. When Lott says the portrait is flattering, he is speaking figuratively about the book, not literally about the cover. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to start deleting instances of cover art where the commentary is not about the cover itself but about the work, you're going to be an extremely busy person. If this is the best you can come up with, I move that this very discussion be speedily closed and an appropriate ifd be opened, per established procedures.   Justmeherenow (  ) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The admin here is right...a book cover is not fair use unless the article is about the book...and it's not. A {{hangon}} tag doesn't mean that the deletion is on hold until there is a discussion, it simply alerts the admin that the author opposes it, and you're supposed to give your reasons on the talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are all sorts of instances of cover art throughout Wikipedia used in the same manner as this one and it would be an awful precedence to now allow for their summary deletion without discussion, therefore I encourage all those who comment here to address not a criteria for deletion per se but specifically of speedy deletion.   Justmeherenow (  ) 19:54, 26 October 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.

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

Article was speedy deleted as a hoax. According to the Speedy Deletion Criteria, being a hoax is a "non-criteria", and it states If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. The previous AfD (over 8 months ago) was not conclusive on whether it was a hoax and was deleted on the basis of needing more sources. Those sources have been found and the article was substantially improved, and it should not have been speedy deleted, but rather if the editor in question found it questionable it should have been brought to AfD. Banime (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, see [14] Stifle (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That doesn't say anything concrete about anything. And regardless, bring up what you want against the content of the article in the AfD, this is for debating the process used to delete it (a speedy which was against policy). --Banime (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion as re-creation of content deleted pursuant to an AfD discussion. If reliable sources supporting the existence of a subgenre called weedpunk have been located, please identify those sources here at deletion review so they can be evaluated. If such sources are confirmed during this deletion review, I may change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was recreated, improved, and contained all of the sources that I had found over the past 8 months before it was wrongfully speedied. Perhaps if this was in an AfD you could view them yourself and determine. Am I going to have to go on memory to repeat all the sources or is there a way to put it up? There's over 5000 google hits, I'll go through and be back with the online sources that I've found, and I have the two issues of weedpunk published in a magazine as well. Give me a few minutes. --Banime (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I could only find one of the magazines, it was in the Ask Ed: Questions and Answers with the Consigliere of Cannabis Culture article by Ed Rosenthal in the March/April 2007 issue of Cannabis Culture Magazine. From the search I found some coverage in the following places real quick: [15] [16] [17]. I'm sure there's more and I'll be looking for more, I just thought this sort of conversation should be occuring in AfD. --Banime (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse. this thread over at Something Awful clearly shows this article was simply to play a prank on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are speedy deletion criteria if they're blatant and obvious hoaxes, and this one is. And even if it's not a WP:G3, it's a WP:G4 for recreated material. There's no reason we should give this joke another 5 days. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it is covered by multiple sources as stated above. At the very least it deserves a full review. It is not a hoax, but if you believe it to be one then so be it. All I know is all of the information in that article was covered by the sources, some of which I already showed here in this deletion review. If it was a hoax there would be no sources for it, simple as that. Do we just ignore them and pretend it doesn't exist? You can if you'd like I suppose, but wikipedia shouldn't. --Banime (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thread also talks about making up fake sources for the article. But it doesn't matter anyways, none of the sources you listed are reliable sources. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to be contesting everything posted here as that gets annoying, but I will again anyway since no one else is. I believe the sources are reliable, and that seems like a perfect thing to discuss at an AfD. I am simply asking for a review of the process which wrongfully speedy deleted a hoax, which is a non-criteria for speedy deletion. I probably don't need to quote policy with most of you but I will anyway to show you exactly what I mean: "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum." Emphasis is mine. The new sources brought to light should at the very least lend this a remote chance of plausibility in your minds. If you still think the article should be deleted, then fine, we can discuss that at the AfD. Again, "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process" You can rag on the content all you'd like, in an AfD. You can bring up posts from some outside website to debate the sources or whatever all you want, in an AfD. However, the way this was deleted was wrong. Hopefully this will be the last reply I hate making long walls of text, sorry!--Banime (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and take to Afd. Clearly a totally invalid speedy as hoax, and improved enough not to be a G4 re-creation. Shjould be an interesting Afd, when it gets there, but here is not the place to discuss the merits. I'm amazed that two experienced admins could have so dealt with it. I do not regard the thread mentioned above a proof for anything at all one way or another, and if it takes proof like that it needs a full discussion. That thread also mentions some real articles, and even *says* the the vandalism it wants to promote should not be specified on the thread. DGG (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as vandalism (deliberate hoax), a valid speedy criterion. As with any deleted material a review based on a properly sourced user space draft is much more likely to succeed than, for example, a pile-on from the Something Awful forums. There should be no lack of admins happy to undelete to Banime's user space for rework on request. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 27 October 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.

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

Through my watchlist, I saw that an IP address had changed a template, and when I saw the change, I found that this page was deleted (I've replaced it with a redirect for now). Firstly, this AFD had very little commenting on it, only four. Secondly, this article, just like all articles, have room for improvement, and it is very likely that these sources ([18] [19] [20] [21] could be used to show that the character has real world notability. Where the article redirects currently to a list of "minor characters" is a misrepresentation of the character. From what I can remember and tell from the sites I listed before, the character was indeed a major character, having appeared in about half of the series/season (Power Rangers: Turbo) he premiered in, and there were several toys of him made for sale in the Western market. I would think that the character having and IMDb page is proof enough that there probably is plenty of independent, third party sourcing, concerning this fictional character.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. It was made into a redirect. The AfD seems appropriate. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:08, 26 October 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) 09:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I have not dealt with DRV in a long time and I don't know the nitpicky rules involved. I just thought it was where you bring a deletion that went through the various deletion processes (AFD, MFD, etc.) you disagree with to be reviewed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as well. Seems to be a minor character of a children's television show. I can understand pages on the major characters of the show, but minor (and possibly even some supporting character) pages seem a bit over the top. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This particular AfD did not really attract the proper amount attention--it's requiring superhuman abilities to really present adequate defenses to the cooky-cutter nominations, & we have insufficient superhumans at Wikipedia at the moment to respond in detail to them all; but I think the existing situation, with a paragraph in the main article and a redirect to it, is a satisfactory solution. I'd leave well enough alone. DGG (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The AfD was properly carried out. Whether the character is major or minor, no Wikipedia reliable source seems to be writing about the character. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Even the blurb at Blue_Senturion#Blue_Senturion is unsourced and reads like the Wikipedia editor(s) watched the show and drew on their personal knowledge to write the Wikipedia text. -- Suntag ☼ 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Process followed, close within discretion, deletion valid. MBisanz talk 13:40, 30 October 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.

E-Sports Entertainment Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Main reason for deletion was lack of noteworthiness yet a simple search on the subject would reveal mention in numerous publications, particularly an article in the NY Times. Community size was also mentioned but was not even remotely close to being accurate. Also, similar sites in the exact same space are also covered. I brought this up with the admin who processed the deletion, PeterSymonds, who no longer happens to be an admin and recommended I come here. Thunberg (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. DRV is not AFD x2. Write a new version in your User space. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd observe that the AFD was terminated early with a speedy delete decision, so the question here is whether or not the article was blatant advertising. There's nothing especially wrong in general with speedying an article while it's at AFD, but since the article had existed for over a year and a half, I would say overturn and revert to a version that's not an advert, with the option to relist at AFD if desired. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- per Stifle's arguments. It would have been so much better to let this proceed to the end. It usually is. It does not meet the requirements for G11, to be exclusively advertising--if it is notable, there's the germ of an article in there to rescue after the advertising part about the prizes is removed. There never was a proper AfD1; there needs to be DGG (talk)
  • Endorse - I can't see the deleted article, so I'll go by what I can review. The four participants and the deleting admin agreeded that the article met advertisment CSD, so it is hard not to see that as a consensus. However, feel free to repost the article minus the blatant advertising. -- Suntag ☼ 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - but allow recreation of sourced article without predejuice, provided it is not a blatant recreation of the previous advertisement article. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 October 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 October 2008

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

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

I noticed that the article Papa Nero (song), which I had created some time ago, was deleted earlier this year. Unfortunately I have been kept away from Wikipedia for several months, and only noticed the fact now.

Please allow me to beg for the article to be restored; or at least, copied to my personal area. It appears that the reason for deletion was "non-notable". However, I would argue that it is in fact more "notable " than many other articles in Wikipedia:

  1. It seems that the song was moderately popular in Italy around 1970. I would bet that more than a million people in the world still remember the song and its name.
  2. As far as I know, it is the only song in the Venetian language that has got a significant media exposure (at the Sanremo Festival) and significant record sales, outside the Veneto region.
  3. As such, it is an important reference in the Venetian language article, on which I have extensively worked in the past; especially about the modern usage of Venetian (which is almost dying out). In fact, I wrote the Papa Nero article mainly as an acessory of Venetian language.
  4. For the same reason, the song is of more-than-usual interest to the few and scattered Venetian language speakers, Venetian emigrants and their descendants all over the world.
  5. The article contained linguistic and cultural information (such as the Venetian text with English translation) that is hard to find elsewhere, especially by readers who are not Italian or Venetian speakers.

If the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, I would still like to post it in my private home page here at my University. Unfortunately, it did not occur to me that I should save a copy... Please help. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:07, 25 October 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.

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

Article has been created and deleted a number of times. However, I believe that sources that are substantively about the concept, such as [22], [23], [24] and [25] are now available and an article on the topic could be written that passes WP:NOT#DICDEF. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same from me: create a draft and bring that here. Give me a shout if you want the article userfied as a starting point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally have a fairly low threshold for inclusion, but that said, this looks like an article could be written that isn't a dicdef and meets WP:GNG. But in general, you need to create it and see what happens, just like every other article. I'd be opposed a speedy delete or prod of even a moderately well written article using those sources. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Recreation While I have not seen the original article (perhaps it should be userfied just to allow a view at the article as it existed when deleted at AfD) the sources Otto4711 provides are unquestionably about the term and would enable a properly-sourced article to be written that would go above and beyond a mer dictionary definition. A first step of creating an article using these sources in user space would most certainly help. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support recreation - The term means a male crush generally characterised as a non-sexual love affair between two males. A lot of Wikipedia reliable sources have used the term in a variety of ways, See for example Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, December 17, 2004 and term orgin. A Wikipedia article on the topic could cover the the development of the term over time to give a clearer picture. Otto4711 seems to know what s/he is doing, so there doesn't seem to be a need for DRV to approve a draft. -- Suntag ☼ 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have a basic draft, found User:Otto4711/Bromance. If that's acceptable, if a passing admin could move it to articlespace? Otto4711 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ashley Todd – Relist. I have reviewed the discussion here, and there is no clear consensus here whether the article should be relisted or kept. Therefore, I need to apply some discretion to this one, and have concluded that policy- and process-wise, a speedy keep at the time was not in accordance with the speedy keep guidelines. The argument for endorsing the speedy keep is that a major argument (BLP1E) was resolved by moving the article. However, the DRV also illustrates that good faith and reasonable arguments (in particular from Kendrick7) still remain; that the event does not warrant inclusion since it's a short term event for what amounts to a fairly minor crime. The WP:NOT#NEWS argument is not resolved by the move, even though people may within reason argue that that argument does not apply for this case. The early closure, after only 12 hours of discussion, probably also prevented several editors from participating in the discussion. The move may have satisfied some, but not everyone. Although I think an RFA is more likely to end in a "no consensus" than a "delete", I cannot see this being a WP:SNOW case either. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ashley Todd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The AfD closed as speedy move, (effectively a speedy keep) after only 12 hours. The opinions were pretty much evenly split between delete and keep with only a small minority favouring a move. The AfD should have been left to run the full 5 days. RMHED (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist for the full five days. There's plenty of people who think that this is deletable for reasons other than "cover the event, not the person". Stifle (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from closing admin A large number of people had already weighed in on the discussion in only 12 hours. The keeps mainly focused on the fact that the event was clearly notable. However, the only item that could even potentially make this a biography on the subject relates to her mental condition--but at this point it's highly speculative, and therefore does not belong in a biography of a living person. So in sum--the event is clearly notable, but there is no way this will ever be a BLP that meets our standards. Hence, the proper course was a speedy move to an article covering the event per BLP1E. Blueboy96 23:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This was an AfD of possible significance, with a complicated discussion, and needs to have it. there's appropriately a rule against redirecting during a AfD discussion. DGG (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Meh. The incident was notable, the person wasn't. all of the sourcing out there only allowed us to write an article about Todd with respect to this nonsense she pulled. Very little existed that would allow for a biographical sketch. It seems to me that a sensible move would be to recognize this and see that a move/rename/rewrite would eliminate most of the concerns at the AfD. Maybe the AfD shouldn't have been closed, but there wasn't anything improper about the move/rename of the article. As far as the relisting goes...sure. Relist it. But be prepared for this to not matter at all after the 4th of november. I mean like NO coverage. Less than Joe the Plumber (and he won't get any). Notability isn't temporary, but in less then two weeks we will just end up merging her article into the 2008 campaign omnibus article anyways. Keep that in mind. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion - The redirect is fine; the key content is still there, and no longer pretends to be a biography. This doesn't seem contentious.
  • Ick right outcome, bad process (fish wack). speedy Relist the AfD though the same outcome is highly likely. No way the closure was in process, and IAR probably shouldn't stretch this far. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist While I agree with Protonk's pragmatism, I still maintain that this rename is just a sneaky way around WP:BLP1E. People lie to the police every day, and young Ms. Todd doesn't deserve to be immortalized for it in our pages just because this lie begot a brief media circus. The lie wasn't even about another actual person, so this is entirely still a WP:BLP, just one foreshortened to cover only the biggest mistake of the subject's life! If the AfD had been allowed to go for the full five days, by then people would have seen this manufactured "notability" disappearing in our collective rearview mirrors and the outcome would have been quite different. -- Kendrick7talk 19:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The closing admin made a solid decision in this case.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there was no keeping it as a pseudo-biography at its previous title and Protonk is probably right about where it will end up, given the still significant BLP issues. I vote to relist after the election when we all have a little more perspective about this. Employers won't be searching Wikipedia for background information that isn't already widely available in that time period.--chaser - t 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn any G4 effects on the Ashley Todd article. - It is regrettable that the issue of whether an Ashley Todd biography meets Wikipeida policy remains unresloved effectively due to a speedy delete (move plus redirect). There now is no G4 basis to keep someone from recreating the Ashley Todd article. Given the different opinions at the AfD, any speedy delete of the Ashley Todd article, including a G10/BLP speedy delete, was not appropriate. We can't unring the bell, so we need to address the pickle. The Ashley Todd AfD started out adressing a biography and the move of the article to Ashley Todd mugging hoax presents a significantly different approach to the topic. The Ashley Todd AfD could not have resulted in a consensus on the Ashley Todd mugging hoax topic. Feel free to immediately list Ashley Todd mugging hoax at AfD. Also, I think it would be reasonable to notify all the participants in the Ashley Todd AfD about the Ashley Todd mugging hoax AfD. A talk page message such as

    "You participated in the Ashley Todd AfD, which ended early do the article being moved to Ashley Todd mugging hoax. The article Ashley Todd mugging hoax now is at AfD."

    would seem reasonable so long as it was placed on all the talk pages of the editors who posted at Ashley Todd AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist to AfD. These premature closures are not only unnecessary, they are bad for the project. Hold a debate and let it run its proper course. If we get to the same answer, fine. WP:IAR has a place but process is important. This was an inappropriate closure. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. We don't need more bureaucracy for this article. The delete !votes mostly invoked WP:BIO1E, which is not a good reason to delete in this case, but rather to change the focus of the article because the event was not covered anywhere else in Wikipedia, even though the event itself was verifiable and sufficiently notable. Relisting would likely result in same decision or "no consensus", which would be an inferior result — all sources about Ashley Todd are still in connection with this event. VG ☎ 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse BLP1E. We've got everything relevant covered in the event article, no good reason to do anything else except process addiction.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the AFD. There was no good reason for this one to be closed early; there was certainly no clear consensus in the AFD, for a speedy keep, rename or otherwise. It seems to me that the admin thought they could resolve the issues with the article by simply moving it to a different title, but that does not properly address the concerns over long-term notability. Allowing a full five days of discussion is the only way to be sure of reaching a fair conclusion about what, if anything, to do with this article. Terraxos (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The person is not terribly notable and the event clearly was and is and will be. The way this was dealt with here was done just fine, with a lot of input from other editors. Sure, would have been nice to run the 5 days, but that's not a strict requirement. I wonder if this review request is motivated by political bias, to be honest. --Kickstart70TC 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clearly correct to move the article per WP:BLP1E. Only other viable outcome would be an outright delete which seems unlikely. I have no objection to an editorial relist, particularly after the election. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Perhaps the tide may have turned in another 4 days, but it was clear where this was heading. Todd's independent notability is an interesting subject for debate, but the move addresses the BLP1E issues. I'm sure this will be revisited post-election sooner or later, but the result for now appears within process, even if the process did not run its full course. Alansohn (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist Whenever we have a controversial BLP issue we should have a full AfD. This is especially true with BLP1E sort of situations where the line of BLP1E is never quite clear (and for what it is worth I suspect this really is a BLP1E but we need to have that discussion). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Admin made the right decision though he may have taken the wrong path to get there. KnightLago (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This was a heated discussion and all of the arguments had been heard. A tough call, to be sure, but definitely not worth overturning.--HoboJones (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- The reasons given for the deletion pretty much boiled down to "It violates WP:BLP1E and it's not notable." I think it should be obvious with a little thought that whenever you have an article on a person who's only notable for one notable event and the event doesn't have its own article that deletion is a careless and wasteful way to "solve" the problem, insofar as we can stretch semantics to call it "solving" the problem at all. ("Oh, dear! We've accidentally put out one of the angora sweaters out in the pile of cashmere sweaters!" "Oh, I'll solve that problem! *flamethrower* There, now we've solved the problem of an angora sweater being in the wrong pile! Angora sweater reduced to nothing, therefore nothing in the wrong place!") The remaining justification for deletion, namely the lasting notability of the event -- well, I said at the time and say now that the day after the events occur is not a sensible time to try and use our CRYSTAL balls to determine "oh, no, this will be forgotten by next week." It is next week and Google News gives over 2,600 results for "Ashley Todd". -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC) My deepest apologies -- I took a closer look and realized I had left off the quotes, so that it was counting any story with "Ashley" and "Todd" in it. The results are still around 1,200, which I do not think is a very impressive statement of non-notability, certainly not one that justifies re-opening a closed AfD. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a proper AFD. I'm not really sure this is more than a news story. Unclear it's a topic of encyclopedic importance... or at least that the encyclopedic value outweighs the damage it will do to this person to keep this story alive for the rest of her life. At any rate, AFD can discuss that. --Rividian (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the speedy keep/move decision. Few, if any, people who voted on the AfD either way were displeased with the result -- having an article on the incident and not the person. WP:BLP1E concerns about "Cover the event, not the person," were solved with renaming. Should not get bogged down on process and the letter of the law when the end result addressed the AfD concerns. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:20, 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.

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

Author and freelance journalist on China who is the first British-Indian writer to commentate extensively on China- published two books on travel to China and well known with the expat community- reliable resources are available from his publishers and articles which he has written- has has made a contribution to society that not many people have done for China. Please kindly restore his page. Much appreciated in advance. He will be famous within the expatriate and Chinese community once more recognition is gained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpalo (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse. By definition, sources from his own articles and his publishers are not reliable. In addition, speculating that he "will be famous" doesn't establish notability either (see here. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote people. If you can show some sources that discuss this person (independent of him), or his books, that's a different story. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:40, 25 October 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) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at afd. There was a claim of significance. I don't care what order people follow the steps. But this article has now been deleted 3 times, and is so likely to be considered unacceptable, that at afd is the way to settle it. DGG (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list (or PROD) per DGG. It's simple enough to see that there aren't major spam concerns there, and the article indicates importance in a number of places. I don't know how the AfD will turn out, but I'm not optimistic about it. I'd also like to note to the nominator that "will be famous" is not notability in the Wikipedian sense. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Per DGG since any valid speedy deletion criteria likely could be overcome easily and the recreations were more likely out of inexperience rather than trying to subvert Wikipedia policy. Also, Navjot Singh is a very common name, see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Navjot Singh Sidhu, and it is difficult to conclude that this particular Navjot Singh does not meet WP:N without a discussion. Comment to nominator - information from "reliable resources are available from his publishers and articles which he has written" cannot be used in an article on Navjot Singh since that information is not independent of Navjot Singh. A Wikipedia article on Navjot Singh should be based on what other people have written about Navjot Singh. The Wikipedia article should not merely serve to memorialize Navjot Singh's work product or provide a place to host testimonials from assiciates of Navjot Singh. -- Suntag ☼ 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion as a reasonable A7. The most comprehensive version of the article I could find among the deleted history said that he's an British author who traveled to China and holds a Masters degree. DGG is usually really good about sorting out the invalid CSDs but I can not find any claim of significance in the deleted content, nor do I find any here. Unless someone can show me what I'm missing, this appears to have been reasonable to me. Rossami (talk) 19:12, 30 October 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.

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

Contesting prod; the band charted, among other things. Chubbles (talk) 13:50, 25 October 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 End Of An Error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

There was a Prod placed on The End of an Error album article which was challenged so it was taken to an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End Of An Error) on September 6, 2008. User:Ryan Postlethwaite closed the AfD on September 11, 2008 with a "keep". Only three Editors voiced a "keep" opinion, citing links to user submitted news releases/press releases and one editor stating "It's a real album from a real band. And it's really coming out. It has 3 different sources to cite that this is the truth." I feel there was not enough involvement in the discussion and it should be reopened in order to receive input that will be based on Wikipedia guidlines. While the cited sources may be fine in order to "verify" if an album was coming out they do not meet the guidelines for allowing an album to have it's own article. WP:NALBUMS states that All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG for definitions. The cited sources are links to user submitted information on the albums release date and track listing only and do not establish this album as notable nor are they significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To answer the the last question first. It is at DRV because there was not any response from you directly on the issue. I have no issues in opening a second AfD, I just thought it would easier to reopen this one because of the short amount of time involved between the closure and when I found the article. As far as the citations go - the ones that I mention above, and now the ones you give, are not "significant coverage" enough to prove notability for allowing the album to have it's own article. Many of the citations that were given in the first AfD were based on "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." about the release of the album. The links you have provided now are a mixture however still nothing that goes beyond a short review or mention of the album's release. Even though the first Afd states the reason as "No reliable published third party sources for future album, fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums" the discussion was more about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and not about the notability of the actual release per WP:NALBUMS. The key statement from the What Wikipedia is not policy is that merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is verified that this release exists but it has not been verified that the release is notable enough for it's own article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was not the AfD nom. I came across this album and was going to PROD it however I found it PROD and AfD a few weeks ago. If there is a specific question beyond that I have laid out above please ask. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. While I fully admit that the article has been somewhat poorly sourced, the sources do indeed exist, as shown by Ryan Postlethwaite. Likewise, WP:MUSIC states that "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The band itself is notable, so assuming that the article itself is at least somewhat well-sourced, it should be within reason that the article be kept. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 10:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are currently no Wikipedia Policies or Guidelines that state that a musical release by a well known, or "notable", artist to be provided automatic "Notability" status and exclude an article about the release from having to follow guidelines. I mentioned it above but bears repeating - there were two issues brought up in the AfD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WP:NALBUMS. The cited sources were used to verify the album existed but did nothing to establish notability. There are a few key words in the WP:NALBUMS quote from Rwiggum - the main ones being "may have". Those words lead directly back to what I brought up at the top.
    WP:NALBUMS directly addresses how to deal with Wikipedia is not a crystal ball issue with albums: Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article. This was the only guideline issue resolved by the Afd, but it was not "discussed only in the artist's article" - it was discussed at an AfD, which is, at its core, the reason this AfD should be reopened. The key issue that was overlooked, and should have been the *only* issue being discussed at the AfD, was: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this ISN'T a future release. It was released October 14th, so some of what you are saying it moot. Likewise, there ARE sources. It doesn't have a ton of them, but they do exist, as has been show in the article, the AFD, and here. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion is about an AfD that was closed based on a topic that should not have been discussed in an AfD, and that was done before the album was released. That fact is not a moot point here as it relates to why, and how, the AfD was closed. All other issues have been brought up in detail already but I welcome any editor to view the articles citations and then discuss here how they establish notability for this album (not the band - not other albums - this album).
  1. Houston Calls Release Date "user submitted news" consisting of one sentence
  2. Houston Calls Track Listing "user submitted news" consisting of track listing
  3. HOUSTON CALLS POST NEW SONG "user submitted news" consisting of a release of a song to the bands myspace page, the name of the album, tentative release date and that it is a follow up album.
  4. End of an Error release date and track listing.
  5. "Houston Calls at the end of an error" "user submitted news" consisting of brief bio on album, release date, track listing.
A bit of a timeline may be of use here: The article was created on August 6, 2008. The first three citations were added on September 5, 2008 after the PROD was removed. September 6, 2008 it was taken to AfD. On September 11 the AfD was closed with no new citations being added. Not only that but the only "External links" were to the official website, the official myspace page and the official Sonic Bids page. Because it bears repeating yet again, the notability issue was brushed aside. On October 19, 2008 the next citation was added with the comment: "While the official track listing omits "Dork Thinks He's Gonna Drown", it is actually a hidden track that plays approx. 20 minutes after the end of "The Oaks on Prince St." Also on October 19 the final citation was added. On October 21, 2008 I looked at the article and was going to PROD it for non notable per WP:NALBUMS however I saw it had already had a PROD that was contested and it had gone through the AfD process. On October 25, 2008 I started this DRV. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Unless the keep arguments were complete crap (which they weren't), there's just about no possibility for an AfD such as that to be closed as delete. No consensus is the best you can hope for, which still results in the article being kept (I personally would have leaned that way myself). Do feel free to nominate the article for AfD again after a suitable time has passed (generally, a month or two is good). Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Lifebaka. At AfD1, the likelihood of reliable sources being available carrys weight. Admin's closing "use their best judgment" discretion, all the keep reasoning backed by WP:AGF, and this being AfD1, it would be difficult to say that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or that the close should be overturne and the article delete. If this were AfD2, AfD3, etc., then the actualy lack of reliable sources would be given more weight. Feel free to list at AfD2 in two months, which should be enough time to find sufficient reliable source material for the topic. -- Suntag ☼ 20:15, 28 October 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.

J. William Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Deleting admin has requested DRV. I propose restoring the artice because the article has been dramatically improved at User:Paulmcdonald/J. William Williams with additional sources and more historically significant information. Primary reason for original deletion was based on deletion of Walter J. West which has since been restored. You can read an essay about the supposed "West" precedent. Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved here from WP:DRV. Sorry I didn't get this log up beforehand. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with restoring it. I don't know about any "precedent" for anything. Far as I can tell, articles sourceable to third party publications get to stay. Those that aren't get deleted. Protonk (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore I'm not sure of the quality of sourcing. The NYT article is short, but shows that they though highly of him (notable). The rest aren't as independent as I might like. But that seems fairly good for a football player of that day. I strongly suspect there were articles in local papers of the day, but those are hard to get to... So one (short) NYT piece and all the "less-than-fully-independent" sources meet GNG in my mind. Hobit (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow restoration Given Williams' role as a player and a coach in college football at a time when pro football barely received any public attention (see History of American football) and given systemic bias issues with finding sources for individuals in their prime 100 years ago, I have no issue with the quantity and quality of the sources provided in the article establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 27 October 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 October 2008

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

Category:Fictional Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

Category was deleted as part of a mass CFR that was greatly expanded while the CFR was in process. While I remain unconvinced that the mass deletion was correct, for this DRV I am only addressing Category:Fictional Americans. Two currently-running CFDs, for fictional Americans by state and its subcategories and the other for fictional Americans by ethnicity are heading for near-unanimous keep closures along with the strong desire that Fictional Americans be restored as a parent. Given that consensus has clearly changed regarding this category, I ask that the CFD be overturned and the category be restored. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No claim about the propriety of the expansion was made. The current CFDs are certainly relevant as they demonstrate a shift in consensus regarding this category. When practically everyone commenting in the CFD makes a point of stating that this category should be restored, it's hard to see how that isn't relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 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.

Paris Hilton energy plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (DRV)

I would like to list this article at AfD. The 27 August 2008 non admin close of Paris Hilton energy plan was upheld at DRV on 28 August 2008. That DRV seemed to lean towards a no consensus closure, but the DRV close maintained the AfD Keep close, which give the article an unofficial three-month don't-list-at-AfD card. The article was moved/renamed to Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad, a different topic from Paris Hilton energy plan. In view of the no consensus lean and the topic switch, I would like to list Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad at AfD and not have the listing subject to a "too early after keep" close. What I would post at the AfD nom would be

POV fork (it is designed only to present Hilton's response) that would be better presented in Paris Hilton, Cultural and political image of John McCain, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements (as a counter point), or in an article about the secondary news events generated by United States presidential election, 2008.

Since the DRV maintained the non admin AfD keep close with a "clear overwhelming consensus is not to delete the article" and the topic was switched, I would like DRV consensus to list the article at AfD and not have the listing subject to a "too early after keep" close. Also, I think it better to get these ancillary issues resolved at DRV rather than having them addressed at AfD. A reply of List at AfD would seem to fix things. If this DRV close is favorable, would the closing admin please post at AfD using my AfD nom language above. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 22:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. This isn't really something DRV is for. Personally I have never believed in the alleged three-month rule, and it's been challenged successfully at DRV more than once. So I would recommend that you start the AfD and if you make a good enough argument I don't think it will be speedily closed. Alternately, you could just pursue a merge, which is (surely?) the likeliest outcome of an AfD at this point (and even likelier two or three weeks from now). Chick Bowen 23:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather think Chick is right; I cannot imagine that anyone should object to your renominating now, and I suppose that you might do well to be bold straightaway. Lest anyone should level a procedural objection, though, I suppose it can't hurt to say permit listing at AfD (I am disinclined to say list at AfD, whereby we should be seen as offering our imprimatur to the issue's being AfDed; we mean only to say that listing again should not be disfavored). Joe 05:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason why this shouldn't be listed at AFD. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just renominate it. It's good that you should have asked, and I wish people did more often, but we';e had a number of discussions on related articles since then, and it would be good to get another consensus. Two months is not too short in the circumstances. DGG (talk) 23:22, 25 October 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 October 2008

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

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

Article was deleted by prod tag with what I believe is an invalid reason for a nationally syndicated radio show ("article fails to assert why this radio personality is notable outside the local area.") Dravecky (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a contested prod it could be directly recreated but the fact is that it is still missing third party references that would assert notability. If this is fixed, I have no objections. --Tone 17:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • United World Chart – Deletion endorsed as based on a comprehensive discussion without process problems. The article has already been userfied to the requester who is invited to actually take note of the concerns raised in the AFD and address them before considering a repost to avoid a deletion per CSD G4. – Tikiwont (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

United World Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

United World Chart article was deleted by the following reason: the chart is not used by any mainstrean media or artist, so it is not notable. That's wrong. United World Chart is cited by:

And many more. Netrat (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Comment The German WP considered the article for deletion and kept it [31] ; the French WP considered it and deleted it.[32] (see Harro's comment in our AfD discussion regarding the deWP rationale--they kept it to explain why thy did not use their rankings in their articles) Besides Forbes, it seems to be used by MSNBC and CBS (see the GN link for forbes). Publicists will of course use whatever they can find. Personally, though not my subject of expertise, I find it strange that it is not referred to at all in Billboardrd's web site. DGG (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this only being brought to DRV now? The AFD above was last April. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Use of the chart by mainstrean media and artists should be cited in the mainstrean media and artists articles, not in United World Chart. An article about the United World Chart would include a chronological history of the United World Chart. Now, if you have reliable source material that writes about the United World Chart, e.g., The United World Chart was first published in xxx to fill the need xxx. Since its first publication, it has grown into xxx and xxx, please list it here. -- Suntag ☼ 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am probablly not getting you right. The reason to delete UWC article was "UWC is not notable enough, since UWC is not used by any mainstrean media or artist". As you can see, that's not true. Netrat (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things here. First, endorse the AfD closure as fully correct; the keep arguments were weak and generally not persuasive, and no reliable sources were offered during the discussion. Second, feel free to recreate the article if you believe that you can write a version that will not have the same failings as the AfD'd version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete arguments ("not notable" - which is false and "the chart is not reliable aka fake" - does not matter at all) were just as weak. Plus I don't think I can write such article from the scratch Netrat (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but allow re-creation if a better version can be written per Lifebaka. Of the five sources cited by the original poster, three are definitely press releases, the Forbes cite appears to be a press release, and the Belfast Telegraph cite only refers to the UWC in one sentence to demonstrate the popularity of a musical group. None appear to discuss the UWC per se. The kind of sources I would like to see if the article were re-created would be articles from independent, reliable sources that discuss the United World Chart itself -- who runs it, how it is calculated, and how it is used in the music industry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't understand it. Links I provided were only to demonstrate the UWC is used by media and artists, UWC is popular, and thus notable. I'm not suggesting using these documents as sources! Netrat (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand the references you have made in this review to the idea that the article was deleted because the UWC is not used by any mainstream media or artist. That idea did not even come up in the deletion discussion, as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. I have temporarily restored the article so we can see what it looked like as of the end of that AfD discussion, but I would have to say that independent reliable sources were either few or nonexistent in the article at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've moved it to my userspace so I can work on re-writing the article, is it OK? Feel free to delete the redirect from mainspace, as I can clearly see the lack of support for restoring of that particular version. Netrat (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation per lifebaka. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation as per lifebaka and Suntag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume from AfD discussion that the only problem with the article was the notability of its subject, right? Netrat (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. From what I understand, certain charts have to be receognized by the IFPI, which the UWC is not. Therefore, it's an unofficial chart that, for all we know, could have its positions determined by a randomizer. Furthermore, there are absolutely no sources pertaining to when the UWC was begun, what its focus is (for instance, how is it that the Eagles only have one hit on this chart?), The sources cited above don't cut it, and everyone has yet to turn up a reliable source that is not trivial or a press release. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There are multiple problems with the page. First, 90% of it is devoted to chart stats, not about the chart itself. Second, as per the initial nomination, no independent reliable sources prove its notability. Third, reliability is a problem, as it's a somewhat arbitrary system of ranking. As I noted in the deletion discussion, their page clearly states that points for an album can be raised if there are "hugh [sic] sales", and they can get additional points from countries that have no official chart by being on the rest of the charts (so there are assumptions there). Songs use airplay and songs in addition to data that doesn't rely on airplay and songs (for example, chart TV shows that rely on votes), so it's inconsistent. And User:Netrat, the reason for deletion was not simply because there was no independent coverage. If you read the deletion discussion in full, a variety of users have brought up these multiple issues (and more). Even if every single artist and group used UWC data, there would still have to be independent sources stating that it's a legitimate, notable chart. Like, the only parallel I can think of is if every single sports star recommended Red Bull because it really enchances stamina, that doesn't mean that we automatically buy their word. We would look to see if there was research done to prove that fact. The same applies here. (And echoing earlier sentiments, most of the links posted previously seem to be PR pieces, or have PR pieces quoted.) SKS2K6 (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close; keep deleted. It was properly closed after a long and vigorous AfD discussion. Waiting four months before DRV and treating it as "son of AfD" seems shady at worst and disingenuous at best. People who want a new United World Chart article should start a new article in userspace and address every single issue brought by the "delete" comments, cite the stuffing out of all of them, and then - and only then - would a recreation should be considered. B.Wind (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Non notable and unofficial chart. Needs non-trivial coverage. Tosqueira (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Criticism of Barack Obama – Deletion endorsed: Textbook G10 example. Furthermore, because other, similarly named pages exist, does not mean that this page has to. Criticisms of Barack Obama are already well covered, and this page served as nothing more than a POV-fork and obvious slander. In addition, it is highly suspect that 300wackerdrive is a sockpuppet of WorkerBee74, and that the continued abuse of various processes and discussions is wearing good faith pretty damn thin. seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Criticism of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I wish to protest the speedy deletion of this article. I believe McWomble did it, since he was the only one expressing an interest. There have been two similar articles here that I know about, Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Tony Blair, and both are healthy survivors of any previous attempts to delete them. Please, let's establish a community standard here. All three are about prominent politicians who have endured controversies that have produced notable criticisms on a number of subjects. Either all of them should stay, or all of them should go. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion I've just reviewed the deleted article and it is a blistering POV-fork that largely focuses on people and events that do not relate to Obama, but which relate to people and organizations that the public associates with him. Its a straight up POV-fork, not a split from a main article and was a valid G10 deletion. We don't take second chances with BLP material. MBisanz talk 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion purely as the one who nominated it. Obvious POV fork and attack page. This was the article's second speedy deletion, previous one was under A3. As a mere mortal I did not delete the page. McWomble (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your only issue, then the answer is to edit the article, not delete it. This is a prominent politician, arguably nearly as famous and nearly as controversial as George W. Bush or Tony Blair. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination). Quoting GoodDamon, "The circumstantial evidence for sockpuppetry in my opinion is fairly strong, but the evidence for disruptive behavior by both accounts regardless of sockpuppetry is rock solid." McWomble (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Attack page, POV fork, WP:BLP, SPA, Sockpuppets, disruptive editors, etc., etc.,. ~ priyanath talk 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - This article is an invalid content fork from the main article Barack Obama per WP:CFORK, specifically that it does not present a neutral point of view. Although come criticism articles are acceptable, these should include rebuttals or counterpoints to provide balance and a neutral point of view, and should be summarised in the main article. Additionlly, the main article is currently under article probation. Content forking should not be seen as a means to avoid article probation restrictions. Finally, WP:OtherStuffExists can be inferred from the policy on What Wikipedia is Not. in detail, Wikipedia is not a democracy, bureaucracy or governed by statute. That other articles on a topic exist does not set precedent or guideline - each is assessed on it's own merits according to consensus. I hope this provides clarification for you. Many thanks, Gazimoff 16:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then give me a chance to work on it. It was deleted barely ten minutes after I started working on it. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from you working on it for 19 hours (as SheffieldSteel mentions below), I don't see why neutrally worded, balanced and well sourced content needs to be forked from the main article. What stopped you from placing the content there to begin with, in line with content guidelines and article probation restrictions? Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As stated in the deletion comment, this is an attack page and a POV fork. Having reviewed the content and sources I feel it would be better to write an NPOV-compliant article from scratch than to re-create this one. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then give me a chance to work on it. It was deleted barely ten minutes after I started working on it. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:300wackerdrive created this article and made another 13 edits to it over a 19-hour period, and is also listed as a suspected sockpuppet of WorkerBee74. My AGF meter isn't responding well. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. POV fork and attack page. Personally, I think a page devoted to criticism of someone is valid if reliable sources have consistently demonstrated the validity of that criticism, making the critiques not just notable, but largely believed to be true by mainstream media. But that is the only situation in which such a POV fork would be acceptable. This one definitely didn't measure up. --GoodDamon 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then give me a chance to work on it. It was deleted barely ten minutes after I started working on it. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of room for criticism of Barack Obama as reported by reliable sources in the main article. There is no room for debunked criticism of anyone in their BLP unless that criticism has a lasting impact on that individual's life. But I'm sure the criticism you plan to include will be of a far better quality than campaign talking points. No one would take negative campaigning into a Wikipedia article, after all. --GoodDamon 18:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion for all the good and sufficient reasons listed above.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:18, 23 October 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) 18:37, 23 October 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.

Urban Ministries, Inc. (UMI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Not clear why page was deleted. It says corporate spam, but need to know process for a company to start a Wikipedia page about its history without having it deleted; other Christian publishing companies have Wikipedia pages just like ours that have not been deleted, please explain criteria; UMI is a very significant publisher in the African American community, it makes sense to have an entry on Wikipedia, but need to know how to post one in a way that will be acceptable to Wikipedia's editors; please advise Urbanministries (talk · contribs) 14:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted following a proposed deletion, without explicit discussion, so it will probably be restored shortly (I haven't checked the article though). The information you've asked for can be found at Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 14:40, 23 October 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.

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

Deleted via PROD months ago, but is actually notable. Famous WWII British propaganda transmitter. Will add refs. John Nagle (talk) 03:06, 23 October 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.
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Ginger Jolie
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


22 October 2008

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

Joan Sinclair (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 noticed this article was deleted; was curious; did a google search on her -- and found that she was a published author, whose book was reviewed in multiple publications, and who was interviewd at least twice. She was prominent enough to be mentioned as a guest in society gossip columns. I am going to ask for userification of Joan Sinclair to User:Geo Swan/review/Joan Sinclair. I'd like to look at the deleted article, and then decide how much effort would be required to put the article into shape to be restored to article space, and then decide if I am interested in doing so. FWIW, I played no role in the earlier article. FWIW, the deleting admin claimed A7. Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 22 October 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.

Young Progressive Majority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

You deleted this page calling it blatant advertising. There is a serious controversy involved in California right now between two organizations operating under the initials YPM. Young Progressive Majority, an offshoot of Progressive Majority (which has a page) is a legitimate non-profit with chapters around the county. Young Political Majors founder has been accused of voter fraud, with its founder being arrested this past weekend. It's important for people to be informed on these two organizations. We recently (and legally) registered over 500 new voters in the LA area. These people, watching the news, may be concerned that it was the other YPM who registered them and will look to find out if they'll be able to vote on November 4th. Topdown5 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:SOAPBOX? Stifle (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three separate admins deleted it as either non-notable organization or blatant advertising. I would have deleted also, and either reason will do, as the article meets both criteria for speedy. DGG (talk) 17:51, 22 October 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.

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

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was including discussion on the talk page as a way of starting resolving the dispute, in the non-technical sense. Sorry if there was any confusion. Incidentally, I think starting BRD is very poor judgment if there is known to be objections, as there certainly was in this case from the AfD. A less overbold redirect would have at least put the name in the target article. DGG (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments 1) Cheers to Stifle for being WP:BOLD even though I disagree with the action, 2) WP:BRD states "If an issue is already under discussion or was recently discussed, people may take offense if you boldly ignore the discussion..." While this was a case of "no consensus" there was indeed a discussion and there might have been a better approach...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 22 October 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.

Don Lee (college football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, I did not delete this page, merely redirected it, which any editor can do. The redirect can be reverted if required. Not a DRV issue. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment except that all of the information on this page was deleted. I contend that "deleting all of the information" is technically a "delete" -- if the information had been edited into other article then maybe that would make sense, but no effort was done to do so. Instead, the article was wiped and replaced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot As Stifle says, any editor can revert, and I have just done exactly that. There was a relevant discussion , which showed noconsensus against keeping as a separate article. I suppose it can be discussed further through WP:DR. DGG (talk) 17:58, 22 October 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.

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

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, I did not delete this page, merely redirected it, which any editor can do. The redirect can be reverted if required. Not a DRV issue. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment except that all of the information on this page was deleted. I contend that "deleting all of the information" is technically a "delete" -- if the information had been edited into other article then maybe that would make sense, but no effort was done to do so. Instead, the article was wiped and replaced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot As Stifle says, any editor can revert, and I have just done exactly that. There was a relevant discussion , which showed no consensus against keeping as a separate article. I suppose it can be discussed further through WP:DR. It does have the effect of a delete but is a separate process--which fortunately can be dealt with outside of Deletion Review. There is more than one way of removing article content, and each method has its own assigned way of restoring it. I would not have reverted a true merge, though of course anyone could have done so in that case also. DGG (talk) 18:02, 22 October 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:Suite101logo.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|article)

This image was deleted per CSD I5, but this policy permits exceptions for articles that are still in development. the admin that tagged this for deletion never responded to my inquiries, and it took well over seven days for me to find the actual policy in my spare time. Having the article in my userspace seems to have broken the template, and for that I apologize.--otherlleft (talk) 14:31, 22 October 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.

Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The article was deleted after this afd. But was recreated today by Giano. I am asking that the recreation be endorsed, and that the original edit history be restored to comply with the GFDL. My reasons are threefold:

  1. Technically, there appears to have been some type of glitch that meant the AfD nomination did not show up on the watchlists of experienced users who had an interest in the article. (Risker[36] and Giano [37] If there's to be a deletion, we really want these people to be able to participate in the debate. A "retrial" would thus be appropriate.
  2. Procedurally, only 3 delete votes and 1 redirect is a pretty shaky consensus. The closing admin's comment "delete. unsourced" is strange since the article was sourced, and lack of sourcing in not a deletion criterion on a non-BLP. Perhaps redirection is merited here, but there's no grounds to delete.
  3. Content. It is verifiable (see the new source I've added from Bill Bryson's book) and neutral. If there is unverifiable or unencyclopedic material on it, then we can deal with that by normal editing or merging. In any case, that Giano has indicated a willingness to work on this, leads me to the thought that we'll end up with a great short article. Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an interesting page about a British eccentricity, I have heard of this man numerous times and was fascinated to read about the man behind the name. If he was not notable I would not have heard about him - even Bill Bryson talks of him. Wikipedia is not short of space so this article should be kept. Giano (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without prejudice - Giano's argument is more suited to the deletion debate itself; I believe the discussion should be re-opened because of the apparent lack of notification, and the narrowness of the margin of the !votes. It's nevertheless worth noting that AfD is not a poll, so the nearness of the Keep and Delete entries is not in itself an argument. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - it does seem that something happened such that the placing of the AFD notice on the article did not register in watchlists and that therefore the subsequent discussion may not reflect a true consensus of interested parties. Nancy talk 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. The deletion rational was "unsourced", which it patently is not. Addressing some of the the concerns raised at the AFD: Leone's "magniloquent name" is confirmed by the ODNB entry on his father; he could (probably should) be added to List of unusual personal names. He is included in Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and his name has been mentioned on the Wikipedia:Reference desk several times. He was mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records until fairly recently, although the nature of the record is debateable; and there are several hundred Google hits for his name. He is about as notable as A. E. J. Collins, a proper world record holder and another captain killed in the First World War (and a featured article, incidentally). -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm hardly the most die-hard admin when it comes to reconsidering my AFD closes so its extremely disappointing that no-one bothered to draw my attention to the further sourcing that came available after the deletion. In the AFD only one voice was raised in support of keeping the article and that statement was credibily challenged in the debate. At the end of the day DRV is to check the process of deletion not to discuss new evidence so the obvious solution here is to relist the article at AFD. The sourcing looks a little iffy to me so further discussion of their weight is clearly required. DRV is not the place to do that - its too technical an area and this discussion needs to go to a wider section of the community. So, if anyone cares what I would have done, I would have overturned the AFD and relisted for the necessary discussion but since no-one actually bothered to talk to me we can waste 5 days gazing at our navals and then doing something I would have happily done from the outset. Spartaz Humbug! 14:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry for not contacting you. However the issue is NOT new sourcing - but rather that AfD got it wrong. "No sources" is NOT a deletion criterion - although inability to source would be (unverifiable). However, this topic (although not necessarily all the content) is certainly verifiable ("the Guinness Books of Records 1974" was mentioned in the debate). Anyway, the closing admin is supposed to look for consensus, not count sources. Arithmetically, there was a majority here. But the majority consisted of 3 voters and their arguments were incredibly weak. The nominator states "The person himself is not notable, the story behind his name IS" - well for goodness sake can't we then have an article on the notable name and story behind it? Perhaps that needs a merge somewhere, but it is no grounds for deletion. As for the correct venue, you can relist this at AfD if you want, but there's little doubt that with sourcing from the Guiness Book of Records and Bryson, it will be kept or merged, so what would the point be?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The conclusion of the AfD was unfortunate. If I'd known of the AfD, I'd have voted keep, because I'd most certainly heard of him and I could well want to look him up. (Indeed it's not long since I did look him up -- via a search for "Tollemache" -- and was deleted to find out about him.) I'd grant that he seems utterly unnotable other than for his name, but then tens of thousands of people are utterly unnotable other than for kicking or throwing a ball around within some rectangle, and this is even before we get to pokemon and such juvenilia. If William Jefferson Clinton is "Bill Clinton", perhaps this article should be "Leone Sextus Tollemache"; though then again, as his name is his significance, perhaps it shouldn't. -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say "speedy delete the article per G4, then look at reviewing the deletion", but I'm not in the mood to generate drama. I strongly encourage users not to take the out-of-process path of baldly recreating the article because they disagree with the AFD result again; as Spartaz said, just asking him would have obtained the desired result. This discussion may as well be closed as moot. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 22 October 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.

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

Consider an overturn of the deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Creekwater (2nd nomination). I've discussed it with the deleting admin (see the discussion) and with one of the commenters in the AfD, who suggested I come to DRV. I provided new sources for the article, and a keep rationale, and all the previous commenters in the AfD had made their comments prior to me adding sources. I was not convinced that they reviewed the new sources, as they did not provide any follow-up discussion prior to the close. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I was away for a couple days, so I couldn't change my !vote. Had I known sooner, I would have changed my !vote to "keep" per Paul Erik's sources. I did find one source and was already on the fence, but the fact that he's found more has me convinced that the singer meets WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I was the closing admin and I closed based on the consensus I saw at the time, as later facts from TPH that I should not have counted his comments as strongly as I did have come to light, I have no objection to this DRV. MBisanz talk 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also neutral. I reviewed the new sources and should have left a note saying I'd done so. That said, I have a higher inclusion threshold than most. MBisanz's closure was correct based on what he saw at the time though. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus was correct at the time but the new sources provide enough I think to pass WP:MUSIC. Why not simply userfy to Paul Erik's sandbox, tweak it minorly and move it back to mainspace? TravellingCari 11:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. New York Times is a trivial mention. Allmusic website was created in 1995 as a place for music fans to indulge their passion,[38] so it is not clear that it meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria as a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Newsweek article appears to be about the recording, not Bobby Creekwater. The Regina Leader-Post reference is about Eminem and has only trivia about Bobby Creekwater. The Creekwater interview was by "Ryan" whose link leads to his Myspace page. The AfD was open long enought to allow all who wanted to comment to do so. The keep arguments were weak and the delete arguments were stronger than the delete arguments. The closer weighted all the information and interpreted the debate correctly. As for substantial new information presented at DRV, I only found is trivial mentions about Bobby Creekwater: Bobby Creekwater, formerly of the slick, sports impressive verses by Bobby Creekwater, finds Bobby Creekwater doing the solo thing, and Atlanta's Bobby Creekwater is likely the rookie of the year in Shadyland. None listed his age or any biographical information about him from which a Wikipedia article could be written. If there is substantial new information about Bobby Creekwater, please list the URL here for review. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 06:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion decision; No prejudice with regard to recreation and/or restoration. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure yet on what I am going to support here, but just to throw it out, how about userfying if the deletion is not overturned completely? From what I've read so far, I think a user draft would be more than reasonable at this point. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist In general if sources are provided at the end of the AfD and those sources look reasonable, a relist is probably in order rather than a delete. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – On the question of userfying, I am reluctant. I would rather not put time into the working on the article if it is likely that it would be deleted. I appreciate Suntag's efforts to provide detailed comments above. Can I ask, though, if those points do reflect community consensus?
    • Allmusic is not a reliable source? My impression is that in general it has been treated as sufficiently reliable, especially for non-contentious information, as their writers are paid and there is some editorial oversight. I've found that people generally have not tried to discredit it when it comes up in AfD discussions.
    • A review in Newsweek of one of Creekwater's recordings (Anthem to the Streets) does not help build the case for Creekwater's own notability because it is about the recording, not about him? I thought such reviews did help.
    • Brief mentions are trivial mentions? Most of the other sources I found that mention Creekwater are about Eminem Presents: the Re-Up. But if (for example) the New York Times mention does allow for some verifiable content to be added to the article ("Creekwater previously was part of the band Jatis"), how is this trivial? The examples of "trivial mentions" in WP:MUSIC are things like listings of performance dates. My impression from past AfD discussions is that brief mentions, especially if there are many of them, can help build a case for notability. "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive".
I'd appreciate any comments about these items, as it would help me to figure out if it is worth working on this article in userspace or not. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think userfying would be easier for all involved, including yourself. You can make some simple changes, rather than talk about making simple changes. Other’s can look at those simple changes, and not have to guess at what the result would look at. Any subsequent discussion will be concrete, not hypothetical. You’ve already made significant points suggesting that this article can be returned to mainspace. If userfied, moving to mainspace is much less a hurdle than achieving a consensus overturn at DRV. “Userfy” here is definitely a step forward, is not a “brash aside”, and I think you should take this option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a helpful perspective to take. Thanks, and sorry if I sounded a little defensive with my previous comment. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:53, 27 October 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 October 2008

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

RCI0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) RCI1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Pages RCI0 and RCI1 are where users with no Javascript are directed, if they click on the Javascript-based "expand" links in their watch-lists, deletion-log etc.; and were not the "patent nonsense" claimed when they were speedied. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 - I refactored this to make this one request Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 - Discussion thread opened at Village pump (technical) to arrive at a solution to the Javascript problem. -- Suntag ☼ 20:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3 - As noted below, T18073 filed. -- Suntag ☼ 16:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←My watch-list includes this markup: 

<code>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" style="background: none">
<tr><td valign="top" style="white-space: nowrap"><tt><span id="RCM0">
<a href="javascript:toggleVisibility('RCI0','RCM0','RCL0')">
<img src="/https/en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/Arr_r.png" width="12" height="12" alt="+" /></a>
</span>
<span id="RCL0" style="display:none">
<a href="javascript:toggleVisibility('RCI0','RCM0','RCL0')">
<img src="/https/en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/Arr_d.png" width="12" height="12" alt="-" /></a></span>      17:34 </tt>
</td>
<td>(<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/protect" title="Special:Log/protect">Protection log</a>)‎
<span class="changedby">[<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexf" title="User:Alexf">Alexf</a>‎; 
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akradecki" title="User:Akradecki">Akradecki</a>‎ (2×)]</span>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

<div id="RCI0" style="display:none;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"  border="0" style="background: none">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<tt>               </tt>
</td>
<td valign="top"><tt>17:34</tt>  . .
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akradecki" title="User:Akradecki">Akradecki</a> (
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akradecki" title="User talk:Akradecki">Talk</a> |
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Akradecki" title="Special:Contributions/Akradecki">contribs</a>) protected
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RCI1&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="RCI1 (page does not exist)">RCI1</a>
[create=sysop]  (indefinite)</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top"><tt>               </tt></td>
<td valign="top"><tt>17:33</tt>  . .
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akradecki" title="User:Akradecki">Akradecki</a> (
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akradecki" title="User talk:Akradecki">Talk</a> |
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Akradecki" title="Special:Contributions/Akradecki">contribs</a>) protected
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RCI0&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="RCI0 (page does not exist)">RCI0</a>
[create=sysop]  (indefinite)</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td valign="top"><tt>               </tt></td>
<td valign="top"><tt>01:21</tt>  . .
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexf" title="User:Alexf">Alexf</a> (
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexf" title="User talk:Alexf">Talk</a> |
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexf" title="Special:Contributions/Alexf">contribs</a>) protected
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams" title="John Adams">John Adams</a> [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)) <span class="comment">(Excessive
<a href="/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VANDALISM" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:VANDALISM">vandalism</a>)</span></td>
</tr>
</table></code>
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I don't have that. I suggest heading over to WP:VPT, someone there should be able to figure it out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The alleged problem cannot be reproduced in any current browser with default configuration or Javascript support disabled from the browser itself. This is related to a bug/feature in the Firefox NoScript extension, which filters Javascript out from pages and assumes that Javascript within a link target always contains a reference to a page on the server. There is no need to add more exceptions to Wikipedia:Main namespace that would only cater a minor group of editors who should already know to expect problems anyway. --Para (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - as one of two admins who speedied these. I see no reason to have non-articles in article space. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and add an informative deletion reason (with, if needed, a wikilink to some other page that explains the problem). Mainspace is for articles, and not bugfixes if we can avoid it. There's not enough reason to have these bugfixes in mainspace. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore until a good solution is actually implemented. It was deleted as "pure nonsense", which it clearly is not. Nor was this "uncontroversial maintenance". Uncontroversial maintenance if challenged by an ed in good faith is not uncontroversial, and does not fall under speedy. A discussion of how to do it best does not belong here. DGG (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - A browser should not treat: 
    <a href="javascript:toggleVisibility('RCI0','RCM0','RCL0')">
    as 
    <a href="/wiki/RCI0">
  • as that makes no sense at all. It seems like a problem with a Firefox extension. This code is generated from the "Enhanced recent changes" option in preferences, which states (though not very clearly) that it requires JavaScript. I don't believe that this preference defaults to "on" (if it does, then its an issue), so users would have to turn it on for this to be a problem. This is not a bug, at least not a MediaWiki one. Mr.Z-man 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Para. There is no need for these pages to exist in the main space just because of a misfeature in a browser's extension. The ideal fix for the problem (if there is to be one) is for someone to change that code to use onclick event handlers rather than "javascript:" URIs, for example 
    <a href="#" onclick="toggleVisibility('RCI0','RCM0','RCL0')">
    or better yet 
    <span class="jslink" onclick="toggleVisibility('RCI0','RCM0','RCL0')">
    (if the "jslink" class were created). Anomie⚔ 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not responsible for the minority of users who insist on using a clearly buggy browser. While defensive programming is a valid philosophy and the solution above should be implemented if technically practical, I fully agree with Mr Z-man's argument above. Happy‑melon 23:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is not our bug; therefore we should not put non-articles in the article space to address it. Though admittedly it might be worth doing something if this were an issue for those running, say, IE 7 with the default settings, but it's not. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment T18073 would resolve this issue entirely. Happy‑melon 10:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see what the big deal here is. It might not be our bug, but no one is going to link to these pages and it might help a few people out. As long as this is only a short term solution, and something we would be able to delete in a fews, I think we should help these guys out. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm also not sure if people here are aware that we do maintain a good number of cross-namespace redirects, despite the CSD, for a number of reasons. I'll have to dig up the examples, but it basically comes down to being able to accommodate people when the request is reasonable. People here seem to be endorsing deletion with the mindset that this isn't "our" problem, rather than if this is a reasonable request or not. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I just committed a proper fix for this in r42514. Hopefully it will go live in a few days or so. Mr.Z-man 23:17, 24 October 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 October 2008

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

Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

A bit of background. This article was nominated for deletion by Durova at the request of the article's subject. A variety of editors quickly called for keeping with a single other call for deletion. After about 17 hours the discussion was speedy closed by non admin Dusti [39]. I suggested to Dusti that this wasn't a good idea since courtesy deletions are one of the most controversial types of deletions and we have no detailed policy or guideline about when they should occur. Dusti refused to reopen the discussion. Dusti did say that he might reopen it if an admin wanted to, but frankly we've had enough out of process actions on a single AfD. So I'm asking for this DRV close to be overturned and the discussion reopened or for a new fresh AfD so that we can get a better idea of what the community consensus is on this article. (disclaimer: I called for keeping of this article in the AfD but I really think potentially controversial BLP deletions should not be SNOWED). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 20 October 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.

Zeitgeist: Addendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Closing admin gave too much weight to SPA voters and ignored the complete lack of reliable sources. Sourcing has not improved--the article had zero reliable, independent sources at AfD closure, and none have materialized in the interim. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Instead of reviewing the close decision, you seem to want us to review the closing admin: "Closing admin gave ..." "Closing admin ... ignored." 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)? -- Suntag ☼ 05:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if the phrasing seemed awkward, but every DRV is of necessity a disagreement with the closing admin's decision. The discussion was held here. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per below, thanks you for discussing the matter with Stifle. A better way to phrase things to focus on the closing language instead of the person who closed may have been "The close reasoning gave too much weight to SPA voters and did not appear to properly weigh the complete lack of reliable sources." -- Suntag ☼ 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, he did discuss the matter with me, and I have waived the request to discuss AFD closures with me before bringing them here. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the closing admin's rationale and think the strongest arguments were to merge/redirect/delete. However, from a purely procedural viewpoint a "no consensus" close is and was perfectly valid, so I'm going to reluctantly endorse it. Many of the contributors to the AfD have argued that the article should be kept and improved, though very few of them have actually made any attempt to improve it. I'm content to wait a few weeks, revisit the article, and possibly nominate it for deletion if the improvements haven't been made. Also, I'm fairly certain that if he had deleted the article, it would have ended up here anyway and likely would have been restored based on the pure numbers of contributors who think it worthy of improvement. AniMate 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Of course, nothing is stopping any user from redirecting the article, merging it, or starting up a discussion on the article talk page about taking either of those steps. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the fact that many users see merging and redirecting as de facto deletion. As soon as someone redirects the article, someone will revert stating it's a violation of the AfD result. AniMate 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They shouldn't — no consensus means "no consensus", not "article is locked in position for a year". Stifle (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A perfect situation for the application of a wet trout to the side of the head! lifebaka++ 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure of course. I considered the opinions of registered and unregistered users alike, giving the latter less weight as is customary, but could not derive a consensus to delete the article. The nominator's reasons are more likely to be reasons to relist the article at a new AFD, not review the old one. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as perfectly reasonable. Generally speaking, no consensus closures get upheld here, since they're difficult to get wrong and the article can always be taken back to AfD in the future. The close does not preclude any sort of editorial decisions about the article, such as mergers or redirects. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I think a delete close would have been upheld at DRV. However, while the lack of reliable source material for the article seems likely, the chorus chiming that tune wasn't as strong as it could have been, particularly in the face of the keep reasons. No consensus seems reasonable for this AfD. As you get into AfD2, AfD3, etc. the promises to fix receive less weight and so do the SPAs. I would wait 30 days before listing at AfD again to get a delete position benefit of the less weight given to the promises to fix. In the mean time, please feel free to start a merge discussion using {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}. See WP:MERGE. -- Suntag ☼ 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close, consider relisting very soon The close seems logical but the lack of sources is serious. Suntag is probably right about how long it makes sense to wait. It also isn't such a bad idea because there's an off chance that better sourcing will show up sometime then. If it doesn't then this article really should go. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as nominator. The AfD was a mess, and "no consensus" is a valid interpretation of the discussion. However, we were promised improvement be those voting keep. It won't hurt to wait to see if any materializes. If it doesn't, then another AfD would be in order. The sources the article has now are conspiracy theorists complaining about the film's ideology. I'd like to see some mainstream sources for this to be a stand-alone article. --Phirazo (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, it looks like this should be SNOW'ed close, with a consensus that a renomination one month after the original AfD close is NOT premature? I can certainly live with that. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus closes can be relisted at AfD immediately and still be within process. However, if you want the passage of time without improvement to be taken into account, you have to wait for time to pass. -- Suntag ☼ 00:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The provided rationale is more suitable (minus the inappropriate bashing of Stifle, who correctly assessed the discussion) for another AfD in case reliable sources are not found and incorporated. Everyme 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It was not my intention to bash anyone in listing this for DRV, and to the extent it was perceived as such rather than a straightforward statement of my disagreement with Stifle, everyone involved has my apologies. How does calling my good faith nom "bashing" fundamentally differ from me stating my opinion with respect to Stifle's closure? Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To stifle (pun intended) this argument, let me state that I don't feel "bashed" or slighted in any way regarding this DRV listing and I have waived any right or recommendation to being asked before one of my AFD closures is brought here. I thank Everyme and others for defending my corner, but I don't need it on this one :) Stifle (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A reasonable close. How to deal with references of the nature used here is not a settled issue. I'm not sure myself how I would have !voted. I would suggest waiting more than a month before the next AfD, in the interest of avoiding another nonconsensus close. DGG (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would wait a few months to see what sources can be compiled. There are many articles on wikipedia which have even fewer sources than this one, and energies would be better spent in fleshing these out than arguing about this sort of article.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:13, 21 October 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 October 2008

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

Texas Railroad Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD 2)

The first discussion was (probably correctly) closed as no consensus. When it was found that there actually were no sources, a second discussion was created. The bureaucracy deemed that to be a "procedural keep" despite the new information. Thus the only way to get this deleted is to take it here, even though we're discussing content rather than process (unless we're saying the second one was closed incorrectly). There are no reliable sources for a planned "Texas Railroad Museum". Therefore this should be deleted. NE2 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. AfD1 was "no consensus". AfD2 was "procedural keep". The museum has not yet been established, and whether this museum will exist is not predictable in the Wikipedia crystal ball. The article was created in 2005, and has had no substantive additions since then. The Weatherford, Texas Railroad Museum is not the museum that the author had in mind. The Museum of the American Railroad (formerly the Dallas Railway Museum) isn't the same museum, because the Dallas museum in existence before 2005. Googling for "texas railroad museum" "fort worth" -wikipedia -"museum and heritage railroad" only returns 11 results, none of which are on point. As the originator of the AfD2 for this, I was surprised this was a procedural keep, but was told to take it to deletion review, so here we are. Travisl (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ech, I forgot to check whether or not the nom actually opened up a DRV, my bad. Feel free to revert my close of the second AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I thought the process was to talk to the AfD1 closing admin first, which I'd started, but as long as this process keeps moving along, I'm OK with that. The process to appeal deletions is pretty clear. The process to appeal keeps is much more poorly documented. Travisl (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete There was no support to keep this article. I don't understand how the admin came to the decision of "no consensus". -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The first AFD should probably have been relisted, or closed as delete, rather than as no consensus; and it's a shame the second AFD wasn't allowed to go ahead, as the case against this article is pretty strong. In any case, as it's come here instead, we can give it the result it should have had all along: delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. It doesn't make sense to have an article on something that does not exist, and may not even be planned, and might even be incorrectly named by the title of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD1 no consensus close. A no consensus close at AfD can immediately be listed at AfD2 since no consensus means that that is no agreement on record for a keep or delete direction for the article. So AfD2 was a valid AfD. Once someone !voted to delete, the nominator could not validly withdraw the AfD since that would subvert the deleter's right to have their views weighed. The AfD2 keep arguments were weak because they were based on a wrong premise. The delete arguments were ground in process and zeroed in on the lack of reliable source material for the article. The argument was not rebutted, making delete the strongest argument. AfD2 was closed after 1 day discussion, so AfD2 won't lead to any valid keep/delete results. On review of AfD1, what needed to be discussed was reliable source material and that really wasn't done to any sufficent degree either by the keep or delete positions. No consensus seems reasonable when neither keep nor delete argument had much strength behind it. It seems plain that there are not enought reliable sources for this topic, but until there is a valid AfD discussion that reaches such a consensus, there isn't much that can be done. -- Suntag ☼ 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you think it should go back to AFD3? --NE2 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're !voting, redirect to Weatherford,_Texas#Beginnings since Texas House Resolution 225 (adopted March 3, 2005) says "Weatherford serves as the county seat and is the home to such notable attractions as the Texas Railroad Museum." Galveston Railroad Museum was called the Texas Railroad Museum by Texas Monthly, but that seems overridden by Texas law.[40] (quote, "Tourist attractions everywhere promise to bring out the kid in you, but few deliver as effectively as the Texas Railroad Museum. Through an impressive series of dioramas and hands-on exhibits, the museum not only entertains but also educates. From the Karankawa Indians that roamed island shores long before the arrival of European settlers, to the days of Jean Laffite, the devastating 1900 hurricane, and of course the coming of the railroads, the Texas Railroad Museum can teach as much Texas history in a single day as the average class relates in a month. And it's fun"). Or -- Suntag ☼ 18:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. If concerns are raised over the actual existence of the subject (in this case, the existence of the proposal), then we have a serious issue which must be addressed by those wishing to keep the article. I would endorse a "no consensus" if the concerns were related to the notability, but issues of the actual truth of the article are for more fundamental and cannot be consensused away. With that said, this website shows there are several rail museums in Texas, some of them probably deserve articles, many of them as historical lines. If there are several such articles, a disambiguation at "Texas Railroad Museum", or a list at a similar title, is probably reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. That seems to be the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete ... WP isn't a crystal ball. When it's established, notability will develop, then an article can be created. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association. A Google News archive search for the association's name turned up this article about a planned museum in Saginaw, Texas (as distinct from Sagniaw, Michigan, which has its own railroad museum

    Smith, Jenni (May 7, 2001). "MUSEUM IN THE MAKING Saginaw plans $1 million showcase for train, grain history". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2008-10-20.

    with this Google summary: "It's an important part of life in Saginaw and everywhere, really.' Other items for the museum will be donated by the Trinity Valley Railroad Historical ..." So there's coverage in a reliable source of 2001 plans which may have fallen through. Once this article has been moved, it ought to be possible to create an article for the other Texas Railroad Museum. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the link provided goes to a "buy this full article" page, but I found a copy of the article at a TrainOrders.com discussion forum. The 2001 article says, "the Saginaw Chamber of Commerce Foundation will open a 'train and grain' museum on Saginaw Boulevard, perhaps as early as this summer," but clearly that hasn't happened. The discussion there pinpoints the location of the museum as "across the street just north of Sonic" and jokingly suggests digging a tunnel between the two. Google maps shows what would be a good location, across and north of Sonic (1145 N Saginaw Blvd) at 32°52′48″N 97°22′43″W / 32.8799°N 97.3785°W / 32.8799; -97.3785, but it's just a vacant lot.
I'd really hesitate to create Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association, because I think it fails WP:CORP. The only coverage I've found for the organization is their web site, articles that report meeting times, pages that list links to railroad associations, and the Dallas Morning News article, which only mentions them in passing ("Other items for the museum will be donated by the Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association. Pieces include a train engine and a caboose.") Travisl (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There might be enough with an old name, Trinity Valley Railfans, but I'm really not sure. They seem to do some locomotive preservation? --NE2 18:44, 20 October 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.

Burnt Oak Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This article on one of southern Ontario's foremost indie labels wasn't considered notable, in spite of the fact that two Wikipedia pages have already been designed for its artists by separate parties, it has collectively garnered a slew of coverage on the Internet and in print (consider the links on the Elbow Beach Surf Club page; google more if you wish), and it is widespread enough in operations to encompass artists from cities as far as NYC, not to mention musicians who migrated to Guelph solely for the purpose of signing with it. It might be worth noting, too, that it has been covered nationally by Much Music in Canada, and that one of its artists is currently engaged in a deal with Blocks Recording Club in Toronto, which houses artists such as Owen Pallett, winner of the Polaris Prize. Can we restore it? I can provide vigorous evidence of its significance, if necessary. -- The Thought-Fox 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion; I'm not seeing any reason why the consensus at the AFD should not be held. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The article was weakly sourced. I did not notice any errors in the AfD or in the closure. The above mention of the Elbow Beach Surf Club doesn't comment on the vast number of red links in that article, which seems over-promotional and weak on reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No other outcome was really possible for that AfD. If you've got some sources (hopefully online, as they're easier to verify), I'd be happy to userfy the article for you to work on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's admittedly a large number of red links in both EBSC and Richard Laviolette's articles -profiling southern Ontario's burgeoning indie music scene is an ongoing project, after all - but the situation certainly isn't abetted by the decision of Wikipedia to delete culturally relevant and contributive articles. Perhaps the problem lies in the notion that the significance of a phenomena such as an indie label can be assessed by trying to weed out references made to them in "credible sources", which usually result in deletions because institutions associated with youth underground culture usually aren't documented vigorously in community papers aimed at seniors or the mainstream media, who have no interest in such things. The end result of this is that half of Guelph's city councillors have Wikipedia articles that cite to the Guelph Mercury, whereas Burnt Oak - which is obviously of greater significance to the community than a Ward representative, if not Southern Ontario at large - can't foot an article without continual scrutiny (I should note that the Mercury and Tribune have covered Burnt Oak variously - along with other papers - it's just that local politics are their forté). That said, I will cite several links commenting on the label, and will hope that those voting have the good sense to realize the comparative examples of significance mentioned above and make the logical decision on that basis:

Article on Richard Laviolette and Chris Yang in Queen's Journal: http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2007-09-25/arts-entertainment/laviolette-takes-chance-makes-friends-and-music/

Article on Elliott Jones of Brides in the Guelph Tribune: http://www.guelphtribune.ca/news/article/144088

Article on Wolfgang Eberhand of Slow Hand Motëm in The Current: http://media.www.thecurrentonline.com/media/storage/paper304/news/2006/10/02/ArtsAndEntertainment/Slow-Hand.Motm.Mixes.Psychedelic.And.Pop.Rock.In.brosis-2326394.shtml

Review of the Brides' album 'Queens' in Exclaim!: http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid2=850&fid1=27246&csid1=114

Review of Elbow Beach Surf Club's self-titled album in Exclaim!: http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid1=110&csid2=850&fid1=25360

Review of Tin's album 'Activity' in Exclaim!: http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid1=118&csid2=850&fid1=29601

Review of Elbow Beach Surf Club's album 'Billy Club' in Eye Weekly: http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/ondisc/article/12807

Review of Brides' album 'Queens' in Eye Weekly: http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/ondisc/article/12813

Review of Tamsen and Elliott's self-titled album in Broken Pencil: http://www.brokenpencil.com/music/reviews.php?reviewid=16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.151 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those links don't show that the record company is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources for what? If you sift through all the above links and the ones on the old Burnt Oak, Elbow Beach Surf Club, and Richard Laviolette pages (now deleted; but that will have to be appealed - RL is well-known in indie music circles in Canada), you'll find that more than enough exists to prove that Burnt Oak is of greater notability than, say, Guelph City Councillor Maggie Laidlaw, whose claim to fame is voting against Wal-Mart moving into said city (she hasn't garnered dozens upon dozens of articles devoted to her, for example, as Burnt Oak's artists have - including Brides, Tin, Griffin and the True Believers, Chris Yang, etc). What the issue really is here is the double standard that was applied in the deletion of the Burnt Oak page when compared to other articles; a charge no pro-'Endorse' editor has been able to refute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.151 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'TPH - maybe your otters need a chat with you about not being disrespectful to new and unregistered users. That was quite uncalled for. Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. However, there does appear to be substantial new information listed in this DRV from which an article could be created. I can't vouch for all the links above (and it does not help to intermix blogs and websites with legit Wikipedia sources), but Burnt Oak Records is covered in Wikipedia legit sources such as Guelph Mercury, Guelph Tribune, Hamilton Spectator, Kitchener Record, and the Waterloo Region Record. It remains debatable as to whether there is enought information for a Wikipedia article, but I think the best approach is to allow recreation of an article, give it a chance to develop over a few weeks, and list at AfD2 if needed. -- Suntag ☼ 07:07, 23 October 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.

Paul Robinett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) <--- This one at DRV (as AfD4?) -- Suntag ☼ 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Renetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD2) (DRV1) (DRV2) (AfD3)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (the article was about the YouTube Celebrity -- Suntag ☼ 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Besides there being only 5 "votes" that came in only on the first day of this AfD, the nom and the 3 delete "votes" had nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines or policies (including one "Per Nomination") while the 2 keep ones directly addressed WP:BIO, which this topic easily passes. This should at least be allowed to go to another cycle to gather a real consensus. -- Oakshade 15:30, 19 October 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) 16:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it remains permissible to take things here--and in this rather complicated case, it seems a good idea to get a community view early on. Good choice, imho. DGG (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I think between Paul Robinett and Renetto, there is enough info for the topic to pass WP:N. Given the number of times this has come up for deletion discussion, I think we need a full and complete discussion with everything on the table for all to review to ensure that everyone has a chance to feel that the outcome is fair. -- Suntag ☼ 07:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and it does seem to clearly pass WP:BIO, as currently construed. DGG (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Closing admin here, AFD was open for proper amount of time, all participants commented in good faith, but there were more participants citing policies to delete over those citing policies to keep. Pretty clear in my mind that it was just a disagreement over the degree of notability, with more people seeing non-notability. MBisanz talk 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually none of the 3 participants in favor of deletion cited policies in their initial arguments. One only later mentioned WP:BIO in response to a Keep advocate citing WP:BIO, and that response was pretty weak imho. --Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, once sources were identified the !vote was 2 to 2. And even then, one of the !votes was a "delete per nom" with no evidence that the sources had been looked at. I disagree with Stifle. Another time a relist is appropriate is when sources are provided and the general sense of the discussion seems to be moving to keep. This one is boarderline, but I think it's there. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 26 October 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.

Comparison of web based file managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Deletion did not reflect consensus, similar content is already on Wikipedia, and my arguments for not deleting were not addressed in part or whole Archer1742 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please explain why you did not bother to try and discuss the close with me before raising this DRV? The consensus of the close was clear and you were the only voice arguing keep. The article was not properly sourced and only one outcome was possible from the discussion. Endorse Spartaz Humbug! 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, you were the only person among five contributors who suggested keeping. Wikipedia is not a court of law nor a debating society — discussions are not "won" by making arguments which are not addressed, and consensus is, for the most part, based on the number of contributors on each side. Spartaz could not possibly have possibly closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't talking about "winning", and I know consensus is a general rather than complete agreement. However, the article was sourced, see my response above. Archer1742 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To that, I would point out that deletion review is a place to indicate how the deletion process wasn't followed, not to try to advance new arguments (or re-advance old ones) which support your point. In short, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A List of web based file managers having a table that allows a reader to make their own comparision would be a better approach that using "comparison" in the article name since comparison implies original research without reliable sources making the comparison. On the other hand, see Comparison of file managers. As background, see File Manager (Windows), File manager, Gentoo (file manager), KNC (file manager), Kae's File Manager, Nautilus (file manager), Open File Manager, PCMan File Manager, Spatial file manager, and Xfm (file manager).-- Suntag ☼ 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Any closing admin who took a look at the qualify of the sourcing would be likely to come to the same conclusion as Spartaz. In software comparison tables, I would normally expect to see that each program listed would have its own Wikipedia article. There were none in this case. All the data included in the table came from the programs' own web sites, and no third-party reviews were cited. In my opinion that should not be considered 'sourcing.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentIn cases where decisions are passed by an admin following the majority view of those making responsible comments, it gets objected that they should have more closely evaluated the arguments; in case they do evaluate the arguments and select, it gets objected he should have followed the majority of responsible comments. Given the amount of discretion involved in which course to follow, it seems every non-unanimous decision ever made is reviewable here, and subject to overturn if the consensus here is that it was the wrong result. Perhaps that's realistic--the decisions at AfD tend to have such an element of randomness that perhaps almost everyone should be entitled to a second hearing. I'm not sure whether to say I'm being ironic or serious. DGG (talk) 18:02, 19 October 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 October 2008

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

List of drag queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) List of Drag Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Overturn - closing admin deleted the article barely three hours after the AFD was opened, citing WP:BLP. This deletion is based on a deeply flawed premise, namely that being called a "drag queen" is so controversial that WP:BLP demands its removal. The introductory text noted that the list was for people who are drag queens or female impersonators. The only name cited in the AFD in support of this deletion was "Liam Sullivan" although it's not clear from the context whether the editor was referring to Liam Sullivan (who is dead and so beyond the reach of BLP) or Liam Kyle Sullivan (who wears female clothing in his Internet videos and so would seem to qualify as a female impersonator but if not that's an editing question). The mention of the stars of To Wong Foo in the AFD is a red herring, as none of them were ever included in the list because they are not known as either drag queens or female impersonators. No one other than the closing admin indicated that there might be issues with either WP:NOT (the list did not violate any provision of that policy that I can see) or WP:LIST (the list was well within that guideline). Given that in 2008 we ought to be well beyond the notion that being called a drag queen or a female impersonator is "controversial," given that there were no names included on the list that did not have a corresponding Wikipedia article and given that the solution to sourcing issues is to tag for sourcing rather than mow the article down, the close is unsupportable. Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from closing admin The BLP policy is very clear on this--unsourced controversial information about living people should be removed without discussion. In this case, the list had been on Wikipedia since 2005, and in that time not one item on that list had been sourced. I'm of the mind that such a list can be restored IF each entry is sourced (though whether such a list would pass muster under WP:NOT is debatable). The previous version, however, simply could not stay on Wikipedia without sourcing. Blueboy96 18:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you are proceeding from an entirely false premise that being called a drag queen or a female impersonator is "controversial." This is the same sort of homophobic mindset that allowed Liberace to recover damages for being alleged to be homosexual in 1957. It's 51 years later and being called a drag queen or a female impersonator is not libelous. If there is some question that someone called for instance Hedda Lettuce has an issue with being identified as a drag queen when she parades around New York City in a four-foot tall green wig, then by all means if you restore the list I can add any number of reliable sources. "Unsourced" does not mean "unsourceable" and the solution here is to tag for sources instead of hauling out the axe. Otto4711 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agreed. It's not controversial to call someone a drag queen, when they are one. I'm reminded of when you, SatyrTN, reverted me twice for including Lucas Silveira in a transgender catagory. Maybe it's controversial to call certain people transgender, but when every article about Lucas Silveira and The Cliks mentions that he's transgender, calling him so is not controversial in the least. Bring the list back, and delete entrants who are not drag queens, as they come up. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um - not to put to fine a point on it, but in that article, you added a category without any indication in the text about why it was there: [41] - that's in no way analogous to this situation. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete Agree with closing admin, unsourced controversial information doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. And I personally dislike lists overall, as many of them don't tend to serve much of a purpose since they are so long. There is already a category (Category:Drag queens), which essentially makes a list. I think a fair compromise is to have the category and not have the list.--Terrillja (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you prefer a category, which can't be sourced, to a list that can be? And once again, calling a drag queen a drag queen is not controversial. Your personal prejudice against lists is both irrelevant and contrary to WP:CLN which instructs that lists and categories work together synergistically. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly is calling a gay man who performs in drag a drag queen controversial? Is there, perhaps, United States case law in which calling someone a drag queen was found to be defamatory? Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse with reservations Saying someone is a drag queen is contentious, not necessarily defamatory. I think we need to lower the outrage about possible homophobia enough here to come to grips with the fact that this was (according to the deleting admin) an unsourced list of living persons with a contentious inclusion criteria. I would have preferred that we wait the 5 days of discussion to determine how the community felt (or how we might scrap and recreate the list), but removing contentious material without discussion is permissible. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly is it contentious to call Ru Paul a drag queen? Is there someone out there who is going to take offense at the notion of calling Ru Paul a drag queen? Has Ru Paul ever stated that he's offended by being called a drag queen? Has anyone on the list ever objected to being called a drag queen or a female impersonator, other than Charles Pierce who is dead and beyond the scope of WP:BLP? Otto4711 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we didn't have a source it would be contentious. We can find a dozen sources that say "Ru Paul is a drag queen". This is different from saying that "Joe Schmoe is a drag queen". My point was closer to this: we can agree that labeling someone as a homosexual is contentious without having to say that labeling someone as a homosexual is defamatory. Likewise with drag queen. It isn't defamatory, but a reasonable person could object to the categorization and ask for a source. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously think anyone would contend that RuPaul, Lypsinka, Justin Bond, etc are drag queens? Saying Wesley Snipes was would be contended, so remove his name when it gets added. You're arguing that calling anyone a drag queen can be reasonably contended? That's... wrong. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can disagree on this. All "contented" means is that I can and should ask for a source. I could reasonable say "You're arguing that I can say anyone is a drag queen without a source?". I don't think hyperbole helps either of us. There are people on that list who are well known (and noted in sources) as drag queens. IF their article or the entry in the list cites sources, no problem. Others who don't have an article or whose article doesn't say "person X is a drag queen" need a source to substantiate the claim that they are a drag queen. I fail too see how this is a radical position. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every entry on the list had an associated Wikipedia article, so if you're now saying that their being a drag queen being sourced in their article is sufficient to overcome your BLP objections, then we're golden. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with that. If every entry point toward a sourced article where the "drag queen" claim was substantiated, then it's ok. I think, to eliminate confusion the list should be written with its own list of references culled from the target article, but that is an editorial question. Protonk (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well-spotted Otto. Their own article source the claim, there's no need for the list to. Surely the article wikilinked each name on the list to the article. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the decision and reinstate the original article (if that';s the correct status at the moment); well known category of performer, and almost everyone who would possible be in it self-identifies and has multiple good sources. It's not a category representing one's private sexuality, but one's public self-presentation. We wouldn't put someone in the list without an article in WP, and the article would necessarily be sourced about this. The only reason for deletion is that we couldn't do this right, and, as Protonk implies, to assume we at Wikipedia are too homophobic to deal with this objectively.DGG (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - perhaps I have been away from Wikipedia too long, but as I understand the way we do things round here, we do not delete stuff just because they have no citations. We delete things when there is no way to provide citations e.g. untrue information, unnotable people etc. It is perfectly possible to prove that most of the people on the list are drag queen and indeed SatyrTN is doing a commendable job of providing them - whoever deleted this list needs to go back to admin coaching, because this was a completely unjustified delete. I won't even get into the inanities of labelling someone as a drag queen apparently being defamatory. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The world will not end in five days. If extreme action was needed then someone should have blanked the page and let the AfD run. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this DRV as unneeded. List has been recreated, old version userfied. I think we agree that we shouldn't have unsourced entries here. Both because we shouldn't have list entries without sources in general (good luck) and because it could be used as an attack per BLP. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 24 October 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.

Warren conrad (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

{{{reason}}} My article about noted essayist Warren Conrad has been unfairly deleted even before I finished working on it by User:NawlinWiki. He deleted even after I posted a =Hang on = His talk page can't even be accessed by registered users (protected) I feel this is an Uncivil abuse of his administrative powers. Please investigate and allow me to put up this notable article on this well respected essayist. Thanks! Sirwtc (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Did the article indicate why Mr. Conrad was notable per the Notability guidelines? If it did not, then it was a valid deletion. If you can recreate the article using those guidelines, or rework an undeleted copy, then there's no problem (and I'll leave a note for NawlinWiki for you). --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Thanks for your help Satsui. I've tried to re-create the article. Please leave a note to NawlinWiki if you can. Warren Conrad is a prolific writer and noted blogger. As I've mentioned in the article. I'll put more up when I can. Sirwtc (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article said "Warren Conrad is a noted essayist published in blogspot and other sites." His complete profile is here. Besides maintaining the blog Warren's World of Wisdom, what else has Warren Conrad written? Has anyone written anything about Warren Conrad? -- Suntag ☼ 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the second person who speedied this, Nawlin was the first. In both cases, the article merely stated that the person was an essayist, and provided a link for people to go read the material. That's spam, in my opinion. There was absolutely no encyclopedic content, and no evidence of notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete Based on the two comments above, the article had no sources and only a link, so the article would be spam or A1. If the article is important, then Sirwtc should rewrite with sources and context, then repost.--Terrillja (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion — the entire content of the article was "Warren T. Conrad is a noted essayist and philosopher. His writings can be viewed in the link below. He has also been the victim of undue censorship." Plus an external link. Textbook A7. As ever, recreation is fine once notability is asserted, sources cited, etc. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much a textbook A7, yeah. I suggest you write something slightly more substantial if you wish to recreate the article, looking at the general and biographical notability guidelines in doing so. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:38, 20 October 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.

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Joe the Plumber

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


17 October 2008

[edit]
  • Bangkok Monorail – While issues with the AfD closure have been raised, the question is how to best moved forward where I follow the suggestion to redirect to keep the edit history. If the article is expanded back we can still discuss its potential. This doesn't exclude another redirect if there is a proper name for this monorail, or disambiguate if there are others to consider. – Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

The AfD for this article was recently closed as keep by User:Firefoxman. However, I feel that any evidence supporting the keep recommendations in the debate had already been addressed and disproved, since almost all the cited Google hits turned out to be false positives, and no other evidence of notability had been put forward during the discussion. Ultimately, I don't believe notability was demonstrated by the debate, and even though there were three keep recommendations, none of them were justified. Paul_012 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, no other possible closure could have happened. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Overturn and relist, missed the fact that it was an early closure, therefore the deletion process wasn't properly followed. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please help me understand the AfD process better by clarifying: So, hypothetically, if it is suggested that an article fails WP:N, and a couple of editors argue to the contrary citing a very briefly executed Google test, their opinions are taken as valid, even though Wikipedia:Search engine test specifically states that "hit count numbers alone can only rarely 'prove' anything about notability"? Even if the results of the search are examined and it is determined that none of the hits relate to the subject? This doesn't seem to agree well with the statement on WP:AFD that "justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." --Paul_012 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Three keep votes. No deletes other than nom. Pretty straightforward. Evidence was shown that over 200 English-language news articles existed, which refutes the claim that WP:N was not met. --Smashvilletalk 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion appears to have several process problems. First, it was closed early without clearly meeting the Speedy keep criteria. Second, at least some of the discussion participants appear to have misunderstood the core issues raised in the nomination. The assertion, for example, that search hits for "for bangkok and monorail" justify keeping the article was not in accordance with generally accepted precedent or policy at Wikipedia. As subsequent comments showed, the search returned false positives. That said, I do not believe that these problems are sufficient to overturn the closure. I recommend that you reiterate your concerns clearly on the article's Talk page and give the editors involved a chance to correct the problems. If the article remains unimproved after a reasonable period of time (several months at least), you can always renominate it. Rossami (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist since out of process. Comment This topic is not about the monorail serving the city of Bangkok. This is about an amusement park monorail in a Bangkok shopping mall called Fashion Island that runs 1.6 km and has 4 stations.[43][44] There is no evidence that it in fact is called Bangkok Monorail and it seems unlikely since that is not a Thai name and it only serves Fashion Island. -- Suntag ☼ 05:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Monorail circling a shopping mall should not be considered the same as public transport. I have add the article Fashion Island (Thailand) and merge the content of Bangkok Monorail to it. The Bangkok Monorail article should be deleted. There is a planned project for actual monorail public transport system proposed by the Bangkok Governor around Ratchaprasong area. Not sure whether the project will be taking off but this system or other similarly proposed ones (there are several) should be referred to as Bangkok Monorail instead. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:52, 19 October 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.

Genbox Family History (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

The AfD was closed with just two non-motivated Delete !votes: "Non-notable piece of software" and "I can't find any reliable sources for this one". Okay, the article was created by the author a couple of years ago, and okay it has remained a stub. But in the AfD a number of reliable sources were brought up.

The close felt particularly WP:BITEy to me: "As is customary, the recommendations of very new and unregistered users have been given less weight". A reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source. It doesn't matter how new or unregistered the users are, if they're giving valid reasons for not deleting an article, their reasons should be taken under consideration.

This sums the discussion up:

This software has been reviewed by all the major genealogical publications-- Family Tree Magazine, Genealogical Computing, Family Chronicle, Eastman's Genealogy Newsletter, Association of Professional Genealogists Quarterly, and more. Just because you can't find these reviews in a 5-second Google search doesn't mean that the software isn't notable. Despite the fact that the article was written by the programmer, it is neutral. It is a stub at this point, and could be expanded upon, but there is no reason to delete it.

Subsequently links to online versions of the articles in question were supplied, such as could be found (Genbox has been around since DOS times, and genealogy magazines do not necessarily put all their archives online), and the only reason I didn't enhance the article is because, well, I have a day job. Mvuijlst (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- as for policy; I would've tried to work this out with the closing admin, User:Stifle, but his talk wizard kindly waived that requirement. Mvuijlst (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion. It is customary for recommendations of new and unregistered users to be given less weight, and with due respect I don't find that bitey. The nominator also successfully refuted the points raised. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your point of view, but really, no. Seven reviews were given. More exist in print form only (remember Genbox has been around since DOS). The nominator did not "refute" anything: he pointed out that one review was negative.
When someone who actually uses genealogy software pointed out that some features make Genbox stand out among the competition (which is objectively true, as you can tell from comparative reviews), the nominator replied "Sorry, I don't use genealogy software. I have no idea whether the reporting and charting features make it good or not. My only concern here is that developers use Wikipedia as a billboard for their software, as Bill has done here.".
That is not refuting, sorry. That's a non-expert telling an expert "I don't understand what you're saying, but the fact that the article was created, years ago, by the auther of the software is enough to have it deleted now no matter what". -- Mvuijlst (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). No evidence was provided in the discussion that this topic met Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards. (For software, there are reasonable questions about whether WP:CORP or WP:WEB is the better fit but the relevant clauses are similar enough that the distinction is minor.) The reviews demonstrate that the product exists. They were not sufficient to demonstrate notability.
    Print resources can be relevant to the discussion but they must actually be provided. It is not sufficient for an editor to simply state that "I know they exist" in this kind of debate.
    The decision to discount the opinions of suspiciously new or inexperienced editors was entirely in keeping with established precedent and practice at Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:sockpuppet and it's related pages for some of the history behind the need for that standard.) Rossami (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, obviously. Printed sources not even mentioned in AfD. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opinion that the decision should be overturned is clear from your nomination. Please continue to participate in the discussion, answering questions and providing new evidence but please do not comment in the discussion using the bolded, bulleted format. It gives the appearance that you are trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates significant potential for confusion by the admin who must eventually close this discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for providing that link. I note, however, that most of the hits in that search are false positives. See, for example, the second hit on the list which refers to an internal name for a "parallelpiped with [various] corners" which can be created by a particular image rendering program. I find only 5 of the 28 hits on your search that are relevant to this genealogical program. None of the 5 appear to provide significant new evidence - two are like directory listings and the other three are product reviews. I do not believe that these print sources would have resulted in a different conclusion. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, many of the sources are false positives. I am positive there remain enough sources in the combination of Google book search, Groups Search and regular search, combined with manuals and such to create a good article. There is also data locked away on Usenet (e.g. this mention in 1993). I have started a draft in my user space pending the (well, I hope :) inevitable overturning of the deletion. Ok by you? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn For the reasons given by Mvuijlst. This is a bit of kit that it will be more difficult to find sources for due to its very nature, but it is a well known, widely used and longlived geneology software product, exactly the kind of semi-obscure entry Wikipedia is good at providing info about, if the deletion police isn't too triggerhappy. --Martin Wisse (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The inappropriate canvassing of inexperienced editors to participate in a deletion discussion significantly diminished the likelihood that the article would meet Wikipedia requirements. The closer made a difficult decision, but made it correctly. Genbox Family History draft seems the best way to go. Once the draft is complete with sources, post a request at DRV asking to move the user space draft to article space. For the cites, please use the news book web journal citation templates. See, e.g., User:Suntag/Cite. -- Suntag ☼ 05:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but again: I disagree. No matter how the contributions got there, they were constructive and in the spirit of Wikipedia. I would like you to point out how exactly the contributions were diminishing the likelihood of the article meeting requirements: they provided sources and they did so in a non-confronting, non-emotional manner. Everyone was an inexperienced editor once: are you now saying you need a cetain amount of edits under your belt before you can even participate in an AfD? Mvuijlst (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (That said, I'll beaver away some more at the article in my user space and try to get it through DRV before any screenshots are deleted for being orphaned images. :) Mvuijlst (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Well, I'm one of those anonymous submitters to the original AfD debate. I'm neither new to Wikipedia (I've been editing anonymously for several years.) nor was I canvassed by anyone. And there is no evidence that the other two anonymous participants were either new or were recruited to participate. As Mvuijlst said, all submissions to the review were contributions of important information, not votes. Solid references about the notability of Genbox have been submitted ad nauseum to this debate, which the administrators refuse to acknowledge or dismiss as irrelevant because they can't find them online. Instead they have relied on one spam review of the software (Top Ten Reviews is a commercial site that does not meet WP standards for citeable sources.) and innuendo about the participants in the debate. Moreover, despite the fact that the original Genbox article was authored by the programmer, not one shred of evidence has been submitted showing that what was written was slanted. The entire 3-sentence article was, in fact, a remarkably neutral description of the software. If this review process is any indication of what Wikipedia has become, then I'll have to reconsider making contributions to such a sham.12.76.129.65 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The arguments made by the keep-voters were valid and were not refuted by the delete-voters. This is clearly a piece of software that's been around a long time and has a fair number of print sources available. In its field it appears, given the arguments shown in the deletion debate, to be well-known. A closing admin is supposed to weigh the quality of argument, not simply remove the opinions of all seemingly new users and decide on weight of numbers of what's left. The arguments for deletion were simply not overwhelming by any means; in fact, quite the opposite. Stub + possible conflict of interest does NOT equal deletion in my book. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I also concur with the comments made by the other keep voters. I am not a newbie to Wikipedia; I have had an account for a number of years and have made various contributions to other articles. What the Administrators seem to be overlooking is that Genealogical software is a very specialised area and hence to the majority is an unknown entity. However in my view, simply because it is a specialist area does not justify why it should be deleted from Wikipedia, indeed I was of the opinion that the opportunity to provide information on all topics was one of the principles of Wikipedia. I readily accept that they are trying to remove subjective opinion but again feel that sufficient independent sources have been cited to justify its reinsertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allengn (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 October 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:Malice Manual Cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD) (article)

Incorrectly deleted image with a valid fair use rationale. The image was tagged by a bot because the article had moved, and the bot ignored the redirect. This is an issue that has popped up before with BetacommandBot, and was remedied. Why are our bots getting worse? See related discussion - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive113#A_bot_problem.

Image uploaders may no longer edit Wikipedia, if they upload an image with a valid fair use rationale, they should not be expected to check if someone else has moved the target article page. Administrators should examine the bot placed deletion tag, assess the rationale, and fix it if needed. This deletion was made in error, and should be speedily overturned, I'm listing it here anyway to bring up some valid points. - hahnchen 00:58, 17 October 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) 08:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps the FairuseBot bot did not ignore the redirect. It looks like the 12:23, 28 April 2008 created redirect was removed by 192.101.108.250 between 21:29, 18 September 2008 and 07:18, 24 September 2008, breaking the link between the "Malice Manual Cover.jpg" image page and Malice (video game mod). User:FairuseBot notified Hahnchen of a problem at 01:00, 20 September 2008. The image then was deleted 23:20, 15 October 2008. This problem could be fixed by a bot revising image pages linked from redirects once an article page is moved, FairuseBot reviewing the page history for redirects, and FairuseBot rechecking its work seven or more days after tagging to see if the redirect switchout problem has occured. Hahnchen, you were notified of the problem on 20 September 2008 and edited between 20 September 2008 and 15 October 2008 (the date the image was deleted). Is there any reason that you did not take action based on the 20 September 2008 notice that you received? For example, on September 21 or 23rd, you could have ensured that the image had an explanation linking to Malice (video game mod) as suggested in the 20 September 2008 notice from FairuseBot. -- Suntag ☼ 08:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't check the redirect until it had already been switched back. I assumed it was the same issue as cropped up in the linked discussion above (another one of my images) and wanted it flagged up somewhere. - hahnchen 20:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn...I'm fine with that...but blaming the bot? Really, now. You should have your images on your watchlist, and you have at least 7 days to fix it. Looks like you had far more. Plus, no matter how good a fair use is, it's no good if the image is not in use. It's not fair to expect an admin to hunt down where the image is, or was, if it's not obvious. And finally, you know full well you can have the deletion speedily overturned with a word, but you're instead "listing it here to bring up some valid points"? You can bring those valid points (which don't seem to be valid in the first place) up someplace else. Why disrupt DRV? --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:12, 17 October 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 October 2008

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

Christmas with The Judds and Alabama (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

Short-circuited AFD, G7 speedy deleted by nominator, underlying claim was that album wasn't verifiable and had no allmusic guide entry. But it does, and the entry verifies charting stats/notability. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as nominator. The Allmusic listing is blank, there are only 12 hits for the album, and nothing on Google News. The only hits are things like Discogs which are not reliable. This almost entirely fails the WP:V test too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The allmusic link is not blank; you must have a browser problem. The charting information is verified, unsurprisingly, by the "charts" tab, which demonstrates that the album charted in two different decades, in 1987 and 1994. Presumably the original 1987 release is sufficiently long ago to evade most web commentary. The album is also listed in the Rolling Stone discography for the Judds (without other comment, since RS isn't prone to review Christmas albums by country artists. The track list is verified at sites like Amazon.com. And while Google search results aren't impressive, they're an order of magnitude larger than you claim when you search under the correct title (there is a small error in the way it was listed in Wikipedia), and it's hardly surprising that there aren't many web resources devoted to 20-year-old Christmas albums. Frankly, you need to search more carefully; your incorrect assertions about the allmusic content should chasten you. Since your ratification of our own nomination was based on clear factual error, you should correct your error, not compound it. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please try to assume some good faith. By "blank" I meant that Allmusic has neither an album cover nor track listing. How many sources do you find on Google? I find nothing other than discogs.com and Amazon, and we shouldn't be using Amazon as a source anyway. I tried everything: Google Books and News each gave nothing, and a search for the exact title turned up nothing other than the 12 hits I already linked to. A charting album isn't inherently notable, especially if we can barely even verify it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't make false insinuations or pretend to be a victim. I said nothing implying bad faith, although your less than appropriate responses will make it easy for some people to infer it. You now acknowledge that the allmusic site is not blank, and, I hope, acknowledge that the site shows the album charting in two different decades, seven years apart. And if you had google-searched the correct title, the one displayed at allmusic, as well as man other sites, you would have found links to verifing information at Amazon, Yahoo Music, MTV, CMT, VH1, MSN Music, and others. The notability guidelines for music, though poorly writtent, clearly identify charting alone as indicating notability. Why don't you just own up to our errors? You said there was no allmusic page, but there was one. You said the allmusic page was blank, but, as you now concede, it wasn't (It's incomplete, which is different.) You googled the wrong title, thereby missing a clear set of reliable sources. (And if you believe Amazon is less reliable than allMusic, you don't recognize that allMusic is just another retailer, with snazzier web pages but less coverage overall than Amazon.) It's disturbing to see someone so plainly willing to remove verifiable, useful information from Wikipedia in lieu of acknowledging his own mistakes. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I didn't catch that the title was wrong. Please quit attacking me or I will have you reported. What is the correct title? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was answered in the comment you responded to. Just cut and paste it out of the allmusic page that you claimed didn't exist. Now stop pretending that criticism of your errors is an "attack." You shouldn't have closed the AFD to being with, which is a policy violation since you are the nominator, and since you badgered the main author into acquiescing to deletion with grossly inaccurate claims, you ought to assume the responsibility for cleaning up your own mistakes, rather than citing his accepting your inaccuracies in good valid as justification for your failure to correct your error. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G7 speedy delete per request (assuming that Caldorwards4 provided the page's only substantial content throughout its page history). -- Suntag ☼ 00:50, 17 October 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) 08:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:CSD#G7 subject to a history check of the deleted article. Userfy on request for Minos P. Dautrieve. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Minos. But the fix is obviously in, as Kurt would say, removing accurate information on a false pretext is acceptable to all the posters here but us, while pointing out the false pretext is seen as a mortal sin. You need to recognize that Wikipedia privileges aggressive feral children of all ages and subjugates users who foolhardily try to deal with them in good faith. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ummm.... just out of curiosity, did anyone actually read my deletion reason? The author clearly asked for it to be deleted and I did so. If you really want it back that much, you could have just asked me to restore it and I would have done so with no questions asked. You didn't need to go through this method. Either way you decide, I don't care what you do with the article. If you decide to restore it, I give any and all admins full right to undelete it. (If I have to "release" the right to do so; which I'm still not sure if I have to or not.) Thingg⊕⊗ 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Seems straightforward G7 and process was followed. No objection to recreation if sources can be found. Spartaz Humbug! 19:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure under criterion G7. The page had two edits prior to the addition of the AfD tag and the contributor of both those edits recommended deletion in the AfD. If someone thinks that they have sources and can write a better article, you are free to do so. The page is not protected. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lack of sources aside, I still stand by the fact that this was a valid G7, otherwise I wouldn't have tagged it. Rossami is right, Caldorwards4 was the only editor of the page, and since they called for a delete in the afd discussion, I figured G7 applied. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given your stated concern with adherence to policy, perhaps you could explain why you placed an invalid speedy deletion nomination today on an article where my spouse, who had criticized you here, had objected to the first speedy deletion tag. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist since there is some question whether the article was indeed desired to be deleted. Once others have commented that an article shouldbe kept, the principle of G7 no longer should apply.DGG (talk) 02:14, 19 October 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.
G4 speedy delete of material recreated after Anti-heroes CfD1 <-- This one now at DRV -- Suntag ☼ 00:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antiheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) (CfD1) (CfD2)<-- This one now at DRV Category:Anti-heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) (noted as CfD1 above) Category:Fictional anti-heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) (CfD1)

The Category:Antiheroes was speedy deleted while at CfD today by User:Postdlf. Despite the fact that consensus at the CfD seemed clearly leaning towards retention of the category based on relevant Wikipedia policy, the category was speedy deleted as a recreation of a category deleted at this CfD nearly two years ago. This CfD in turn was based on a speedy deletion of a an even earlier CfD. The Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_13#Category:Anti-heroes original CfD from March 2006 was created in combination with an AfD of a corresponding list of Antiheroes. For articles, there is a very simple system of recreating deleted content; Articles that had been deleted due to sourcing issues can be recreated as long as the sourcing issues have been addressed. The article List of fictional anti-heroes represents a recreation of the deleted article and provides a list of characters, each one supported by reliable and verifiable sources, with nearly 200 sources for more than 100 fictional antiheroes. Not a single Wikipedia editor would challenge this article's recreation with a rational hope of seeing the article deleted. The justification of deletion for the original category was based on the same absence of sources in the corresponding list. Now that there is a corresponding list with ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the entries included, there is no policy reason to delete the category. Nor should the argument that categories can't have sources be given any weight, as this is a design feature of the category system that would argue for the deletion of every single category in Wikipedia. While other categories for fictional characters have been deleted, those where there is clear evidence that the characteristic is defining and for which there are sources to support the association for individual characters, have generally been kept in compliance with relevant Wikipedia policy. Not only can consensus change, it appears that it already has. Based on the sources provided, this category should be kept. I have no objection to a relist at CfD in which the current category as constructed is reconsidered anew, disregarding the previous CfD results in light of the enormous number of sources available to support the character trait as defining. Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. I haven't seen any arguments that overcome the original reason for deletion. That the list is sourced is great, but that just means that the list is sourced; it doesn't mean the category should exist. A category "is a binary system - you're in or you're out - without the possibility of discussion or explanation." --Kbdank71 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've provided a wonderful justification to get rid of the entire category system in Wikipedia, lock, stock and barrel. Why is this argument relevant for this category? Can you offer any Wikipedia policy justification for the continued deletion of this category? Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not the one asking for it to be recreated. You are. You're the one that needs to come up for an answer to the reason it got deleted in the first place, not me. And I'd love to hear your reasoning behind "a wonderful justification to get rid of the entire category system". Have they all been deleted and recreated when I wasn't looking? --Kbdank71 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason the category and corresponding list got deleted in the first place was a lack of sources to support the claim, and that issue has been addressed with ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Your're not seriously arguing to use a real world category about real people - Category:Antiheroes - to classify fictional people, are you? I suggest refocusing your efforts towards getting Category:Fictional anti-heroes restored as a subcategory of Category:Antiheroes. As for List of fictional anti-heroes being full of reliable and verifiable sources, it looks like someone entered the name of the fictional character and "anti-hero" in a google search and provided a link to whatever blog or website happened to come to the top of the search. And, instead of using citation templates such as Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web that would reveal the blog/website name of the source, the blog/website name of the sources largely are hidden, making it even more difficult to verify the sourcing of List of fictional anti-heroes. -- Suntag ☼ 21:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would refocus if this wasn't what I thought was being done already. This is (or more accurately, was) a category about fictional characters that corresponds to the list of such fictional characters. I did not create the category, but I would have included the word "Fictional" in the title if I had. If your issue is your uncertainty as to whether this is for fictional characters, I fully support a rename to go along with the restoration of the category. I think you may want to reconsider what it is that you're endorsing. I had been trying to improve the sources in the list and the corresponding article before the decision was made to pull the plug on the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - no procedural error in the speedy deletion. Given that there were four editors' comments with two in favor of deletion and two in favor of keeping, the notion that consensus was "clearly leaning towards retention" seems faintly ludicrous. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am basing my comment on the stated function of DRV, which is to assess the correctness of the action taken by the closing administrator. You have not demonstrated that the closing administrator has acted outside his discretion in deleting the category, nor have you presented any new information to demonstrate that the consensus regarding using words like "hero," "villain," "anti-hero" and the like in category names has changed. A 2-2 discussion prior to the speedy delete does not demonstrate a change in consensus, despite your misleading attempts to claim that it does. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at CfD I don't see anything egregiously wrong with the deletion, although a G4 of a category is always harder to uphold than for an article (How is a category significantly different from it's deleted form so as to obviate the deletion rationale?). If consensus has changed on this category, then a CfD will show that. Also, I would recommend against splitting or parenting this category with a "real world" category...anti-hero is mainly a fictional term and is applied to real individuals in a figurative sense--not really an NPOV classification. I make no comments here about the category itself, but if this DRV is close, sort this comment into the "endorse" column rather than "overturn". Protonk (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off topic - Dictionary.reference.com makes no reference to antiheros being fictional. While antihero may be mainly a fictional term, it has a strong secondary real world meaning to the point where people may start intermixing fictional and non fictional characters in the same Wikipedia category. However, that's a naming issue. -- Suntag ☼ 00:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the problem is that the classification of a real person as an anti-hero is fundamentally figurative. I know that it is used for real people, but we can't make an NPOV classification of it any more than we can make Category:Individuals who are a pain in the ass an NPOv classification. There are thousands of people who have been referred to as a "pain in the ass" by reliable sources, but we probably shouldn't take it at face value. I know that's not what you're suggesting, I'm just trying to clarify my side. As for the naming issue, I would say just have a "fictional anti-heroes" category without a "real" parent/sibling cat. Protonk (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Endorse and relist CfD2 - Once CfD2 started and an editor posted keep reasoning, the page could not be G4 speedy deleted (i) without discussion (ii) in the face of no reasonable doubt as required by Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion since a formal discussion was in progress and included a keep reasoning that raised reasonable doubt. Overturn and relist CfD2 for more input. -- Suntag ☼ 00:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There wasn't "reasonable doubt" that this was a recreation of content previously deleted per a deletion discussion; that's what "reasonable doubt", as used in WP:CSD, would pertain to here. Postdlf (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. Also, for pages qualifying for speedy delete there is a suggestion to consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. The category could not be handled per any of the examples listed. It probably should have first been brought to DRV before recreation. We're at DRv now, so, with a formal deletion discussion ongoing and some keep reasoning listed, it seems reasonable to allow CfD2 to finish, particularly since CfD1 was two years ago. -- Suntag ☼ 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. I do not believe that consensus has changed regarding this category, or others like it. Instead, there remains a strong consensus to delete or listify categories that attempt to classify fictional characters by such broad types or roles they supposedly play within fiction (see, e.g., this recent CFD) rather than by more concrete, specific traits. Concepts such as these are reliably definable in the general, but application to specific examples is meaningless without explanation or sourcing, which makes categories inappropriate as a means of grouping such purported examples. Lists remain preferred when it's a matter of documenting literary analysis, because it matters who is identifying the characters as such and why; such concepts regarding a character's role are often applied inconsistently, as List of fictional anti-heroes itself explains. See also related CFDs regarding protagonists (and more protagonists), femme fatales, and antagonists. The reasons are still valid that were given in all of those CFDs as to why such character roles/types don't work as categories, and so should be documented only through sourced lists, if at all. Per CSD G4, speedy deletion was appropriate because "any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." Postdlf (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist After this much time, deletion without a rehearing is simply not reasonable. We will find out if consensus has changed by having the CfD, that's what it is for. DGG (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per DGG, with no opinion on the merits of the speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - re-creation, and no indication from even the discussion as far as it went that consensus had changed. And of course, DRV isn't CFD deux. (But since this has become a common theme in recent DRVs, I ask the closer to take this essay into consideration if/when weighing such discussion.) - jc37 17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree with Otto above. Eusebeus (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. It would be one thing if this was a (relatively) recent discussion. But as Alansohn points out, consensus can change - and two years is a virtual eternity on Wikipedia. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:06, 24 October 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.

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

The deletion reason supplied was "Lacks notability, possible hoax and no references. Dicdef." I fixed all four problems at the last minute, but the article was deleted because the guy closing it only added up the votes and did not consider the arguments. Shii (tock) 09:04, 16 October 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 October 2008

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

Category:Fictional parents who killed their children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) (CFD)

The CfD was closed as delete, but I feel no such consensus was reached. Apart from the nominator, there were 2 people !voting to delete, 2 !voting to keep, the category creator commenting, and one other person commenting. If the closer wished to delete even though consensus was lacking, an explanation would have been helpful, but this was not done in the discussion or in response to my request for clarification on Kbdank71's user talk page. Andjam (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn as no concensus I am guessing you are talking about this conversation (the nom text didn't parse the address). I am not personally in favor of categories that have only TWO articles listed in them, but it was only two weeks old and was split off of Category:Parents who killed their children, leaving the original category as non-fictional. Not enough time has been given for it to develop and the idea of breaking Fictional off as a separate category seems to make both categories more accurate (and useful to boot). What matters most is that a review of the actual deletion discussion makes it very clear that there was no concensus to delete (even !votes on both sides of the issue as well). The closing admin didn't give a reason for the deletion, so it is difficult to determine what their reasons were. To be honest, the discussion wasn't exactly full of informative policy remarks from either side. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Doesn't seem to be any consensus, but the category seems to violate WP:NOR. I'm neutral. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. I gave less weight to the "defining characteristic" argument, as there was no reasoning or backup for that statement. As such, the "per 'defining characteristic' argument" also received less weight. In addition, there was questions on whether or not one of the two articles should have even been in the category, which would have left one article. While nobody came right out and said WP:OC#SMALL, there was discussion about the size of the category, and in the month from creation to deletion, there were as mentioned only two articles added. --Kbdank71 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Kbdank71. Overly small and narrow category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - no procedural errors in the close and the deletion was well within the closing admin's discretion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for articles, there is a way of proceeding even after a deletion review has been unsuccessful, which is to rewrite in user space a much improved article that answers all the objections and ask people to look again--and we frequently accept articles where that has been done. But I don't see any equivalent for a category, nor--unfortunately-- can I easily imagine one. DGG (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My Answer Technically, it would be easier. Since it is a catagory, you would just make a simple list on your user page or subpage. There really isn't any text to a category other than wikilinks, after all. My main concern here is still that I don't see a concensus to delete in the deletion discussion. To me, that trumps the content. If we sit here and decide the fate purely on content here, wouldn't that be the same as a second deletion article? (ie: second bite at the cherry) PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Despite a repeated pattern of controversial CfD closes, Kbdank71 has offered no policy justification for why consensus should be interpreted per his insistence. XfD closes where there is a clear policy argument for retention and a strong consensus supporting that case should never be closed with the one word "delete" and no supporting justification. As pointed out above, procedures for recreation of articles seem to utterly fail in the topsy turvy CfD world, in which every effort at recreation is met with knee-jerk delete votes, regardless of any changes made to the category, and no mechanism exists to address these concerns on recreation even where they might be legitimate. The current size of the category is no obstacle for future expansion and no justification has been offered to show that WP:OC#SMALL issues could never be addressed. One whole month is not exactly the last opportunity to add entries to a category. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Unpopulated categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days is a speedy delete basis. The fact that no one sought speedy delete for this category and that there is a very strong likelihood of populating this newly created category makes underpopulation a very weak CFD argument for this category. "A defining characteristic, and to mirror the real world cat of Category:Parents who killed their children" as a way of not mixing fiction and nonfiction is a strong keep argument. The delete arguments amounted to two approaches. First 1. All fictional categories have problems because "we are referring to something from the age of myth here." 2. Fictional parents who killed their children" is a fictional category. 3. Since fictional parents who killed their children is a fictional category, it should be deleted. and Second 1. You cannot apply Wikipedia:Categorization to fictional categories because the cannot be couched in real world terms. 2. Thus, keep arguments citing to Wikipedia:Categorization should be given less weight. The first approach justifies deleting all fictional categories and the second approach removes a need for the closer to give any weight to the keep arguments. Both of thse approaches are entirely wrong. If you look at the log for that day, you'll see numerous fictional categories up for deletion essentially raising the same "all fictional categories have problems" and "you can't apply Wikipedia:Categorization to them" because they are not real. What this comes down to is strength of arguments. The delete reasoning failed to apply a deletion standard that would justify deleting this particular fictional category while keeping other fictional categories. The keep arguments were strong in logic and policy. The close should be overturned. -- Suntag ☼ 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A defining characteristic" with no reason why is not a strong argument in logic or policy. --Kbdank71 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be more than happy to provide sources, but reliable and verifiable sources have not been accepted at CfD. Tell me how many sources you need to convince you and I'll do my best to get them for you. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nominator argued that killing "someone" is not a defining characteristic and another editor argued that a "choice or preference" to kill someone is not a defining characteristic. Neither of these had anything to do with the actual category for an action of killing a child. The delete reasoning gave no reason at CFD as to why the category was not defining, so it was error to not give less weight to the deletion arguments in the close. As for the keep arguments related to defining characteristics, they argued strong feelings about infanticide and established defining characteristic in the real world through an existing Wikipedia category. In addition to not providing reasons as to why the category was not a defining characteristic, the delete arguments never rebutted these keep assertions about defining characteristics. I don't think the keep reasons related to defining characteristics should have been given less weight in the close. -- Suntag ☼ 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as No Consensus. I don't dabble in CFD, but it looks like here there was more discussion to be had about this category and whether or not it was appropriate...I certainly didn't see any sort of consensus on anything. I say overturn, have that discussion, and re-nominate if it becomes necessary. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per Alan and Suntag. I simply cannot see this as being plausibly backed up by either policy or the consensus discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A reasonable category, and no consensus to delete it. There needs to be a way of calling those few CfDs worth a more general discussion to sufficient attention. This was not a sufficient discussion to warrant deletion . DGG (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would creating a deletion sorting that focused on relisted discussions be a possibility? (That'd require CfDs to be transcluded and relisted, however) (I'm referring to relisting as in an admin deciding to extend the time of discussion, not as in something coming back after DRV) Andjam (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the closer's rationale, reiterated above, which I agree with. This falls easily within the reasonable boundaries of discretion for the closing admin. Eusebeus (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Obvious lack of consensus to delete, should have been closed as keep. 71.235.38.171 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)— 71.235.38.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    No other edits by this particular IP address have been made (I haven't checked if any related IP addresses have made contributions, though). I hope no more incidents like this occur. Andjam (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this an "incident". While this would likely be discounted, it does appear to represent a sincerely held view on this situation. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's highly unlikely that the first edit made by a unique editor at a particular IP address would be a relatively obscure discussion at DRV. How long were you a user before you even figured out DRV existed? It could just be a user who is usually logged in but failed to do so this time, or it could be a case of sockpuppetry. We don't immediately assume it's sockpuppetry because of WP:AGF, but it certainly is at least "suspect"or "weird", you might say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there's evidence of puppetry (sock or meat), an IP user's opinion shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else's. It shouldn't matter how many other edits they have. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus or relist. Bad close. The discussion does not reflect a consensus to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Policy reasons for deletion outweigh WP:ILIKEIT reasons to keep; a tiny category based on a random intersection of ideas. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 22 October 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.

Calvin Dean (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

UNDELETE_NOTABILITY David19856 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Please add the page i created to wiki. It was a page recreated from a deleted page a few months ago. this actor now has much more notability as he has appeared in 4 feature films and tv series. He has recently completed filming the starring role in a film to be released next year worldwide. David19856 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV is about National Youth Theatre Calvin Dean (II), not Calvin Dean (I). -- Suntag ☼ 15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please cite some sources (which should be reliable) to verify the above claims? Stifle (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - David crozer (19 February 2007), Mountview07 (23 September 2007), and David crozer08 (17 June 2008) previously were noticed regarding deletions of this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation and list at AfD - The last AfD was on 13 March 2007. Calvin Dean is popular with the Cornish Guardian, as there are about eight Cornish Guardian article that mention him. Here's a trivial one "Theatre club celebrates birthday at Gallants". Cornish Guardian. June 22, 2006. p. 12. Calvin Dean, who is just finishing his second year of a BA degree course at the Mountview Performing Arts Academy in London, has been given a full scholarship for his final year.[45]. A non trivial article entirely about Calvin is at "Polruan actor's movie role with Hollywood stars". Cornish Guardian. January 30, 2008. p. 7. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help) There probably is other material, but his common name, particular with that of another more popular actor, makes it hard to find soruces. Since the last AfD was on 13 March 2007 and new source material has been generated since then, I think allowing recreation and another AfD might bring out enought sources (or establish that not enought material exists). -- Suntag ☼ 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two frequently recurring situations. First, as often with performers, but in other contexts also: he is not quite notable now, but after some work in progress is released he probably will be. It seems a little pedantic to delete the article at this point, but on the other hand it's too easy to say that someone will be notable when, .... , and almost impossible to refute. Second, more frequent with athletes but also in all fields, to what extent notability in what amounts to a junior league is notability. Basic questions, and not really helpful to discuss one at a time with erratic results. DGG (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Userfy or allow recreation in userspace, but do not move to article space, or even list at AfD until David19856 or someone else can justify inclusion with reference to WP:BIO or WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Doesn't yet seem be yet ready for another AfD. Requester is invited work on a draft in userspace, explore whether inside Wikipedia there are other areas of interest for him and should stick to one account in any case. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

below are a few websites which hopefully will get the article on him published on wiki. he really does deserve inclusion, especially if you look at some other actors listed, who have not done much work in the business. http://www.slingshot-studios.com/blog/page/3/ this is from the producers website for the upcoming film 'Tormented'. http://www.britfilms.com/britishfilms/inprogress/?&skip=120 half way down the page lists calvin as being in the film

David19856 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 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.

Zero day information (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

Reading from the Standard_(warez), page, this article is referenced. It was deleted for the reason of "non-encyclopedic topic". I fail to see how this is non-encyclopedic. It is one of the major subsets of the warez scene (which is considered a valid topic), and is not given much detail on the general warez pages.

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


14 October 2008

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

Bosco Constantine (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

This is a Real person and a real musician who performs in a virtual world. That does not make him unreal. And of importance this is so his fans may know more about him. Please reconsider the administrator's action in Deleting the page. Thank You. EgonZimminy (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Sidenote: something I'd like to point out that I've said before. During time of deletion I was working on the article as it wasn't just something i put on there and said "there I'm done" with a few lines. -- EgonZimminy (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe there's a misunderstanding here. The article wasn't deleted because it was about a fictional character, it was deleted as failing to at all assert why its subject is important. Looking at the last version standing, this pretty well was the case, so I'm afraid I'll have to endorse the deletion. If you'd like to create this page, please do so in your userspace and have a few other editors take a look at it before putting it back into the mainspace. You'll also want to check out the notability guidelines for musicians. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:14, 15 October 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) 08:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion. Even if we go back to the more complete 2008 Sept version, there is no assertion of notability - I assume that a "Second Life Live artist" is as notable as a YouTube contributor - and no evidence of notability was offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I possibly be given a chance to rebuild the article from the ground up giving enough reason for notability to be allowed on Wikipedia. You may think that they are as notable as someone who contributes to YouTube but he is a great artist who just prefers to tour in a virtual world then in the real world, as he has family that he has to take care of and he enjoys being able to perform songs about the virtual world. Plus in the virtual world he is able to donate more of his monetary gain to Charity's such as donating all his tips to children in Africa. I really think if I was given a week to rewrite the article from the ground up I could find enough information to sway your decisions on deleting the Article. Or at least listen to one of his songs to see how talented he really is. Start up an account on the game and go to one of his shows. It's free to join and it's free to go to any of his shows. He brings in a large crowd to any "virtual" place he performs at. I've shown his schedule on Wikipedia before. Thanks. EgonZimminy (talk) 21:28, 16 October 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 traps in the Saw film series (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The AFD didn't really have a clear consensus, IMO. There were roughly 12 in support and 12 in favor of deletion. 8 of the 12 deletionist votes were pretty much just saying "cruft" (and yes, I'm aware that it's not an "official" rule). One person's rationale for deletion was (and I'm not making this up) "I think it may be spoiler material, and who likes spoilers anyway?!" One person's opinion was influenced by their apparent dislike for the film. ("We don't need poor articles on poor films")

Which is not to say that the "Keep" arguments were top-notch, but their general consensus was, "The article does need a lot of work, but it could be salvaged." User:Ecoleetage, for example, said he would have been willing to work to get the article back in shape had it been kept. (The article had gotten a bit sloppy and overwieldy, no one was doubting that.) Or, it could have been shortened and maybe merged. I was purposely staying away from the article at the time because I was wary of getting 'spoiled' but I too was willing to find sources, reception, etc and other non-plot information once I had seen the next film.

Anyway, the article was deleted by Stifle, who said it was "per the general weight of the comments". I asked Stifle what he/she meant by this and why they felt that the "general weight" indicated deletion, but I didn't even get a clear answer. Just basically "I'm happy with my closure and you're welcome to use DRV if you wish", which was repeated when I asked a second time. When I asked again, the topic was archived before I received any definite answer. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close with the possibility of fixing it up in userspace if anyone wants to. This looks like an article that's had its cance and then some, but just never materialized as something to put in an encyclopedia. It's been around for years, had plenty off edits (2000+!) and lots of editor scrutiny, so nobody can say it's pined away from lack of time or attention. A trim and well-sourced draft in user space looks like the only hope at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Restore. Stifle stated the deletion was based “Per the general weight of comments,” which is curious since the consensus was nearly even split (13 in Keep and 12 in Delete) and those in favour of deletion offered nothing beyond the weak-tea “fancruft” argument. There was a lopsided surplus of “but you’re wrong!” comments directed at the article’s supporters by the individual who started the AfD – and it became so excessive that I repeatedly asked him to stop badgering everyone that disagreed with his nomination (it was nothing personal, since he was also once my “adopter” here on Wikipedia). As Cyberghostface stated, I am more than willing to help edit the article into proper shape – an offer that I made in the AfD and which was completely ignored at the time. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore as even the closing Admin noted that there was no consensus to delete. With respects to User:Stifle, consensus must be respected or there will be chaos. Please let the article be improved as was the closing admin's sugestion and User:Ecoleetage's offer. Improving the article improves Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I see delete comments in the AFD asserting that the article is not notable, and I do not see a valid refutation. What is the response from those who wish to overturn? Pagrashtak 18:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - yes, the numbers were split fairly evenly between keep and delete but AFD is not a vote. Many of the keep arguments were along the lines of "It's interesting" and "it's useful" and the ever-popular "if you keep it we'll make it better we promise." Nothing that addressed the WP:OR and WP:PLOT concerns raised by the nomination. If someone wants it userfied so they can try to shape it into an acceptable article all they need do is ask any admin. Otto4711 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion. AFD isn't a vote and when it is close, the closing admin has to ive weight to the arguments bearing in mind whether they are arguments based on a Wikipedia policy or guideline or just a user's opinion. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I have a copy of the article on my sandbox. When and if it's shaped up considerably better than the current version was, am I going to having to worry about someone throwing the db-repost tag or something similar on it?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It won't, provided it is done correctly (that is a big "if"). I've actually restored about a dozen formerly deleted articles and brought many of them to DYK. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should bring it here for review to allow the community the opportunity to endorse restoration. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question No one is saying AfD is a vote - we all know how the process works, so let's nip that in the proverbial bud. However, I would ask if Stifle could please explain his decision -- his closing comment in the AfD was vague and he declined to discuss the matter with CyberGhostFace on his Talk Page. Perhaps if we could get an idea of how he came to his decision, we might be able to avoid repeating potential similar mistakes in the future. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for closing by someone else, and send to the Arb Com For an active participant in discussions a certain type of articles with known strong opinions to decide good-faith disputed afds -- especially afds with some degree of balance in the opinions in that field is favor of his own point of view is about as wrong as an admin can do, and is exactly equivalent to protecting articles in favor of one's own POV, for which people have consistently been desysopped. In my view of the matter, it is cause for desysop. If I were to close an afd like this as keep, I would either apologize and reopen it, or resign the mop-- and if I did not do either, I should be made to do so. As a frequent opponent of the closer on these issues, I am not going to personally commence action though. DGG (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (adjusted my comment) DGG (talk) 20:03, 14 October 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.

Qantas Flight 72 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Primary reason: Shortly after the deletion of the page, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau made a formal announcement regarding progress of their investigation, timed to conincide with Airbus releasing an Operators Information Telex advising of revised procedures and checklists. The key development is the identification of a unique aircraft systems fault as the likely origin of the accident events and the subsequent new procedures suggested by the manufacturer for minimising risk if such events were to reoccur. Secondary reason: I believe an incorrect assessment was made of the AfD outcome. The deleting admin has identified on their talk page that they arbitrarily discounted the opinions of unregistered users and didn't adequately take into account the impact of the emerging information superceding some key AfD arguments. My request to have the page undeleted as is was declined - instead it was placed in my userspace at User:Rob.au/Qantas Flight 72 where I have updated it. Rob.au (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection to recreation if there is a consensus that it meets notability, etc (the stuff that made the people at AFD vote to delete it). MBisanz talk 14:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shortly after the deletion this emerged, clearly demonstrating the industry wide impact of the event that was still in question at the time of the deletion.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but permit recreation if new sources and information are out that can show notability. To the nominator: it is standard practice that new and unregistered users have their opinions discounted or given less weight at AFDs, nothing arbitrary at all about it. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation as the closer seem to agree. DGG (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation since it's clear on what the problem that caused the incident and Airbus has sent out an advisory to other airlines about the same type of Aircraft which makes the incident even more notable then it was during the deletion process. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation. It has now been determined that "no similar incident had occurred on an Airbus" and "the company issued an international alert about the incident to all operators of Airbus aircraft, including recommendations to mitigate risks should the situation on QF72 recur". [46] A very notable incident. WWGB (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation meaning feel free to move User:Rob.au/Qantas Flight 72 to Qantas Flight 72. With reliable sources jabbering away in print about the topic, the reasons for deletion listed at AfD1 seem to have been overcome. -- Suntag ☼ 19:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is my preference also, but I assume it will be better for the original talk page to be restored in place of the talk page that exists now in my userspace. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation noting that the original page if un-deleted may need some editing to update it with the new notable information. This article, which previously should have survived an AfD (just!) is now much more important and should be included. PS I deleted the page I was re-creating after I found out about this review. Buckethed (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation as per Suntag --Matilda talk 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation with factual subject matter from reliable ATSB, as opposed to speculative press reports. The previous article got it wrong as it was created before any facts became available from the ATSB and therefore incorrectly described this as a turbulence incident, and was rightly deleted. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation as it meets two points in the airline incident/accident notability criteria, it involves an unusual circumstance and it looks like it will be contributing to industry procedures changes. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation Although I was the nominator for this article's deletion at AfD, I would fully support this article returning to the mainspace. At the time of nomination, the incident was simply being reported as turbulence - which is in no way notable and should certainly not be on an encyclopaedia. People seem to rush into creating articles on any Qantas incident that has occurred. But now that time as passed, and as I stated in my original AfD nomination, I would fully support the recreation of this article if some information came out that makes the incident sufficiently notable. The information regarding the aircraft's computer systems causing the incident means it should definitely be re-created. MvjsTalking 05:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation: The new information changes everything. It is now one of the most notable incidents in the history of fly-by-wire flight, and may result in changes being made to all Airbus aircraft.--Lester 10:31, 16 October 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 October 2008

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

Training and development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) As I said to Bjweeks last week,[47] re-listing to engender further discussion would probably have been better. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. WP:RELIST discourages relisting when more than one or two editors have contributed, and there was no indication given to him in the AFD that he should have done otherwise. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation of Salmar's version the article as of Dec 6. , which is not at all the same article as was nominated for deletion on the third. The reasons given in the AfD do not apply at all to the last version of the article. The closing admin should have seen that for himself. It would of course have helped if the change had been brought to people's attention at the time. Stifle's objections above do not apply to this situation. DGG (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and permit recreation - The closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly and was within discretion of not relisting, particularly since there was only delete positions which seemed to properly assess the matter at the time of their assessment. It's not fair to fault the AfD closer for the failure of those improving the article to indicate that in the AfD. While it may be suggested that the AfD closer look at the article before closing the AfD discussion, it should not be a requirement since we need to encourage participation in the AfD discussions and lessen a chance that the closer will inject their personal opinion in the discussion. Per DGG, the reasons given in the AfD do not apply at all to the last version of the article, so permit recreation. -- Suntag ☼ 18:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, reopen AfD, and relist. I can't at all fault BJ for missing the improvement of the article (I don't believe it's common practice to check the history of the article when closing AfDs, and I would have done the same myself), I'm rather confused that he didn't take any action after Uncle G brought it to his attention. Of course, this could have been avoided simply by making a short comment at the AfD that the article's been improved, which would likely have netted the wanted relist. Or recreate the better version (I don't approve of this as highly, as the history would have to be restored), whichever people wanna' do. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • it's really not common practice? maybe it ought to be, just as when speedy deleting or deleting expired prods. Usually, of course, nothing will have happened that makes any difference.DGG (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for better consensus. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation I don't see the point of relisting the AfD if the article is totally different, everything currently there is irrelevant. BJTalk 08:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - If the article is not relisted at AfD but is recreated, would it be possible to restore its history then? Korg (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a difficult case. The article at time of deletion was clearly and substantially different from the version at time of nomination and at the time when every discussion participant looked at it. On the other hand, Uncle G did not take the time to note the improvements on the AfD discussion page nor did anyone else remark on them so there would have been little reason for the discussion participants to return to the page or to reevaluate their opinions. Relisting would not have solved that problem. Those who make substantial changes to a page with an active XfD tag must share in the responsibility for making others aware of the changes. Restore the article and list to AfD for a clear decision on the revised content. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


12 October 2008

[edit]
  • Opal Koboi – Endorse. There is a general agreement that the close was appropriate for discussion about whether or not the search for possible sources has already been exhausted in order to allow for someone (not necessarily the nominator, of course) to go for a substantial rewrite which has meanwhile been actually been attempted. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

I feel quite strongly that consensus was misread in this closure. The closer, Stifle, stated only his closing that "the result was keep" without elaborating as to what that assessment was based on. When I contacted Stifle regarding the close he replied that "You and Hiding were the only delete !voters as against six keeps; there was no other possible closure." However, consensus is not a vote, and the strength and quality of the arguments are supposed to be a major consideration. The nomination and the delete votes were based on the article failing the core policies of verifiability and original research, as well as not establishing notability of the subject. Only one of the keep voters attempted to address these concerns. Both he and I searched for possible reliable sources for the article, and none were found that give siginficant coverage to the subject. 2 of the keep votes' rationales amount to "make the nominator (me) fix the article", when in fact the crux of the arguments was that I and others were unable to fix it, despite good-faith efforts, because no useful sources could be found. I am quite confused at how one could determine a consensus of keep after both the keep and delete voters failed to find any useable sources, and the article quite clearly fails the core policies of V and NOR even after 5 days of discussion and source-searching. IllaZilla (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than simply tallying votes, may I ask how you arrive at that conclusion? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - arguments in favor of keeping are all in the "we can find sources, we promise" and "if we delete this we might as well delete this other article too" vein and do not overcome the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion closure. There was, as I previously said, no other proper closure of this debate. IllaZilla is free to renominate at any stage. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (fixed typo, thanks Alansohn; my "keep" closures don't show up here much)[reply]
  • Certainly there was. Deletion. Look at the keep !votes. There are three that cite the notability of the book series, which notability is not inherited by every character in it. Two say keep so that the nominator can fix it, when the nominator notes that exhaustive searches for reliable sources have been fruitless. One says keep because if we delete we might delete other articles as well, which is a bogus argument. The rest are WP:PERNOM. Where is the refutation of the policy-based arguments of the nomination? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:PLOT? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:WAF? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:V? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:N? Four strong policy- and guideline-based arguments versus a bunch of arguments to avoid; there's no rationale for this close other than vote-counting. Otto4711 (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AADD is an essay. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, yes it is. Now that this has been established, I'll ask you again to answer the questions. What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:PLOT? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:WAF? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:V? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:N? Otto4711 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess the "witty" response to that is WP:ONLYESSAY, but essays have a purpose on wikipedia (and that's why we allow them), they may not have the force of a policy or guideline but that doesn't mean they are completely without merit or immediately dismissable. There are many areas of wikipedia where a guideline or policy hasn't been established (and in many never likely to be), in those situations we still listen to reasonable argument and that line of argument maybe encapsulated in an essay for easy reference. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deletion debates on Wikipedia are an effort to come to a consensus on whether an article should be deleted or not. They are not a court of law nor a debating society — a side does not "win" by making points that another side does not refute, and admins when closing the debate are not adjudicators. Rather, those who wish to contribute to the debate specify what they would like to have done with the article, and the closing administrator takes account of the community's suggestion when closing the debate. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I'm understanding this correctly, it means that no matter how valid or policy-based the rationale for deletion might be, it can be refuted simply by "keep" !votes that fail to address that rationale in any way. In other words, all that is needed to circumvent our core policies (V & NOR, in this case) is enough voices shouting "keep!" If I had known that our core policies meant nothing, I wouldn't have bothered to provide a rationale for the nomination. The policy on consensus clearly states that "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments." I fail to see how any of the !keep rationales carry any kind of strong argument, especially when multiple searches for sources, by both the nominator (me) and an keep !voter, turned up nothing useful. Further, "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." I think that's clearly the case here. Since Consensus is not a vote, I fail to see how anyone actually reading the discussion and following the arguments could discern an obvious keep. I think the only way that conclusion could be arrived at was if it was based solely on vote-counting, which is not what a discussion is supposed to be. At the very, very least I had expected maybe a merge closure, or at absolute worst a "no consensus". But how anyone can argue that the AfD constitutes a "clear keep" is absolutely mind-boggling to me. When an article that is completely unverified, contains a substantial amount of original research, and appears to have no reliable sources available after multiple searches can be kept with as little an explanation as "the result was keep", then WP is in a sorry state of affairs. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (and a reminder to Stifle that the article was kept, not deleted) the issues raised in this DRV were considered in the AfD and rejected. As consensus was clear for retention of the article under relevant Wikipedia policy, and as there is no eveidence that any aspect of the close was out-of-policy, the article should be retained and the close endorsed. Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't think that there is enough reliable source material out there to justify the girth of the present article, but that is an editing issue, not an AfD issue. "Major character in notable series" is a strong argument for the likelihood of enough reliable source material available for such an article. Regarding the delete arguments, Starblind identified the Toronto Sun article as a reliable source at 18:58, 7 October 2008.[48] Three days later at 18:32, 11 October 2008, IllaZilla continued to argue delete because "I can't find a single reliable source."[49] There is not much strength to such a delete argument when one reliable source is in fact provided in the AfD. On balance, the keep arguments were stonger than the delete arguments. -- Suntag ☼ 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Toronto Sun article appears to give no more than a passing reference to the subject of the article. That point was made a couple of times during the AfD. Here is the article in question. Do you feel it gives significant enough coverage to support an independent article? I strongly believe that it doesn't. I asked Starblind to provide some quotes from it if he had access to the full article, so that we could see if it indeed gave any significant coverage to the character in question. He didn't provide any quotes, and in the absence of those we have to assume that it doesn't give such coverage. Hence I fail to see how it holds up as a reliable source to support an entire article, especially when it hasn't even been added as a reference (note that the article is still completely unsourced). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As of the first AfD, the keep consensus seemed to agree that there is a likelihood of enough reliable source material available for such an article. If you wait three months and no references have been added to the article, bring the article to AfD2 where the argument that there in fact is not enough reliable source material should be much stronger. -- Suntag ☼ 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm really confused as to how you could read the discussion as concluding "that there is a likelihood of enough reliable source material available for such an article", as I feel the discussion concluded the exact opposite. Sure, some editors said "sources exist", but when we actually looked for them no useful ones came up. Of the ones that came up, there was a sum total of 2 sentences mentioning this character. Others editors continued to say "sources exist" but couldn't provide any. Ergo the conclusion is that it is unlikely that enough reliable sources actually exist for this article. It doesn't matter if you say sources exist; several searches for decent sources were unsuccessful. Saying it doesn't make it so, and the AfD proved this. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, and what the HELL is causing IllaZilla to spend so much time, stress, blood and treasure on this issue? Tan | 39 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I feel strongly that valid, policy-based concerns were ignored in favor of mostly "I like it" and "it's notable" !votes which could not at all be substantiated. I think that's reason enough. Honestly I don't participate in many AfD, much less as the nominator. I don't think my personal motivations are of any relevance here. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per Suntag and Panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Stifle appropriately kept, based on the consensus. If I were to have done so, one might reasonably say I shouldn't have taken on myself to judge consensus where I had strong feelings that way in general for this type of article, but for him to close this as a keep or me to close as delete for a fully justified AfD with such consensus in this field is perfectly acceptable. DGG (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see a problem with Stifle's closure, though I suspect I would have voted 'Delete' in the AfD itself. After a discussion with such mixed opinions, there could be no objection to a later AfD before too much time passes. The Keep voters would have had an easier time if anyone had been able to obtain the text of the Toronto Sun reference. To avoid a renewed push for deletion in the future, I hope that one of the fans of this article might be willing to obtain the text of the review and find some remarks from the review that can be added to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pretty surprised to see this closed as keep, since I didn't feel that the main argument for deletion (i.e. that sufficient sources didn't seem to exist so far as anyone could tell) had been addressed. If asked to judge myself I probably would have closed as no consensus. However, consensus on this DRV seems to be against me so I'm not going to press for an overturn. After all, if the delete !voters were right then no sources will turn up in the next few months and the article can be sent to AFD again; if we're wrong, then so much the better. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I don't see how one could get a consensus to delete from that AfD. The keep voters imply (even if they don't directly say) that some sources are avalible. If they show up, problem solved; if not, we can discuss it again later. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, though rather reluctantly. The delete arguments were clearly superior, though the numbers in favor of keeping would likely resulted in an overturn if it had been deleted. This article falls into that gray area that is currently (and seemingly endlessly) being discussed over at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Rather than calling for deletion, perhaps a solution for the time being is to take this to the article talk and trying to get the article's contributors to actually provide some sources. If after a reasonable amount of time (a month?) no sources are forthcoming, perhaps a second trip to AfD would be appropriate. AniMate 06:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just added material from 35 sources. -- Suntag ☼ 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources that are accessible without a credit card all seem to be of the passing mention variety. The article still has no sources that are substantively about the character and the article is still little more than a plot summary. The rewrite has addressed none of the issues raised by the nomination and I note that the closing admin has yet to answer my questions above as to what specific parts of the keep !votes address the policy and guideline violations set forth in the AFD. Otto4711 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 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 DFenders – Endorsed. There are intelligent arguments on both sides here and this is a tough one. Ultimately, though, I must go with strength of arguments. The strongest argument for keeping has been that coverage of the band's "People's Choice" controversy was indeed significant. On the other hand, that strikes me as a tough argument to make given the state of the article at the time it was deleted, which was a lengthy bio of the band with a short section about the controversy. If there were an article on the awards, then some of this material could be merged into it, but there isn't one. As for the argument that the band does indeed meet WP:MUSIC, it's clear that the AfD participants did not think so--they only hesitated to delete because of the single event. Some were annoyed that the deleting admin did not provide an explanation for his close, but he has done so here (and there are good reasons why such explanations are not required by policy, since it would lead to an easily exploited technicality). Ultimately, this is a classic case of a group whose notability derives from a single event, as the delete proponents maintain. I am happy to userfy the article or provide the history for merging to another article, if someone can point out which one would be best. – Chick Bowen 20:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

This article satisfies three of Wikipedia's criteria for notability: this band has been nominated for a major music award, has received significant coverage in multiple reliable media sources, and has songs on rotation on major, national radio stations. Many editors called to delete this article simply because they had not heard of this band, rather than take Wikipedia's own criteria into consideration. Dogma inc (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I checked a cached version, searching for the band myself, looking at the AFD and the band's website. Not signed, no album (according to their website), potential COI. There are only two references that arguably pass WP:RS, and only one that actually focused on the band instead of the controversy of ballot stuffing. It seems the controversy is more notable than the band. In the AFD, it appeared to me that stronger arguments were given to delete. In the end, I can see no abuse in the process, and feel that their conclusion was reasonable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cached version is severely lacking in references... the most recent one before deletion was notably more in-depth, had significantly more references and information. And what no album? There's no other way they could have been nominated for the award... The album is available from www.realgroovy.co.nz, iTunes, Amazon, dunedinmusic.com, and many more... They also have songs on the nationally broadcast KiwiFM, which is another criteria for notability. And the nomination itself is criteria enough. You may think the peer-voting system devalues the significance of the award, but the band was independently proposed for five categories at the awards (Best Breakthrough Artist, Best Rock Album, Best Album, Best Group, People's Choice), approved as a finalist by RIANZ judges for the People's Choice, and then voted by the fans as one of the five final nominees. You can't just throw any old band into the mix, they still have to be approved as a worthy candidate by official judges. And, the voting 'scandal' created afterwards was sour grapes by one manager who didn't get his band in the top 5... and he's been called on it, and apologized, in reliable sources (see The Christchurch Press, 11/10/08). Even if you discount the coverage as being simply related to the awards, the band's nomination in the first place and their rotation on a national radio station still qualify them as notable by Wikipedia standards. Dogma inc (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a place to point out how the deletion of a page did not comply with the deletion process, not a chance for a second bite at the cherry with a different audience. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say that a lot. In fairness, you should explain to people that they can ask for a userfied version to improve and bring back to mainspace. If you say that bringing back to mainspace requires a DRV, isn't that just a form of AfD for the reworked article? A "second bite of the cherry". Your stance seems logical, but starts to fall apart when examined a bit closer with respect to what is common practice. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a straw man. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you will continue to endorse deletion on procedural grounds without mentioning userfication? It is polite and courteous to try and find a solution that satisfies most people, rather than insisting on process. DRV is not a place solely to work out whether the admin got it "right" or "wrong" and to endorse or overturn that decision, but also to try and find a solution. If you had said: "Deletion review is a place to point out how the deletion of a page did not comply with the deletion process, not a chance for a second bite at the cherry with a different audience. If you would like to work on the article in your userspace, please request userfication.", then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus - The keep reasoning attributed the source material to the DFenders and the delete reasoning attributed the source material to the other than the DFenders. References are below. In "Student band upset system", it reads "The DFenders ... campaigning vigorously, pleading for fans to vote repeatedly for them." In "The new, liberated musician," it reads "The DFenders, ... has been accused of rigging the online vote." In "Night of the Conchords", it reads "the DFenders, who were criticised for encouraging fans and friends to vote for them." A delete argument that the source material generated should be attributed to someone or something other than the DFenders is weak. While there were delete because doesn't meet WP:N positions, such positions should have expressly address the quantity of available resliable source material. I don't think a consensus to delete was reached in the AfD and the results should be overturned as no consensus. The references:
  • Hunkin, JoAnna (August 30, 2008). "Student band upset system". The New Zealand Herald. p. A8. Retrieved 2008-10-13.
  • Asplin, Steve (September 10, 2008). "The new, liberated musician". Manawatu Standard. p. 7. Retrieved 2008-10-13. This is under debate because an independent band from Dunedin, The DFenders, has made it into one of the top-five. It has been accused of rigging the online vote because the industry, which is mostly based in Auckland, hasn't heard of the band. The DFenders claims that it has a loyal following in Dunedin, has self-released a CD of its original music and the response it's received is because of the passion fans feel for the band. The DFenders isn't the only band nominated that hasn't been nominated in other categories. In fact, all five of the artists nominated for the People's Choice award are only represented in that one category. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • Cardy, Tom (October 9, 2008). "Night of the Conchords". The Dominion Post. p. 1. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
-- Suntag ☼ 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist While this is not the strongest situation for overturning, the participants at AfD advocating retention of the article did provide reliable and verifiable sources about the group, including meeting WP:MUSIC based on the group's satisfying the criteria that it "Has won or been nominated for a major music award." Even if the articles provided for the band are about their ballot stuffing and not their music, the group was nominated for the award and the sources about the ballot stuffing only further satisfy WP:N. The biggest problem with the close is a lack of an explanation as to why the closing admin closed this AfD as a delete. Even though deletion policy does not yet require policy explanations for closes, the lack of anything other than the word "delete" means that we are now left to try to guess the closing admin's justification and reasoning and to discern if the close was proper. Given the rough balance of participants arguing for deletion and retention, a strong case for "Keep" or "No Consensus" could well have been made, but we have no idea why these options were rejected. As there are valid justifications to support arguments for retention, as there was no explanation justifying the decision to delete -- even if no justification is required -- and as there are reliable and verifiable sources to support a claim of notability, this AfD should be overturned and relisted to obtain broader participation addressing policy justifications for deletion or retention and to obtain a clearer consensus to keep this article, delete it or close as "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Very tough call. Looking at the AfD this seems like a case where "no consensus" should have been the outcome. Both sides of the debate gave rational and compelling arguments, and no reason for deletion was provided by the closing admin. More community input is needed. AniMate 09:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deleting admin here. When I weighed the arguments, I was more convinced by the delete votes that emphasized ONEEVENT and the lack of meeting special notability guidelines, over the keep votes discussing general notability. To expand further, there were 2 keep votes from established users, 1 keep from an editor who had not edited any other articles, and 1 weak keep, this contrasted with the 5 delete votes and the neutral leaning delete vote that seemed to push it past no consensus and into delete. MBisanz talk 12:10, 14 October 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.
DRV incorrectly filed on October 11 under October 6 - moving here instead. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troopergate (Bill Clinton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I nominated Troopergate (Bill Clinton), an article that about "an alleged scandal involving allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton." The article has been on Wikipedia for FOUR years and contains two sources, which call the event a manufactured "scandal." Despite the reasons, which I outlined below, it was closed within three hours by the above admin editor (not an admin.) claiming: "The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nom." I want to see if I can get the AFD reopened so my concerns can be addressed. My reasons, expanded here, for the AFD were as follows:

  1. The article "Troopergate" is about an "alleged scandal," which in my nomination I noted is dealt in detail with on Paula Jones's page (specifically Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton). I think the article should be deleted, and maybe a redirect there.
  2. An article solely about one portion of an alleged series of sexual claims (which were thrown out in court) violates WP:BLP for Bill Clinton. Again, relevant information that complies with BLP is on the Paula Jones page.
  3. The title Troopergate, as I mentioned in the original nomination, is inappropriate. The other "Troopergate scandals" do not use troopergate in the title. For instance, there is not a Troopergate Palin article, but it is called Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal despite "Palin's Troopergate" being a headline news story today (it is how I came across this article).
  4. A discussion to delete this came up by another editor at Talk:Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)#Delete and merge. There was no response after a month (28 August 2008) so I took it to an AFD. That editor wrote:
    This article should be merged into the PAula Jones article. Apparently "troopergate" is a term that is only being used in a NY tabloid. This doesn't merit another article, and the term should not be used by Wikipedia to describe this. Wikipedia is not the place to showcase novel neologisms.[50]
  5. I just noticed in 2006 another editor noted: "the content was a subset of jones, and the notability is because of jones." He too thinks the material does not deserve an article independent of Jones.

In response to the AFD was two replies. One included claiming the AFD was "bad faith" because it is "more than notable and sourced and is not replaced by the current Alaska incident." Such remarks, show misunderstanding of my concerns and nomination: 1) It has TWO in-line sources over the last four years and 2) I did not call anywhere for the article to "replace" the Alaska incident. Thus, I believe these are legitimate concerns for an AFD, which was prematurely closed. We66er (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV template added to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is an ongoing AfD that may be affected by this DRV. -- Suntag ☼ 14:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was premature and should not have been called "bad faith" (closer, you jumped the gun), but this should stand. First of all, you never really gave a valid deletion reason. This incident was more than significant enough to receive a separate article. As for your points: 1) Simply because it is "alleged" doesn't warrant a deletion. It was still widely reported on. 2) It does not violate WP:BLP because the statements have a source (but could be sourced better), are true, and the article never claims he actually did anything anyways, only that they were alleged. 3) If you don't like the title, come up with a better one. That's not a deletion reason. The article needs more and better sources. But there is no reason to delete and this should have been brought up for discussion, not deletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this is a scandal that is rooted in american history. it should be kept in Wikipedia.Degrassi. 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What does "Troopergate" deal with that isn't or can't be explored at Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton? The Jones' piece covers the allegations and failed lawsuit. We66er (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Closed I suggested a speedy keep in the original AFD, and questioned the nom's motives in a more colorful and indirect manner. The nomination itself DOES appear to be biased, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others. Personally, I would have waited for one more 'keep' and worded the summary differently, but the net result would have been the same. The only "crime" here is being too blunt (ie: honest) in summing up the conclusions that we participants had already drawn and clearly stated. I have worked with Hammer a little, and I'm confident he is smart enough to see that it would have been better to choose a more neutral closing statement and wait for another 'keep' or two. This was a gut judgment call on his part, and most experienced editors have made similar calls before (for better or worse), so I don't question his motives. As for the nomination itself, my original statement stands without modification. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the first time Hammer's been accused of "jumping the gun" on AFDs: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_6#Oppose. Read the 54 opposing comments and 18 neutral comments for examples of that. In fact, his closures and behavior seems to the be the crux of his six RFAR failures. Nonetheless, you question me when other editors have the same concerns about the article. I would appreciate if you focus on the content and not level further accusations. We66er (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This forum isn't for discussing RFA's either. My focus and the entire purpose of this forum is to discuss the process of closing the AFD, not the content of the article, as I have tried to explain to you above. This is degrading into a personal attack against TenPoundHammer rather than a review of an AFD, which will not be tolorated. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You brought up your experience with Hammer so I cited other people's AFD experience/complaints with him. I have not attacked anyone. As I wrote to you above: I would appreciate if you focus on the content and not level further accusations. We66er (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. Yes, it was a little premature and hasty of me, but I stand by my closure. There are sources and the article can easily be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose as keep without the assumption of bad faith. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the concerns about whether or not this should be a separate article should probably be addressed in a merge discussion. Someone could be bold and carry out a merge and see if it sticks. But maybe not right now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. I am tempted to suggest a relist since 3 hours is awfully fast for even a speedy keep and the accusation of bad faith was unwarranted but there is no point in reopening it so it can be speedy closed again in 22 hours by an admin. Therefore, my recommendation is to slap TenPoundHammer and his otters with some trout and leave the close as is. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose as speedy keep a snow keep will obviously be the conclusion no matter who does it, but I see the point of Stifle's suggestion above, to remove the "bad faith" from the record. Apart from that inappropriate wording, --admin or non-admin it would have been a little fast for the circumstances; over-rapid closes typically are counterproductive, because they just result in long discussions here. I suggest that perhaps in order to prevent drift into worse problems, we consider asking Hammer not to make any XfD closes at all, or as a minimum and speedy XfD closes. There are enough other people to do them. DGG (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severely troutslap Hammer for a really lousy closing statement, one that seemed certain to escalate rather than defuse any conflict, and consider a merge. I've begun the discussion at Talk:Paula Jones#Merge. Chick Bowen 03:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this is an undeniably notable event and an article that provides sources to support the claim. While there might -- repeat, might -- have been an issue if there were no sources whatsoever in the article, the reliable and verifiable sources support the claim of notability and the close appears to be fully within process. The Wikipedia gold standard that articles and the statements therein backed by reliable and verifiable sources are retained is one that needs to be respected. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, the original nominator, want to let everyone here know that I have since proposed merging the article with Clinton v. Jones or renaming, the issues in my nomination, at Talk:Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)#Renaming. When I did that, the "speedy keep" is thrown in my face by User:Pharmboy (who has four posts in this DRV and one in the AFD). This is really tiresome, I thought if the other Troopergates don't use that name in the article title neither should this. What makes it even more compelling is all the information was at Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton which makes the article redundant. This is very disappointing. We66er (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That didn't look "thrown in your face" to me. It appeared to be merely a mention of it. And just because it is mentioned in the Paula Jones article doesn't mean there can't be an article on a specific incident that goes into more detail. For example, staying with the "Troopergates", the "Palin Troopergate" scandal is mentioned in Palin's article...I'm not seeing any suggestion for a merge there. Or the OJ Simpson murder case has it's own article, but also get a mention in the Juice's page. You need to convince people this event is insignificant enough to not warrant a separate article. And, to be blunt, you're not doing that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically the Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton contains the Clinton-Troopergate article. Everything about Troopergate has relevancely in Jones_v._Clinton. It's the reason she filed the lawsuit (to set the record straight after she said Brock defamed her)! As I asked above and in the AFD that was closed: What can be covered in troopergate that is not covered or relevant in the Jones (or subsection-Jones v Clinton) article? It's all about her. No one explained how troopergate is separate from Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton or how troopergate- the pejorative term from David Brock, complies with NPOV for a article title. My two issues in the first AFD. We66er (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) We66er (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose as speedy keep I may have been hasty with my claim of 'bad faith' with my first vote, and that may have contributed to the line of votes following and the closing decision by TPH, who is someone I look up to in the AfD process. But as I read it when I chose to speedy keep, it read as if the nominator was objecting to this case at the expense of the Palin version of Troopergate, and I was trying to say that the notability of this event is not trumped just because of the newer Troopergate, so I thought the nomination was not neutrally stated. I apologize to We66er for my bad faith claim and in hindsight I could have stated my argument in another way. However I feel that no matter the case, the article should be kept because it can be sourced, and no matter the possibility of untruth with those involved, they did get media attention that was notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as speedy keep and strike any mention of bad faith in the close. - This clearly was not a bad faith nomination. The nominator felt that the article itself need to have enough reliable sources in it to meet WP:N. While not a prevailing view in Wikipedia, there is enough editors who hold that view to make it a reasonable, usually unsuccessful, AfD position. The AfD nominator also appeared to feel that troopergate name of the article could only lead to a POV article not capable of being fixed - a reasonable basis to request deletion, even though there are better process (such as a name change request) to address such a concern. Without a nail, no hammer should have been brought down on the AfD nominator. -- Suntag ☼ 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist the debate. It will likely end in a "keep" but the nomination did not meet any of the criteria for Speedy keep. Premature closes are bad for the project and undermine our editors' confidence in the integrity of our decision processes. Let the system work. Process is important. Five days with a tag is not a high cost. Rossami (talk) 21:50, 17 October 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 October 2008

[edit]
  • Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis – Since this was nominated on the basis that the page may be useful to coordinate crosswiki responses to Gawp and given that Alison has confirmed that this is not necessary and cited the privacy policy I'm going to call this as no consensus to undelete but record that many editors contributing to this discussion felt this should have gone through MFD. – Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

This page was deleted by Krimpet under the rationale that we don't need shrines to vandals. Normally I would agree, except this user has been confirmed to be the sockmaster behind the pagemove vandal Grawp. As Grawp, Jarlaxle's behavior hasn't just been mere vandalism, but rises to the level of denial of service attacks. Moreover, he is active on several other Wikimedia projects as Grawp ([51]), so this page is needed for inter-project coordination. Blueboy96 16:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which inter-project coordination, normally when these pages come up various check users chime in and say that they are of little or no value to them in tracking the socks etc. The typical content of these pages are some IP addresses often with no connection (and of no use to anyone but the aforementioned checkusers) and some modus operandi, which let's face it the Grawp vandalism isn't subtle won't everyone spot it when it occurs without a page describing it? Regardless if it's an interproject issue the it should be on Meta, not here. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and move to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Grawp. *** Crotalus *** 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Grawp --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; WP:DENY is explicitly not a speedy deletion reason, as pointed out both on its own page and on WP:CSD itself. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see no evidence that the nominator has spoken with Krimpet about this deletion. I am sure that if one of the Checkusers or other administrators who are dealing with the Grawp disruption told Krimpet that he or she found this page administratively useful, there would be no objection to restoring it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Such a page could easily be useful. Jarlaxle/Grawp is possibly our worst vandal, and WP:DENY isn't official anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn improper deletion. "consensus seems to be against shrines" is not a speedy deletion criterion, and sppedy deletion shouldn't be used following a failed MfD, even if it was years ago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, though I'm not sure I would say it was "improper". This vandal is apparently still active, therefore info concerning them should be available (like...oh...their infamous alter-ego). --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I'm no fan of Grawp. He's a complete timewasting nuisance, and his unfunny meme has more than run its course by now. However, that LTA report isn't serving any practical purpose right now and also happens to contain personally identifying information. I'm not in favour of personal info on any editor hanging around the wiki unnecessarily, especially when it can cause damage to that person, vandals or no. We need to apply these rules across the board, IMO. Furthermore, without saying too much, I can't see how this can be useful to 'cross-wiki co-ordination' as the regional checkusers and stewards are more than on top of the problem, and aware of all the relevant details - Alison ❤ 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s a good reason to delete and keep deleted, but should Krimpet be chided for an improper speedy deletion? I think putting it through an MfD represents less of a problem than relaxing the limits on speedies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV isn't part of dispute resolution and isn't for telling people off. Not sure I understand what you mean in terms of relaxing the limits on speedies. Per most things on wikipedia it's all about the intent of the policy rather than hard lines, and the limits are always at the community's whim anyway. If everyone agrees (little chance of that I know) that it's a reasonable delete, by the very nature of our policy being descriptive, it's the policy page incorrectly describing the policy rather than anything else. To expand on that a little, policy shouldn't be treated as some sort of sacred cow, to do so may prevent it's natural development and change along the lines of the communities changing expectations and requirements, if on the other hand you happen to agree with the current policy on such things and are arguing on that basis, then that's fine. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • DRV is for reviewing deletions. Here we have a speedie deletion being contested. I note that it wasn’t a proper speedie deletion because it doesn’t fit any criteria at WP:CSD. Speedie deletions need to be tightly controlled according to WP:CSD, for a number of reasons. This page should have been put through an MfD. There is no apparent WP:IAR argument on this one. However, in this case, it may be that deletion is the right outcome, and if so it is silly to go through the motions of overturn, undelete, MfD, participate, then delete again. In cases like these, it is appropriate for DRV commentary to “tell people off”, whether by gently chiding, or even going so far as to slap them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "... for a number of reasons." without you enumerating the reasons it's difficult to say if I agree with your reasons or not, but I'll stand by my comment that no one should be guarding policy just because it's policy we stand no chance of things developing otherwise, policy is (and always has been) descriptive not prescriptive, if common accepted practice changes policy has by definition changed. But I certainly disagree without your final statement, DRV isn't about telling people off. Admin's should encourage review of their actions, making such reviews a mini witch hunt it likely to be counterproductive (I know this isn't your precise meaning here), though consistent poor judgement might show up as consistent overturns which may then be evidence in dispute resolution. The purpose section of the instructions, unsuprisingly don't list chiding etc., and I'm sure most here wouldn't want people furthering disputes by encouraging listing here just for the hope of getting an admin "told off". --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don’t think I am guarding policy. I stand by the last sentence, read in full. I don’t think talk of witch hunts or dispute resolution is relevant to anything here, and I am not sure what your point is with regard to my question to Alison. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry this has rambled on further than I intended my original comment which was really a meta discussion and probably should have taken it up with you elsewhere. I'll comment on your talk to try and round it off. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Should go through MfD. Essays are not speedy deletion criteria. Presumably we can remove any identifying information as necessary so Alison's concern isn't an issue. I'd like this to go through MfD (at which point the people who want this kept can explain what content in it they think it so helpful to dealing with Grawp). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Bankofscotlandireland.png – Image undeleted, added to article, and tagged as needing rationale. Note that such a rationale must explain why the image is needed even though it is not the primary logo of the company. As always, fair use can be challenged by any editor; this DRV does not endorse the validity of the fair use claim of this image. – Chick Bowen 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

File:Bankofscotlandireland.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

For use in Halifax (Irish bank). Image was mistakenly removed from the article, due to a misunderstanding that the whole of Bank of Scotland (Ireland) had changed its name to Halifax, and not just the retail division. The corporate division of the bank, and the company's registered name, both remain unchanged. Kwekubo (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't seem to find where the image was removed. Do you have a diff anywhere? lifebaka++ 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Image:Bankofscotlandireland.png was removed as a logo from Halifax (Irish bank) 18:34, 2 December 2006 and deleted 19:08, 6 February 2007 under CSD I5. Image:Halifax.png as been used as the logo in the Halifax (Irish bank) for almost the past two years (since 2 December 2006). The logo used in the website halifax.ie matches the logo now appearing in the Halifax (Irish bank) article. Bank of Scotland (Ireland) is a redirected article. The purpose of your request is not clear. Would you please add to your request to restore the image. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse CSD I5 deletion and undelete to allow Kwekubo to place Image:Bankofscotlandireland.png in Halifax (Irish bank) (but not to substitute one logo for the other). To overcome CSD I5, Image:Bankofscotlandireland.png need only be added to an article. Kwekubo seems interested in adding it to Halifax (Irish bank), so undelete and place Image:Bankofscotlandireland.png in Halifax (Irish bank) (someplace outside of the info box). In the end, this is a content dispute rather than a deletion issue. By undeleting the image and posting it in the article, the discussion will be moved from DRV to where it belongs (the article talk page or perhaps an IMFD). -- Suntag ☼ 16:45, 13 October 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:AlanShearerBanner.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|Ifd)

The closer's assessment is subjective and problematic for the implications of consensus - "I cannot see a strong argument of how the reader's understanding is significantly increased by this image". How strong is the argument supposed to be? The actual consensus clearly shows by valid reason majority and specifity of argument with regard to the actual image and its use as opposed to vague principles, that the image does increase reader's understanding enough to satisfy the NFCC. How is anybody supposed to know what this measure of strength of argument is, if it isn't demonstrable by consensus? The image and its relevance are unique enough that no other ifd precedents are strongly applicable (not that any were even offered as a tool for comparison) so the demonstrated consensus in the actual debate becomes even more relevant. This IFD results was at the very least, "no consensus to delete". MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this the same image that was speedied, came to DRV, was sent to IfD from DRV with the advice that it would probably be deleted there? The one of the guy on the banner? Protonk (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion DRV is not DRV 2.  :) Look. I think we had a conversation like this in the IfD. The image is replaceable by text. I'm sorry, but that is true. That was the basic consensus at the DRV, which moved to relist only because the speedy was incorrect. That was the basic consensus at the IfD. It will be the basis consensus of this DRV. I really, really don't understand why this is listed here. The first DRV should have been clear that the image was very likely to be deleted. It went to IfD and the response was mixed but fully within the closing admin's discretion to close as delete. This image has received more attention (by 10-20 times over) than most at IfD. We can't say that too few people saw the discussion or that too few people participated. We also can't say that the deletion arguments were invalid. the discussion came down to "does this fail NFCC 1 and 8 or not" and the closing admin felt that consensus in both discussions pointed toward yes. We can't come here just because we don't agree with that decision. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not quite right. On the claimed consensus across the two venues, I don't agree at all. We are both accepting all opinions were basicaly valid, so, after the orignal incorrect speedy deletion was sent to DRV, four people said list it at IFD but expressed no opinion on the image (DGG, Justin, Toon, Eluchil404) except that it deserved to be debated at IFD because that is where the people with expertise in image NFCC usually are. Also at the DRV, two voted delete without commenting again at IFD (Fat Purf, Anetode). Both you and Stifle voted delete there and again at IFD, while both Suntag and myself voted keep there and at IFD. Of the newcomers to the IFD, two voted delete (PhilKnight, Garion96), two voted keep (Crypticfirefly, Colonel Warden). By my maths, that makes 6 deletes, 4 keeps overall. Bumping that up to 7-4 by invoking the personal opinon of the closer is not on. 6-4 is arguably enough of an opposition to be a no consensus/default keep. When you consider the comments made about the appropriateness of IFD as a venue and that the subsequent IFD consensus when taken alone ended 4-4, then no, I am not inclined to believed that the case is made at all for a delete outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you considered the possibility that the closing admin didn't consider all participant's views as equally valid? Protonk (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Give me one good reason why he would do so. And don't say the idea of strength of argument, because that is exactly what is being asked to be reviewed here. MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you remember when I said in the IfD that you shouldn't hold out for an image like this getting kept because it was pretty clearly not above the bar for NFCC 1 and 8? This is the point I wanted to avoid by advising caution. People came to the IfD and said "the image of this banner can be replaced by text that says a banner was raised for him". This is a compelling argument. The banner itself had little besides text on it and his image. It wasn't a photograph that is impossible to describe in a few sentences. It was very simple. Since wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding fair use images tend to lean toward the result of "if it can be replaced by free content, replace it", this image was deleted. You proceeded to argue that "free content" wasn't policy and that the image wasn't replaceable by text. The first argument was (as I can see below) thrown out completely and the second was weighed and found wanting. You need to accept the possibility that although you feel the close was bad, others do not. That you might see the strength of argument on your side and that the closer felt otherwise. In borderline cases (i.e. unless it was an egregious close), it just isn't worth it to come to DRV. Given that this is effectively the THIRD deletion venue what are you going to do in the very likely event the deletion is upheld? My advice is to accept that the NFCC are a set of exclusive criteria and that "replaceable by text" is the killer app, so to speak. If we can remove your photo (which, by the way, can't be displayed in any version of wikipedia except the online version) and replace it with "this guy was on a banner that says thanks for 10 years", we have lost nothing and helped stay close to our mission, which is building a "free" encyclopedia (not just free as in beer). Protonk (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well the fact is, you're wrong, because "this guy was on a banner that says thanks for 10 years" doesn't even begin to describe the uniqueness, significance and scale of the scene. But this would require some research into the actual situation, and not dogmatic adherence to a policy that clearly exists just for this sort of situation. I say one last time, this is no Simpsons screen shot. MickMacNee (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm glad you can accuse me of dogmatism and willful ignorance. Good luck with whatever forum you are going to drag this debate into next. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your assertion that "this guy was on a banner that says thanks for 10 years" is simply way off target, and an extremely poor argument that gives me the impression you don't actualy know the subject material you are trying to comment on at all. If you are not interested in appearing dogmatic, and actually want to make your interpretation of policy appear robust to others when actually practised, why don't you answer some of the specific questions posed to the closer. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. A consensus has arisen after long consideration that the image should be deleted. MickMacNee's actions are disruptive forum shopping. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm calling it as I see it. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it an alternative way, it was guaranteed that if the IFD was closed as a delete, MickMacNee would list it here. This is a place for pointing out how deletion process wasn't followed, not for trying to get a different result to the consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as it was my decision that I see as correct.(I do wish people though would read the instruction Before listing a review request at the top, before leaping into a DRV). There seems a lack of realisation that the NFC and NFCC requirements are exclusionary rather than the other way. They are intended to keep non-free images out UNLESS they meet a very strict set of requirements. People wanting non-free images must show how those requirements are met and, in this case, those arguing to keep the image have not shown how it is NOT replaced by text (NFCC#1) and how it IS significant to readers (NFCC#8). As for many other images it is a notable image....but this does not automatically mean that it meets NFCC#8 nor that it cannot be replaced by a free alternate. As for most discussion closures it was not, nor should be, a nose count but rather an assessment of the strength of argument as relevant to policy. Arguments that are clearly saying we should ignore policy are likewise ignored. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have personally never ever seen an admin reverse a closure through a simple talk page request, and I don't see any indication it would have been worth the time in this case either. For NFCC#1 I explained in detail how it is not replaced by text, these were never rebutted in any contextual manner, but merely dismissed with vague waves. In the face of such acts, what more strength of argument do you personally want to see if it is now down to your opinion alone? It certainly wasn't detailed at the time by the deleters, so I'm not sure any of them actually know what the required 'strength' is, if it not supposed to be consensus. Do you want me to conduct blind trials, reading the text to random people, get them to then draw the scene, and show you how nobody would ever draw the same thing? Do you instantly know the scale of the scene being described, having never even seen the stadium? The evidence of readers stating the text is insufficient is in black and white. For NFCC#8, I gave numerous reasons why it is clearly a significant image, again unchallenged in the debate. Again if you personally don't think so and need to be convinced, please give me some examples of an image that would be more significant to the bio subjects career, or in fact to any footballer? I will repeat, this is an unprecedented tribute. I made a very clear case of why this image was significant. Again, why are those arguments not strong enough? It cannot be replaced by a free image, it is a copyrighted banner, it can be no more be freely replaced than a logo can. I ask you right here, what more can be practically done to take this out of the realm of subjective opinion, because clearly, that is where this whole decision lies if the rule of 'convince me more' is being applied. You have given no indiciation at all of the measure you applied. It is no use anybody stating that this is not IFD II etc if they personally don't ever state what their expectation is, and require others to meet imaginary levels of satisfaction they either can't or won't specify. MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Deletion guidelines for administrators requires that the balance the strength of the keep arguments against the strength of the delete arguments. The closer placed no standards or requirements on the delete arguments and improperly shifted the balance to a burden on the keep reasoning. In addition, the closer appears to have concluded that if you meet the text requirement of NFCC 8, that same text is enough to fail NFCC 1 ("is text in the article that describes the banner, to the point that image is redundant to the text."). The closer made no mention of the sourced critical commentary concerning the image that existed in the article - the objective basis for meeting NFCC 8 and NFCC 1 - and instead adopted the subjective test used by the keep reasoning ("I cannot see a strong argument of how the reader's understanding is significantly increased by this image."). Concensus is made by applying policy and guideline, not subjective, personal opinions as to whether a few editors like or do not like something. The closer improperly weighted the arguments and the close should be overturned. In my view (which is a little biased since I participated in the IMFD), the keep reasoning was stronger since it applied policy and guidelines and the delete reasoning relied on personal opinion and failed to comment on the sourced critical commentary concerning the image that existed in the article in its relation to Wikipedia:Nfc#Images#4 and NFCC 8. The close should be overturned to keep. -- Suntag ☼ 00:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NFCC 8 is "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", which has nothing whatsoever to do with critical commentary. Also, the image has to comply with all of the criteria, not most of them. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Nfc#Images expands on what NFCC 8 means by "significantly increase readers' understanding" and details critical commentary as an example of what would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Also, the applied delete reasoning made it impossible to pass NFCC 8 without failing NFCC 1. The NFCC criteria has to be applied reasonably, not in a way that makes it impossible to comply with all of the NFCC criteria. -- Suntag ☼ 17:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Since there were not many contributers and opinions were evenly divided, there was clearly no consensus and the discussion should have been closed accordingly. Finding a supposed consensus to delete did not conform to the emphatic guideline of WP:DGFA: When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:46, 12 October 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 October 2008

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

Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) CfD)

This is unfortunately just the latest in a series of questionable closes by Kdbank71 and one of several closes of CfDs for which the only explanation was "The result of the discussion was: delete", even where there was opposition to the close that addressed specific justifications for why the category should be retained. Multiple attempts to obtain any explanation for any of these closes was refused. As I explained at the most egregious of these CfDs, there is ample evidence of character's being described -- and defined -- as Obsessive-compulsive in reliable sources, which addresses the nominator's justification for the deletion, as well as all of the subsequent "per noms". The article "TV cop fights crime, own tics: Shalhoub is outstanding as obsessive-compulsive S.F. officer" describes Adrian Monk by his well-known defining characteristic. "Actor Tony Randall, 84, 'Odd Couple' neatnik" describes Randall as achieving his "... most enduring fame on television as Felix Unger, the obsessive-compulsive neat-freak photographer..." Frasier character Niles Crane is "diagnosed" by a professional interviewed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as having OCD (see "Local professionals weigh in on 'Frasier'"). The article "Desperate measures", labels Desperate Housewives character Bree Van de Kamp as fitting in this category, noting "Sure, Bree is obsessive-compulsive." These are just a handful of the reliable and verifiable independent sources that I found in a brief search that are defining the characters included in this category as "Obsessive-compulsive". Thousands of other sources are available to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic and to place these articles so listed in this category. It is likely that there's cleanup necessary for specific entries in this category that do not have any sources available to support the claim, but that is never an excuse for deleting an entire category. No original research is needed to come to the conclusion that this is a defining characteristic that belongs as a category. As the closing admin has ignored a clear argument supporting the retention of this category, has already started deleting the category despite his own request to take this to DRV, and as no policy argument was offered in the close despite multiple requests, this close is out of Wikipedia process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research, which are valid grounds for deleting a category; that Alansohn still disagrees with those arguments does not provide proper DRV grounds for overturning. Further, the sources he cites above do not prove his position, but instead illustrate the widespread colloquial usage of "obsessive-compulsive" to describe neat-freak personality types rather than to exclusively identify clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorders. Vague character traits, whose significance really depends upon intra-fiction comparisons (such as between Felix and Oscar in The Odd Couple) make a poor basis for categorization. Note also that the same category for real people was previously deleted as non-defining; closing as delete the same category for fictional characters could hardly be considered unreasonable. As a closing note, it's regrettable that Alansohn has made this personal by attacking the closer with hyperbolic rhetoric, rather than just explaining why he thought this CFD should be overturned. That the closer did not elaborate upon his close is not only consistent with applicable deletion policy, but also unnecessary in a straightforward CFD such as this one. Postdlf (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a "clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorder", this is a defining characteristic of many fictional characters used as a frequent device in print, television and movies. This is not a trait that a real-life person happens to have, it is a characteristic that has been explicitly and deliberately assigned by the fictional work's creator to define the character, and both casual viewers and the media at large have no problem in recognizing this trait and establishing it as defining, as for Adrian Monk, Felix Unger and other fictional characters. If closing a CfD in which the only justification offered is WP:OR, and multiple reliable, verifiable and independent sources for multiple characters demonstrating that the trait of being described as Obsessive-compulsive is defining and supported for individual characters can be simply ignored with a sniff and a wave of the hand, we have a real problem with the entire CfD system, not just this one out-of-process close. "Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research" ignores the multiple sources offered in rebuttal and seems to be defining consensus as a vote-counting exercise. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As helpful as the precedent is for retaining the roughly corresponding fictional category, it's not clear that the fictional "disease" is a perfect analog of the real-world one. Nor is there any formal process by which fictional characters can be diagnosed as having obsessive-compulsive disorder. The best way to handle this fictional category is through the kinds of reliable and verifiable independent sources that have already been provided describing the character and referencing the character trait for the particular character. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I see no reason to establish a "fictional" category for an existing real life category simply to differentiate it as fictional. If a viewer of an article wishes to see other examples of the content, they can receive redirection based on a real life category. If the fictional character can not be represented by the real life category for such a disorder as this, then they should not be characterized as such whether fictitious or not.--JavierMC 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Consensus was not clear, and the close was woefully inadequate with respect to an explanation. This should not be CfD2. Closing explanations should be complete without a need for a DRV to comprehend them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - DRV isn't CfD part deux. That said, I'm not opposed to a relisting. (Though I'm not sure what the purpose of it would be except for User:Alansohn to have another opportunity for Drama. Yes, I'm losing my good faith for his edits, especially per evidence here, and his harassment of Kbdank71 on Kbdank's talkpage - which apparently has led to a block.) - jc37 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is no DSM-IV for fictional characters and while it is certainly possible to add only characters who have been listed in sources as explicitly obsessive compuslive, it is far more likely that this would serve as an editor defined and populated category. It doesn't serve a navigational function since there isn't any fundamental commonality in Wallace Shawn's dinosaur from Toy Story and Adrian Monk. One is a cop (I gather) and one is a toy dinosaur. In practice, the category (from the CfD comments) was used in a fashion that contradicted WP:OR. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Proper policy followed, close within discretion. MBisanz talk 04:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closed in accordance with policy, although a bit more detail in the closing discussion would have been useful. Risker (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I won't say the close was wrong, but there wasn't a lot of activity in that CfD (which is the norm), and I think getting some more views on this could really help. For one, in the deletion nom it was said that it violated WP:OR by using primary sources. However, primary sources are not a violation of WP:OR when "used with care". A vast number of good fictionalX categories use primary sources and would clearly survive a CfD. Similar to Hiding's view in the CfD, I think if the criteria can be better/clearly defined then this would stand a better chance.
  • I'm no fan of fictional/pop-culture references about OCD. At least twice I've completely removed such a section from the OCD article itself for being excessive, filled with OR, and often being flat out false. However, there are a good number of fictional characters that are specifically stated to have OCD, and you don't have to worry about being excessive in a category (article existence pretty much determines inclusion).
  • So while I'm not convinced this was a bad close, I think we could benefit from continued discussion on it. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - admin correctly interpreted the CFD and closed it appropriately. Closing admin is not required to provide a detailed explanation of each individual close so the lack of one is not a valid reason for overturning. Otto4711 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not asking for individual detailed explanations, but a resonable explanation where consensus is less than obvious, or a link to one where a group of XfDs are collectively closed. As it stands, looking at this one CfD, the debate is unfinished and the close looks impulsive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; I could not see any other valid closure of that CFD. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - While I think that the outcome could have been different since there are fictional characters created to have obsessive-compulsive disorder that would meet the DSM, I cannot see any other valid closure of that CFD. -- Suntag ☼ 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for wider participation CfD when it deals with a matter like this is a broken process, because it does not get enough attention. I do not understand the argument that the fictional people noteworthy for having this disorder should be put in the same category as the real. I do not know if we do it generally, but I certainly hope we do not, for it seems very confusing. Perhaps this should be discussed as a general question. However, there is another option, which is to use a list for them. It would have the advantage of showing what fiction they were in, which would help browsing. Close was not helpful; admins should be able to tell when the discussion is inadequate--in this case and the related ones the judgment that it was was wrong, & enough reason to relist. DGG (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; To me it looks like a solid administrative close; Postdlf sums up my views well. Were I in the position of closer, I would have made the same action based on the discussion there. On a personal level and per the comments of jc37, Alansohn's behaviour regarding CfDs and their outcome is becoming somewhat tiresome. It's good to have editors care about CfDs and their outcome, but it also needs to be recognised that consensus can exist even if you yourself have disagreed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you have offered any reason as to why reliable and verifiable sources establishing the trait of a fictional character being obsessive compulsive as a defining characteristic should be ignored? How would you have justified the rationalization of the category failing WP:OR in the face of the multiple sources provided? Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily; in this case, probably not. Closers are not required to "provide reasons" when they close CfDs. It can be helpful in some circumstances if they do, but when consensus is relatively clear in favour of a decision, it's usually best to let the comments speak for themselves. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does "consensus" (which I interpret to assume you mean vote-counting) that the category violates WP:OR override multiple reliable and verifiable sources showing that the character trait is defining in general and that it is defining for the individuals included in the category? In the AfD world, sources convincingly beat a claim of WP:OR not unlike a royal flush beats a pair of threes in poker. In the CfD world, these same rules don't appear to apply, nor does there appear to be any willingness to acknowledge that such sources might even be worth considering as a justification for retention. The lack of a justification for deletion in the face of a well-sourced argument for retention -- even if permitted by policy -- only emphasizes an apparent disregard of WP:RS and WP:V, the bedrock foundations of Wikipedia. It is this most unfortunate tendency that undermines the validity of the extremely tenuous argument for "consensus" and "precedent" at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your assumptions are ill-founded. No, consensus ≠ vote counting. How many times must this be stated to you, Alansohn? I don't believe it, and I don't know of any admin who does. Theoretically, one editor's position could prevail over half a dozen opposite opinions. However, the minority opinion would have to be fairly convincing and based on sound policy, whereas the other opinions would have to be based on rubbish. While you may see this as applying in this case, I wouldn't view it that way. Don't be afraid to show some modesty about your own opinions; there's also no need to trash others', especially when they are explicitly asked for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • My modesty in my logic only stands in stark contrast to your belief in the complete and total omniscience of administrators. I have explained that reliable sources > claims of WP:OR. That's what we have here. Maybe if you -- or more importantly Kbdank71 -- would bother to explain why these multiple verifiable and reliable sources should be be ignored, you might have me convinced. This "minority opinion" (again, with the vote counting!) offering sources to support retention trumps the "original research" excuse for deletion. Only in the Bizarro world of CfD does this not even merit an explanation of why it doesn't. If you can show me why the sources I have offered are not "sound policy" you would sound much more believable than just insisting that admin knows best. Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please stop ascribing beliefs to me that have no basis in fact. Your entire manner makes users not want to answer you. You want an answer—or it seems, a better answer—or at least one that conforms with your views of WP. Well, tough. You've asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I'm sorry that it didn't satisfy you, but that wasn't my goal. When you can learn to be civil, then maybe we'll talk about it in more detail. Besides, the point of a DRV is not to refight your battles of the CfD. It's to assess whether the close was appropriate. Here, there's no question, really. It's all coming dangerously close to WP:POINT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Reliable sources > claims of WP:OR" is a ridiculously simplistic formulation that is bound to be wrong in many circumstances if it even means anything, because it always depends upon what sources are being used to establish, and upon what is argued to depend upon OR. You clearly don't believe that it is even reasonable for others to conclude that your reliable sources don't prove your points, but once again, your disagreement is not grounds for reversing. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that your cited sources do not prove that the term "obsessive-compulsive" is uniformly applied to fictional characters based on the same underlying criteria (particularly when it is unrooted from the defined psychiatric condition, as you've noted above), so they cannot automatically trump the position of the other participants in the CFD that inclusion in the category relies upon OR. It is also certainly reasonable to conclude that your cited sources do not unequivocally prove that "obsessive-compulsive" is necessarily, or even typically, a defining characteristic of fictional characters. Postdlf (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • There are a few bedrock Wikipedia policies that have gone by the wayside here: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. These three policies are designed to work together so that Wikipedia information is reliable:
                  1. Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth [emphasis in original] — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
                  2. Wikipedia:No original research states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.... Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
                  3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
                • These three bedrock principles are what must guide all Wikipedia decision-making, and are policies that all editors, especially admins, should be aware of and should be applying as policy. These three policies could not be any clearer in establishing that reliable sources trump a claim of original research, what Postdlf calls a "ridiculously simplistic formulation". Postdlf seems to be demanding a standard of truth, in which the plain meaning of what sources say can be safely discarded because the term "Obsessive-compulsive" is not "uniformly applied to fictional characters", as if every term used in Wikipedia has been standardized to an absolute level of certainty and truth. Unfortunately, all we can do is take the term at face value, as we must with every other source on Wikipedia. Unlike the Wild West Bizarro World rules in place in the CfD world where sources provided to support claims need not even be examined, this is modus operandi at the real world of AfD. This series of edits to the article Ruse of war was conclusive in turning the tide at AfD and I could provide hundreds of other examples where AfD results were conclusively tilted to retention by the addition of sources. There is no reason that these same rules should not be applied at CfD. Is it possible that these sources are not reliable, or they are off topic? Perhaps. But of all of those supporting the close as within process, not one has bothered to address why the specific sources provided should be ignored here. They may be definitive, they may not, but all we have seen is a hypothetical justification used as an excuse to ignore reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • DRV "is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly": WP:DRV. It's purpose is not to refight the CfD or to change what you view as deficiencies in the CfD process. There's no evidence that the discussion was misinterpreted. There is no evidence the closer did not consider your arguments presented in the discussion or that he somehow had ignored the fundamental policies of WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sufficient evidence for a relist is the fact that the record doesn’t show a consensus (even rough), as points were made and not answered (vague references to a separate and length CfD are not good enough), appeals were made to the closing admin, the close lacked explanation. Someone has claimed that CfDs doen’t require explanations. Well, if they don’t, the policy is wrong, and explanations should be required in cases like this. Participation at CfD is poor, and closes without explanation make CfD more difficult for newcomers to it. A lack of evidence the closer did not consider some arguments is a pretty poor standard. All serious arguments should be explicilty considered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Arguing what admin practices should apply (but don't) isn't a particularly strong argument to make. Besides, in my opinion the argument in question was addressed by the comments of others, in the related CfD for "fictional Holocaust survivors", which was explicitly referred to by the nominator, who didn't want to reproduce his comments in several similar CfDs. I didn't find that reference "vague" at all; perhaps the closer didn't either. I still see no error in interpretation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I suppose that I agree that there maybe was not an error in the result, but I'd have liked a decent closing explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Sources ignored = improper close. The closer -- and those others jumping through hoops in trying to justify his actions -- ignored the sources provided, which beyond doubt rebut the claim of WP:OR. Neither the closer, nor his supporters, have yet addressed any of the sources provided, all of which explicitly support the claim that the characteristic is defining. I couldn't think of a more improper close. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Adrian Monk states he has "obsessive-compulsive disorder", but the article has no references. No sources to ignore. Your vote in the CFD refers to [52], which is a review of the show. An opinion piece. Per WP:RS, Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, so yes, I can and did ignore your "source". The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them. Anyone else stating it is merely giving an opinion, not a fact. --Kbdank71 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • The sources that you ignored were in the CfD you closed despite the sources provided there demonstrating that the characteristic is defining. If your concern was that the Adrian Monk article needed sources supporting the claim you certainly waited long enough to raise this as the reason for deleting the category; there are three sources there now and I would be happy to add more if they would address your concern. I am intrigued by your claim that the only individuals who have access to information about a character are the writers of the show. I don't quite understand your claim that reliable and verifiable sources can be ignored because they are not from the writer, which would basically eliminate the possibility of coming up with any reliable source under any circumstances about virtually any work of fiction. How is it that we are able to write articles with sources about Hamlet given that its author has been dead for a few hundred years? Please tell us that you're not serious about this being your understanding of how sources work in Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Damn, I never thought I'd want to quote Ronald Reagan, but "there you go again". You're essentially trying to refight the CfD. This is not the point of a DRV. I would also like to see some WP:AGF on the part of those who endorse the close: to suggest that we are all merely "supporters" of the closer who are "jumping through hoops" is a bit rich. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Damn, "there you go again", still refusing to address why the reliable and verifiable sources were ignored at CfD or here. This is not "refighting" the CfD, the sources were already there. It is this refusal to address these sources that is the problem. Unless you count that bit about all sources being invalid unless they're from the writer. I love that one! Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I'm not addressing it b/c it's not the point of a DRV. Perhaps you should set up a talk page for this or something. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I'll address it because it's the reason I gave it less weight in the close: Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Yes, Alan, I did address your sources. You haven't explained why I should accept your opinion piece as fact. --Kbdank71 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • What you deride as an "opinion piece" is what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source". Any admin who persists with this gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of reliable sources should not be closing XfDs. You are only further demonstrating why this close is against process. Please tell us that you don't really believe that every article about a fictional work is an "opinion piece". Alansohn (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • This demonstrates perfectly the problem with the category. When we're dealing with fictional characters, it's difficult to know what is actually a clear "characteristic" of the character and what is one observer's opinion interpreting that character's behavior and assigning a characteristic to it. In this context, one man's opinion piece is another man's reliable source. It also demonstrates perfectly why this could be a great list—the source could be explicitly provided and the ambiguity even discussed, if necessary. That said, I think it's relatively clear what the admin's rationale was for deletion. So if we can get back to the purpose of the DRV, has the admin made any error in interpreting, apart from disagreeing with Alansohn about the cogency of a source? I can't see any. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • There's no problem with the category if we look at WP:RS and follow what it says; sources are sources. Its great to imagine that there is some sort of "ambiguity" in reading a source that describes a character as "Obsessive-compulsive" and simply stating that it can be ignored because it just might mean something else. All sources -- for fictional characters or otherwise -- are worthless if this argument is to be believed and accepted. No category can have sources and the use of some imagined ambiguity does not make it a "great list" while requiring its deletion as a category. The closing admin has made clear that his choice to discount the sources is not based on their not being reliable, but on his erroneous misinterpretation that no source about a fictional character could ever be accepted unless it was from the author. To quote the closing admin "The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." Does anyone care to defend this as the basis for a valid rationale, let alone as the sole justification, to delete a category? Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • Your statement appears to oversimplify and thereby miss the point. If it was easy as saying "sources are sources" that would be fine, but of course things are a little more complex than this. If someone is interpreting the source as an "opinion piece", then it's an opinion piece to that person and the WP policies about opinion pieces will be applied, as here. The closer disagreed with you on how to categorize a source. That's hardly a reason to overturn a decision that's been otherwise supported. I understand that you are not probably going to concede anything, and that's fine—I'll stop trying to convince you. I don't see your positions generating much broader support, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • Newspapers have news articles and opinion pieces, usually in the form of op-ed or editorial pieces. The claim that any article that might be construed as a review of a film or television series is an opinion piece is entirely unsupported by WP:RS. That this entire decision-making process can be tilted by one admin pushing this bizarre and unsupported position to ignore any and all sources about fictional works as "opinion pieces", the same one who insists that the only reliable source about a character is one written by its creator, shows that this is not just one man's opinion, but admin decision making gone way wrong. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • Not to belabor the point, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that this—even if you are correct—was the sole issue that "flipped" the decision from keep to delete. There were a number of other comments/reasons supporting deletion that were given by other editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)No other policy justifications were offered. The question is to give weight to the multiple reliable sources provided showing the trait as defining in general and for the characters involved, or not. If these sources are indeed reliable and relevant (I'll get to that next), the rule that reliable sources trump claims of original research would prevail, even ignoring the trivial exceptions in which this "simplistic" rule at the foundation of Wikipedia might not apply. The question is whether or not these sources are reliable. Kbdank71 has offered two reasons for why the sources were ignored (or "discounted" to nothing): 1) A review of a film or television program is by definition an "opinion piece" and can thus be excluded (this diff); and 2) The ony reliable source about a fictional character is from its author or writer. ("The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." this diff). It would seem hard to imagine that the close would have gone as it did without these two interpretations of policy that seem rather far out of the mainstream. Now that we have the justification for the close, it's up to other Wikipedia editors to determine if the two justifications Kbdank71 are valid. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, no, that wasn't my justification for the close. Part of it, perhaps, but by no means the only reason. I was wondering why you latched onto that like a drowning man to a lifesaver. No, Alan, you can rest assured, I wouldn't have based the entire close on the reliability of only one of your sources. --Kbdank71 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the benefit of failing to explain a close. If you explain your close, other editors can rebut your justifications. If you don't, you can always play the game by saying that "Oh, no, that wasn't my justification for the close". There just might have been something else that was so strong that it would have pushed all of the reliable sources out of the way, but it's so super-duper secret that I can't tell you what it was. Just to play the guessing game, does the fact that "I wouldn't have based the entire close on the reliability of only one of your sources" mean that now there are two sources you have a question about? That you have taken most of a week to share only part of your justification and leave us guessing the rest speaks poorly of the legitimacy of the close. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion -- Alansohn has made an excellent case that this category was improperly deleted, and that this category complies with all policies. Exactly two other contributors gave brief comments favoring deletion -- but no one who favored deletion responded to his well thought out, coherent and civil points. Further, the deleting administrator totally failed to explain his or her reasoning for ignoring Alansohn's points. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Complies with all policies? I'd be hard-pressed to support that statement. WP:OR tops the list of problems. Yes there are RL sources out there which state that a character may have such. But to call it defining of a character, requires interpretation of a fictional work. And that's simply WP:OR. A list article would be able to explain the application of the term to a character (perhaps even using the sources noted by Alansohn). But as a category can't provide references/sources for individual members of a category (See WP:CLN, that's not an option in a category. And since this requires sourced interpretation (among other things), it shouldn't be a category.
    And of course, DRV isn't CFD deux. So neither of us should be bothering to note these things.
    Though I suppose I should mention that I did note these things in several noms on that page, which I requested in that nom to be taken under consideration in the close. And Alansohn's "rebuttal", didn't address the WP:OR concerns (among other things). - jc37 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading sources and transcribing the information therefrom is what WP:V and WP:RS mean. Your oft-repeated claim that transcribing information directly from sources constitutes "original research" is not only ludicrous on its face, but would basically turn WP:OR into a joke. Your statement "But to call it defining of a character, requires interpretation of a fictional work" shows that you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented WP:OR; our job in obtaining sources is to find sources that support statements, not to find sources that support those sources which support other sources, in some neverending cycle. We take reliable sources at face value. The "sourced interpretation" that you keep on demanding is exactly what is prohibited by WP:OR, and your persistence in making the demand is further evidence of pushing some sort of bizarre deconstructionist agenda in which "words" and "sources" mean what you think they mean, not what they actually say.
      WP:CLN offers the strongest possible encouragement for lists AND categories co-existing. WP:CLN does point out that categories can't include sources, which would be an excuse to delete the entire category system if taken as your only argument from WP:CLN. In extremely limited cases, such as controversial categories, WP:CLN might prefer a list, but you can't possibly be arguing that this category is controversial.
      My rebuttal, which includes multiple reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim that the term "Obsessive-compulsive" is a defining characteristic for fictional characters in general and for the characters listed cannot be any more conclusive in rebutting the repeatedly false claims of WP:OR. I admire your determination to the belief that sources can be ignored because they can't possibly mean what exactly what they say, but that's not how Wikipedia works.. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't have to be mentioned again and again, but I find myself doing it. Can we assume good faith on the part of other editors? To suggest that others are "pushing an agenda" does not AGF, nor is it particularly nice. We can each forcefully communicate our positions without skirting the borders of dickery. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion, I have refactored my statement. Agenda or not, there is still no justification for "dickery" on your part as well. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said we can all avoid skirting the borders of dickery. I was careful not to suggest there was dickery. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    This is slightly an aside. And I don't want to place it as a response to any specific person, but it seems to me that a key part of the confusion here may be alansohn interprets Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the application thereof, differently at least than the other commenters here. And further, I don't think he's understood what I've been saying concerning Wikipedia:Original research.
    And as I'd like to presume good faith, I'd like to hope that this is merely a misunderstanding of policy, and not POV pushing. or worse, bad faith accusations. Because right now, the latter is sincerely what it appears to be. (Up to this point, I've avoided diffs concerning editor behaviour - unless it would have been requested by a reviewing admin - simply because I'm hoping to avoid more (likely needless) disruption, and for now at least, I intend to continue that personal choice.)
    So the following is an attempt to educate and inform based on what I see, and my experience. It's in no way an attack on anyone. It's essentially my last shot at trying to presume good faith.
    SO as a start, I'd like to hope that everyone here would take a moment and re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A key sentence that perhaps might help concerning some sources is: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact" - This is enboldened on that page. And since categories must be about facts, not opinions (due to WP:NPOV, among a myriad of other policies), opinion pieces are not adequate for categorisation. (See also #7 at WP:CAT.)
    And that's a problem with fiction in particular. Rather than try to re-explain again, I'll just point everyone to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective.
    A key concern of that page is Original research.
    And so when we go look at WP:OR, much of that is explained, but I'll focus for the moment on a section concerning the usage of primary sources:
    To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
    • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
    • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
    Now when we start to try to apply a particular "label" to a fictional character, we run into this particular problem. With a "real live" human being, this is fairly clear, and only is called into question regarding the scholarship of the source in question (did they check their facts, and so on).
    Well with a fictional character, who do we ask? Who's considered a reliable source as to whether a character has such a disorder? Someone watching Felix Unger on television, who may have this opinion based upon the symptoms they have witnessed? How about someone who is an activist for people with this disorder? Would they perhaps be considered to be pushing an agenda? One of the myraid of writers on The Odd Couple? What if the writers' opinion are contradictory?
    The main problem with fiction is that it's an interpretive art. And as editors of this encyclopedia, we're not allowed to make those interpretations. To do so is original research.
    Now we can go find secondary sources who have made an interpretation, and present that information in a scholarly article. But as WP:CLN (and most of the links I've provided already) indicate, a category is simply not the format for presenting such interpretive information.
    I hope this clarifies.
    That said, I'm happy to enjoinder collegiate discussion concerning policies and giudelines. But I'll frankly ignore continued accusations of presumed intention. - jc37 04:12, 17 October 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.
Image:Roll the dice.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache

The image is a low-res picture of a book cover. This was used to illustrate an article which discussed the book and its author, which is fair use. I spent some time explaining this on the talk page when the image was tagged but the deleting admin did not seem to read this as the deletion log indicates that he was deleting several images per minute and didn't skip a beat when he came to this one. I contacted him. His response was perfunctory and he has since been inactive. The thread has now scrolled off his talk page and so here we are. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use can be used to justify using the book cover in an article about the book, but not in an article about the author of the book. Endorse deletion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn/List at IfD as per reasonable request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. You can list it at IfD but it will probably be deleted there, as User:NurseryRhyme is correct, the FU exemption is for articles about the book, not the author. If the book is never going to be notable you could probably write some specific FU rationale tailored to that page, but just saying, it might very well be deleted at IfD. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/List at IfD -- Ned Scott 06:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That image (Image:Roll the Dice.jpg) doesn't appear to have ever existed. Can we get the correct name please? Stifle (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the deletion was perfectly in process...the entire rationale was "Low res picture of book cover of autobiography of Darius Guppy to illustrate article on the author and his works. This image is not replaceable since it shows a book cover and all pictures of this cover will be essentially the same. The picture is low-res and so fair use by customary practise." which misses a few essentials. That said there is no problem with running it at IfD...except that it's virtually certain the be deleted as it would be just decorative in the Darius Guppy article. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at IfD I think it might hold at Ifd--for an autobio it seems a reasonable illustration. DGG (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the image was replaceable in the context in which it was used. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and list at IfD - The image was speedy deleted per (CSD I7) as an image with an invalid fair use rationale. A valid fair use rationale for using the book cover in Darius Guppy requires meeting Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria with reliable source material. Wikipedia:Nfc#Images allows cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). The image page lacked such information. In addition, sourced critical commentary about Darius Guppy in the Darius Guppy article would not meet the "critical commentary of the book cover" requirement of Wikipedia:Nfc#Images. Sourced critical commentary about a book in the Darius Guppy article would seem to be an off topic way to try to justify including an image of the book in the Darius Guppy article. It seems to be done more often that we care to admit and consensus could fall in favor of such an effort. Speedy delete was appropriate, but given that the article is references and specifically is referenced in the Roll the Dice section, reasonable doubt exists as to whether this image can be listed in the article. IfD would be appropriate to address this issue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:30, 13 October 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.

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

The article appears as a red link in my article Is Google Making Us Stupid? and so it just makes sense to resurrect this article (which I read in some log was actually quite well referenced). Finkelstein is somewhat important. Notable enough, I say. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Didn't I explain that it is a red link in an article I recently wrote so therefore shouldn't this article be written? Yet I have discovered that it was written... and has had a vigorous AfD and DRV debate. It seems like eventually you have to give in, right? Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information but in this case they seem to be hiding the information behind some kind of deletion server. I would like to read the article (as would many others I'm guessing) so let's restore it, please. Thank you.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And do our deletion criteria or processes make special account for red links? (Our inclusion criteria specifically exclude internal links from wikipedia.) Can I create a redlink to anything I want very easily, should we provide an end run around every deletion debate just by creating a redlink to something? The existance of a redlink is irrelevant. As to the rest of your statement that enforces the view that you merely disagree with the deletion outcome, something DRV isn't for. Your statement that "It seems like eventually you have to give in, right?" is seriously towards gaming the system. "Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information" please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so no merely being "information" is not sufficient --82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I believe Finkelstein is notable. He has done a lot of high exposure work, and has received awards for it. Also, these red links are just more proof that he is notable. How many red links does it take for someone to realize, hmm.... it is not that Finkelstein is notable on Wikipedia but in fact notable in real life. Ummm... Wake up.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sorry, but I believe Finkelstein is notable." - yes we got that, you disagree with the outcome of the debates, as already above, not what DRV is for. "these red links are just more proof that he is notable" well John Zebedde Fred Zebedde no idea if they are real people but the prescence of the red links is no proof of notability. "How many red links does it take for someone to realize" read links are irrelevant - read the notability guidelines no where does the amount of red links on wikipedia count for anything. It isn't for wikipedia editors to decide based on creaton of red links (how about Bert Zebedde) the general notability is defined elsewhere. Again the consensus so far is that he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, and again this is just you disagreeing with that debate (and creating a red link to "prove" something, hey I disagree with the deletion of X, I'll work in a red link somewhere, end run around the deletion debate?). Read what WP:DRV is actually for it isn't that, if you have some significant new material which overcomes the issues of the deletion debates then present it, and I'll repeat again create as many red links as you like, the inclusion criteria couldn't care less about them. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is so much wrong with the above I don't know where to start. It is comments like this that make it so difficult for people like me to defend the rights of IPs to edit. Seth is linked in mainspace, repeatedly. That should be obviously different from you constructing random names and linking them. Moreover, the issue at hand is not whether Seth passes the basic notability criterion since everyone agrees that he does. The issue is whether he is of borderline notability. Since there's no rigorous definition of what constitutes borderline notability (See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP) bringing up issues like how often Seth is linked to in mainspace are perfectly reasonable as possible measures of his notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Err so if I created an account and made the same comments you'd not have an issue? What has editing as an IP got to do with this? Sorry you dislike the creation of random names, the point was simple and still is the consensus wrapped up in the notability guidelines doesn't consider them important, if you want to change that then there are far better places to discuss that and change the guidelines than here. The bottom line still is this review isn't based on any new information other than the creation of more internal links within wikipedia and the requester believing the original outcome to be incorrect. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you had an account I would have likely found another method of expressing my frustration with your remark. The fact that you were an anon is additional frustration precisely because I'm a strong proponent of allowing anons to comment. Now, it appears you didn't address the issue at hand. So let's be clear: Seth is notable. Everyone agrees to that. The question is not how to define notability. The question is how to define "borderline notability." It is perfectly reasonable that valid red links in mainspace are one measure that might could go into the weighing. If you don't see the difference between that are your creation on a talk page of random names then I don't have much to say to you and I doubt almost anyone else will either. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean you believe that it is perfectly reasonable to count redlinks, others may disagree. My example of how easily redlinks can be created was of to be abstract and the links to be invalid, I wasn't going to make a point and find similar real world examples and insert red links in a valid manner in as many articles as I could. I'm not sure why you can't see how easily the use of red links could be gamed which leads me to the opposite conclusion to you, that counting redlinks isn't a perfectly reasonable metric, and indeed wikipedia's policies/guidelines etc. don't currently contemplate such a metric, so I guess I'm not alone. Definining this borderline notability and the appropriateness of counting redlinks isn't actually issue for DRV, if anyone wants to change the way we deal with such cases this isn't the venue to force the issue (though of course define borderline notability and you just create a new border). And I still go back to my mine point the only new information raised in the request for review is that the nominator disagrees with the original nomination and that a new red link exists, I perceive neither as issues for DRV --82.7.39.174 (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've userfied it to User:Manhattan Samurai/Seth Finkelstein. I think this can be closed now. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, restore original to article space, and delete everything. The community has previously decided to honor the subject's request to not have an article, and nominator here has given us no reason to overturn the prior consensus. More generally, this was not an article that should have been userfied - it should at most have been emailed to the requestor. GRBerry 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - The last DRV was clear as to what was needed to restore this article. Referring to the 2007 December 30 DRV, the DRV closer wrote:

    The consensus below simply does not favor restoration of this article. The question of the subject's "borderline notability" is one that may be reopened should additional sources come to light, but there is no agreement below that the sources presented refute the "borderline notability" conclusion reached at AfD. In contrast to some other BLP deletions (where people must make presumptions on the subject's behalf) this DRV is visited by the gentleman himself, forcefully arguing for his own anonymity. It is a good thing for editors to remain vigilant, and concerned with striking a "balance of interests" in applying WP:BLP. The subject does not own the article bearing his name, and never exercises an absolute veto over its existence. Any "courtesy deletion" of a "borderline notable" person should be taken with utmost care and consideration, weighing both the privacy rights of the individual and the encyclopedia's duty to chronicle every notable truth. The consensus below is that, in this case, due consideration was given, and the right result reached.

Basically, a DRV requesting to recreate this topic as an article needs to include (1) a list of additional sources not in the deleted article and (2) a statement addressing the "balance of interests" and why that balance favors recreate this topic as an article. Feel free to post a new DRV meeting these requirements. -- Suntag ☼ 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, it just looks a little strange being the only red link in an article I'm working on. But I see the writer (or whatever he is, because I don't really know, which is why I would've liked to read the article) has actually lobbied to have his article deleted.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Not endorsing at all on this article since I still disagree strongly with the original deletion. I will however note that I have been keeping careful track of Seth's appearances in the media since the deletion and none of them are significant enough for me to be able to honestly argue that the situation has changed in that regard. We may wish to reconsider the previous DRV and see if the consensus is that same as it was previously. Simply endorsing deletion due to a previous consensus is less than helpful. I've incidentally taken the liberty of letting Seth know about this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we should do that. Isn't it crazy that we are not allowed to cover Seth Finkelstein? It is censorship... and really, Finkelstein will just have to get used to the fact that he has a Wikipedia article. We are now in the dark about who Finkelstein is and what he has been doing, yet he continues to write about important issues. I believe Finkelstein is afraid that we may peg his positions on certain issues, but frankly, we have a right to that knowledge. And now he is tangentially involved in a discussion about the magazine article Is Google Making Us Stupid? where knowing something about his positions might be useful, but still there is a refusal to create an article about him. Why are we biting this bullet?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have to say, this is an outrage! I'm calm but this article is pretty interesting, as is Mr. Finkelstein, and what more, we've been denied continued improvements to his biography. Shouldn't we discuss this again? He's won awards and done some work as an activist. Is he mainly an activist?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finkelstein has done a variety of things. He first came to wide attention for his work with censorware. He got an EFF Pioneer award for that work. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a web site <http://stalkedbyseth.com/> that is potentially wrongheaded (I'll assume wrongheaded) but for controversial people like Mr. Finkelstein it makes sense to have a Wikipedia article. That way we can come to a consensus on what is a NPOV on him. I want to be able to read in a Wikipedia context about this "stalked by seth" silliness. We really need this article. I like the fact that most often Wikipedia will sort out this kind of nuttiness for you, either on the talk pages or in the edit summary history. Please, overturn this deletion.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The presence of a website devoted to attacking Seth has little bearing on his notability. Do you think this makes me notable? Seth's disputes with a variety of notable people are nearly internet legends but they have no reliable sources talking about those disputes. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sigh... it appears yet another Wiki-conspiracy is ongoing. Yet all I want is to have the red link turn blue in my article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's no wiki-conspiracy here just a lot of history that you might not be aware of. Seth was one of the test cases for courtesy deletion of borderline notable people. Seth had pushed for the deletion of his article for a long time before this finally occurred. I suspect that many people simply don't want an article on the subject at this time because the drama factor would be too high. As far as I can tell if we had someone of Seth's level of notability who was not Seth who requested deletion we would say no. This isn't an example of a "Wiki-conspiracy" just that Wikipedians are humans. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sigh... It appears that Wikipedia is being censored. Why else would Seth Finkelstein be exempt from having an article? You can't pick or choose who is written about at Wikipedia. This reference source should be censorship free. I feel like I'm in China. A definite Wiki-conspiracy is ongoing here.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh... This appears to be another one of those cases in which Wikipedia consensus will fail to see reason on a very reasonable request.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to me that Seth Finkelstein has bullied Wikipedia into deleting his article, and is probably quite proud of this feat. It would be nice to reverse it. If you noticed all the other critics in the article on "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" have their own Wiki articles. He is a regular critic from what I can tell, one of some note, having recently written an article titled "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says". I think Wikipedia should reverse the cowardly deletion of this article. Clearly Finkelstein raises important issues and we have a right to know where he stands. Do we have to start a separate Website to deal with this kind of material involving critics of Wikipedia?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as nominator on the successful deletion request. Manhattan Samurai, I respect your reasons for wishing a review. And it's been nearly a year since the last one; that's not too soon to ask. If the subject had no objection to an article then I would wholeheartedly endorse your proposal. He has, however, a very articulate and repeated objection to it. Now although the site guidelines offer no specific threshold for borderline notability, I advocate what I call a 'dead trees standard'--which means I offer courtesy deletion nominations upon request for any individual who's the subject of a Wikipedia biography and wants off, so long as the person isn't notable enough to have an article in a reliable paper-and-ink encyclopedia (including specialty encyclopedias). It costs us little in terms of completeness to extend this courtesy and earns substantial goodwill. DurovaCharge! 22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the most meaningless argument brought up here so far. Let's just throw out your "dead trees standard" which means nothing and sounds Orwellian, and agree that Seth Finkelstein is notable (what were his article's page hits before deletion)? Mr. Finkelstein routinely raises issues of note and yet we can't summarize those issues in his article? Cowardly. The criteria of paper-and-ink encyclopedias are of absolutely no consequence in this DRV. Finkelstein's opinion of Wikipedia is also of no consequence in this DRV. His notability is and that is quite easy to establish. I have yet to see any valid reason not to have an article on Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't meaningless. It is a possible workable standard for testing whether we should include specific individuals who request their deletion. (I've objected extensively to this standard as unworkable for a variety of reasons, but it does have the advantage of being fairly objective). But it isn't meaningless or Orwellian and there seem to be a fair number of editors who agree with it. As far as I can tell, the repeated keeps for Don Murphy suggest that the general consensus for where borderline notability is is a bit lower than what this generally encompasses. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many very notable critics of the web are included in specialty encyclopedias, or any type of encyclopedia? Isn't that a little ridiculous? I mean how many encyclopedias have articles on Jimbo Wales? or Larry Sanger? or several of the other critics who are mentioned in the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?".Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Jimbo was in some dead tree sources (there are a surprisingly large number of dead tree encyclopedias about specialized subject), but to some extent you are preaching to the choir. But whether a standard is a bad standard is distinct from where it is meaningless. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you very much, Joshua, for defending my reasoning in spite of your different conclusion. Manhattan Samurai, Wikipedia has had a small but persistent problem with individuals who don't want an article about themselves. And in fairness to these people, there's a legitimate case to be made on their behalf: a biography article on an open edit website might be abused tactically by these people's competitors when they seek new professional opportunities. A Wikipedia article is often the first result on a Google search and nearly always in the first page. Since we have a conflict of interest guideline asking people to exercise restraint about editing subjects that pertain to themselves, and (being volunteer-run) don't always keep up with these problems as well as we ought, I've thought it was fair to offer a reasonable deletion upon request. 'Dead trees' isn't an ideal standard--its chief advantage is that it's verifiable. But it's my abiding belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. You and I will walk away from this discussion with little lost or gained either way; Mr. Finkelstein's professional prospects may be affected. His wishes are clear, and my ethical conclusion is to honor them. Your conclusion and Joshua's may differ, but please join him in respect for the conscientious decision behind it. DurovaCharge! 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you are wrong. There are already certain individuals (stalkedbyseth.com) who are attempting to defame Seth Finkelsten. A Wikipedia article about Mr. Finkelstein is unlikely to do that. It would look at the various positions he has taken on certain issues to inform the public. Your argument is a very bad one, considering Seth Finkelstein routinely publishes highly controversial articles, and has most definitely brought some attention to himself. The absence of a Wikipedia article is not going to create some sort of blank slate on his career, but will in fact bring it into focus. I don't think Finkelstein has anything to hide, and in fact, has a lot to be proud of. Also, we (public) have the right to be informed and write a Wiki article about Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Manhattan Samruai, you appear to be unfamiliar with my offsite publications on this subject (I won't link to them but they're pretty easy to Google). Yes, unfortunately, people have come to Wikipedia and misused the site's open edit features with an intent to do unmerited harm to the subject's reputation. This has happened with United States congressional representatives (whom we can't very well delete) and we haven't kept on top of it. Given that we aren't on the ball with the essential biographies, I think it's only right and proper that we honor the subject's wishes in requests to delete the nonessential ones. You may disagree of course, yet please respect that my reasoning has some actual basis. And...um...I'm 'Ms. Durova'. DurovaCharge! 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It sounds to me like you are saying Wikipedia is no longer capable of having articles because they are risky to the subjects? Again, I see no argument here put forward that is a legitimate reason for keeping the Finkelstein article deleted.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • New information Look at all these recent articles Seth Finkelstein has written about hot-button topics: "How will Wikia cope when the workers all quit the plantation?", "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says", "Orwell was right: security by obscurity = ignorance is strength", and "Don't just blame the internet for polarised viewpoints". Why again are we not allowed to have some sort of ongoing history/biography of Finkelstein's positions on various issues? Very Orwellian of Wikipedia which usually counters any Orwellian moves on the part of the world. We need this article on Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation if suitable sources are provided. A redlink doesn't justify an article - the redlink can be removed. If an article is justified, there will be reputable secondary sources about the subject. Articles by the subject do not meet our criteria. If suitable sources can be found (reputable commentary about the subject), then a fresh article should be created, as it sounds like the original wasn't based on suitable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, it might help just a tad if you were to research matters a bit before commenting on them. There was never a dearth of sources. Finkelstein's notability was clear. The article was deleted because he requested it together with the notion that biographies which were of "borderline notability" should be deleted when the individual in question requested it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Helllloooooo??? Have you read User:Manhattan_Samurai/Seth_Finkelstein. There are secondary sources. This is tiring. How about we work together to make this article suitable rather than talking abstractly about some potential writing we might do. Just restore the article and then we'll work to bring it up to snuff.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://w2.eff.org/awards/pioneer.html/2001.php Several other source links aren’t working for me. The subject’s concern seems to be that the article is a troll magnet or an easy site to abuse him. The solution to this is permanent semi-protection or even protection, not deletion. He can’t have every possible avenue of possible abuse closed. Changing to overturn, as I can’t see the logic behind many of the delete reasons and suitable sources exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk)

  • Endorse deletion Manhattan Samurai. Stop badgering people about this. I'm not sure if this is some elaborate performance art or if you feel this is the right way to engage in a discussion of these issues but it is borderline unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another thoughtless vote. Doesn't address a single issue, hasn't a single merit in his paragraph, and throws a borderline personal attack at me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Words like "thoughtless" "cowardice" and accusations of conspiracy and incompetence are borderline attacks. I am suggesting that you stop. Stop. It does not help you, the article under scrutiny, or anyone else to behave in this fashion. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki cabal Why are the only people voting apparently those who are well versed in this issue? I have noticed a cowardly bias in the votes here, probably because those voting appear to have been previously abused from debates concerning the Seth Finkelstein article. I would like to hear some fresh voices. By now, in a regular Wiki attempt at consensus, there would have been at least one or two Wikipedians voting for Overturn.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZOMGCABAL endorse - Manhattan Samurai, the fact that someone is attacking Seth with a website means nothing to his notability here. It's been determined that, especially considering his request, an article about him is not appropriate at this point in time, and nothing that you've brought up amidst the claims of Orwellian behaviour, cabalism, and misbehaviour. Nothing you have pointed out here is a reason to reverse the previous deletions. You want an easy way to handle that red link? Take out the [[ and ]] on either side of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. I am the only one (well one of the few) who has actually made real points. You know what? I am sick to hell of people telling me in these AfDs or DRVs that I have not made a relevant point. I am sick to HELL of it. It is you people who ramble on about nothing. If someone wants to read about Seth Finkelstein they should damn well be able to. There is no reason why we Wikipedian contributors are allowed to have Wiki articles about OTHER critics but are not allowed to have Wiki articles about Seth Finkelstein. Do not dare tell me I have not made any reasonable points. This is the most wrongheaded consensus I have ever seen, which makes me suspect a Wiki cabal or simply a stale group of voters. How do I get out the vote to a fresher group of eyes?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There is a simple solution to your problem, Manhattan Samurai. You can do it, or if you like, I can do it for you. It is to go to the Wikipedia article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, and press "delete" four times, twice on either side of the words "Seth Finkelstein". Amazingly, the red link will disappear. Blue links are overrated, just ask the folks at WP:FAC. Risker (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am so happy for you!!! You have managed to perfectly echo Tony Fox. Where can I report Wiki cabalism ... because seriously you guys are sitting on this article and keeping it deleted simply because you were previously involved in these AfD and DRV discussions before. In other words, you all need to get away from it and let fresh eyes cast votes.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go find where I've been involved with discussions about this article in the past, please, because if you find some indication of it, then I'll have to change my password 'cuz someone's been using my account when I didn't know about it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, don't worry about it. It's getting a little hot in here, huh? I had to change my shirt because it was getting so sweaty. Well, I think now that we've worked our way through all the Wiki-sitters we're starting to get some fresh new voices. Maybe the next 24 hours will see some improvement in the consensus... towards Overturn of course. That would be an improvement to me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Agree with rationale provided above by GRBerry (talk · contribs) and Suntag (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Et tu, Cirt?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wonder with all the hits you get on Google Books and books listed on Amazon that include comments by Seth Finkelstein, if he wrote all the authors and asked them to remove his name and comments, what they said? Whatever it was, it didn't effect them including him in their books. Are we holding his notoriety to a higher standard? That's about 25 books on the Google hit and about 18 on Amazon. This includes the same books listed at both, so lets say an average of 22 books.--JavierMC 05:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, I know. It's crazy. I just don't want to work on this in my userspace. If we resurrect it then all those books can be used to include some interesting factoids.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation/overturn It's been well established that this individual is notable by our inclusion standards. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm all for consensus can change but we are discussing this with no change in the overall sourcing. This is a minor barely notable figure whose body of work is the most notable think about them. They are strongly opposed to having a bio and the policy on barely notable figures is that they can have their bios deleted. Big note to everyone who cites the sources BLP applies as well. There is nothing more to add except that its hight time that we stopped writing synthetic biographies and only wrote bios on biographical sources, you know actual biographies, autobiographies and newspaper/magazine profiles. That would solve our BLP nightmare in one stroke. Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - for a whole myriad of reasons. Folks, we've been over this one before, and not all that long ago - Alison ❤ 13:12, 11 October 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 October 2008

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

User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)) (DRV)

I am listing this DRV on behalf of User:Westcoastbiker. After deleting it, I userfied this article at the request of the user. See the recent dialogue between us on my talk page. After I did some flamethrowering on it, and he added some content he feels it is now ready for review for purposes of determining if it would be appropriate to cross-namespace move this to the article namespace. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • No. It looks promotional. It lacks independent secondary references; those provided are paid advertisements. Encyclopedias are not for new things. Wait and see what reactions/results it produces, and then write an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not sure if DRV is the right forum for this discussion, but the userfied article looks very weak in terms of establishing notability, either under WP:N or WP:ORG. I very much doubt it would survive an AfD. The first reference given[55] is a paid site for self-published paid advertisements, certainly not an independent source. The second (non online) reference is given without any kind of quote and it is very unclear what it says and to what extent, if any, it covers the company. The third reference[56] is from some conference where the company apparently was one of the sponsors (again, not exactly independent). The only independent source given that actually contains coverage of the company is the last ref[57]. This one is OK, but there is not much there and overall a far cry from passing either WP:N or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the company is apparently a division of "Long Term - Short Term Corporation". It might make more sense to try an article on the main company instead--there is likely to be more material. DGG (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't restore; the links are not from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't restore - The only things I could find were Jaffe, Chuck (April 15, 2005). "Stupid Investment of the Week". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2008-10-10., which has a tone of "The problem with BetterTrades lies more in what was not said than in the actual sales pitch," and that Erica Shaffer did an infomercial for BetterTrades in 2007. Not much for an article, but the source could be used to add information about BetterTrades in something related to trading strategy. -- Suntag ☼ 16:21, 10 October 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.
Calpernia Addams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD 2)

I'm not sure how to approach this since the article has been up for deletion twice. I was not aware of the debate or the active attempt to delete or I would have liked to participate. Editors voted to keep it on the basis that Calpernia is a public figure , that she keeps a public website and that she represents as a spokeswoman PFLAG , a public organizations. I agree that what has been made public of her image, by her or her agents is fair use information, however, attempts to source her original male name and or photo's fall under malicious intent and violate wiki's "Do No Harm" rule. The editors do it ( I believe ) knowing that they are challenging Ms Addams current identity and inflicting emotional and possibly personal financial or physical harm. Whether they are aware or unaware of this possible damage is no excuse as I doubt that wiki was intended to be used as a gossip column . It's a sticky wicket for moderators I'm sure but unless there is some relevance beyond curiosity that part of a transsexuals previously non-public life should be and must be off limit's. As a public TS myself every argument I make is prefaced by the other person throwing out my old male name, purposely misgendering me and punctuating every other sentence with "freak" so as you can guess I have a rather high tolerance for verbal abuse and I'm more than aware of this issue . I would like the moderators to please discuss a "transgender policy" in regards to these privacy concerns . I also believe that people or verified agents of those people have the right to delete the entire body of an article if even one part crosses the line of privacy invasion. The responsibility should be on wiki to produce and collect accurate and informative sourced material and not the individual to have to police articles written about them by religious or prejudice individual through wiki ( yes I have had people throw religious terms like "sin" at me among the editors ). DarlieB (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Moved to correct day's logs. lifebaka++ 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the AFD discussions were obvious keeps, and the article has been edited twice in the last couple of months. This request has nothing in it challenging the closing rationale, so endorse the keep. This is probably the wrong forum for this kind of claim anyhow, and I'd recommend a speedy close of the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I read through the article and the AfD discussions and I find no violation of process. I struggled to try to understand the subject's BLP concerns, but I'm not sure what it is in the article that is causing the problem. I think that neither AfD nor DRV is the correct forum to address these issues. Whether it's WP:BLPN or OTRS, these issues should be addressed by those who can address the specific issues within an article that should be retained per consensus. Alansohn (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Personally I feel that wikipedia should be far more restrictive on biographies of living people, but WP:BLP is a sensible compromise. Anyone, inclusing the subject, concerned by the content of the article, would be better advised to stop reading it, ignore it, and stop doing things to draw attention to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but do not speedy close. We should always take BLP issues seriously. Given the subject's consternation over this article an occasional review, both to make sure we still want to keep and to make sure it is neutral and balanced, will not hurt us. Chick Bowen 05:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse - there is no question whatsoever that the closing admins in both AFDs correctly interpreted the overwhelming consensus to keep the article and DRV is not AFD round two (or three). This is not the appropriate forum to discuss developing a "transgender policy". I have already suggested either Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Village pump, and another editor suggested stopping by WP:LGBT. Regarding Ms. Addams in particular, I agree that it is the responsibility of editors to create articles that consist only of reliably sourced information. That is already stated flat out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which states in relevant part: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). I have done quite a bit of work on this article and I have taken great pains to ensure that the material I've included meets this policy standard. I could not disagree more strongly that anything in this article is "challenging" Ms. Addams' current identity. Note that even in material that discusses her life prior to transitioning, appropriate personal pronouns are used. No one to the best of my knowledge is attempting to source her original male name, and if such information were ever added to the article then the edits that added it would be removed and oversighted. Otto4711 (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the result of the AFD which was correct. This posting should be on WP:BLPN, if anywhere at all. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a clear policy-based consensus in the AfD for keep. Notability here is for from marginal and the information given is properly sourced. After reading through both AfDs and the article itself, I don't see BLP violations here, but if there are concerns, they should be taken to WP:BLPN. Nsk92 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A request that the article be BLP deleted because of unsourced attempts to add her original male name (birthname) and/or male photo would be best addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams (3rd nomination). Information about anyone's previously non-public life is off limit's since, by definition of non-public, there is no reliable source material from which to add such information to a Wikipedia article. In the present case, the material can be oversighted. You can start a discussion of a "transgender policy" at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. You can start a proposal in your userspace and use the {{Proposed}} to draw people to it. I suggest starting an essay on the topic. Since a transsexuals' "non-public life should be and must be off limit's" likely represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors, you may want to post your essay to Wikipedia project space. Also, a review of WP:AGF wouldn't hurt. -- Suntag ☼ 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close clear consensus. No new information. No compelling reason to think that anything has changed. Specific BLP issues can be dealt with on the page. The specific personal feelings of public figures has not much weight when the information information is reliably sourced and can be found through easy googling. I feel very sorry for Calpernia and obviously fate has dealt Calpernia a difficult hand to play but it isn't our job to make it easier for her anymore than it is to remove pictures of Muhammad to make some Muslims feel more comfortable. Once someone becomes a willing public figure the ability to pick and choose your coverage is not viable. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cell (Dragon Ball) – Nothing to see here. There is no deletion to review and AFD recommending merge is just that, a recommendation and is subject to editing discretion just like any other non-administrative action. If the recieving article wants to reject the merge that's fine, if you want to undo the merge that's also fine. AFD consensus on merges does not overide article consensus in the recieving article and is only a suggestion. The article can always be renominated and deleted if no-one wants to content. The nominator would do well to heed advice not to use DRV as a platform to attack other users. This is a poor location to parade ill-judged and childish assumptions of bad faith – Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Less than 5 days for a contested deletion which was basically a submarine nom in the first place and people only started to comment on after several days while we waited in good faith for the merge consensus that was started by the AfD nominators. I was adding more sources, and I just convinced bsimmons to change his view. Much discussion was still to come, so the close before 5 days is insane. If anything we should holding this open a few days extra because of the bad faith in not notifying the merge discussion that the nominators were abanonding the discussion. If it goes down in a few days, fine, but this is premature and frankly wrong. I will add that the mood was actually 8-5 in favour of merging at this time, because TTN is currently under review, and is going to be banned from what I can tell for (shock) improper merges without consultation JJJ999 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there were 8 people (and one editor who is under review to be banned as we speak for harming wikipedia and ignoring consultation) in favour and 5 opposed for merge at this time, but many good reasons and sources were being added on both sides, and the outcome could easily have changed if a correct amount of time was given to discuss this further. In this light closure after 4 days is totally unreasonable.JJJ999 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG seems to give alot of good faith, and even he thinks the claim that there is clear consensus is absurd. It is. I don't understand how someone would come to that conclusion in good faith.JJJ999 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that the close was wrong is absurd. The only purpose of DRV is to ascertain whether the close properly represented the consensus present. If you want to count the !votes, there are ten "merge" !votes and five "keep" !votes. None of the "keep" !votes address the problem raised in the nomination, which is the lack of notability asserted. Nothing that you brought up asserts notability, it is all trivial references that do not qualify as the significant coverage required by WP:NOTE. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a week, and relist if still necessary. If anyone thinks that consensus is "crystal clear" on anything to do with this or related articles, they may not have been carefully following the discussion. I say this without regard to the merits of the actual decision, for in the course of this I have been willing to support anything that that would reach an agreed solution; preferring a keep, but accepting a suitable merge with preservation of content. The lack of a good procedure for handling these is by now obvious to anyone with the patience to follow all the turns. But the early close--even a one day early close--for something where there was no apparent consensus was not a good idea. It never is a good idea to do an early close in circumstances like that, only when the consensus is clear and obvious. Otherwise it just comes here. I would support reiteration of policy that early closes are not generally acceptable, except under limited circumstances. Perhaps it should be explictly said that the objection of one established editor in good faith is sufficient to prevent an early close. DGG (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding I certainly think the close was in good faith; it was just too early. What was absurd was not the close necessarily (though if the situation had been the same at the end of the 5 days I would have closed as "keep: discuss merge on the talk page") what was absurd was thinking there was enough consensus to close early--that requires total agreement.. Many of these discussions change drastically on he final day when people find sources. The time needs to be allowed; that's why we have procedural rules. 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- Collectonian put the deletion on the log at 15:42, 5 October 2008 and the AfD notice was placed on the article at 16:17, 5 October 2008. Collectonian even took the extra step of notifying WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga at 15:46, 5 October 2008. How can you claim that this was "a submarine nom" and there was "bad faith in not notifying the merge discussion?" -- Suntag ☼ 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the fairly obvious reason that while he remembered to notify the anime group (after being told off last time for not doing so), he intentionally did not notify the people posting at the merge discussion, which was not on Cell's talk page, but was on the talk page for the List of DBZ characters. This means that people did not obviously see what he was doing whenever they posted on the Cell merger discussion, because it was not happening on Cell's talk page. This is bad form because he started the merger discussion and there was alot of input there. He then closed a number of discussions with no consensus. He was in turn told by independent admins that there had been no consensus, and the closures were without foundation, and merge discussions should continue. People then returned to the merge discussion as the appropriate forum, and posted their views, waiting in good faith for Collectonian and the others to participate in the merge discussions for Cell, Tien, Goten, etc, not realising Collectonian had waited a few days, decided he was going to lose, and nominated them for deletion, abandoning the merge discussion he started, and which numerous editors were waiting for him to return to. Most of those involved were simply not checking the talk pages for these characters because we'd already resolved the facts about the page, and the discussion had moved to the merge page. People like myself, Lord Orepth and others are understandably angry about this. I suspect with a few more days we'll be hearing from other people who are angry about it. To close an AfD a day early in circumstances like this, where frankly there was still considerable dispute, is totally against the spirit of reaching consensusJJJ999 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The result of an AFD is either delete or not-delete. This one couldn't have been closed as delete; any decisions on merging can be discussed, and consensus changed if needed, on the talk pages. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - you may have valid objections about the behaviour of some people involved, but the consensus on this AfD seems extremely strongly in favour of a merge. I see no problems at all with the close here, and an AfD "merge" decision does not stop you forming a new consensus to split it out again on the talk page. ~ mazca t|c 12:51, 9 October 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 October 2008

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

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

New information and sources are now available, which proves it worthy of inclusion. Cached Page, Player Bio on Professional Tennis Website, Core Tennis page (Professional Player database), and also Player history. There was no argument after this information was noted in the article and AfD discussion ATPTennis (talk) 17:17, 8 October 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, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nothing really has changed. A Google search for "Casey Gardiner" tennis reveals all of 89 hits, the only one of which that could be considered a reliable source being the ITF link listed above. And all that says is that he got destroyed in a low level, minor tournament. The Core Tennis link is just a directory that gives us only a name and that one loss. The Universal Tennis link appears to be a social networking thing for tennis players. Not a reliable source. Based on the sources provided, this is all we can say about him: "Casey Gardiner plays tennis. He lost baddly at an F25 Futures event on September 29, 2008". Resolute 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - It isn't a mater of being worthy of inclusion. There needs to be enough reliable source material to write the article. So far, the New York Times article seems to be the only reliable source information. And that seems to say that Lance Cpl. Casey Gardiner gossiped to the newspapers about Senator John McCain's son, Jimmy. That does not seem to be enought information from which to write a Wikipedia article. Also, it is not clear that the tennis Casey Gardiner and the New York Times Casey Gardiner are one in the same. -- Suntag ☼ 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as deleting admin) - I don't see what has changed since I deleted the article. I guess the requestor should have asked me about this first, but without something new, I would have declined to restore anyway. Kevin (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse He may approach notability with play in tournaments, but as it stands now, the sources do not support the claim and the AfD appears to refelct that. I could not find a single source with the terms "Casey Gardiner" AND tennis in Google News / Archive. Once there is enough about Gardiner to merit an article, backed by reliable and verifiable sources, there should be no obstacle to recreation. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 10 October 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:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)

No consensus for deletion. Those citing WP:NOT#MYSPACE gave no explanation or provided any evidence of how the situation violated WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This page was recently created and the author of the userpage specifically said "It's a humourous cabal nothing more. Not meant for socialization, only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors. --eric (mailbox) 04:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)". Those supporting deletion had only unfounded accusations, and didn't even bother to explain their rationale beyond a generic "ew, myspace" response. Policy did not support this deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Google cache version doesn't show that the page was edited (removing the featured movie and track sections) to help alleviate some of the concerns brought up on the MfD. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Er, Policy does actually say that Wikipedia is not myspace and the closing admin clearly took account of the not hurting anyone arguments. There is no policy based reasons why attempts have to be made to improve pages while they are up for discussion and the deleted history shows 8 page edits between nomination and deletion. I see no policy or procedural issues with this close and DRV is not MFD round 2. Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to color the judgment of those that show up here, so I'll refrain from making arguments. I have undeleted the history of the page though, so people commenting can see the page's content and evaluate the changes that were made to it during the MFD. east718 // talk // email // 05:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to say overturn to no consensus. Policy-based reasons were considered during the MFD and there was no consensus to delete here. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The term "WP:MYSPACE" is shorthand for the idea that Wikipedia is not a social network. It does not means that a particular Wikipedia page has all the elements that make up a MySpace page. Per WP:User, Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. As the closer pointed out, Keep because it is harmless or humorous does not address this. However, per WP:NOTMYSPACE, humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace. The humorous keep reasoning did not address how the humor refer to Wikipedia in some way and why the user subpage was an appropriate namespace for such Wikipedia humor. As the closer indicated, the delete reasoning did focus on the issue of whether the page facilitated communication to help build the encyclopedia and was consistent in saying that the page did not operate to facilitate communication to help build the encyclopedia. The edits to the page during the MfD didn't seem to change the direction of the discussion. Since the delete reasoning was stronger than the keep reasoning, it appears that the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. -- Suntag ☼ 13:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why people keep thinking it was a humorous page in the sense that it was a joke page, like say the Upper Peninsula War. When the creator of the page mentioned humorous it seemed far more in the sense of being light hearted. Considering the talk page doesn't even exist, and the lack of any actual socializing besides a list of editors, where is the WP:MYSPACE violation? As the author stated "Not meant for socialization, only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors." The worst you can accuse this page of is being inactive and ineffective of that goal, but it wasn't violating WP:MYSPACE. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While looking at the history just now, I noticed it always had the humor banner at the top. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The delete reasons asserting that the page did not facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia seemed stronger than the keep arguments asserting that the page did facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. -- Suntag ☼ 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understandable, but I've always taken that to mean something is ineffective, rather than a violation of something via process of elimination (if it's not used for X then it must be used for Y). -- Ned Scott 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Process followed, close within discretion, good MFD. MBisanz talk 14:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, strongly. Wikipedia has far more reason than simple annoyance to avoid becoming a social network. Social networks are under a lot of media and legal scrutiny right now and probably aren't far away from federal restrictions which, if WP is found to be affected, would be sharply at odds with our goal of being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what bothers me about this deletion, the continued assertion that it is MYSPACE/social net/LOLisezpenis type situation without any evidence of that kind of disruption. No one here disagrees with your statement when read alone, but myself and others disagree that it applies to this situation. The argument that there could be legal issues related to this is a very big stretch. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion It seems like it was a reasonable close. Frankly, I think we should generally just leave all this sort of material alone if the editors are being productive aside from this since the bandwith use is small and if it keeps people around and contributing to the encyclopedia then it is overall a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. That said, this seems like a reasonable close. I might have voiced a different opinion if the situation were different such as if the page had an element of trying to get more teenagers interested in Wikipedia, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you be opposed to giving EricV89 the chance to make it into something more productive? As I said above, at worst this page was inactive and not really effective in its goals, but it certainly wasn't a violation of WP:MYSPACE (I'm thinking we need a WP:MYSPACEPARANOIA essay..). I'm all for cleaning out the crap (I was one of the editors that got the ball rolling on the ESA deletions), but if it's not actually problematic and it is on the subpage of an active user, then why not treat it like something that has reasonable potential? These kinds of pages seem to get nipped in the bud before they ever have a chance to become something good. A lot of WikiProjects and other collaborative groups really sucked when they first started out, and this one wasn't even "bad". Where was the need to delete this page, and how did it violate policy? -- Ned Scott 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ned seems to be the only one confused as to why this violates WP:MYSPACE. It is clearly a page used purely for social purposes; WP:MYSPACE says Wikipedia is not a social networking space. Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. seresin ( ¡? )  23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least four of us from the MfD feel that way, and one more editor here at DRV feels that the MYSPACE argument was considered but not decidedly true. It was nothing more than a contact list of editors who got along or had similar interests. That's not prohibited by WP:MYSPACE. Eric specifically mentions that the intent is not for casual socializing, but for Wikipedia-related discussion among a group of teenagers. No discussions had even started, so at worst it was inactive, but still not a violation of WP:MYSPACE. Being a broken record doesn't prove your point, it only makes your argument look weaker. -- Ned Scott 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I'll ask you the same question I just asked Joshua, would you oppose giving Eric the chance to prove himself with the page and make it explicitly clear that it is for Wikipedia collaboration? I was thinking about this today, and together with some of our advice for schools that do projects with Wikipedia, it might not be a bad idea to have some kind of "teen" WikiProject. If we keep treating anything dealing with teenagers as being "myspaceish" and assuming bad faith then we'll never be able to develop something like that. -- Ned Scott 02:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you should take your own advice Ned. And no, nobody at the MfD, save you, said the page didn't violate MYSPACE. All (save the creator, who merely said it wasn't for socialization which is clearly false) said only that it was humorous and did not harm. No mention of MYSPACE. The page did indeed say it was for Wikipedia-related discussion, but absolutely none of that took place, and general socializing did (and most of it by the creator himself, so to assert that he intended it for strictly Wikipedia-related discussion is, again, contrary to the evidence). WikiProjects are organized by their focus, not by the types of editors which it comprises. If we were to break that convention (which we shouldn't), then it would be hosted in Wikipedia: space, and would need to be totally reorganized, making restoration of this page unneeded. seresin ( ¡? )  02:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, what's with the hostility? "and general socializing did" page history is undeleted, and nothing of the sort happened. (which isn't to say that would make it violate WP:MYSPACE, but as you said, it was almost entirely the creator of the page making edits) With the movie/music section removed, it was nothing more than a list of editors. More socializing happens on user talk pages with people leaving each other happy birthday cards and silly little notes. You're citing a list of names and inactivity as signs of being like myspace?
          • You're wrong about me being the only person who felt the page didn't violate WP:MYSPACE. The second keep supporter doesn't even mention the word humor ("Keep Looks completely harmless. If/when there's a problem, we can do something about it then."), and again you blatantly assume bad faith of Eric and discredit his view altogether. If someone is supporting keeping something in light of an accusation like WP:MYSPACE, and they say it's not causing disruption, then it doesn't take a genius to fairly say that they don't agree with the deletion argument. It might be similar in some vague ways to myspace and socializing/discussion, but that does not make it violate WP:MYSPACE. But hey, how about we just ask them? I'll leave a note on their talk pages to ask for clarification on what they meant. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • [58], [59]. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No hostility, I just find it amusing that you are the one beating your point into the ground, convincing no one, and yet you tell me that I am being a broken record and weakening my argument. Where did you get the idea that MYSPACE has anything at all to do with disruption? The word 'disruptive' or 'disruption' does not even appear in the section. WP:NOT#MYSPACE (point 1) only discusses Wikipedia pages which are used as a social network, which, interestingly, is the function MySpace serves. And I am aware that the second keep supporter didn't mention the word humor. Rather, he said it was harmless, which would be the second thing I listed; although my use of 'and' rather than 'or' implies both arguments were used, I suspect you were not truly mislead. I'll amend it so that there is no further confusion. I did not assume bad faith of eric, nor did I discredit his view; rather I noted that what he said the page was for and what he used the page for were two very different things. And finally, the socializing was indeed removed, but it was not replaced with any sort of aim for encyclopedic collaboration, and so it seems to me the page, had it not been rightfully deleted, would have continued to be used for socializing. seresin ( ¡? )  03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • My apologies for the broken record comment, as mentioned on your talk page, but again I disagree with your assessment on the situation. I've got OCD which leads me to over think things sometimes, causing me to rant. I'm not trying to beat my point into the ground, rather I'm honestly trying to understand your perspective as well as trying to clarify my own. "convincing no one" is also wrong, like I said before, I'm not the only one who holds this view, not even in this very DRV. Again, I apologies for coming off as hostile, and I will try to back off from this. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh a side note, I don't think the idea of a Teen WikiProject is that out there, nor does it break the traditional WikiProject concept. This would be about content, and editors of all ages would be able to join. It simply would be of particular interest to teen editors because the subject of the project would be teen-related issues. The same way most of the people in WP:ANIME are anime fans, but we don't think of it as being organized by types of editors. There certainly is enough out there to collaborate on to make it worth exploring. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse as the original nominator, my original premises remain unchanged. This page violates policy by socially networking users in a way that might hinder productivity. While the BRC is meant to be funny, it is NOT meant to network users.  Marlith (Talk)  02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that is your position in the MFD, but what we are asking here is if you felt there was consensus among those in the MFD or not. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I would be interested in hearing you expand on the idea that it could actually hinder productivity, considering it existed for a few months and had yet to do so. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the subject of the BRC, I've always felt it was specifically intended to be both humorous and allow a connection between editors. The BRC is made up of editors who are friends, or at least more close than your average editor. There's definitely a click involved there (but that isn't a bad thing). I find it very hard to swallow that the BRC is not about socializing (but in a way that is positive and helps Wikipedia by encouraging a strong feeling of community). -- Ned Scott 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A reasonable MfD close, reflecting policy-based arguments presented in the discussion. Although I did not participate in the original MfD, I certainly would have voted delete myself. Apart from the general Myspace and social networking issues raised in the MfD, I also strongly dislike the privacy implications of having a page of this kind. We really should not encourage, not even indirectly, WP users to reveal anything about their age, and certainly not to disclose their underage/teen status. Nsk92 (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This page did not violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. If it did, it was borderline. It had yet to do anything as well, so we weren't to know if it was going to violate it or not. Apart from the claims of "myspace", there was no policy given reason for this to go. I'll be happy to opine on a future MFD, once this cabal has done something. -- how do you turn this on 14:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Even though I originally voted keep, I now see that it violates WP:MYSPACE. If they wish to have casual conversation, they are welcome to use IRC. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I still don't think consensus was reached in the MfD, I should place my views here in context. This really is a minor situation that I don't feel is that important, but I feel that situations like this might cause a slippery slope. I've seen other XfDs where something that was useful, or at least had realistic potential in being useful, was deleted for the possibility of being a violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. So I guess you could say that this MfD struck a nerve, but rest assure that I'm sane enough to realize that this particular page really didn't hold something valuable. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the closing admin said the arguements for keeping the page (harmless/humourous) do not stand up to the policy based arguements for deletion. (Of probably less importance I think there's some kind of Wikimedia directive against age discrimination within its projects.) Guest9999 (talk) 06:09, 12 October 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.

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

No notice of AfD on merge-target article TJRC (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD may be found here. The closure was to merge to Strappado. Given the discussion apparently quickly morphed to a merger proposal, notice should have been given to the target article, to invite discussion from editors of that article. The result of merger was reached with no input of the editors of the Strappado article. Controversial merger discussions generally provide notice on both articles.

I believe that the outcome would have been very different had the Strappado editors been given notice and a chance to participate. The Strappado article is very focused on the actual use of strappado as torture, usually government-sponsored torture, throughout the world. It has a very different focus from the sexual play, and the sexual play aspect has no place in it. I request that the discussion be reopened after the editors of that article have had notice of the proposal and an opportunity to participate. TJRC (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if my close is being contested or just the lack of advertising. BJTalk 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be more clear: I'm not objecting to BJ's action. Given the way the discussion went, it was certainly a good-faith close on his part. I'm contesting the process and result, because it was done without the input of the editors of Strappado, who would have had valuable input to the discussion,and who should have been heard from. TJRC (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Requiring the notification of anyone and everyone who might possibly care about an AFD is impossible, besides being process creepy. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and retarget merge to BDSM - The AfD discussion was listed at WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. As for individual notifications, there were 27 unique editors to the article (10 IP addresses). User:Taxwoman made 11 edits to the Strappado bondage article, which was the most number of edits to the article. Notification in that case probably wouldn't have done much since Taxwoman is banned from editing. Matt Crypto had 4 edits to the article and Jbc01 (AfD notified) and CheshireKatz each had 3 edits. The rest had 2 or 1 number of edits to the article. As for the merge target, it doesn't seem possible to place an AfD notice on an AfD merge target article since the merge target is not known until the AfD is over. It would be was appropriate to place a DRV notice on the Strappado talk page and would be appropriate to notify editors of the Strappado article about this Drv. The (i) individual notice issue and (ii) placing AfD notices on AfD merge target articles can be raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). There might be reliable sources out there, see Google books, but the lack of reliable source material was the reason for the merge consensus. DGGs position, "some other forms of bondage--possibly a general article on arm bondage which would cover several of todays articles-- but probably not to the torture device" makes sense. I think BDSM is the best choice. -- Suntag ☼ 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close no reason given to overturn AfD consensus. If the editors at Strappado don't want the merged content (and I can't blame them) they have the option to merge it someplace else instead, or to remove it entirely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Proper deletion process followed, no requirement to notify of pending proposed merger. MBisanz talk 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a BDSM related article - Bondage_(BDSM)#Technique is the best that I can see. Strappado bondage is primarily not at all a form of torture, as claimed by several of those who voted Merge - as explained in the article (and as the name implies), it is a form of bondage. I.e., one holds the position associated with "strappado", but it is not generally intended to apply pain. Even in cases where this might be done, I feel it's unlikely it's done to anywhere near the same level - i.e., as described in Strappado#Variants: "this will cause a very intense pain and possible dislocation of the arms", "The technique typically causes brachial plexus injury, leading to paralysis or loss of sensation in the arm" and "leading to broken shoulders". Ouch! This is nothing at all like strappado bondage. You do make a good point - with a merge proposal, the SOURCE and TARGET articles are tagged, but with AfD, editors can vote to merge it to any random article, which is not tagged. I don't think that the material can simply be pasted in as a subsection, because the rest of the article talks about strappado as a torture (see the quotes I give above), so the editors are left with the task of reworking the entire article to address both issues. Although it's true that, as User:Starblind says, there is no reason why editors can't later move the content elsewhere. The question of where to move it is unclear though - whilst I'd say a bondage or BDSM article is more appropriate than strappado, the problem is that currently, all other bondage positions have their own article (see Category:Bondage positions). If you look at the Bondage (BDSM) and BDSM articles, a section just for one particular type of bondage will look rather out of place. Any better suggestions? I also disagree that this is a dictionary definition, as argued by the Delete votes - whilst "strappado" and "bondage" are words, I would not expect to look up "strappado bondage" in the dictionary... Mdwh (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No requirement to notify at the target article. The AFD was properly conducted. A brief mention in the article on the torture, that some people get sexual enjoyment from the torture, or from thinking about it or looking at pictures of it, is worth including in the target article, so ling as there is at least one reliable source to satisfy verification. It could be deleted from the target article if that is the consensus there. Edison (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please see my comment above - this article isn't about people getting sexual enjoyment from strappado torture, it's about a form of bondage; nor is the article about images of strappado torture. If the consensus is still to merge it there, that's fine, but it should be done so under a correct understanding of the term. Mdwh (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the same situation as Cell (Dragon Ball). Merge AfD closures are suggestions, not set-in-stone things. Feel free to reject, retarget, or otherwise change around the way the merge actually does or doesn't happen (using talkpage consensus). If it turns out the page doesn't get merged, another AfD for it may be appropriate. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request withdrawn - Thank you all for your comments on this. It seems clear that the consensus is to endorse the deletion, for substantial reasons. For my part I had not realized, as a few editors have pointed out and User:Lifebaka puts so clearly, "Merge AfD closures are suggestions, not set-in-stone things." I have no objection to the article's deletion, only its merger into an article that is pretty clearly only superficially related. I withdraw my request for review, and we'll deal with the issue of where to merge in the ordinary course. Thank you all for your input and education. TJRC (talk) 19:34, 9 October 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.

JoeCool950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Need the orignal user page back up. Did not want it deleted and ask that it be restored to the original. Don't like how I had to redue it and want it restored, if you could find where it was originally deleted, then bring it back up for me JoeCool950 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 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 October 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:NewYorkYankees caplogo.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)
Nominator reuploaded image after deletion -Nv8200p talk 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It got speedy deleted as salted as a g4. Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the IFD is here Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed, and the consensus was KEEP. The rationale for deleting was listed as "Any detail need to identify the uniform of the team properly should be shown as a magnified inset in the uniform drawing image not in another non-free image per NFCC 3a", ignoring the discussion which noted that the subset (the subject of this image) was not legible in the other image, and consequently was not helpful to the article, which discusses in detail the differences between the Yankees' uniform, cap and print logos. Without adequately legible versions of all three logos, the article is diminished. In addition, if we are to delete this image we will need to delete hundreds more, as most uniform graphics include images of a team's cap, primary or helmet logo (this is certainly the case with the thirty Major League Baseball articles). If that is to be the policy, I would argue that it would be better to delete the uniform graphics, not the cap or helmet graphics, and adopt a system similar to Template:Football_kit. SixFourThree (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

  • Endorse deletion (from closing admin) Adding another non-free image goes against WP:NFCC3a. The detail should be part of the uniform image (already non-free) not a separate image. -Nv8200p talk 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with 3a is that the one item mentioned is not able to "convey equivalent significant information" as the cap logo is not distinguishable from the print logo (which was the consensus of the original discussion), and is arguably not even distinguishable from the uniform logo. To that end, I would suggest again that if any of these graphics violate 3a, it would be Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG, and that is the one which should be deleted. I personally think that they fail to violate 3a, for the reason noted. The information conveyed is hardly equivalent, if it fails to address the relevant section of the article. SixFourThree (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
  • Overturn The decision seems to ignore the facts of this specific case in favor of a broader principle.LedRush (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct closure. Multiple non-free images may not be used where one would suffice. Pick one. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we think the "NY" logo is protected by copyright? Postdlf (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'overturn There is a clear explanation for why multiple non-free images make sense here so there's no 3a issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. Not violating copyright is policy; NFCC is a guideline & therefore flexible; the interpretation of the guideline is decided by consensus in the community, not be individual admins. Unilaterally reversing a consensus decision because you disagree with it is abusive. Our role in closing & subsequent actions is NOT to decide whether the community is right--all we do is see which arguments have a reasonable basis in policy,and decide what the consensus of them is--whether or not we feel that way ourselves. anyone who said otherwise at a RfAdmin would not get appointed, and to behave that way afterwards is just plain wrong. The arguments here for deletion are irrelevant--the matter was decided fairly by consensus. This is not IfD 2. If I were to go around, see discussions where everyone said delete, and close them as keep, what would happen ... ? DGG (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I go to WP:NFCC it is quite clearly stated as policy. Indeed it also has the note "As per the March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.". Not sure how you can then say NFCC is a guideline. If eveyone said "delete - wibble" closing it other than delete would be fine. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat, why do we think this logo is protected by copyright? It's just an N superimposed over a Y, so why wouldn't Template:PD-font apply? Or even assuming it is copyrighted, wasn't it in public use (i.e., published) prior to 1923, in which case Template:PD-US would apply? Postdlf (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was tagged with a Non-free logos license and that is how it was discussed at IMFD. DRV is for reviewing that discussion, not the image itself. DRV is not the place to determine whether the image is free. You can raise that issue at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or try Wikipedia_talk:Possibly unfree images. -- Suntag ☼ 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, while we are on that topic, there's PD and then there's feasibly PD. We are talking about the New York Yankees here. Steamboat Willie for example is almost certainly PD. I don't think anyone is going to try to upload it to commons anytime soon. Part of what we mean when we label things as PD is that people can reasonably expect to treat them as PD and get away with it. Even if this image is PD I doubt that would be the case given who it associated with. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's as difficult of an issue as the observance of copyright formalities discussed in the Steamboat Willie article, as there are simply two questions: 1) does it fall within the description of Template:PD-font, or 2) was it published prior to 1923 per Template:PD-US? Resolution of that would moot the byzantine NFCC concerns. Anyway, overturn per the other comments and so its copyright status can be assessed. Postdlf (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:PD-font does not apply to SVG images, only to rasters. I don't know exactly when it was introduced, but the Yankees were not using this version of the logo before 1923. Maybe if the delete is overturned we can continue to debate public domain status on the image's talk page, but on its face it does not appear to meet the criteria for PD. SixFourThree (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
  • Overturn DGG said it quite well. I also agree with SixFourThree. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus - The keep reasoning had good, fact based arguments as to why one item can not convey equivalent significant information. However, the keep reasoning lacked discussion as to what reliable source material supported the significant information conveyed by the image. The delete reasoning stated that the logo already is contained in another image in the article (Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG), but did not address how Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG conveyed equivalent significant information. Both keep and delete arguments were not well founded and no consensus seems more appropriate. Although not intentional, the closing language seem to interject the closer into the debate. Closing with wording such as "consensus below indicates", "keep arguments say", and "delete arguments say" may help keep focus on the closing task. -- Suntag ☼ 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn IfD procedurally flawed, permissible fair use, otherwise acceptable image. MBisanz talk 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The IfD provides clear consensus and arguments for retention. Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Logo is too small in uniform image to be a factor in NFCC#3. Also, Ifd was obviously flawed or closed by a biased admin. Consensus said keep. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:30, 9 October 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.

Category:Deaths by age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

CfD can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30#Category:Deaths by age
The 00:55, 8 October 2008 comment below was merged from a duplicate deletion review

Umbrella nomination of hierarchy. Closing admin disregarded a clear consensus and instead made an argument based on precedents to support deletion (and in effect also discounted WP:CCC). Close should be overturned. meco (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I had contacted the closing admin asking for a reconsideration, but it appears that the DRV was created before the admin would have had a chance to respond, I will be more than happy to address any response from the admin in question, but he seems to have anticipated a DRV in the close. To go through the arguments presented in the close. 1) Precedent - The three CfDs offered as "precedent" are poor matches for the series of categories discussed here: this prior CFD and this prior CFD both involve deaths (and more irrelevantly, births) in the specific month of October, and I know of no source that groups by month; This prior CFD seems to be one of those "quadruple intersections" that solely address entertainers. The death by age category structure addresses only age, provides clear inclusion and calculation criteria, and is not a multiple intersection. 2) Not Defining - While I understand that many voters, including the closing admin, have called age at death "trivial" or "not defining", I have provided examples of numerous obituaries that include age in the title, including one day's worth of obituaries in The New York Times in which all four articles included age of death in the brief title. All three of the obituaries in today's New York Times include age in the title. I also showed examples where the exact calculation of age was relevant for someone who died the day before a birthday. I could provide millions of references showing that age of death is a defining characteristic, above the four I already provided. Given Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, it was demonstrated that the media deems age of death to be a rather strong defining characteristic. 3) WP:NOT - Wikipedia:NOT#INFO states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Age of death meets none of the criteria specified here, and this is a policy about articles. We would not have an article List of people born in 1937, but we certainly have Category:1937 births. The relevant standard for categories is not "would we have an article about this", but "is this a defining characteristic" and reliable sources have been provided to show that it is. 4) WP:DEATHAGE - WP:DEATHAGE is an effort to come to agreement on a structure by which age of death would be organized into categories and to provide clear inclusion criteria for its use. It appears to have been established in good faith to reach consensus on the subject, and the claim that it was "created to try to hold off a CFD exactly like this one" appears to be both in extremely bad faith and a rather poor argument for deleting this, or any other, category structure. The arguments provided in the close appear to have been written in the form of a vote for deletion reflecting personal preferences and biases, rather than a balanced and dispassionate consideration of relevant Wikipedia policy based on the evidence provided by all participants in the CfD. As the arguments for deletion have been shown to be irrelevant to supporting deletion under Wikipedia policy, and as it appears that well-sourced, and unrebutted, evidence showing that the age of death is a rather strong defining characteristic appears to have been disregarded, it seems that this close as out of process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. I stand by my close, and I'm not going to go tit for tat on each point. I will respond to the trivial/not defining reason, though. As in the discussion itself, and above, it was not established that age of death is a defining characteristic. Just because the NYT prints it in the title doesn't make it defining. Example: if I asked you what defines George Washington, would the first thing you'd reply with be "he died at age 67"? Would it even be in the top ten? Just because you can cite a fact about someone doesn't make it defining, nor does WP have categories about every little tidbit about a person. --Kbdank71 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To someone asked at random, age at death may not be the first characteristic listed about George Washington, but it would rank up there with "born in 1732" or "died in 1799", all of which establish a clearer precedent and are covered by a thorough categorization system. That age of death is not the first characteristic listed in a hypothetical original research project about George Washington is not a valid argument for deletion, nor are we limited to one category per article. I have Monday's edition of The New York Times on my desk, which has three articles titled "Donald Blakeslee, Who Commanded Fighters Over Berlin, Is Dead at 90", "Aaron Katz, 92, Advocate for Rosenbergs" and "A. Biran, 98, Archaeologist Who Studied Biblical Sites". For that matter, every single obituary listed at [The Times' obituary web portal includes age of death, including historical ones listed in its archive, and I could provide thousand of other sources from each of thousands of other publications showing that media sources deem it to be a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Characteristic, yes. Defining characteristic, no. Is Aaron Katz known for dying at 92 or is he known for being an advocate for the Rosenbergs? 500 years from now, are we going to remember Donald Blakeslee for dying at 90? Are they going to start A. Biran's eulogy with "A. Biran was 98 when he died"? Again, just because you can cite a fact about someone doesn't make it defining. --Kbdank71 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, I have offered reliable and verifiable sources to show age of death as a defining characteristic, which stands fairly strongly against an imaginary anecdote. 500 years from now, we won't know the ages these people died at, let alone who they were. We won't know what year they were born or what year they died. We won't understand why anyone would fly a plane driven by a spinning propeller and we won't know who the Rosenbergs were or care about their death (circumstances, year, or ages). But I am pretty sure that Wikipedia will still be around. Archaeologists studying the early history of our universal encyclopedia will try to answer the question on the minds of many, "why was so much time wasted by so few trying to delete so much useful information?" If only a fictional time traveler would come back and tell us (with reliable sources) whether "age of death" will be a defining characteristic and if it will stand the test of time. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fictional time traveller would probably consider both sides to be wasting their time. The information is still there, no matter what the result of this discussion. This is merely presentation. Where and how, and how many times, should this information be presented? You do realise that even if the categories are deleted, it is still possible to use various methods to generate lists using the deathage template in the infoboxes, right? What you do is include a custom-formatted "invisible" link, and then use "what links here" for that specific invisible link to find all the people who died at a certain age. I think someone (Rick Block?) suggested doing this for maintenance categories. I'll ask him. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes, I suggested adding an invisible link for the maintenance categories (prior to the implementation of hidden categories). This technique is used for template:update after. I think the real answer here is something more like Semantic MediaWiki, but I suspect we're not likely to get there soon. Hidden categories are probably better than invisible links, since the presentation order for a category is more user friendly. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hidden categories are probably better than hidden links? I agree, but since categories are tied up in bureaucracy, I asked someone else (who knows more about template syntax than I do) about hidden links, and they went ahead and made the change to the template (see details I will post below in a new comment). I didn't expect that (I didn't explicitly point them at this CfD), but the result has been that there is now (depending on the progress of the job queue), a set of "what links here" links that provide all the data needed. People may argue that this sort of data analysis is something that should be done "properly" by bots and approved categories, but when the one process (categories) gets caught up in red tape like this, and the other doesn't, well, it seems like a simple choice. I'm sure people will object to this as "circumventing" the CfD, but why not think of it as a bold demonstration of the possibilities of trying other methods, rather than a merry-go-round of CfD discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether age of death is a defining characteristic or not (And it is. Is Jeanne Calment notable for dying at 122 or dying of natural causes?), is not the question here. DRV is not CFD round 2. A DRV is meant to determine whether an admin properly evaluated the comments in a CFD. This DRV is meant to determine whether you, Kbdank71, correctly interpreted that there was consensus to delete these categories. A DRV is meant to determine if an admin's close was appropriate. And you participating in this DRV is incredibly inappropriate. You endorse your own closure? Really? How surprising. --Pixelface (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you determined there was no consensus to delete Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s in these three CFDs [60] [61] [62] and then you determined there was consensus to delete Category:Deaths at age 93 by citing Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s as a precedent? Is that correct? Could you perhaps enlighten us into how you go about determining consensus or a lack thereof? --Pixelface (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This seems like over-categorisation to me. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, properly closed as over-categorization. Supporters mainly argued that other existing categories were no worse than this scheme; it was never explained why it was useful to group biographical articles together based on their age at the time of death. That it is a relevant and important fact means it should be noted in articles; it does not mean it's defining of the subjects (not every fact worthy of inclusion in an article is), or that it's meaningful or helpful to group individuals on the basis of that fact without any context. This is particularly true given the wide range of life expectancy between cultures contemporaneously and the range even within a given culture across human history. Postdlf (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure was proper and within admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - admin closed a difficult discussion and his closing statement indicates that he took arguments into account on all sides as well as other similar CFDs before making the decision. No procedural error in this close. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Per above, difficult but well argumented decision. Note, I voted delete myself, still see no use at all in these categories. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closer's own words in the CFD are "nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep" which is tantamount to saying there is no consensus. Reading the arguments presented on both sides of the issue, I find reasonable arguments for, as well as against, delete. There is clearly no consensus. The closer used his own opinion, bordering on original research to try to resolve this and that is not within the scope of the closer's responsibilities. The close as delete was done in contravention of Wikipedia policy, which is grounds enough to overturn. The additional arguments for the validity of the category expressed above further solidifies a no consensus for delete opinion of the Wiki community. At an absolute minimum, the closer should recuse himself from this discussion and let community consensus (or lack of it) rule. Truthanado (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, where exactly did I say "nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep"? --Kbdank71 20:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer: second line of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30#Category:Deaths by age after "The result of the discussion was ..." I assume your signature at the end of the paragraph means you wrote them. Truthanado (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was clearly Kbdank71's characterization of others' comments; he was noting that anyone saying "keep" or "delete" purely because they didn't think anyone had offered good arguments to the contrary was themself not offering a good argument. Postdlf (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, not making valid arguments for or against delete is a good argument because Wikipedia policy requires consensus to change things; if there is no consensus, you leave things as they are ... status quo. Secondly, the use of quotation marks infers that someone actually made that exact statement, which is not found in anyone's comments. Therefore, one can only conclude that this is the closer's opinion. In which case, there is no consensus. Truthanado (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • For fuck's sake, the whole first sentence was as follows: There are many arguments here on both sides which are along the lines of "keep/delete: nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep", which is not a good argument to keep or delete. Disagree with his conclusion if you like, but let's not pretend we can't understand what was and wasn't his own opinion as if we have no better than a first-grader's reading comprehension level. Postdlf (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This part of the discussion needs a cup of WP:TEA. Swearing, assuming pretence and comparing people to first-graders will not help. Thouhg for the record I agree with you that people are misunderstanding what Kbdank71 said. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing the point - seriously, why do people seemingly not want to look at the bigger picture here? I raised it at the CfD discussion (suggesting a hidden category), but the timing was bad as the discussion was nearly due for closing and not many people saw my comments. Year of birth, year of death, age at death, name, index sorting value (i.e. DEFAULTSORT), and so on. All these are standard biographical values that can be requested and (where available) supplied on practically all biographical articles. The fact that people try and do so in different ways (plain text in the article, templates in the infoboxes, categories, persondata, DEFAULTSORT) suggests that the disparate systems need integrating and consolidating. This would need a co-ordinated effort with much discussion and bots to implement the changes, but would allow people to extract the stats to their heart's content, as well as avoid perennial discussion like this one. I realise the "category" people want to put an end to the categories before they spread (though actually, they can be implemented using templates and enabled and disabled at the flick of a switch on the template), but the aim here should be for people to work together to get a result that satisfies everyone, not for people to stick to and focus on their "specialities", whether that be categories, biographical data, or whatever. So to return to what I said at the start of this comment, deleting or keeping these categories is misssing the point. The real need is to improve the way biographical data is handled on Wikipedia's biographical articles. I've made attempts towards this in the past (and others have tried to and achieved more, and have done stuff quietly with bots), but the task is so massive that it really needs a co-ordinated effort and if some of the people here would be prepared to devote some time towards that, it would really, really help. If anyone agrees with this and has advice or wants to help out, please comment here, so the closer of the DRV can take this into account. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I had considered the possibility of a hidden category when I saw this one. I'm not sure that this is the right solution, but it could be a good starting point for a compromise that includes an automated system to create the entries. This specific problem is yet another instance of AfD deciding that something should not be an article but it should be a category. So some articles get deleted and some categories get created. Then someone points out that the categories are not the right solution so those editors who wanted the data are left out in the cold and frustrated. To complain about the CfD process is anger misdirected. The real problem in my mind is the lack of foresight at AfD when someone presupposes that a category will in fact be considered the best solution. I like the talking points raised by Carcharoth since that could produce a broader solution then a discussion here. The issue would be making sure that all of the parties are at the table. Not sure how to make that happen. Considering that there is a discussion about linking or not linking the birth and death dates, or at least I think that discussion is still happening, then maybe the best solution here would be to defer to the other discussion. If the dates are to be linked, then create a template to do that and calculate the age. The including of links or hidden categories becomes a simple template change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of foresight? Before the categories were created, Sebwite asked multiple people in the AFD what they thought and there was clear support for creating the categories. Sebwite also created WP:DEATHAGE to discuss the issue. Do you think it's a bad idea to ask people what they think before creating a category? Like I've already said, I've changed {{death date and age/sandbox}} and the categories can be turned on and off by putting that code into {{death date and age}}. Several people gave their support for automatic categories, which is why I began testing with the sandbox template. It's a shame these categories could be deleted without people even seeing what they would look like anchored to that template. --Pixelface (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not these should be hidden categories is a matter of finding consensus to change "what is allowed" for hidden categories. And while the CfD could be noted in that discussion, I don't think that Kbdank could have determined that suddenly hidden categories could now be used for this, due to this single CfD. (Or even due to this current DRV.) That said, it sounds like it's worth discussing at least, so perhaps someone should start a discussion at WT:CAT or one of the Village Pumps (if they haven't already). - jc37 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've noted below, I've started Wikipedia:Biographical metadata. If anything, "Births by year" and "Deaths by year" could become hidden categories as well, except that they should be visible merely to remind people to add them. Getting people to update the persondata template is well-nigh impossible. By the way, there are cases of people from the same era dying young, such as at times of war (World War I and the 1918 influenza pandemic being the canonical example of a 'lost generation'), but I suppose that is more cause of death than anything else. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The action is supported by the previous related CfDs, the fact that apparently this attribute about a person is not mentioned in most bio articles and the strength of the reasons presented in the discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus which is the fair evaluation of the situation. There just wasn't any. It's not a question of when it's balanced, the closer decides. As there's 1500 of us, that's a prescription for chaos. When it's balanced, it's no consensus. Additionally, as Vegaswikian points out, there were various suggestions for automation that may make this moot. DGG (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. My personal opinion is that the categories could be kept—on a strictly personal level, I wouldn't mind having them for my own use. However, whatever the result, I don't think the closing admin can be faulted in this case, as it appeared to be a hard situation. Why I say this is that while I think in terms of numbers there was somewhat of a "balance", if not a tilt towards keep, but the arguments in favour of keeping were, in my opinion, not very good, while those for deletion were quite strong. So at first glance it really looks like a no consensus, but on closer examination I think it comes clear what the decision needed to be. The closer could have taken the easy route and just closed as no consensus, but he actually read the arguments and considered them. There is no procedural error here, and the decision seems well within the discretion of the admin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If this were true, then the CfD would have been closed with a statement like There is Clear Consensus to delete based on strength of arguments. But the closer didn't do that. He gave a wordy opinion (some of it not based on the arguments presented, reflecting his own opinion) and that is not proper process. Truthanado (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't pretend to know exactly how another admin will enunciate comments based on his or her own thoughts. It never ceases to amaze me how many editors can read the mind of admins and how many know exactly how an admin should write about what they are thinking. But since from the above it looks like you've had a hard time discerning the difference between the closer's own opinion and his paraphrasing of others' comments, I won't put too much stock in your Kreskin-esque suggestions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment was merged from a later discussion above on this page.
While there was no concensus to keep, there was no concensus to delete either. Should have been closed as "no concenus, default to keep." The closing administrator was concerned about the triviality, though I personally feel this is not trivial, this is of high importance. People are compared constantly for having lived to the same age. For example, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford are two presidents who have lived to age 93, the oldest of any U.S. presidents. There are connections that are commonly cited at times between historic figures who live to the same age, even if centuries apart. A category like "deaths from falls off the roof" or "deaths after x amount of time of hospitalization" may to a little too trivial and fit under WP:NOT#INFO, but this is not a collection of statistics or any other indiscriminate information; in fact, this does not provide statistics on age of death. It does, however, show who shared a common age of death with the subject in the article, which does have importance as to what the reader views as a "long" or "short" life. There was plenty of concensus to keep this set of categories. Sebwite (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, there was no consensus to delete in that CFD. Kbdank71 should have participated in the CFD instead of substituting his opinion for everyone else's. Categories at CFD are deleted when there is consensus to do so, not by the whim's of one admin. The closing admin shows his close was in bad faith by saying WP:DEATHAGE "appears to have been created to try to hold off a CFD exactly like this one." WP:DEATHAGE was created by Sebwite to list the criteria for inclusion in the category. That material belonged at Category:Deaths by age. Then the closer listed 3 CFDs that had nothing to do with this one. Kbdank71 kept saying the age of death is "trivial" (unimportant), but if a person's age of death is trivial, why is it given in so many obit headlines? Why is it listed on every entry on Deaths in 2008? Ask anyone what age Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and Kurt Cobain died at. A person's lifespan is a defining characteristic of that person. Indeed, the only reason Jeanne Calment is notable is because she died at the age of 122. In addition to the deletion being overturned, Kbdank71 should be de-sysopped because he shows a colossally bad misunderstanding of how CFD works and what an admin's role in closing a CFD is. If an admin is not going to read entire discussions and instead just do whatever they want, they should just remove the category from the CFD log and stop wasting the time of everyone participating in a CFD. --Pixelface (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: dying at age 122, we have Category:Centenarians and Category:Supercentenarians, for whom lifespan certainly is at least in part definining of their notability because it's remarkable for someone to survive that long. Anything short of that, it may be important to Person A that he died at age 27, but it's not defining (would you introduce Jim Morrison as "a man who lived until age 27"?), and it's an unrelated trivial coincidence that Person B also died at age 27, particularly when context of time and place are ignored. That culture sometimes seizes on these coincidences as significant may be reason for an article like 27 Club, but it certainly doesn't justify an across-the board system of context-blind categories for all potential lifespans. Postdlf (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse:
    Easily within administrative discretion. And seriously, where have we misplaced the rubber stamp to remind "voters" that XfD is not a vote? A closer closes based upon reading for content in determining consensus in a closure. It has absolutely nothing to do with counting up support and oppose. And in order to determine that consensus has changed, there needs to be consensus that it has changed. All of you above claiming that there was no consensus in the discussion actually are supporting the closure, by showing that there was no consensus for the change. See the very recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died before the age of 30 (2nd nomination) for those of you only interested in "vote counting". And in my opinion, one of the best comments in the CfD discussion was Otto4711's:
    • "Where are the independent reliable sources that indicate that "people who died at the same age as other people" is the subject of independent research, such that a few paragraphs or more could be written on the topic per WP:CAT? That two people separated in time and space by centuries happened to be the same age when the died is coincidence, not encyclopedia fodder. Regarding your counter-examples, if you believe that "deaths in Washington DC" or "Deaths from pancreatic cancer" or any other category is unencyclopedic, then by all means bring it here for discussion. The existence of one category does not justify the existence of another. And again "it's interesting" is not a particularly strong argument. There are all kinds of things that people may find interesting that are not included in Wikipedia because they do not belong here."
    One of the things that's typically looked for when closing a discussion is whether or not policy and guidelines have been discussed. And I think that in this case, they clearly were. And Otto makes several very good points, several of which others had made before and after his comments. And now let's take the closure section by section:
    • "There are many arguments here on both sides which are along the lines of "keep/delete: nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep", which is not a good argument to keep or delete."
    Discounting "justavote" is fairly common practice, as is noted in the essay WP:AADD. XfD discussions are just that: discussions. And "drive by voters" may and should find that they should address the nom, the topic, the scope, the intent, etc. Comments of "IWantIt" or "ILikeIt", or accusing that "You JustDon'tWantIt" or saying "ThereIsNoReason" will likely not be weighed as heavily as the comments of those who address policy and guidelines, and ground their comments in references, citations, and the like.
    And here he established that this has been discussed previously. And anyone who says that XfD doesn't rely on precedent needs to look at G4 again. Yes Consensus can change (I'm a firm believer in that myself), but there needs to be evidence that it has changed.
    • "This is not to say that with these categories, you cannot find, for example, someone else who also died when they were 45, but I can't see, nor has anyone explained below, why we should categorize this way (aka why it is defining), nor has anyone explained why we should ignore WP:NOT#INFO."
    He actually could have closed the discussion with these comments alone. To put it another way, no one has noted why we should WP:IAR in this case and ignore a core policy, or even to show why it doesn't apply in this case.
    • "What people have done, is point instead to WP:DEATHAGE, which not only isn't policy and doesn't seem to have consensus for its status as a proposed policy/guideline, but appears to have been created to try to hold off a CFD exactly like this one."
    Which sounds a heckuvalot like gaming the system.
    • "That all said, I'll hold off emptying and deleting these categories for the inevitable DRV to be filed. Just remember that consensus does not mean counting votes."
    And this is him knowing that there are those out there who do count votes rather than understand that a discussion is based upon the weight of the arguements. And he knows this quite well, as he is a long time closer of CfD (several years), and has witnessed previous closures going to DRV based solely on "vote count" (though typically to be endorsed, as most commenters here do understand that XfD is not a vote). Again, I honestly think we need to (re-)find the rubber stamp that says "XfD is not a vote" (similar to WP:TROUT). - jc37 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody said it had to do with counting up support and oppose. What are you talking about determing that "consensus has changed"? If there was no consensus to delete the categories (and there wasn't) the CFD should be have closed as no consensus. The idea for the categories was introduced in that AFD, but what does that have to do with anything? That AFD was to determine whether people wanted a list of famous people who died young. I can't see anything these categories violate in Wikipedia:Categorization of people. You quote Otto4711 who said "Where are the independent reliable sources that indicate that "people who died at the same age as other people" is the subject of independent research, such that a few paragraphs or more could be written on the topic per WP:CAT?" but that's not what WP:CAT says. WP:CAT says "Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category: If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?" And I was asking Otto4711 how he could be in favor of "Deaths from pancreatic cancer" and not "Deaths at age age 56." I wanted him to explain how one was valid and the other not.
  • Since my name's being bandied about, let me just jump in here to answer. Yes, the questions at WP:CAT are prefaced as you say. However, I find the suggestion that a category, once created, is somehow exempt from the notion that there should be the ability to write a lead article about its subject to be absurd. As for my being in favor of "deaths from pancreatic cancer" (and since my dad died in February of pancreatic cancer, I can say I am profoundly not in favor of them, so can we pick another example please?), I have lost count of the number of times, when I have been asked how I can be in favor of Category X but not Category Y, I have pointed out that the existence of one category has no bearing on the existence of another. Otto4711 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kbdank71 said "There are many arguments here on both sides which are along the lines of "keep/delete: nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep"" but he cited nobody. I see plenty of "justavotes" that were "delete, overcategorization" and in a CFD, that is pretty much the same as saying "delete, this should be deleted." Those 3 CFDS [63] [64] [65] are unrelated to these categories. That's like saying Category:2008 deaths should be deleted because Category:Entertainers who died in 2008 was deleted.
    • You want evidence that there was consensus to create these categories? Okay. Here Sebwite says "I would support categories being created for people who died at each age." Here Matthewedwards said "categorize per User:Sebwite." After that AFD closed, Sebwite asked multiple editors what they thought about creating the categories.[66] Here Hersfold said "That's possible, I think, and we should be able to set up infoboxes to handle it automatically with {{age}}. Good idea!" Here DGG said "Yes, and it could be populated automagically." Here Josiah Rowe says "I agree that it should be possible to create automatically generated categories for this, possibly based on the existing "births" and "deaths" categories. I think that this would be a good idea, and should be implemented." Here Banime says "Yeah I like the idea so far. Maybe give it a try and we can see where it leads." Here I express my support to Sebwite. Here Explodicle says "Couldn't hurt, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other." The only person who replied to Sebwite and didn't express support was TenPoundHammer , who said "That might be too narrow a categorization." There was a rough consensus to create the categories before they were even created.
    • These categories have not been up for CFD before. So those 3 CFDs you refer to are not precedents. WP:DEATHAGE was created to list the criteria for inclusion in the category. So explain to me again how there was consensus to delete in that CFD. If CFDs are judged based on the "weight" of the arguments as you said, tell me which argument Kbdank71 said carried the most weight. Kbdank71 said "but I can't see, nor has anyone explained below, why we should categorize this way (aka why it is defining), nor has anyone explained why we should ignore WP:NOT#INFO." but nobody in the discussion brought up WP:NOT#INFO and Alansohn already explained why lifespan is a defining characteristic of a person. --Pixelface (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as original nominator, and because there was no credible counter to the WP:OCAT argument, except for the pre-emptive proposal at WP:DEATHAGE and claim of consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So someone claims "overcategorization" and someone else says "no it's not" and the first person wins? Is that right? Your nomination said "Overcharacterization" which apparently you made up yourself. WP:DEATHAGE listed the criteria for inclusion in the category. It wasn't a "pre-emptive proposal." And the only person who claimed consensus without giving any actual proof was Bearcat. Oh and the closing admin Kbdank71. --Pixelface (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another method has been activated (possibly accidentally - trying to work out who was aware of what). Some people here may take exception to what has happened, so let me explain the sequence: (1) I remembered this "hidden link" method (that I was already aware of since 2006) and that Rick Block had mentioned earlier this year when hidden categories were being proposed or discussed. I mentioned this in this comment earlier in this DRV. (2) I then went to Rick Block's talk page and left this message. I did notice, though, that Rick hadn't been active for a few days (in the end, he actually did respond fairly quickly, see the comment here), so I went to User:CBDunkerson's (CBD's) talk page (someone who knows a bit about template code) and left this note. He replied with this note, saying that he had made an edit to put this system in place. I checked his contribs and discovered that he (CBD) had made this edit. This now means that hidden links (well, hidden in the sense that they are piped to appear as a space) appear in the infobox such as People who died aged 23. Thus it is now possible to use "what links here" to get a list for each age. For age 23, the list is here. For age 70 (rather more people), the list is here. One advantage of categories over this method is that categories list the numbers of articles, whereas "what links here" does not, but this is trivial stuff to calculate. The important point is that both methods are dynamic. (3) Anyway, I realised that this might put a strain on the job queue (I'm sure CBDunkerson knew this as well, but I assume he knew how many pages transclude Template:Death date and age - the figure is over 20,000 at least, and could be in the hundreds of thousands). I suspect the job queue is still dealing with updates to this template change (compare with changes made to Template:WPBiography). (4) Anyway, when I got back to the computer, I saw that things seemed to be OK, and no-one seemed to have noticed. (5) So I started commenting on this DRV, including my reply to Rick here. That's the story so far. After writing this, I intend to leave messages for both Rick and CBD so they can comment here, and in particular to explicitly tell CBD about this DRV and CfD (not sure if he was aware of them). One point I do want to make: reverting the edit CBD made will make an equal strain on the job queue, so despite this ending up as an awkward sort of fait accompli (for which I can only apologise), I would ask that we discuss things before any reverts of that edit to the template to implement "hidden links". The other point is that these links have actually uncovered at least two instances of inaccurate stuff that I intend to correct (one instance of someone dying age 0 and another of someone dying aged 119 - in both cases the template had been incorrectly filled in). So I want to track down those and similar errors first. Then the discussion of what to do with the hidden links and the dynamically generated lists can take place. Quite where, I don't know. I suppose it kind of feels that this has exploded the whole debate and moved it into a different area. I make no apologies for that, as something was needed to move the debate beyond a "keep categories" and "delete categories" to something more like "can we do this another way". OK, I'm off to leave the talk page messages with Rick and CBD, and then draw up a page of "what links here" links for all ages from 0 to 125 (cos I can't remember exactly how old the oldest person is). Maybe I'll put them on Wikipedia talk:Death by age, or maybe somewhere new, as I see that proposal has been rejected. Maybe Wikipedia:Biographical metadata? Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection, but: Does the {{Death date and age}} template work for years BC? (And, IIRC, there's a certain editor who would object to the template being used before the Gregorian calendar became active.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness only knows. I'm currently working my way down User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX. This method has correctly found two notable people (well, royals) who died in their first year: John I of France and Princess Elizabeth of Clarence. It also pointed out two mistakes, which I corrected here and here (both had previously been stated to have died "aged 0"), and this correction here. Two of those were due to AWB mistakes by the same editor (here and here). If I forget, could someone chase that up and check to see if there were further mistakes by that editor using AWB? Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the editor in question. Also, does anyone know what to do with Red Hat Linux? I don't think that template should be used there. I've also browsed through the results for those dying aged 20 or younger. A depressing number of murder victims from contemporary times, but also a scattering of saints, smallpox victims, medieval royals dying young, war dead, a featured article, a child actress, a musician, a figure skater, a concentration camp victim, a childbirth victim, and an epilepsy victim. Philomena, Samantha Smith, Heather O'Rourke, Maria Goretti, Prince John of the United Kingdom, Peter II of Russia, Dominic Savio, Czesława Kwoka, James Martin, Arthur, Prince of Wales, Edward VI of England, Francis II of France, Laurence Owen, Lady Jane Grey, Ritchie Valens, Louis I of Spain, Stanislaus Kostka, Maria Manuela, Princess of Portugal, Charles L. Gilliland, Tongzhi Emperor, Władysław III of Poland. Quite an ecelectic mix. Some might say trivial, but I found it interesting to read through some of those articles, and if others feel the same, that is reason enough for some form of unified presentation of this theme, even if a category is not the way to do it (an article or a portal are two possible approaches). Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the presentation order for whatlinkshere is not nearly as friendly as a category. For maintenance articles I didn't think was a big deal, but for this purpose I think the order matters far more and should clearly be the same as "category ordering" (alphabetical subject to DEFAULTSORT overrides). If we leave this as a whatlinkshere, we're left in the perverse situation where the maintenance categories are hidden categories (with the "nice" presentation order) and the death-by-age lists are in the pseudo-random whatlinkshere order (it's not random, but is a little hard to explain). We could fix this with a bot that generates an actual alphabetical list, at which point we'd effectively have a category! If we really want death-by-age lists, we should keep the categories. If we're worried about category clutter, we should IAR and make them hidden categories. If it were completely up to me, I'd just wait until semantic wikipedia is a reality (but I'm perhaps rather more patient than some). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort (and I looked at all 125 WLHs), but it still lacks the related changes function which makes categories so useful as watchlists. There already was as an article, List of famous people who died young, but it was renamed List of people who died before the age of 30 in order to give a definite age for "young" and that article was recently deleted (and during that AFD, the idea for Deaths at age X categories was introduced). I also think the information is interesting and useful, but why should we give millions of readers information they can use when a handful of editors find it "trivial."</sarcasm> --Pixelface (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said at this MfD, I think the lists work better as a resource from which to build other articles or specific lists. I intend to do one on the death of child royalty, for example. Both ends of the death "bell curve" are interesting, while the stuff in the middle is not (thousands of people in the dataset died in their 70s and early 80s). On the other hand, looking at the ages-at-death of people in different centuries might show something interesting (not for an article, but more as a genuinely original use of the metadata). Not that it is likely to show anything people haven't done research on already. I know this sounds like original research, but as long as it doesn't end up in articles, it should be OK (it would be a meta-analysis of our articles and what they cover). Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure seems a reasonable interpretation of the debate, certainly, it is not true that the closer "disregarded a clear consensus" as claimed here, there was no clear consensus whatsoever to keep in that debate. --Stormie (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obsolete discussion - Let's see. Yes, I was aware of the CfD & DRV. I had actually noticed the discussion around this issue in passing several days ago, but had no significant interest and did not get involved. When I got the note from Carcharoth asking about the 'hidden links' method of tracking usage I traced his interest back and then read through both discussions. Yes, I was aware that updating the template would generate a significant job queue. However, that was not a concern because the very reason whatlinkshere has taken so long to update is that safeguards were built in to throttle such jobs and keep them from impacting regular editors. As to why I went ahead and made the change... in looking at the template I saw one obvious design flaw which needed to be fixed anyway (there is a second apparent flaw which I am seeking more info about on Template talk:Death date and age). Since I was going to fix that, with the consequent job queue, I went ahead and included the links as well... because the one overwhelming message which came through, and was picked up on and cited by the CfD closer, is that without having these 'categories' populated we didn't know if they would serve a useful purpose or not. No 'proof' of a valid use could be supplied without the categories being in existence. I dislike attempting to read tea leaves so the logical course would seem to be to get the data and THEN determine whether it is useful or not... rather than trying to guess based on a total lack of information. The data is now there. Carcharoth used it to identify several pages which had mistakes on them. It took me only a few seconds to find another one. I think that indicates a use for this information. Which wasn't observable at the time the CfD and most of this DRV were running. If this use is found (along with any others) to be of significant benefit then the logical course would be to eventually change this over to categories (possibly hidden) - as they are obviously easier to work with than the links. However, that's really a discussion for another day. The categories were deleted based on lack of information. This DRV is largely endorsing that. Ok, but now the information is available... though in an admittedly clunky form. Analyze the info. See what it is good for. And then decide whether we should reopen the category discussion again later. BTW, if we DO go back to categories at some point it might be worthwhile to make that change in conjunction with the other issue I was pursuing on the template talk page. --CBD 08:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed three more incorrect "zero age" ones, but someone else corrected them before I got the chance - did anyone notice which articles those were? I also wonder if there are any "minus" ages out there that need correcting? Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there certainly was no consensus. Tough close, but I just can't get a delete out of it. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories and tracker links needed for maintenance purposes - well, either that or something needs to be built into the template to alert people when they get the birth and death dates the wrong way round and end up with negative ages of death. Two examples which I found by clicking on four or five random ages and inserting a minus sign, are for "-63". See here and here. I did the fixes here and here. The errors were introduced here and here. I would alert both the editors, but really what is needed is to tweak the template so that a large warning sign pops up if the calculation produces a negative age of death. Plus a tracker link to find all the ones that currently have a negative age of death. I'll tap some people on the shoulder again... Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Child deaths - one final comment. People have noted the existence of Category:Centenarians and the like, at one end of the "bell shape" curve for age-of-death. Those who die young and those who live a long time, become noted for the age at which they died. While looking at the "under 20" links on User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX, and the relevant sections at User:Sjorford/List of people who died before the age of 30 and User:Sebwite/30, and in Category:Death-related lists, I found some relevant lists, categories and articles where age is one of the criterion. For example, Child saint (the martyrs died as children), Category:Child saints, Category:Executed children, Category:Murdered children and child murder. While Category:Deaths by age may not have been quite the way to go, I think that Category:Child deaths is acceptable, and will create it and populate it with the executions and murders, and hopefully the other child deaths can be used to populate it. An alternative is Category:Children and death, modelled after Category:Women and death. I am currently writing an article/list on the deaths of royal children, particularly of child rulers, heirs to a throne or title (which impacts succession issues) and even those outside the line of succession. I know that infant mortality was high throughout most of history, but the cases of infant and child mortality in royal families is better documented than elsewhere, so it should be possible to get a reasonable list/article out of this, though I may need help finding sources. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite a final comment - wanted to note here that a very useful maintenance category has come out of all this. CBD kindly added logic to the age calculation templates to detect negative ages, along with a warning sign. For an example, see here (the editor who saved that version would not have got the warning, as the template didn't have the warnings encoded at that time). The category is at Category:Pages with negative age errors. If a couple of people could put that link somewhere and check it ocassionally, most of the errors should get picked up and corrected fairly quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The simple fact that so many editors are contributing arguments on both sides of this topic is tacit proof that there is no consensus to delete this category and, without consensus, the category should remain per Wikipolicy. Having more or better worded arguments for one side or the other does not create consensus. Lest we forget, consensus is difficult to achieve, see Wikipedia:Consensus. Truthanado (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not, since DRV is not AFD round 2. The question is whether the closing admin made a procedural error in the close. Much of the discussion here does not deal with that question and is irrelevant. Otto4711 (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Kdbank71 is doing quite an excellent job of demonstrating procedural error with his attempts to explain why prior CfDs for 'Deaths in October" and "Births in October" are acceptable rationalizations for deletion, noting that "I say there was precedent, you say there wasn't". The rest of the argument is just more of the same arbitrary injection of personal bias rather than any objective evaluation of policy. Alansohn (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, which parts of the discussion above are irrelevant? The stuff about Category:Children and death? That newly-created category structure (which directly resulted from my reading around the topic of this discussion) deals with one end of the deaths-by-age spectrum, just like the previously-existing Category:Centenarians does (the stuff in the middle of this age-spectrum is mostly trivial, I agree). Do you think the stuff about the tracker links placed in infoboxes, leading to User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX, is irrelevant. That, with the help of CBDunkerson, has led directly to the very useful maintenance category Category:Pages with negative age errors. This has been populating overnight and now has 32 pages in it. That's 32 pages with glaring errors that can now be corrected (including vandalism that was 20 months old). There may have been more that have been noticed by other editors and reader and have since been corrected. Do you think Wikipedia:Biographical metadata is irrelevant - that is an attempt to look at the bigger picture. It may, strictly, be irrelevant to the DRV question, but sometimes when a discussion is deadlocked, working around the edges or in the larger context can help move things on or make clearer what the real problem is. I would suggest that what I've mentioned above, has been more productive and relevant to improving the encyclopedia than most of this discussion. That's not to say that category discussions are not useful. They are. But they only take things so far, and there is lots more to be done than just finishing up a DRV. When ideas are sparked off a discussion, I do tend to write things down there-and-then, when I should really take the ideas to another page. For that, I apologise, but that's the way I work sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify what I believe was Otto's point: All of these "broader" discussions may be awesome, but in the end, for determining the appropriateness of the close, the "broader" discussions have little value. (Though they may have value if the closer decides to make a "broader" determination for the future, which is not uncommon.) But that aside, (personally) I think it's great that you're having these broader discussions, and I must say it's always awesome to see someone working to turn lemons to lemonade, and working for the greater betterment of Wikipedia, rather than just pushing their own POV of IWANTIT. It's one of the many reasons I do respect you, Carcharoth. - jc37 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems to be one of the most difficult topics on which to reach a concensus, with so many people taking both sides, and using policies both ways to support their case. There may never be a consensus, and the way a deletion discussion without a concensus is supposed to be handled is to default to keep. We can name all the policies we want to here, but policies are not in stone, can be changed by anyone with a few keystrokes, and are susceptible to edit warring just as much as anything else. The percentage of people who take either side here may not be a perfect 50-50, but regardless, this is not a vote. These categories should be kept and continue to be built, while a more ongoing discussion takes place outside of a deletion venue, where more long-term considerations can be given. Meanwhile, people will get to see whether or not they really work, or are congruous with what the community is trying to establish. Sebwite (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I would have thought that for a category which might be filled automatically, a "no consensus" result should still result in a delete. But I still see a consensus for delete in the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision I think the closer correctly interpretted consensus. With a few exceptions (such as the 27 Club) people are rarely grouped by the age they died and too many of the users who argued that the categories should be kept based their arguement on a claimed, recently formed consensus which - throughout the course of the discussion - was found to not actually exist. Guest9999 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More on the other work being done. While this debate has been happening, a system of maintenance categories has been set up. The old system set up halfway through this debate has now been moved over to the following: Category:Template computed age, Category:Template computed age over 99, and Category:Template computed age non-articles. This allows (fairly easy) maintenance of the "calculated age" system. Several more "negative ages" and other errors have been picked up by this 24 examples. I will try, at some point, to start a wider debate over whether the use of hidden categories as maintenance categories needs formal debating (have hidden categories ever been debated before at CfD?), or whether the extension of "maintenance categories" should be done to include "tracker" categories, designed to both track metadata (such as Category:1913 births) and track errors in the metadata. Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant discussion - in case those reading or particpating here are interested: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Hidden_categories_and_what_is_acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 13 October 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.

Anglo Marri wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Closed as "no consensus". I'd like to relist it because the nomination had a strong basis in WP:VER and WP:POV and the author himself seems to admit these points when he commented that "I agree with you at some extent, that there's no such thing as the Anglo Marri wars previously but it doesn't mean that it cann't be in future". But there were very few contributions and the nomination wasn't properly discussed. andy (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own closure, WP:RELIST discourages relisting when more than one or two people have contributed, and the keep !voters were satisfied with the references as they stood. I would be ignoring them and doing them a disservice to have deleted the article. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree if there were any references but it was clear from the debate that there weren't (have a look at the article) and the subject gets zero ghits. I think that where there's such a clear difference of opinion and relatively few people contributing it's necessary to look into the matter before closing. We had two deletes, two keeps including the author and a comment which agreed that there were no acceptable references. andy (talk)
  • Endorse closure. I think that the author's words quoted above were simply a case of less than perfect language by someone with English as a second language rather than an admission that the wars didn't exist - that's pretty clear from the the author's other comments. And there is a reference - the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I located the EB article and linked to it in the AfD. It doesn't contain any references to "wars" in any sense. andy (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep would also have been an acceptable outcome here with an EB source and unchallenged assertion of urdu sources. Sourcing does not need to be in English and there is already too much western centric systemic bias in Wikipedia. This nomination looks like reasons to fix the article not delete it. 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) That was me by the way Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought of fixing it but since there have never been any "Anglo Marri wars" (not in the EB or anywhere else) I couldn't quite work out how... andy (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could always move the article to a better name that more accurately reflects the EB reference and then work from there. Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that but it's already covered in Marri, almost word for word. I'd redirect there except it would fail CSD R3 since there were, err... exactly zero Anglo Marri wars. Whatever, I'll stick some Caveat Emptor tags on it and let other people worry about verification. andy (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm if its already covered word for word then just redirect as this is the more logical place for the article. I wouldn't worry about R3. Its not that implausible a search term and if you carry any data across when you redirect then the GFDL requires the redirext to be preserved. Spartaz Humbug! 05:05, 8 October 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.

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

This was originally closed as "keep", but the closing administrator reversed that decision to "delete" after the discussion here and here. I do not accept that there was a consensus to delete. The first editor to support the AfD nomination said that he would support keeping the article if further sources were found, which they were, and the other "delete" supporter based his comment on a Google News search where he had omitted to select "all dates". During the AfD three further reliable sources with substantial coverage of the subject were identified (The Sacramento Bee, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and La Crónica de Hoy) on top of the two that were already in the article (Christianity Today and Christian Spotlight). Overturn Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have I missed it or have you not tried discussing the decision with the admin yourself? Did you read the instructoons on listing DRVs that states that you should do this before raising a discussiom? Spartaz Humbug! 10:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion or Relist - As the AFD nominator, I endorse the deletion close, but would be content to see this relisted to arrive at a less ambiguous consensus. There simply isn't enough coverage of Chey in reliable sources to support a claim of notability. The sources from the article ([67] & [68]) are simply reviews of Chey's film. Likewise, of the additional sources offered, one is clearly a movie review, one is is a very short Spanish-language piece, and the SacBee piece is a review of an earlier documentary, although without being able to read it, it may be unclear how much mention it makes of Chey. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Reviews of the subject's films are sources about his work, which is what makes him notable. The majority of articles about people such as politicians, businesspeople, academics, sportspeople, rock stars etc. are based on sources about their work. Why apply a different standard to film directors? Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy with a relist. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid closure. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. #1 changing from keep to delete seems like an obvious case of no consensus. #2 sources came late in the AfD and those that !voted delete argued for deletion because of a lack of sources. The second delete !vote was flawed (claimed there were no google news sources at all due to a flawed search. Closing as delete after sources are provided and no other comments come in is probably the wrong call 9 times out of 10. In this case, it clearly was. Keep would also be a poor call. So either relist or no consensus would be fine, and I'd lean strongly toward relist. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also this is an article solely on the subject.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


6 October 2008

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

Holiday Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Baselineace (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. New information was detailed about a television performance, which among other reasons proves it worthy of inclusion. There was no argument after this information was noted in the article and AfD discussion.--Baselineace (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this new material was available for several days and no further people made comments either to keep or delete, nor did it change the minds of any of the deleters. The reference in question was here and WP:MUSIC criteria is "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that it didn't change the mind of those calling for delete on the basis of notability. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 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) 10:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The AfD was very clear-cut and reached decisive consensus. Deletion Review should not be instigated simply because you disagree with an AfD result. Come back when your band is signed and passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only does the group pass WP:MUSIC (which in it of itself says that it's not an absolute judge), there was no clear consensus as evidenced by the AfD in which several people argued in favor of its inclusion. Further, you are suggesting I have a personal tie to this band, which is not the case. As a music industry professional, I find it appalling that you have personally attacked me for taking my time to create a page for such an obvious inclusion candidate. Your recommendation that a band must be signed to be included is not only in direct conflict with WP:Music, it suggests that you have a biased view of this group.--Baselineace (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's true that there's no concrete rule that bands must be signed to have an article, but in 4+ years dealing with Wikipedia deletion issues, I can't off the top of my head think of a single unsigned band that was kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did not take me long to find one...--Baselineace (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I can tell, that article has never been up for deletion, and probably wouldn't be kept if it were. Just because something hasn't been deleted yet doesn't mean it has some official Wikipedia seal of approval. Unsigned bands are pretty much guaranteed to be deleted when they come up at AfD, just like this one was. It's just the way it goes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If this is the case (which is not a problem), WP:MUSIC ought to be updated to reflect this notion.--Baselineace (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's an excellent point. I expect the reason it isn't made clear in WP:MUSIC is that that guideline focuses mainly on imclusion criteria rather than exclusion criteria, and that particular concept doesn't work in reverse (Unsigned bands are virtually never notable, but that doesn't mean signed bands always are). We should also remember that MUSIC is meant to cover the whole spectrum of music, and it's possible there are historical artists and artists in unusual genres who might have significant contributions to music history without ever releasing a record. Leadbelly is the most famous example I can think of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough call on this one. I think the close was reasonable considering the opinions offered, so endorse for the moment. Baselineace, you're obviously passionate about the band; I suggest that you keep track of their media coverage during the upcoming tour, and see if it adds up to a few more reliable sources that will back up another portion of WP:MUSIC. I'd be more comfortable if they were in fact signed to a notable label as well, but as I feel that [[Never Heard Of It][ is (despite the comment right above) notable enough with the refs it has, I could be convinced otherwise. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion given the AfD, that was clearly the right call. That said, I'd actually like a relist as there seem to be sources [74] [75] both look fine, though I'm not 100% sure the second isn't self-published. Yes, this isn't AfD2, and yes the close was correct, but deleting something that's notable isn't the ideal outcome. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is your decision endorse or relist?--Baselineace (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't forget, it already was relisted, and ran for more than 10 days. The consensus at the time of relisting was 3-to-1 to delete, and it ended at 9-to-2. There is no reasonable way the closer could have closed this differently, nor would a relist do anything but gather more delete votes and more ill will. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In answer to Baselineace, I'm saying that the deletion was correct and I endorse the closure. I personally think this is notable enough, and with the sources I listed, I personally would !vote to keep this. Yes I'm being wishy-washy. To starblind, if I'm correct and those are additional sources, I think the consensus would move to keep as notability is (IMO) well established. Hobit (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion since the AfD couldn't not have been closed any other way. However, here's a reference: One listen to Holiday Parade and you're hooked.. -- Suntag ☼ 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've just reached 100,000 songs sold on iTunes.--Baselineace (talk) 01:07, 9 October 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.

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

Contesting PROD of a phenomenally successful Mexican pop/rock band. See es:Los Baby's. Chubbles (talk) 20:34, 6 October 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.

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

Survived an AfD in which it was deemed notable, thus perhaps should not have been A7 deleted. the skomorokh 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Unless every version somehow became non-notable since the AfD, there's no way it was A7 material. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little torn; the AFD was withdrawn by the nominator after one other comment, and while that comment was a keep, the article really doesn't do a huge amount to define the notability of the subject's roles. (Can't say entirely, I don't watch Dora the Explorer...) However, there was at least something there, so overturn and send back to AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I deleted the article, its entire content was "Regan Mizrahi is an american child actor.", clearly an A7 candidate. The next deleted revision (sorry, admins only) also did not assert notability. Merely having a page on IMDB does not make an actor notable, and the presence of references (only two, with no links) does not assert notability either. Regarding the AfD, I submit that it was closed incorrectly as keep when in fact the nominating editor actually withdrew the AfD. To close it as keep implies a consensus was reached, when in fact it was only open for fifteen minutes and only two editors expressed any view at all - and one of them was the nominator.
Having said all that, it seems an appropriate thing to do would be to restore the article with a re-open of the AfD for a full discussion. It's possible this actor is sufficiently notable and the article simply needs rescue. I personally might normally be inclined to CSD it again, which is why I'm suggesting an immediate full AfD so the matter can be laid to rest. I have a preference for re-opening the AfD simply because creating a second one will result in questions that aren't relevant to the matter at hand, which is "does the subject merit an article or not?"  Frank  |  talk  16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This young actor is the voice of a significant character on Dora the Explorer, which is enough of a claim to notability to at least merit a complete AfD discussion, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way I'm the one who withdrew the AfD. Boots is one of the main characters on Dora- Dora's bestest monkey pal- and when I realized that, I was embarrassed that I'd AfDed an obviously notable actor on the weakness of the article, so I withdrew and closed it before anyone noticed, which was a bit out-of-process, but I wanted to avoid wasting the community's time with a frivolous AfD. Clearly my plan to avoid spending time or drawing attention to my error didn't work, and if I was wrong about this being a clear-cut case, well, that makes me wrong three times at once, which I think is grounds for a trout-slapping. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and anyone can list at AFD as required. Articles which survive an AFD should not be speedy deleted (except for copyright) however short the AFD as that AFD has already shown that it is not the uncontroversial case that speedy deletion is for. (With the exception, of course, of a blatantly bad faith AFD nomination then immediate withdrawal, which was not the case here) Davewild (talk) 18:30, 6 October 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) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unfamiliar with the convention, so I asked at ANI because I wanted to gauge consensus from those in the know on how these things ought to be handled. They sent me here. the skomorokh 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't explain why you followed some of the instructions here and not others. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)][reply]
        • I didn't want one editor's opinion (i.e. that of Frank or Schumin Web), I wanted to known what the convention is and where to go from here with the article. In other words, I didn't think it in the interest of the encyclopaedia to do so. That clear enough for you? the skomorokh 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see. The reason behind the instruction on this page is so that the deleting/closing admin can have his attention drawn to what might have been an unintentional, obvious mistake (in this case, speedying a page that had already been through an AFD). This is both likely to get the article restored more quickly and more courteous to the other user. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deleting articles puts the admin's and closer's opinion out for criticism. In hindsight, they may realize that they were wrong. Rather than hosting a DRV discussion to drive their mistake home, it is nicer to discuss the point first with the closer/deleter to allow them the opportunity to see their error. In turn, this help retain people to close and speedy delete articles rather that drive them off such an important task through multiple and public criticisms. -- Suntag ☼ 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Admins are experienced users who are routinely subject to public scrutiny - they signed up for the job, and can handle the consequences of making an imperfect decision. Allow me to explain, again, why this DRV was opened. I wasn't sure they were wrong. Discussing whether or not they were wrong with them would not allow me to know whether they were wrong - because whether or not they were wrong is dependent on prevailing convention and interpretation of policy. AN is the best place to determine the latter. AN sent me here. I don't know how to make this any more clear. the skomorokh 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is no prohibition against doing it this way, but it was so clearly not an A7 that probably they would have overturned it themselves & it would have been easier and quicker. Stifle, stop pretending policy forbids coming here directly. If you want to propose a change, do so, but don't badger the editors. DGG (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this argument before, DGG, and I'm not going to restart it. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per lifebaka. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 - As noted by Frank above, "When I deleted the article, its entire content was "Regan Mizrahi is an american child actor." " While Regan Mizrahi may be important or significant, the article itself did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. See CSD A7. I have no objection to someone recreating the article to overcome the CSD A7 problems. Reopening a withdrawn AfD on a valid A7 would be two wrongs that don't add up to a right. Also, having an AfD just to confirm that a topic meets WP:N would seem to be process for the sake of process rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Someone just needs to get their pen out and start writing. -- Suntag ☼ 16:41, 8 October 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 October 2008

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

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

My reason for un-protecting this page is simply because CityCare is becoming more prominent in Singapore due to the various community projects it is doing. There are numerous reports on its works in major newspaper. I do think it deserve a place in Wikipedia, though it should be carefully written. Please do unprotect the page, and we can monitor closely how the article is being written. Thanks, Sg blogger (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite some of those reports in major newspapers for us? Stifle (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Stifle, Strait Times had run several articles on the Charity projects by CityCare, one of latest one on 31 July 2008. Titled "Sichuan spirit unshaken in art", the article touched on how the non-profit charity organisation helped by holding an art charity event. To do this, they teamed up with the Sichuan Foundation For Poverty Alleviation to source the artwork. This event was also covered by TODAY on 2 Aug 2008. On 24 May 2008, Daryl Tan from Strait Times covered a report on how students from Raffles Girls' School (RGS) have launched a drive to raise $100,000 for their underprivileged schoolmates and to build a school in China, and is working with CityCare towards this goal. -- Sg blogger (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link to where we can see these articles online? Stifle (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who's the "we" that is planning to "monitor closely how the article is being written"? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 10:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cobaltbluetony, I am sure that the volunteers of Wikipedia will help, and the administrators who patrols. Sg blogger (talk) 14:42, 6 October 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.

Template:Biota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) (actual TFD)

No clear consensus; listed per cordial discussion at User talk:Delldot#Template: Biota Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion; I'm afraid I have to disagree and say there was a clear consensus, with several users supporting deletion and you the only person supporting keeping. I'm not sure I can see the use of this template in any case. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The discussion is pretty clear and I endorse it. However, if there was a compromise solution in the works, the deletion doesn't preclude that at all. Ask for a userfy to work on it, then bring it back here when it's ready, and see how things go. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as closer. I know it's not a numbers thing, but I counted 6 'deletes' (if you include the nom) and one 'keep' (that of the template's creator, the opener of this DRV) plus an 'I guess it could be useful in some cases'. Some of the keeps were iffy or ambivalent, but even considering that, I thought the consensus was clear. Pigsonthewing brought up on my talk page that three 'delete' people had agreed that a change to the template made it less objectionable, and he felt that that meant that they had withdrawn their opinions or switched to keep; I didn't see it that way, since none had struck their posts or said explicitly that they had changed their minds. Rather it seemed to me that although this template was not as bad with the change, they still thought it should be deleted (if they'd like to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong, great). To me the debate seemed focused on whether microformats (the whole point of the template, as I gathered) were a good idea, and it seemed that every participant except one felt that they were not. However I have no problem userfying if someone wants, as long as it's agreed afterward that the improved version is good to put into use. delldot ∇. 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I agree with delldot's summary. Editors have generally accepted the use of microformats in infoboxes and in coordinates but need to be convinced of their benefits when 'ordinary' text becomes relatively inscrutable in the edit window. Occuli (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I was just passing by on my way to another review debate, and I noticed this one, so I went and read the backstory. I know (from my work on railway-related pages) that Andy Mabbett has a considerable track record of attempting to introduce microformats into every conceivable arena, of ignoring consensus against doing so, and arguing at tedious length in favour of his minority interest. This looks like more of the same, and I think the admins did the right thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per UsaSatsui. -- Ned Scott 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Reading the discussion, it seems clear that there is no current consensus on what to do--I think this needs wider & longer discussion. Personally, I support standardizing and formalizing formats whenever possible, as a start of a move to an actual database structure for the encyclopedia--but I haven't investigated this particular situation.DGG (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the template is deleted, it is hard to figure out what it did. The example provided in the TfD was "'''Lassie''', a {{biota|vernacular=dog}}, is". What did the output text look like (what did the template biota do to/for "dog")? Please respond in plain English (not "provide invisible semantic information by wrapping taxon names in a microformat"). Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 07:28, 9 October 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.

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

This article has been speedied with the rationale "wrong language" even though it had been listed at WP:PNT a couple of hours before. No contributor in the translation department had expressed concern that the page was speedable, and not enough time has been given for us to find a translator.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:46, 5 October 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.

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

This deletion was outright unfair. The article was proposed for deletion minutes after I created it, and was simply not given a chance. Just about everyone else who commented on the AFD said that it was a DICDEF. I completely disagree. On the day, I created it, it was just a single line. By the time the AFD was finished, I had expanded it to three sections with headings, and added about 4-5 excellent references that meet WP:RS guidelines. I had planned to add a lot more over time. All this should have been enough to save it from deletion. But most likely, those who commented felt it was a done deal, and were not willing to admit that yes, the article had been improved.

The closing admin, most likely working fast through the whole thing, probably saw the overwhelming number of "deletes," and just said "the result was delete" with no further comment. This is what I expected. But if you look more carefully, most of those who said delete said just one thing: DICDEF. Meanwhile, I explained why I felt it was not a dicdef, and I backed up my views with various essays that stated such a page should not be deleted.

I am requesting the full restoration of this page, so me and others can continue to pick up from where it was left off, and continue to improve the page. Just be aware that I am very busy most of the time, so any articles I create take a long time and go slowly. But I have created some really good articles before that have started off the same way. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The content there was no more than a dicdef and original research. If the nominator wishes to work further on the article I or another admin will userfy the content to enable this to happen, prior to a further review being requested to move the improved page back into mainspace. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ascribing negative motives to participants in deletion debates is rarely productive. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As closing admin my position is fairly obvious. I take issue with Shaliya waya (talk · contribs)'s assumptions of my rationale and inappropriate comment above - negative statements like this are not constructive. This discussion should instead be focusing on whether consensus was determined appropriately, and whether or not the article is appropriate for inclusion. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion dicdef, better suited for Wiktionary. @Shaliya waya: you may want to research this further and maybe work on an article related to the psychological study of tragedies, or something similar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was really easy to read there. While consensus isn't an act of counting !votes, any position held nearly unanimously by the community which isn't batshit insane generally is consensus. And the position that the article violated WP:DICDEF is pretty spot on, no less. If you'd like the article userfied so you can work on it until it is more substantial, just ask. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. You're trying to make this AFD part 2. Consensus was crystal clear there, not a single person supported keeping the article. I suggest a merge, a redirect, or a userfy. I also suggest an attitude adjustment...the "high and mighty" stuff gets you nowhere. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First of all, the page was not a DICDEF+original research. By the time the AfD finished, the article had several references. How dare it be called OR if reliable sources are present.
As the closing admin said above, there was "unanymous concensus to delete." That does not sound like a good motivation. If 500 people gang up together to get an article about a politician they hate deleted, and call that "unanymous concensus," would the closing admin then delete? If not a single person supports keeping an article on something very much a part of society, say a U.S. state, or a former U.S. president, would that mean the article would get deleted?
Speaking of politics, I believe there is possibly some racism here, and someone feels articles created by black people are worthless. Many friends of mine who are white have created articles under similar circumstances, many of that are even worse than this, and they have not come close to being considered for deletion. I have not even made a userpage for myself identifying me as black, but I think people might assume so by the way my name sounds, and some of the articles I have edited. Truth is, I am very much like Barack Obama. I am 50% black, 50% white, and I have spent my entire life around mostly white people. But no matter what I am, if the perception of what my race may be is unconsciouly prejudicing someone, that is very much a problem.
The bottom line is, I feel it is outrageous that an article like this get deleted, and not be given a chance. In this case, only a single digit number of people supposedly saw it and were able to make judgments. Very few others even knew it existed. Now, no one is getting to see it and give their opinion. I don't know who in their right mind would call this a "dicdef" when even the meager amount of sourced information it had was more than what could be found in either a paper or online dictionary. What this article really was at this point was a STUB. If this really has to be deleted, might as well abolish all stubs, and require all articles to be quite lengthy from day one. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding me? Racism? Like we can tell your skin color through the internet? Are you just pulling every single possible silly thing you can out of your behind thinking it will work? Or are you just a troll? Either way, your comments simply scream you're not worth dealing with. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "How dare it be called OR if reliable sources are present." have you read WP:OR ? "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research." jsut merely citing sources for various parts of an article doesn't eliminate the possibility of original research. This is actually quite difficult and people often engage in such without realising they are doing it, they determine what they want to say and then go off and find sources for it, the article then represents their view of the subject, i.e. it is original research. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I said, ascribing negative motives to people is not going to help your position here, Shaliya waya, and you run the risk of your deletion review being speedy-closed by an admin if you continue this way. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - As one of the original participants, who voted 'delete', I'm not sure how much credence my word deserves here. But it remains my opinion that (a) the article was a good example of what's meant by WP:SYN (b) that the intended meaning of the title is a mere journalistic linguistic quirk, and not in and of itself a notable encyclopedic subject, and that (c) there were no personality politics in the discussion until Shaliya waya introduced them, and no hint of racism. I find Shaliya waya's mention of race to be irrelevant, and the comparison with Barack Obama to be preposterous and counter-productive. I feel that the closing admin acted correctly, in spite of a significant piece of attempted misdirection by Shaliya waya in a comment in the original discussion (to which I responded). AlexTiefling (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy -- Ned Scott 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and as a black editor, I'm utterly insulted by the comments that Shaliya waya has made. There's nothing here but trolling and after that remark, I strongly suggest salting the article. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia does have an article on Tragedy (art form). However, tragedy as an event include (i) an event resulting in great loss and misfortune, (ii) any event with a sad and unfortunate outcome, and (iii) a disastrous event, especially one involving great loss of life or injury. The scope seems too broad to be covered by an encyclopedia article. However, take a look at britannica's tragedy articles and you might come across a way to convey the information in a Wikipedia article. -- Suntag ☼ 21:04, 8 October 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 October 2008

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

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

restore proposed deletion

AcetoneISO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AcetoneISO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/AcetoneISO

Article covered a unique and popular file image editor on Unix/Linux operating systems. AcetoneISO is a one-of-its-kind program for Linux and is notable for several features and ease-of-use which no other programs on Linux offer.

http://acetoneiso2.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/acetoneiso2/FEATURES

The page should be restored because it is as notable and as valuable as other programs whose wikipedia pages link to it.

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

Shit(sic), I can't believe I'm doing this.

I haven't read the article text, I don't even care if the article gets merged, deleted or whatever. However a conclusion of, "The result was MERGE INTO NEW ARTICLE THEN SEEK SPEEDY DELETE - Nonadmin closure by nominator user:Pharmboy" just has to be the worst sort of abuse of process. Surely a nominator can't close their proposal for deletion as such a fait accompli? That would be a mockery of the whole notion of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short version: Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't close any discussion I was the nominator for. In this case, everyone involved was in full agreement.
  • Long version: Basically, the original author changed the articles into (logical) redirects, and merged all the material into Defecation posture‎. Now, this actually made sense. Instead of three articles, each focusing on an individual posture, and a separate article with a "list" of the two, you had one comprehensive article. The only problem is that the "list of" article was really not needed as a redirect, and under any circumstance, was not up to policy. The quickest and easiest way was if the original author agreed to blank and request speedy for it, which he saw the logic in and had no problem with. Once that was accomplished, there was no reason for the AFD. Basically, it was the equivelent of WITHDRAWING the AFD because the original article was speedy deleted and the others redirected. I simply put the real explanation of what happened, for the record. (ie: if I had just said "withdrawn", we wouldn't be here, but it wouldn't have been 100% honest) Both the nominator and the original author were happy with the outcome and agree with the method (see his talk page and my talk page) and no other editor has contacted either of us with a complaint. The content was saved, it was reorganized in a better fashion, and Godwin's Law was never an issue. As for this review, I understand since it was a non-admin closure by the nom, (my first closure I do believe), so I am open to any constructive criticism. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should ask Caesar's wife about this. It's not about whether this was a good action, it's about whether it's seen as a good action, as having been carried out beyond reproach. Having now read some more talk pages, I'm happy that the useful content of this has been preserved and that no-one has a substantive problem with it. However couldn't you have had some 3rd party close it? Or even note the closing comment as, "Content merged by consensus, remaining empty article can now be WP:CSD#G7" ?
My concern is that wikipedia has a problem with deletionists who would love to adopt this sort of action as a precedent to make themselves judge, jury and executioner all in one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, and after consideration, I see this would be a bad precedent. Again, today was the first day I have ever closed a discussion (6k edits in 2 years, so not new, just new to closing, did 2 today). I had not though about the potential perception of this particular action, but I do see what you mean. I was too literal in my explanation, but better yet, I should have instead gotten a 3rd party (admin or otherwise) to close in this circumstance to remove any perception that I was thinking myself above the process, or worse, to create an illusion that this type of closure is "normal". I would hope that a review of the entire process (and my history) demonstrates I do not think I am above the process, and was only taking a bit of a (shortsited) shortcut. I see a lot of areas at Wikipedia that are backlogged due to an inability of admins to keep up, and my goal was simply to move along a process that was finished. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not even an admin should be closing an AFD they nominated. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Merge and Delete is not acceptable under the GFDL. How many times do we need to go over this? This is aside from the obvious inappropriateness of closing an AfD that one nominated. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the article for GFDL compliance (it was copy-pasted over when merged). In regards to the closure, I think rewording it to make clear it's a withdrawl is probably the easiest solution, as it's okay for the nom to close the AfD in that case (though usually not advised when others have !voted delete). I believe the current editorial solution to the problem is fine, as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Outcome is uncontroversial and seems to be generally agreed upon (at least without the delete), so I say go with it, but this was an improper close, even as a withdrawal..you can only withdraw your nom in the face of a unanimous keep. So long as the user in question understands that, I'm OK with endorsing the outcome. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was pretty much a unanimous 'merge' into a single article, and I get it now. I hadn't thought about GDFL issues either. I knew I needed to keep am arm's length away when closing an article but mistakenly thought this was an exceptional circumstance and just took the wrong shortcut to an end. My heart was in the right place, but the procedure I used wasn't kosher. Sorry about the confusion caused. The one deleted article was restored, so I think everything is now in place. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:55, 5 October 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 October 2008

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

Ulteo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (DRV 1 | AFD 2 | DRV 2)

This article was speedy deleted G4:Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion. I believe that it was unfairly deleted only because of the former deletions, which I can understand. However, I don't believe the actual content of the page. Yes, it was a short stub, but I believe it could have grown into at least a decent artiicle. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:25, 3 October 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:Kyle Reimers.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

This image was speedy deleted as an attack page. I can't understand how that image could be considered a page that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject. It serves a purpose in showing his team and his orange boots. It is a light hearted depiction but I can not see how that makes it an attack page. Deleting editor said "A living person depicted as a stick figure might not be considered lighthearted by everyone and very likely not agreeable with WP:BLP." suggesting to me that they considered it not unreasonable to believe that it is not insulting. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. While the image may not strictly meet CSD:G10, I can see no encyclopedic use whatsoever for it. There is no point in restoring it only to delete it again for a different reason. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the deleting admin. As Stifle said, I don't see any encyclopedic use for it either. It is a cartoon image that the editor placed in the infobox in the article Kyle Reimers [76]. Using a stick figure to represent a living person is not encyclopedic.— Ѕandahl ♥ 15:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a significant difference between being unencyclopedic and being an attack page. I consider the claim that I made an attack page to be an insult. As the log stand at the moment that is what is being said. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image should have been deleted...if not for being an attack page, then for being vandalism. A stick figure...honestly? And taking it to DRV? This is just disruptive all around. --Smashvilletalk 19:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of this completely useless image as G10 (considering the filename) and consider sanctions against Duffbeerforme for wasting our time with this disruptive request.  Sandstein  22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the picture was deleted for a wrong reason (especially something like claiming it's an attack) when that's clearly not true, I think this is exactly the right place for it. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 4 October 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 October 2008

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

Category:Fictional characters who time travel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

Admin originally closed CfD with the claim that becauset Spiderman had been improperly added, that only a list could prevent improper category placement. After having it pointed out that this is design feature that applies to all categories in Wikipedia, the admin has taken the fall back position of "recreated content" as a justification for deletion. The consensus at CfD among those who offered a policy reason was for retention. Deletion arguments revolved largely around the supposed superiority of lists over categories (in violation of WP:CLN, which clearly encourages coexistence of lists and categories), or the circular logic that this category could never be recreated because it had been deleted earlier. As this category had been changed and provided clear inclusion criteria, these arguments are not valid rationalizations for deletion. Regardless of the results of this DRV, the entire CfD process needs to have greater involvement from the community as a whole, and not just from the same three or four editors and admin who have imposed their arbitrarily restrictive definition of what categories should be. Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn No arguments presented a policy justification for deletion other than the circular argument that a similar category had been previously deleted. Admin has already been forced to retract the bulk of the proffered justification for deletion, acknowledging that the argument of the supposed superiority of lists over categories would effectively gut the entire category structure in Wikipedia and no other policy justification has been offered in its place. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you nominated you are already assumed to have voted. Would you mind refactoring to to bea comment? Spartaz Humbug! 05:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The plea for undeletion neglects to mention that the category under discussion was previously deleted in this CFD, and presents a straw man mischaracterization of the closing admin's rationale, and the arguments made at both CFDs, both at the original CFD and the most recent one, regarding why lists were preferred in this circumstance. Postdlf (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. Recreation of deleted content. Which, I might add, was not the "fallback position" of the close, it was the main reason. Alansohn is correct in that it is wrong to say that any deleted category cannot be recreated. It can, but there must be consensus to do so. Consensus can change, but in this situation, the consensus did not change, and therefore this category should not have been recreated. --Kbdank71 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - When I nominated this, I was aware of one similar category that has already been listified. After being opened, however, Otto4711 noted that this was a more direct recreation of another deleted category. Had I been aware of that, I (or someone else) could just as easily have speedied the cat, without nomination. And as Kbdank71 notes above, the discussion itself showed no consensus to support recreation. (The category also had other issues, but these reasons should be enough for an endorse of the closure here.) - jc37 08:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Postdlf. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because it meets the speedy criteria. Hiding T 12:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - typed up a comment, thought I'd saved it but I guess not. There was no procedural error in deleting this as recreated content. And nominator is once again misrepresenting the comments of a number of editors in this and several recent similar CFDs. No one appears to be suggestion that lists are inherently superior to categories. What we are saying is that under some circumstances one method of information grouping is better than another. WP:CLN clearly recognizes this when it states The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and whether one method or multiple methods should be used will depend on what is appropriate under the circumstances. This reflects widespread practical consensus from across the project and nominator either does not understand or refuses to believe this to be the case. Otto4711 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not liking the outcome does not make it invalid, sorry. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Seems to have been a logical decision based on lack of consensus to re-create and there are no procedural flaws. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 7 October 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.

Category:BlackHawk (band) albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

I listed this for CFD back in September and it was closed as no consensus to move. Frankly, I think this was a wrong close, since a.) the parent page is BlackHawk, not BlackHawk (band), and b.) I feel that either way, the (band) is redundant at the end because "BlackHawk" is unambiguous here (compare, say, Category:Cream albums vs. Cream (band), for one). Yes, I moved the page against consensus, but since the move, other users such as User:Ericorbit have expressed consensus to get rid of "band" in the category. See this diff, in which Ericorbit even says "categories don't even need 'band'". This discussion isn't about my bold pagemove, or my bold category move which got reverted (I created a new category at Category:BlackHawk albums and asked User:DragonflySixtyseven to delete the old category; Dragonfly approved this bold move on IRC), it's mostly about the redundancy of the (band) at the end. These albums are irrefutably by a band, so I don't see why there has to be a (band) at the end. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer. The main reason it didn't go through at CFD was because several editors were concerned that the main article, BlackHawk, was moved from BlackHawk (band) after getting no support for the move (see Talk:BlackHawk). I asked TenPoundHammer to get consensus for the page move and I'd take care of the category. After pointing me to one user that posted at his talk page and a discussion at IRC which I have no access to as proof of consensus, we're here. I'll repeat: get consensus for the page move and I'll strike this endorsement. --Kbdank71 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the procedure described for a category rename is not bold but explicitly out-of-process - emptying an existing category and creating a new one. I am completely sure that the band should be at BlackHawk (band) and would prefer all associated categories to follow the same pattern. Occuli (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment doesn't look like a DRV issue, no process issues have been raised, but disagreement with the result something DRV explicitly isn't for. No broken process, misinterpretation of policy etc. issues. The underlying issue sounds like a broader question best discussed and general consensus reached in another forum. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 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.

I would like to know why all the contributions I have made to Wikipedia have been removed? They all related to members of the 1970 Brazilian football team, a subject which - I think I can modestly say - I know more about than anyone else in the English speaking world. I am the author of the best-selling book The Beautiful Team In Search of the 1970 Brazilians and have met, interviewed and written about these footballers for the past ten years. I have a website www.beautifulteam.net to which I linked my contributions but cannot see that this falls foul of your rules. Essentially I have more unique, copyrighted, biographical information on my site than can be fitted on to Wikipedia. By visiting my site your readers will be able to get more information as well as view videos of the players in their pomp. I was intending to build biographies of each of the members of the team on Wikipedia. None of the current ones - apart from Pele - are any good at all. (I thought I had added something new to Pele's page on the derivation of his name, but that was taken down too.) I see little point in doing so now. Thanks Garry Jenkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garryjenkins (talk • contribs) 17:56, October 2, 2008

It doesn't appear that you have have any deleted contributions, so what page exactly are you objecting to the deletion of? Please note that removal of information from pages if not under the purview of DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edits appear to have mostly been links to the website noted, which were removed as self-promotional. Definitely not a DRV issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:50, 2 October 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.

Star Wars marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Closed as no consensus. However most keep arguments seem to be WP:ILIKEIT. The results were 5 keeps (2 weak), 2 merge, 5 delete. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sustain Some of the delete arguments were pretty weak also, & merge is a keep; reasonable conclusion. Since it was no consensus even after a relist, no reason not to try again in 1 or 2 months. It hardly ever makes sense to appeal a no consensus close. DGG (talk) 14:49, 2 October 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) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was non-admin closed. No admin to discuss it with. I was simply looking for consensus on the closing, something that a discussion with the editor that closed would not have accomplished. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse As the closing editor, I didn't see anything close to approaching a consensus and even after relisting I didn't see a consensus build itself. It can be relisted in a month or two (not five days from when the last AfD was closed) but if there's no consensus then there's nothing to appeal really. treelo radda 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non admins are not supposed to close any AFDs where the outcome is not crýstal cut and this is clearly one that should have been left for an admin to evaluate. That said, sources were provided in the debate and discussion centred around whether the scope of the article fully matched the citations with no serious challenge to the validity of the sources. To my mind this suggests that the article exhibits notability but has content issues that need fixing. That isn't what AFDs are there to fix and, in fact, I would have been happy with a keep close to this discussion. I therefore endorse the close because I'm an evil deletionist vandal but I strongly advise the closing editor to be more carefúl where they practise their AFD closes and avoid anything controversial. DRV can be a nasty and unfriendly place to have your decision-mking dissected. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Given the AfD I don't see how any close but No Consensus could be supported, but I also echo Spartaz above that "No Consensus" AfD's generally and this AfD in particular are not good candidates for Non-admin closures. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. No need to drag this on any longer. Consensus reached. I withdraw the DRV. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 October 2008

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

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

Deleted under G11 a whole 12 minutes (wtf!?) after being speedied. The article isn't great and various stubs have been deleted before, but it's the the world's largest vendor of certain types of telco gear ($500m revenue last year), handling over half the world's SMS traffic, and definitely notable in its field. I'll undertake to improve the article if it's undeleted. Jpatokal (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly does affect some things. Really, in my mind, 12 minutes after being tagged is a bit long for the speedy to have been processed (regardless of which way it goes). But being speedied such a short time after a {{prod}} tag being placed would be somewhat different. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:03, 1 October 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.

Retching Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) The deletion did not meet criteria. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its clear that a reasonable effort was made. DGG (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and permit recreation but present userpace draft article to DRV for review before posting to article space. (see my note below) - Outside of Reaching Red will be playing at ... notices, some info is at The feminine force, Retching Red and three sentences. Reaching Red maintains information about its press coverage at press and it is not all websites and blogs. I think Reaching Red would pass AfD. Retching Red & The Twats AfD was closed after two hours, so whatever was considered in there was a speedy delete, not an XfD deletion. I can't see the deleted article, but between the first A7 deletion, Retching Red & The Twats AfD, Smashvilletalk's 03:04, 1 October 2008 post above, and the fact that no one has yet to provide any quote from the delete article, it seems reasonable to concluded that the article did not contain text that indicated why its subject is important or significant. Endorse valid speedy deletion and permit recreation. On a related note, since Retching Red & The Twats AfD was a non admin closure, any admin can reopen it. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Lifebaka's 15:16, 1 October 2008 post below, I struck out my comment above. TPH's non admin closure of Retching Red & The Twats AfD was correct since the article was speedy deleted during the AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettably, I revised my "permit recreation" position in view of the newly created article. The article newly created during this DRV still fails A7 and uses websites that are not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even though there could be a viable article on the topic, actions show that one will not be forth coming if DRV allows recreation without out first seeing a draft. -- Suntag ☼ 13:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, but the deletions we're dealing with are all speedies and not an AfD closure. I've given the otters a note for TenPoundHammer asking him to amend the closing statement to reflect this. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The article was a two-sentence stub which only barely mentioned that the band's members were part of another supposedly notable band. Even if that doesn't quite make it qualifiable for an A7, I still feel that there is no way that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Just having another member of a notable band doesn't always guarantee notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, article is now recreated at Retching Red. I was about to re-list it on AfD to reach consensus, but perhaps this process need to finish. Since it was speedied before, one suggestion would be that we take it to that forum to get consensus or not on this deletion since the content of the new article appears better than the content of the one speedy deleted. JRP (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the one who recreated it, apparently too soon. If so, I apologise. I was under the impression that this review was already closed and earlier I had been advised to create a new version if I felt that was necessary[77]. Sorry if this makes things even more confusing then they already are. The combination of an AfD and speedies for the same articles didn't make things any clearer for me. All I saw was an AfD that was closed in no-time. I do think the current article definitely meets WP:MUSIC's C1, C4, C5, and C6 (see refs). Thanks,    SIS  12:26, 2 October 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.

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

Page was deleted without following the steps specified by Wikipedias own process. No notification was placed on the authors of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroj (talk • contribs) 01:33, October 1, 2008

  • Endorse deletion. It's not required. As the author in question, You also seem to have not only participated in the discussion 20 times, but participated within 15 minutes of the AFD's posting. I fail to see what the optional step would have alleviated. Kuru talk 01:51, 1 October 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_October&oldid=420277359"