Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November

< October 2010	Deletion review archives	December 2010 >

30 November 2010

[edit]

Manuel Rosa – Redirected to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Manuel Rosa (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) A Portuguese (amaterur?) historian, author of several books, one of which (with a controversial claim about Columbus) seems to have gained notoriety outside Portugal. His claim has been recently re-reported (and brought to my attention for the first time) in numerous media: English: [1] - CNBC, [2] - The Telegraph, [3] - Daily Mail; Polish: [4] - Wprost, [5] - Onet.pl, [6] - Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), [7] - Gazeta Wyborcza. I think this is sufficient to prove notability of his theory, and thus, his own. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Notability isn't inherited so it is quite possible that his theory is notable, without being notable himself. If the only coverage stems from writings about the theory, surely you'd just write an article about that theory and possibly redirect the author to that article? Or is there sufficient depth of coverage about the author to warrant a standalone article? (If it's the latter can't you just ask an admin to usefy it for you, work it up a bit to use that in depth coverage and move it back to mainspace?) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] First, I thought about stubbing the book, but it doesn't appear notable. That leaves, indeed, the theory or the author. The theory is what is getting the publicity, although it is strongly connected to the author; it is HIS theory, nobody else seems to be strongly supporting it. For the same token, he is not know for much else but this theory. I'd prefer to rereference the deleted bio to creating a new article on his theory, if for no other reason that at least his bio has an obvious name, but I am not sure what name we could use for his theory. Something in this mess is notable, and given that is is hard to separate the man from his theory, why not go with the man? Authoring a notable theory and getting substantial coverage in the media for it seems to satisfy the notability criteria for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] the naming problem is a good reason for keeping the article at the name of the person not the name of the theory--it is difficult to give pseudoscience or pseudohistory articles a name that avoids an implict judgment.(another alternative is the title of the book). DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "uthoring a notable theory and getting substantial coverage in the media for it"... that's the point, he isn't getting substantial media coverage i.e. they aren't writing about him. What biographical facts/history are included in the articles, does it meet the GNG requirement of addressing directly in detail the subject? The whole point in notability is that it's what the world outside think is notable not you or me, being his theory if that's enough for the world outside to be interested in him, then they'll write about him, if on the other hand they are taking note of his theory without much interest in the person behind it, they'll write about the theory and not much about the author. There are many things out there (inventsions say) where the world is really interested in the invention but know nothing and care nothing about the inventor.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support original decision to delete. I don't see how the problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Rosa have changed. We already have an article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which mentions his ideas, a separate article on his idea is not appropriate. It's nice to see that that edit wasn't added by Rosa himself or one of the apparent sockpuppets that keep adding what look like promotional edits to this and the main Columbus article. I can't see how he passes our notability guidelines. Note that this publicity is sourced to his PR Release at [8]. His page on this website [9] makes it clear he isn't a professional historian - and doesn't even say he's an academic, just that he works at Duke University Medical School. I'm also trying to figure out if his book is self-published - the publisher is [10] and I find this which suggests to me that it probably is. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] He works for the "Information Technology support help desk at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center" [11] and also as an apparently freelance poet, singer, songwriter and producer [12] --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the original deletion, which appears to be based solidly in guidelines and went with consensus. As regards possible recreation, I don't think the sources given are quite enough. My suggestion would be a redirect to an article on his theory, which has a stronger claim to notability. A small amount of sourced biographical information could perhaps be included there. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Again, as we have Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which mentions him and his suggestion, why would we have a separate article on it? Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because it meets WP:GNG perhaps? That's the general reason for having an article on most things. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was not aware of Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. That one sentence there does need expansion; I can see how it could become his own section (but how would we title it?). If there is consensus to keep the deletion, I'd ask for a redirects from Manuel Rosa and The Mystery of Columbus Revealed (his English book title) to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus to be created. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Nor was I aware of it--it's a good title, and I agreew ith Piotr that a redirect there would be a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] That looks like the answer to me, too.—S Marshall T/C 02:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Manuel Rosa – Redirected to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

A Portuguese (amaterur?) historian, author of several books, one of which (with a controversial claim about Columbus) seems to have gained notoriety outside Portugal. His claim has been recently re-reported (and brought to my attention for the first time) in numerous media: English: [1] - CNBC, [2] - The Telegraph, [3] - Daily Mail; Polish: [4] - Wprost, [5] - Onet.pl, [6] - Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), [7] - Gazeta Wyborcza. I think this is sufficient to prove notability of his theory, and thus, his own. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability isn't inherited so it is quite possible that his theory is notable, without being notable himself. If the only coverage stems from writings about the theory, surely you'd just write an article about that theory and possibly redirect the author to that article? Or is there sufficient depth of coverage about the author to warrant a standalone article? (If it's the latter can't you just ask an admin to usefy it for you, work it up a bit to use that in depth coverage and move it back to mainspace?) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I thought about stubbing the book, but it doesn't appear notable. That leaves, indeed, the theory or the author. The theory is what is getting the publicity, although it is strongly connected to the author; it is HIS theory, nobody else seems to be strongly supporting it. For the same token, he is not know for much else but this theory. I'd prefer to rereference the deleted bio to creating a new article on his theory, if for no other reason that at least his bio has an obvious name, but I am not sure what name we could use for his theory. Something in this mess is notable, and given that is is hard to separate the man from his theory, why not go with the man? Authoring a notable theory and getting substantial coverage in the media for it seems to satisfy the notability criteria for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the naming problem is a good reason for keeping the article at the name of the person not the name of the theory--it is difficult to give pseudoscience or pseudohistory articles a name that avoids an implict judgment.(another alternative is the title of the book). DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"uthoring a notable theory and getting substantial coverage in the media for it"... that's the point, he isn't getting substantial media coverage i.e. they aren't writing about him. What biographical facts/history are included in the articles, does it meet the GNG requirement of addressing directly in detail the subject? The whole point in notability is that it's what the world outside think is notable not you or me, being his theory if that's enough for the world outside to be interested in him, then they'll write about him, if on the other hand they are taking note of his theory without much interest in the person behind it, they'll write about the theory and not much about the author. There are many things out there (inventsions say) where the world is really interested in the invention but know nothing and care nothing about the inventor.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support original decision to delete. I don't see how the problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Rosa have changed. We already have an article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which mentions his ideas, a separate article on his idea is not appropriate. It's nice to see that that edit wasn't added by Rosa himself or one of the apparent sockpuppets that keep adding what look like promotional edits to this and the main Columbus article. I can't see how he passes our notability guidelines. Note that this publicity is sourced to his PR Release at [8]. His page on this website [9] makes it clear he isn't a professional historian - and doesn't even say he's an academic, just that he works at Duke University Medical School. I'm also trying to figure out if his book is self-published - the publisher is [10] and I find this which suggests to me that it probably is. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He works for the "Information Technology support help desk at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center" [11] and also as an apparently freelance poet, singer, songwriter and producer [12] --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the original deletion, which appears to be based solidly in guidelines and went with consensus. As regards possible recreation, I don't think the sources given are quite enough. My suggestion would be a redirect to an article on his theory, which has a stronger claim to notability. A small amount of sourced biographical information could perhaps be included there. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, as we have Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which mentions him and his suggestion, why would we have a separate article on it? Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it meets WP:GNG perhaps? That's the general reason for having an article on most things. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was not aware of Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. That one sentence there does need expansion; I can see how it could become his own section (but how would we title it?). If there is consensus to keep the deletion, I'd ask for a redirects from Manuel Rosa and The Mystery of Columbus Revealed (his English book title) to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus to be created. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nor was I aware of it--it's a good title, and I agreew ith Piotr that a redirect there would be a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That looks like the answer to me, too.—S Marshall T/C 02:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M-Energy Drink.jpg – Now under consideration at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monster M-80.jpg – Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn: Based on the discussion we have archived about the image, it was a clear consensus that it should stay.

Furthermore, no clarity for the reasoning behind the decision was made following a declined appeal to the admin for reconsideration.

The user who put it up for deletion did not return to make an opposing statement.

The undisputed statement was:

"It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved, if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted."

Based on the previous statement:

"As described at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts the "M" is therefore not subject to copyright claims. This leaves only Trademark issues with respect to the use of this image."

I have since applied the image with the following template:

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

The side of caution has already been taken. There's no reason at all to delete the image. This image is linked in two articles where it's a contribution. Editor182 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to go back to first principles, which is the relevant law: [13]. Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts may well be an inaccurate representation of the law. It seems to me there are two questions: whether the logo constitutes a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring", or "typeface as typeface". I don't think it falls into either category. It is much more than a mere variation of lettering. And it is not "typeface as typeface". Typeface is a form of representation of a set of letter of digits: this logo on the other hand is a creative variation of one letter of the alphabet only. That seems to be the distinction that paragraph (e) gets at by saying "typeface as typeface".--Mkativerata (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you endorse its retrieval based on the image not falling into either category? The trademark template is there for a reason, and I think it's applicable here, not a deletion. Editor182 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't fall into either category, it is subject to copyright. Categories (a)-(e) list things that are not copyrightable.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia article concerning fonts is fallacious, then it needs to be corrected, but for now, I'm going to stick to agreeing with the statements made above based on Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, that it is not subject to copyright claims, and that leaves only Trademark issues which are covered with the template.

If there's doubt, then it should clearly side with being against deletion, and the article can be corrected first and foremost, but I really don't want to beat around the bush with this, an endorse or overturn decision would be good for now. Editor182 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to fall within WP:Public domain#fonts either. That says "typefaces and the characters they contain" are not copyrightable. This appears to be neither: it is a creative representation of a single character, not part of a set of characters constituting a typeface. If a publisher had created a typeface by which all letters of the alphabet could be represented like this "M", it would not be copyrightable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations)." If we're to draw a conclusion for now, then it should side with the "M" logo not being under copyright protection in the US, and the article speaks about having a soft-copy of the design which may then fall under copyright, but this is a photograph, of a can, it's a "hard-hard copy". It's not like the logo being used in the article under fair use, which is a soft-copy of the trademark, although it's still not under copyright protection even then. "Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States." - Let alone my photograph of a can. Can we draw a conclusion based on what we have now? Editor182 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the distinction is between "font" and "typeface" on the one hand, and a stand-alone creative representative of one character on the other. Of course, if I'm wrong in making that distinction then I'm more than happy to be corrected. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm going with what was stated above; "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved - if it is still recognizable as a letter - then in the US it may not be copyrighted." I think going into this topic any further will be perpetuating unreasonable doubt and pulling at straws. The admin offered no rationale for the deletion, except to be on the safe side and the user who put the image up for deletion withdrew themselves from the discussion in acceptance of the information presented on the contrary. Perhaps this is about not being so fast to reverse a firm decision made by an administrator, but it was a firm decision based on no research or justification, only a self-assured unwillingness to consider otherwise. If something solid comes up in the future to justify its deletion, then it may be removed, but at this point in time, it should certainly be restored, as there is nothing thats been presented to validate or justify deletion. Editor182 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: The Monster "M" is clearly just that, a letter "M" as such it is utilitarian (in so far as copyright is concerned). One does not need to see the rest of the alphabet to know that it is an M, and it clearly falls under the specific law on fonts in the U.S. Again, there may be reasonable trademark issues with how the image is used, but copyright and the resulting requirement for a fair use rational do not apply. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone gave a clear and unbiased response. There is no doubt that this image should rightfully be restored without needless further delay. An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision; whether it was made by an administrator, or a user, the response and subsequent course of action should not be dissimilar and dragged out needlessly, wasting time that could be spent improving articles or resolving other disputes which have cause and reason. Editor182 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I'm unconvinced by the responses to my comments above. This isn't typeface. It is a highly creative representation that happens to be based on a single letter of the alphabet. All comments in favour restoration both at the IFD and here are curiously devoid of reference to the relevant law (which I have outlined in detail above) as opposed to wikilaw (editors random views about what the law is). The closing admin was correct to err on the side of caution when the IFD concerned copyright issues. It also appears, subject to anyone demonstrating that my own view is wrong (I'm certainly open to that happening), that it was the correct decision on copyright principles.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're attempting to refute facts and you've only presented doubts about these facts in your comments. Rest assured, there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that this image is copyright protected. There is no doubt; it is clearly NOT copyright protected. You're basing your affirmative decision on your unreasonable comments. Why not base a decision on the evidence provided, instead? This is typeface. This is a variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering and coloring. It is a single letter of the alphabet and in the US; it may not be copyrighted. If it is not restored, then you might as well throw out the dispute resolution process for content deleted by administration. I believe your decision is either bias or shows extremely poor judgement, whereas the administrator who deleted the image was careless and self assured, disregarding consensus. The user who originally put the image up for deletion withdrew their argument, as they had enough esteem to accept that they were incorrect and corrected.

Now what? Now two administrators are siding with deletion, one of them blindly and callously, as you note how the administrator who deleted the image has not commented here or on their talk page on their rationale. If this image isn't restored it will be an example of immoral and bias administration. Every person on Wikipedia should be for Wikipedia, not for their team, but that's just my opinion, just like your opinion that it should be removed based on..uncertainty, or rather; nothing. What is not an opinion is fact, the fact that this image is not copyrighted, and the appropriate trademark tag has been applied. Either do wrong or do right. Show some propriety or display abuse of power. Editor182 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent Copyright regulation (Title 37, Chapter II, Section 202.1)

The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;

(e) Typeface as typeface.

Based on any one of the three parts I underlined, it is clear that the Monster logo is in no way subject to copyright. If a complete typeface (no matter how fancy) cannot be copyrighted, than clearly a portion of a typeface such as a single letter also cannot be copyrighted. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a single letter is not a typeface. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - To me, it's clear that the logo is more a graphical element that happens to be based on the letter M, rather than letter M that's used as a logo. It's a subtle, but an important distinction. And you'll see that the wavy logo is not used as text in any of Monster's brand identity - the "M" in the brand name looks nothing like the green wavy/clawy thing. It's more than a little disingenuous to claim the green M falls under "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring" (as in, they didn't just tweak the letter M with a couple of graphical elements), and since it's not used as type, I fail to see how it could be "typeface as typeface". Mosmof (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another administrator siding with "endorse", why am I not surprised.

"No, a single letter is not a typeface."

The copyright exclusion includes typeface and lettering. A singe letter is lettering.

"To me, it's clear that the logo is more a graphical element that happens to be based on the letter M, rather than letter M that's used as a logo. It's a subtle, but an important distinction."

Really? It just "happens to be based on the letter M"? The energy drink is called MONSTER! Clearly the "M" is for the "M" in MONSTER, and not a coincidence.

"it's not used as type, I fail to see how it could be "typeface as typeface""

It may be either type or lettering.

"green wavy/clawy thing."

No, it's just the letter "M" with some fancy graphical elements. It's no ambiguous "clawy thing", I can assure you.

I can also assure you that it is not a copyrighted image, without a doubt. Can you admins say the same thing? No, you can't.

I believe your endorsements are bias, designed to create reasonable doubt where there isn't any. There is no reasonable doubt for deletion.

If you're both genuinely endorsing and all just happen to agree on.. nothing. I say nothing because everything you've said so far has been clearly addressed as false ...

... then you're basing your decisions on doubt, and our argument is based on fact without doubt. You're pulling stuff out of your ass. You have absolutely no logical argument.

The weakness of your arguments and strength of your convictions sicken me. You're all pathetic and without principle, a waste of my time when I could be improving other articles.

To quote the above statement from another user:

;Pertinent Copyright regulation (Title 37, Chapter II, Section 202.1):

The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(e) Typeface as typeface.

Based on any one of the three parts I underlined, it is clear that the Monster logo is in no way subject to copyright. If a complete typeface (no matter how fancy) cannot be copyrighted, than clearly a portion of a typeface such as a single letter also cannot be copyrighted.

Do you know what this is? It's called factual and logical information, something you have clearly not presented, and you know what else? The user isn't bias, only appealing to the facts, truth, principle of the whole thing. Go ahead, endorse, suck up to your peers, be cowardly, appeal to the majority, because of course you'll have the numbers and misplaced power to close this review without overturning anything, even though you're wrong without question, and you know you're wrong without question.

Congratulations, you must feel good to be on the side of injustice, you can win any argument with a delete button. Imagine an administrator came in now and was for overturning the decision.. what an oddity.. they would be basing their decision on factual information instead of supporting their peers in favor of run of the mill bullshit.. that person would be.. an administrator who thinks for themselves. An individual! How amazing! Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're all genuinely endorsing this decision.. but that would make you idiots instead of cowards.. either way, you're just users with administrative privileges, not an administrator, an administrator doesn't take sides, they're more mature and have higher esteem than that. Too bad one isn't here. Editor182 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the Macdonalds corporation can't copyright a stylised letter "M", then neither can these people. Therefore this file is trademarked but not copyright. It follows that Raeky's argument for deletion was factually inaccurate and should be discarded, leaving a clear "keep" consensus in the FfD. No blame attaches to SchuminWeb who's not expected to be an expert in trademark or copyright law, but on the facts, this has to be overturned—provided that Editor182 stops the dramamongering, accusations of bad faith and other unacceptable conduct in this DRV immediately.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall is there any material out there that says McDonald's haven't tried to copyright their "M" or why that is? I've tried to find something but can't. That would help change my views on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've based your decision for endorsement based on information which doesn't exist? Please read the information that does, and you'll see that it's because it's not eligible for copyright protection in the US. Editor182 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be copyrighted in some countries, but Wikipedia is (rightly or wrongly) only concerned with US copyright. In that regard it's easiest if I point you to the US copyright office FAQ here, which explains that in the US, "[c]opyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases." The letter "M" is "a short phrase" for the purposes of this. One can copyright a picture, but there's a certain minimum level of complexity; so I could claim copyright on my photograph of the Taj Mahal, but I could not claim copyright on my computer file "white_square_10px.png". This letter is insufficiently complex to meet the copyright threshold. Therefore we're only concerned with trademarks.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the complexity is the issue. My contention is that, because the "M" is stylized to the point where it may not be recognizable as the letter "M" out of context, you could make a reasonable case that it's a picture based on a letter, rather than type. More importantly, it's not used as type - contrast that with the "M" in the "Monster" text below. That "M" is clearly recognizable as the letter, and it's used in text. The green M is not. Finally, we can disagree on the complexity of the letter "M" in question, but there is clearly a difference in complexity between this and the McDonald's golden arch. Mosmof (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we both talking about the letter "M" logo on the top left of this page? If so, I'm not seeing the complexity myself. I'm tempted to ask Moonriddengirl what she thinks, or another editor active on the subject of copyright, if nobody would object? (I'm mindful of WP:CANVASS but it seems like a relevant grouping to consult.)—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. I mean, it's not exactly Jackson Pollock, but it goes beyond mere type or simple geometric shapes. It's meant to be as much claw mark as it is the letter M. Mosmof (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a note about this on Moonriddengirl's talk page.—S Marshall T/C 05:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no complexity, as I mentioned above, it's just the letter "M" with some fancy graphical elements, the big green "M" for Monster is clearly no more ambiguous than the big yellow "M" for McDonalds. Editor182 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could whoever keeps adding a bolded "overturn" to the front of my remark please bloody well stop doing it? If I ever intend to add a word in bold, I'll do it myself.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"M" is a short phrase? Not following that, I'm afraid. I think what "short phrase" is getting at is that expressions by way of short phrases are not copyrightable. It's not saying anything about the creative way in which an individual letter is expressed in visual form. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean can't copyright a sylised letter "M". The problem with copyright is that it's a bit of a Schrödinger's cat cat type problem, how the law would be applied and interpreted can't be told until someone tries to enforce it via legal action. So until McDonalds try to uphold copyright on it, it's an indeterminate problem. They'd usually however be better off with Trademark law for such things, so it's a bit academic. I notice our rendering of the McDonalds M however does list it as non-copyrightable in our view, without seeing the logo in question, it does seem we are being inconsistent in our interpretation. I'll also agree that Editor182's latest screed is far from helpful. (also isn't an admin) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, 82.7.40.7: I meant copyright, not trademark. Fixed now.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I've stated from the beginning of this review.

There is no questionable doubt whatsoever that it's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.

There is a template for that purpose, concerning trademark issues, which had been applied to the image at the time it was erroneously deleted:

As you said and I concur, it must be overturned.

Consensus? Editor182 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elevate I believe that copyright matters, especially those related to interpretation of copyright law, are not in the realm which can be possibly decided by consensus. IMHO, as it is Foundation who may potentially be sued, then just to be on a safer side and not let some lawyer to cause trouble for the whole Wikipedia, we should ask for advice from Foundation before deciding (I have no idea how it can/should be done, but I'm sure there should be a way); another alternative is a group here on Wikipedia which specializes in such questions (if such group exists). We are not lawyers, and whatever I/you/consensus think is obvious, easily might happen to have very different reading in the court of law; of course, if any of those who discusses it, can produce legal opinion (in common law sense) about it, it would be a different game, but even in this case I'd still prefer to go to Foundation (or to special forum for discussing copyright issues) and submit that opinion there. Ipsign (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter isn't complicated or risky enough to need escalation to the Foundation. That would happen if Monster Energy complained about our use of their logo, but that's extremely unlikely. As a rule companies strongly prefer to see their logo on Wikipedia, and actively wish to have a Wikipedia article that's as visually attractive as possible—see Coca-cola, Burger King, Microsoft, AXA, or Toyota, for sample articles about corporations. Standard practice is to use the logo, and you can bet that those companies are well and truly aware that we're doing it and don't mind in the least. Generally we tag the logo image with {{Non-free logo}} but I think that for the simpler logos such as this one, that's overcautious. It doesn't matter because in the real world, corporations want to see their logos plastered all over the web as widely as possible in every context apart from passing off. They definitely want their logo on their Wikipedia article.
In this case we're faced with a bizarre and unusual decision from FfD to delete a logo on the basis of copyright. FfD doesn't normally make decisions like that, and the problem is that once there's a decision that copyrighted logos need to be deleted off Wikipedia that's allowed to stand, it'll be done again and again with other logos. Which benefits absolutely nobody. Certainly not the corporations, nor the WP:OTRS team who will have to deal with the emails about it, nor the reading public who might well be confused on coming across an article like Royal Dutch Shell and need the logo to connect it with the Shell Oil Company. All such a decision would do would be to create work to no purpose. So DRV has to find some basis to overturn the decision.
The reality of course is, that if DRV fails to overturn the decision, then Editor182 will just go to Monster Energy and ask them to email their logo to the Wikimedia Foundation with a consent form so it can be re-uploaded, but I object to that on principle. It's petty, it's griefing, it contravenes our rules, and it's disruptive.
In any case, it's simplest for all concerned if the decision is overturned here. The simplest surefire way of overturning a FfD is to point out a factual inaccuracy in the discussion and in this case there is one, so I've relied on that. However, I have raised it in a place for discussing copyright issues. the most reliable such forum on Wikipedia is User:Moonriddengirl's talk page...—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As most of your reasoning is about logos, what about restoring it but as a non-free image under fair use clause? This is the way stuff like Burger King and Toyota logos are included, so such inclusion will be simply applying already existing WP:LOGO (which most likely has already been reviewed by Foundation) to M-Energy drink. But every time when I hear somebody saying that certain interpretation of the law (especially IP law) is obvious, it makes me really' scared, and statements like "if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted" are certainly way too scary to agree with. Ipsign (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but I object to that on principle. - PRINCIPLE! The reason the case was opened. Appreciated and likewise. Not to mention MJBurrage, as the case wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the valuable information they provided on the proposed deletion page. If it was any other administrator than that lunkhead, they would have accepted the consensus. Anyway.. the here and now. Editor182 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, seriously Ipsign? Okay, let's just say it is copyrighted (which it isn't) on what grounds could the company sue based on this image being on Wikipedia? Copyright infringement? Okay, fair enough.. oh wait, but WHERE IS THEIR FINANCIAL LOSS?! Wikipedia is not for profit, if it was some fancy online subscription encyclopedia with paid access, then yes, that would be grounds for a case, as the image is improving the quality of their articles which people are paying to view. In this case however, the most they would do if they were bothered by it (which they wouldn't be, if anything, they'd be happy to see their product displayed here), they would send a message to an administrator to have it removed - but to file a lawsuit? Not a chance. Lawsuits are expensive, and if one was filed, the judge would throw it out, but they're not that stupid. Just think next time, okay? Think about the real world. Editor182 (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That line of thinking runs contrary to the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. The reason why we do not accept material licensed for non-commercial use is because we are gathering content to be used and reused as widely as possible. In terms of the real world, our content is reused widely--not only in other websites, but in print materials, and they do so with our blessing and encouragement. A copyright can send a takedown to us; handling misused images that have been replicated in print is a far more complicated matter. It is our responsibility to copyright holders and to reusers to make sure that the content we declare to be free is free. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to comment by Moonriddengirl: if I remember US copyright practice correctly, effect on potential market (which roughly corresponds to the term loss you've used) is only one of four criteria which are routinely considered by US courts when dealing with copyright infringement. It is perfectly possible to be found guilty of copyright infringement even if there is no monetary gain (cases are numerous, including infamous Capitol v. Thomas), and if statutory damages come into play, it can become really ugly. As the whole IP law is an extremely difficult and convoluted area, I don't feel that anybody on this discussion (obviously, myself included) is really qualified to make evaluations of image being copyrightable in such a borderline case; not to mention that question "if there is enough creativity" can often become a matter of fact decided by jury, with a completely unpredictable outcome. Based on this, I don't feel we can possibly answer the question if it is copyrightable in this forum. OTOH, as I've noted, I will not object to interpreting this image as copyrightable but claim fair use per WP:LOGO (exactly as it is done for Burger King and Toyota); it is just IMHO, and I am not a lawyer, but I feel it is fairly reasonable interpretation. In particular, if I understand Wikipedia policies correctly, labeling it as copyrightable fair use will prevent using this image on pages which are not directly related to this company (and BTW, for such use on such not-directly-related pages losses are much easier to argue - for example, if it is used on a page of the competitor). Ipsign (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but it is free (public domain), and it does have a trademark warning applied to the image, as with many, many other PD images on Wikipedia. Editor182 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. :) Images are not my thing; prior to coming to Wikipedia, my experience with copyright was entirely in text. But I do want to clarify one thing: this is not typeface. The US feds have clearly defined "typeface": "A “typeface” can be defined as a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."(emphasis added)Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476). This "M" is not part of a set of letters created "for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters". It stands alone. Hence, it is not a character contained in a typeface. The real question is whether it in combination with other features is creative enough to merit copyright protection or, as otherwise suggested above, it is simply a variation "of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring". Frankly, I think this is the wrong venue for this discussion. If the image is not copyrightable, it should be on Commons and would presumably eventually be transferred there. (Trademark concerns do not apply; see Commons:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions.) The discussion over whether it is retainable should be held there. Based on the precedent of their threshold of originality casebook, I suspect it would be allowed, but who can say? That visual guide, by the way, was pointed out to me in a deletion debate some time back. Since there's no sourcing supplied, I don't know if all of the images in that list actually have been challenged and denied copyright in the U.S. FWIW, I would not be averse to asking our counsel about this. We don't bother them about copyright often, and that's one of the reasons why we have them. :) In the overall approach to this question, I'm a bit surprised by the heat here. We all have a common goal, I presume, of spreading free content. Indepth and thoughtful of analysis of whether content is actually free is a good thing. We take the goal seriously, and there's no reason to get upset with one another. If copyright were not complex, there'd be a whole lot fewer IP lawyers. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl, it is, in fact; lettering (one letter or more, in this case, one "M") and typographic ornamentation (the adding extraneous decorations to the "M").

I appreciate your friendly input. Editor182 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a letter, but it's not a "typeface." :) A typeface is a set of letters. Above it's been asserted that it is excludable as "Typeface as typeface", and I want to point out that it doesn't fit that definition. It needs to be considered on other factors. I realize it is ornamentation on the letter M; as I point out, the only question is whether it rises above simple ornamentation. I think in terms of the threshold of originality casebook, the clearest analog here is the "Best Western" logo, which evidently was denied copyright protection. (I say evidently, because, again, there's no source.) But this really should be on Commons. I would recommend uploading it there and inviting review in that forum. There are many more contributors there familiar with copyright as relates to images, and as it will wind up there eventually (if restored here), there's no reason that it should have to undergo review twice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not typeface.

Pertinent Copyright regulation (Title 37, Chapter II, Section 202.1)

The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(e) Typeface as typeface.

It's point (a) that applies to this image - lettering - it applies to any and all letter/s. "M" is a letter, it's simply not copyrighted in the US.

It cannot be used on Commons, that is for unrestricted content only. This image is subject to trademark. Editor182 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I attributed that statement to you. :) If you review the earlier discussion, you will see the contributor who asserted that "Based on any one of the three parts I underlined"--and you'll note that he underlined e. It had been refuted by others, but I wanted to provide verifiable reason why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be used on Commons. :) See Commons:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and specifically "Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as they do not violate any copyright (eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired), they are OK here." (I almost missed this note; I had read it and was constructing my reply before you altered it to include the bit about Commons! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why it's not typeface, but no, it does not rise above simple ornamentation. It's a fancy "M". That's all.

The "Best Western" logo was denied copyright? Rightfully so. Editor182 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, so I'm told. I haven't read the case myself. It would be nice if they cited an authority. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's an interesting case in point. Editor182 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MRG's made me see that since it's my position that this image is trademarked but not copyrightable (and thanks for the pointer to Threshold of Originality which I think supports my point), then it must also be my position that it belongs on Wikimedia Commons rather than here. So now it's time for my word in bold. :)
Close this discussion without result and open a similar discussion on Commons.—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The authority for the Best Western non-copyright status is given in the image file [14] and is at [15] Thincat (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that the Best Western case is analogous to this one. The BW logo is simple, unadorned text on top of an, again, simple, minimally adorned pentagon. While we can have a reasonable discussion about the level of creativity for the green M, it's unreasonable to claim that the two logos meet the same threshold. Unlike the "Best Western" text, the green M isn't unadorned and is not used as text. It's designed to look like a clawmark AND the letter M. There's a clear distinction between the two logos. Mosmof (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested below that the image be uploaded to and discussed on Commons. If that happens, we have no reason to discuss it here. (Rereading your note, I kind of have to wonder: did you notice the stylized W in the shape of a crown at the top of the logo? That's where I see comparison.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Rather than uploading this image to Commons and discussing it, it might be better to join the existing (and decidedly low energy) conversation here or here. The copyright concerns should be the same. If consensus is that it's copyrightable, there's no need to have another image to be deleted; if consensus is that it isn't, there should be no problem with uploading a green version of the same there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's some good work Thincat, hopefully it will help lessen any doubt on the copyright status of the "M" logo.. because doubt is all they have.

Oh, man - another discussion? I usually hang out in articles, not Talk pages and discussions, but thanks to one clown from a dispute in June who monitors my account.. and one daft administrator.. well, I appreciate your input on this review, but what I would really love is a CONCENSUS, as based on the information for and against, clearly the information sourced and presented for restoring the image is incomparably greater. Is there a 7 day minimum this topic has to drag on - or can an administrator with good judgement close this right now? Wishful thinking? Alright, I support the Commons discussion. Editor182 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unfortunate when all and sundry decide on quasi-legal issues, often in tones of considerable authority. I do not know whether this image (and related ones deleted at the same time) is allowed on English WP. It seems to me it ought to be allowed and might well be OK on Commons. It also seems to me the close of the FFD was reasonable but that the discussion was probably not well informed. This might justify an overturn at DRV (by WP:IAR?). An expedient would be to upload the image to Commons, and (if anyone has the energy) open a deletion discussion presuming it would be kept. I have edited commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States to link to the legal authorities. Thincat (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! Thanks for that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with closing. I think things will get straightened out properly on Commons. For the substantive issue, I agree that this is trademarked-not-copyrighted case. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let it be done! ;)

ATTN: PLEASE CLOSE DELETION REVIEW AS PER CONSENSUS. Editor182 (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chronology of the Harry Potter series – Just like the arguments in the XfD, arguments here are split almost equally and rather predictably. Restoring and remanding to AfD for additional discussion. – Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chronology of the Harry Potter series (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I should also add that I did contact the closing admin regarding this, also I had requested to userfy the article after the Afd was completed, but did not receive a reply. Outback the koala (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Consensus for deletion, backed by appropriate arguments, was present. There is no reason that this material should not be added to the parent articles, but consensus that this should not stand alone as an article justifies the close. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] overturn But for AGF, I'd think this resembles repeatedly nominating an article until it has a consensus to get deleted due to the random fluctuation of who has shown up. If something has gone through multiple AfDs, it should take more than a borderline consensus to delete. Given that multiple of the delete arguments carried no substantial commentary (such as just claiming that it was "unencyclopedic" which is a synonym for IDONTLIKEIT), the consensus is even less strong. While there was also not many secondary sources in the article they do exist outside (for example, Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" among others) which could be easily incorporated into the article. (And yes, I know that this last argument is more appropriate at AfD but it wasn't brought up then and is relevant because it constitutes new information). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I agree with you that this is nonsense, it is repeated nomination until desired outcome is achieved. Spot on. However, the AfD itself is pretty clearly in favor of delete, and admin was within discretion to close as they did. Seems we are in need of a new policy? How about WP:REPEATED?Turqoise127 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately such a move is directly against the general principal that consensus can change. The deletion discussion prior to this one seems to be 18 months or so ago, so it's not like it's every week. It'd also have to go both ways, no keep recreating in the hope that you'll get a different outcome this time (I note the first discussion ended in delete). Realistically wikipedia has changed, articles which once were featured may no longer meet minimum standards etc. BLP jas come along, and the overall makeup of the community changes. There will always be articles on a borderline where some believe firmly they should exist, other believe otherwise. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - As the keep calls amounted to "keep I like it" and little more. While I am a fan myself and could likely rattle off some of these dates from memory (i.e. Dumbledore opens a can of whoop-ass on Grindelwald in 1945), this is just fancruft with no real-world applicability or notability. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus. Furthermore. a 5th nomination is almost always an attempt to rely on the randomness of results at AfD--If there's a 10% error, 5 or 6 nominations will result in a delete about half the time regardless of the merits of the article. This should not be permitted without some indication that consensus on the general issue has changed. (the same is of course true of 5 or 6 attempted recreations, but we would ordinarily salt an article after the 3rd time or so, specifically in order to prevent this, and require a prior deletion review before unsalting. The same should be required here--the AfD should have been speedy closed as an attempt to game the system. As for the merits, the complexity of the events,and the fact that the successive books describe many of the key events retrospectively, and not always reliably, makes the article necessary for understanding. It might not be worth bothering with an ordinarily important book, but this is way out of that class. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wow. First, your opinion on repeated XfDs is not relevant to this DRV. If you wish to change how repeated nominations are handled, then an RfC is probably the better venue to attract a broader discussion. You aren't going to change it within this DRV. Second, there is no such thing as an "incorrect reading of consensus". If you yourself would have read the consensus differently and arrived at a different conclusion, that is not a valid reason to overturn an other administrator's decision. That is, in principle, little different from wheel-warring. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I humbly disagree, the opinion IS relevant, because it is AfD #5. Wow. How can you not see that? There without a doubt CAN be an "incorrect reading of consensus". If we have 10 policy based votes and 1 SPA vote for delete yet the admin closes as "delete" then that is incorrect reading of consensus. How can you not see that? Incidentaly, your comment to the above editor verges on rudeness in its tone, I would try to be a little nicer. (Pot calling the kettle black)Turqoise127 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] A decision at DRV is not wheel warning, or anything like that. In fact, even single=handedly reverting another admin's decision is not wheel-warring, though inadvisable in most cases without some amount of discussion. It would be the first admin reinstating it without discussion that is prohibited, because then we need ANI or an analogous process. Pages like DRV exist to review administrative acts. Saying in good faith that a close is wrong for whatever reason is always in order here. Saying in good faith that IAR should have been used is always an appropriate reason. (of course, having given such a reason, it's necessary to convince the other people.) There is fairly general consensus on too often, though it's been hard to specify it exactly. One of the accepted ways of changing policy is changing gradually what we actually do by changing our interpretations of guidelines and policies--the effective policy on proper deletions is deletions that will be sustained at DRV. There is very much such a thing as incorrect reading of consensus--in fact, that's the usual reason for reversal here, that the admin did not properly judge the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The admin did not properly judge the consensus" is entirely your opinion; you do not get to use DRV to substitute your own opinion over that of another administrator. Period. It is high time that you and others be prevented from abusing deletion review in this manner. Tarc (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] As a completely uninvolved bystander, I'm curious: if this kind of opinion is not allowed to be posted at DRV, what is a valid argument for DRV? If there are no possible arguments and closing admin is always right no matter what, then why DRV exists at all? Ipsign (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do not see user:DGG using or abusing this deletion review. I asked for the review, user DGG did not participate in the original Afd or even work on the page, to my knowledge. I see this as a personal attack that is not on topic. This is a DRV, not a discussion on them. Outback the koala (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't see the DGGs statement as overly problematic nor an abuse of process. His first "Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus." is a perfectly valid reason to overturn a deletion, however it's much like a bald assertion of "it's (not)notable", gives little context so any one closing the debate should weight it accordingly. No need for anyone to be prohibited from saying stuff, just let the closer look at the overall discussion and act accordingly. If you feel it's weak or irrelevant argument then feel free to flag it as such since that'll highlight it to the closer and/or allow DGG to expand on the argument. Surely this is exactly the way it's supposed to work? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] (ec) I don't think that's a fair reading of the repeated nominations. This is not an article that has had repeated consensus to be kept; it's one that's escaped by the skin of its teeth through "no consensus" twice in over two years. It has not had a keep consensus since 2007, when our requirements regarding sourcing and original research were much worse than they are now, and so I don't think it's fair to try to misrepresent a good faith application of WP:CCC as a bad-faith attempt at re-re-re-re-rolling the AfD dice. Reyk _YO! 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- In my opinion the delete !votes were well grounded in policy, and the closing administrator did right in not allowing WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL to trump necessary core policies such as the requirement for reliable sourcing and the ban on speculation. Reyk _YO! 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Regarding the previous AfDs, the recent ones seem to have been closed with little more than a "the result was no consensus" with no further explanation. These closes shouldn't prevent further AfDs: (a) consensus can change, especially "no consensus"; and (b) if the closing admins haven't taken the time to give reasons for the close the closes are not really worth much. The closing admin in this case, on the other hand, clearly found one side objectively more persuasive by reference to core policies (like OR). There's no reason why this close shouldn't be allowed to stand.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] agreed there, consensus can change. Local consensus at a particular time may also be unrepresentative. The way to figure out which rule we should go by is to discuss the actual merits of the case at hand. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] While I agree that the last thing Wikipedia needs is yet another article summarising the plot of the Harry Potter movie series, the "delete" consensus in that debate is not entirely clear and DGG's arguments about WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED strike me as well-founded.—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have some sympathy for the keeplisting argument, I can't see that it applies fully here. The article has apparently been listed 4 times prior to this one, deleted, kept, no-consensus, no-consensus. I usually take no-consensus closes to mean there are problems or potential problems which need to be resolved and we believe they can be resolved. If they aren't resolved in a reasonable timeframe after that it does reasonably suggest we were wrong and those issues can't be resolved (or there is no will to resolve them) so relisting is reasonable. The latest debate is a fair distance over the previous, more so given it seems to have been raised by someone not involved in the previous debates. i.e. I don't see this as an individual crusade. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I agree with the comments made by the closing Admin - I note 7 !votes for delete, 4 for keep including a keep because 'I like it', and a merge. The closing Admin decided that the policy arguments supported deletion. It isn't the case that a few keep votes mean an article can't be deleted. And I'm a fan, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree that no consensus closes should not prevent renomination, but DGG does have a point that many keep supporters from the previous WP:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series were absent from this AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't see where DGG has a point at all, no. If editors are interested in a particular topic or or article, then they can keep things on their watchlist, it isn't anyone else's responsibility to keep them informed. If fact, I'd say in some cases of repeated noms it may be better if old hands missed out on the next round of discussions, as sometimes a fresh set of eyes is what is needed to objectively assess the matter. There is far too much "it was kept before so we gotta keep it now"-isms out there, users with WP:OWN issues, and so on. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Isn't this culture of WP:OWN entrenched in DRV, though? I mean, closing admins get really quite hot under the collar if they aren't approached about a decision on their talkpage. There's a feeling that the closing or speedy deleting admin "owns" the decision and is entitled to be consulted before the DRV is opened. Why does that apply to administrators but not editors? Why aren't article creators, for example, required to be notified of AfDs on anything they write? I do agree that it's necessary to watchlist any material that you create. It's not enough to write a decent article, you then have to defend it from good faith but mistaken editors, and brainless prats, for the rest of time.—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think your broad brush characterization of "good faith but mistaken editors, and brainless prats" is helpful. Sure there will be times when there are nonsense listings for deletion and hopefully these survive regardless, especially where there is a reaonable level of participation. Many articles get deleted because they don't meet the standards, cases like this with a delete, keep and two no consensus by nature suggests there is a reasonable amount of disagreement on, labeling those who think it needs to be delete in that way is inappropriate (I'm sure your point is broader, but in the context of this debate it would have to be applicable). On the issue with notification of closing admins there is a substantial difference (1) often the issue can be resolved without bringing it to DRV, I've seen plenty of case where discussion makes the person interested "happier" that the result was correct or the admin reconsiders and updates the result/reslists (2) Unfortunately some people come to DRV with a battlefield mentality, "that evil deletionist admin was out to get my articles, I'll show them...". It's more about getting even than about the result as such. It shouldn't be like that, mistakes happen and we shouldn't be scared of that, there should be no reason for an admin to be defensive of their close. With article creators, I don't see the same attitude, the article being deleted isn't the same combative approach. Not to mention that informing article creators isn't as easy as it sounds, I create a one line stub, 20 other editors over a period of time bulk it out signficantly, finally it's deleted, why inform me as creator? the vast bulk of content and effort was nothing to do with me. If we start making complicated rules about who to inform it becomes a nonsense, and notifying anyone who touched the article is probably not too useful either --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Marshall, your framing of the situation is a bit off the mark. I don't think a closer thinks they "own" the decision, its more like when an admin blocks a user...another admin that reviews the unblock request usually does the courtesy of consulting with the blocker first. It's just a basic courtesy of "why did you decide this the way you did?" IMO it should be a requirement like AN/I notifications are, but I fully realize that that debate has been lost. Article creators are a whole different ballgame, as the IP noted above when there are many, many contributors to an article. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting a little bit off topic here, but let's follow it up and see where it goes. First off, I was speaking more broadly than purely about deletion; I was talking about my experience of defending what I've done on Wikipedia and explaining the reasons why I've done it. I've very little personal experience of attempts to delete my material. Nothing I've written has ever gone to AfD. I've encountered CSD—back in 2009 someone nominated an article of mine for speedy deletion in the same second as I started it (here), which was very annoying and speedy deletion taggers have stood pretty low in my esteem ever since—but that's about it. (Either I'm such a good editor that I've never written an inappropriate article, or else I've been lucky enough to never seriously annoy a member of the article removal cabal; which you believe depends on your personal level of cynicism.) However, I can tell you that whatever Wikipedia policies might say about it, I feel a very strong sense of ownership of (say) Agriculture in the United Kingdom and I'd be upset, angry and fairly sarcastic if it was subjected to a major reorganisation or tagged for deletion without any attempt to discuss the matter with me. In short, I'd react like an admin whose deletion decision had been challenged. And in fact, the whole context of GAN and FAC is all about ownership; there's an expectation that the nominator will be the person who's written the material and that the nominator will run around fixing issues pointed out by the reviewers. It's a rare reviewer who'll undertake any major fixing for themselves. In short, it's natural to take responsibility for, and feel ownership of, one's writing or one's decisions on Wikipedia and there's a conflict between our policies and our conventions.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Having pride in your work is not a bad thing, and I don't think WP:OWN intends to disuade that. As already mentioned informaing admins here isn't about ownership of the decision (or shouldn't be) it's about expedient dealing with deletion disputes, no one will know better the underlying reasons than the closer - I'll also note that some admins couldn't care less about the discussion with them first - something I disagree with on the same basis. Interesting that you bring up GAN and FAC (not everyone agrees that these are good things BTW, their standards for what makes an article "good" differ), although you are right to a point it's also contradictory, it involves criticism (hopefully constructive) of "your" work, the fact that "you" may do all the fixing rather than someone else shouldn't make that much of a difference. You also refer to the "article removal cabal" in line with your comments here about those seeking to delete this, whereas your direct personal experience seems to contradict such a problem, I haven't reviewed your work but I'd suggest you assume it's because it's been done to a good standard. Rather than wander even further away from topic, I'd suggest most people listing stuff for deletion do so in an effort to do what they see as improving the overall quality of the encyclopedia, not merely for "fun" --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus per DGG, and because a significant share of the delete !votes and arguments (particularly with regard to sourcing "independence" requirements) would be inconsistent with consensus-accepted practice if applied generally to articles incorporating in-universe content of fictional works. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Um, what? Now matter how important something is in-universe, it is just that; in-universe. Finding reliable sources independent of that is a basic requirement for establishing notability, and many of the delete calls are quite in line with that. Just what are you trying to pull here? Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Keep arguments did not address the problems with the article and merely avoided the policies and guidelines with arguments claiming it to be useful and popular, that because the books are notable therefore the article was notable enough, arguing that Wikipedia does Fandom or making comparisons with other articles without validating the individual merits of this article. More importantly, there was a consensus in favor of deleting the article. Jfgslo (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I do not see consensus in the AFD. In this review I find two editors' arguments particularly persuasive. User:DGG persuades me that overturn is appropriate here. User:Tarc even more strongly presuades me that his type of endorse argument is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] QQ more, pls? What I endorse is the notion of administrator being able to make a reasonable judgment call when closing a deletion discussion, and not have that judgment overturned by simple-minded second-guessing. Discussions are not votes. Discussions are not head counts. Discussions are where opinions to keep or delete an article are made, and these opinions are weighed by the closing admin. Sometimes, regrettably, even consensus can override this, i.e. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17, the plane crash incident. Even though the keeps in that AfD were IMO profoundly asinine, the close was correct. In cases like this though where the keep/delete ratio is narrower, then the strength of argument gets more attention. Just because another admin may have closed ti differently does not give them the right essentially overturn another's close. Short of something egregiously and explicit wrong...a policy unambiguously misapplied, a close opposite of a crystal-clear consensus, etc...I rarely support overturns in this forum. "I disagree" is not a valid reason. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chronology of the Harry Potter series – Just like the arguments in the XfD, arguments here are split almost equally and rather predictably. Restoring and remanding to AfD for additional discussion. – Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I did contact the closing admin regarding this, also I had requested to userfy the article after the Afd was completed, but did not receive a reply. Outback the koala (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Consensus for deletion, backed by appropriate arguments, was present. There is no reason that this material should not be added to the parent articles, but consensus that this should not stand alone as an article justifies the close. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn But for AGF, I'd think this resembles repeatedly nominating an article until it has a consensus to get deleted due to the random fluctuation of who has shown up. If something has gone through multiple AfDs, it should take more than a borderline consensus to delete. Given that multiple of the delete arguments carried no substantial commentary (such as just claiming that it was "unencyclopedic" which is a synonym for IDONTLIKEIT), the consensus is even less strong. While there was also not many secondary sources in the article they do exist outside (for example, Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" among others) which could be easily incorporated into the article. (And yes, I know that this last argument is more appropriate at AfD but it wasn't brought up then and is relevant because it constitutes new information). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with you that this is nonsense, it is repeated nomination until desired outcome is achieved. Spot on. However, the AfD itself is pretty clearly in favor of delete, and admin was within discretion to close as they did. Seems we are in need of a new policy? How about WP:REPEATED?Turqoise127 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately such a move is directly against the general principal that consensus can change. The deletion discussion prior to this one seems to be 18 months or so ago, so it's not like it's every week. It'd also have to go both ways, no keep recreating in the hope that you'll get a different outcome this time (I note the first discussion ended in delete). Realistically wikipedia has changed, articles which once were featured may no longer meet minimum standards etc. BLP jas come along, and the overall makeup of the community changes. There will always be articles on a borderline where some believe firmly they should exist, other believe otherwise. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - As the keep calls amounted to "keep I like it" and little more. While I am a fan myself and could likely rattle off some of these dates from memory (i.e. Dumbledore opens a can of whoop-ass on Grindelwald in 1945), this is just fancruft with no real-world applicability or notability. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus. Furthermore. a 5th nomination is almost always an attempt to rely on the randomness of results at AfD--If there's a 10% error, 5 or 6 nominations will result in a delete about half the time regardless of the merits of the article. This should not be permitted without some indication that consensus on the general issue has changed. (the same is of course true of 5 or 6 attempted recreations, but we would ordinarily salt an article after the 3rd time or so, specifically in order to prevent this, and require a prior deletion review before unsalting. The same should be required here--the AfD should have been speedy closed as an attempt to game the system. As for the merits, the complexity of the events,and the fact that the successive books describe many of the key events retrospectively, and not always reliably, makes the article necessary for understanding. It might not be worth bothering with an ordinarily important book, but this is way out of that class. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. First, your opinion on repeated XfDs is not relevant to this DRV. If you wish to change how repeated nominations are handled, then an RfC is probably the better venue to attract a broader discussion. You aren't going to change it within this DRV. Second, there is no such thing as an "incorrect reading of consensus". If you yourself would have read the consensus differently and arrived at a different conclusion, that is not a valid reason to overturn an other administrator's decision. That is, in principle, little different from wheel-warring. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly disagree, the opinion IS relevant, because it is AfD #5. Wow. How can you not see that? There without a doubt CAN be an "incorrect reading of consensus". If we have 10 policy based votes and 1 SPA vote for delete yet the admin closes as "delete" then that is incorrect reading of consensus. How can you not see that? Incidentaly, your comment to the above editor verges on rudeness in its tone, I would try to be a little nicer. (Pot calling the kettle black)Turqoise127 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A decision at DRV is not wheel warning, or anything like that. In fact, even single=handedly reverting another admin's decision is not wheel-warring, though inadvisable in most cases without some amount of discussion. It would be the first admin reinstating it without discussion that is prohibited, because then we need ANI or an analogous process. Pages like DRV exist to review administrative acts. Saying in good faith that a close is wrong for whatever reason is always in order here. Saying in good faith that IAR should have been used is always an appropriate reason. (of course, having given such a reason, it's necessary to convince the other people.) There is fairly general consensus on too often, though it's been hard to specify it exactly. One of the accepted ways of changing policy is changing gradually what we actually do by changing our interpretations of guidelines and policies--the effective policy on proper deletions is deletions that will be sustained at DRV. There is very much such a thing as incorrect reading of consensus--in fact, that's the usual reason for reversal here, that the admin did not properly judge the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The admin did not properly judge the consensus" is entirely your opinion; you do not get to use DRV to substitute your own opinion over that of another administrator. Period. It is high time that you and others be prevented from abusing deletion review in this manner. Tarc (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely uninvolved bystander, I'm curious: if this kind of opinion is not allowed to be posted at DRV, what is a valid argument for DRV? If there are no possible arguments and closing admin is always right no matter what, then why DRV exists at all? Ipsign (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see user:DGG using or abusing this deletion review. I asked for the review, user DGG did not participate in the original Afd or even work on the page, to my knowledge. I see this as a personal attack that is not on topic. This is a DRV, not a discussion on them. Outback the koala (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the DGGs statement as overly problematic nor an abuse of process. His first "Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus." is a perfectly valid reason to overturn a deletion, however it's much like a bald assertion of "it's (not)notable", gives little context so any one closing the debate should weight it accordingly. No need for anyone to be prohibited from saying stuff, just let the closer look at the overall discussion and act accordingly. If you feel it's weak or irrelevant argument then feel free to flag it as such since that'll highlight it to the closer and/or allow DGG to expand on the argument. Surely this is exactly the way it's supposed to work? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think that's a fair reading of the repeated nominations. This is not an article that has had repeated consensus to be kept; it's one that's escaped by the skin of its teeth through "no consensus" twice in over two years. It has not had a keep consensus since 2007, when our requirements regarding sourcing and original research were much worse than they are now, and so I don't think it's fair to try to misrepresent a good faith application of WP:CCC as a bad-faith attempt at re-re-re-re-rolling the AfD dice. Reyk _YO! 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- In my opinion the delete !votes were well grounded in policy, and the closing administrator did right in not allowing WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL to trump necessary core policies such as the requirement for reliable sourcing and the ban on speculation. Reyk _YO! 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Regarding the previous AfDs, the recent ones seem to have been closed with little more than a "the result was no consensus" with no further explanation. These closes shouldn't prevent further AfDs: (a) consensus can change, especially "no consensus"; and (b) if the closing admins haven't taken the time to give reasons for the close the closes are not really worth much. The closing admin in this case, on the other hand, clearly found one side objectively more persuasive by reference to core policies (like OR). There's no reason why this close shouldn't be allowed to stand.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed there, consensus can change. Local consensus at a particular time may also be unrepresentative. The way to figure out which rule we should go by is to discuss the actual merits of the case at hand. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the last thing Wikipedia needs is yet another article summarising the plot of the Harry Potter movie series, the "delete" consensus in that debate is not entirely clear and DGG's arguments about WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED strike me as well-founded.—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy for the keeplisting argument, I can't see that it applies fully here. The article has apparently been listed 4 times prior to this one, deleted, kept, no-consensus, no-consensus. I usually take no-consensus closes to mean there are problems or potential problems which need to be resolved and we believe they can be resolved. If they aren't resolved in a reasonable timeframe after that it does reasonably suggest we were wrong and those issues can't be resolved (or there is no will to resolve them) so relisting is reasonable. The latest debate is a fair distance over the previous, more so given it seems to have been raised by someone not involved in the previous debates. i.e. I don't see this as an individual crusade. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with the comments made by the closing Admin - I note 7 !votes for delete, 4 for keep including a keep because 'I like it', and a merge. The closing Admin decided that the policy arguments supported deletion. It isn't the case that a few keep votes mean an article can't be deleted. And I'm a fan, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that no consensus closes should not prevent renomination, but DGG does have a point that many keep supporters from the previous WP:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series were absent from this AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where DGG has a point at all, no. If editors are interested in a particular topic or or article, then they can keep things on their watchlist, it isn't anyone else's responsibility to keep them informed. If fact, I'd say in some cases of repeated noms it may be better if old hands missed out on the next round of discussions, as sometimes a fresh set of eyes is what is needed to objectively assess the matter. There is far too much "it was kept before so we gotta keep it now"-isms out there, users with WP:OWN issues, and so on. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't this culture of WP:OWN entrenched in DRV, though? I mean, closing admins get really quite hot under the collar if they aren't approached about a decision on their talkpage. There's a feeling that the closing or speedy deleting admin "owns" the decision and is entitled to be consulted before the DRV is opened. Why does that apply to administrators but not editors? Why aren't article creators, for example, required to be notified of AfDs on anything they write?
    I do agree that it's necessary to watchlist any material that you create. It's not enough to write a decent article, you then have to defend it from good faith but mistaken editors, and brainless prats, for the rest of time.—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think your broad brush characterization of "good faith but mistaken editors, and brainless prats" is helpful. Sure there will be times when there are nonsense listings for deletion and hopefully these survive regardless, especially where there is a reaonable level of participation. Many articles get deleted because they don't meet the standards, cases like this with a delete, keep and two no consensus by nature suggests there is a reasonable amount of disagreement on, labeling those who think it needs to be delete in that way is inappropriate (I'm sure your point is broader, but in the context of this debate it would have to be applicable). On the issue with notification of closing admins there is a substantial difference (1) often the issue can be resolved without bringing it to DRV, I've seen plenty of case where discussion makes the person interested "happier" that the result was correct or the admin reconsiders and updates the result/reslists (2) Unfortunately some people come to DRV with a battlefield mentality, "that evil deletionist admin was out to get my articles, I'll show them...". It's more about getting even than about the result as such. It shouldn't be like that, mistakes happen and we shouldn't be scared of that, there should be no reason for an admin to be defensive of their close. With article creators, I don't see the same attitude, the article being deleted isn't the same combative approach. Not to mention that informing article creators isn't as easy as it sounds, I create a one line stub, 20 other editors over a period of time bulk it out signficantly, finally it's deleted, why inform me as creator? the vast bulk of content and effort was nothing to do with me. If we start making complicated rules about who to inform it becomes a nonsense, and notifying anyone who touched the article is probably not too useful either --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Marshall, your framing of the situation is a bit off the mark. I don't think a closer thinks they "own" the decision, its more like when an admin blocks a user...another admin that reviews the unblock request usually does the courtesy of consulting with the blocker first. It's just a basic courtesy of "why did you decide this the way you did?" IMO it should be a requirement like AN/I notifications are, but I fully realize that that debate has been lost. Article creators are a whole different ballgame, as the IP noted above when there are many, many contributors to an article. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Getting a little bit off topic here, but let's follow it up and see where it goes. First off, I was speaking more broadly than purely about deletion; I was talking about my experience of defending what I've done on Wikipedia and explaining the reasons why I've done it.
        I've very little personal experience of attempts to delete my material. Nothing I've written has ever gone to AfD. I've encountered CSD—back in 2009 someone nominated an article of mine for speedy deletion in the same second as I started it (here), which was very annoying and speedy deletion taggers have stood pretty low in my esteem ever since—but that's about it. (Either I'm such a good editor that I've never written an inappropriate article, or else I've been lucky enough to never seriously annoy a member of the article removal cabal; which you believe depends on your personal level of cynicism.) However, I can tell you that whatever Wikipedia policies might say about it, I feel a very strong sense of ownership of (say) Agriculture in the United Kingdom and I'd be upset, angry and fairly sarcastic if it was subjected to a major reorganisation or tagged for deletion without any attempt to discuss the matter with me. In short, I'd react like an admin whose deletion decision had been challenged.
        And in fact, the whole context of GAN and FAC is all about ownership; there's an expectation that the nominator will be the person who's written the material and that the nominator will run around fixing issues pointed out by the reviewers. It's a rare reviewer who'll undertake any major fixing for themselves.
        In short, it's natural to take responsibility for, and feel ownership of, one's writing or one's decisions on Wikipedia and there's a conflict between our policies and our conventions.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Having pride in your work is not a bad thing, and I don't think WP:OWN intends to disuade that. As already mentioned informaing admins here isn't about ownership of the decision (or shouldn't be) it's about expedient dealing with deletion disputes, no one will know better the underlying reasons than the closer - I'll also note that some admins couldn't care less about the discussion with them first - something I disagree with on the same basis. Interesting that you bring up GAN and FAC (not everyone agrees that these are good things BTW, their standards for what makes an article "good" differ), although you are right to a point it's also contradictory, it involves criticism (hopefully constructive) of "your" work, the fact that "you" may do all the fixing rather than someone else shouldn't make that much of a difference. You also refer to the "article removal cabal" in line with your comments here about those seeking to delete this, whereas your direct personal experience seems to contradict such a problem, I haven't reviewed your work but I'd suggest you assume it's because it's been done to a good standard. Rather than wander even further away from topic, I'd suggest most people listing stuff for deletion do so in an effort to do what they see as improving the overall quality of the encyclopedia, not merely for "fun" --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per DGG, and because a significant share of the delete !votes and arguments (particularly with regard to sourcing "independence" requirements) would be inconsistent with consensus-accepted practice if applied generally to articles incorporating in-universe content of fictional works. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? Now matter how important something is in-universe, it is just that; in-universe. Finding reliable sources independent of that is a basic requirement for establishing notability, and many of the delete calls are quite in line with that. Just what are you trying to pull here? Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep arguments did not address the problems with the article and merely avoided the policies and guidelines with arguments claiming it to be useful and popular, that because the books are notable therefore the article was notable enough, arguing that Wikipedia does Fandom or making comparisons with other articles without validating the individual merits of this article. More importantly, there was a consensus in favor of deleting the article. Jfgslo (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I do not see consensus in the AFD. In this review I find two editors' arguments particularly persuasive. User:DGG persuades me that overturn is appropriate here. User:Tarc even more strongly presuades me that his type of endorse argument is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QQ more, pls? What I endorse is the notion of administrator being able to make a reasonable judgment call when closing a deletion discussion, and not have that judgment overturned by simple-minded second-guessing. Discussions are not votes. Discussions are not head counts. Discussions are where opinions to keep or delete an article are made, and these opinions are weighed by the closing admin. Sometimes, regrettably, even consensus can override this, i.e. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17, the plane crash incident. Even though the keeps in that AfD were IMO profoundly asinine, the close was correct. In cases like this though where the keep/delete ratio is narrower, then the strength of argument gets more attention. Just because another admin may have closed ti differently does not give them the right essentially overturn another's close. Short of something egregiously and explicit wrong...a policy unambiguously misapplied, a close opposite of a crystal-clear consensus, etc...I rarely support overturns in this forum. "I disagree" is not a valid reason. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 November 2010

[edit]

Marshal Walker – This isn't going anywhere edifying. WP:SNOW likely. WP:THERAPY is useful reading. – jps (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marshal Walker (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) abuse of military outlaw hardware in a public facility (WINDUH) MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC) contribs) MIL.HUNGRY over the Gogo Dodo is a false credential mafia affiliate not established as MIL authority - fake acting OAAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment by deleting admin: Article was a mostly incomprehensible mish-mash of some conspiracy theory, much like this DRV request. While the article was delete under CSD G1, it could have been deleted under CSD G3 as a blatant hoax or CSD A7 as a non-notable biography. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] leave deleted - unless the author comes up with a real biography of a real person in user space to transfer to mainspace first. please salt if recreated. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] the article was a legitimate description of the military facade behind wikipedia that is using brain manipulation to distort articles - CSD G1 is a mafia established means of taking down any references to playboy or vegas inter alia , it has no military credibility and there is no military behind WIKIPEDIA the scanning engine which was used to determine terrorist activity is a non-employ of any legitimate military who using false credentials and stolen hardware developed and enterprise for lobbying for more porn and greed - you have a lot of explaining to do for working for that mutt let alone for the CSD G3 which means criminal intent to terrorize a terrorist network (mafia) and CSD A7 which is an actual nuclear detonation code to attempt to detonate any thermal device within the area of the person who submitted the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] leave deleted - unless the author comes up with a real biography of a real person in user space to transfer to mainspace first. please salt if recreated. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] rocks and dirt is the mil supervisor faking NATO clearance, there is no nato there never was a legitimate body as such let alone an imposter , "salt if recreated" means turn body into land mine through aerial bacterial weaponry out of FBA nevada —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] thinking that you can backdoor the MIL-SUPREME network with some sort of logic that the FBI is not allowed to administer their own wikipedia page by "cert authority" is going to get you dead real, real, real quick -- ever walk outside at all ? ever ? --MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] better call up NATO-ITALY and ask for a car --MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] three feet away from the pi mainframe you used to control saigon to escalate a nuclear attack against the Network Nefin ? sitting in mil-command complex does not make you a mil man , 2 feet of steel bar wont save you either - and i can sit here where its warm and wait all day for your brain to be harvested and studied for research as to your multiple personality disorder , aside from your having eaten pig penis back in somolia —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Marshal Walker – This isn't going anywhere edifying. WP:SNOW likely. WP:THERAPY is useful reading. – jps (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

abuse of military outlaw hardware in a public facility (WINDUH) MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC) contribs) MIL.HUNGRY over the Gogo Dodo is a false credential mafia affiliate not established as MIL authority - fake acting OAAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by deleting admin: Article was a mostly incomprehensible mish-mash of some conspiracy theory, much like this DRV request. While the article was delete under CSD G1, it could have been deleted under CSD G3 as a blatant hoax or CSD A7 as a non-notable biography. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
leave deleted - unless the author comes up with a real biography of a real person in user space to transfer to mainspace first. please salt if recreated. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article was a legitimate description of the military facade behind wikipedia that is using brain manipulation to distort articles - CSD G1 is a mafia established means of taking down any references to playboy or vegas inter alia , it has no military credibility and there is no military behind WIKIPEDIA the scanning engine which was used to determine terrorist activity is a non-employ of any legitimate military who using false credentials and stolen hardware developed and enterprise for lobbying for more porn and greed - you have a lot of explaining to do for working for that mutt let alone for the CSD G3 which means criminal intent to terrorize a terrorist network (mafia) and CSD A7 which is an actual nuclear detonation code to attempt to detonate any thermal device within the area of the person who submitted the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leave deleted - unless the author comes up with a real biography of a real person in user space to transfer to mainspace first. please salt if recreated. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rocks and dirt is the mil supervisor faking NATO clearance, there is no nato there never was a legitimate body as such let alone an imposter , "salt if recreated" means turn body into land mine through aerial bacterial weaponry out of FBA nevada —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thinking that you can backdoor the MIL-SUPREME network with some sort of logic that the FBI is not allowed to administer their own wikipedia page by "cert authority" is going to get you dead real, real, real quick -- ever walk outside at all ? ever ? --MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

better call up NATO-ITALY and ask for a car --MarsHALwaLker (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

three feet away from the pi mainframe you used to control saigon to escalate a nuclear attack against the Network Nefin ? sitting in mil-command complex does not make you a mil man , 2 feet of steel bar wont save you either - and i can sit here where its warm and wait all day for your brain to be harvested and studied for research as to your multiple personality disorder , aside from your having eaten pig penis back in somolia —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsHALwaLker (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anushka Wirasinha – socking is bad and we clearly have a consensus of established editors and nothing good can come from leaving this open any further. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Anushka Wirasinha (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) An author page was created for this author in 2008 by someone. It was included in wikipedia as it met notabiity criteria. There were some edits done but poorly done but article remained for 2 yrs till 2010. An unusual email was sent by an unknown source to wiki foundation via an email claiming some issues that were not quite correct but it led to deletion of the article even though there was interest in adding further material and comments by certain users that it had met notability criteria through verifiable sources that were relliable. Another editor created a new page for the author and I also worked on getting more material done. The article seemed to have met notability criteria in a number of ways. WP:ACADEMICS, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NOTTEMP and WP:RS Despite meeting technical criteria and these discussed, while the discussion was on going the article was deleted by an admin. Editors were in the process of collecting further archived works from foreign sources that shows further notability when the article was deleted. Translations were also being done and alot of this work that many editors incuding myself were doing came to an end. Attempts to contact the admins are of little luck and I was wondering if the article can be sent to the incubator so work can continue on it and we do not lose the work already done.I understand the difficulty in getting material in foreign countries but we have taken a lot of effort to contact persons in those countries to get the article done well. We just want to keep working on this for a few more days to include everything. Muthuwella In my view notability is met with the following: Three IT books (Visually Learn PC, On Your Marks Net Set Go, Surviving in an e-world and Flash in a Flash: web development) published by well known traditional publisher Prentice Hall India are used as University textbooks and course material in several universities in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka. Other books including "Study buddy" is used in Sri Lanka schools and endorsed by the Sri Lanka education board to be used in schools in the country. Books have been used as school textbooks, university textbooks and course material for over 10 years. Author has introduced a new concept of Computer art and animation to schools and verifiable by the schools and reliable mainstream newspapers. Author's books of IT when published by Prentice Hall India were the first IT books written by a Sri Lankan in Sri Lanka in English to be published by an international publisher. Her books were in the India Times bestseller list (need few days to get the archives content) Several mainstream newspapers and magazines have written articles about her and interviews are there in well known sources. (another editor scanned and had included these images but due to copyright it has been temporarily removed till copyright is obtained. Meanwhile it is temporarily on flikr page for that editor.) Discussion was taking place on how better to improve this article and some admins were helping with useful comments and we were all trying to get a good article put together. It is really not about getting the article on wikipedia but rather I am determined to give any article the chance to give the best shot at showing editors why it should be included. This article has not been given that chance. There is much more material that is different and relevant to determining its notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamithra (talk • contribs) Please list the reliable sources you suggest that we use for an article about this lady. I have some concerns about the sources that were used in the deleted version of the article.—S Marshall T/C 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent published sources. I didn't find any english language mainstream newspapers or magazines or books that published biographical information about her. You can use India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka mainstream newspapers and magazines as sources, but you are losing your argument by citing evidence of her importance. Everyone is important, but it takes being noticed to a significant degree by independent published sources to get a biographical article in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re-List I don't know why Chanithra listed this in deletion review as even though it should be relisted so Sri Lanka editors can edit it, it's not happening even after showing tons of sources as admins are dead set on getting rid of it. User: Uzma Gamal, Answering your comment "find any english language mainstream newspapers or magazines or books that published biographical information about her. You can use India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka mainstream newspapers and magazines as sources". There are TONS of links that were put. Didn't you see the Island Newspaper, Sunday Leader, Business Today and all the mag articles I put in flikr temporarily so the sources can be seen? She is noted to a significant degree. I am not saying she is important, the sources prove it. If you need specific evidence ask me and I can e-mail or put on flikr. I took the stuff down as I didn't want a copyright issue but if it is needed as proof, I'd put it. Also I don't think anyone can deny that the books are textbooks in a number of very reputable Universities in many countries. Do a google search and you will find them. Otherwise, see the links I have put on her page that was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC) — Muthuwella (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Endorse the single purpose editors have been constantly appearing at these AfDs, the consensus was well established to delete. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re-List the consensus was not clear. The editors have stated many times to keep it for further discussion but the administrators are just not looking at the credentials of this subject. She was included in 2008 because she was notable. As one administrator put it correctly there was an "unusual" trigger to delete this sent to OTRS. If didn't come through normal circumstances that lead to believe that the author is being targeted wrongly. Despite a relist I see it was deleted by an admin. Then the page recreated but the earlier admin is no longer there. I feel the editors whould decide on this. Re-list, keep it for discussion open to editors and anyone who wants to improve it and then if nothing, delete it. Give it a fair chance. Endorse I commented at the AfD, but decided to not express an opinion. This is an interesting borderline case, where the WP:PROF requirement (and conceivably the GNG) is technically met, but the person is not by common sense standards clearly notable. Common sense has to be judged by the consensus. I do not support an over-literal reading of notablity guidelines to artificially include articles any more than I support using them to artificially delete them. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion This author claims notability for authoring books "of university level", yet to read the refs cited to support this (their pitiful grammar and spelling apart) is to degrade the whole notion of what "university level" means. These books might have been recommended, but not by credible courses at a serious level of study. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Andy Dingley, I have no idea what your problem is. If her books are used in 25 Universities as a textbook, then it is "university level". She is not just saying university level, the universities have listed them as textbooks. You are blatantly untrue in your nasty comments. They are credible as they are listed as mandatory textbooks in these universities. I see bias in your comments as you are not taking a fact into account. If universities list these books as textbooks, then they are university level. What do you mean pitiful grammar and spelling? Please clarify your comments. Sources2 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment how did Sources2 (talk · contribs) know to come here on their first edit? LibStar (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment I did a search on Anushka Wirasinha as I saw the article up for deletion and then when I checked it said deletion review on top of the page, so I clicked it. Harassment Why are all the Admins being nasty and trying to delete this author from United Kingdom? The only not bias admin here is DGG (talk · contribs) as he is the only one who is actually giving any valid points. The others are all from UNITED KINGDOM and are all having one aim to harass the author. Andy Dingley is way out of line. It doesn't matter what he thinks the books are textbooks in well known universities in many countries and this is a notability criteria under wikipedia. Andy Digney has claimed by his ill thought out poor taste comment that half the Indian Universities that use this authors publications are not "credible"- as he states "not by credible courses at a serious level of study" What do you call the BTech exam? Not credible?? Please note that you may have some sort of brain block where you cannot properly deduct facts but facts remain facts and your comments show that you need to get an education before you wrongly degrade foreign authors and universities. I have no interest in wikipedia, I joined this conversation because I went through all the Admins who are degrading this article and see that they are all from the UK. Maybe some are disgruntled employees from her establishment in the UK. Question for Sources2 how do you know about Deletion review process in Wikipedia? do you have any connection to Anushka Wirasinha? LibStar (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment I suspect the 3 single purpose editors involved in this ongoing desperate want to save effort are the same person, am logging a sockpuppet investigation. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment LibStar you have ignored the rules of wikipedia that clearly asks you to act in goodfaith and have accused me from the very start of sockpuppeting. You have not given any constructive advice or critisism but rather went straight into pointing the finger at me without attempting to be polite or nice or handle the matter professionally taking into account facts. You are welcome to do anything you wish, I don't really care about the article anymore or your threats, it is the way the situation was handled by certain administrators including you that is very unprofessional. Admins are there to look into facts not disregard them when they are blatantly clear. It is a fact that the books are textbooks used in universities. If it is not and I am untrue in claiming this, let me know. But I don't think so. Google and you will get the evidence that they are used as university textbooks in many universities for well known graduate level exams. So, I it's annoying that this fact is disregarded and the author is dragged in the mud for no reason. I took a lot of effor creating a page for Ms. Wirasinha and then when I started on Ms. Ranasinghe, that was deleted claiming copyright violation. It doesn't look like a copyright violation as the facts seem to be taken from a government page. I thought that when I started the article, I would get help from the admins, who would tell me honestly as to what I exactly needed to do and what actually met the wikipedia notability criteria. ONLY DGG and Gamal have tried to be atleast somewhat objective in this respect and asked for clarification of something. Andy Dingley is completely rude, arrogant and has no idea of how to do any research. If he did he would take a few minutes to see the links I provided from google that clearly proves the level and credibility of the author's textbooks and the credibility of the universities that use them in their graduate courses. There is no reason to put down these credible universities and courses they offer. Disregarding facts doesn't make you a good administrator just a lousy researcher. I have also scanned articles written by third party journalists in mainstream newspapers that does meet the notability criteria put forth by wikipedia. But anyone can disregard facts for their own selfish motive and it is so sad that this is what certain admins have aimed to do from the get go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Per an SPI investigation, Muthuwella, Sources2 and Chamithra are all the same person. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Chamithra and I are not the same person. We are working on the same articles on preventing wikipedia harassing foreign authors. If LibStar put as much effort into doing research and finding notability criteria rather than being nasty and trying to eliminate people actually focusing on getting the article done, then actual research would have been done and a credible encyclopedia would be created with credibly notable people. Firstly, the person who emailed the wiki foundation with nonsense (as one admin said "unusualy") that triggered a unusual delete and some of the admins are working together on bending notability guidlines to justify their interests rather than accepting true notability. Secondly user "B" and user "shimeru" are the same person and I wouldn't be surprised if LibStar and Andy Dingley are from the same source. I am a historian who has worked in the field of research for over 55 years and some of these admins who just don't bother researching but are extremely quick to remove anyone they have little knowledge on, are pathetic. Chamithra certainly doesn't need to be my sockpuppet his translation skills in sanskrit and others is remarkable and our interest is to put forward subjects that meet notability criteria after doing many many months of research not just bring those of interest to admins that hardly fall into wikipedia notability criteria. the desperate nature in trying to save this article is something I've seen before, only from people with a clear conflict of interest. suggest you desist and live out your block period. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment The desperate nature of your one sided attempts to delete an article that meets notability criteria outlined by wikipedia itself is extremely unprofessional on your part as an administrator AND a clear abuse of authority as an administrator. Please note that this article in a very poor state was accepted as notable and remained in wikipedia for several years till someone with a conflict of interest against the subject sent an e-mail highly irregular with normal wikipedia policy to the wikipedia foundation. Certain admins like yourself without looking into that matter decided to contribute to the irregular activities and initiate a deletion of articles without cause or reason. You are not looking into any facts of the notability criteria. You clearly have a conflict of interest where you are against foreign authors of notable nature from Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, you and Andy Dingley have put down reputable universities, courses and newspapers from Asian countries. You are promoting persons who do not meet the notability criteria and misusing your authority as an administrator to do so. You have removed half of the notable authors from Sri Lanka, India and other Asian regions recently and you have also promoted certain subjects that hardly meet any criteria of notability. Chamithra.124.43.234.170 (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Anushka Wirasinha – socking is bad and we clearly have a consensus of established editors and nothing good can come from leaving this open any further. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

An author page was created for this author in 2008 by someone. It was included in wikipedia as it met notabiity criteria. There were some edits done but poorly done but article remained for 2 yrs till 2010. An unusual email was sent by an unknown source to wiki foundation via an email claiming some issues that were not quite correct but it led to deletion of the article even though there was interest in adding further material and comments by certain users that it had met notability criteria through verifiable sources that were relliable. Another editor created a new page for the author and I also worked on getting more material done. The article seemed to have met notability criteria in a number of ways. WP:ACADEMICS, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NOTTEMP and WP:RS Despite meeting technical criteria and these discussed, while the discussion was on going the article was deleted by an admin. Editors were in the process of collecting further archived works from foreign sources that shows further notability when the article was deleted. Translations were also being done and alot of this work that many editors incuding myself were doing came to an end. Attempts to contact the admins are of little luck and I was wondering if the article can be sent to the incubator so work can continue on it and we do not lose the work already done.I understand the difficulty in getting material in foreign countries but we have taken a lot of effort to contact persons in those countries to get the article done well. We just want to keep working on this for a few more days to include everything. Muthuwella

In my view notability is met with the following:

Three IT books (Visually Learn PC, On Your Marks Net Set Go, Surviving in an e-world and Flash in a Flash: web development) published by well known traditional publisher Prentice Hall India are used as University textbooks and course material in several universities in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.
Other books including "Study buddy" is used in Sri Lanka schools and endorsed by the Sri Lanka education board to be used in schools in the country.
Books have been used as school textbooks, university textbooks and course material for over 10 years.
Author has introduced a new concept of Computer art and animation to schools and verifiable by the schools and reliable mainstream newspapers.
Author's books of IT when published by Prentice Hall India were the first IT books written by a Sri Lankan in Sri Lanka in English to be published by an international publisher.
Her books were in the India Times bestseller list (need few days to get the archives content)
Several mainstream newspapers and magazines have written articles about her and interviews are there in well known sources. (another editor scanned and had included these images but due to copyright it has been temporarily removed till copyright is obtained. Meanwhile it is temporarily on flikr page for that editor.)

Discussion was taking place on how better to improve this article and some admins were helping with useful comments and we were all trying to get a good article put together. It is really not about getting the article on wikipedia but rather I am determined to give any article the chance to give the best shot at showing editors why it should be included. This article has not been given that chance. There is much more material that is different and relevant to determining its notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamithra (talk • contribs)

Please list the reliable sources you suggest that we use for an article about this lady. I have some concerns about the sources that were used in the deleted version of the article.—S Marshall T/C 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent published sources. I didn't find any english language mainstream newspapers or magazines or books that published biographical information about her. You can use India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka mainstream newspapers and magazines as sources, but you are losing your argument by citing evidence of her importance. Everyone is important, but it takes being noticed to a significant degree by independent published sources to get a biographical article in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-List I don't know why Chanithra listed this in deletion review as even though it should be relisted so Sri Lanka editors can edit it, it's not happening even after showing tons of sources as admins are dead set on getting rid of it. User: Uzma Gamal, Answering your comment "find any english language mainstream newspapers or magazines or books that published biographical information about her. You can use India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Sri Lanka mainstream newspapers and magazines as sources". There are TONS of links that were put. Didn't you see the Island Newspaper, Sunday Leader, Business Today and all the mag articles I put in flikr temporarily so the sources can be seen? She is noted to a significant degree. I am not saying she is important, the sources prove it.

If you need specific evidence ask me and I can e-mail or put on flikr. I took the stuff down as I didn't want a copyright issue but if it is needed as proof, I'd put it. Also I don't think anyone can deny that the books are textbooks in a number of very reputable Universities in many countries. Do a google search and you will find them. Otherwise, see the links I have put on her page that was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC) — Muthuwella (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Endorse the single purpose editors have been constantly appearing at these AfDs, the consensus was well established to delete. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-List the consensus was not clear. The editors have stated many times to keep it for further discussion but the administrators are just not looking at the credentials of this subject. She was included in 2008 because she was notable. As one administrator put it correctly there was an "unusual" trigger to delete this sent to OTRS. If didn't come through normal circumstances that lead to believe that the author is being targeted wrongly. Despite a relist I see it was deleted by an admin. Then the page recreated but the earlier admin is no longer there. I feel the editors whould decide on this. Re-list, keep it for discussion open to editors and anyone who wants to improve it and then if nothing, delete it. Give it a fair chance.
Endorse I commented at the AfD, but decided to not express an opinion. This is an interesting borderline case, where the WP:PROF requirement (and conceivably the GNG) is technically met, but the person is not by common sense standards clearly notable. Common sense has to be judged by the consensus. I do not support an over-literal reading of notablity guidelines to artificially include articles any more than I support using them to artificially delete them. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This author claims notability for authoring books "of university level", yet to read the refs cited to support this (their pitiful grammar and spelling apart) is to degrade the whole notion of what "university level" means. These books might have been recommended, but not by credible courses at a serious level of study. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andy Dingley, I have no idea what your problem is. If her books are used in 25 Universities as a textbook, then it is "university level". She is not just saying university level, the universities have listed them as textbooks. You are blatantly untrue in your nasty comments. They are credible as they are listed as mandatory textbooks in these universities. I see bias in your comments as you are not taking a fact into account. If universities list these books as textbooks, then they are university level. What do you mean pitiful grammar and spelling? Please clarify your comments. Sources2 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how did Sources2 (talk · contribs) know to come here on their first edit? LibStar (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a search on Anushka Wirasinha as I saw the article up for deletion and then when I checked it said deletion review on top of the page, so I clicked it.
Harassment Why are all the Admins being nasty and trying to delete this author from United Kingdom? The only not bias admin here is DGG (talk · contribs) as he is the only one who is actually giving any valid points. The others are all from UNITED KINGDOM and are all having one aim to harass the author. Andy Dingley is way out of line. It doesn't matter what he thinks the books are textbooks in well known universities in many countries and this is a notability criteria under wikipedia. Andy Digney has claimed by his ill thought out poor taste comment that half the Indian Universities that use this authors publications are not "credible"- as he states "not by credible courses at a serious level of study" What do you call the BTech exam? Not credible??

Please note that you may have some sort of brain block where you cannot properly deduct facts but facts remain facts and your comments show that you need to get an education before you wrongly degrade foreign authors and universities. I have no interest in wikipedia, I joined this conversation because I went through all the Admins who are degrading this article and see that they are all from the UK. Maybe some are disgruntled employees from her establishment in the UK.

Question for Sources2 how do you know about Deletion review process in Wikipedia? do you have any connection to Anushka Wirasinha? LibStar (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect the 3 single purpose editors involved in this ongoing desperate want to save effort are the same person, am logging a sockpuppet investigation. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LibStar you have ignored the rules of wikipedia that clearly asks you to act in goodfaith and have accused me from the very start of sockpuppeting. You have not given any constructive advice or critisism but rather went straight into pointing the finger at me without attempting to be polite or nice or handle the matter professionally taking into account facts. You are welcome to do anything you wish, I don't really care about the article anymore or your threats, it is the way the situation was handled by certain administrators including you that is very unprofessional. Admins are there to look into facts not disregard them when they are blatantly clear. It is a fact that the books are textbooks used in universities. If it is not and I am untrue in claiming this, let me know. But I don't think so. Google and you will get the evidence that they are used as university textbooks in many universities for well known graduate level exams. So, I it's annoying that this fact is disregarded and the author is dragged in the mud for no reason. I took a lot of effor creating a page for Ms. Wirasinha and then when I started on Ms. Ranasinghe, that was deleted claiming copyright violation. It doesn't look like a copyright violation as the facts seem to be taken from a government page. I thought that when I started the article, I would get help from the admins, who would tell me honestly as to what I exactly needed to do and what actually met the wikipedia notability criteria. ONLY DGG and Gamal have tried to be atleast somewhat objective in this respect and asked for clarification of something. Andy Dingley is completely rude, arrogant and has no idea of how to do any research. If he did he would take a few minutes to see the links I provided from google that clearly proves the level and credibility of the author's textbooks and the credibility of the universities that use them in their graduate courses. There is no reason to put down these credible universities and courses they offer. Disregarding facts doesn't make you a good administrator just a lousy researcher. I have also scanned articles written by third party journalists in mainstream newspapers that does meet the notability criteria put forth by wikipedia. But anyone can disregard facts for their own selfish motive and it is so sad that this is what certain admins have aimed to do from the get go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per an SPI investigation, Muthuwella, Sources2 and Chamithra are all the same person. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chamithra and I are not the same person. We are working on the same articles on preventing wikipedia harassing foreign authors. If LibStar put as much effort into doing research and finding notability criteria rather than being nasty and trying to eliminate people actually focusing on getting the article done, then actual research would have been done and a credible encyclopedia would be created with credibly notable people. Firstly, the person who emailed the wiki foundation with nonsense (as one admin said "unusualy") that triggered a unusual delete and some of the admins are working together on bending notability guidlines to justify their interests rather than accepting true notability. Secondly user "B" and user "shimeru" are the same person and I wouldn't be surprised if LibStar and Andy Dingley are from the same source. I am a historian who has worked in the field of research for over 55 years and some of these admins who just don't bother researching but are extremely quick to remove anyone they have little knowledge on, are pathetic. Chamithra certainly doesn't need to be my sockpuppet his translation skills in sanskrit and others is remarkable and our interest is to put forward subjects that meet notability criteria after doing many many months of research not just bring those of interest to admins that hardly fall into wikipedia notability criteria.

the desperate nature in trying to save this article is something I've seen before, only from people with a clear conflict of interest. suggest you desist and live out your block period. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The desperate nature of your one sided attempts to delete an article that meets notability criteria outlined by wikipedia itself is extremely unprofessional on your part as an administrator AND a clear abuse of authority as an administrator. Please note that this article in a very poor state was accepted as notable and remained in wikipedia for several years till someone with a conflict of interest against the subject sent an e-mail highly irregular with normal wikipedia policy to the wikipedia foundation. Certain admins like yourself without looking into that matter decided to contribute to the irregular activities and initiate a deletion of articles without cause or reason. You are not looking into any facts of the notability criteria. You clearly have a conflict of interest where you are against foreign authors of notable nature from Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, you and Andy Dingley have put down reputable universities, courses and newspapers from Asian countries. You are promoting persons who do not meet the notability criteria and misusing your authority as an administrator to do so. You have removed half of the notable authors from Sri Lanka, India and other Asian regions recently and you have also promoted certain subjects that hardly meet any criteria of notability. Chamithra.124.43.234.170 (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This is fairly new to me but seems to be the recommended procedure. Deleted category as I felt that reflect consensus at CfD and this was disputed at WikiProject Baseball. Some discussion ensued on my talk page. Procedural listing in which I do not hold a strong opinion either way. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as I agree with the argurments put up in the discussion and would add that categorizing by a single action in a game would be the equivalent of picking any other random action in a game and categorizing by it. You can't look up a pinch hitter on a team roster as the position does not exist. The fact that a few players only ever performed that action in their career does not make it a position. All that being said I have no problem with a relisting. But not an outright restore. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. For the vast majority of players, the fact that they pinch hit is not a defining characteristic. I agree with the comparison I read elsewhere that this is comparable to a category for players who hit 4th in the batting order. --Kbdank71 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (orig nominator). I understand the idea that there are some players who only were ever pinch hitters in their careers and never played a defensive position or were in a starting line-up, but they are a miniscule minority compared to the total number of players who have been pinch hitters. I suppose we could re-list this due to limited participation, but I wouldn't anticipate that a different result would be likely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist - The category is appropriate for players who never played a defensive position. While such players are few in proportion to the thousands of major league baseball players, there were a non-trivial number of players whose sole major league appearances were as pinch hitters. I am not sure that "pinch hitter" is not a defensive position or a position listed on a roster matters in the context of retaining or deleting the category. Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm really not a fan of these procedural nominations, it's the second of the kind in a few days. I think we should leave it to the unhappy customers to decide that they want to take the step from questioning the deletion to filing a DRV. It seems to me that a fair bit of the dispute could be resolved by the definition of the category. Is it limited to players who only ever pinch-hit? Does it extend to players who ever fulfilled the role of pinch-hitter? Or is it somewhere in between? The fact that a very small number of players fall into the first category doesn't seem to me to be a problem with adopting that as the scope. I tend to think we should treat low-participation CfDs like prods and send them back for another round (relist) if there are reasonable objections.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] We can send it back for another round, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a different outcome. CfD is (inevitably) controlled by those editors who're concerned about categories. In practice this is quite a small subset of Wikipedians and they tend to share the same view. What I'd say to Rambo's Revenge is, please don't procedurally list CfDs at DRV. I agree with everything Mkativerata says, and over and above that I think there are non-trivial technical difficulties with overturning a CfD. (What happens is that the category is deleted and then a bot removes all the now-redlinked categorisations from the articles; on the only occasion I know of when a CfD was ever overturned at DRV, which I think was in March 2009, I believe that the bot's actions had to be reversed manually.) In other words, if you're not sure about the closure of a CfD, then it really is a great deal easier not to close it in the first place.—S Marshall T/C 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The close was straightforward enough—I don't think anyone could dispute that it reflected the discussion—but it was the post-close complaints that made the close a "problem" after the fact. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah—yes, I see that. Hmm. Retracted with apologies.—S Marshall T/C 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist - This category is useful in organizing players by position. I have used it while creating pages for players who never held any other position either offensive or defensive. There are at least a dozen such players, because that's how many pages I used this category on before it was deleted. The only alternative for such players would be to put them in the overly generic "Major League baseball players" category which tells you nothing about what they did in the majors. Others have suggested that it would be useful for categorizing players who were well known for their pinch hitting skills or who hold pinch hitting records. I would have no objection to it being used for that purpose as well. The two most respected and used baseball sites here on Wikipedia are MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com. They both recognize pinch hitter as a position for the purposes of their categorization of players, and I don't see why we shouldn't either. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If the category doesn't exist, why can't they be placed in a MLB team category rather than Category:Major League Baseball players? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That could be said of all the position categories. The usual practice is to put players in team categories, a geographic category (state or country), and position based on the primary position they played while in the majors. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] My point is that they don't have to go in Category:Major League Baseball players, as you stated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] They were/are Major League Baseball players, so excluding them from the category would not be sensible. Whether they need to be placed in a subcategory within Major League Baseball players in the question here. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] The don't go directly in the category, which is what was suggested. Of course they go in a subcategory--the team subcategory. The issue in this CFD is not whether they will go in a subcategory or in the general category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist There are plenty of reliable sources that categorize players as pinch hitters and there's no reason that we shouldn't be grouping players as such where sources have defined them in the pinch hitting role. There was inadequate discussion of the issue at CfD and there should be broader discussion and participation before deciding either way on this category. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. There's no position here, as just about everyone's been a pinch hitter at some point. Category:Major League Baseball players without positions seems a much stronger possibility, however.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist. There was a time, a while back, when there were only eight teams in each league, no more than two teams west of the Rockies, and dinosaurs roamed Forbes Field, when most MLB teams carried a utility player whose most important role was to pinch hit for the pitcher in late innings. (Something like being a holder in the NFL). What with the DH, sabremetrics, etc, that specialization has gone out of fashion. That's what the category should be used for; it shouldn't be a subcategory of baseball positions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. It seems to me that we are trying to identify a characteristic which is non-defining for most people to whom it applies but very defining for a small minority. If that is the case, then a list would be more appropriate than a category. With a list, it is possible to set inclusion standards (e.g., players who are notable for being pinch hitters), apply them and discuss individual cases on a single talk page. I think the category should remain deleted (inclusion standards are much easier to overlook when they are in a category description as opposed to the lead of a list) and a narrowly defined list (e.g., List of Major League Baseball players who pinch-hit only or List of Major League Baseball pinch hitters) created. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I realize that my suggestion (and many of the comments above) addresses the merits of the category rather than the close itself; however, in a situation where the close was undoubtedly technically correct, I think that is not inappropriate. I don't object too much to relisting, but I also don't support it because I don't think that any new arguments could be offered by either side. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] From the discussion so far, I can't understand why you would say that you "don't think that any new arguments could be offered by either side." Looking at the original cfd discussion, there was only one opinion given and it was just for one side of the argument then a per nom seconding. At least now, people who see the value in the category and those who don't have had their views aired. Regardless of the outcome, at least now there will be a reasonable case that a true consensus was arrived at rather than just an endorsement of one person's opinion. Kinston eagle (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Closing admin was correct. Bluntly, this is a poorly conceived category that would contain nearly every player. If there is a need to categorize players who never played a position in the majors - which I don't see value in myself - then the easier solution is to find a more accurate name for a new category. Reso lute 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] They did play a position. Their position happened to be offensive rather than defensive. Kinston eagle (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Pinch hitter is not a designated position in the rulebook. As such they played no position. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Both the official source (MLB) and the most respected internet secondary source (Baseball-Reference.com) categorize players by position and both recognize pinch hitter as a position for players who held no defensive position. See, for example, Ray Cosey's pages at both sites: [16], [17] Kinston eagle (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] They do that because PH fits into a small space on the profile page and looks better then leaving it empty. Wikipedia isn't restricted to using 2/3 letter abreviations like those pages are. We are able to say things like "MLB players who have never played a defensive position" or whatever alternative you can think of. WHich is more accurate, and avoids the issue of nearly every baseball player fitting into the category. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] If that's why they do that then N/A would be a much more logical choice. I feel they put that as their position because that was their position. It is what it says it is. A category such as "MLB players who have never played a defensive position" would also include anyone who has only been a DH or pinch runner. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes it would, which would still be a better option than one which includes almost every player who has ever played. That being said I am not married to that name, it was just an example. Someone might be able to think of a better one. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This is fairly new to me but seems to be the recommended procedure. Deleted category as I felt that reflect consensus at CfD and this was disputed at WikiProject Baseball. Some discussion ensued on my talk page. Procedural listing in which I do not hold a strong opinion either way. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as I agree with the argurments put up in the discussion and would add that categorizing by a single action in a game would be the equivalent of picking any other random action in a game and categorizing by it. You can't look up a pinch hitter on a team roster as the position does not exist. The fact that a few players only ever performed that action in their career does not make it a position. All that being said I have no problem with a relisting. But not an outright restore. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. For the vast majority of players, the fact that they pinch hit is not a defining characteristic. I agree with the comparison I read elsewhere that this is comparable to a category for players who hit 4th in the batting order. --Kbdank71 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (orig nominator). I understand the idea that there are some players who only were ever pinch hitters in their careers and never played a defensive position or were in a starting line-up, but they are a miniscule minority compared to the total number of players who have been pinch hitters. I suppose we could re-list this due to limited participation, but I wouldn't anticipate that a different result would be likely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - The category is appropriate for players who never played a defensive position. While such players are few in proportion to the thousands of major league baseball players, there were a non-trivial number of players whose sole major league appearances were as pinch hitters. I am not sure that "pinch hitter" is not a defensive position or a position listed on a roster matters in the context of retaining or deleting the category. Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not a fan of these procedural nominations, it's the second of the kind in a few days. I think we should leave it to the unhappy customers to decide that they want to take the step from questioning the deletion to filing a DRV. It seems to me that a fair bit of the dispute could be resolved by the definition of the category. Is it limited to players who only ever pinch-hit? Does it extend to players who ever fulfilled the role of pinch-hitter? Or is it somewhere in between? The fact that a very small number of players fall into the first category doesn't seem to me to be a problem with adopting that as the scope. I tend to think we should treat low-participation CfDs like prods and send them back for another round (relist) if there are reasonable objections.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can send it back for another round, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a different outcome. CfD is (inevitably) controlled by those editors who're concerned about categories. In practice this is quite a small subset of Wikipedians and they tend to share the same view. What I'd say to Rambo's Revenge is, please don't procedurally list CfDs at DRV. I agree with everything Mkativerata says, and over and above that I think there are non-trivial technical difficulties with overturning a CfD. (What happens is that the category is deleted and then a bot removes all the now-redlinked categorisations from the articles; on the only occasion I know of when a CfD was ever overturned at DRV, which I think was in March 2009, I believe that the bot's actions had to be reversed manually.) In other words, if you're not sure about the closure of a CfD, then it really is a great deal easier not to close it in the first place.—S Marshall T/C 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The close was straightforward enough—I don't think anyone could dispute that it reflected the discussion—but it was the post-close complaints that made the close a "problem" after the fact. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah—yes, I see that. Hmm. Retracted with apologies.—S Marshall T/C 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - This category is useful in organizing players by position. I have used it while creating pages for players who never held any other position either offensive or defensive. There are at least a dozen such players, because that's how many pages I used this category on before it was deleted. The only alternative for such players would be to put them in the overly generic "Major League baseball players" category which tells you nothing about what they did in the majors. Others have suggested that it would be useful for categorizing players who were well known for their pinch hitting skills or who hold pinch hitting records. I would have no objection to it being used for that purpose as well. The two most respected and used baseball sites here on Wikipedia are MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com. They both recognize pinch hitter as a position for the purposes of their categorization of players, and I don't see why we shouldn't either. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the category doesn't exist, why can't they be placed in a MLB team category rather than Category:Major League Baseball players? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That could be said of all the position categories. The usual practice is to put players in team categories, a geographic category (state or country), and position based on the primary position they played while in the majors. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is that they don't have to go in Category:Major League Baseball players, as you stated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - They were/are Major League Baseball players, so excluding them from the category would not be sensible. Whether they need to be placed in a subcategory within Major League Baseball players in the question here. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The don't go directly in the category, which is what was suggested. Of course they go in a subcategory--the team subcategory. The issue in this CFD is not whether they will go in a subcategory or in the general category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist There are plenty of reliable sources that categorize players as pinch hitters and there's no reason that we shouldn't be grouping players as such where sources have defined them in the pinch hitting role. There was inadequate discussion of the issue at CfD and there should be broader discussion and participation before deciding either way on this category. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There's no position here, as just about everyone's been a pinch hitter at some point. Category:Major League Baseball players without positions seems a much stronger possibility, however.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There was a time, a while back, when there were only eight teams in each league, no more than two teams west of the Rockies, and dinosaurs roamed Forbes Field, when most MLB teams carried a utility player whose most important role was to pinch hit for the pitcher in late innings. (Something like being a holder in the NFL). What with the DH, sabremetrics, etc, that specialization has gone out of fashion. That's what the category should be used for; it shouldn't be a subcategory of baseball positions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It seems to me that we are trying to identify a characteristic which is non-defining for most people to whom it applies but very defining for a small minority. If that is the case, then a list would be more appropriate than a category. With a list, it is possible to set inclusion standards (e.g., players who are notable for being pinch hitters), apply them and discuss individual cases on a single talk page. I think the category should remain deleted (inclusion standards are much easier to overlook when they are in a category description as opposed to the lead of a list) and a narrowly defined list (e.g., List of Major League Baseball players who pinch-hit only or List of Major League Baseball pinch hitters) created. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that my suggestion (and many of the comments above) addresses the merits of the category rather than the close itself; however, in a situation where the close was undoubtedly technically correct, I think that is not inappropriate. I don't object too much to relisting, but I also don't support it because I don't think that any new arguments could be offered by either side. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the discussion so far, I can't understand why you would say that you "don't think that any new arguments could be offered by either side." Looking at the original cfd discussion, there was only one opinion given and it was just for one side of the argument then a per nom seconding. At least now, people who see the value in the category and those who don't have had their views aired. Regardless of the outcome, at least now there will be a reasonable case that a true consensus was arrived at rather than just an endorsement of one person's opinion. Kinston eagle (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closing admin was correct. Bluntly, this is a poorly conceived category that would contain nearly every player. If there is a need to categorize players who never played a position in the majors - which I don't see value in myself - then the easier solution is to find a more accurate name for a new category. Reso lute 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They did play a position. Their position happened to be offensive rather than defensive. Kinston eagle (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch hitter is not a designated position in the rulebook. As such they played no position. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the official source (MLB) and the most respected internet secondary source (Baseball-Reference.com) categorize players by position and both recognize pinch hitter as a position for players who held no defensive position. See, for example, Ray Cosey's pages at both sites: [16], [17] Kinston eagle (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do that because PH fits into a small space on the profile page and looks better then leaving it empty. Wikipedia isn't restricted to using 2/3 letter abreviations like those pages are. We are able to say things like "MLB players who have never played a defensive position" or whatever alternative you can think of. WHich is more accurate, and avoids the issue of nearly every baseball player fitting into the category. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's why they do that then N/A would be a much more logical choice. I feel they put that as their position because that was their position. It is what it says it is. A category such as "MLB players who have never played a defensive position" would also include anyone who has only been a DH or pinch runner. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would, which would still be a better option than one which includes almost every player who has ever played. That being said I am not married to that name, it was just an example. Someone might be able to think of a better one. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 November 2010

[edit]

Swami X – moot discussion. Article was already undeleted, now stubbed and back in project space, which didn't require DRV--Scott Mac 10:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Swami X (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) This article was taken to AFD back in 2006, which ended in 'no consensus'; more recently, it was speedy-deleted by User:Scott MacDonald under WP:G10. (It has been preserved at User:Will Beback/Swami X.) This caused considerable dispute, see User talk:Scott MacDonald#Swami X and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Scott-mac allegedly unilaterally deleting articles using inapplicable G10 CSD. It was suggested at the ANI discussion that DRV is the proper place to assess whether Scott's deletion was appropriate, so I've brought it here to settle the matter. Personally, my feelings are that the subject of the article is of dubious notability, and I would probably have !voted to delete it at AFD; but it wasn't a G10 candidate, as it was neither an attack page nor unsourced biography. Scott MacDonald should have brought it back to AFD rather than using speedy deletion; the deletion should be overturned, and the article sent to AFD instead. Robofish (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Procedurally, we can't really AFD an article that is not in main space an Administrator has moved it to user space to improve and replace. If is going to be returned to mainspace .. who is going to do it? and if it is to be added to main space it should be policy compliant as it would now be classed as an addition. I fthe objective of this review is to return a BLP that is not policy compliant to the main space so that an AFD discussion can be held then I don't see any benefit in such a procedure and so I don't support that.Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Deleting admin's comment. I'm at a loss to understand the point of this DRV. The article has already been undeleted (with my full consent) by Willbeback. Will indicated he'd fix it up and move it back, which I am delighted with. It has to be said Willbeback was not happy with my original deletion and we were discussing that on my talk page (the nominator, I note, didn't join the discussion - so this DRV looks a bit pointy). I've conceded G10 was probably not the best grounds for action. This has been a pathetically badly sourced BLP for over 4 years (unfixed despite an AFD) the main thing we can agree on is that simply putting it back into article space and leaving it to fester violates what we are about. I fail to see why those concerned with the article don't just fix it - there's nothing stopping them. There is simply nothing to undelete here - the only discussion is whether the article should be fixed in user or article space - personally I don't care. If anyone wants to move it back, feel free to do so, just please remove any unsourced material (youtube and wikimapi are not, I hope we'll agree, valid sources). I people want to discuss what I did, then my talk page or RFC are open - there's no deletion to undo.--Scott Mac 16:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's clear that there _is_ a need for a DrV because Scott seems to be only agreeing to the restoration of the article if it meets his view of what's acceptable in mainspace. "I'm not too bothered whether you work on it in userspace or article space, but if its in article space all unreferenced material should be removed until it is fully cited. That's the condition we agreed to my permitting undeletion." As far as I know an admin can't use IAR to speedy an article and then insist that others fix issues he doesn't like before it gets restored. So between the deletion being improper and the condition for restoration being improper I think we need to discuss at DrV.Hobit (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Erm - "As far as I know an admin can't use IAR..." surely IAR is about enabling any such action if it will improve the encyclopedia, there isn't a list of things which are/aren't permissible under IAR, that's sort of the point of IAR. SUre you can disagree with the application of IAR and as to if it does help improve the encyclopedia but that's quite a different argument. Regarding the conditions for undeletion, those conditions seem to be backed by policy albeit Scott Mac is asking for someone else to remove it, WP:V "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed", BLP extends this to a must be removed in certain circumstances, not a may be. If the article is restored with the unsourced material Scott Mac would be quite at liberty to just challenge and remove the material himself, and anyone wishing to restore it would be required to source it (Again WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."). I'm not sure quibbling about who takes responsibility for removing the material is a good use of time. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] overturn and WP:TROUT to the deleting admin. First mislabeling something as a G10 and then using IAR to speedy an article? Neither is acceptable or within policy. The conditions for recreation are equally troubling Hobit (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The deletion has already been overturned by Willbeback with my blessing. So, is this just about your wanting permission to move it back and leave it with uncited material for another 4 years? Why not move it back and simply remove the unreferenced material until someone can reference it?--Scott Mac 16:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You've placed conditions on it's restoration in article space. The point of the DrV, as I see it, is to remove any such conditions. You don't have the right or authority to make such demands. If you're willing to back away from those demands great. Otherwise DrV is the appropriate mechanism to deal with improper deletions. Seeing as how it's still a red link, I have to say there is still a deletion to discuss.Hobit (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] (ec)Why not indeed? This is what some of us have been saying should have been done in the first place. I really don't want to antagonize -- I fully understand the need to work cooperatively with others to do good things here -- and this comment is offered in good faith: if the solution is so obvious, why not just do it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not getting this. What conditions? The condition that an article on a living person should not be allowed to remain with grotesquely bad referencing (and links to copyvios on youtube) for another 4 years? That condition is policy last time I checked. I'm not preventing anyone moving the article back (doesn't even need an admin), but I fail to understand why you are so upset with my insistence that material on a living person needs solid referencing. All this discussion can do is to move the article back and I've said all along that can be done. If it is moved back, and for some incomprehensible reason the mover doesn't remove all the uncited or poorly cited material (which is almost the entire article last I looked), then I'll just remove it myself under the BLP, EL and copyright policy. Anyone reading this is free to cut to the chase and do that right now. There are no conditions.--Scott Mac 17:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Other than the conditions I'm setting, there are no conditions. Marvelous, welcome to 1984. Please at least honestly debate this. You deleted out of process (for two reasons: no speedy criteria and it survived and AfD) and you are setting conditions for the article to be restored. At least admit what you are doing. Hobit (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] NB The article has for several years contained allegations of drug-taking and what might be termed "licentious behaviour" without one single valid reliable source. Yet people are objecting when I say that it needs some sourcing before being restored. Madness.--Scott Mac 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm unsatisfied with the sources in the userspace draft and I don't feel this material is yet suitable for the mainspace—if indeed it ever will be. I don't believe it's appropriate to place a BLP in the mainspace when we're missing details as basic as the subject's actual name, let alone his nationality, place of birth, year of birth, awards received, etc. To that extent, I endorse Scott Mac's actions. I agree with Hobit when he says there's a deletion to discuss here. If something's been turned into a redlink in the mainspace then administrative tools have been used and DRV has jurisdiction.—S Marshall T/C 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is not a system of law nor a bureaucracy, so talks of "jurisdiction" make little sense, we don't have a set of correct signatures and approvals to get to the right outcome. What can we actually achieve by discussing this here is a far more important question. Undeleting the article isn't possible (since it's no longer at the deleted title, but restored elsewhere). Movement of the article back to mainspace can be done whenever and by whoever wants to do so. Given that the deleter has conceded that G10 wasn't the best way to approach this they aren't likely to do that again, I don't think there is anything further to "prove", there really isn't much to discuss in this venue. As to if Scott Mac's initial action or suggestion about what needs to be done to the article to meet our core standards before being moved back, they are issues for WP:DR not DRV. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] S Marshall: Your argument would imply it is acceptable to speedy any unsourced BLP. Given that we've had long discussions on exactly what to do with unsourced BLPs and deleting them for being unsourced has never remotely gained consensus, could you explain how deleting in this case is reasonable? Hobit (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To 82.7.40.7, I would reply that the first and main place to challenge any deletion is DRV, and in that sense this is the proper place to talk about it. While I acknowledge that Wikipedia's not law or bureaucracy, "jurisdiction" is a convenient shorthand for what I've just said. To Hobit, I would reply that while I wouldn't approve of a general rule that says "all unsourced BLPs should be deleted", I do approve of the deletion in this particular case because (a) the article could be read as disparaging of a living person, (b) its sources don't seem reliable to me, and (c) we're missing basic biographical information such as his name, nationality, place of birth, year of birth, or awards received. That isn't to say that we could never have an article about this person, but it is to say that such a biography would need better sources to justify its existence.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There are videos of his work (which are reliable though may be a copyright issue) and an article in a mainstream newspaper. Oh and an award. Seems fairly reliably sourced. Notable is a different question, but certainly reliable. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The article seems to me to largely make fun of its subject using a swathe of unreliable sources. I don't really have a problem with G10 being used in this manner. Of course the information might all be true/verifiable which is fine, and then it wouldn't be disparaging, but in its deleted state it really wasn't. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Los Angeles Times, the main source, is a reliable source. The subject is a comedian who models himself after Lenny Bruce, and I don't see any thing derogatory in the article. If anything, it was overly positive, but that's not a reasons to speedy delete an article with sources. Will Beback talk 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. The admin said that the article was unsourced, which is incorrect. The subject was a profile of a roughly 1500 word article in the Los Angeles Times and there are several other sources, including video documentaries. Scott claims that it links to YouTube copyvios, but from what I can tell the linked videos were uploaded by the copyright owners, but even if true a few links to YouTube are not a reason to speedy delete an article with other sources. It is not an attack page, and the only drug use mentioned is self-reported (and possibly exaggerated for effect). Since Scott says he consented to the undelete, I assume he will allow it to be moved back to article space as is, and improved as per normal procedures. As I wrote on his talk page, Scott should be more careful in speedy deleting articles to make sure they fit the SD, and if wants to delete articles outside of normal procedures by invoking IAR then he should do so explicitly and with a clear explanation for how it will improve the encyclopedia. Will Beback talk 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Will you cannot say "self-reported (and possibly exaggerated for effect)" unless you have a solid source to support that. The article does not. You cannot say "from what I can tell the linked videos were uploaded by the copyright owners" that is not sufficient. This article is pathetically sourced, and has been for FOUR YEARS. But you want to move it back for "normal procedures" to take effect? What, that's the "normal procedures" that have already so spectacularly failed. This is article matters, and is so easily sourced, why haven't you sorted it? Why are you so intent in putting it back with no adequate sourcing? This is simply disruption to prove a point. Well, OK, I'll restore it myself. It will read "is a person". And you can rebuild the article from there, with proper sources. OK?--Scott Mac 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Given that there was at least one RS in the article, could you explain why you didn't just remove the unsourced material and leave the article in place? Hobit (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Given that of the 15 sources, 14 were unreliable, I judged the article in its current state was unacceptable and that after four years that wasn't going to change. I don't think the excision you propose would have worked, but my deletion summary made it clear that any admin was (and is) free to undelete an do as you suggest, if they see fit. Look, I've no objection to this being put back in mainspace (I never had) I've huge objection to those who are asking for it to be put back with all the horrendous sourcing and unsourced statements - and it just sitting there for another four years. Anyone who thinks this article can be sorted, is free to do that right now, rather than continuing this pointless DRV to replace an article no-one (except Willbeback apparently) thinks is adequate for a BLP.--Scott Mac 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Scott, did you read the LA Times article? Or any of the references in "Further Reading"? If there are problems with articles then we have a whole set of procedures to fix them. Admins who are not willing to use them and prefer the quick satisfaction of an out-of-process deletion should either seek to get the rules changed or stop ignoring them. Will Beback talk 23:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thankfully, ignoring the rules is a founding principle of this encyclopedia. And the "whole set of procedures" had abjectly failed. Look the only important thing here is not having very poorly sourced BLP hanging about for four more years. Process be damned.--Scott Mac 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There were no clean-up tags on the page and you didn't use PROD or AFD. It doesn't seem like you used any of the standards procedures. There is no policy that says an article should be deleted if it passed an AFD four years ago but there are still some outstanding issues of concern. If there are problem, fix them. IAR is a rule, though to be applicable the action needs to actually improve the project. If you delete another article that doesn't meet SD criteria, please declare IAR and give a clear explanation. Will Beback talk 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn G10 is a necessary but dangerous tool, just as calling something vandalism is a necessary but dangerous tool. When used inappropriately, it not just dilutes the meaning for times when it is really appropriate, but it can serve to cast an undeserved slur on the editor or the subject. Unless the deleting admin actually thinks that it is a n attack page, it is no service to anyone or to the encyclopedia to so label it. If anything, it is sometimes the better administrative discretion and the proper use of IAR to not use the G10 criterion, to avoid calling attention to the article. A poorly sourced BLP should be fixed, but it is against policy to use that as a reason for deletion. IAR is for use when it is necessary to make an exception of fill a gap, not because one disagrees with the policy. If I wish that poorly sourced articles were automatically removed, and used IAR for that, I do not deserve to have the power to remove articles, just as if I thought unsourced BLPs should be kept forever without even an attempt to look for sources, and used IAR to do that. I could as an admin think either of these things, and advocate for them, if I cannot resist the temptation to do them it's another matter. If one editor things the sources are adequate for a BLP and another does not, there is only one way to settle this, and that is AfD, not for one of the editors to use admin tools to enforce his own view. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's simply nonsense. The article HAD been to AFD four years ago. AFD said "notable" and did nothing about sourcing. The oft-repeated mantra that we should send badly sourced articles to AFD is simply a smokescreen for those that think badly sources BLPs like this are not a problem. I suppose I could have prodded it, but you would have unprodded it as "notable and fixable" and it would have festered for another few years. The irony here is that the inclusionists don't want it deleted, but they'd rather demand process than accept that if people want the article kept then they need to make it compliant with policy. Given them time if fair enough, but four years is too long.--Scott Mac 00:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Scott, you are as capable of fixing it as anyone else. If you want it improved, improve it. If you want it deleted, find consensus for doing so. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - ARS hysteria running amok yet again. Work on the userspace version, then move it to article-space when deemed ready. There's nothing more to see here other than the typical knee-jerk fanaticism. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry, Tarc, was the article ever tagged with {{rescue}}, or is this WP:BATTLEGROUND bluster? Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Article tags have nothing to do with you and the comrades screaming the usual here at DRV, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] BATTLEGROUND, then. However, if there does appear to be anyone "screaming the usual" in this case, it certainly doesn't appear to be me. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Agree with Tarc here. If the end result is a better sourced article then all this policy wonkery is pointless. Kevin (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Conflicted As I commented on the ANI thread, it would probably have been better if Scott MacDonald had not performed this particular deletion himself, given the unresolved animosity over his past out of process deletions. At the same time, I agree that the article did have its defects. Putting it in a NOINDEX'ed spot for repair might have been a better option. For future such articles, maybe we need a BLP Incubator? Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So let's walk this. #1 There was no speedy criteria this met. #2 The article survived an AfD so there should be no speedy to begin with. #3 we have a very solid source on the subject. I can see opening an AfD. But trying to speedy it? Come on. Either we have policies and procedures or we don't. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There was not a "very solid source". The sources were guff, there was one source in "further reading" which may have been good - and I welcome anyone rebuilding the article from that source.--Scott Mac 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Los Angeles Times is a solid source. Even if some sources in the article don't meet standards, if there is one good source then the article is not unsourced, as has been claimed repeatedly. As it happens, there are two or more good sources. Are you still insisting on deleting the article, or can we bring this to a close? Will Beback talk 09:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The central claims of the article were improperly sourced. An inaccessible LA-Times article from the 1970s was only being used to source one bit of trivia. That's a bogus defence. Anyway, I've replaced a sourced stub - it took my 3 minutes and you could have done it at any time.--Scott Mac 10:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] overturn and list at afd- As Hobit points out up above me, it didn't meet any speedy criteria, and having survived an AFD previously, was ineligible for speedy deletion. As there are legit questions about the article being wikipedia-worthy, an AFD to sort it all out should have been the path taken. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I have absolutely no objections to a properly sourced article being on Wikipedia, why would I want to AfD it? AfD'ing it wouldn't have sorted the four year badly-sourced article violating BLP problem. The last one didn't.--Scott Mac 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Swami X – moot discussion. Article was already undeleted, now stubbed and back in project space, which didn't require DRV--Scott Mac 10:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was taken to AFD back in 2006, which ended in 'no consensus'; more recently, it was speedy-deleted by User:Scott MacDonald under WP:G10. (It has been preserved at User:Will Beback/Swami X.) This caused considerable dispute, see User talk:Scott MacDonald#Swami X and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Scott-mac allegedly unilaterally deleting articles using inapplicable G10 CSD. It was suggested at the ANI discussion that DRV is the proper place to assess whether Scott's deletion was appropriate, so I've brought it here to settle the matter. Personally, my feelings are that the subject of the article is of dubious notability, and I would probably have !voted to delete it at AFD; but it wasn't a G10 candidate, as it was neither an attack page nor unsourced biography. Scott MacDonald should have brought it back to AFD rather than using speedy deletion; the deletion should be overturned, and the article sent to AFD instead. Robofish (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, we can't really AFD an article that is not in main space an Administrator has moved it to user space to improve and replace. If is going to be returned to mainspace .. who is going to do it? and if it is to be added to main space it should be policy compliant as it would now be classed as an addition. I fthe objective of this review is to return a BLP that is not policy compliant to the main space so that an AFD discussion can be held then I don't see any benefit in such a procedure and so I don't support that.Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's comment. I'm at a loss to understand the point of this DRV. The article has already been undeleted (with my full consent) by Willbeback. Will indicated he'd fix it up and move it back, which I am delighted with. It has to be said Willbeback was not happy with my original deletion and we were discussing that on my talk page (the nominator, I note, didn't join the discussion - so this DRV looks a bit pointy). I've conceded G10 was probably not the best grounds for action. This has been a pathetically badly sourced BLP for over 4 years (unfixed despite an AFD) the main thing we can agree on is that simply putting it back into article space and leaving it to fester violates what we are about. I fail to see why those concerned with the article don't just fix it - there's nothing stopping them. There is simply nothing to undelete here - the only discussion is whether the article should be fixed in user or article space - personally I don't care. If anyone wants to move it back, feel free to do so, just please remove any unsourced material (youtube and wikimapi are not, I hope we'll agree, valid sources). I people want to discuss what I did, then my talk page or RFC are open - there's no deletion to undo.--Scott Mac 16:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that there _is_ a need for a DrV because Scott seems to be only agreeing to the restoration of the article if it meets his view of what's acceptable in mainspace. "I'm not too bothered whether you work on it in userspace or article space, but if its in article space all unreferenced material should be removed until it is fully cited. That's the condition we agreed to my permitting undeletion." As far as I know an admin can't use IAR to speedy an article and then insist that others fix issues he doesn't like before it gets restored. So between the deletion being improper and the condition for restoration being improper I think we need to discuss at DrV.Hobit (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm - "As far as I know an admin can't use IAR..." surely IAR is about enabling any such action if it will improve the encyclopedia, there isn't a list of things which are/aren't permissible under IAR, that's sort of the point of IAR. SUre you can disagree with the application of IAR and as to if it does help improve the encyclopedia but that's quite a different argument. Regarding the conditions for undeletion, those conditions seem to be backed by policy albeit Scott Mac is asking for someone else to remove it, WP:V "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed", BLP extends this to a must be removed in certain circumstances, not a may be. If the article is restored with the unsourced material Scott Mac would be quite at liberty to just challenge and remove the material himself, and anyone wishing to restore it would be required to source it (Again WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."). I'm not sure quibbling about who takes responsibility for removing the material is a good use of time. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and WP:TROUT to the deleting admin. First mislabeling something as a G10 and then using IAR to speedy an article? Neither is acceptable or within policy. The conditions for recreation are equally troubling Hobit (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion has already been overturned by Willbeback with my blessing. So, is this just about your wanting permission to move it back and leave it with uncited material for another 4 years? Why not move it back and simply remove the unreferenced material until someone can reference it?--Scott Mac 16:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've placed conditions on it's restoration in article space. The point of the DrV, as I see it, is to remove any such conditions. You don't have the right or authority to make such demands. If you're willing to back away from those demands great. Otherwise DrV is the appropriate mechanism to deal with improper deletions. Seeing as how it's still a red link, I have to say there is still a deletion to discuss.Hobit (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Why not indeed? This is what some of us have been saying should have been done in the first place. I really don't want to antagonize -- I fully understand the need to work cooperatively with others to do good things here -- and this comment is offered in good faith: if the solution is so obvious, why not just do it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting this. What conditions? The condition that an article on a living person should not be allowed to remain with grotesquely bad referencing (and links to copyvios on youtube) for another 4 years? That condition is policy last time I checked. I'm not preventing anyone moving the article back (doesn't even need an admin), but I fail to understand why you are so upset with my insistence that material on a living person needs solid referencing. All this discussion can do is to move the article back and I've said all along that can be done. If it is moved back, and for some incomprehensible reason the mover doesn't remove all the uncited or poorly cited material (which is almost the entire article last I looked), then I'll just remove it myself under the BLP, EL and copyright policy. Anyone reading this is free to cut to the chase and do that right now. There are no conditions.--Scott Mac 17:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the conditions I'm setting, there are no conditions. Marvelous, welcome to 1984. Please at least honestly debate this. You deleted out of process (for two reasons: no speedy criteria and it survived and AfD) and you are setting conditions for the article to be restored. At least admit what you are doing. Hobit (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB The article has for several years contained allegations of drug-taking and what might be termed "licentious behaviour" without one single valid reliable source. Yet people are objecting when I say that it needs some sourcing before being restored. Madness.--Scott Mac 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsatisfied with the sources in the userspace draft and I don't feel this material is yet suitable for the mainspace—if indeed it ever will be. I don't believe it's appropriate to place a BLP in the mainspace when we're missing details as basic as the subject's actual name, let alone his nationality, place of birth, year of birth, awards received, etc. To that extent, I endorse Scott Mac's actions.
I agree with Hobit when he says there's a deletion to discuss here. If something's been turned into a redlink in the mainspace then administrative tools have been used and DRV has jurisdiction.—S Marshall T/C 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a system of law nor a bureaucracy, so talks of "jurisdiction" make little sense, we don't have a set of correct signatures and approvals to get to the right outcome. What can we actually achieve by discussing this here is a far more important question. Undeleting the article isn't possible (since it's no longer at the deleted title, but restored elsewhere). Movement of the article back to mainspace can be done whenever and by whoever wants to do so. Given that the deleter has conceded that G10 wasn't the best way to approach this they aren't likely to do that again, I don't think there is anything further to "prove", there really isn't much to discuss in this venue. As to if Scott Mac's initial action or suggestion about what needs to be done to the article to meet our core standards before being moved back, they are issues for WP:DR not DRV. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall: Your argument would imply it is acceptable to speedy any unsourced BLP. Given that we've had long discussions on exactly what to do with unsourced BLPs and deleting them for being unsourced has never remotely gained consensus, could you explain how deleting in this case is reasonable? Hobit (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To 82.7.40.7, I would reply that the first and main place to challenge any deletion is DRV, and in that sense this is the proper place to talk about it. While I acknowledge that Wikipedia's not law or bureaucracy, "jurisdiction" is a convenient shorthand for what I've just said. To Hobit, I would reply that while I wouldn't approve of a general rule that says "all unsourced BLPs should be deleted", I do approve of the deletion in this particular case because (a) the article could be read as disparaging of a living person, (b) its sources don't seem reliable to me, and (c) we're missing basic biographical information such as his name, nationality, place of birth, year of birth, or awards received. That isn't to say that we could never have an article about this person, but it is to say that such a biography would need better sources to justify its existence.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are videos of his work (which are reliable though may be a copyright issue) and an article in a mainstream newspaper. Oh and an award. Seems fairly reliably sourced. Notable is a different question, but certainly reliable. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article seems to me to largely make fun of its subject using a swathe of unreliable sources. I don't really have a problem with G10 being used in this manner. Of course the information might all be true/verifiable which is fine, and then it wouldn't be disparaging, but in its deleted state it really wasn't. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Los Angeles Times, the main source, is a reliable source. The subject is a comedian who models himself after Lenny Bruce, and I don't see any thing derogatory in the article. If anything, it was overly positive, but that's not a reasons to speedy delete an article with sources. Will Beback talk 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The admin said that the article was unsourced, which is incorrect. The subject was a profile of a roughly 1500 word article in the Los Angeles Times and there are several other sources, including video documentaries. Scott claims that it links to YouTube copyvios, but from what I can tell the linked videos were uploaded by the copyright owners, but even if true a few links to YouTube are not a reason to speedy delete an article with other sources. It is not an attack page, and the only drug use mentioned is self-reported (and possibly exaggerated for effect). Since Scott says he consented to the undelete, I assume he will allow it to be moved back to article space as is, and improved as per normal procedures. As I wrote on his talk page, Scott should be more careful in speedy deleting articles to make sure they fit the SD, and if wants to delete articles outside of normal procedures by invoking IAR then he should do so explicitly and with a clear explanation for how it will improve the encyclopedia. Will Beback talk 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you cannot say "self-reported (and possibly exaggerated for effect)" unless you have a solid source to support that. The article does not. You cannot say "from what I can tell the linked videos were uploaded by the copyright owners" that is not sufficient. This article is pathetically sourced, and has been for FOUR YEARS. But you want to move it back for "normal procedures" to take effect? What, that's the "normal procedures" that have already so spectacularly failed. This is article matters, and is so easily sourced, why haven't you sorted it? Why are you so intent in putting it back with no adequate sourcing? This is simply disruption to prove a point. Well, OK, I'll restore it myself. It will read "is a person". And you can rebuild the article from there, with proper sources. OK?--Scott Mac 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that there was at least one RS in the article, could you explain why you didn't just remove the unsourced material and leave the article in place? Hobit (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that of the 15 sources, 14 were unreliable, I judged the article in its current state was unacceptable and that after four years that wasn't going to change. I don't think the excision you propose would have worked, but my deletion summary made it clear that any admin was (and is) free to undelete an do as you suggest, if they see fit. Look, I've no objection to this being put back in mainspace (I never had) I've huge objection to those who are asking for it to be put back with all the horrendous sourcing and unsourced statements - and it just sitting there for another four years. Anyone who thinks this article can be sorted, is free to do that right now, rather than continuing this pointless DRV to replace an article no-one (except Willbeback apparently) thinks is adequate for a BLP.--Scott Mac 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Scott, did you read the LA Times article? Or any of the references in "Further Reading"? If there are problems with articles then we have a whole set of procedures to fix them. Admins who are not willing to use them and prefer the quick satisfaction of an out-of-process deletion should either seek to get the rules changed or stop ignoring them. Will Beback talk 23:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thankfully, ignoring the rules is a founding principle of this encyclopedia. And the "whole set of procedures" had abjectly failed. Look the only important thing here is not having very poorly sourced BLP hanging about for four more years. Process be damned.--Scott Mac 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There were no clean-up tags on the page and you didn't use PROD or AFD. It doesn't seem like you used any of the standards procedures. There is no policy that says an article should be deleted if it passed an AFD four years ago but there are still some outstanding issues of concern. If there are problem, fix them. IAR is a rule, though to be applicable the action needs to actually improve the project. If you delete another article that doesn't meet SD criteria, please declare IAR and give a clear explanation. Will Beback talk 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G10 is a necessary but dangerous tool, just as calling something vandalism is a necessary but dangerous tool. When used inappropriately, it not just dilutes the meaning for times when it is really appropriate, but it can serve to cast an undeserved slur on the editor or the subject. Unless the deleting admin actually thinks that it is a n attack page, it is no service to anyone or to the encyclopedia to so label it. If anything, it is sometimes the better administrative discretion and the proper use of IAR to not use the G10 criterion, to avoid calling attention to the article. A poorly sourced BLP should be fixed, but it is against policy to use that as a reason for deletion. IAR is for use when it is necessary to make an exception of fill a gap, not because one disagrees with the policy. If I wish that poorly sourced articles were automatically removed, and used IAR for that, I do not deserve to have the power to remove articles, just as if I thought unsourced BLPs should be kept forever without even an attempt to look for sources, and used IAR to do that. I could as an admin think either of these things, and advocate for them, if I cannot resist the temptation to do them it's another matter. If one editor things the sources are adequate for a BLP and another does not, there is only one way to settle this, and that is AfD, not for one of the editors to use admin tools to enforce his own view. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply nonsense. The article HAD been to AFD four years ago. AFD said "notable" and did nothing about sourcing. The oft-repeated mantra that we should send badly sourced articles to AFD is simply a smokescreen for those that think badly sources BLPs like this are not a problem. I suppose I could have prodded it, but you would have unprodded it as "notable and fixable" and it would have festered for another few years. The irony here is that the inclusionists don't want it deleted, but they'd rather demand process than accept that if people want the article kept then they need to make it compliant with policy. Given them time if fair enough, but four years is too long.--Scott Mac 00:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scott, you are as capable of fixing it as anyone else. If you want it improved, improve it. If you want it deleted, find consensus for doing so. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - ARS hysteria running amok yet again. Work on the userspace version, then move it to article-space when deemed ready. There's nothing more to see here other than the typical knee-jerk fanaticism. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, Tarc, was the article ever tagged with {{rescue}}, or is this WP:BATTLEGROUND bluster? Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article tags have nothing to do with you and the comrades screaming the usual here at DRV, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - BATTLEGROUND, then. However, if there does appear to be anyone "screaming the usual" in this case, it certainly doesn't appear to be me. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tarc here. If the end result is a better sourced article then all this policy wonkery is pointless. Kevin (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted As I commented on the ANI thread, it would probably have been better if Scott MacDonald had not performed this particular deletion himself, given the unresolved animosity over his past out of process deletions. At the same time, I agree that the article did have its defects. Putting it in a NOINDEX'ed spot for repair might have been a better option. For future such articles, maybe we need a BLP Incubator? Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let's walk this. #1 There was no speedy criteria this met. #2 The article survived an AfD so there should be no speedy to begin with. #3 we have a very solid source on the subject. I can see opening an AfD. But trying to speedy it? Come on. Either we have policies and procedures or we don't. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was not a "very solid source". The sources were guff, there was one source in "further reading" which may have been good - and I welcome anyone rebuilding the article from that source.--Scott Mac 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is a solid source. Even if some sources in the article don't meet standards, if there is one good source then the article is not unsourced, as has been claimed repeatedly. As it happens, there are two or more good sources. Are you still insisting on deleting the article, or can we bring this to a close? Will Beback talk 09:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The central claims of the article were improperly sourced. An inaccessible LA-Times article from the 1970s was only being used to source one bit of trivia. That's a bogus defence. Anyway, I've replaced a sourced stub - it took my 3 minutes and you could have done it at any time.--Scott Mac 10:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and list at afd- As Hobit points out up above me, it didn't meet any speedy criteria, and having survived an AFD previously, was ineligible for speedy deletion. As there are legit questions about the article being wikipedia-worthy, an AFD to sort it all out should have been the path taken. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have absolutely no objections to a properly sourced article being on Wikipedia, why would I want to AfD it? AfD'ing it wouldn't have sorted the four year badly-sourced article violating BLP problem. The last one didn't.--Scott Mac 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 November 2010

[edit]

Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) 1. It is silly and preposterous that you can click a link in this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html and see the comic, and her name, and yet somehow this is not notable. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state if an article has had 'coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.' it has had coverage in the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (among other sources), a source that must be reliable if it has been featured in the New York Times of all things, independent of the subject. The article is therefore notable. 2. The original deletion was literally unanimous keep excepting the original nominator, while I was there. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, a unanimous keep is hardly a "consensus" to delete. 3. Originally, the deleter stated that a single reference could not save the article, so in requests for undeletion, the deleted page was user-fied to add a number of other references. The resulting page was submitted for feedback along the proper channels, begging absolutely no concerns for several days, and then upon being properly moved to mainspace, was summarily speedy deleted. During a discussion with the speedy deleter, I was told 'the new references are not reliable.' However, the number of them were posted as counterexample to the first deleter's accusation of too few references, and when including the original New York times linkway, the new set of references AS A WHOLE are definitely enough to establish notability. Even if a few are knocked out as reliable sources, the NYtimes link must, at least, remain, along with other sources, and since they have their own articles on Wikipedia, and have for some time, this means that they must be notable in turn: 'Establishing notability in Wikipedia is somewhat similar to establishing a high PageRank in Google ... the notability of a subject is measured in part by the notability of the sources which talk about the subject. In other words, the most notable of businesses, such as Microsoft, are notable because they're being talked about by the most notable of sources, such as the Wall Street Journal.' Since DMFA's nomination for the web cartoonists' choice awards, which was mentioned in turn in the NYtimes (among other available references) it necessarily must fulfill this reliability chain for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sim (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment/Questions can you clarify a few points for me. For your point (1) I've done a search within the page linked and can't find the name of the comic. Your quote from the GNG seems to be a bit too selective of a quote, try starting one word earlier with "significant". Can you point me to what on that page is significant (GNG - "address the subject directly in detail") in that article. For your point (2) Are we looking at the same deletion discussion? I can see three people opining for deletion, how can it be "literally unanimous keep" when there two people other than the nominator opining for deletion? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion- The source upon which the notability of this article apparently hinges does not mention the subject as far as I can see. Reyk _YO! 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Procedural endorse because the initiator of this review did not follow the instructions above: "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly." Sandstein 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) It seems that discussion took place at User talk:Fram#Deleted page. Sandstein 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) If he's trying to challenge the original AFD decision, going to the original AFD closer wouldn't be much help. He deleted his talk page back in September and the only post there since seems to be a misplaced weird looking welcome message. Since then the article has been G4d and A3d multiple times, most recent on 20 Oct by Fram. At this point going to DRV first is understandable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To be fair he did discuss it with the most recent deleter under the G4 criteria - here albeit over a month ago. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The deleting administrator appears to have made a total of seven edits since February 2009. He's also performed ten administrative actions since that time, all of which involved deleting material in his own userspace--including his own talk page. It's reasonable to assume that there's no point whatsoever in talking to the deleting admin. Since the original deletion was more than three years ago it's also reasonable to create a page that overcomes the original reason for deletion, although the one source we're seen is not sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In response 4. From http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm, which was originally linked from my NYtimes link: (See Web_Cartoonists'_Choice_Awards for details). 'Dan & Mab's Furry Adventures by Amber M. Panyko nomination for OUTSTANDING ANTHROPOMORPHIC COMIC.' http://www.ccawards.com/2005ceremony/anthro.htm Tangents did a more in-depth article, which I believe fits the significance criteria: http://www.tangents.us/?s=dmfa Also other sources in the article, which I don't remember off-hand. Tangents may be more in depth, however it isn't a reliable source, it's blog --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] 5. Also, apparently, yes there was an additional delete given at the last second. So is 'Delete, lacking reliable sources.' sufficiently persuasive an argument to countermand the remainder of "keep"s otherwise mentioned, with reasons given? Point known, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this would imply that there needs to be an eloquent argument by the dissenter against the remainder of consensus for keep. The delete recommendations are all just base statements, while the keeps have several substantial arguments. How could that possibly be a deletion consensus? Never mind that new notability sources were added since. Sim (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] endorse The Web Cartoon award is not significant enough to overcome the complete absence of detailed sourcing. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award. Try finding some sources and writing a userspace draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I saw that link. I didn't see a detailed consensus there, either. This is despite the fact that I did find more sources for the userspace draft, which was summarily deleted virtually immediately upon publication, without further chance for update or consideration. I felt that a newer, stronger article should have a change to grow with an additional four+ years of references, without someone saying it can never ever be notable ever. I felt the NYtimes chain of notability was the strongest notability link, but if there are further variables to be considered, I would be willing to search for them. I feel incensed that the newer article was never given its fair chance. Sim (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There isn't such a thing as a notability link - A reliable source may find a given set of awards interesting enough to write about and that may contribute to the notability of the awards for wikipedia - however it isn't a chain, that doesn't mean that anything associated with those awards (or an award winner from those awards) is automatically notable. What we are really saying is the NY Times believed the awards as a whole to be of interest to it's readers, but didn't find the individual entrants/winners to be of the same level such that they'd write about them directly. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion but allow re-creation if notability can be established. Since the original deletion was over 3 years ago, it is certainly possible that consensus may have changed as to this comic's notability. However, the evidence submitted in this DRV is far from convincing. I don't see any reference to this comic or its cartoonist in the New York Times link cited at the start of this DRV. Furthermore, the AfD was not a unanimous keep except for the nominator; it was 6 "keep"s to 3 "delete"s. I would advise anyone wishing to re-create the article to keep the article's focus on establishing notability for the comic overall rather than describing the characters and plot in detail. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The claim of the DRV nominator is not that the comic is mentioned in the NYTimes article, but that it is mentioned in one of the links given in that article. This is stretching our notability guidelines beyond most people's interpretation. I redeleted the article as being basically the same as the one deleted through AfD a few years before, without any additional indication of notability added since. A truly improved article, with more claims to notability, would have deserved its own chance and at worst its own AfD. But this was a quite straightforward G4 redeletion. Fram (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have temporarily restored the article for purposes of providing context for this deletion review, based on a request at my user talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

1. It is silly and preposterous that you can click a link in this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html and see the comic, and her name, and yet somehow this is not notable. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state if an article has had 'coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.' it has had coverage in the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (among other sources), a source that must be reliable if it has been featured in the New York Times of all things, independent of the subject. The article is therefore notable.

2. The original deletion was literally unanimous keep excepting the original nominator, while I was there. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, a unanimous keep is hardly a "consensus" to delete.

3. Originally, the deleter stated that a single reference could not save the article, so in requests for undeletion, the deleted page was user-fied to add a number of other references. The resulting page was submitted for feedback along the proper channels, begging absolutely no concerns for several days, and then upon being properly moved to mainspace, was summarily speedy deleted. During a discussion with the speedy deleter, I was told 'the new references are not reliable.' However, the number of them were posted as counterexample to the first deleter's accusation of too few references, and when including the original New York times linkway, the new set of references AS A WHOLE are definitely enough to establish notability. Even if a few are knocked out as reliable sources, the NYtimes link must, at least, remain, along with other sources, and since they have their own articles on Wikipedia, and have for some time, this means that they must be notable in turn:

'Establishing notability in Wikipedia is somewhat similar to establishing a high PageRank in Google ... the notability of a subject is measured in part by the notability of the sources which talk about the subject. In other words, the most notable of businesses, such as Microsoft, are notable because they're being talked about by the most notable of sources, such as the Wall Street Journal.'

Since DMFA's nomination for the web cartoonists' choice awards, which was mentioned in turn in the NYtimes (among other available references) it necessarily must fulfill this reliability chain for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sim (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Questions can you clarify a few points for me. For your point (1) I've done a search within the page linked and can't find the name of the comic. Your quote from the GNG seems to be a bit too selective of a quote, try starting one word earlier with "significant". Can you point me to what on that page is significant (GNG - "address the subject directly in detail") in that article. For your point (2) Are we looking at the same deletion discussion? I can see three people opining for deletion, how can it be "literally unanimous keep" when there two people other than the nominator opining for deletion? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion- The source upon which the notability of this article apparently hinges does not mention the subject as far as I can see. Reyk _YO! 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural endorse because the initiator of this review did not follow the instructions above: "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly." Sandstein 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) It seems that discussion took place at User talk:Fram#Deleted page. Sandstein 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If he's trying to challenge the original AFD decision, going to the original AFD closer wouldn't be much help. He deleted his talk page back in September and the only post there since seems to be a misplaced weird looking welcome message. Since then the article has been G4d and A3d multiple times, most recent on 20 Oct by Fram. At this point going to DRV first is understandable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- To be fair he did discuss it with the most recent deleter under the G4 criteria - here albeit over a month ago. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting administrator appears to have made a total of seven edits since February 2009. He's also performed ten administrative actions since that time, all of which involved deleting material in his own userspace--including his own talk page. It's reasonable to assume that there's no point whatsoever in talking to the deleting admin. Since the original deletion was more than three years ago it's also reasonable to create a page that overcomes the original reason for deletion, although the one source we're seen is not sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response 4. From http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm, which was originally linked from my NYtimes link: (See Web_Cartoonists'_Choice_Awards for details). 'Dan & Mab's Furry Adventures by Amber M. Panyko nomination for OUTSTANDING ANTHROPOMORPHIC COMIC.' http://www.ccawards.com/2005ceremony/anthro.htm

Tangents did a more in-depth article, which I believe fits the significance criteria: http://www.tangents.us/?s=dmfa Also other sources in the article, which I don't remember off-hand.

Tangents may be more in depth, however it isn't a reliable source, it's blog --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Also, apparently, yes there was an additional delete given at the last second. So is 'Delete, lacking reliable sources.' sufficiently persuasive an argument to countermand the remainder of "keep"s otherwise mentioned, with reasons given? Point known, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this would imply that there needs to be an eloquent argument by the dissenter against the remainder of consensus for keep. The delete recommendations are all just base statements, while the keeps have several substantial arguments. How could that possibly be a deletion consensus? Never mind that new notability sources were added since. Sim (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

endorse The Web Cartoon award is not significant enough to overcome the complete absence of detailed sourcing. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award. Try finding some sources and writing a userspace draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that link. I didn't see a detailed consensus there, either. This is despite the fact that I did find more sources for the userspace draft, which was summarily deleted virtually immediately upon publication, without further chance for update or consideration. I felt that a newer, stronger article should have a change to grow with an additional four+ years of references, without someone saying it can never ever be notable ever.
- I felt the NYtimes chain of notability was the strongest notability link, but if there are further variables to be considered, I would be willing to search for them. I feel incensed that the newer article was never given its fair chance. Sim (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There isn't such a thing as a notability link - A reliable source may find a given set of awards interesting enough to write about and that may contribute to the notability of the awards for wikipedia - however it isn't a chain, that doesn't mean that anything associated with those awards (or an award winner from those awards) is automatically notable. What we are really saying is the NY Times believed the awards as a whole to be of interest to it's readers, but didn't find the individual entrants/winners to be of the same level such that they'd write about them directly. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but allow re-creation if notability can be established. Since the original deletion was over 3 years ago, it is certainly possible that consensus may have changed as to this comic's notability. However, the evidence submitted in this DRV is far from convincing. I don't see any reference to this comic or its cartoonist in the New York Times link cited at the start of this DRV. Furthermore, the AfD was not a unanimous keep except for the nominator; it was 6 "keep"s to 3 "delete"s. I would advise anyone wishing to re-create the article to keep the article's focus on establishing notability for the comic overall rather than describing the characters and plot in detail. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of the DRV nominator is not that the comic is mentioned in the NYTimes article, but that it is mentioned in one of the links given in that article. This is stretching our notability guidelines beyond most people's interpretation. I redeleted the article as being basically the same as the one deleted through AfD a few years before, without any additional indication of notability added since. A truly improved article, with more claims to notability, would have deserved its own chance and at worst its own AfD. But this was a quite straightforward G4 redeletion. Fram (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily restored the article for purposes of providing context for this deletion review, based on a request at my user talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 November 2010

[edit]

User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair – While there is considerable concern that the page may not be helpful, there is a clear consensus that neither those concerns nor the deletion policy require this page's removal. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) ~~Procedural.Several users have objected to the close at deleting admin's talk page.~~ See reasoning below. -Atmoz (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] And those users all know where this page is. Stop with the "procedural" nominations - if you yourself think it should be overturned, nominate it. Otherwise all you are doing is rubbernecking. A talk page discussion may have resolved this, and there is no "procedure" that means it has to be nominated by you or anyone else. This isn't helpful.--Scott Mac 00:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment from closer - Please read the talk page discussion at user talk:jc37#Closure, before commenting here. Thank you. - jc37 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Also, note that this page is merely a copy of User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. - jc37 07:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] And that both MfD discussions were taken in account in the closure. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. - jc37 17:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have requested "more eyes" on all of this at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please. (archived here.) It also lists a bit of a chronology and other information which may be helpful. - jc37 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Undelete: Overhwelming consensus was to keep, if not speedy keep. Giacomo 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore. No consensus for deletion is present in the MfD, indeed rather the reverse. And the rationales given for deleting in the face of a keep consensus are not convincing. The material is attributed sufficiently for license purposes and is not an attack page in the G10 sense. For the record I don't like it and would rather Giano slap a G7 notice at the top, but that is not a rationale to delete given the lack of consensus to do so. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, restore and ignore. the page is in my opinion both useless and drama-inducing. However, you don't fight Giano's conspiracy theories by conspiring to silence them. Hiding things in dark corners simply leads to more drama. Best to shine a light and demonstrate that there are no monsters under the bed (see also WP:TINC) Those genuinely wishing to reduce drama ought to have ignored this page. Sending it to MFD simply added to the drama and the impression of a desire to silence the critics, closing that MFD against consensus and with a rationale that looked like a vote is more of the same. Now, undelete this and move on. Poor close.--Scott Mac 00:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Was the deleted page not a duplicate of User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair? If so, why can't that page be used and linked to instead of a copy? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think that those commenting above are aware it's merely a copy. I added a notice at the top to read my talk page in the interest of clarity. I hope it helps. - jc37 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)- jc37 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I at least was aware that it was a copy, though not that the original had been restored. However, looking at the log I see that the restoration is specifically for a limited period. No speedy criterion that would justify ignoring the consensus of the MfD applies and so my Overturn recommendation stands. Of course, if the original is kept then the copy can simply redirect (or even transclude) it but if the original is to be deleted now or in the future, then I don't see any pressing reason to prevent Giano from keeping a copy. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, for two reasons: The page was a duplicate of a talk page of a page which was deleted at MfD. It is, therefore, a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" and falls under CSD G4. It simply does not make sense to delete the original and keep the copy. As for the consensus of the discussion ... well, there was a numerical majority in favor of keeping the page (5.5 to 3), but consensus is not just a vote-count. To be honest, I think that a good case for keeping was not made. Except for the comment by SmokeyJoe, who suggested keeping or redirecting (technically, neither one is necessary for a duplicate page), the rest of the "keep" comments were: sarcasm(?) by GiacomoReturned, an assertion of harmlessness by GoodDay, and three comments (by Jenks24, Scott MacDonald, and Collect) that seemed to be motivated more by a fear of drama and disruption in response to deletion than any desire to actually retain the page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I don't see a consensus here, particularly in light of the arguments of Jenks24, Scott MacDonald, and Collect. As for G10, there is a difference between an attack page and political shit-stirring, the latter being regrettable but not deletable.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is a clear consensus even here to overturn, what are you so afraid of? Giacomo 10:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is all too weird. I admit to being confused at the MfD. I still don't understand why this copy was, or would have been, created. Why are we discussing this MfD, and not the one which this page was a copy of? Why is this page undeleted, but not the one we are discussing (even if they are identical? I would like to know more about the Rlevse departure, and while the page in question doesn't explain anything to me, I am sure that deletion is not the way to clarification. If there is a place with an explanation of the Rlevse affair, I still think that a redirect would be helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore. Deleting this kind of thing isn't very clever. All it does is drive the drama offwiki. Let Giano have his say and his talkpages, and pay him as much or as little attention as you want. The fact that it's a duplicate of another talk page is entirely irrelevant because this isn't encyclopaedic content. It's to do with Wikipedia's governance and rules. And that's all DRV should have to say about it because it doesn't matter whether Giano's reasons for wanting a copy of this page in his userspace are valid or not. All that matters is that a good faith user thinks there's a valid reason. I don't agree with Giano's reasons for keeping this page but you won't persuade someone to think differently by purging his userspace.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So, to be clear (and this is a sincere question) - Fear of potential drama is a valid reason to not do what we would normally do? How is that not a case of: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? (quoted from Animal Farm) - Are we really setting up a situation where being an editor who others see as causing drama, gives a carte blanche pass for that editor to do whatever they want, regardless of the policies in place? I find that difficult to believe, and really difficult to endorse as a wikiphilosophy. - jc37 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No we are talking of an editor who knows Wikipedia policy inside out, and how to apply it better than most Admins. The page was created becase I suspected the original would be deleted to spare two Arbs' blushes (which it was - and will be again). Now be a good chap and restore the page before you begin to look even more foolish and we have to take this matter elsewhere. Giacomo 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wait a minute. What? "The page was created becase I suspected the original would be deleted..." - how is that not an intent to game the system? And following up on that, doesn't that become a WP:POINT situation, confirmed by everything that has thus followed?... As for "...spare[ing] two Arbs' blushes" - Shrugs, not my intent, and honestly, you would have to work VERY hard twisting fact in order to even TRY to suggest that I am anything but an advocate for transparency. See my current concerns at this year's arb election, for just one recent example. From your tone, I might guess that this may come as a shock to you, but the world doesn't revolve around you, Giacamo. People can actually take neutral actions merely for reasons related to policy and practice. I'm sincerely sorry for you that (as you seem to indicate) you feel otherwise. - jc37 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, fear of potential drama isn't a valid reason to avoid doing what you'd normally do. But if you'd normally delete material out of someone's userspace when that user has a good faith belief that it relates to Wikipedia's governance, then the problem isn't with the user. First, matters relating to Wikipedia's governance absolutely do belong on Wikipedia. They do not belong offwiki. Deleting people's userspace won't stop the discussion, it'll just drive it elsewhere, to nobody's benefit. Second, Giano does have latitude in these things. The purpose of everything that isn't mainspace is to support the people who write the encyclopaedia and like it or not, writing the encyclopaedia is exactly what Giano does. And that absolutely does entitle Giano to latitude and tolerance, because Wikipedia without Giano would be Wikipedia with less drama—but also Wikipedia with a great deal less content. And encyclopaedic content is what we're here to provide. Kindly treat those who produce it with great respect. The emerging consensus at this DRV is that we need to put up with this page. Good faith users need to discuss Rlevse's various errors and mistakes because it's a serious issue and it ought to affect how we choose our most trusted users in the future. We need to let the discussion flow naturally.—S Marshall T/C 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] We typically give more latitude in userspace to editors. I don't disagree. But this is about a closure of an MfD. As I'm fairly sure you know, DRV isn't XFD-2. So I'm not sure how your comments apply to this discussion. (Though I have little doubt you'll clarify shortly : ) - jc37 21:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Are you fit to be an admin, you are starting to seem otherwise? The page needs restoring, now go and get on with it! Do as you are told and we shall say mo more! Giacomo 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, Jc37, there are several possible lines of argument at DRV. The most common one is that the closer failed to close in accordance with the consensus, but there are others. Sometimes, one can also reasonably argue that the !votes were not in accordance with policy, or that the closer failed to weigh the !votes correctly. What this boils down to is the argument that whether or not the closure was in accordance with the consensus, the consensus itself was wrong in some important respect. DRV does consider these instances, even where it means that to a certain extent it's necessary to re-argue the XfD. In this case, my position is that to whatever extent that there was a consensus to delete—a matter that other users have already addressed adequately—the arguments supporting that consensus were untenable in the light of the facts. Finally, my position is that the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia a better place. DRV contributors have wide latitude to make any analysis or engage in any discussion that serves that end.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That was actually a nice summary of DRV (in my opinion at least). Thank you for clarifying. Let me ask this... My assessment as this being G10, is the fact that this is rather clearly intended to be "disparaging". (Based upon the word disparage specifically being used under G10 and CSD.) So since you say there is no policy reason for the deletion, is your position a.) that the pages in question were not intended to be disparaging (or for that matter, you do not see the pages themselves as disparaging). And therefore you feel that G10 didn't apply for that reason. Or b.) Is your position that you feel that "disparage" should not be part of the G10 criteria, and should instead only use the term "attack". And is it the possible semantic difference between "disparage" and "attack" which may be causing a confusion here? (and c.) something else, could be possible too, of course : ) - jc37 00:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] G10 reads "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." I think the argument here is that the page DID serve another purpose - that is to allow a debate of the issues by troubles users. Whether it did that well? ymmv.--Scott Mac 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you'd be hard pressed to call that a civil debate on issues... - jc37 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think it's true that there's an extent to which this page disparages Rlevse. And I think it's true that there's an extent to which it meets the criteria for G10. But there's always a judgment call to be made: just because something can be made to fit a speedy deletion criterion, does that mean the speedy deletion should automatically happen? In this case there are shades of grey. First, those who're in high office can expect a degree of scrutiny, and some of that scrutiny may be hostile. It goes with the territory. In accepting a post as arbitrator, Rlevse was also accepting that he would be held to high standards and open to criticism. The fact that he's resigned and RTVed doesn't entitle him to escape a close examination of what he said and did while in post. Second, there's a serious discussion to be had about copyright on Wikipedia and Rlevse is an excellent example of why. It would be arguable that Rlevse has broken the law. We take copyright seriously and we need to take it more seriously, and discussions about this need to be encouraged. Not censored. Third, Wikipedia has a culture of openness that it's important to respect. Giano has good faith suspicions about what's gone on and attempts to delete the content he's examining justifies Giano's suspicions. In other words, there's an extent to which deleting the page makes Giano look as if he's in the right—it has exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, actually, based upon the comments in the discussions, the disparagement of the page was towards Giacomo. The intent, as described, was "making fun of" his making User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair; which was (presumably) "tracking" events that he seemed to feel were important in relation to Rlevse. So most of your comments in this latest post (I believe) aren't directly relevant. But let's pretend that what you were suggesting was the case. Specifically: "In other words, there's an extent to which deleting the page makes Giano look as if he's in the right" - I simply shouldn't care. And in my opinion, neither should you or anyone. At least as far as whether a speedy criteria applies or not. How many pages are speedied? And if the person who created the page were to cry out that:"this is a conspiracy against me and mine" (Or here's a "fun" example from other recent events: "This is an attempt to white wash opposition to (or support of) Climate Change"). Do you honestly suggest that such pages which would normally meet a speedy criteria should be retained/restored regardless, based upon that? I really don't believe that you would suggest that under such circumstances. So why should this be any different? I reiterate: fear of on-wiki drama should not be a factor in deciding. But anyway, as noted, this is about it being intended to disparage Giacomo. And obviously he considers it so, else he wouldn't want it kept "visible" for "evidence". So, with all that in mind, again I ask: Why should this be any different than any other page which disparages? Why do you feel that this (I'm referring to the original page, and which would also apply to the copy) does not meet speedy deletion G10? - jc37 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think it's not logically tenable to G10 a page for disparaging Giano, when Giano vocally wants to retain it. The only rational basis for a G10 is that it disparages someone who doesn't want it kept.—S Marshall T/C 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] We are concerned about what the target of a page feels about the page when dealing with BLP concerns. This isn't about BLP concerns. And I still have not seen any argument which suggests that the page is not disparagement. And that was true in the two MfD discussions, and it's true here. Rather than looking at bolded votes, I'm looking at what is actually being said. And you even suggest that the page is somewhat disparaging to Rlevse. A page which is designed to directly "make fun of" another specific Wikipedian, which is intentionally disparaging. That's a G10. According to WP:NPA: *"These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"* (Bolding mine, the italics are on the page.) It's just contrary to what we are supposed to be attempting to achieve here. And then when looking at: Statement of principles Simplified ruleset The orange pillar at Wikipedia:Five_pillars and even looking at #4 here: meta:Founding_principles. To use your term, I think your position that this is appropriate (or even that it's merely not contrary to existing policy) is just not logically tenable. - jc37 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm confused. I thought it was your position that Giano was the target of the disparagement?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes. I was merely noting that you (and for that matter, the nominator of both MfDs) also felt that the page was disparaging, though you each suggested it was disparaging towards Rlevse. So that still makes it disparaging to a specific individual. Sorry for not being clearer. - jc37 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, no need to apologise, that's okay. What I said about disparagement of Rlevse was that there was "an extent to which" it was taking place, but then I explained the reasons why I didn't think that trumped Giano's wish to have this page in his userspace. You came back and said that in your view, the disparagement was towards Giano. I said that it didn't make sense to me to delete material out of Giano's userspace, that Giano wanted to keep, because it was disparaging of Giano. And I think that's where we are with G10, aren't we? You've now introduced a question about whether the page was appropriate in view of the five pillars and Jimbo's statement of principles, and I understand that argument but disagree with it. This is a userspace page that's (at least tangentially) relevant to Wikipedia's governance and copyright on Wikipedia. Such material strikes me as reasonable to keep in userspace.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] For the first part, let's be clear: I was and am talking about the original. The closure was based upon both discussions, applying comments from both to the question of whether the original should be kept. (Forcing people to copy/paste comments which are relevant to both discussions, or at least not acknowledging that comments from both discussions applied to the question seems to me to fly in the face of attempting to discern a true consensus. Do you disagree?) And so by extension, the copy should be deleted if the original was. That is to say, if the content of the original is G10, then any direct copy of the original would also be G10. (one of the fundamentals behind G4.) And so, Giacomo keeping a copy of the original in his userspace, because he wants it as evidence- obviously because he feels it's disparaging - only helps confirm the application of G10 to the original. And again, if the original goes, so too should the copy. And by the way, I personally think this DRV would have been more appropriate to be about the original, rather than questioning whether the copy of a deleted page should exist. (Which merely makes it a G4, as Black Falcon notes.) And I wasn't introducing something new (AFAIK), I was re-affirming the policy behind G10, as well as affirming the applicability of G10 in this case - as a direct response to your suggestion that there was no policy reason to delete. Which, to me is simply incorrect. One may argue whether "disparagement through humour" may be allowable in userspace, I suppose, or may argue whether the page in question was indeed disparaging. But I find it ridiculous (sorry again) to suggest that G10 is not policy, and to suggest that "disparaging" is not a part of G10, when it states that clearly. But if you want to argue whether disparagement should be included in G10, I suggest an RfC on the matter at the VP or CSD. But if you agree that a.) disparagement is a part of the G10 criteria and b.) that the page was disparaging of one or more individuals (regardless of how it was being done), then I would presume that you would endorse the deletion, under G10. To do otherwise would seem to be directly contrary to every policy and guideline we have on civility/NPA. - jc37 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Jc37, this is now entering the realms of the ridiculous, there was an overwhelming consensus to keep this page at AFD. Here, there is an overwhelming consensus to restore it. It seems to me that you are now being obstructive. Just restore the page please. Giacomo 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree that disparagement is part of the G10 criteria and I agree that there's an extent to which this page was disparaging of Rlevse but I don't endorse the deletion. There are times when someone's so senior and their actions are so unfortunate that it becomes acceptable to allow mildly critical or disparaging material; see Essjay controversy for an example of this that's survived in the mainspace. I would not endorse a G10 deletion of Essjay-related material and to my mind, the same applies to Rlevse.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So to make certain I understand your perspective: You agree that disparagement is part of G10, and that G10 is policy and is appropriate in most cases. But that, because you see this as being in relation to recent events around Rlevse, this should be considered an extraordinary situation? And therefore, essentially, you feel G10 doesn't apply per WP:IAR? - jc37 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator has to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion. All kinds of speedy deletion were originally specific applications of IAR. Nor do I agree that G10 is "appropriate in most cases". My position is that where a speedy deletion criterion applies, the administrator must then make a judgment call about whether, in view of all the circumstances, it's appropriate to actually press the "delete" button—in other words, the deleter must have made a positive decision to delete. The closer is then accountable to DRV for that decision. DRV will not necessarily just assess whether the closer strictly applied policy; a judgment call has been made and DRV contributors may take into account a wide range of factors. This is what I'm doing. I've explained why, although you have an arguable case based on strict application of one particular policy, I believe that the correct judgment call in the circumstances would be not to delete the page. (Meanwhile, others have been explaining why the deletion wasn't in accordance with the consensus either. I haven't addressed that because the matter is well covered already.) Quite aside from these things, I also think the circumstances around Rlevse are exceptional and will need to be considered with the absolute maximum of transparency. Our position on copyright violations is as vulnerable as our position on BLPs was after the Siegenthaler incident and blindly following the letter of the rules is inappropriate in the circumstances. I think it's quite possible that there will need to be some rule-ignoring in order to get a fully transparent discussion going.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator has to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion." - None of us "has" to do anything, of course. Though I might suggest that in most cases we should probably delete copyvio and unsourced BLP kerfuffle on sight. That said, attack pages should be deleted on sight. And I doubt you disagree in most cases. It's not collegiate in any sense. And definitely not WP:CIVIL. And we have many policies and guidelines concerning it. WP:NPA in particular. Anyway, all that aside, as I mentioned already, the main concern is that the page was disparaging to Giacomo. And your argument would be more appropriate concerning an MfD of User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair. But I sincerely do not see how it applies to this page. Incidentally, speaking of transparency. Prior to this DRV, I had a good faith request on my talk page to restore it so that it could be viewed by "voters" in relation to some questions by Giacomo. While I'm not certain I did the right thing there (as I noted there), I erred on the side of transparency. And that (in my opinion) is where the WP:IAR comes in. Not in generally saying "keep just-in-case it's needed for transparency". Also, looking at our discussion, I think it's hardly tenable for anyone to suggest that any of the "votes" which say that there is no policy-based reason to delete, are accurate in any way. There is indeed a policy-based reason to delete. It's just that you (and some others) appear disagree that the policy should be applied in this case. And that WP:IAR should apply instead. Mostly to avoid potential on-wiki drama, and to allow transparency for events seemingly tangently related to events just prior to Rlevse's retirement. You know, that sounds odd, even typing it. I feel like we're creating an Erdros number related to Rlevse events. (Or if you prefer, six degrees of separation from Rlevse events.) You now have me wondering: At what point is the association not relevant, and just an excuse? - jc37 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, if it was the copyvio, unsourced BLP or attack page that you mention, I'd be strongly in the "endorse" camp. But it's stretching things entirely too far to call this an attack page. It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies. I've said before that your "main concern" makes no sense to me at all. If it's in Giano's userspace and Giano wants to keep it, then a deletion on the grounds that it disparages Giano himself is not a logical response. To my mind the Rlevse affair calls into question: (1) how and why we choose our most senior community figures; (2) on what basis we choose to trust them; (3) how they're mentored and supervised; (4) how we select and vet our most highly-recommended articles; and (5) our attitude to sources, particularly how closely these should be followed in a featured article (and as an aside, I'm a great deal more persuaded by Risker's remarks than by SandyGeorgia's). I believe that any material in userspace to any of these ends, widely interpreted, should be tolerated for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] (de-dent) - It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies - Ok, I've said it several times, and apparently it's being missed. I am referring to the original page. and was doing so in the closure. This DRV has issues if just on the face of being a pseudo-procedural nom (though scott mac addressed that immediately), and that a copy of a page is being DRV'ed rather than the page itself. So let me ask you directly: Do you dispute that User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair is a page which disparages, which makes it (by our current definition) an attack page. Do you feel that the two MfD discussions (of the original and of the copy) overall asserted that the original page (the one I just linked to in #1) was not disparaging? Do you feel that they did assert that it was disparaging (even while saying NOHARM, and/or ITSFUNNY) With most of the comments at the two discussions being NOHARM, ITSFUNNY, and a presumably misapplied COPYVIO comment, do you feel that the assertion that IAR should apply was well-founded in policy in those discussions? And if so, where? And do you feel that there were any comments asserting differently? Do you feel that the copy of the deleted page should be retained even if the original is deleted, or do you feel that your arguments better apply to the original? Including a question of whether retaining the edit history have value, or is the mere facade "the important thing"? And if it's determined (either from the original closure or DRV or whatever) that the original is to be deleted per policy, is there any reason that you see that the copy should be retained in that situation? Is the main thrust of your concern about the talk page. And would retaining the original talk page as a protected archive, while deleting the associated main page (and any and all copies of the main page or talk page), address with your concerns? - jc37 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Some of these questions seem obvious to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance that you're trying to convey. So I would appreciate your responses/thoughts. - jc37 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] (1) I think that User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair is mildly disparaging of Rlevse. I feel that in view of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, to conclude that it's an "attack page" is a bit too strong. It has other purposes than just to disparage anyone. Yes, on the face of it it's humour but there's a serious undercurrent. (2) I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said. I think where we're disconnecting is, I suspect your position is that this is one of the cases where policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus. It doesn't; there are times when policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus, but other times when consensus trumps a strict reading of policy. I'm afraid that I think this is one of the latter. The background to this is quite complicated and nuanced and it wasn't envisaged when the policies were written. (3) I think I've answered this under the previous point. (4) I'm talking about the actual page that's the subject of this DRV (which is the version from Giano's userspace). I feel if it's to be retained then it's to be retained--the whole thing, edit history and all. (5) Of course, you're right to say it's nonsensical to delete the source page but keep the copy. If this DRV concludes that you're to be overturned, then this DRV has effectively decided that the second MfD has overwritten the first. (6) I haven't considered the question of whether to protect the original page, and that's not within DRV's purview. However, I will go so far as to say, I think that it's unfortunate that the same closer dealt with both MfDs, and in the circumstances you should probably take it that if the consensus at this DRV is to overturn you, then it means you're through performing any further admininstrative actions on that page. If you feel strongly that it ought to be protected, then I suggest you should persuade another admin to do it.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] For #1 - Thanks for answering. Though there are a lot of "hints" at things that I'm not sure of what you are wanting to convey. What do you consider the "serious undercurrent" to that page, for example? " I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said." - Really? Other than maybe User:Eluchil404, I don't see where anyone actually assessed the consensus, other than blankly asserting that the closure was contrary to consensus. I do see several suggesting overturning based upon concerns about on-wiki drama (and the assertion that this should be WP:IAR kept due to transparency concerns). But actual explanation concerning assessment of the closure would appear to be decidedly lacking. "The background to this is quite complicated and nuanced and it wasn't envisaged when the policies were written" - Hence why you feel WP:IAR should be invoked in this case. For #3, you just answered the question by saying that you don't want to answer the question... For #4 it occurs to me that you can't see the edit history to note that the only edits are Giano making the copy. (Except for this interesting edit by demiurge100, which just attempts to change giacomo's intro to the page.) While the actual edit history for what is copied to User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair resides at User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. As for #5 - nice try at placing the cart before the horse. (Among other things.) What's more likely is that another DRV would follow this one. (If anything.) And for #6 you didn't answer the question. Well, so much for my good faithed attempt to discern your perspective on the closure. And since for much of this thread you claim that you were merely talking about the sole copy nommed here, while I was talking about all the pages (because I, in good faith, would actually like a discussion about the whole of this, rather than what I'm seeing in this DRV of cherry picking, only nomming a copy of a deleted page, and seemingly creating confusion, and trying to use that confusion to get a result that's favourable to IWANTIT and other blank assertions), this whole thread has us apparently talking past each other, even though I, in good faith, was trying to make a real attempt to discern your POV. So anyway, I guess that there's little point to continue to ask, if you're not interested in answering. Thanks anyway. - jc37 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I don't think that you intended to lay a trap for me, but a trap exists. I won't repeat the background and history to the Rlevse affair here because if I do, then some genius will G10 the DRV. Can I take it that where you haven't answered what I've said, you agree with it?—S Marshall T/C 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn no consensus to delete at MfD. no policy-based reason to delete. -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sad overturn I'd have !voted to delete had I known of it, but I don't think it meets speedy guidelines and the !vote was clearly in support of keeping. Bah. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Issues of policy raised by the closing administrator were already considered in the discussion and the consensus at AfD was for retention. There is no evidence that G8 speedy deletion is justified here. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] overturn Essentially per Scott Mac's remarks. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - The page was a attack page, even if it was slapped with a humor template. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oveturn - As I understand it, Giacomo's page (the one we're discussing now at DRV) was deleted under speedy deletion WP:CSD#G4 - Copy of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The parent page, Demiurge1000's page, was deleted under WP:CSD#G10 speedy deletion: Pages that disparage their subject and serve no other purpose. Since CSD#G4 excludes content which was deleted via speedy deletion, Giacomo's page cannot be deleted under CSD#G4. That's a shame because I thought my delete argument at the Giacomo's page MfD -- "It may not be negative or an attack, but it is non-article space contentious material about living persons (Giano and/or Rlevse) that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. It should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate per WP:BLPTALK." carried the day. In any event, Demiurge1000's page was improperly deleted under CSD#G10, so on restoring Demiurge1000's page (which, it apparently now is live User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and protected with an untrue {{mfd}} template on it[18]), Giacomo's page would be restored. Both pages could have been deleted with proper closes. Thanks for your efforts, Jc37. Next time, stick to policy rather than emotions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hey! an actual assessment : ) Just to clarify something quick - no emotions involved here. If I were allowed to assess a close based upon personal whim, I would say that I really could care less if this is kept or deleted. As I said somewhere else, I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. But anyway back to the real world, and closing by consensus and policy and such... I don't think I disagree with you about the application of BLPTALK. It's a fair argument. But despite the picture that some are trying to paint, I was actually attempting to include as much of what was consensus in/of the discussions as was possible. And throughout, many of the comments conveyed the idea that this was satire/parody/homage/whatever to Giacomo's creation of User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair, and "making fun of" him. (And to a lesser extent, Rlevse). And there was enough there (including your comments there) I felt, to endorse a G10 based upon disparagement. (Also, "speedy" in this case is somewhat of a misnomer. The reason I was even at MfD closing, was due to MfD being backlogged - saw Smokey Joe's comment on my watchlist, and went to help out.) As for your G4 thought, I dunno about that. According to my close, the second page was deleted as a duplicate (not a recreation), and that the criteria that applied to a applied equally to b. This discussion about G4 came up here at the DRV. If you want to be technical, the talk pages (the original and the copy) were both deleted as G8. (see the logs) So I suppose if we really want to stay focused only on the talk page nommed in this DRV (which is the copy), very few of the "votes" here (for or against) comment on this being a G8 deletion. (Including yours - though please feel free to clarify.) As for the restorations, as noted on my talk page, I restored them due to a good faithed request that they be visible during the arbcom elections. I didn't edit them at all, but I think you're right about the MfD template. I'll go ahead and remove it. Thanks for your comments : ) - jc37 02:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. The page was not an attack page, certainly not to the extent that it was speediable in the face of an MfD that didn't conclude it was an attack page. Although I think it borders on nonsense, it does not disparage so much as raise critical commentary relvent to the project. This critical comment, although obscure and perhaps only understandable if you explore the undercurrents, also precludes G10 from applying. The fact that Rlevse remains an anonymous pseudonym reduces the level of concern over any "attack", even if substantiated. The fact that Rlevse was a sudden departure bureacrat arbiter means that presumption should fall on the side of not deleting, for the sake of openness. To the extent that there are some less-than-ideal statements, they can be modified by editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry if I seem ungrateful for jc37 in clearing the backlog. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No worries whatsoever. Please don't think twice about it. I think that addressing the question of whether User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair was an attack page is worthy of DRV to determine. In particular the idea of whether disparagement by humour qualifies as disparagement. And whether such disparagement should be considered "mild". And whether "mild disparagement" should be considered G10. And further, the assessmet of the the question concerning BLPTALK and whether it applies. I welcome the discussion. The problem of course is that while all the pages were considered together, due to MfD having them listed as on two separate pages, but I closed them "together", this DRV only nommed one page, and a copy of a talk page at that. Hence much confusion. Which page were you referring to above, so that I might directly respond? - jc37 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think that disparagement by humour does qualify as disparagement. It can even be worse. Mild disparagement would have to be weighed against other purposes of the page. For this page, I don't think it is even mildly disparaging for the person, because it is not seriously disparaging of the person. To the extent that a page disparages actions or events, without getting personal, I think it acceptable. I would prefer to only comment on the content, with the copy being a red herring that some of us have chased in parallel. G4/G8 technical questions are not important, just whether such content is acceptable or not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Death to poisonous crap. Those who produce it must be strongly encouraged to do it elsewhere if at all. --TS 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Poisonous? Maybe. Is there further reading somewhere about wiki-poisonous effects of such stuff, or evidence of past poisonings by the users involved? These are certainly reasons for deletion accepted at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment directed to jc37, but posted here because it's mildly relevant and for the sake of trying to keep things (mostly) in one place. jc37, in your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair you made two assertions. You then also copied those assertions to your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, and also you subsequently posted links to both those pages at several noticeboards. The first statement I have in mind is "the author makes it clear below that that is the intent" (the intent being "to disparage" "their subject or some other entity" and the author being myself). I did not make any comment in the MfD that can be interpreted to mean that my intent when creating the page was to disparage an individual or entity. I therefore request that you withdraw this statement. As far as I can see, it is false and is presumably the result of a misunderstanding. (I also do not agree that the original page is intended to disparage an individual. As its author, I am the only person who can comment authoritatively on the intention. The page comments - through humour - on a viewpoint or set of viewpoints. Not on an individual. It is totally in the spirit of commenting on content, not on the contributor.) The second statement I have in mind is "The suggested intent to engage in substantial recreations". While it is indeed correct that Giano, unwisely in my view, threatened to repeatedly recreate a version of the page, I myself did not participate in such recreations nor did I indicate that I would do so. Your statement, in the context of closing an MfD in which you also make allegations about the intentions of the page author, might very easily be misunderstood to mean that I had suggested an intention on my part to recreate the page if deleted. I would therefore like you to clarify this. (To avoid confusion; I have no objections, then or now, to the page being salted if it was, or is, deleted.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair – While there is considerable concern that the page may not be helpful, there is a clear consensus that neither those concerns nor the deletion policy require this page's removal. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

~~Procedural.Several users have objected to the close at deleting admin's talk page.~~ See reasoning below. -Atmoz (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And those users all know where this page is. Stop with the "procedural" nominations - if you yourself think it should be overturned, nominate it. Otherwise all you are doing is rubbernecking. A talk page discussion may have resolved this, and there is no "procedure" that means it has to be nominated by you or anyone else. This isn't helpful.--Scott Mac 00:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer - Please read the talk page discussion at user talk:jc37#Closure, before commenting here. Thank you. - jc37 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that this page is merely a copy of User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. - jc37 07:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that both MfD discussions were taken in account in the closure. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. - jc37 17:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested "more eyes" on all of this at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please. (archived here.) It also lists a bit of a chronology and other information which may be helpful. - jc37 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete: Overhwelming consensus was to keep, if not speedy keep. Giacomo 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. No consensus for deletion is present in the MfD, indeed rather the reverse. And the rationales given for deleting in the face of a keep consensus are not convincing. The material is attributed sufficiently for license purposes and is not an attack page in the G10 sense. For the record I don't like it and would rather Giano slap a G7 notice at the top, but that is not a rationale to delete given the lack of consensus to do so. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, restore and ignore. the page is in my opinion both useless and drama-inducing. However, you don't fight Giano's conspiracy theories by conspiring to silence them. Hiding things in dark corners simply leads to more drama. Best to shine a light and demonstrate that there are no monsters under the bed (see also WP:TINC) Those genuinely wishing to reduce drama ought to have ignored this page. Sending it to MFD simply added to the drama and the impression of a desire to silence the critics, closing that MFD against consensus and with a rationale that looked like a vote is more of the same. Now, undelete this and move on. Poor close.--Scott Mac 00:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was the deleted page not a duplicate of User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair? If so, why can't that page be used and linked to instead of a copy? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that those commenting above are aware it's merely a copy. I added a notice at the top to read my talk page in the interest of clarity. I hope it helps. - jc37 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)- jc37 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I at least was aware that it was a copy, though not that the original had been restored. However, looking at the log I see that the restoration is specifically for a limited period. No speedy criterion that would justify ignoring the consensus of the MfD applies and so my Overturn recommendation stands. Of course, if the original is kept then the copy can simply redirect (or even transclude) it but if the original is to be deleted now or in the future, then I don't see any pressing reason to prevent Giano from keeping a copy. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, for two reasons:
The page was a duplicate of a talk page of a page which was deleted at MfD. It is, therefore, a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" and falls under CSD G4. It simply does not make sense to delete the original and keep the copy.

As for the consensus of the discussion ... well, there was a numerical majority in favor of keeping the page (5.5 to 3), but consensus is not just a vote-count. To be honest, I think that a good case for keeping was not made. Except for the comment by SmokeyJoe, who suggested keeping or redirecting (technically, neither one is necessary for a duplicate page), the rest of the "keep" comments were: sarcasm(?) by GiacomoReturned, an assertion of harmlessness by GoodDay, and three comments (by Jenks24, Scott MacDonald, and Collect) that seemed to be motivated more by a fear of drama and disruption in response to deletion than any desire to actually retain the page.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't see a consensus here, particularly in light of the arguments of Jenks24, Scott MacDonald, and Collect. As for G10, there is a difference between an attack page and political shit-stirring, the latter being regrettable but not deletable.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear consensus even here to overturn, what are you so afraid of? Giacomo 10:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all too weird. I admit to being confused at the MfD. I still don't understand why this copy was, or would have been, created. Why are we discussing this MfD, and not the one which this page was a copy of? Why is this page undeleted, but not the one we are discussing (even if they are identical? I would like to know more about the Rlevse departure, and while the page in question doesn't explain anything to me, I am sure that deletion is not the way to clarification. If there is a place with an explanation of the Rlevse affair, I still think that a redirect would be helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Deleting this kind of thing isn't very clever. All it does is drive the drama offwiki. Let Giano have his say and his talkpages, and pay him as much or as little attention as you want. The fact that it's a duplicate of another talk page is entirely irrelevant because this isn't encyclopaedic content. It's to do with Wikipedia's governance and rules. And that's all DRV should have to say about it because it doesn't matter whether Giano's reasons for wanting a copy of this page in his userspace are valid or not. All that matters is that a good faith user thinks there's a valid reason.
I don't agree with Giano's reasons for keeping this page but you won't persuade someone to think differently by purging his userspace.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear (and this is a sincere question) - Fear of potential drama is a valid reason to not do what we would normally do? How is that not a case of: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? (quoted from Animal Farm) - Are we really setting up a situation where being an editor who others see as causing drama, gives a carte blanche pass for that editor to do whatever they want, regardless of the policies in place? I find that difficult to believe, and really difficult to endorse as a wikiphilosophy. - jc37 19:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No we are talking of an editor who knows Wikipedia policy inside out, and how to apply it better than most Admins. The page was created becase I suspected the original would be deleted to spare two Arbs' blushes (which it was - and will be again). Now be a good chap and restore the page before you begin to look even more foolish and we have to take this matter elsewhere. Giacomo 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. What?

"The page was created becase I suspected the original would be deleted..." - how is that not an intent to game the system? And following up on that, doesn't that become a WP:POINT situation, confirmed by everything that has thus followed?...

As for "...spare[ing] two Arbs' blushes" - Shrugs, not my intent, and honestly, you would have to work VERY hard twisting fact in order to even TRY to suggest that I am anything but an advocate for transparency. See my current concerns at this year's arb election, for just one recent example.

From your tone, I might guess that this may come as a shock to you, but the world doesn't revolve around you, Giacamo. People can actually take neutral actions merely for reasons related to policy and practice.

I'm sincerely sorry for you that (as you seem to indicate) you feel otherwise. - jc37 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, fear of potential drama isn't a valid reason to avoid doing what you'd normally do. But if you'd normally delete material out of someone's userspace when that user has a good faith belief that it relates to Wikipedia's governance, then the problem isn't with the user.
First, matters relating to Wikipedia's governance absolutely do belong on Wikipedia. They do not belong offwiki. Deleting people's userspace won't stop the discussion, it'll just drive it elsewhere, to nobody's benefit.
Second, Giano does have latitude in these things. The purpose of everything that isn't mainspace is to support the people who write the encyclopaedia and like it or not, writing the encyclopaedia is exactly what Giano does. And that absolutely does entitle Giano to latitude and tolerance, because Wikipedia without Giano would be Wikipedia with less drama—but also Wikipedia with a great deal less content. And encyclopaedic content is what we're here to provide. Kindly treat those who produce it with great respect.
The emerging consensus at this DRV is that we need to put up with this page. Good faith users need to discuss Rlevse's various errors and mistakes because it's a serious issue and it ought to affect how we choose our most trusted users in the future. We need to let the discussion flow naturally.—S Marshall T/C 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We typically give more latitude in userspace to editors. I don't disagree. But this is about a closure of an MfD. As I'm fairly sure you know, DRV isn't XFD-2. So I'm not sure how your comments apply to this discussion. (Though I have little doubt you'll clarify shortly : ) - jc37 21:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fit to be an admin, you are starting to seem otherwise? The page needs restoring, now go and get on with it! Do as you are told and we shall say mo more! Giacomo 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jc37, there are several possible lines of argument at DRV. The most common one is that the closer failed to close in accordance with the consensus, but there are others. Sometimes, one can also reasonably argue that the !votes were not in accordance with policy, or that the closer failed to weigh the !votes correctly. What this boils down to is the argument that whether or not the closure was in accordance with the consensus, the consensus itself was wrong in some important respect. DRV does consider these instances, even where it means that to a certain extent it's necessary to re-argue the XfD.
In this case, my position is that to whatever extent that there was a consensus to delete—a matter that other users have already addressed adequately—the arguments supporting that consensus were untenable in the light of the facts.
Finally, my position is that the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia a better place. DRV contributors have wide latitude to make any analysis or engage in any discussion that serves that end.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually a nice summary of DRV (in my opinion at least).

Thank you for clarifying.

Let me ask this...

My assessment as this being G10, is the fact that this is rather clearly intended to be "disparaging". (Based upon the word disparage specifically being used under G10 and CSD.)

So since you say there is no policy reason for the deletion, is your position a.) that the pages in question were not intended to be disparaging (or for that matter, you do not see the pages themselves as disparaging). And therefore you feel that G10 didn't apply for that reason. Or b.) Is your position that you feel that "disparage" should not be part of the G10 criteria, and should instead only use the term "attack". And is it the possible semantic difference between "disparage" and "attack" which may be causing a confusion here? (and c.) something else, could be possible too, of course : ) - jc37 00:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G10 reads "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." I think the argument here is that the page DID serve another purpose - that is to allow a debate of the issues by troubles users. Whether it did that well? ymmv.--Scott Mac 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be hard pressed to call that a civil debate on issues... - jc37 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's true that there's an extent to which this page disparages Rlevse. And I think it's true that there's an extent to which it meets the criteria for G10. But there's always a judgment call to be made: just because something can be made to fit a speedy deletion criterion, does that mean the speedy deletion should automatically happen? In this case there are shades of grey.
First, those who're in high office can expect a degree of scrutiny, and some of that scrutiny may be hostile. It goes with the territory. In accepting a post as arbitrator, Rlevse was also accepting that he would be held to high standards and open to criticism. The fact that he's resigned and RTVed doesn't entitle him to escape a close examination of what he said and did while in post.
Second, there's a serious discussion to be had about copyright on Wikipedia and Rlevse is an excellent example of why. It would be arguable that Rlevse has broken the law. We take copyright seriously and we need to take it more seriously, and discussions about this need to be encouraged. Not censored.
Third, Wikipedia has a culture of openness that it's important to respect. Giano has good faith suspicions about what's gone on and attempts to delete the content he's examining justifies Giano's suspicions. In other words, there's an extent to which deleting the page makes Giano look as if he's in the right—it has exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, based upon the comments in the discussions, the disparagement of the page was towards Giacomo. The intent, as described, was "making fun of" his making User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair; which was (presumably) "tracking" events that he seemed to feel were important in relation to Rlevse.

So most of your comments in this latest post (I believe) aren't directly relevant.

But let's pretend that what you were suggesting was the case. Specifically: "In other words, there's an extent to which deleting the page makes Giano look as if he's in the right" - I simply shouldn't care. And in my opinion, neither should you or anyone. At least as far as whether a speedy criteria applies or not. How many pages are speedied? And if the person who created the page were to cry out that:"this is a conspiracy against me and mine" (Or here's a "fun" example from other recent events: "This is an attempt to white wash opposition to (or support of) Climate Change"). Do you honestly suggest that such pages which would normally meet a speedy criteria should be retained/restored regardless, based upon that? I really don't believe that you would suggest that under such circumstances. So why should this be any different?

I reiterate: fear of on-wiki drama should not be a factor in deciding.

But anyway, as noted, this is about it being intended to disparage Giacomo. And obviously he considers it so, else he wouldn't want it kept "visible" for "evidence".

So, with all that in mind, again I ask: Why should this be any different than any other page which disparages? Why do you feel that this (I'm referring to the original page, and which would also apply to the copy) does not meet speedy deletion G10? - jc37 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not logically tenable to G10 a page for disparaging Giano, when Giano vocally wants to retain it. The only rational basis for a G10 is that it disparages someone who doesn't want it kept.—S Marshall T/C 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are concerned about what the target of a page feels about the page when dealing with BLP concerns. This isn't about BLP concerns. And I still have not seen any argument which suggests that the page is not disparagement. And that was true in the two MfD discussions, and it's true here. Rather than looking at bolded votes, I'm looking at what is actually being said.

And you even suggest that the page is somewhat disparaging to Rlevse.

A page which is designed to directly "make fun of" another specific Wikipedian, which is intentionally disparaging. That's a G10.

According to WP:NPA: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (Bolding mine, the italics are on the page.)

It's just contrary to what we are supposed to be attempting to achieve here.

And then when looking at:
Statement of principles

Simplified ruleset

The orange pillar at Wikipedia:Five_pillars

and even looking at #4 here: meta:Founding_principles.

To use your term, I think your position that this is appropriate (or even that it's merely not contrary to existing policy) is just not logically tenable. - jc37 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I thought it was your position that Giano was the target of the disparagement?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was merely noting that you (and for that matter, the nominator of both MfDs) also felt that the page was disparaging, though you each suggested it was disparaging towards Rlevse. So that still makes it disparaging to a specific individual. Sorry for not being clearer. - jc37 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no need to apologise, that's okay. What I said about disparagement of Rlevse was that there was "an extent to which" it was taking place, but then I explained the reasons why I didn't think that trumped Giano's wish to have this page in his userspace. You came back and said that in your view, the disparagement was towards Giano. I said that it didn't make sense to me to delete material out of Giano's userspace, that Giano wanted to keep, because it was disparaging of Giano. And I think that's where we are with G10, aren't we?
You've now introduced a question about whether the page was appropriate in view of the five pillars and Jimbo's statement of principles, and I understand that argument but disagree with it. This is a userspace page that's (at least tangentially) relevant to Wikipedia's governance and copyright on Wikipedia. Such material strikes me as reasonable to keep in userspace.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the first part, let's be clear: I was and am talking about the original. The closure was based upon both discussions, applying comments from both to the question of whether the original should be kept. (Forcing people to copy/paste comments which are relevant to both discussions, or at least not acknowledging that comments from both discussions applied to the question seems to me to fly in the face of attempting to discern a true consensus. Do you disagree?) And so by extension, the copy should be deleted if the original was. That is to say, if the content of the original is G10, then any direct copy of the original would also be G10. (one of the fundamentals behind G4.)

And so, Giacomo keeping a copy of the original in his userspace, because he wants it as evidence- obviously because he feels it's disparaging - only helps confirm the application of G10 to the original. And again, if the original goes, so too should the copy.

And by the way, I personally think this DRV would have been more appropriate to be about the original, rather than questioning whether the copy of a deleted page should exist. (Which merely makes it a G4, as Black Falcon notes.)

And I wasn't introducing something new (AFAIK), I was re-affirming the policy behind G10, as well as affirming the applicability of G10 in this case - as a direct response to your suggestion that there was no policy reason to delete. Which, to me is simply incorrect. One may argue whether "disparagement through humour" may be allowable in userspace, I suppose, or may argue whether the page in question was indeed disparaging. But I find it ridiculous (sorry again) to suggest that G10 is not policy, and to suggest that "disparaging" is not a part of G10, when it states that clearly. But if you want to argue whether disparagement should be included in G10, I suggest an RfC on the matter at the VP or CSD.

But if you agree that a.) disparagement is a part of the G10 criteria and b.) that the page was disparaging of one or more individuals (regardless of how it was being done), then I would presume that you would endorse the deletion, under G10. To do otherwise would seem to be directly contrary to every policy and guideline we have on civility/NPA. - jc37 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37, this is now entering the realms of the ridiculous, there was an overwhelming consensus to keep this page at AFD. Here, there is an overwhelming consensus to restore it. It seems to me that you are now being obstructive. Just restore the page please. Giacomo 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that disparagement is part of the G10 criteria and I agree that there's an extent to which this page was disparaging of Rlevse but I don't endorse the deletion. There are times when someone's so senior and their actions are so unfortunate that it becomes acceptable to allow mildly critical or disparaging material; see Essjay controversy for an example of this that's survived in the mainspace. I would not endorse a G10 deletion of Essjay-related material and to my mind, the same applies to Rlevse.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So to make certain I understand your perspective: You agree that disparagement is part of G10, and that G10 is policy and is appropriate in most cases. But that, because you see this as being in relation to recent events around Rlevse, this should be considered an extraordinary situation? And therefore, essentially, you feel G10 doesn't apply per WP:IAR? - jc37 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator has to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion. All kinds of speedy deletion were originally specific applications of IAR. Nor do I agree that G10 is "appropriate in most cases". My position is that where a speedy deletion criterion applies, the administrator must then make a judgment call about whether, in view of all the circumstances, it's appropriate to actually press the "delete" button—in other words, the deleter must have made a positive decision to delete. The closer is then accountable to DRV for that decision. DRV will not necessarily just assess whether the closer strictly applied policy; a judgment call has been made and DRV contributors may take into account a wide range of factors. This is what I'm doing.
I've explained why, although you have an arguable case based on strict application of one particular policy, I believe that the correct judgment call in the circumstances would be not to delete the page. (Meanwhile, others have been explaining why the deletion wasn't in accordance with the consensus either. I haven't addressed that because the matter is well covered already.)
Quite aside from these things, I also think the circumstances around Rlevse are exceptional and will need to be considered with the absolute maximum of transparency. Our position on copyright violations is as vulnerable as our position on BLPs was after the Siegenthaler incident and blindly following the letter of the rules is inappropriate in the circumstances. I think it's quite possible that there will need to be some rule-ignoring in order to get a fully transparent discussion going.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I honestly don't think it's ever policy that an administrator has to perform a speedy deletion, whether it's under G10 or any other criterion." - None of us "has" to do anything, of course. Though I might suggest that in most cases we should probably delete copyvio and unsourced BLP kerfuffle on sight.

That said, attack pages should be deleted on sight. And I doubt you disagree in most cases. It's not collegiate in any sense. And definitely not WP:CIVIL. And we have many policies and guidelines concerning it. WP:NPA in particular.

Anyway, all that aside, as I mentioned already, the main concern is that the page was disparaging to Giacomo.

And your argument would be more appropriate concerning an MfD of User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair.

But I sincerely do not see how it applies to this page.

Incidentally, speaking of transparency. Prior to this DRV, I had a good faith request on my talk page to restore it so that it could be viewed by "voters" in relation to some questions by Giacomo. While I'm not certain I did the right thing there (as I noted there), I erred on the side of transparency. And that (in my opinion) is where the WP:IAR comes in. Not in generally saying "keep just-in-case it's needed for transparency".

Also, looking at our discussion, I think it's hardly tenable for anyone to suggest that any of the "votes" which say that there is no policy-based reason to delete, are accurate in any way. There is indeed a policy-based reason to delete. It's just that you (and some others) appear disagree that the policy should be applied in this case. And that WP:IAR should apply instead. Mostly to avoid potential on-wiki drama, and to allow transparency for events seemingly tangently related to events just prior to Rlevse's retirement. You know, that sounds odd, even typing it. I feel like we're creating an Erdros number related to Rlevse events. (Or if you prefer, six degrees of separation from Rlevse events.) You now have me wondering: At what point is the association not relevant, and just an excuse? - jc37 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was the copyvio, unsourced BLP or attack page that you mention, I'd be strongly in the "endorse" camp. But it's stretching things entirely too far to call this an attack page. It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies.
I've said before that your "main concern" makes no sense to me at all. If it's in Giano's userspace and Giano wants to keep it, then a deletion on the grounds that it disparages Giano himself is not a logical response.
To my mind the Rlevse affair calls into question: (1) how and why we choose our most senior community figures; (2) on what basis we choose to trust them; (3) how they're mentored and supervised; (4) how we select and vet our most highly-recommended articles; and (5) our attitude to sources, particularly how closely these should be followed in a featured article (and as an aside, I'm a great deal more persuaded by Risker's remarks than by SandyGeorgia's). I believe that any material in userspace to any of these ends, widely interpreted, should be tolerated for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(de-dent) - It's a page of discussion that has a side-effect of being mildly critical of Rlevse and perhaps others on Wikipedia's governing bodies - Ok, I've said it several times, and apparently it's being missed. I am referring to the original page. and was doing so in the closure. This DRV has issues if just on the face of being a pseudo-procedural nom (though scott mac addressed that immediately), and that a copy of a page is being DRV'ed rather than the page itself.
So let me ask you directly:
1. Do you dispute that User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair is a page which disparages, which makes it (by our current definition) an attack page.
2. Do you feel that the two MfD discussions (of the original and of the copy) overall asserted that the original page (the one I just linked to in #1) was not disparaging? Do you feel that they did assert that it was disparaging (even while saying NOHARM, and/or ITSFUNNY)
3. With most of the comments at the two discussions being NOHARM, ITSFUNNY, and a presumably misapplied COPYVIO comment, do you feel that the assertion that IAR should apply was well-founded in policy in those discussions? And if so, where? And do you feel that there were any comments asserting differently?
4. Do you feel that the copy of the deleted page should be retained even if the original is deleted, or do you feel that your arguments better apply to the original? Including a question of whether retaining the edit history have value, or is the mere facade "the important thing"?
5. And if it's determined (either from the original closure or DRV or whatever) that the original is to be deleted per policy, is there any reason that you see that the copy should be retained in that situation?
6. Is the main thrust of your concern about the talk page. And would retaining the original talk page as a protected archive, while deleting the associated main page (and any and all copies of the main page or talk page), address with your concerns? - jc37 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these questions seem obvious to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance that you're trying to convey. So I would appreciate your responses/thoughts. - jc37 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I think that User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair is mildly disparaging of Rlevse. I feel that in view of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, to conclude that it's an "attack page" is a bit too strong. It has other purposes than just to disparage anyone. Yes, on the face of it it's humour but there's a serious undercurrent.
(2) I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said. I think where we're disconnecting is, I suspect your position is that this is one of the cases where policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus. It doesn't; there are times when policy trumps a strict reading of the consensus, but other times when consensus trumps a strict reading of policy. I'm afraid that I think this is one of the latter. The background to this is quite complicated and nuanced and it wasn't envisaged when the policies were written.
(3) I think I've answered this under the previous point.
(4) I'm talking about the actual page that's the subject of this DRV (which is the version from Giano's userspace). I feel if it's to be retained then it's to be retained--the whole thing, edit history and all.
(5) Of course, you're right to say it's nonsensical to delete the source page but keep the copy. If this DRV concludes that you're to be overturned, then this DRV has effectively decided that the second MfD has overwritten the first.
(6) I haven't considered the question of whether to protect the original page, and that's not within DRV's purview. However, I will go so far as to say, I think that it's unfortunate that the same closer dealt with both MfDs, and in the circumstances you should probably take it that if the consensus at this DRV is to overturn you, then it means you're through performing any further admininstrative actions on that page. If you feel strongly that it ought to be protected, then I suggest you should persuade another admin to do it.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For #1 - Thanks for answering. Though there are a lot of "hints" at things that I'm not sure of what you are wanting to convey. What do you consider the "serious undercurrent" to that page, for example?

" I have not spoken about what the consensus was in those MfD discussions. It's not been necessary for me to do so; I have nothing to add to what other participants at this DRV have already said." - Really? Other than maybe User:Eluchil404, I don't see where anyone actually assessed the consensus, other than blankly asserting that the closure was contrary to consensus. I do see several suggesting overturning based upon concerns about on-wiki drama (and the assertion that this should be WP:IAR kept due to transparency concerns). But actual explanation concerning assessment of the closure would appear to be decidedly lacking.

"The background to this is quite complicated and nuanced and it wasn't envisaged when the policies were written" - Hence why you feel WP:IAR should be invoked in this case.

For #3, you just answered the question by saying that you don't want to answer the question...

For #4 it occurs to me that you can't see the edit history to note that the only edits are Giano making the copy. (Except for this interesting edit by demiurge100, which just attempts to change giacomo's intro to the page.) While the actual edit history for what is copied to User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair resides at User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair.

As for #5 - nice try at placing the cart before the horse. (Among other things.) What's more likely is that another DRV would follow this one. (If anything.)

And for #6 you didn't answer the question.

Well, so much for my good faithed attempt to discern your perspective on the closure.

And since for much of this thread you claim that you were merely talking about the sole copy nommed here, while I was talking about all the pages (because I, in good faith, would actually like a discussion about the whole of this, rather than what I'm seeing in this DRV of cherry picking, only nomming a copy of a deleted page, and seemingly creating confusion, and trying to use that confusion to get a result that's favourable to IWANTIT and other blank assertions), this whole thread has us apparently talking past each other, even though I, in good faith, was trying to make a real attempt to discern your POV. So anyway, I guess that there's little point to continue to ask, if you're not interested in answering. Thanks anyway. - jc37 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that you intended to lay a trap for me, but a trap exists. I won't repeat the background and history to the Rlevse affair here because if I do, then some genius will G10 the DRV. Can I take it that where you haven't answered what I've said, you agree with it?—S Marshall T/C 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn no consensus to delete at MfD. no policy-based reason to delete. -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sad overturn I'd have !voted to delete had I known of it, but I don't think it meets speedy guidelines and the !vote was clearly in support of keeping. Bah. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Issues of policy raised by the closing administrator were already considered in the discussion and the consensus at AfD was for retention. There is no evidence that G8 speedy deletion is justified here. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Essentially per Scott Mac's remarks. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The page was a attack page, even if it was slapped with a humor template. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oveturn - As I understand it, Giacomo's page (the one we're discussing now at DRV) was deleted under speedy deletion WP:CSD#G4 - Copy of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The parent page, Demiurge1000's page, was deleted under WP:CSD#G10 speedy deletion: Pages that disparage their subject and serve no other purpose. Since CSD#G4 excludes content which was deleted via speedy deletion, Giacomo's page cannot be deleted under CSD#G4. That's a shame because I thought my delete argument at the Giacomo's page MfD -- "It may not be negative or an attack, but it is non-article space contentious material about living persons (Giano and/or Rlevse) that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. It should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate per WP:BLPTALK." carried the day. In any event, Demiurge1000's page was improperly deleted under CSD#G10, so on restoring Demiurge1000's page (which, it apparently now is live User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and protected with an untrue {{mfd}} template on it[18]), Giacomo's page would be restored. Both pages could have been deleted with proper closes. Thanks for your efforts, Jc37. Next time, stick to policy rather than emotions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! an actual assessment : )

Just to clarify something quick - no emotions involved here. If I were allowed to assess a close based upon personal whim, I would say that I really could care less if this is kept or deleted. As I said somewhere else, I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

But anyway back to the real world, and closing by consensus and policy and such...

I don't think I disagree with you about the application of BLPTALK. It's a fair argument. But despite the picture that some are trying to paint, I was actually attempting to include as much of what was consensus in/of the discussions as was possible. And throughout, many of the comments conveyed the idea that this was satire/parody/homage/whatever to Giacomo's creation of User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair, and "making fun of" him. (And to a lesser extent, Rlevse).

And there was enough there (including your comments there) I felt, to endorse a G10 based upon disparagement. (Also, "speedy" in this case is somewhat of a misnomer. The reason I was even at MfD closing, was due to MfD being backlogged - saw Smokey Joe's comment on my watchlist, and went to help out.)

As for your G4 thought, I dunno about that. According to my close, the second page was deleted as a duplicate (not a recreation), and that the criteria that applied to a applied equally to b. This discussion about G4 came up here at the DRV.

If you want to be technical, the talk pages (the original and the copy) were both deleted as G8. (see the logs)

So I suppose if we really want to stay focused only on the talk page nommed in this DRV (which is the copy), very few of the "votes" here (for or against) comment on this being a G8 deletion. (Including yours - though please feel free to clarify.)

As for the restorations, as noted on my talk page, I restored them due to a good faithed request that they be visible during the arbcom elections. I didn't edit them at all, but I think you're right about the MfD template. I'll go ahead and remove it.

Thanks for your comments : ) - jc37 02:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The page was not an attack page, certainly not to the extent that it was speediable in the face of an MfD that didn't conclude it was an attack page. Although I think it borders on nonsense, it does not disparage so much as raise critical commentary relvent to the project. This critical comment, although obscure and perhaps only understandable if you explore the undercurrents, also precludes G10 from applying. The fact that Rlevse remains an anonymous pseudonym reduces the level of concern over any "attack", even if substantiated. The fact that Rlevse was a sudden departure bureacrat arbiter means that presumption should fall on the side of not deleting, for the sake of openness. To the extent that there are some less-than-ideal statements, they can be modified by editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I seem ungrateful for jc37 in clearing the backlog. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries whatsoever. Please don't think twice about it.

I think that addressing the question of whether User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair was an attack page is worthy of DRV to determine. In particular the idea of whether disparagement by humour qualifies as disparagement. And whether such disparagement should be considered "mild". And whether "mild disparagement" should be considered G10. And further, the assessmet of the the question concerning BLPTALK and whether it applies.

I welcome the discussion.

The problem of course is that while all the pages were considered together, due to MfD having them listed as on two separate pages, but I closed them "together", this DRV only nommed one page, and a copy of a talk page at that. Hence much confusion.

Which page were you referring to above, so that I might directly respond? - jc37 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that disparagement by humour does qualify as disparagement. It can even be worse.

Mild disparagement would have to be weighed against other purposes of the page.

For this page, I don't think it is even mildly disparaging for the person, because it is not seriously disparaging of the person. To the extent that a page disparages actions or events, without getting personal, I think it acceptable.

I would prefer to only comment on the content, with the copy being a red herring that some of us have chased in parallel. G4/G8 technical questions are not important, just whether such content is acceptable or not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Death to poisonous crap. Those who produce it must be strongly encouraged to do it elsewhere if at all. --TS 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poisonous? Maybe. Is there further reading somewhere about wiki-poisonous effects of such stuff, or evidence of past poisonings by the users involved? These are certainly reasons for deletion accepted at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment directed to jc37, but posted here because it's mildly relevant and for the sake of trying to keep things (mostly) in one place. jc37, in your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair you made two assertions. You then also copied those assertions to your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, and also you subsequently posted links to both those pages at several noticeboards.

The first statement I have in mind is "the author makes it clear below that that is the intent" (the intent being "to disparage" "their subject or some other entity" and the author being myself). I did not make any comment in the MfD that can be interpreted to mean that my intent when creating the page was to disparage an individual or entity. I therefore request that you withdraw this statement. As far as I can see, it is false and is presumably the result of a misunderstanding.

(I also do not agree that the original page is intended to disparage an individual. As its author, I am the only person who can comment authoritatively on the intention. The page comments - through humour - on a viewpoint or set of viewpoints. Not on an individual. It is totally in the spirit of commenting on content, not on the contributor.)

The second statement I have in mind is "The suggested intent to engage in substantial recreations". While it is indeed correct that Giano, unwisely in my view, threatened to repeatedly recreate a version of the page, I myself did not participate in such recreations nor did I indicate that I would do so. Your statement, in the context of closing an MfD in which you also make allegations about the intentions of the page author, might very easily be misunderstood to mean that I had suggested an intention on my part to recreate the page if deleted. I would therefore like you to clarify this.

(To avoid confusion; I have no objections, then or now, to the page being salted if it was, or is, deleted.)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

OneSavings – Restored by deleting admin – -- PhantomSteve/talk\|contribs\ 06:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
OneSavings (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I believe that this article should not have been deleted. It was originally deleted for being an advertisement or promotion, but I have no connexion with the company concerned. When I raised the issue with the editor who deleted the page, he said that he did not believe that it would merit inclusion until the deal was completed, and that I should take the case to this page. As the deal has recently been approved, and the new entity, although inheriting the business of the Kent Reliance Building Society, is a separate company, which has said that it hopes to incorporate other societies in the future, and the deal, which has been covered by major British newspapers, is about to be finalised, I believe that the article should not have been deleted. Buybooks Marius (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment from deleting admin As the deal has not been finalised, I do not feel that the company at the moment meets the criteria for inclusion, other than as a mention on the Kent Reliance Building Society (KRBS). Once KRBS has been changed to OneSavings, then that article could be renamed and more information added about OneSavings. -- PhantomSteve/talk\|contribs\ 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There's no doubt merit in that view, but that's not the reason given for deletion nor is it a reason for speedy deletion. I'm not pretending to be pure or anything - I almost always find myself expanding the boundaries of G11 during a hard session of CSD deletions. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore. I don't see the G11 in this. The article is just a bland narrative of facts. There appears to be potential here: a Financial Times article[19] and the Telegraph.[20]. It might be more appropriate to merge the content into Kent Reliance Building Society but that's something that requires discussion as it involves some complexities. The long and the short of it is - unless I'm missing some implicitly promotional material - that I don't think G11 or any other speedy deletion criteria applied (eg A7) so deletion should go through a discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment from deleting admin after restoration Having had a break from Wikipedia for a few hours, I decided to look again at the article. Buybooks Marius and Mkativerata are both correct - this should not have been speedily deleted. I feel that at the moment, it might be more appropriate to merge it with KRBS, but that is indeed a whole different discussion, which I will leave for others! I have restored the article, and offer my apologies to Buybooks Marius. As Mkativerata implies above, I had dealt with a lot of CSD deletions to clear the backlog, and made a mistake on this one! -- PhantomSteve/talk\|contribs\ 06:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

OneSavings – Restored by deleting admin – -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe that this article should not have been deleted. It was originally deleted for being an advertisement or promotion, but I have no connexion with the company concerned. When I raised the issue with the editor who deleted the page, he said that he did not believe that it would merit inclusion until the deal was completed, and that I should take the case to this page. As the deal has recently been approved, and the new entity, although inheriting the business of the Kent Reliance Building Society, is a separate company, which has said that it hopes to incorporate other societies in the future, and the deal, which has been covered by major British newspapers, is about to be finalised, I believe that the article should not have been deleted. Buybooks Marius (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting admin As the deal has not been finalised, I do not feel that the company at the moment meets the criteria for inclusion, other than as a mention on the Kent Reliance Building Society (KRBS). Once KRBS has been changed to OneSavings, then that article could be renamed and more information added about OneSavings. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt merit in that view, but that's not the reason given for deletion nor is it a reason for speedy deletion. I'm not pretending to be pure or anything - I almost always find myself expanding the boundaries of G11 during a hard session of CSD deletions. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. I don't see the G11 in this. The article is just a bland narrative of facts. There appears to be potential here: a Financial Times article[19] and the Telegraph.[20]. It might be more appropriate to merge the content into Kent Reliance Building Society but that's something that requires discussion as it involves some complexities. The long and the short of it is - unless I'm missing some implicitly promotional material - that I don't think G11 or any other speedy deletion criteria applied (eg A7) so deletion should go through a discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin after restoration Having had a break from Wikipedia for a few hours, I decided to look again at the article. Buybooks Marius and Mkativerata are both correct - this should not have been speedily deleted. I feel that at the moment, it might be more appropriate to merge it with KRBS, but that is indeed a whole different discussion, which I will leave for others! I have restored the article, and offer my apologies to Buybooks Marius. As Mkativerata implies above, I had dealt with a lot of CSD deletions to clear the backlog, and made a mistake on this one! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

ItsLassieTime deletions – Deletion Endorsed. Policy is clear, the articles can be recreated by anyone but anyone seeking to restore the deleted content should be aware they are taking personal responsibility for content provided by a serial copyviolator and that they need to be extremely clear that the content they are taking respondibility for is clean – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Requesting review of one's own deletions here as there seem to be some (belligerent) opposition to them, as one went as far to recreate himself. On 17 November 2010, I deleted about 120 files and 39 articles that were created by Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs), who was blocked as a sock puppet of banned user ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs). Persuant to the banning policy and the speedy deletion policy, I deleted the following files and articles:

deleted files

File:Experience 1921 Paramount.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Little Black Sambo 1st ed 2nd prtg 1899.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Pajama Game Doris Day.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Peter Rabbit Painting Book cover.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Peter Rabbit Painting Book Title Page.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:The Fairy Caravan first ed..jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Peter Rabbit Private Edition 1901.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Peter Rabbit's Almanac for 1929.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Ralph and Betsy Cannon.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tom Kitten and His Mother.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Sister Anne Front Cover by Beatrix Potter.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Wag by Wall Potter 1944.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mr McGregor Peter Rabbit.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Flopsy Bunnies Sack of Bunnies.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Rabbit in Peter Rabbit.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Flopsy Mopsy and Cotton-tail in Peter Rabbit.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Faithful Dove.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse and the beetle.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mr. Jackson in Mrs Tittlemouse.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tiggy Winkle and Lucie.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Lucie in Tiggy Winkle.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tiggy Winkle by Ashton.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tiggy Winkle clear starcher.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Frog He Would a Wooing Go Caldecott.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Ginger and Pickles b&w Vignette.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Lucinda and Jane.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Primrose Fairy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Bold Bad Spider.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mabel Lucie Atwell Photograph.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Ding dong bell 1920.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Jeremy Fisher 4.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Frog he would a-wooing go cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Jeremy Fisher 6.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Jeremy Fisher Deluxe Binding 1906.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Frog he would a fishing go.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Kep releases Jemima.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Benjamin and Peter in the garden 1904.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs. Rabbit 1904.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Brock and Tod.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Duches at her Mirror.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Margaret Tarrant.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Water Babies 1908 Tarrant.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Lilian Govey book cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Honor Appleton Illustration.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Pie and the Patty Pan 3.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Pie and Patty Pan 1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Pie and Patty Pan 2.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Chippy Hackee and the Bear.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Chippy Hackee and his wife.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:The Tale of Timmy Tiptoes Title Page.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs. Hackee and Goody Tiptoes.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Timmy Tiptoes and Goody in the Nest.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Jemima and the hut.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Moppet catches the mouse.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Creepy Crawly People.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Miss Moppet Panorma Portion.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Duchess and the Pie.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Chippy Camps Out.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Duchess Reads The Inivitation.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Crane in the Rain.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Lucinda and Jane behold the destruction.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Hunca Munca and her babies.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Lucinda and Jane at the dollhouse.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mice and the Ham.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Deluxe binding.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:The Staircase in Two Bad Mice.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:The Staircase in The Tale of Two Bad Mice.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Smashing the plaster food.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Frontispiece Moppet and Mouse.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Miss Moppet and the Duster.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Moppet Tying the Mouse in the Duster.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse manuscript.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs. Tittelmouse centipede.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Miss Moppet cover book format ca 1918.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse Winter Clothes.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse investigates.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:McGregor Garden and Flopsy Bunnies.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:The Flopsy Bunnies Under a Lettuce.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs. Tittlemouse Rescues the Bunnies.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Peter Rabbit Race Game.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse deluxe binding.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Miss Moppet Interior Title Page.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Miss Moppet is stunned.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Potter Moppet Catches Mouse.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Potter Moppet Ties Mouse.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Potter Moppet and the Duster.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Potter Mouse Dances a Jig.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Potter Mouse is Gone.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Miss Moppet Interior title and 1st illus..jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tom Kitten 06.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tom Kitten 04.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tom Kitten 03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tom Kitten 01.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tom Kitten 05.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tom Kitten 02.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tom Kitten 07.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse Party.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse Bee.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs. Tittlemouse Friends.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse Butterfly.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Mrs Tittlemouse TP Vignette.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:JF Boat.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:JF Party.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:JF Trout.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Caldecott Froggie 1.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Caldecott Froggie 2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:JF Isaac.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:JF Stickleback.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:JF Jack Stickleback.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:JF Snail.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:JF Float.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Shortstory02 Jeremy Fisher jd.ogg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Peter Rabbit Race Game Board.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:MTW Lucie Enters the Cottage.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:MTW Lucie and Tabby Kitten.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:MTW Tiggy Winkle and Iron.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:MTW Mrs. Tiggy Winkle and Lucie.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:MTW Tiggy Winkle and Rack.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:MTW Tiggy Winkle and Basket.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

articles deleted

Eastern Harvest Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Florida Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peter Rabbit's Painting Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sly Old Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tom Kitten's Painting Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jemima Puddle-Duck's Painting Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peter Rabbit's Almanac for 1929 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oldfield Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Perdido Key Beach Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anastasia Island Beach Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sister Anne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wag-by-Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mrs. Rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cotton-tail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Annie Carter Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Tale of the Faithful Dove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mrs. Tittlemouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Margaret Tarrant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Monro S. Orr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lilian Govey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Millicent Sowerby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
H. Willebeek Le Mair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Honor C. Appleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Robert Monsell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Appalachian Cottontail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Tale of the Flopsy Bunnies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charles McIntosh (mycologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Veal and ham pie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cumberland Sauce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Johnny Crow's Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Game of Peter Rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brian Williams (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mrs. Tittlemouse (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leslie Linder (scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leslie Linder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anne Froelich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roberto Sánchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruth K. MacDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judy Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rey (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also see the following previous discussions pertaining articles created by socks of ItsLassieTime:

Keep in mind, even if the articles are restored, they would still be subject to scrutiny under creator copyright investigations as this user was discovered to have had a long history of plagiarism; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. Moreover, if these are to be restored, I will be proposing an unblock and unban of ItsLassieTime, as the ban and blocks would be virtually worthless. –MuZemike 03:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Banned users are banned for persistent violations of community norms. The community's decision is "this person cannot be trusted to edit on this project". G5 is discretionary - an administrator can of course decide not to delete an article even if it was created by a banned user and the community can overturn a valid G5 here. But we should be very wary about interfering with an administrator's discretion to delete under G5. Especially when the reason for the ban goes to content policy violations (as opposed to, say, incivility). If a G5 is refused or overturned, the administrator who does so must take personal responsibility for ensuring that the article or file is policy compliant. I can see a lot of argument at MuZemike's talk page but what I don't see is anyone willing to put their hand up to vouch for the content they argue should be restored.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Banned means banned, period. T. Canens (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - History of The Sly Old Cat has been undeleted since the recreation was from a cache, in order to satisfy the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA and GFDL. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There's a particularly disturbing side to the notion of banning an editor but then keeping their edits because we deem they come in handy. Deletion was well within the admin's discretion. Further, policy allows for summary deletion of content contributed by known repeat offenders in violation of WP:C, and every contribution made by them could absolutely be subjected to indiscriminate deletion on these grounds alone. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the basis of this "belligerent opposition" MuZemike mentions, please? This is hard to analyse without knowing the specific grounds on which someone is (apparently) complaining.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a topic at User talk:MuZemike from the user who restored The Sly Old Cat. I am not sure this is what MuZemike referred to as "belligerent" though. Siawase (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's everything, then let's snow endorse MuZemike's actions and close the DRV now. There's no credible or even tenable argument that MuZemike's actions were wrong.—S Marshall T/C 20:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This user has proven again and again that they and their contributions are more time than they're worth and a net negative to the project. In addition there is little value in restoring their articles anyway, as they are littered with copyvios, so in most cases it's more work to carefully sift through them than to just recreate them from scratch. Siawase (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good use of admin discretion, entirely supported by policy. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and snow close. I'm not a real fan of the policy used (I hate to see good material get deleted) but A) it is policy and B) the user in question has a history of copyright problems. It's got to go. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question-Does Peter Rabbit's Painting Book which was(or maybe not) a GA suffer from copyvio. Several of the deleted articles also went through DYK...is it possible that they may not have copyvio? Just to note, these deletions have created several red links in {{Beatrix Potter}}.Smallman12q (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles by ItsLassieTime and socks have gone through DYK, GA and FA and still had copyvios in them, so odds are very slim that any of those articles are completely free of copyvio. Most (all?) of the articles that have been checked so far have had extensive copyvios. Siawase (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it O.K. if I (or any other "safe" user) can go ahead and re-create some of those from scratch? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. In fact it would be wonderful! Hobit (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please check the edit history of Peter Rabbit's Painting Book? Was the banned editor the only/main editor? Hobit (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some copyedits and minor changes by others, but judging by the size of the revisions, they are not significant. T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 November 2010

[edit]

24 November 2010

[edit]

November 8th, 2010 Southern California contrail – withdrawn by nominator – TiC (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
November 8th, 2010 Southern California contrail (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The "vote count" showed no consensus. It was closed as delete on the basis that a "vast array" of votes were from IPs who had "presumably" been canvassed. But there were not that many IPs and no evidence of canvassing. The closing admin now says that he discounted a bunch of keep votes because he disagreed with their reasoning. Basically this was an arbitrary decision. TiC (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the closing statement to quote said "note has to be taken of the vast array of IP Keeps, presumably drawn here by off-wiki canvassing, practically none of which make any policy-based reasons to keep the article". It's the latter part which is significant and is consistent with the response on the admins talk page. It's not that the admin disagreed with their reasoning, it's that the community has established policies and guidelines, these have the consensus of the community behind them and are therefore considered as the stronger argument. The deletion guide for administrators goes into determining rough consensus. Including quite a key phrase "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] But there were plenty of lousy arguments on the "delete" side, too. A great many of the delete votes criticized the title and content of the article at the time it was nominated, but this completely changed by the time debate was closed. Some delete votes, which were counted as delete votes, explicitly said that a new article should be created, which flat out misses the point of AfD. Many delete votes cited WP:NOTNEWS without explaining how it applied -- one, Alzarian16, even misquoted sufficient criteria in WP:NOTNEWS as if they were necessary criteria. Hell, some people just attacked the media for screwing this one up and hardly said anything at all about the Wikipedia article! One could just as easily have thrown out all of these delete votes and then decided that there was consensus to keep. TiC (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There may have been lousy arguments on the delete side (the ones which just focus on the title which is of course an easily fixible issue spring to mind), and I would expect the deleting admin has given those less weight. Many of the delete opinions however did cite policy and the keeps failed to address those policy issues, so no there was no way that the delete votes could have all been discounted. Having read the discussion I can't see a problem with the close, DRV is for issues with the process which seems to have been followed correctly. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I didn't misquote NOTNEWS at all. My !vote was based on the WP:EVENT guideline, which definitely applies since this is an event, and doesn't even mention NOTNEWS. The crieria I referred to are indeed sufficient rather than criteria, but my understanding is that if the article doesn't meet any of them then it doesn't meet the guideline. If it could meet the guideline without meeting the specific criteria, it wouldn't be much of a guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – AFDs are not straight straw polls. The closing admin weighed in arguments from both sides, and, at least from my perspective, the arguments for deletion were far stronger than nearly any of the retention arguments brought forward. Generally, commentary from single-purpose IPs or accounts are given less weight than from regular users as the goal of deletion discussions is to get a rough consensus from a cross-section of the community. –MuZemike 22:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse my own close - can we have some way of sending AfD closes straight to DRV when they're not closed by blindly counting votes? It would save me a lot of time. Anyway, as per usual, I discounted a whole bunch of comments here, mostly from IPs & new accounts, but - yes - the odd established account. Anyway, just look down the comments - "It's notable", "Keep until the facts are known", "Debunking is encyclopedic", "Article should be kept", "People will flock to Wikipedia for information", "Notable incident", "This is a notable event", "Why would you delete this?" ... enough said, I think. Yes, there were some fairly weak Delete comments as well, but nowhere near as many. Incidentally, nice to see the phrase "arbitrary decision" re-defined as "a decision I don't agree with". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The vast majority of delete votes, maybe all, were "weak" in the same sense. Most of them referenced the flawed content and bad title, which was fixed before the deletion debate closed. Many of them referenced WP:NOTNEWS without explaining why it applied; they practically seemed to believe that "Wikipedia is not a news site" means "Wikipedia can't have articles about news events." Many comments implied that the inanity and pointlessness of the media event was a reason to delete the article about the media event. Some of them applied weird ad hoc standards -- the nom said "If the defence department suddenly changes its story then there may be grounds for an article." You really have no basis to say that there were "nowhere near as many" weak Delete comments, just as you had no basis to suggest canvassing. These are obvious post hoc rationalizations, which is why I characterized your decision as arbitrary. TiC (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The closing admin (a) examined arguments not just numbers; and (b) gave informative reasoning for the way the discussion was closed. There was no error in (a) or (b). This is the kind of close that should be in the textbook for admins.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- correct reading of consensus by a closing admin who did right in not merely counting snouts. Reyk _YO! 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, standard NOTNEWS case, closer weighted contributions correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - DRV isn't a boo-hoo venue for those that disagree with the AfD. Arguments were weighed, consensus read, no wrongdoing. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Not an arbitrary decision, but one based on correctly weighing the strength of the opposing arguments against each other. This is what administrative discretion exists for. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

November 8th, 2010 Southern California contrail – withdrawn by nominator – TiC (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The "vote count" showed no consensus. It was closed as delete on the basis that a "vast array" of votes were from IPs who had "presumably" been canvassed. But there were not that many IPs and no evidence of canvassing. The closing admin now says that he discounted a bunch of keep votes because he disagreed with their reasoning. Basically this was an arbitrary decision. TiC (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closing statement to quote said "note has to be taken of the vast array of IP Keeps, presumably drawn here by off-wiki canvassing, practically none of which make any policy-based reasons to keep the article". It's the latter part which is significant and is consistent with the response on the admins talk page. It's not that the admin disagreed with their reasoning, it's that the community has established policies and guidelines, these have the consensus of the community behind them and are therefore considered as the stronger argument. The deletion guide for administrators goes into determining rough consensus. Including quite a key phrase "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But there were plenty of lousy arguments on the "delete" side, too. A great many of the delete votes criticized the title and content of the article at the time it was nominated, but this completely changed by the time debate was closed. Some delete votes, which were counted as delete votes, explicitly said that a new article should be created, which flat out misses the point of AfD. Many delete votes cited WP:NOTNEWS without explaining how it applied -- one, Alzarian16, even misquoted sufficient criteria in WP:NOTNEWS as if they were necessary criteria. Hell, some people just attacked the media for screwing this one up and hardly said anything at all about the Wikipedia article! One could just as easily have thrown out all of these delete votes and then decided that there was consensus to keep. TiC (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There may have been lousy arguments on the delete side (the ones which just focus on the title which is of course an easily fixible issue spring to mind), and I would expect the deleting admin has given those less weight. Many of the delete opinions however did cite policy and the keeps failed to address those policy issues, so no there was no way that the delete votes could have all been discounted. Having read the discussion I can't see a problem with the close, DRV is for issues with the process which seems to have been followed correctly. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't misquote NOTNEWS at all. My !vote was based on the WP:EVENT guideline, which definitely applies since this is an event, and doesn't even mention NOTNEWS. The crieria I referred to are indeed sufficient rather than criteria, but my understanding is that if the article doesn't meet any of them then it doesn't meet the guideline. If it could meet the guideline without meeting the specific criteria, it wouldn't be much of a guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – AFDs are not straight straw polls. The closing admin weighed in arguments from both sides, and, at least from my perspective, the arguments for deletion were far stronger than nearly any of the retention arguments brought forward. Generally, commentary from single-purpose IPs or accounts are given less weight than from regular users as the goal of deletion discussions is to get a rough consensus from a cross-section of the community. –MuZemike 22:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own close - can we have some way of sending AfD closes straight to DRV when they're not closed by blindly counting votes? It would save me a lot of time. Anyway, as per usual, I discounted a whole bunch of comments here, mostly from IPs & new accounts, but - yes - the odd established account. Anyway, just look down the comments - "It's notable", "Keep until the facts are known", "Debunking is encyclopedic", "Article should be kept", "People will flock to Wikipedia for information", "Notable incident", "This is a notable event", "Why would you delete this?" ... enough said, I think. Yes, there were some fairly weak Delete comments as well, but nowhere near as many. Incidentally, nice to see the phrase "arbitrary decision" re-defined as "a decision I don't agree with". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of delete votes, maybe all, were "weak" in the same sense. Most of them referenced the flawed content and bad title, which was fixed before the deletion debate closed. Many of them referenced WP:NOTNEWS without explaining why it applied; they practically seemed to believe that "Wikipedia is not a news site" means "Wikipedia can't have articles about news events." Many comments implied that the inanity and pointlessness of the media event was a reason to delete the article about the media event. Some of them applied weird ad hoc standards -- the nom said "If the defence department suddenly changes its story then there may be grounds for an article."
- You really have no basis to say that there were "nowhere near as many" weak Delete comments, just as you had no basis to suggest canvassing. These are obvious post hoc rationalizations, which is why I characterized your decision as arbitrary. TiC (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin (a) examined arguments not just numbers; and (b) gave informative reasoning for the way the discussion was closed. There was no error in (a) or (b). This is the kind of close that should be in the textbook for admins.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- correct reading of consensus by a closing admin who did right in not merely counting snouts. Reyk _YO! 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, standard NOTNEWS case, closer weighted contributions correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV isn't a boo-hoo venue for those that disagree with the AfD. Arguments were weighed, consensus read, no wrongdoing. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not an arbitrary decision, but one based on correctly weighing the strength of the opposing arguments against each other. This is what administrative discretion exists for. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 November 2010

[edit]

22 November 2010

[edit]

Lisa Haley – We don't restore copyvios but there is clearly no bar on creating a new artice in your own words from scratch. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lisa Haley (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) > Dear Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales: On July 2, 2008, I posted a page on the subject of GRAMMY Nominated musician Lisa Haley. I posted her All Music Guide review, written by Larry Belanger, who is a friend of Lisa's and a staunch Cajun/Zydeco music supporter. Before posting, I studied as many of the 'Wikipedia rules' as I could about how to submit. One guideline states "say it in your own words" but others say "must be from a published source." Because Larry also included info about Lisa's past band members (10-year-old information,) I updated the info before submitting, to reflect the current band members. The next day, I was mortified to receive a note on my post from someone named Nancy. Nancy accused me of committing "flagrant copyright violation," by updating the band members' names! I of course was shocked to be accused of anything illegal. She would not reply to any of my letters of apology, as if I were some kind of willful criminal. Since then, I have spoken with several more Wiki-knowledgeable friends, who explained that I should have simply posted the AllMusic article, waited for it to be approved, then gone back in and updated the band members names. I have tried five times to re-submit Lisa's All Music article. Each time I am blocked. All Lisa's contemporaries have Wikipedia pages. Most of them are written by their wives!! And not a published article at all. Meanwhile we languish as villains for simply wanting our info to be accurate. This is all a simple misunderstanding of the "say it in your own words" guideline. I have apologized to Nancy five times. I get no answer. Can you please help me? I'd like to: simply start over. Post the AllMusic Guide article by Larry Belanger, wait for it to be approved, then go in and update the band members' names. Kindest Regards, Andy Anders AndyAnders (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Looking at your talk page here it looks to me that Nancy has tried to explain the problem to you in a reasonable amount of detail. Updating the band members name is not the issue, you can't post the AllMusic Guide article since it is under someone elses copyright. When you post material to wikipedia, immediately below the edit box is a message which describes some basic terms regarding licensing of the work, that is the work is released under two different "free" licenses. This generally means it has to be your own work, or the person who holds the copyright has released it under a compatible license. Also remember that wikipedia is and encyclopedia and written from a neutral point of view. You state that it's a review by a friend of the subject. This immediately suggests two problems to me. (1) Being an encyclopedia we don't publish reviews (2) Being a friend suggests there could be some problems with the reliability and neutrality of the review. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've also checked your contributions and it appears you have posted two messages on Nancy's talk page and both have been responded to, the latest being the response I linked to above. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, copyvio is a copyvio is a copyvio. We can't have copyright violations on the site. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, allow recreation The version that was deleted was a genuine copyvio issue. It does appear that a complying article can be written on the subject and that some assistance offered to this new editor would be helpful in creating an article without any copyright problems. It may be best to recreate the article in userspace and get some feedback from more experienced editors before considering moving a rewritten article back to mainspace. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lisa Haley – We don't restore copyvios but there is clearly no bar on creating a new artice in your own words from scratch. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

> Dear Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales: On July 2, 2008, I posted a page on the subject of GRAMMY Nominated musician Lisa Haley.

I posted her All Music Guide review, written by Larry Belanger, who is a friend of Lisa's and a staunch Cajun/Zydeco music supporter. Before posting, I studied as many of the 'Wikipedia rules' as I could about how to submit.

One guideline states "say it in your own words" but others say "must be from a published source."

Because Larry also included info about Lisa's past band members (10-year-old information,) I updated the info before submitting, to reflect the current band members.

The next day, I was mortified to receive a note on my post from someone named Nancy.

Nancy accused me of committing "flagrant copyright violation," by updating the band members' names! I of course was shocked to be accused of anything illegal.

She would not reply to any of my letters of apology, as if I were some kind of willful criminal.

Since then, I have spoken with several more Wiki-knowledgeable friends, who explained that I should have simply posted the AllMusic article, waited for it to be approved, then gone back in and updated the band members names.

I have tried five times to re-submit Lisa's All Music article. Each time I am blocked.

All Lisa's contemporaries have Wikipedia pages. Most of them are written by their wives!! And not a published article at all.

Meanwhile we languish as villains for simply wanting our info to be accurate.

This is all a simple misunderstanding of the "say it in your own words" guideline. I have apologized to Nancy five times. I get no answer.

Can you please help me?

I'd like to: simply start over. Post the AllMusic Guide article by Larry Belanger, wait for it to be approved, then go in and update the band members' names.

Kindest Regards, Andy Anders AndyAnders (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your talk page here it looks to me that Nancy has tried to explain the problem to you in a reasonable amount of detail. Updating the band members name is not the issue, you can't post the AllMusic Guide article since it is under someone elses copyright. When you post material to wikipedia, immediately below the edit box is a message which describes some basic terms regarding licensing of the work, that is the work is released under two different "free" licenses. This generally means it has to be your own work, or the person who holds the copyright has released it under a compatible license. Also remember that wikipedia is and encyclopedia and written from a neutral point of view. You state that it's a review by a friend of the subject. This immediately suggests two problems to me. (1) Being an encyclopedia we don't publish reviews (2) Being a friend suggests there could be some problems with the reliability and neutrality of the review. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also checked your contributions and it appears you have posted two messages on Nancy's talk page and both have been responded to, the latest being the response I linked to above. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, copyvio is a copyvio is a copyvio. We can't have copyright violations on the site. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, allow recreation The version that was deleted was a genuine copyvio issue. It does appear that a complying article can be written on the subject and that some assistance offered to this new editor would be helpful in creating an article without any copyright problems. It may be best to recreate the article in userspace and get some feedback from more experienced editors before considering moving a rewritten article back to mainspace. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 November 2010

[edit]

Down the Block There's a Riot – Closure endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Down the Block There's a Riot (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) While the future event is certain to take place, individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event meets Wikipedia:Notability per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This topic has not been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources and there is nothing in the AfD discussion to indicate otherwise, so I don't believe that the AfD had a consensus that the topic meets General notability guidelines. I ask the closing admin to review the close and the response included "Do you dispute that this episode will air soon, or that it will have this title, or what? Anyway, the AfD was unanimous, whit one redirect and the others keep (one duplicate, but that doesn't change the consensus)."[21] I believe that an appropriate course of action is to overturn the AfD close and redirect to List of Desperate Housewives episodes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closer's comment. My AfD close was "Keep. Merge, if needed, can be discussed at the article talk page." The editor who started this DRV wants a redirect, but has reverted another editor who did just that. I don't really know what game is being played here, or what the real purpose of this DRV is, but it seems to me to be a waste of time. Entertainment sites listed at Google News are already discussing the upcoming episode[22], so no good reason to exist the article remains. Merge and redirect can be discussed at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I posted on your talk page, I reverted the redirect by another user because it went against the AfD consensus close made. I posted this request at DRV because it is needed, it is the correct course of action, and you noted on your talk page "if you disagree, you are free to take it to WP:DRV of course." "Merge" mentioned in the close was not discussed in that AfD and no one posted the website megados.com in the AfD, so it does not justify the close or justify maintaining the aricle at DRV. The AfD did not have a consensus that topic has not been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources and the close should be overturned based on both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] AFD result end in either the article being kept (in one way or other) or deleted. They aren't set in stone never ever let anything else happen to this article. Normal editing and editing decision then apply, this would include merges or "merges" where no content is actually moved. The redirect being applied was in no way incompatible with the AFD keep outcome. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- There was nothing in that afd that supported a delete close, and other options like a merge or a redirect can be handled at the talk page. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] How peculiar. I don't think there's anything to review. "Redirect" and "merge" are simply different flavours of "keep", and the nominator's recourse is to gain consensus for the redirect on the article's talk page. There's certainly no problem with the close.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Concur with the above. There are plenty of AfD closes which amount to "The result was Keep. Editors are welcome to merge if there's a consensus to do so." Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close this DRV; the AFD could not have been closed as delete, and the proper venue to discuss amending keep to merge, redirect, or what-not is the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, insufficient support – or even discussion – of merging or redirecting. Please discuss at Talk:Down the Block There's a Riot or the appropriate episode list. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment - A Redirect at AfD is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which lists a number of AfD outcomes beyond keep and delete. Such redirect closes are allowed and used at AfD. User:Ctjf83 argued in the Down the Block There's a Riot AfD that the article be redirected, noting "clearly just a title and date in no way meets WP:GNG." The keep arguments in that AfD, while having a majority in headcount, were disconnected and weak. Keep because other articles exist, because the title is correct, and because eventually the article can be recreated are not ground in WP:N or other policy. Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with the verifiability core content policy (see Deletion guidelines for administrators) and none of the keep positions in that AfD provide policy arguments to overcome the AfD redirect argument "clearly just a title and date in no way meets WP:GNG." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] All that is true, but Redirection and Merging remain editorial actions that can be taken without the use of administrative tools. A "Keep" close at AfD does not prevent a local (talk page) consensus from forming to merge or redirect an article. In particular it is common practice for admins to close AfD's where opinions are divided between Keep and Merge or Redirect as Keep with a note that the final disposition of the content is subject to consensus at a talk page discussion. The primary question at any AfD, and the only one usually reviewed at DRV, is whether or not an admin should press the deletion button. If the answer to that is no, it is considered a flavour of "Keep" no matter what is actually done to the content or how the AfD closure described their disposition of the AfD. Because any user can redirect an article or revert an inappropriate redirect, DRV does not consider whether pages should be redirect or not. This page specifically scrutinizes the use of the delete button and very little else. Ordinary dispute resolution is the proper venue for working through content disputes between editors up to and including whether or not to redirect a page. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree that AfDs with mixed keeps, merges, and redirects are often closed correctly as "Keep, discuss at Talk page." However, if a consensus for a more precise action exists, the close should reflect that; if the close ignores an apparent consensus, it should be reviewed and overturned at DRV. See WT:Deletion review/Archive 15#Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge (December 2009). Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I wrote in my comment above, there was insufficient discussion of redirecting the article. Since the primary purpose of AfD is to determine whether an article should be deleted, it may not reach consensus on content issues, including merging or redirecting. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Down the Block There's a Riot – Closure endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

While the future event is certain to take place, individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event meets Wikipedia:Notability per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This topic has not been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources and there is nothing in the AfD discussion to indicate otherwise, so I don't believe that the AfD had a consensus that the topic meets General notability guidelines. I ask the closing admin to review the close and the response included "Do you dispute that this episode will air soon, or that it will have this title, or what? Anyway, the AfD was unanimous, whit one redirect and the others keep (one duplicate, but that doesn't change the consensus)."[21] I believe that an appropriate course of action is to overturn the AfD close and redirect to List of Desperate Housewives episodes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment. My AfD close was "Keep. Merge, if needed, can be discussed at the article talk page." The editor who started this DRV wants a redirect, but has reverted another editor who did just that. I don't really know what game is being played here, or what the real purpose of this DRV is, but it seems to me to be a waste of time. Entertainment sites listed at Google News are already discussing the upcoming episode[22], so no good reason to exist the article remains. Merge and redirect can be discussed at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on your talk page, I reverted the redirect by another user because it went against the AfD consensus close made. I posted this request at DRV because it is needed, it is the correct course of action, and you noted on your talk page "if you disagree, you are free to take it to WP:DRV of course." "Merge" mentioned in the close was not discussed in that AfD and no one posted the website megados.com in the AfD, so it does not justify the close or justify maintaining the aricle at DRV. The AfD did not have a consensus that topic has not been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources and the close should be overturned based on both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD result end in either the article being kept (in one way or other) or deleted. They aren't set in stone never ever let anything else happen to this article. Normal editing and editing decision then apply, this would include merges or "merges" where no content is actually moved. The redirect being applied was in no way incompatible with the AFD keep outcome. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- There was nothing in that afd that supported a delete close, and other options like a merge or a redirect can be handled at the talk page. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How peculiar. I don't think there's anything to review. "Redirect" and "merge" are simply different flavours of "keep", and the nominator's recourse is to gain consensus for the redirect on the article's talk page. There's certainly no problem with the close.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above. There are plenty of AfD closes which amount to "The result was Keep. Editors are welcome to merge if there's a consensus to do so." Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this DRV; the AFD could not have been closed as delete, and the proper venue to discuss amending keep to merge, redirect, or what-not is the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, insufficient support – or even discussion – of merging or redirecting. Please discuss at Talk:Down the Block There's a Riot or the appropriate episode list. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A Redirect at AfD is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which lists a number of AfD outcomes beyond keep and delete. Such redirect closes are allowed and used at AfD. User:Ctjf83 argued in the Down the Block There's a Riot AfD that the article be redirected, noting "clearly just a title and date in no way meets WP:GNG." The keep arguments in that AfD, while having a majority in headcount, were disconnected and weak. Keep because other articles exist, because the title is correct, and because eventually the article can be recreated are not ground in WP:N or other policy. Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with the verifiability core content policy (see Deletion guidelines for administrators) and none of the keep positions in that AfD provide policy arguments to overcome the AfD redirect argument "clearly just a title and date in no way meets WP:GNG." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that is true, but Redirection and Merging remain editorial actions that can be taken without the use of administrative tools. A "Keep" close at AfD does not prevent a local (talk page) consensus from forming to merge or redirect an article. In particular it is common practice for admins to close AfD's where opinions are divided between Keep and Merge or Redirect as Keep with a note that the final disposition of the content is subject to consensus at a talk page discussion. The primary question at any AfD, and the only one usually reviewed at DRV, is whether or not an admin should press the deletion button. If the answer to that is no, it is considered a flavour of "Keep" no matter what is actually done to the content or how the AfD closure described their disposition of the AfD. Because any user can redirect an article or revert an inappropriate redirect, DRV does not consider whether pages should be redirect or not. This page specifically scrutinizes the use of the delete button and very little else. Ordinary dispute resolution is the proper venue for working through content disputes between editors up to and including whether or not to redirect a page. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that AfDs with mixed keeps, merges, and redirects are often closed correctly as "Keep, discuss at Talk page." However, if a consensus for a more precise action exists, the close should reflect that; if the close ignores an apparent consensus, it should be reviewed and overturned at DRV. See WT:Deletion review/Archive 15#Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge (December 2009). Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in my comment above, there was insufficient discussion of redirecting the article. Since the primary purpose of AfD is to determine whether an article should be deleted, it may not reach consensus on content issues, including merging or redirecting. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ionuţ Caragea – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ionuţ Caragea (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) good sources, international publications, criticism Danielconstantin (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hello my dear friends. How are you? I hope, very well. With all my respect, I propose you to recover the page of the Canadian writer Ionuţ Caragea (Romanian by origin and living in Quebec). The admin who deleted the page don't talk with me, I have now answer from him[23]. Now Ionuţ Caragea's article have good sources, criticism, important references in big and international publications and I think he deserve to be in Wikipedia. I selected for you the best sources, the best references and I demand you, with all my sympathy, to recreate this page. Thank you very much and I wish you all my best from Canada. Ionuţ Caragea (Snowdon King pen-name) 17 books, professional writer, member in Union of Writers of Romania[24] member of DAM Montréal, Montreal Diversity Artist, organism with the support of Canadian Heritage's, Canadian Culture[25] 3 times Winner in the national contest Helion, science-fiction 2009 - Helion Prize, Science Fiction Arsfan Romania 2008 - Helion Prize, Science Fiction Internet Science Fiction Database 2007 - Helion Prize, Science Fiction, Romanian SF Online . Appreciations in Romanian and English translations Adrian Botez, Romania, Romanian Society of Science Fiction and Fantasy, official website[26] (in Romanian) Jean-Paul_Gavard-Perret - „PASSAGE DES SEUILS”, Incertain Regard, France (in French) Angela Nache-Mamier - „La poésie sur l’échiquier quotidien de l’émotion”, La Poesie Que J'aime, Quebec, Canada (in French) Valeria Manta Tăicuţu, review of Delirium Tremens in Agero, Allemande, translation in Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada [27] (in English) Marius Chelaru, review of The Man in the Black Box, in Convorbiri literare, Romania, translation in Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada [28] (in English) Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada, Petrache Plopeanu, review of The Black Priest, in Spaţii culturale, Romania, translation in DAM [29] (in English) Nicolae N. Negulescu, Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada, review of Ionuţ Caragea’s first three books, in Luceafărul, Romania, translation in DAM[30] (in English) Cezarina Adamescu, Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada, review of The Amnesic Guru, in Observatorul, Toronto, Canada, translation in DAM [31] (in English) Pachia-TatomirescuLuceafărul, Romania[32] (in Romanian) Nicolae N. Negulescu, Luceafărul, Romania[33] (in Romanian) Cezarina Adamescu, Luceafărul, Romania [34] (in Romanian) Cezarina Adamescu, Observatorul, Toronto, Canada, [35] (in Romanian) Petrache Plopeanu, Spaţii culturale, Romania, [36] (in Romanian) Cezarina Adamescu, Agero, Germany, Munich, [37] (in Romanian) Valeria Manta Tăicuţu, Agero, Germany, Munich, [38] (in Romanian) Marius Chelaru, Agero, Germany, Munich[39] Pachia-TatomirescuAgero, Germany, Munich[40] (in Romanian) Valeriu Cuşner, Conections, USA, New York[41] (in Romanian) more results: Google.com This article was deleted by AFD almost 18 months ago and speedied under WP:CSD#G4 almost 9 months ago. Will the nominator please clarify why he is making this request so much later than the disputed decisions? Stifle (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because is the first time for me when I try to create this page. The page was deleted few moths ago, but is not my contribution. I’m a big fan of this author and I want to create this page, even my language is bad. I need your help, and this is the reason to be here. The big difference between last action and now is very significant. The author is young and is a rising star. In the last year this author published more than 9 books, and he was appreciated by numerous specialists and critics. For me is very important to respect the rules and politics and, for this reason, I’m here with this request. Thank you Sir.--Danielconstantin (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Our usual procedure in cases like this is to suggest a userspace draft be created. I would encourage taking this approach. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This means I can create a new article (in my userpage) with a slash at the end of the name of the article, and after verification, can be approved by you, Sir?--Danielconstantin (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] My job is done[42]. Thank you so much for the advise and support.--Danielconstantin (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would you format the references using inline citations? See Wikipedia:Citation templates#Examples for some examples. Doing this will allow the article to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability and will enable editors to see if the subject is notable more easily. Cunard (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No problem sir, the references and the appreciations are blueline[43]. It is ok?--Danielconstantin (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse for three reasons: The original AfD found unanimously (except for the article's creator) that we shouldn't have a page on Caragea. Consensus there was crystal-clear. There's something awfully fishy about the attempts to get this man a page on Wikipedia. The first person to do so was Nesterovici, the second Caragea Florina (hmm...), and now Danielconstantin. As you can see by clicking their names, all three happen to be single-purpose accounts determined to get Caragea an article. Does he really have that many admirers who disinterestedly set up Wikipedia accounts for the sole purpose of ensuring his presence here? Perhaps, but more likely, they're the friends and family of a very minor poet who knows the power of Google and wants to be on Wikipedia in order to increase his Google visibility. Caragea remains as non-notable as he was in 2009 and early 2010. Sure, some obscure exile newspapers give him passing mention, and he claims to have won some prizes the notability of which is not established, and he's a relentless self-promoter (of which this Wikipedia campaign is one manifestation), but as for in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] you must be careful of Biruitorul’s affirmations Hi. Biruitorul. How are you, I hope you are ok. Your story is very beautiful, but is not true. You must understand something. This author is not a minor poet, like you consider. This author was appreciated by specialist and critics. This author is a professional writer; member is Union of Writers in his country. Your opinion is very personal, but you don’t have the authority to make judgments like: minor, obscure etc. Why do you want to put this author in disgrace? We have here, in this page, some specialist who appreciates Ionut Caragea. Specialists with pages on Wikipedia. You want to tell us that you are more qualified then the others to say minor, obscure etc? You must respect the rules of Wikipedia, you must respect the sources. That it! My dear friends, the international publication Observatorul from Toronto have a Honoris Causa Award and The Best editorial and design Award, accorded by National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada. Observatorul is awarded also by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania), Government of Romania. Take a look here [44]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Why Biruitorul is not honest with us? The Society of Science Fiction and Fantasy is a National Institution in Romania [45]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Agero from Germany have Diploma of Excellence accorded by Romanian National Patrimony [46]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Can you tell us, Biruitorul, your reason to disqualify such big publications and institutions and specialist? I’m a big fan in a big Country. Ionuţ Caragea is an appreciated author by specialist and publications and it’s my right and my freedom to make an article. I think Biruitorul try to disgrace this author because he don’t want to recognize the evolution of this author in the last year. Thank you very much, please check and verify the authenticity of my affirmations. Thank you. --Danielconstantin (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Joining the Romanian Writers' Union is not that big a deal: even the head of the chapter to which Caragea belongs (and which has some 300 members) states that the main condition is to sign a form requesting membership (and then no doubt paying dues). About Observatorul: let's be honest, not that much happens in Romanian-Canadian circles; they latch onto any piece of "news" about the diaspora. It's not as though actual Romanian newspapers (Evenimentul Zilei, Cotidianul, Adevărul, Gândul, etc.) have given him any meaningful coverage (and these do like to focus both on the arts and on the diaspora), or for that matter Canadian newspapers. Same with the German paper. About the sci-fi society: it may be a "National Institution" (whatever that is), but a forum post is not a reliable source. Also note that none of those "experts" have articles on en.wiki; it's still possible they're notable, but let's just say ro.wiki's standards aren't what ours are. Once again, I remain deeply suspicious of the fact that three single-purpose accounts have appeared over the past two years attempting to write articles just about Caragea. This doesn't just happen without some sort of coordination. And it reeks of a self-promotion campaign by a man who is, yes, based on the paucity of independent and reliable sources on him, a minor and obscure literary figure, desperately enlisting friends and family in order to give himself publicity on one of the Internet's most-visited websites. We shouldn't fall for the trick, despite the impressive show of outrage engendered by my first comment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] you must be very very careful with the Biruitorul’s affirmations Mr. Biruitorul, why you are not honest with us? Why do you try to invent such stories? You are not a specialist; you don’t know anything about Union of Writers from Romania. To join this Union you must pass the Committee of admission, formed by critics and specialist who determined the notoriety of the candidate. Ionut Caragea passed this commission. Paying dues is not the condition to be member; the only condition is the notoriety. Observatorul is an International magazine from Canada, Diaspora, and is a literary magazine. It is the biggest literary magazine in Canada. Is awarded by Government of Canada and Government of Romania with diploma of excellence. Is the biggest proof of notoriety! The other magazines you mentioned are not literary magazines; they are just local newspapers in Romania. We speak here about a Canadian writer who live is Canada. He is notable in Canada, Germany, he have international notoriety in literary magazines. We speak about facts, diploma, documents, awards, not about fiction stories and suppositions. We must respect Wikipedia rules; we must prove with facts, not with the suppositions like you. I advise you to learn rules and politics of Wikipedia. If you are deeply suspicious, is your problem. In fact, I have more contributions than you on the French Wikipedia, like anonymous. I’m not obligated to justify my activity, but here, in this request, I want to deal with people, I respect the others, and for this reason I chose to make an account with my name. Keep your suppositions for you, please! Society of Science Fictions and Fantasy have an editorial. (http://www.srsff.ro/articole/editorial/). Is not a forum, is the editorial, the online publications, the official website. Why you are not honest with us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielconstantin (talk • contribs) 00:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Some specialist from the list has notoriety in French wikipedia also. In Romanian Wikipedia also. They are specialist, you are not. You must respect facts. One more thing. When you speak about „obscure exile newspapers”, you made a xenophobic declaration. Canda is not the Exile of this writer. This writer is not condemned, is not quilted for something. He is an emigrant. He is a Canadian citizen and Romanian citizen also. We talk about Diaspora and Canada. We talk about freedom, democracy and liberty. We talk about universality. I ask you to respect us. In conclusion, nothing from your declaration is true. You came with suppositions, you disgrace big magazines and specialists, you disgrace the Diaspora and Canada and you disgrace me with yours remarks. You must be more respectfully, you must respect rules and politics and you must be honest with us. If you have some personal problems with the author, please keep your opinion for you. I’m here with proofs and facts. You must learn this lesson. Have a nice day. I will ask again the Wikipedia administrators to verify the sources and my declarations. Everything is there. Each affirmation is a fact. Not a supposition. Thank you very much. --Danielconstantin (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Er, actually I do know a bit about the Union, and I know (as one of its members has confirmed) that a few greased palms will get one a membership card. Only in the Iaşi area are there some 300 members, but a handful of whom have any claim to notability. So again, Caragea's membership there doesn't mean very much. The "biggest literary magazine in Canada" is actually Geist. Evenimentul Zilei, Adevărul, Gândul and Cotidianul are national newspapers in Romania, their circulation is much higher than that of Observatorul, they do provide extensive coverage of literature and the arts (but not, tellingly, of Caragea), and they do focus on happenings in the diaspora (again, not on Caragea). "I advise you to learn rules and politics of Wikipedia" - over the course of four and a half years and nearly 70,000 edits, I've done that, and I've become quite adept at identifying self-promotion of the ilk you are trying to foist onto this project. "In fact, I have more contributions than you on the French Wikipedia, like anonymous" - sorry, but the only way to prove you're not a single-purpose account is by having a registered account right here on English Wikipedia. Right now, you're the third in a highly suspect chain of single-purpose accounts who have come to en.wiki just for the purpose of uploading an article on some unknown "poet". The Science Fiction Society has no editorial policy; this is still a forum (or blog) post that hasn't been subjected to any sort of editorial oversight, whatever you may claim. "Some specialist from the list has notoriety in French wikipedia also. In Romanian Wikipedia also" - all but two of the linked individuals have articles just on ro.wiki, which as I've said, has notability standards rather more lax than our own, and is often a repository for self-promoters. One of the two biographies fom fr.wiki is unsourced and by a single-purpose account. (And in any case, the blog post by him to which you linked is hardly a reliable source.) The other is about a relentless self-promoter whose en.wiki biography was rightfully deleted long ago. To admins reading this: yes, Romania produces a lot of would-be writers desperate for publicity, and many, including Caragea, crave a spot on en.wiki. I say exile, you say diaspora. I know the distinction. Please refrain from personal attacks and don't call me a xenophobe. (Which is, in any case, absurd: xenophobia is a fear of foreigners; being a Romanian, I cannot, and do not, fear my own people.) In conclusion, to the closing admin: the original AfD closed with a clear consensus to delete; Caragea is still not notable; this latest attempt to resuscitate his biography is part of a pattern of meatpuppetry; and please delete Danielconstantin's current user page, as the text should not make it into mainspace. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry Sir Biruitorul, but you are very obsessive with this suppositions and I don’t want to argue with you. Your influence is big here because you are an experienced user, but I hope the wikipedia administrator will respect my proofs. In my opinion, you have some personal problems with Ionut Caragea, you must try to resolve the personal problems out from here. Take care of you, be happy and healthy. It’s my last comment with you; I will wait the decision of this community.--Danielconstantin (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ionuţ Caragea – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

good sources, international publications, criticism Danielconstantin (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my dear friends. How are you? I hope, very well. With all my respect, I propose you to recover the page of the Canadian writer Ionuţ Caragea (Romanian by origin and living in Quebec). The admin who deleted the page don't talk with me, I have now answer from him[23]. Now Ionuţ Caragea's article have good sources, criticism, important references in big and international publications and I think he deserve to be in Wikipedia. I selected for you the best sources, the best references and I demand you, with all my sympathy, to recreate this page. Thank you very much and I wish you all my best from Canada.

Ionuţ Caragea (Snowdon King pen-name)

17 books, professional writer, member in Union of Writers of Romania[24]

member of DAM Montréal, Montreal Diversity Artist, organism with the support of Canadian Heritage's, Canadian Culture[25]

3 times Winner in the national contest Helion, science-fiction

2009 - Helion Prize, Science Fiction Arsfan Romania
2008 - Helion Prize, Science Fiction Internet Science Fiction Database
2007 - Helion Prize, Science Fiction, Romanian SF Online

Appreciations in Romanian and English translations

Adrian Botez, Romania, Romanian Society of Science Fiction and Fantasy, official website[26] (in Romanian)
Jean-Paul_Gavard-Perret - „PASSAGE DES SEUILS”, Incertain Regard, France (in French)
Angela Nache-Mamier - „La poésie sur l’échiquier quotidien de l’émotion”, La Poesie Que J'aime, Quebec, Canada (in French)
Valeria Manta Tăicuţu, review of Delirium Tremens in Agero, Allemande, translation in Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada [27] (in English)
Marius Chelaru, review of The Man in the Black Box, in Convorbiri literare, Romania, translation in Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada [28] (in English)
Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada, Petrache Plopeanu, review of The Black Priest, in Spaţii culturale, Romania, translation in DAM [29] (in English)
Nicolae N. Negulescu, Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada, review of Ionuţ Caragea’s first three books, in Luceafărul, Romania, translation in DAM[30] (in English)
Cezarina Adamescu, Diversité Artistique Montréal, Canada, review of The Amnesic Guru, in Observatorul, Toronto, Canada, translation in DAM [31] (in English)
Pachia-TatomirescuLuceafărul, Romania[32] (in Romanian)
Nicolae N. Negulescu, Luceafărul, Romania[33] (in Romanian)
Cezarina Adamescu, Luceafărul, Romania [34] (in Romanian)
Cezarina Adamescu, Observatorul, Toronto, Canada, [35] (in Romanian)
Petrache Plopeanu, Spaţii culturale, Romania, [36] (in Romanian)
Cezarina Adamescu, Agero, Germany, Munich, [37] (in Romanian)
Valeria Manta Tăicuţu, Agero, Germany, Munich, [38] (in Romanian)
Marius Chelaru, Agero, Germany, Munich[39]
Pachia-TatomirescuAgero, Germany, Munich[40] (in Romanian)
Valeriu Cuşner, Conections, USA, New York[41] (in Romanian)

more results: Google.com

This article was deleted by AFD almost 18 months ago and speedied under WP:CSD#G4 almost 9 months ago. Will the nominator please clarify why he is making this request so much later than the disputed decisions? Stifle (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because is the first time for me when I try to create this page. The page was deleted few moths ago, but is not my contribution. I’m a big fan of this author and I want to create this page, even my language is bad. I need your help, and this is the reason to be here. The big difference between last action and now is very significant. The author is young and is a rising star. In the last year this author published more than 9 books, and he was appreciated by numerous specialists and critics. For me is very important to respect the rules and politics and, for this reason, I’m here with this request. Thank you Sir.--Danielconstantin (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Our usual procedure in cases like this is to suggest a userspace draft be created. I would encourage taking this approach. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This means I can create a new article (in my userpage) with a slash at the end of the name of the article, and after verification, can be approved by you, Sir?--Danielconstantin (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My job is done[42]. Thank you so much for the advise and support.--Danielconstantin (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you format the references using inline citations? See Wikipedia:Citation templates#Examples for some examples. Doing this will allow the article to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability and will enable editors to see if the subject is notable more easily. Cunard (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem sir, the references and the appreciations are blueline[43]. It is ok?--Danielconstantin (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for three reasons:
- The original AfD found unanimously (except for the article's creator) that we shouldn't have a page on Caragea. Consensus there was crystal-clear.
- There's something awfully fishy about the attempts to get this man a page on Wikipedia. The first person to do so was Nesterovici, the second Caragea Florina (hmm...), and now Danielconstantin. As you can see by clicking their names, all three happen to be single-purpose accounts determined to get Caragea an article. Does he really have that many admirers who disinterestedly set up Wikipedia accounts for the sole purpose of ensuring his presence here? Perhaps, but more likely, they're the friends and family of a very minor poet who knows the power of Google and wants to be on Wikipedia in order to increase his Google visibility.
- Caragea remains as non-notable as he was in 2009 and early 2010. Sure, some obscure exile newspapers give him passing mention, and he claims to have won some prizes the notability of which is not established, and he's a relentless self-promoter (of which this Wikipedia campaign is one manifestation), but as for in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you must be careful of Biruitorul’s affirmations

Hi. Biruitorul. How are you, I hope you are ok. Your story is very beautiful, but is not true. You must understand something. This author is not a minor poet, like you consider. This author was appreciated by specialist and critics. This author is a professional writer; member is Union of Writers in his country. Your opinion is very personal, but you don’t have the authority to make judgments like: minor, obscure etc. Why do you want to put this author in disgrace? We have here, in this page, some specialist who appreciates Ionut Caragea. Specialists with pages on Wikipedia. You want to tell us that you are more qualified then the others to say minor, obscure etc? You must respect the rules of Wikipedia, you must respect the sources. That it! My dear friends, the international publication Observatorul from Toronto have a Honoris Causa Award and The Best editorial and design Award, accorded by National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada. Observatorul is awarded also by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania), Government of Romania. Take a look here [44]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Why Biruitorul is not honest with us? The Society of Science Fiction and Fantasy is a National Institution in Romania [45]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Agero from Germany have Diploma of Excellence accorded by Romanian National Patrimony [46]. Why Biruitorul consider this publication obscure? Can you tell us, Biruitorul, your reason to disqualify such big publications and institutions and specialist? I’m a big fan in a big Country. Ionuţ Caragea is an appreciated author by specialist and publications and it’s my right and my freedom to make an article. I think Biruitorul try to disgrace this author because he don’t want to recognize the evolution of this author in the last year. Thank you very much, please check and verify the authenticity of my affirmations. Thank you. --Danielconstantin (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the Romanian Writers' Union is not that big a deal: even the head of the chapter to which Caragea belongs (and which has some 300 members) states that the main condition is to sign a form requesting membership (and then no doubt paying dues).
About Observatorul: let's be honest, not that much happens in Romanian-Canadian circles; they latch onto any piece of "news" about the diaspora. It's not as though actual Romanian newspapers (Evenimentul Zilei, Cotidianul, Adevărul, Gândul, etc.) have given him any meaningful coverage (and these do like to focus both on the arts and on the diaspora), or for that matter Canadian newspapers. Same with the German paper. About the sci-fi society: it may be a "National Institution" (whatever that is), but a forum post is not a reliable source. Also note that none of those "experts" have articles on en.wiki; it's still possible they're notable, but let's just say ro.wiki's standards aren't what ours are.
Once again, I remain deeply suspicious of the fact that three single-purpose accounts have appeared over the past two years attempting to write articles just about Caragea. This doesn't just happen without some sort of coordination. And it reeks of a self-promotion campaign by a man who is, yes, based on the paucity of independent and reliable sources on him, a minor and obscure literary figure, desperately enlisting friends and family in order to give himself publicity on one of the Internet's most-visited websites. We shouldn't fall for the trick, despite the impressive show of outrage engendered by my first comment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you must be very very careful with the Biruitorul’s affirmations

Mr. Biruitorul, why you are not honest with us? Why do you try to invent such stories? You are not a specialist; you don’t know anything about Union of Writers from Romania. To join this Union you must pass the Committee of admission, formed by critics and specialist who determined the notoriety of the candidate. Ionut Caragea passed this commission. Paying dues is not the condition to be member; the only condition is the notoriety.

Observatorul is an International magazine from Canada, Diaspora, and is a literary magazine. It is the biggest literary magazine in Canada. Is awarded by Government of Canada and Government of Romania with diploma of excellence. Is the biggest proof of notoriety! The other magazines you mentioned are not literary magazines; they are just local newspapers in Romania. We speak here about a Canadian writer who live is Canada. He is notable in Canada, Germany, he have international notoriety in literary magazines. We speak about facts, diploma, documents, awards, not about fiction stories and suppositions. We must respect Wikipedia rules; we must prove with facts, not with the suppositions like you. I advise you to learn rules and politics of Wikipedia.

If you are deeply suspicious, is your problem. In fact, I have more contributions than you on the French Wikipedia, like anonymous. I’m not obligated to justify my activity, but here, in this request, I want to deal with people, I respect the others, and for this reason I chose to make an account with my name. Keep your suppositions for you, please!

Society of Science Fictions and Fantasy have an editorial. (http://www.srsff.ro/articole/editorial/). Is not a forum, is the editorial, the online publications, the official website. Why you are not honest with us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielconstantin (talk • contribs) 00:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some specialist from the list has notoriety in French wikipedia also. In Romanian Wikipedia also. They are specialist, you are not. You must respect facts.

One more thing. When you speak about „obscure exile newspapers”, you made a xenophobic declaration. Canda is not the Exile of this writer. This writer is not condemned, is not quilted for something. He is an emigrant. He is a Canadian citizen and Romanian citizen also. We talk about Diaspora and Canada. We talk about freedom, democracy and liberty. We talk about universality. I ask you to respect us.

In conclusion, nothing from your declaration is true. You came with suppositions, you disgrace big magazines and specialists, you disgrace the Diaspora and Canada and you disgrace me with yours remarks. You must be more respectfully, you must respect rules and politics and you must be honest with us. If you have some personal problems with the author, please keep your opinion for you. I’m here with proofs and facts. You must learn this lesson. Have a nice day.

I will ask again the Wikipedia administrators to verify the sources and my declarations. Everything is there. Each affirmation is a fact. Not a supposition. Thank you very much. --Danielconstantin (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Er, actually I do know a bit about the Union, and I know (as one of its members has confirmed) that a few greased palms will get one a membership card. Only in the Iaşi area are there some 300 members, but a handful of whom have any claim to notability. So again, Caragea's membership there doesn't mean very much.
- The "biggest literary magazine in Canada" is actually Geist. Evenimentul Zilei, Adevărul, Gândul and Cotidianul are national newspapers in Romania, their circulation is much higher than that of Observatorul, they do provide extensive coverage of literature and the arts (but not, tellingly, of Caragea), and they do focus on happenings in the diaspora (again, not on Caragea).
- "I advise you to learn rules and politics of Wikipedia" - over the course of four and a half years and nearly 70,000 edits, I've done that, and I've become quite adept at identifying self-promotion of the ilk you are trying to foist onto this project.
- "In fact, I have more contributions than you on the French Wikipedia, like anonymous" - sorry, but the only way to prove you're not a single-purpose account is by having a registered account right here on English Wikipedia. Right now, you're the third in a highly suspect chain of single-purpose accounts who have come to en.wiki just for the purpose of uploading an article on some unknown "poet".
- The Science Fiction Society has no editorial policy; this is still a forum (or blog) post that hasn't been subjected to any sort of editorial oversight, whatever you may claim.
- "Some specialist from the list has notoriety in French wikipedia also. In Romanian Wikipedia also" - all but two of the linked individuals have articles just on ro.wiki, which as I've said, has notability standards rather more lax than our own, and is often a repository for self-promoters. One of the two biographies fom fr.wiki is unsourced and by a single-purpose account. (And in any case, the blog post by him to which you linked is hardly a reliable source.) The other is about a relentless self-promoter whose en.wiki biography was rightfully deleted long ago. To admins reading this: yes, Romania produces a lot of would-be writers desperate for publicity, and many, including Caragea, crave a spot on en.wiki.
- I say exile, you say diaspora. I know the distinction. Please refrain from personal attacks and don't call me a xenophobe. (Which is, in any case, absurd: xenophobia is a fear of foreigners; being a Romanian, I cannot, and do not, fear my own people.)
- In conclusion, to the closing admin: the original AfD closed with a clear consensus to delete; Caragea is still not notable; this latest attempt to resuscitate his biography is part of a pattern of meatpuppetry; and please delete Danielconstantin's current user page, as the text should not make it into mainspace. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Sir Biruitorul, but you are very obsessive with this suppositions and I don’t want to argue with you. Your influence is big here because you are an experienced user, but I hope the wikipedia administrator will respect my proofs. In my opinion, you have some personal problems with Ionut Caragea, you must try to resolve the personal problems out from here. Take care of you, be happy and healthy. It’s my last comment with you; I will wait the decision of this community.--Danielconstantin (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crissy Moran – Overturn to no consensus. – T. Canens (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Crissy Moran (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Overturn to keep. I think the admin made a big mistake in deleting this page, because the arguments were clearly on the Keep-side (also in numbers: 10 users for Keep, 6 for Delete). This was the 3rd nomination, before she was notable enough for en.wiki. She clearly passes Wikipedia:GNG as shown in the last Afd. He (admin) also showed that he doesn´t want articles like Madison Ivy (per WP:PORNBIO) and Girlvana in Wikipedia, which clearly pass the criteria. So I assume he is not neutral in this point. I don´t wanna repeat all arguments, but the main argument is she was really popular, has numerous articles in non-porn media, has made a lot of Cover shootings and so on. Even that she quitted the porn business and converted to Christianity and tries to make real acting makes her more notable. So I please you to review the deletion. Admin is informed. --Hixteilchen (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yet again we've got certain users on one side and certain users on the other, making arguments addressed to the closer and not to each other because they know the other side won't change their position. We've all seen this before. The usual outcome is "no consensus to undelete", but I'm sick and tired of these users using AfD as a battleground in gross violation of policy. It's more urgent to resolve the conduct issue between these users than the content issue about the porn star. DRV doesn't deal with conduct issues, so our remedy is to delete the AfD completely. Start a fresh AfD with different participants. A RFC/U will be completely useless, so consider filing an Arbcom case with a view to forcing certain users to change their behaviour at AfD because they will not do so voluntarily.—S Marshall T/C 11:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] But in this case, it is evident that the Closer made a big mistake. I have given examples that this admin wants to delete porn articles in en.wikipedia (Madison Ivy and Girlvana). So you understand what I mean? In the last AfD Schmidt, had the best arguments and that wasn´t recognized. --Hixteilchen (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I like Michael Q. Schmidt and I respect his contributions to this encyclopaedia. We would be worse off without him. But I recognise that Michael is, in perfectly good faith, opposed to the deletion of, err, virtually anything. He is one of a number of editors who feel this way, and several of those editors showed up in that AfD to agree with him and vote the same way. In my opinion, this happens rather too often. Article rescue when it's appropriate is a worthy thing, but good judgment isn't always apparent in what's to be kept and what's to be deleted. None of this is to say that Michael Q. Schmidt is the most egregious of these users, because he isn't. The battleground side of things is that there are also users who, in equally good faith, have much different standards for what's to be kept and what deleted, and who sometimes appear in the same AfD discussions with members of the article rescue squadron to oppose them. These two sides have long since stopped listening to each other. There's a cycle in which AfD occasionally turns into a war zone and that's what's happened here. I'm not completely innocent myself, and neither is anyone who's active at DRV; we all have our own places on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. There are users I tend to agree with and users I tend to disagree with. Spartaz is like any closer with enough experience to deal with a matter like this: he's got a personal position on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. There's an extent to which it'll influence his analysis of the arguments raised in the AfD. I think it's possible for you, in perfectly good faith, to believe that Michael Q. Schmidt and Colonel Warden had the best arguments in the AfD but for Spartaz, in perfectly good faith, to think Tarc and Snottywong were right. That's why DRVs involving these users end without consensus. I won't comment on Spartaz' closure of that AfD because I think the more important thing is to remove people who're no longer talking to each other from the AfD process.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Glad that some like my work improving article and toward building an encyclopedia, but for edification and clarification, please note for future reference that I am specifically NOT "opposed to the deletion of, err, virtually anything", and if something is truely unsalvable, I am glad to see it go. I invite folks to look at the tallys I have been keeping on myself HERE, where any interested editor can see that quite the opposite of your opinion, I am quite happy to opine a delete for sub-standard or unimprovable articles, and quite often do so. I do not fight for or argue to keep "virtually anything". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm curious why the nominator didn't discuss the close with me. This seems like a vindictive nomination because I recently listed some of their articles at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because I want to restore this article, it has nothing to do with your AfD´s, they were just examples. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The proximity of this nomination to the deletion today of a number of your pages that I listed at AFD stretches the the claim that this was a disinterested good faith nomination because you were just interested in the page well beyond breaking point. If you were serious about being interested in the article then you would have discussed the close with me first as you are already well aware this is an expectation and might reasonably have expected me to userfy this. You chose not to do this, so I can only assume that your intention was to try and discomfort me by causing trouble over a page I had deleted. Very poor show. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus While we need to grant administrators discretion in closing, this needs to be done with greater regard for the actual consensus at XfD. In the discussion that actually took place at AfD, issues of notability were directly addressed by those participants arguing for retention and this close seems to be a supervote rather than a summary of the consensus reached by editors. When decisions are so labored and need to resort to discarding votes one way or the other, more admins need to be ready to acknowledge that no consensus has been reached in such cases rather than trying to impose personal views on the subject and onto the community. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus- I do not think there was a consensus to delete this article. That said, I must protest very strongly the recent trend of denigrating all closing rationales you disagree with as a "supervote" and therefore invalid. It seems to me to be a sneaky way of turning AfD into a headcount by gradually whittling away the closing admin's discretion to judge the !votes in light of policy. I also find the constant cries of "Closer please note, I disagree with this delete !vote therefore disregard it" to be pathetic crap. Reyk _YO! 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist. Convert the close to a fresh !vote, and give it another week. Spartaz may be right in his opinion, but this was too close (to no consensus). The final consensus is a little too rough. No consensus does not default to delete, and especially not for non-private persons. AfD participants should individually consider privacy and ethical concerns, not the closer alone. I think Spartaz was saying that there is a complete lack of independent secondary source material that addresses the subject directly. Consider slapping the closer for comparing the participants to snouted beings. It was needlessly insulting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep At the time of the original deletion, there were two unequivocally reliable sources in the article that dealt primarily and extensively with the subject: Florida Times-Union and Christianity Today. I'm not sure how the closer overlooked those, but I don't need to speculate to say that the close was unequivocally incorrect. In fact, on the basis of those two sources alone, a closer would have been justified in closing a 6 keeps to 10 deletes nose-count vote as a keep. In the face of the multiple RS coverage, there is no way closing a 10 to 6 keep consensus as delete was reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no-consensus keep. The closer drew some major incorrect conclusions in his closing and evaluation. Declaring that significant and in-depth articles, articles found in reliable sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as not indicative of notability stands out as a major faux-paus. Also, his deciding that some less-than-substantial but more-than-trivial coverage in many other RS were also dismissable. What really caught my eye in his confused closing is when the closer writing "Reliable sources have to be primary, not secondary" which opinion runs exactly contrary to policy specifically instructing "articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I generally find I agree with the closer, but this subject pretty plainly meets the GNG with two mainstream sources (and yes Christianity Today fits that bill) solely on the subject. The apparently large number of other sources (I only read the English ones) would seem to put this way over the bar and even a significant majority going toward deletion shouldn't be enough to result in deletion here. Given the !vote number (and in my opinion strength) clearly went to keep, I don't see how we can get any result other than keep. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no-consensus. Much as I dislike the tactics used by the keep brigade here, I cannot find any reasonable delete closure out of the debate. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Why are we chasing tail here 5 months later? The close cites the weak keep opinions, giving them less weight than the policy/guideline-based deletes. Well within admin discretion, despite the loud protests above. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Tarc, what argument could make the listing of sources and showing the topic meets GNG "weak"? Hobit (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You can go by what I posted in the AfD. She got a small bit of press for getting off her back and turning to bible-thumping, to which I say "big fucking deal", as it is pretty much 1E territory given her lack of a notable porn career. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I can fully understand the view that we have too many bios in this field, and I would even be willing to advocate that our criteria for them ought to be stricter. But I wouldn't close according to my personal view here, because our job as closing admins is to interpret and apply policy according to consensus, not to change the interpretation to the way we would rather have it. If we do not like the way consensus agrees to interpret sufficiency of sources, we should argue accordingly in the AfD. People will either accept our argument or not, but an AfD close is not the place to use our own view of the guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Have to say overturn to no consensus on this one. It's one of those annoying AfDs which is tricky to read and interpret, but however hard I try I can't find a consensus to delete. Both sides have arguments based solidly in policy and guidelines, and numerically the keeps are way ahead. True, there are some weak keep !votes, but they're very much in the minority. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Obviously this is going to get overturned and I can't argue too much with that outcome. But I do want to say that one of the reasons this DRV is able to come to a clear outcome - with inclusionists and deletionists reaching rare common ground - is that the closing admin gave such a clear rationale for why the debate was closed as delete. Because the rationale was clear, it is easy for DRV participants to scrutinise it for error. Closing statements like this at least (a) give due respect to the AfD participants by properly explaining the decision reached; and (b) promote transparent decision-making that benefits DRV. The more of this the better.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. Better closing statements do risk getting overturned, but here I think that is what leads us to the right result... Hobit (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't have a problem with restoring this, one of the few porn bios that has any reliable sources at all, but everything not sourced from the reliable sources (i.e. everything from iadb, avn and the like, which are basically part of the kayfabe of the porn world) should be removed. I nearly said stripped out... Guy (Help!) 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] :-) Hobit (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. This was very close to the limits of the closer's discretion, but still within them. As the closing statement accurately indicates, the sourcing advanced in support of the article was not substantial enough -- mostly trivial pieces on news aggregation sites. The article subject is a nonnotable porn performer whose repentance was covered in a local newspaper and, briefly, in a single magazine -- and has since returned, without much notice, to her porn career (apparently even before the Christianity Today piece even ran). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz As I have seen you ever agree with Spartaz decisions, also in the Madison Ivy & Girlvana discussions. The majority wants to Overturn the decision. --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Crissy Moran – Overturn to no consensus. – T. Canens (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn to keep. I think the admin made a big mistake in deleting this page, because the arguments were clearly on the Keep-side (also in numbers: 10 users for Keep, 6 for Delete). This was the 3rd nomination, before she was notable enough for en.wiki. She clearly passes Wikipedia:GNG as shown in the last Afd.

He (admin) also showed that he doesn´t want articles like Madison Ivy (per WP:PORNBIO) and Girlvana in Wikipedia, which clearly pass the criteria. So I assume he is not neutral in this point. I don´t wanna repeat all arguments, but the main argument is she was really popular, has numerous articles in non-porn media, has made a lot of Cover shootings and so on. Even that she quitted the porn business and converted to Christianity and tries to make real acting makes her more notable. So I please you to review the deletion. Admin is informed. --Hixteilchen (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again we've got certain users on one side and certain users on the other, making arguments addressed to the closer and not to each other because they know the other side won't change their position. We've all seen this before.
The usual outcome is "no consensus to undelete", but I'm sick and tired of these users using AfD as a battleground in gross violation of policy. It's more urgent to resolve the conduct issue between these users than the content issue about the porn star. DRV doesn't deal with conduct issues, so our remedy is to delete the AfD completely. Start a fresh AfD with different participants. A RFC/U will be completely useless, so consider filing an Arbcom case with a view to forcing certain users to change their behaviour at AfD because they will not do so voluntarily.—S Marshall T/C 11:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But in this case, it is evident that the Closer made a big mistake. I have given examples that this admin wants to delete porn articles in en.wikipedia (Madison Ivy and Girlvana). So you understand what I mean? In the last AfD Schmidt, had the best arguments and that wasn´t recognized. --Hixteilchen (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I like Michael Q. Schmidt and I respect his contributions to this encyclopaedia. We would be worse off without him. But I recognise that Michael is, in perfectly good faith, opposed to the deletion of, err, virtually anything. He is one of a number of editors who feel this way, and several of those editors showed up in that AfD to agree with him and vote the same way. In my opinion, this happens rather too often. Article rescue when it's appropriate is a worthy thing, but good judgment isn't always apparent in what's to be kept and what's to be deleted. None of this is to say that Michael Q. Schmidt is the most egregious of these users, because he isn't.
    The battleground side of things is that there are also users who, in equally good faith, have much different standards for what's to be kept and what deleted, and who sometimes appear in the same AfD discussions with members of the article rescue squadron to oppose them. These two sides have long since stopped listening to each other. There's a cycle in which AfD occasionally turns into a war zone and that's what's happened here.
    I'm not completely innocent myself, and neither is anyone who's active at DRV; we all have our own places on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. There are users I tend to agree with and users I tend to disagree with. Spartaz is like any closer with enough experience to deal with a matter like this: he's got a personal position on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. There's an extent to which it'll influence his analysis of the arguments raised in the AfD. I think it's possible for you, in perfectly good faith, to believe that Michael Q. Schmidt and Colonel Warden had the best arguments in the AfD but for Spartaz, in perfectly good faith, to think Tarc and Snottywong were right. That's why DRVs involving these users end without consensus.
    I won't comment on Spartaz' closure of that AfD because I think the more important thing is to remove people who're no longer talking to each other from the AfD process.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Glad that some like my work improving article and toward building an encyclopedia, but for edification and clarification, please note for future reference that I am specifically NOT "opposed to the deletion of, err, virtually anything", and if something is truely unsalvable, I am glad to see it go. I invite folks to look at the tallys I have been keeping on myself HERE, where any interested editor can see that quite the opposite of your opinion, I am quite happy to opine a delete for sub-standard or unimprovable articles, and quite often do so. I do not fight for or argue to keep "virtually anything". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why the nominator didn't discuss the close with me. This seems like a vindictive nomination because I recently listed some of their articles at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I want to restore this article, it has nothing to do with your AfD´s, they were just examples. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The proximity of this nomination to the deletion today of a number of your pages that I listed at AFD stretches the the claim that this was a disinterested good faith nomination because you were just interested in the page well beyond breaking point. If you were serious about being interested in the article then you would have discussed the close with me first as you are already well aware this is an expectation and might reasonably have expected me to userfy this. You chose not to do this, so I can only assume that your intention was to try and discomfort me by causing trouble over a page I had deleted. Very poor show. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus While we need to grant administrators discretion in closing, this needs to be done with greater regard for the actual consensus at XfD. In the discussion that actually took place at AfD, issues of notability were directly addressed by those participants arguing for retention and this close seems to be a supervote rather than a summary of the consensus reached by editors. When decisions are so labored and need to resort to discarding votes one way or the other, more admins need to be ready to acknowledge that no consensus has been reached in such cases rather than trying to impose personal views on the subject and onto the community. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus- I do not think there was a consensus to delete this article. That said, I must protest very strongly the recent trend of denigrating all closing rationales you disagree with as a "supervote" and therefore invalid. It seems to me to be a sneaky way of turning AfD into a headcount by gradually whittling away the closing admin's discretion to judge the !votes in light of policy. I also find the constant cries of "Closer please note, I disagree with this delete !vote therefore disregard it" to be pathetic crap. Reyk _YO! 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Convert the close to a fresh !vote, and give it another week. Spartaz may be right in his opinion, but this was too close (to no consensus). The final consensus is a little too rough. No consensus does not default to delete, and especially not for non-private persons. AfD participants should individually consider privacy and ethical concerns, not the closer alone. I think Spartaz was saying that there is a complete lack of independent secondary source material that addresses the subject directly. Consider slapping the closer for comparing the participants to snouted beings. It was needlessly insulting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep At the time of the original deletion, there were two unequivocally reliable sources in the article that dealt primarily and extensively with the subject: Florida Times-Union and Christianity Today. I'm not sure how the closer overlooked those, but I don't need to speculate to say that the close was unequivocally incorrect. In fact, on the basis of those two sources alone, a closer would have been justified in closing a 6 keeps to 10 deletes nose-count vote as a keep. In the face of the multiple RS coverage, there is no way closing a 10 to 6 keep consensus as delete was reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus keep. The closer drew some major incorrect conclusions in his closing and evaluation. Declaring that significant and in-depth articles, articles found in reliable sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as not indicative of notability stands out as a major faux-paus. Also, his deciding that some less-than-substantial but more-than-trivial coverage in many other RS were also dismissable. What really caught my eye in his confused closing is when the closer writing "Reliable sources have to be primary, not secondary" which opinion runs exactly contrary to policy specifically instructing "articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I generally find I agree with the closer, but this subject pretty plainly meets the GNG with two mainstream sources (and yes Christianity Today fits that bill) solely on the subject. The apparently large number of other sources (I only read the English ones) would seem to put this way over the bar and even a significant majority going toward deletion shouldn't be enough to result in deletion here. Given the !vote number (and in my opinion strength) clearly went to keep, I don't see how we can get any result other than keep. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus. Much as I dislike the tactics used by the keep brigade here, I cannot find any reasonable delete closure out of the debate. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Why are we chasing tail here 5 months later? The close cites the weak keep opinions, giving them less weight than the policy/guideline-based deletes. Well within admin discretion, despite the loud protests above. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarc, what argument could make the listing of sources and showing the topic meets GNG "weak"? Hobit (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can go by what I posted in the AfD. She got a small bit of press for getting off her back and turning to bible-thumping, to which I say "big fucking deal", as it is pretty much 1E territory given her lack of a notable porn career. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I can fully understand the view that we have too many bios in this field, and I would even be willing to advocate that our criteria for them ought to be stricter. But I wouldn't close according to my personal view here, because our job as closing admins is to interpret and apply policy according to consensus, not to change the interpretation to the way we would rather have it. If we do not like the way consensus agrees to interpret sufficiency of sources, we should argue accordingly in the AfD. People will either accept our argument or not, but an AfD close is not the place to use our own view of the guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say overturn to no consensus on this one. It's one of those annoying AfDs which is tricky to read and interpret, but however hard I try I can't find a consensus to delete. Both sides have arguments based solidly in policy and guidelines, and numerically the keeps are way ahead. True, there are some weak keep !votes, but they're very much in the minority. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is going to get overturned and I can't argue too much with that outcome. But I do want to say that one of the reasons this DRV is able to come to a clear outcome - with inclusionists and deletionists reaching rare common ground - is that the closing admin gave such a clear rationale for why the debate was closed as delete. Because the rationale was clear, it is easy for DRV participants to scrutinise it for error. Closing statements like this at least (a) give due respect to the AfD participants by properly explaining the decision reached; and (b) promote transparent decision-making that benefits DRV. The more of this the better.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Better closing statements do risk getting overturned, but here I think that is what leads us to the right result... Hobit (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with restoring this, one of the few porn bios that has any reliable sources at all, but everything not sourced from the reliable sources (i.e. everything from iadb, avn and the like, which are basically part of the kayfabe of the porn world) should be removed. I nearly said stripped out... Guy (Help!) 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- :-) Hobit (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was very close to the limits of the closer's discretion, but still within them. As the closing statement accurately indicates, the sourcing advanced in support of the article was not substantial enough -- mostly trivial pieces on news aggregation sites. The article subject is a nonnotable porn performer whose repentance was covered in a local newspaper and, briefly, in a single magazine -- and has since returned, without much notice, to her porn career (apparently even before the Christianity Today piece even ran). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz As I have seen you ever agree with Spartaz decisions, also in the Madison Ivy & Girlvana discussions. The majority wants to Overturn the decision. --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 November 2010

[edit]

The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure – Relisted for further discussion by closing admin – Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Please note that I am the editor who initially nominated this article for deletion, since it seemed obvious that the controversy was notable but the book itself was not. Although multiple editors suggested a merge, User:Courcelles closed the AfD as "delete" with the rationale that "a merge would give it undue weight in the Amazon article". When I asked Courcelles to reconsider their closure, they stated "there was absolutely no way the entire article could be shoved into Amazon.com without unbalancing it". Clearly, as in all such cases, a merge would need to be selective, and the idea of inserting the entire article into Amazon.com is spurious. This controversy has generated a great deal of press. While I think the comments about censorship in the AfD were misguided, it is likely that failing to merge the relevant content will generate more of the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Request - I require access to the history of the article and the talk page in order to follow up on something with ArbCom. Can some kindly admin please place a complete, unabridged copy of the complete history in my userspace? Please add the NOINDEX header. Please do not edit, delete, revision hide, oversight, or otherwise alter the history. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I still think I was right here, but it was close. Relisted at AFD for more discussion. Courcelles 19:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure – Relisted for further discussion by closing admin – Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Please note that I am the editor who initially nominated this article for deletion, since it seemed obvious that the controversy was notable but the book itself was not. Although multiple editors suggested a merge, User:Courcelles closed the AfD as "delete" with the rationale that "a merge would give it undue weight in the Amazon article". When I asked Courcelles to reconsider their closure, they stated "there was absolutely no way the entire article could be shoved into Amazon.com without unbalancing it". Clearly, as in all such cases, a merge would need to be selective, and the idea of inserting the entire article into Amazon.com is spurious. This controversy has generated a great deal of press. While I think the comments about censorship in the AfD were misguided, it is likely that failing to merge the relevant content will generate more of the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request - I require access to the history of the article and the talk page in order to follow up on something with ArbCom. Can some kindly admin please place a complete, unabridged copy of the complete history in my userspace? Please add the NOINDEX header. Please do not edit, delete, revision hide, oversight, or otherwise alter the history. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think I was right here, but it was close. Relisted at AFD for more discussion. Courcelles 19:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 November 2010

[edit]

18 November 2010

[edit]

File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg – Overturn and relist at FfD. – T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) This file was discussed here, with 9 out of 11 editors indicating agreement with the valid use of the image. Just hours after that discussion was closed, an editor opened an identical, new deletion request here, claiming the previous discussion was "out of process". This new discussion sat for seven days mostly unnoticed and undiscussed (except for the two editors that previously supported the deletion of the file), and then the image file was deleted. It was not until this deletion when I, and other previously interested editors, became aware of the existence of this new "discussion". The image file should be restored per the actual FfD discussion, and if a new deletion discussion is warranted due to "out of process" concerns (this is disputed by some Admins and editors), then it should be relisted with appropriate due notice, so that interested and previously involved editors will be informed that their earlier input on the matter has been unceremoniously disregarded and scrubbed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What an awful mess. I'm perplexed by Od Mishehu's response to your polite message on his talk page, and I wonder if he fully understood the sequence of events. In any case, it seems to me that SchuminWeb relisted the discussion in an unconventional (but not necessarily incorrect) way, and Leevanjackson's subsequent good faith edit had effects that neither he nor SchuminWeb intended. The FFD template did not subsequently behave as expected, which meant that editors were thus participating in the wrong discussion or unaware of any discussion taking place at all. At DRV our job is to consider whether the deletion process was correctly followed. In this case, the normal deletion process in which interested editors have a chance to have their say was frustrated because of the template malfunction. I see no reason to assign blame—everyone involved seems to have acted in perfectly good faith—but I do think the deletion process should be correctly followed. Overturn and relist without assigning blame.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I'm looking forward to having a chance to weigh in on this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist looks like a goof to me, too. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist agree w/Jclemens. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist hi. sorry. late. Digiphi (Talk) 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to correct what appears to be a mistake. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg – Overturn and relist at FfD. – T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This file was discussed here, with 9 out of 11 editors indicating agreement with the valid use of the image. Just hours after that discussion was closed, an editor opened an identical, new deletion request here, claiming the previous discussion was "out of process". This new discussion sat for seven days mostly unnoticed and undiscussed (except for the two editors that previously supported the deletion of the file), and then the image file was deleted. It was not until this deletion when I, and other previously interested editors, became aware of the existence of this new "discussion". The image file should be restored per the actual FfD discussion, and if a new deletion discussion is warranted due to "out of process" concerns (this is disputed by some Admins and editors), then it should be relisted with appropriate due notice, so that interested and previously involved editors will be informed that their earlier input on the matter has been unceremoniously disregarded and scrubbed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an awful mess. I'm perplexed by Od Mishehu's response to your polite message on his talk page, and I wonder if he fully understood the sequence of events. In any case, it seems to me that SchuminWeb relisted the discussion in an unconventional (but not necessarily incorrect) way, and Leevanjackson's subsequent good faith edit had effects that neither he nor SchuminWeb intended. The FFD template did not subsequently behave as expected, which meant that editors were thus participating in the wrong discussion or unaware of any discussion taking place at all.
At DRV our job is to consider whether the deletion process was correctly followed. In this case, the normal deletion process in which interested editors have a chance to have their say was frustrated because of the template malfunction. I see no reason to assign blame—everyone involved seems to have acted in perfectly good faith—but I do think the deletion process should be correctly followed. Overturn and relist without assigning blame.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm looking forward to having a chance to weigh in on this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist looks like a goof to me, too. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist agree w/Jclemens. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist hi. sorry. late. Digiphi (Talk) 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to correct what appears to be a mistake. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Manifesta – Already undone by deleting administrator. – Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Maybe this is a mistake but at least for two years I have seen the encyclopaedia article on 'Manifesta' which is an extremely important art biennale of international significance. Here is the archive: http://web.archive.org/web//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesta Also you can see how important is Manifesta: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,26696,27552,27739&ds=n&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=manifesta+biennale&cp=18&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw&fp=ed958012ddba4d59 Strangely I can read the same article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GC6RpYN7ATwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesta+manifesta+8&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk The article is factual and neutral and of course for many years we can read it. Just this year the article is out? It is very strange. The article is deleted because it is 'advertising'? This is very strange. It is maybe like deleting article on Olympics or maybe Bundestag if factual entries are made [anybody] . It looks very bad. Maybe it is a mistake? I hope so. If this is a mistake then it should be restored to the last accepted version - but there is also this existing Manifesta which Thierry Geoffroy is a prominent artist at - I want to add his link to the 8th version of Manifesta. According to 'Archive.org' the Wikipedia article is at least 4 years old so the deletion must be a mistake. The content is completely normal. Neutral point of view Now it is a little more clear. It must be a mistake. There are many articles within Wikipedia which refer to Manifesta: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=manifesta+&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 This is important to bring back all these important materials to us students! Sorenonilsson (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn* Looking at the cached and archived versions of the article, a clear claim of notability is made and reliable and verifiable sources are provided. This does not appear to meet the G11 criteria for speedy deletion. If notability is at issue this should be addressed by community consensus at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Manifesta – Already undone by deleting administrator. – Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Maybe this is a mistake but at least for two years I have seen the encyclopaedia article on 'Manifesta' which is an extremely important art biennale of international significance.

Here is the archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesta

Also you can see how important is Manifesta: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,26696,27552,27739&ds=n&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=manifesta+biennale&cp=18&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw&fp=ed958012ddba4d59

Strangely I can read the same article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GC6RpYN7ATwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesta+manifesta+8&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk

The article is factual and neutral and of course for many years we can read it.

Just this year the article is out? It is very strange. The article is deleted because it is 'advertising'? This is very strange. It is maybe like deleting article on Olympics or maybe Bundestag if factual entries are made [anybody] .

It looks very bad. Maybe it is a mistake? I hope so.

If this is a mistake then it should be restored to the last accepted version - but there is also this existing Manifesta which Thierry Geoffroy is a prominent artist at - I want to add his link to the 8th version of Manifesta. According to 'Archive.org' the Wikipedia article is at least 4 years old so the deletion must be a mistake. The content is completely normal. Neutral point of view

Now it is a little more clear. It must be a mistake. There are many articles within Wikipedia which refer to Manifesta: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=manifesta+&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

This is important to bring back all these important materials to us students!

Sorenonilsson (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Looking at the cached and archived versions of the article, a clear claim of notability is made and reliable and verifiable sources are provided. This does not appear to meet the G11 criteria for speedy deletion. If notability is at issue this should be addressed by community consensus at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mariza Ikonomi – Relist at AfD. – T. Canens (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mariza Ikonomi (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This non-admin closure for keep followed three keep !votes that were entirely based on looking at accomplishments listed in other unsourced Wikipedia articles at foreign language Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially not completely unreferenced BLPs at other language Wikipedias. The AfD was reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariza Ikonomi (2nd nomination), but was speedy closed by Scott Mac as "pointy". I don't think a keep vote based on using Wikipedia as a source is valid, and I ask that either the original AfD be reopened and relisted, or the second AfD be reopened and relisted with the original AfD votes copied to it. The second AfD drew one delete vote before being closed. The fact that it was a non-admin closure is not the central issue here, but rather the fact that it was an improper closure that failed to discount votes based on using Wikipedia as a source. Gigs (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I don't see any community support for deleting the article. A lack of sources can be dealt with by sourcing. If it is in violation of BLP as it stands then an uninvolved admin does not need an AfD to delete it or edit it so that it is not in violation. I agree that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but that is an issue that can be dealt with through editing. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Exactly why I closed it as keep. It can't be deleted without community support. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist. Gigs is correct here. We've got an unsourced BLP in our encyclopaedia, Gigs has rightly questioned that, and yet he's had the door slammed in his face. Two AfDs have been closed as "keep" despite the fact that no sources whatsoever have been provided. Chillum is right to say that "a lack of sources can be dealt with by sourcing", but nobody has actually sourced it. That step is not optional. This is a BLP. The right place to discuss sources is AfD and we need to send it back there. Those who say this article can be sourced should be given the chance to prove it. Let them do so, and if they do not, then let it be deleted. Gigs: as the DRV nominator, it's your role to notify the AfD closer of this discussion. Which includes Scott Mac. I'll do so now, but if you ever have cause to come back to DRV, please do not omit this step in future.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Given that there is nothing in the article that could be considered negative, I think that waiting for the community to add sources is acceptable. Reslisting may be helpful, hopefully it will either draw attention to the needs for sources or result in deletion if such sources cannot be found. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] But we cannot close an AFD as delete if there is little to no community support. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No indeed. A "delete" outcome would be unreasonable based on that debate. I'd have relisted it myself, or else I'd have refrained from closing at all and !voted "delete: unsourced BLP."—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Firstly the "non-admin" stuff is irrelevant - a close is either bad or good, it has nothing to do with who closes it. It is also the case that most admins would have closed a that AFD in the same manner - 1delete nomination and 3keep voters = keep. The nomination did not suggest there was a problem with sourcing, and that issue was not raised in the debate. The second ADF was a WP:POINT violation as the nominator nominated another five articles all of which had been well-closed by non-admins in a recent AFD. Having said of of that, we don't want to keep unsourced biographies on WIkipedia, and I'd encourage any admin closing an AFD to take the bold step of closing as delete without prejudice undeleting if someone is willing to source. But it has to be said, few are the admin who will do that lacking a consensus - and especially if the debate concludes that the subject is notable. I so move to delete this article, but without any criticism of the closer whatsoever.--Scott Mac 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't agree with you about that, Scott. Not about non-admin closures--I'm a non-admin and I close AfD's, and at the time of typing I'm the person who made the last three edits to WP:NAC which might interest you. But I do think that someone who closes an AfD about a BLP as "keep" without any sources in the article at all, has erred. Whether or not they're an admin. I think Gigs has the right of it and I respectfully suggest that you could have handled it differently.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To clarify, it's not the lack of sources per se, it's that the keep votes were based entirely on unsourced facts sourced from Wikipedia itself. The lack of sources, and the failure of anyone to produce them, does indicate a failure to meet the WP:GNG, regardless of BLP issues. Regarding the lack of notification of Scott Mac, that was an oversight. Gigs (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, sorta Is there anyone who can read the non-English sources that appear to be prevalent in Google? The community wants to keep it, so the obvious thing to do is simply add sourcing, and this whole thing becomes moot. There doesn't seem to be any assertion that what's listed in the BLP is either false or defamatory, and being unsourced isn't contentious per se. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment It appears sources have been added to the article. Can't tell if www.oikotimes.com is a RS or not. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The website is not a reliable source. The article contains a link to "SUBMIT NEWS" and appears to be user-generated content. The article lists ina-online.net as a source, but I have been unable to find any mention of Mariza Ikonomi on that website. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I can't see how the article could have been closed any other way. DRV is not AFD round 2, and there was a clear consensus the subject is notable. Ray^Talk 01:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I get really sick of hearing that. I'm not asking for AfD round two. I'm asking for a relisting because every !vote was based on facts pulled from a completely unreliable source, Wikipedia itself, and no sources to demonstrate notability were provided. There was not yet a single valid vote when the AfD was closed. Gigs (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You don't appear to recognize that the place to discuss the merits of particular arguments to keep or delete is at the AfD discussion alone, not there and subsequently again at DRV. Here, we check merely whether the closer strayed too far from the accepted practices of Wikipedia - the usual one being the reading of consensus opinion as expressed in the AfD discussion. Ray^Talk 03:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If patently invalid arguments are put forth at an AfD, the closer has a responsibility to discount them. If you think unsourced Wikipedia articles are a reliable source upon which to base Keep arguments, then I'm not sure what to say. Gigs (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close without prejudice to relisting or summary deletion if the BLP remains unsourced. I would also have endorsed a close in which the non-admin closer had tagged the article for immediate deletion as an unsourced BLP --TS 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist – Considering that the article is a BLP and Gigs's explicit request for sources, I think that most of the regular AfD closers would have relisted. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist This unsourced BLP violates the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. None of those supporting retention at the AfD has provided sources. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way, with liberty to relist immediately. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse but relist. Technically, this was probably an acceptable close, but it's led to an unacceptable result. A proper discussion on the merits of the article is called for. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Did the non-admin also do the close early? Gigs would have had my support in reverting the close on that basis alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] About 14 hours early. I'm not sure it would have made a difference. Gigs (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse keep no relist. If anyone can just relist and re-nominate any article after it is kept by proper procedure, then the pedia and its policies are just silly. It would be disruptive to relist this or nominate again. We should have a rule that kept articles can not be touched several years, I see too much of this lately. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. The close was about 15 hours early as well. I often look at AfDs on the last day of listing - after all arguments have been made - to see whether I can add anything of use. Closing 15 hours early deprives me and other editors who do the same of the opportunity to contribute to these discussions. It is quite possible that had the close waited until 168 hours had elapsed, it would have attracted some delete !votes on the basis of the unsourced BLP issues. The close was out of process for more than just NAC reasons and ought to be overturned.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mariza Ikonomi – Relist at AfD. – T. Canens (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This non-admin closure for keep followed three keep !votes that were entirely based on looking at accomplishments listed in other unsourced Wikipedia articles at foreign language Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially not completely unreferenced BLPs at other language Wikipedias. The AfD was reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariza Ikonomi (2nd nomination), but was speedy closed by Scott Mac as "pointy". I don't think a keep vote based on using Wikipedia as a source is valid, and I ask that either the original AfD be reopened and relisted, or the second AfD be reopened and relisted with the original AfD votes copied to it. The second AfD drew one delete vote before being closed. The fact that it was a non-admin closure is not the central issue here, but rather the fact that it was an improper closure that failed to discount votes based on using Wikipedia as a source. Gigs (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I don't see any community support for deleting the article. A lack of sources can be dealt with by sourcing. If it is in violation of BLP as it stands then an uninvolved admin does not need an AfD to delete it or edit it so that it is not in violation. I agree that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but that is an issue that can be dealt with through editing. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I closed it as keep. It can't be deleted without community support. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Gigs is correct here. We've got an unsourced BLP in our encyclopaedia, Gigs has rightly questioned that, and yet he's had the door slammed in his face. Two AfDs have been closed as "keep" despite the fact that no sources whatsoever have been provided. Chillum is right to say that "a lack of sources can be dealt with by sourcing", but nobody has actually sourced it. That step is not optional. This is a BLP.
The right place to discuss sources is AfD and we need to send it back there. Those who say this article can be sourced should be given the chance to prove it. Let them do so, and if they do not, then let it be deleted.
Gigs: as the DRV nominator, it's your role to notify the AfD closer of this discussion. Which includes Scott Mac. I'll do so now, but if you ever have cause to come back to DRV, please do not omit this step in future.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is nothing in the article that could be considered negative, I think that waiting for the community to add sources is acceptable. Reslisting may be helpful, hopefully it will either draw attention to the needs for sources or result in deletion if such sources cannot be found. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we cannot close an AFD as delete if there is little to no community support. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed. A "delete" outcome would be unreasonable based on that debate. I'd have relisted it myself, or else I'd have refrained from closing at all and !voted "delete: unsourced BLP."—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the "non-admin" stuff is irrelevant - a close is either bad or good, it has nothing to do with who closes it. It is also the case that most admins would have closed a that AFD in the same manner - 1delete nomination and 3keep voters = keep. The nomination did not suggest there was a problem with sourcing, and that issue was not raised in the debate. The second ADF was a WP:POINT violation as the nominator nominated another five articles all of which had been well-closed by non-admins in a recent AFD. Having said of of that, we don't want to keep unsourced biographies on WIkipedia, and I'd encourage any admin closing an AFD to take the bold step of closing as delete without prejudice undeleting if someone is willing to source. But it has to be said, few are the admin who will do that lacking a consensus - and especially if the debate concludes that the subject is notable. I so move to delete this article, but without any criticism of the closer whatsoever.--Scott Mac 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you about that, Scott. Not about non-admin closures--I'm a non-admin and I close AfD's, and at the time of typing I'm the person who made the last three edits to WP:NAC which might interest you. But I do think that someone who closes an AfD about a BLP as "keep" without any sources in the article at all, has erred. Whether or not they're an admin. I think Gigs has the right of it and I respectfully suggest that you could have handled it differently.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it's not the lack of sources per se, it's that the keep votes were based entirely on unsourced facts sourced from Wikipedia itself. The lack of sources, and the failure of anyone to produce them, does indicate a failure to meet the WP:GNG, regardless of BLP issues. Regarding the lack of notification of Scott Mac, that was an oversight. Gigs (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, sorta Is there anyone who can read the non-English sources that appear to be prevalent in Google? The community wants to keep it, so the obvious thing to do is simply add sourcing, and this whole thing becomes moot. There doesn't seem to be any assertion that what's listed in the BLP is either false or defamatory, and being unsourced isn't contentious per se. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears sources have been added to the article. Can't tell if www.oikotimes.com is a RS or not. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website is not a reliable source. The article contains a link to "SUBMIT NEWS" and appears to be user-generated content.
The article lists ina-online.net as a source, but I have been unable to find any mention of Mariza Ikonomi on that website. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I can't see how the article could have been closed any other way. DRV is not AFD round 2, and there was a clear consensus the subject is notable. Ray^Talk 01:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get really sick of hearing that. I'm not asking for AfD round two. I'm asking for a relisting because every !vote was based on facts pulled from a completely unreliable source, Wikipedia itself, and no sources to demonstrate notability were provided. There was not yet a single valid vote when the AfD was closed. Gigs (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't appear to recognize that the place to discuss the merits of particular arguments to keep or delete is at the AfD discussion alone, not there and subsequently again at DRV. Here, we check merely whether the closer strayed too far from the accepted practices of Wikipedia - the usual one being the reading of consensus opinion as expressed in the AfD discussion. Ray^Talk 03:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If patently invalid arguments are put forth at an AfD, the closer has a responsibility to discount them. If you think unsourced Wikipedia articles are a reliable source upon which to base Keep arguments, then I'm not sure what to say. Gigs (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close without prejudice to relisting or summary deletion if the BLP remains unsourced. I would also have endorsed a close in which the non-admin closer had tagged the article for immediate deletion as an unsourced BLP --TS 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist – Considering that the article is a BLP and Gigs's explicit request for sources, I think that most of the regular AfD closers would have relisted. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This unsourced BLP violates the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. None of those supporting retention at the AfD has provided sources. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way, with liberty to relist immediately. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but relist. Technically, this was probably an acceptable close, but it's led to an unacceptable result. A proper discussion on the merits of the article is called for. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did the non-admin also do the close early? Gigs would have had my support in reverting the close on that basis alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About 14 hours early. I'm not sure it would have made a difference. Gigs (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep no relist. If anyone can just relist and re-nominate any article after it is kept by proper procedure, then the pedia and its policies are just silly. It would be disruptive to relist this or nominate again. We should have a rule that kept articles can not be touched several years, I see too much of this lately. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The close was about 15 hours early as well. I often look at AfDs on the last day of listing - after all arguments have been made - to see whether I can add anything of use. Closing 15 hours early deprives me and other editors who do the same of the opportunity to contribute to these discussions. It is quite possible that had the close waited until 168 hours had elapsed, it would have attracted some delete !votes on the basis of the unsourced BLP issues. The close was out of process for more than just NAC reasons and ought to be overturned.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 November 2010

[edit]

2010 Karachi plane crash – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2010 Karachi plane crash (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Ths closing admin here has wrongly focussed on the WP:GNG, when the actual reason for deletion was for failing WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, and WP:AIRCRASH. And looking at the whole debate against that rationale, an outcome of a "strong consensus" to keep is very hard to properly justify. He also appears to have taken barely 4 minutes to decide that. (that's the short TLDR version, read on for a fuller explanation if you want) Going through the debate, first you must dismiss the completely ignorable non-votes (Elmao 09:31, Dr. Blofeld 18:55), and the bare blind assertion votes, (68.45.109.14 04:10, Milowent 18:55), and then even arguably the 'follow the leader' type questionable votes that Lugnut's original comment seemed to spawn (Zbase4 01:34, Saqib Qayyum 06:39, nomi887 07:06, Ser Amantio di Nicolao 18:39), which are devalued both as simple poor PERNOM votes, and by his failure to defend that 'parent' vote even on the prima facie ommissions/errors he made on the basic wording of the GNG. After that first pass of elimination, you are not left with much either tbh. While you do move onto votes which at least gave some sort of not immediately invalid, expanded, arguments, some addressing the full rationale, some not, they all still contained many flaws and reasons to discount them. For example, many of the arguments which attempted to rebutt WP:NOT#NEWS for example, (Sjakkalle 15:11, Cyclopiatalk 21:10, Pedro 15:39, Wikireader41 14:17), claimed to know what was and was not 'routine', yet could not/would not defend their votes to challenge, and to a man they all decided to completely ignore EVENT, despite it being the accepted guideline for making that particular judgement call. Others attempted to simply give their own aircrash notability criteria, and thus simply hang their vote on a declaration their own standards were met, (Mar4d 08:46, Mjroots 03:23), even though they were pointed to the pre-existing essay/draft guidance on the topic, which may not count for much, but are all we have specifically on aircrashes, and so obviously, if that info is to be ignored in favour of proprietary opinions, it should be with a good, evidence backed, rationale. Where other votes like Pedros's classic WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC type rationale come in the grand scheme of things is not really clear to me given the closing statement, but that above is a full summary of all the votes which the closer asserts showed a "strong consensus" to keep. And on that score, it is shocking to realise that in that whole debate, whether people used policy backed reasons or not, to a man, not once did anybody refer or specifically use the actual content of the actual sources used in the article to back their opinions, which as of now, still represents just one 24 hour news cycle. As such, even keep rationales which looked at first glance to be policy backed, are infact weak. I think many keepers simply chose not back up their opinions when challenged, because an examination of the actual sources left them no other choice but to stay silent on anything they might have asserted as fact, in the grand scheme of all things 'encyclopoedic'. In terms of quality of debate, of the few people who did decide to even attempt to defend their votes from challenge, rather than just voting and running, engaging these people proved to just be a complete waste of time in terms of proper Afd practices, as the respective discussion threads started, or descended, into classic tendentious behaviour, such as playing the man and not the ball, or continuing to pretend even after correction that the assertion that 'the deletion reason is just an essay' was remotely true. In terms of being able to divine a consensus via the expression of proper and cluefull argumentation, which is what Afd is supposed to be about, not much of anything the keep side blindly asserted about the GNG, or otherwise claimed was somehow a rebuttal of the deletion rationale, but wasn't really, counted for much in that regard. Moving to the timing issue, based on his contribs for that date, the closing admin appears to have spent less than four minutes reviewing the whole discussion and coming to his conclusion, which seems to be backed up by that fact he did not comment at all on all the questions and points I made specifically for the benefit of the closer. I did ask the closer to clarify all this before coming to review, putting all these objections out in detail on his talk page, and he has responded with the metaphorical middle finger, so I don't see why his ability to properly review and summarise a complex Afd discussion like that should be assumed by anyone here. If he now chooses to do so here, it is bear in mind, at the third time of asking. On the meta-level merits of the closure in general, just to illustrate the general poorness of it, which I remind you is cited as a "stong consensus" for deeming something worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, take a look at any random piece of news that is on Google News right now, and ask yourself in all honesty, would that have been remotely delete-able given the exact same keep arguments, and this closure? I think not, which should set alarms bells ringing for any editor not at the extreme ends of the policy interpretation spectra. So, all these things considered, this closure is I believe, resting on pretty shaky ground, and at the least, should be overturned to a 'no consensus' (i.e., deletion rationale not answered, but consensus to delete not fully shown). As ever, I remind responders and the closer of the review, that this debate is DRV, not AFD 2, so keep your arguments focused on the merits and validity of the closure, not on rehasing the Afd debate. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse To have closed this any other way would be completely disregarding the consensus. The arguments to keep were policy based, and while some valid policy based arguements were made to delete they simply did not represent the communities position on the matter. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] For the record, do you consider arguments like 'I think it is clearly notable' to be an example of a policy backed argument, or not? Or is it something more. Lugnut's first vote for example. He refers to the GNG, he even types some of it out. He also purposely left out a part of it, and quite clearly demonstrated he has no understanding of what the presumption part of it even means (check!?!?). He also purposely refused point blank to answer any and all challenges to it, even though his argument quite literally was to copy and paste parts of a page and write "Check" five times. So, do you consider that to be an example of making a policy backed argument, or not? I believe the answer to both questions is emphatically no, if Afd is to be anything other than a dumb exercise in vote counting. At the end of the day, people can cite all the policies they want in a vote - if they cannot demonstrate they understand them, and cannot defend them against challenges, then all they have really demonstrated is that they can pick up a few key phrases, or copy and paste text, and know when to throw them out there. And if on the off chance you did agree that both of those are not actually examples of policy backed arguments, then please give a specific example of someone in that Afd who did actually give one. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think we have different interpretations of this AfD. I disagree with your point of view. Regardless each of our opinions are valid so lets just let the outcome of this DRV decide. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you say so. I rather think that Wikipedia runs on the idea that no, not all opinions are equally valid, and deciding whose opinion is better is done through a process of active, participant driven, discussion. And on that score, by answering my questions, you would at least have had the possibility of convincing me that your interpretation was more valid than mine. As it is, I am just left wondering what you do and don't consider to be a policy backed argument, just like I am left wondering how the original Afd can be closed as "strong keep". And I don't see how anyone else, most importantly the future closer of this Drv, is supposed to judge that either. MickMacNee (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse by the numbers it's really clear. I found the arguments discounting WP:EVENT to be very strong. I find that when it comes to NOTNEWS for events WP:EVENT does a good job of providing guideposts for what is and isn't a NOTNEWS issue, so that policy is also met at this time. The only other reason given to delete was an essay which holds little weight. So on the whole I find both numbers and arguments to be on the side of keeping. That said, if in a few weeks the coverage completely has dried up the "long lasting" issue would arise and then at that point there might be a good reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not clear if you are saying EVENT is irrelevant, or that it has been met. The guideposts EVENT sets are very clear - and I cannot see how the cited coverage, taken from just one 24 hour news cycle, even partially meets them. And it is not reasonable to expect this to be kept on the basis it can be put to Afd if it is later demonstrated that no, it was of no lasting historical significance at all - you know exactly what most people would say in that second Afd, especially when the closer claims that there was a "strong consensus" to keep in the first one. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as consensus at the AfD in question could hardly have been interpreted any other way. Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Wishing that WP:NOTNEWS applied in this case cannot stand in the face of the community's clear consensus that it does not. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This depends on whether you think the expression of community consensus on whether it does or doesn't apply is deduced using nothing more complex than counting up all the people who said it does, and all the people who said it doesn't, and do a bit of math. If you or the closer wants to explain where this 'clear consensus' stems from other than such vote-counting, I'm all ears, but countering accusations of consensus by blind assertion, with yet more blind assertion, doesn't really move anything on does it? At some point someone is going to actually have to stand up and defend their argument in a way that not only garners support from people who would always agree whatever, but that also makes sense to people who don't, but who concede the point because the way the point is made is so logical and convincing. As of right now, we are miles from that. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There's really not that much to discuss. You, although not you alone, ignore or wish away a key sentence in NOTNEWS that limits the applicability to routine news. Consensus is that this event is sufficiently non-routine that NOTNEWS doesn't apply. When you fail to get the result here, you are free to start an RfC, where the result will also likely not be to your liking. Policies and guidelines are descriptive, and if you're seeing the community not agree with you, then it is your understanding of policy that is incorrect, not the community. I've been on the "wrong" end of discussions where I think the consensus is incorrect, although rarely standing alone in isolation, and the real decision you have to make is whether you are still willing to collaborate with people who do not and will not share your views. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do not seek to 'wish it away' or ignore it in the slightest, I have an understanding of what it means both generally, and thus by reasonable extension for aircrashes (supported, however weakly, by AIRCRASH), that is robustly defensible, without having to have to hide behind basic assertion to be able to partake in that debate. I'll give you an example. Take a look at this accident. It occured 20 years ago, and involved the same aircraft, and a similar death toll. It was even a scheduled passenger flight, which this was not, and it apparently crashed in a residential area, which this did not (actually, bizarrely, who even knows based on that excuse of an article?). I put it to you that there is no way you or anyone else could ever hope to write an article on that crash that meets EVENT, and if perchance you could, you would be relying on something this article simple does not have - actual verifiable evidence of an actual, non-'routine news value'-based, interpretation of lasting notability. Alternatively, you can come up with evidence of a pre-existing article that already exists on Wikipedia that documents a crash like this one, but from 20 years ago, that is sourced just like this one solely to contemporary news reports of this sort of duration, scope, and depth, that would stand up to an EVENT based Afd right now. Or thirdly, you yourself can show me an Rfc which has concluded that EVENT is a steaming pile of junk which is not fit to wear the badge of 'pre-existing consensus'. Either way, whichever path you take, you would ultimately win this argument without having resorted to blind assertion, and I would look like a fool, a fool, if I did not ultimately concede the point in the face of such a good and proper policy based argument. But ultimately, that's how confident I am in what I am saying, whether people are willing to rebutt it, or defend themselves, or not as the case maybe. Can you really say the same based on that Afd? Is it really, honestly, a mark of having a 'non-collaborative spirit' to expect you or anyone else to actually be able to deal with this sort of reality in that manner? I say not, and I think that a proper reading of things like the Afd instruction manual, and all associated guidance on such matters, would actually support this. MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Perhaps the Wikiproject Aviation people need to recognize that their standards for what is a notable accident are out of line with the community, and I suggest the current version of their notability page be labelled to indicate this. The community almost always regards events in which large numbers of people are killed as notable. The meaning of "large" is apparently not fixed, and probably varies by type of event. (It changes with time; when I came here 4 years ago, for murders it meant >2 victims; currently, the consensus seems a little higher--though my own opinion is that the older consensus was right.) I think the community here reflects the public conception also, and Wikipedia is written in order to be read. WP includes most of the elements of an almanac, and public transportation events such as this have always been included in almanacs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) Actually, no, I do not think that those almanacs do exist for this particular subject, not in the detail required anyway. Certainly I've never ever seen anybody cite one in an Afd, let alone an article. That is why, if you asked someone to write an article about this crash in 30 years time, without resorting to going into an archive and finding the contemporary news sources it uses right now, they would fail, miserably. That is also precisely the reason why this, looks so markedly different to this. Articles like this from 1980 are not being written here, not because people are over-flowing with ongoing coverage and sources and just haven't got around to it, they are not being written because editors cannot easily access pre-2005 newspaper archives, and the only thing an almanac would ever provide you with if they even do exist for this sort of historically non-notable crash, is the bare essentials - death toll, airline and flight no, location, and maybe a paragraph of detail if you are lucky. I freely challenge you, or anyone else here, to go and find a comparable incident to this one from around 1980, and try to create an article that would not get deleted at Afd. It can't be done. There is simply no way that you could ever define Wikipedia's mission in a way that would support the idea that Wikipedia is the place to blindly and faithfully document every single fatal aircrash with it's own article from simple contemporary news reports, whatever the circumnstances, which is why even in four years you've seen consensus change on murders. You might in answer suggest proposing an arbitrary death toll 'magic number' of what is and is not separately notable, to kind of make that sound more legitimate for aircrashes, but that in effect only makes it look even more like a prima facie mission failure. You say that Wikipeida is meant to be read, and on the almanac point, that usually means by both laymen and expert. Well, right now it is failing both target audiences for this field - the bored reader / news junkie who only reads Wikipedia to 'find out more', can only do so for crashes in the era after the internet went live. It is only that Wikinews is so crap that these people even come here, and are part of the problem. Pick any random crash article that is like this one, and see if it has advanced beyond what was stuffed into it as the news was fresh. Those that do develop, there is usually a reason behind it, that is in harmony with, and not in conflict with, EVENT. And those topic focussed readers, who naturally expect to find the templates linked above to document reliably and evenly, only those truly significant crashes through the ages in a historically balanced and actual signficance asserting way, are being served up with an increasingly recentist, pointless, and frankly innaccessible product. Who out of that group would ever seriously use Wikipedia instead of the Aviation Safety Network, for example? And really, even with an endless supply of editor effort, that is not a fixable issue, because the reason for it is a very basic misunderstanding of policy as it applies to this field (and people dismissing out of hand the only effort to write something topic specific, by topic knowledgable but balanced editors, is only likely to make that worse, not better, over time). MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. That debate was verging on a snow keep.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- Consensus was clearly read, and there is no policy based reason that the consensus should be overruled. If nothing else, the consensus shows that rules such as NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH can be overridden if consensus feels it will improve the encyclopedia. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] IAR is 100% irrelevant, you invoke IAR on pain of death when you have no citeable support by consensus, that is the whole point of it. There would frankly never be a policy based reason to 'ignore consensus' in the way you describe, you cannot by definition have a consenus if the thing you are claiming consensus for goes against an existing policy, which are the expressions of standing consensus (unless of course the thing you are trying to form a consensus on, is to actually change that policy). You can only get consensus for an IAR action after doing the thing you invoked IAR for - it is for dealing with situations where the only thing stopping you from improving the pedia is some pointless beurocratic rule that you don't think in all common sense would ever have consensus for slavishly adhering to in the particular situation you found yourself in and want to invoke IAR for (and accordingly if so, you would easily find a clearly favourable consensus after the event, because it is of such an obvious 'no brainer' benefit to the pedia, and the rule was so obviously not applicable except in some counter-productive bureaucratic sense). People who have in the past tried to retroactively use IAR to justify an act they knew full well went against the pre-existing opinions of a good number of editors, have rightly come unstuck - it is a fundemental error in understanding. It is frankly off the wall to even begin to try and claim that a core pillar like WP:NOT is just a pointless beurocratic obstacle to the desired goal of being allowed to freely write a Wikipedia article on every fatal aircrash that ever occurs, just because we can. That's mad. And if anything, the prevailing opinion in here is not that the Afd seeks to ignore WP:NOT by invoking IAR for the greater good, it is that it does not apply in the first place (and what is in dispute is how well, or how badly, that is being argued), a view that it is asserted by keepers/endorsers was properly backed up by a demonstrable consensus both before and after the event (the event being the Afd closure as 'strong keep'). That is a subtle but crucial difference to throwing an IAR hail mary and hoping for the best, but a difference none-the-less. So as ever, we are left with the mythical 'it was clearly notable' opinion, which as ever, is just more of the same problematic basic assertion. MickMacNee (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] IAR is exactly relevant. It says that when the consensus states that the rules get in the way of doing things right, we ignore the rule, and go with what the consensus says is right. That you disagree with that consensus does not change that consensus. Barring an overwhelming reason to delete, like severe BLP issues, or a copyvio, the admin closing the debate needs to adhere to what the consensus was.Umbralcorax (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Seriously, you could not have misunderstood IAR more. Doesn't the fact that not one person here other than you is even mentioning IAR not tip you off to that fact? MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The only thing that IAR means is that if a rule gets in the way if improving or maintaining Wikipedia then you should ignore it. It means nothing else. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To quote WP:IAR- "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". The people in that afd thought the rules you were citing weren't as important as keeping that article, and therefore those rules were ignored. Also, While I can understand your consternation, I would appreciate it if you would be a little more CIVIL in this conversation, thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Quoting the IAR page here as if I am a fucking moron and assuming I would be talking to you about a page I have never read, let alone never seen being used/abused, is what is decidely incivil behaviour tbh. What is not invicil behaviour is pointing out the basic fact to you that nobody in the Afd cited IAR, the closer did not cite IAR, and nobody in this DRV except you is citing IAR, and for the record, I cannot think of any Afd that has ever been closed as 'keep, WP:IAR:ignore WP:NOT'. That is not what happened here, and it is not what IAR for. You don't want to believe me, fine, I really could not care less. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You were corrected about IAR not because people thought you were a "fucking moron", it was because you were attributing qualities to IAR that simply do not exist in its wording. IAR does not need to be cited to be used, in fact it is often better not to cite it and to just go ahead and do it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure Consensus was clearly in favour of keeping the article. The issue of notability of aircraft crashes is being worked on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability, where all editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There's that word 'clearly' again. It really should be pointed out here that this crash does not meet a single part of the current draft guidance, not a word of it, nor any of the other proposals on its talk page either (except that of Mjroot's, which is getting the usual amount of support it gets, which is not a lot). This Afd closure, and that draft guidance, in any likely final form, could not be further apart on the whole 'what is a routine crash' issue. Endorsing this Afd outcome just shows that even general guidance like EVENT is simply ignorable 'by consensus' (lol), as long as enough people in an Afd can just about manage to type 'keep, clearly notable per the GNG' or 'NOT#NEWS doesn't apply, this is not a routine event', and then just run away (and seriously, it cannot be stressed enough that this was the type of vote that was presumably at the "strong" end of the closer's summarising of the votes). Anyone pretending that this topic specific bit of Guidance on aircrashes will make a blind bit of difference to that disfunctional Afd culture/situation, is dreaming if you ask me. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the consensus of the community was rightly interpreted by closing admin. WP:NOTNEWS as a reason to delete fatal aircrash articles has been routinely rejected by the community recently on most AfDs. The results of this AfD are not surprising in the least bit as wont' be the results of this deletion review.--Wikireader41 (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Renominate in 6-12 months when everything has died down and it'll probably be deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] And what about WP:NTEMP? The only legitimate, non-policy conflicting way Wikipedia could succesfully delete this in 12 months time, is funnily enough, if the people voting keep now, were proven to have been making vague waves and blind assertions as to what is and is not 'clearly notable', and the closer wrongly weighted their flawed arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm on your side here, and I'm aware of NTEMP, but policy is only a summation of common practice and there is no way that a deletion result will carry here and now. Pick your battles. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Strong Endorse The closing admin clearly acted in favor of the strong consensus to keep. Barts1a (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reluctant endorse - Many "keeps" in there are wholly ignorant of what WP:NOTNEWS actually means, but there's just too many of them to overcome. Sometimes the lemming method carries the day. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is depressingly probably the best summary yet of what actually happened in that Afd, and what is so wrong with the closure. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per overwhelming consensus expressed at discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Neutral, as I wanted the article deleted (see AfD-in-question), but realize it's gonna remain. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Accurate reflection of consensus, regardless of how much the nominator insists that his opinion is the only possible correct one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't have 'just an opinion' on this. In the true spirit of how actual Wikipedia consensus building is supposed to work, I have presented a fact based argument, referring to the actual sources in the article, and citing the actual spirit as well as the wording of several well established policies, and which are backed by the consensus of thousands of editors, which if admins are doing their job properly in closing Afds, they are supposed to weight accordingly, and not simply ignore and pretend a pile of WP:ATAs from 10 or 20 editors are remotely valid in that regard. If anyone has provided anything in reply to my argument in this Drv except just more of the same source-less/policy-lite 'opinion' that came out in the Afd, then seriously, just point it out here with diffs, and I'll forget all about it. At last count, I have suggested at least four different ways that people endorsing this closure could actualy convince everybody here, not just the people who agree, that they are the holders of the 'correct opinion'. Nobody seems to want to take up the challenge. Will you? Can you, even? Based on your non-reply to this, I think not. No, your contribution to that Afd was ironically, 'just an opinion', and all you are doing here, is blinding insisting it is the only possible correct one. We will never ever it seems, see you even attempt to prove that statements like "Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events" have any relevance or support in the real world of measuring actual, historical notability, or have any use at all to building a proper encyclopoedia whose inclusion is based on proper notability standards, instead of a simple GNG vague-wave backed inclusion standard, creating nothing but a recentism infested Google News dumping ground whose collection of news articles gets staler and staler by the day, a body of work that no serious historical researcher would touch with a barge pole, and no general reader needs after the news dies down. What you simply asserted is worthy of inclusion here for all time, has no backing in real world treatment of similar crashes, and certainly has no backing on Wikipedia's coverage of air accidents before the Google News era. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The policies related to this article are not so black and white that opinion should be discarded, if that were so the DRV and for that matter the AfD would not be needed. We are a consensus based encyclopedia and our policies do give this consensus a lot of discretion in this area. It is clear you have a strong opinion on this subject but others have their own opinions. While you have taken great effort to convert people's opinion to yours, it appears they have not been swayed. Insisting that your opinion is more correct than theirs despite this is unlikely to change minds where your cogent arguments have not done so. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Chillum you have hit the nail on the head. MMN has a long history of believing that his interpretation of WP guidelines/policies is better than almost everybody else. wp policies are intentionally gray so that different editors from diverse backgrounds can express how a particular guideline/policy applies to the question at hand. we specifically do not have any wikilaws and WP:NOTLAW is a policy. this AfD and DRV is another classic example where in face of near impossible opposition he continues to believe that his assertions are "right" and he (and and a handful of people agreeing with him) are the only ones who understand the working of wikipedia. classic case of "Can't see the forest for the trees" IMO. The essay WP:LETGO was written for this occasion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well in this case it actually is better, since the keeps are remarkably (and predictably) short-sighted. But as Dick Tuck famously said, "the people have spoken, the bastards". Tarc (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I can only wonder at what sort of background it takes for someone to realy believe that 'omfg planes don't routinely fall out of the sky!' and vague waving to the GNG is in any way a cogent rebuttal to a NOT#NEWS / EVENT / AIRCRASH nomination. Wikireader41, as ever, I'm always amused at your attempts to make it sound like not thinking like you do, not debating like you do, and not understanding consensus the way you do, is a Bad Thing. I find it to be a most uplifting and soul-reaffirming thing to yet again see what sort of thin, albeit non-existent, argument that I am supposedly 'losing' to. Frankly, to carry on the analogies and go to boxing, you cannot even claim to have won a fight if all you do is throw one weak punch and then run away. Ask Audrey Harrison. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Neutral - I cannot fault Cirt's closure (I would not have written "strong consensus, but that's a technicality), but I also cannot endorse not the "keep" outcome. Irrespective of the relative quality of the arguments, realistically the AfD could not have been closed as "delete" (it would have been quickly restored at DRV). I think Stifle's suggestion to revisit the issue in 6–12 months is the best one, under the circumstances. In theory, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to retain content to prove that an event has lasting notability or significance. In this case, however, waiting some months will help to clarify whether the accident will have any lasting effect. For what it's worth, I appreciated MickMacNee's detailed and well-reasoned attempt to address the 'keep' arguments, and I think that some of the response here has been unfair. Disagreement between editors engaged in an exchange of arguments is infinitely preferable to argument by assertion (no matter how obvious a particular outcome or the supremacy of one's own opinions may appear to be). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The correct outcome based on consensus and the merits. The crash is obviously notable per WP:GNG given the extent to which reliable sources have covered it. WP:NOT#NEWS prevents Wikipedia from being overwhelmed with the minutia of everyday news reporting, irrespective of whether reliable sources significantly cover this trivia, but should not be used to remove coverage of major events. Showing that a certain event is more notable than others of its class is unnecessary where the class itself is extraordinary. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability is an essay, thus completely unsuitable for a making a "policy trumps case-specific consensus" sort of argument. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] And yet, here we are in 2010, after many hundreds of aircrashes have occured in the age of easy access to Google News, and there is still no community accepted case specific guideline about aircrashes that looks even remotely like the case you've presented here as to what is and is not 'clearly notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There's no notability guideline specific to aircrashes at all. In the absence of such, the community should, and has, applied WP:GNG, as limited by WP:NOT#NEWS. I'm a big believer in NOT#NEWS - subjects like "Oprah's bad hair day" aren't encyclopedic, even if some credible sources decide to write about them in significant detail. What I oppose is the apparent suggestion that coverage of any event less major than Hurricane Katrina is somehow forbidden by NOT#NEWS, a position which seems more informed by the wording of the shortcut than the actual text of the policy, and has never achieved significant acceptance by the community. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes there is no topic specific notability guideline, but if you take a look at any and all possible drafts that have ever been written, using actual realistic examples and actual, real world knowledge of aviation history, rather than completely off the wall comparisons like Oprah's hair or Katrina, then you will see that they never ever come close to what you are trying to define as 'clearly notable' here. If you go and actualy look at that article, you will see that it probably has 0.1% of the coverage that Katrina got, if that. Which is why my point actualy was, not that there is no guideline, but that if you think you've correctly set the bar here in your general use of the GNG/NOT#NEWS, and want to see if that really is correct for aircrashes, then please, try and write that guideline as you think it should be, and see if the community actualy agress with it when the proposition is there in black and white, and they can compare it with WP:5P and WP:NOT. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There are books written, attempting comprehensibility of coverage of all Aviation accidents and incidents. There are continuously running television documentaries that cover any and all aviation accidents and incidents. There is no doubt, is there, that any event meeting the well defined terms found at Aviation accidents and incidents is the source of independent secondary coverage that discusses the subject directly? Every aviation accident and incident will be the subeject of a comprehensive investigation and report. There is no doubt that they are notable. The only debatable point is whether we have to wait for the investigation reports, or for the book or TV coverage, before we publish the facts of the aviation accident or incident. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Books and TV shows are made about this sort of accident? Are you absolutely sure of what you are saying here? Because let's be clear, this is not something that was not considered when AIRCRASH was written, or when the new draft Guidance was written. I've linked to a comparable crash above which happened 30 years ago, if there have been any books or programmes made about it, please let us know. The fact that reports are made is simply completely and utterly irrelevant - what is relevant to actual historical notability is what they say, as the historical precedents all show. So yes, if you want to use those as evidence of ongoing and lasting notability, then you need to wait. Again, this is not something that people who know about this topic have not considered, wrt EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, I guess I'd better be clear. The editors behind AIRCRASH are off the rails for a subject of such public interest and of serious industrial and scholarly study. Reports, such as news reports, or company annual reports, are often barely discriminating collections of facts, and are not considered by us to be indicative of wikipedia-notability. Reports are also often non-independent. But this is not the case here. Aircraft safety and risk management is a matter of extreme seriousness and exhaustive study. In most countries, regulatory investigative bodies are rigorously independent of the aircraft owner and the managers and the passengers. Their reports are independent, and comprehensive about every accident. The reports are endlessly compiled and further analysed, and the results become texts for further study. The abundance of this information, and the undeniable public interest, is why bookshops continuously sell new books on the subject, and why television produces more and more programs dedicated to aircraft accidents. The fact that reports are made that are independent and comprehensive is a conclusive reason to say that this (An aviation accident is defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, in which a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.) is a serious scholarly subject worthy of inclusion, and the never-ending popular books and TV programs merely confirm notability of such subject. The GNG is paramount, and if you consider coverage to be found in technical libraries (forget the internet), there is no case to argue that 2010 Karachi plane crash is not a worthy subject for inclusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Absolutely not. If you want to put this proposition to the community, go ahead. IMHO, you will never in a million years get a consensus, let alone a strong consensus, that it is Wikipedia's mission to have a whole entire article for every single incident as defined here. Your idea that public interest equates to encyclopoedic notability is what is way off base frankly, and you are wrong, wrong, wrong, if you think that secondary sources, namely books and programmes are being made about this sort of crash, based on primary sources, which is what accident reports and investigations are by any definition you care to use. And you are also wrong if you don't realise that the independance clause of the GNG precludes relying on just technical or specialist sources to show notability. Seriously, you are talking here as if there is not already 30, 40, 50 years of Aviation history out there that has been available for secondary coverage, that editors who are minded to write things like AIRCRASH, have not already considered, and weighed against how notability is defined in other fields, none of which treat anything with such a huge blanket inclusion criteria. Frankly, I think the only actual policy that comes close to supporting this idea, is WP:NOTPAPER, end even that is a stretch, considering that NOTPAPER itself is governed by all the other NOT criteria, i.e. Wikiepdia is not a news aggregator for aircrashes, Wikipedia is not a directory of aircrash reports, Wikipedia is not a database of aircrash information, and Wikipedia is not a journal of aviation safety, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information about aircrashes. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is no reference here to having a stand-alone article for every single incident as defined. Comparable subjects without much collective content get merged and redirected. What they don’t get is deleted. Post incident analysis reports are secondary sources with respect to the incident, even if they are technical. The independence clause of the GNG does no such thing as you say. The independence clause is mainly there to prevent the meeting our inclusion criteria through press releases, paid and sponsored coverage, subsidiary promotion of the parent, and similar. The independence clause has never been discussed in terms of the specialist or technical level of the source. Specialist and technical sources are often rejected as evidence of notability because online specialist and technical sources are often just compilations of data. Serious analytical specialist and technical sources, which easily meet the secondary source definition, tend not to be freely online, but where found, if independent, squarely cover the GNG. At a simple level, we cover subjects already covered by others. All aviation accidents and incidents get covered by others. The notability of these incidents is clear. The verifiability of the content is unquestioned. I really don’t get your problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd have been fine with a merge, because guess what? That is exactly what AIRCRASH recommends for this specific crash. That didn't make much difference to this Afd though. Incident investigations and reports are not independent for the purposes of establishing notability on an encyclopoedia at all - they are created by law, and they will be created whether the incident was encyclopoedically notable or not, as opposed to simply being in the public/safety authorities/legislators interest to create. To illustrate how this is not proof of notability, you will probably appreciate that an official investigation report is produced by law for every fatal road accident in any civilised country. How many road accident articles do you think we have on Wikipedia? The thing that creates notability there is if they lead to mass recalls of deathtrap designs, or caused the death of a famous celebrity, or in one case I can recall, produced a gory internet viral pic. They are absolutely not created because someone wrote a report on it. In the exact same way a police officer is not an independent source in that case, the aviation investigators are not independent sources for aircrash notabilty. Same for rail accidents, and doubtless countless other fields where you can find ample 'official report' type coverage. As for the idea that the only thing holding back our aircrash coverage is the lack of access to truly secondary but specialised/technical sources, you will find a wealth of info online in sources like the Aviation Safety Network, even for historical incidents (and tbh, even the primary official reports are all online these days, even archive ones). The idea that if 'multiple' sources like the ASN cover it with words, it would pass as 'independent secondary sources' for the purposes of the GNG, without any other coverage, like documentaries, books, etc, just demonstrates how your approach does not fit with our clearly understood mission. People like the ASN have their mission (to be a specialist source documenting and analsying every air crash), we have ours (to be a general encyclopedia which carries some specialist info if it is considered truly notable by people outside of those sources). We are not competitors of the ASN, not in the slightest. Just like we are not competitors to CNN, or the IMDB, or technical/scientific Journal publishers, or even national libraries/archives. If you think we are, then seriously, go and a draft Guideline for aircrashes that uses your ideas here, and put it out there. It would fail to get consensus, or anything even approaching it. Consider the reams and reams of the sort of coverage you describe as obvious notability above, that is generated for an incident like, say, a cabin door seal failing in mid flight causing an emergency landing. That is the exact sort of Wikipedia article that even most of the people voting keep in that Afd would vote delete on (and not even merge, but delete), even though it often even gets news coverage too. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Due to its analysis and synthesis of actual primary sources such as photographs of the wreckage and flight data recorder information, an accident report for an aircrash is a secondary source. Unlike most auto accident investigations, any report for a crash of a commercial aircraft in which multiple people died will itself be significantly covered by reliable media sources. The pendency of the report, and coverage of it, is not the only factor which supports notability, however. Others include the number of fatalities in a single incident, and significant coverage by credible news organizations throughout the world. It is my firm hope that you will one day appreciate the collective wisdom expressed by the community in AFD discussions. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Theoretically, it is actually possible to write an article from primary sources. Not advisable on an encyclopoedia, but possible, simply by using available documentation. If 'raw data' like magnetic tape info and photographs is where you are setting the bar at, for what is a primary source, and as soon as someone writes anything about it, it becomes a secondary source, then it becomes pretty obvious that your defintion is completely and utterly implausible. To use the WP:OR analogy of research papers being primary sources, and research review papers being secondary sources, it only becomes more obvious. By your perception, a first level research review paper would actually be a tertiary source! This is not supportable in any way. As for the rest of what you said, it's all been covered above, I'm losing the will to even discuss those things anymore for want of some actual, proper discussion on them. Consensus is worthless if you cannot even present the argument in such a way that someone can understand and accept it because of the logic of your argument and what you backed it up with, while still disagreeing. If you want me to accept the 'consensus' that the news coverage in that article is 'significant', rather than run of the mill see it on Google News every day all gathered from pretty much the same primary source with no depth or originality or persistence type wire repeating 'reporting', then knowing what I know about our mission, our policies, other articles, and news organisations in general, I am personally still at the 'wtf?' stage, and the 'why the hell do we even bother writing things like EVENT stage', rather than the 'well, I see what you mean, I can see how our mission/policy/precedent might support that view, but I think you are wrong' stage. MickMacNee (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Infact, this is probably the problem. If you can think a crash report is a secondary source, you will probably have no problem thinking that a routine news report is evidence of some Columbo level of interest by news organisations. The flaws in the argument are the same - if the report is the secondary source, how could any editor hope to write an article on the primary sources? And if the basic news reporting in that article is not routine, then what part of the daily 24 hour news cycle output BBC/Al-Jazeer/CNN daily output, can be considered routine? MickMacNee (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] While review papers are preferred sources, research papers, published in credible journals, are secondary sources insofar as they analyze the data collected and draw conclusions and this analysis is considered and affirmed by the peer reviewers of the journal in which published (otherwise we would have serious policy problems in using research papers for references, as is the current practice where insufficient review papers are available, or have been located by contributing users.) It is certainly possible to adequately warn editors against the practice of cherry-picking a few of the many research papers available to support their preferred point of view, synthesizing experimental data to support conclusions not drawn by the papers' authors, or using individual research papers to negate review papers' conclusions, without mischaracterizing the whole issue, as the text of WP:NOR currently does. We are fortunate that the actual policy is derived from a consensus of experienced editors throughout Wikipedia, not whatever text happens to be found in a policy page at any given point in time (which discourages much edit warring on policy pages.) Editors in AFD discussions seem perfectly capable of distinguishing routine newscasting from a 21 fatality crash of a commercial aircraft. You are well advised to do the community of which you are (currently) a part more credit than to claim that "consensus is worthless" because you personally cannot "understand and accept" its logic. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] A research review paper is a tertiary source, as it analyses other documents that analyse and discuss each other, in addition to their own primary data. If the research papers do not discuss their data in reference to other research papers, then they are not serious research publications. A secondary source relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. For fundamentally, it transforms the primary information, creating new information that is the product of the new author. Reports, news, or crash, are not usually secondary sources, but are comment-free reproduction of the known facts. A police report on a car crash is barely above this. The police may make comment on the suitability of the speed for the road, but generally they write a report of someone subsequent to analyse, with a collection of similar data. Road patrol officers are not usually considered analytical. The product of an aviation accident or incident investigation is much more than a police report containing the important facts. If it discusses, analyses, decides, recommends, then it is beyond a primary source and is a secondary source. True, we are not competitors of the ASN. But we should cover what the ASN covers. We should provide a passing summary of ASN content itself, excluding that sorted under "database". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To both of you, aircrash investigation reports are not secondary sources. The same author/body/entity that holds the primary data that goes into them, is the same body that analyses it, and is the same body that publishes it, and is the same body that makes recommendations on it. This is not the same as a research paper that has then been peer-reviewed and published by an independent journal. That's the whole point of requiring independence as per the GNG. And Peter, I did not say I did not understand the logic, I said it has not even been presented here in relation to to any policy or argument that would make it anything more than blind assertion or a personal opinion on what Wikipedia is and is WP:NOT. Sure, people might blithely manage to type 'that's notable' in an Afd, but on the issue of properly analysing and considering whether that particular body of news reporting is significant or not, then no, that is not how you build consensus at all, and no, such weak argumentation deserves no respect. And to Joe, "we should cover what the ASN covers" - prove it. It's not what we do now, and it's not what any topic specific draft guidance has even come close to, and that is most certainly not due to lack of online access to non-database like information. I will repeat, all the reports both of you want to contend are secondarys sources, are all available online. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2010 Karachi plane crash – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Ths closing admin here has wrongly focussed on the WP:GNG, when the actual reason for deletion was for failing WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, and WP:AIRCRASH. And looking at the whole debate against that rationale, an outcome of a "strong consensus" to keep is very hard to properly justify. He also appears to have taken barely 4 minutes to decide that.

(that's the short TLDR version, read on for a fuller explanation if you want)

Going through the debate, first you must dismiss the completely ignorable non-votes (Elmao 09:31, Dr. Blofeld 18:55), and the bare blind assertion votes, (68.45.109.14 04:10, Milowent 18:55), and then even arguably the 'follow the leader' type questionable votes that Lugnut's original comment seemed to spawn (Zbase4 01:34, Saqib Qayyum 06:39, nomi887 07:06, Ser Amantio di Nicolao 18:39), which are devalued both as simple poor PERNOM votes, and by his failure to defend that 'parent' vote even on the prima facie ommissions/errors he made on the basic wording of the GNG.

After that first pass of elimination, you are not left with much either tbh. While you do move onto votes which at least gave some sort of not immediately invalid, expanded, arguments, some addressing the full rationale, some not, they all still contained many flaws and reasons to discount them. For example, many of the arguments which attempted to rebutt WP:NOT#NEWS for example, (Sjakkalle 15:11, Cyclopiatalk 21:10, Pedro 15:39, Wikireader41 14:17), claimed to know what was and was not 'routine', yet could not/would not defend their votes to challenge, and to a man they all decided to completely ignore EVENT, despite it being the accepted guideline for making that particular judgement call. Others attempted to simply give their own aircrash notability criteria, and thus simply hang their vote on a declaration their own standards were met, (Mar4d 08:46, Mjroots 03:23), even though they were pointed to the pre-existing essay/draft guidance on the topic, which may not count for much, but are all we have specifically on aircrashes, and so obviously, if that info is to be ignored in favour of proprietary opinions, it should be with a good, evidence backed, rationale.

Where other votes like Pedros's classic WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC type rationale come in the grand scheme of things is not really clear to me given the closing statement, but that above is a full summary of all the votes which the closer asserts showed a "strong consensus" to keep. And on that score, it is shocking to realise that in that whole debate, whether people used policy backed reasons or not, to a man, not once did anybody refer or specifically use the actual content of the actual sources used in the article to back their opinions, which as of now, still represents just one 24 hour news cycle. As such, even keep rationales which looked at first glance to be policy backed, are infact weak. I think many keepers simply chose not back up their opinions when challenged, because an examination of the actual sources left them no other choice but to stay silent on anything they might have asserted as fact, in the grand scheme of all things 'encyclopoedic'.

In terms of quality of debate, of the few people who did decide to even attempt to defend their votes from challenge, rather than just voting and running, engaging these people proved to just be a complete waste of time in terms of proper Afd practices, as the respective discussion threads started, or descended, into classic tendentious behaviour, such as playing the man and not the ball, or continuing to pretend even after correction that the assertion that 'the deletion reason is just an essay' was remotely true. In terms of being able to divine a consensus via the expression of proper and cluefull argumentation, which is what Afd is supposed to be about, not much of anything the keep side blindly asserted about the GNG, or otherwise claimed was somehow a rebuttal of the deletion rationale, but wasn't really, counted for much in that regard.

Moving to the timing issue, based on his contribs for that date, the closing admin appears to have spent less than four minutes reviewing the whole discussion and coming to his conclusion, which seems to be backed up by that fact he did not comment at all on all the questions and points I made specifically for the benefit of the closer. I did ask the closer to clarify all this before coming to review, putting all these objections out in detail on his talk page, and he has responded with the metaphorical middle finger, so I don't see why his ability to properly review and summarise a complex Afd discussion like that should be assumed by anyone here. If he now chooses to do so here, it is bear in mind, at the third time of asking.

On the meta-level merits of the closure in general, just to illustrate the general poorness of it, which I remind you is cited as a "stong consensus" for deeming something worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, take a look at any random piece of news that is on Google News right now, and ask yourself in all honesty, would that have been remotely delete-able given the exact same keep arguments, and this closure? I think not, which should set alarms bells ringing for any editor not at the extreme ends of the policy interpretation spectra.

So, all these things considered, this closure is I believe, resting on pretty shaky ground, and at the least, should be overturned to a 'no consensus' (i.e., deletion rationale not answered, but consensus to delete not fully shown). As ever, I remind responders and the closer of the review, that this debate is DRV, not AFD 2, so keep your arguments focused on the merits and validity of the closure, not on rehasing the Afd debate. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse To have closed this any other way would be completely disregarding the consensus. The arguments to keep were policy based, and while some valid policy based arguements were made to delete they simply did not represent the communities position on the matter. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, do you consider arguments like 'I think it is clearly notable' to be an example of a policy backed argument, or not? Or is it something more. Lugnut's first vote for example. He refers to the GNG, he even types some of it out. He also purposely left out a part of it, and quite clearly demonstrated he has no understanding of what the presumption part of it even means (check!?!?). He also purposely refused point blank to answer any and all challenges to it, even though his argument quite literally was to copy and paste parts of a page and write "Check" five times. So, do you consider that to be an example of making a policy backed argument, or not? I believe the answer to both questions is emphatically no, if Afd is to be anything other than a dumb exercise in vote counting. At the end of the day, people can cite all the policies they want in a vote - if they cannot demonstrate they understand them, and cannot defend them against challenges, then all they have really demonstrated is that they can pick up a few key phrases, or copy and paste text, and know when to throw them out there. And if on the off chance you did agree that both of those are not actually examples of policy backed arguments, then please give a specific example of someone in that Afd who did actually give one. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have different interpretations of this AfD. I disagree with your point of view. Regardless each of our opinions are valid so lets just let the outcome of this DRV decide. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. I rather think that Wikipedia runs on the idea that no, not all opinions are equally valid, and deciding whose opinion is better is done through a process of active, participant driven, discussion. And on that score, by answering my questions, you would at least have had the possibility of convincing me that your interpretation was more valid than mine. As it is, I am just left wondering what you do and don't consider to be a policy backed argument, just like I am left wondering how the original Afd can be closed as "strong keep". And I don't see how anyone else, most importantly the future closer of this Drv, is supposed to judge that either. MickMacNee (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse by the numbers it's really clear. I found the arguments discounting WP:EVENT to be very strong. I find that when it comes to NOTNEWS for events WP:EVENT does a good job of providing guideposts for what is and isn't a NOTNEWS issue, so that policy is also met at this time. The only other reason given to delete was an essay which holds little weight. So on the whole I find both numbers and arguments to be on the side of keeping. That said, if in a few weeks the coverage completely has dried up the "long lasting" issue would arise and then at that point there might be a good reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear if you are saying EVENT is irrelevant, or that it has been met. The guideposts EVENT sets are very clear - and I cannot see how the cited coverage, taken from just one 24 hour news cycle, even partially meets them. And it is not reasonable to expect this to be kept on the basis it can be put to Afd if it is later demonstrated that no, it was of no lasting historical significance at all - you know exactly what most people would say in that second Afd, especially when the closer claims that there was a "strong consensus" to keep in the first one. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as consensus at the AfD in question could hardly have been interpreted any other way. Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wishing that WP:NOTNEWS applied in this case cannot stand in the face of the community's clear consensus that it does not. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on whether you think the expression of community consensus on whether it does or doesn't apply is deduced using nothing more complex than counting up all the people who said it does, and all the people who said it doesn't, and do a bit of math. If you or the closer wants to explain where this 'clear consensus' stems from other than such vote-counting, I'm all ears, but countering accusations of consensus by blind assertion, with yet more blind assertion, doesn't really move anything on does it? At some point someone is going to actually have to stand up and defend their argument in a way that not only garners support from people who would always agree whatever, but that also makes sense to people who don't, but who concede the point because the way the point is made is so logical and convincing. As of right now, we are miles from that. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's really not that much to discuss. You, although not you alone, ignore or wish away a key sentence in NOTNEWS that limits the applicability to routine news. Consensus is that this event is sufficiently non-routine that NOTNEWS doesn't apply. When you fail to get the result here, you are free to start an RfC, where the result will also likely not be to your liking. Policies and guidelines are descriptive, and if you're seeing the community not agree with you, then it is your understanding of policy that is incorrect, not the community. I've been on the "wrong" end of discussions where I think the consensus is incorrect, although rarely standing alone in isolation, and the real decision you have to make is whether you are still willing to collaborate with people who do not and will not share your views. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not seek to 'wish it away' or ignore it in the slightest, I have an understanding of what it means both generally, and thus by reasonable extension for aircrashes (supported, however weakly, by AIRCRASH), that is robustly defensible, without having to have to hide behind basic assertion to be able to partake in that debate. I'll give you an example. Take a look at this accident. It occured 20 years ago, and involved the same aircraft, and a similar death toll. It was even a scheduled passenger flight, which this was not, and it apparently crashed in a residential area, which this did not (actually, bizarrely, who even knows based on that excuse of an article?). I put it to you that there is no way you or anyone else could ever hope to write an article on that crash that meets EVENT, and if perchance you could, you would be relying on something this article simple does not have - actual verifiable evidence of an actual, non-'routine news value'-based, interpretation of lasting notability. Alternatively, you can come up with evidence of a pre-existing article that already exists on Wikipedia that documents a crash like this one, but from 20 years ago, that is sourced just like this one solely to contemporary news reports of this sort of duration, scope, and depth, that would stand up to an EVENT based Afd right now. Or thirdly, you yourself can show me an Rfc which has concluded that EVENT is a steaming pile of junk which is not fit to wear the badge of 'pre-existing consensus'. Either way, whichever path you take, you would ultimately win this argument without having resorted to blind assertion, and I would look like a fool, a fool, if I did not ultimately concede the point in the face of such a good and proper policy based argument. But ultimately, that's how confident I am in what I am saying, whether people are willing to rebutt it, or defend themselves, or not as the case maybe. Can you really say the same based on that Afd? Is it really, honestly, a mark of having a 'non-collaborative spirit' to expect you or anyone else to actually be able to deal with this sort of reality in that manner? I say not, and I think that a proper reading of things like the Afd instruction manual, and all associated guidance on such matters, would actually support this. MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Perhaps the Wikiproject Aviation people need to recognize that their standards for what is a notable accident are out of line with the community, and I suggest the current version of their notability page be labelled to indicate this. The community almost always regards events in which large numbers of people are killed as notable. The meaning of "large" is apparently not fixed, and probably varies by type of event. (It changes with time; when I came here 4 years ago, for murders it meant >2 victims; currently, the consensus seems a little higher--though my own opinion is that the older consensus was right.) I think the community here reflects the public conception also, and Wikipedia is written in order to be read. WP includes most of the elements of an almanac, and public transportation events such as this have always been included in almanacs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Actually, no, I do not think that those almanacs do exist for this particular subject, not in the detail required anyway. Certainly I've never ever seen anybody cite one in an Afd, let alone an article. That is why, if you asked someone to write an article about this crash in 30 years time, without resorting to going into an archive and finding the contemporary news sources it uses right now, they would fail, miserably. That is also precisely the reason why this, looks so markedly different to this. Articles like this from 1980 are not being written here, not because people are over-flowing with ongoing coverage and sources and just haven't got around to it, they are not being written because editors cannot easily access pre-2005 newspaper archives, and the only thing an almanac would ever provide you with if they even do exist for this sort of historically non-notable crash, is the bare essentials - death toll, airline and flight no, location, and maybe a paragraph of detail if you are lucky. I freely challenge you, or anyone else here, to go and find a comparable incident to this one from around 1980, and try to create an article that would not get deleted at Afd. It can't be done. There is simply no way that you could ever define Wikipedia's mission in a way that would support the idea that Wikipedia is the place to blindly and faithfully document every single fatal aircrash with it's own article from simple contemporary news reports, whatever the circumnstances, which is why even in four years you've seen consensus change on murders. You might in answer suggest proposing an arbitrary death toll 'magic number' of what is and is not separately notable, to kind of make that sound more legitimate for aircrashes, but that in effect only makes it look even more like a prima facie mission failure. You say that Wikipeida is meant to be read, and on the almanac point, that usually means by both laymen and expert. Well, right now it is failing both target audiences for this field - the bored reader / news junkie who only reads Wikipedia to 'find out more', can only do so for crashes in the era after the internet went live. It is only that Wikinews is so crap that these people even come here, and are part of the problem. Pick any random crash article that is like this one, and see if it has advanced beyond what was stuffed into it as the news was fresh. Those that do develop, there is usually a reason behind it, that is in harmony with, and not in conflict with, EVENT. And those topic focussed readers, who naturally expect to find the templates linked above to document reliably and evenly, only those truly significant crashes through the ages in a historically balanced and actual signficance asserting way, are being served up with an increasingly recentist, pointless, and frankly innaccessible product. Who out of that group would ever seriously use Wikipedia instead of the Aviation Safety Network, for example? And really, even with an endless supply of editor effort, that is not a fixable issue, because the reason for it is a very basic misunderstanding of policy as it applies to this field (and people dismissing out of hand the only effort to write something topic specific, by topic knowledgable but balanced editors, is only likely to make that worse, not better, over time). MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. That debate was verging on a snow keep.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Consensus was clearly read, and there is no policy based reason that the consensus should be overruled. If nothing else, the consensus shows that rules such as NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH can be overridden if consensus feels it will improve the encyclopedia. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is 100% irrelevant, you invoke IAR on pain of death when you have no citeable support by consensus, that is the whole point of it. There would frankly never be a policy based reason to 'ignore consensus' in the way you describe, you cannot by definition have a consenus if the thing you are claiming consensus for goes against an existing policy, which are the expressions of standing consensus (unless of course the thing you are trying to form a consensus on, is to actually change that policy). You can only get consensus for an IAR action after doing the thing you invoked IAR for - it is for dealing with situations where the only thing stopping you from improving the pedia is some pointless beurocratic rule that you don't think in all common sense would ever have consensus for slavishly adhering to in the particular situation you found yourself in and want to invoke IAR for (and accordingly if so, you would easily find a clearly favourable consensus after the event, because it is of such an obvious 'no brainer' benefit to the pedia, and the rule was so obviously not applicable except in some counter-productive bureaucratic sense). People who have in the past tried to retroactively use IAR to justify an act they knew full well went against the pre-existing opinions of a good number of editors, have rightly come unstuck - it is a fundemental error in understanding. It is frankly off the wall to even begin to try and claim that a core pillar like WP:NOT is just a pointless beurocratic obstacle to the desired goal of being allowed to freely write a Wikipedia article on every fatal aircrash that ever occurs, just because we can. That's mad. And if anything, the prevailing opinion in here is not that the Afd seeks to ignore WP:NOT by invoking IAR for the greater good, it is that it does not apply in the first place (and what is in dispute is how well, or how badly, that is being argued), a view that it is asserted by keepers/endorsers was properly backed up by a demonstrable consensus both before and after the event (the event being the Afd closure as 'strong keep'). That is a subtle but crucial difference to throwing an IAR hail mary and hoping for the best, but a difference none-the-less. So as ever, we are left with the mythical 'it was clearly notable' opinion, which as ever, is just more of the same problematic basic assertion. MickMacNee (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is exactly relevant. It says that when the consensus states that the rules get in the way of doing things right, we ignore the rule, and go with what the consensus says is right. That you disagree with that consensus does not change that consensus. Barring an overwhelming reason to delete, like severe BLP issues, or a copyvio, the admin closing the debate needs to adhere to what the consensus was.Umbralcorax (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you could not have misunderstood IAR more. Doesn't the fact that not one person here other than you is even mentioning IAR not tip you off to that fact? MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that IAR means is that if a rule gets in the way if improving or maintaining Wikipedia then you should ignore it. It means nothing else. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:IAR- "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". The people in that afd thought the rules you were citing weren't as important as keeping that article, and therefore those rules were ignored. Also, While I can understand your consternation, I would appreciate it if you would be a little more CIVIL in this conversation, thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the IAR page here as if I am a fucking moron and assuming I would be talking to you about a page I have never read, let alone never seen being used/abused, is what is decidely incivil behaviour tbh. What is not invicil behaviour is pointing out the basic fact to you that nobody in the Afd cited IAR, the closer did not cite IAR, and nobody in this DRV except you is citing IAR, and for the record, I cannot think of any Afd that has ever been closed as 'keep, WP:IAR:ignore WP:NOT'. That is not what happened here, and it is not what IAR for. You don't want to believe me, fine, I really could not care less. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were corrected about IAR not because people thought you were a "fucking moron", it was because you were attributing qualities to IAR that simply do not exist in its wording. IAR does not need to be cited to be used, in fact it is often better not to cite it and to just go ahead and do it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Consensus was clearly in favour of keeping the article. The issue of notability of aircraft crashes is being worked on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability, where all editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's that word 'clearly' again. It really should be pointed out here that this crash does not meet a single part of the current draft guidance, not a word of it, nor any of the other proposals on its talk page either (except that of Mjroot's, which is getting the usual amount of support it gets, which is not a lot). This Afd closure, and that draft guidance, in any likely final form, could not be further apart on the whole 'what is a routine crash' issue. Endorsing this Afd outcome just shows that even general guidance like EVENT is simply ignorable 'by consensus' (lol), as long as enough people in an Afd can just about manage to type 'keep, clearly notable per the GNG' or 'NOT#NEWS doesn't apply, this is not a routine event', and then just run away (and seriously, it cannot be stressed enough that this was the type of vote that was presumably at the "strong" end of the closer's summarising of the votes). Anyone pretending that this topic specific bit of Guidance on aircrashes will make a blind bit of difference to that disfunctional Afd culture/situation, is dreaming if you ask me. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the consensus of the community was rightly interpreted by closing admin. WP:NOTNEWS as a reason to delete fatal aircrash articles has been routinely rejected by the community recently on most AfDs. The results of this AfD are not surprising in the least bit as wont' be the results of this deletion review.--Wikireader41 (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Renominate in 6-12 months when everything has died down and it'll probably be deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about WP:NTEMP? The only legitimate, non-policy conflicting way Wikipedia could succesfully delete this in 12 months time, is funnily enough, if the people voting keep now, were proven to have been making vague waves and blind assertions as to what is and is not 'clearly notable', and the closer wrongly weighted their flawed arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on your side here, and I'm aware of NTEMP, but policy is only a summation of common practice and there is no way that a deletion result will carry here and now. Pick your battles. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse The closing admin clearly acted in favor of the strong consensus to keep. Barts1a (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant endorse - Many "keeps" in there are wholly ignorant of what WP:NOTNEWS actually means, but there's just too many of them to overcome. Sometimes the lemming method carries the day. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is depressingly probably the best summary yet of what actually happened in that Afd, and what is so wrong with the closure. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per overwhelming consensus expressed at discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, as I wanted the article deleted (see AfD-in-question), but realize it's gonna remain. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Accurate reflection of consensus, regardless of how much the nominator insists that his opinion is the only possible correct one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have 'just an opinion' on this. In the true spirit of how actual Wikipedia consensus building is supposed to work, I have presented a fact based argument, referring to the actual sources in the article, and citing the actual spirit as well as the wording of several well established policies, and which are backed by the consensus of thousands of editors, which if admins are doing their job properly in closing Afds, they are supposed to weight accordingly, and not simply ignore and pretend a pile of WP:ATAs from 10 or 20 editors are remotely valid in that regard. If anyone has provided anything in reply to my argument in this Drv except just more of the same source-less/policy-lite 'opinion' that came out in the Afd, then seriously, just point it out here with diffs, and I'll forget all about it. At last count, I have suggested at least four different ways that people endorsing this closure could actualy convince everybody here, not just the people who agree, that they are the holders of the 'correct opinion'. Nobody seems to want to take up the challenge. Will you? Can you, even? Based on your non-reply to this, I think not. No, your contribution to that Afd was ironically, 'just an opinion', and all you are doing here, is blinding insisting it is the only possible correct one. We will never ever it seems, see you even attempt to prove that statements like "Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events" have any relevance or support in the real world of measuring actual, historical notability, or have any use at all to building a proper encyclopoedia whose inclusion is based on proper notability standards, instead of a simple GNG vague-wave backed inclusion standard, creating nothing but a recentism infested Google News dumping ground whose collection of news articles gets staler and staler by the day, a body of work that no serious historical researcher would touch with a barge pole, and no general reader needs after the news dies down. What you simply asserted is worthy of inclusion here for all time, has no backing in real world treatment of similar crashes, and certainly has no backing on Wikipedia's coverage of air accidents before the Google News era. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policies related to this article are not so black and white that opinion should be discarded, if that were so the DRV and for that matter the AfD would not be needed. We are a consensus based encyclopedia and our policies do give this consensus a lot of discretion in this area. It is clear you have a strong opinion on this subject but others have their own opinions. While you have taken great effort to convert people's opinion to yours, it appears they have not been swayed. Insisting that your opinion is more correct than theirs despite this is unlikely to change minds where your cogent arguments have not done so. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum you have hit the nail on the head. MMN has a long history of believing that his interpretation of WP guidelines/policies is better than almost everybody else. wp policies are intentionally gray so that different editors from diverse backgrounds can express how a particular guideline/policy applies to the question at hand. we specifically do not have any wikilaws and WP:NOTLAW is a policy. this AfD and DRV is another classic example where in face of near impossible opposition he continues to believe that his assertions are "right" and he (and and a handful of people agreeing with him) are the only ones who understand the working of wikipedia. classic case of "Can't see the forest for the trees" IMO. The essay WP:LETGO was written for this occasion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case it actually is better, since the keeps are remarkably (and predictably) short-sighted. But as Dick Tuck famously said, "the people have spoken, the bastards". Tarc (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only wonder at what sort of background it takes for someone to realy believe that 'omfg planes don't routinely fall out of the sky!' and vague waving to the GNG is in any way a cogent rebuttal to a NOT#NEWS / EVENT / AIRCRASH nomination. Wikireader41, as ever, I'm always amused at your attempts to make it sound like not thinking like you do, not debating like you do, and not understanding consensus the way you do, is a Bad Thing. I find it to be a most uplifting and soul-reaffirming thing to yet again see what sort of thin, albeit non-existent, argument that I am supposedly 'losing' to. Frankly, to carry on the analogies and go to boxing, you cannot even claim to have won a fight if all you do is throw one weak punch and then run away. Ask Audrey Harrison. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I cannot fault Cirt's closure (I would not have written "strong consensus, but that's a technicality), but I also cannot endorse not the "keep" outcome. Irrespective of the relative quality of the arguments, realistically the AfD could not have been closed as "delete" (it would have been quickly restored at DRV). I think Stifle's suggestion to revisit the issue in 6–12 months is the best one, under the circumstances. In theory, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to retain content to prove that an event has lasting notability or significance. In this case, however, waiting some months will help to clarify whether the accident will have any lasting effect.
For what it's worth, I appreciated MickMacNee's detailed and well-reasoned attempt to address the 'keep' arguments, and I think that some of the response here has been unfair. Disagreement between editors engaged in an exchange of arguments is infinitely preferable to argument by assertion (no matter how obvious a particular outcome or the supremacy of one's own opinions may appear to be). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The correct outcome based on consensus and the merits. The crash is obviously notable per WP:GNG given the extent to which reliable sources have covered it. WP:NOT#NEWS prevents Wikipedia from being overwhelmed with the minutia of everyday news reporting, irrespective of whether reliable sources significantly cover this trivia, but should not be used to remove coverage of major events. Showing that a certain event is more notable than others of its class is unnecessary where the class itself is extraordinary. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability is an essay, thus completely unsuitable for a making a "policy trumps case-specific consensus" sort of argument. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, here we are in 2010, after many hundreds of aircrashes have occured in the age of easy access to Google News, and there is still no community accepted case specific guideline about aircrashes that looks even remotely like the case you've presented here as to what is and is not 'clearly notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no notability guideline specific to aircrashes at all. In the absence of such, the community should, and has, applied WP:GNG, as limited by WP:NOT#NEWS. I'm a big believer in NOT#NEWS - subjects like "Oprah's bad hair day" aren't encyclopedic, even if some credible sources decide to write about them in significant detail. What I oppose is the apparent suggestion that coverage of any event less major than Hurricane Katrina is somehow forbidden by NOT#NEWS, a position which seems more informed by the wording of the shortcut than the actual text of the policy, and has never achieved significant acceptance by the community. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is no topic specific notability guideline, but if you take a look at any and all possible drafts that have ever been written, using actual realistic examples and actual, real world knowledge of aviation history, rather than completely off the wall comparisons like Oprah's hair or Katrina, then you will see that they never ever come close to what you are trying to define as 'clearly notable' here. If you go and actualy look at that article, you will see that it probably has 0.1% of the coverage that Katrina got, if that. Which is why my point actualy was, not that there is no guideline, but that if you think you've correctly set the bar here in your general use of the GNG/NOT#NEWS, and want to see if that really is correct for aircrashes, then please, try and write that guideline as you think it should be, and see if the community actualy agress with it when the proposition is there in black and white, and they can compare it with WP:5P and WP:NOT. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are books written, attempting comprehensibility of coverage of all Aviation accidents and incidents. There are continuously running television documentaries that cover any and all aviation accidents and incidents. There is no doubt, is there, that any event meeting the well defined terms found at Aviation accidents and incidents is the source of independent secondary coverage that discusses the subject directly? Every aviation accident and incident will be the subeject of a comprehensive investigation and report. There is no doubt that they are notable. The only debatable point is whether we have to wait for the investigation reports, or for the book or TV coverage, before we publish the facts of the aviation accident or incident. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books and TV shows are made about this sort of accident? Are you absolutely sure of what you are saying here? Because let's be clear, this is not something that was not considered when AIRCRASH was written, or when the new draft Guidance was written. I've linked to a comparable crash above which happened 30 years ago, if there have been any books or programmes made about it, please let us know. The fact that reports are made is simply completely and utterly irrelevant - what is relevant to actual historical notability is what they say, as the historical precedents all show. So yes, if you want to use those as evidence of ongoing and lasting notability, then you need to wait. Again, this is not something that people who know about this topic have not considered, wrt EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I'd better be clear. The editors behind AIRCRASH are off the rails for a subject of such public interest and of serious industrial and scholarly study.

Reports, such as news reports, or company annual reports, are often barely discriminating collections of facts, and are not considered by us to be indicative of wikipedia-notability. Reports are also often non-independent. But this is not the case here. Aircraft safety and risk management is a matter of extreme seriousness and exhaustive study. In most countries, regulatory investigative bodies are rigorously independent of the aircraft owner and the managers and the passengers. Their reports are independent, and comprehensive about every accident. The reports are endlessly compiled and further analysed, and the results become texts for further study. The abundance of this information, and the undeniable public interest, is why bookshops continuously sell new books on the subject, and why television produces more and more programs dedicated to aircraft accidents. The fact that reports are made that are independent and comprehensive is a conclusive reason to say that this (An aviation accident is defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, in which a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.) is a serious scholarly subject worthy of inclusion, and the never-ending popular books and TV programs merely confirm notability of such subject. The GNG is paramount, and if you consider coverage to be found in technical libraries (forget the internet), there is no case to argue that 2010 Karachi plane crash is not a worthy subject for inclusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. If you want to put this proposition to the community, go ahead. IMHO, you will never in a million years get a consensus, let alone a strong consensus, that it is Wikipedia's mission to have a whole entire article for every single incident as defined here. Your idea that public interest equates to encyclopoedic notability is what is way off base frankly, and you are wrong, wrong, wrong, if you think that secondary sources, namely books and programmes are being made about this sort of crash, based on primary sources, which is what accident reports and investigations are by any definition you care to use. And you are also wrong if you don't realise that the independance clause of the GNG precludes relying on just technical or specialist sources to show notability. Seriously, you are talking here as if there is not already 30, 40, 50 years of Aviation history out there that has been available for secondary coverage, that editors who are minded to write things like AIRCRASH, have not already considered, and weighed against how notability is defined in other fields, none of which treat anything with such a huge blanket inclusion criteria. Frankly, I think the only actual policy that comes close to supporting this idea, is WP:NOTPAPER, end even that is a stretch, considering that NOTPAPER itself is governed by all the other NOT criteria, i.e. Wikiepdia is not a news aggregator for aircrashes, Wikipedia is not a directory of aircrash reports, Wikipedia is not a database of aircrash information, and Wikipedia is not a journal of aviation safety, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information about aircrashes. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference here to having a stand-alone article for every single incident as defined. Comparable subjects without much collective content get merged and redirected. What they don’t get is deleted. Post incident analysis reports are secondary sources with respect to the incident, even if they are technical. The independence clause of the GNG does no such thing as you say. The independence clause is mainly there to prevent the meeting our inclusion criteria through press releases, paid and sponsored coverage, subsidiary promotion of the parent, and similar. The independence clause has never been discussed in terms of the specialist or technical level of the source. Specialist and technical sources are often rejected as evidence of notability because online specialist and technical sources are often just compilations of data. Serious analytical specialist and technical sources, which easily meet the secondary source definition, tend not to be freely online, but where found, if independent, squarely cover the GNG.

At a simple level, we cover subjects already covered by others. All aviation accidents and incidents get covered by others. The notability of these incidents is clear. The verifiability of the content is unquestioned. I really don’t get your problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have been fine with a merge, because guess what? That is exactly what AIRCRASH recommends for this specific crash. That didn't make much difference to this Afd though. Incident investigations and reports are not independent for the purposes of establishing notability on an encyclopoedia at all - they are created by law, and they will be created whether the incident was encyclopoedically notable or not, as opposed to simply being in the public/safety authorities/legislators interest to create. To illustrate how this is not proof of notability, you will probably appreciate that an official investigation report is produced by law for every fatal road accident in any civilised country. How many road accident articles do you think we have on Wikipedia? The thing that creates notability there is if they lead to mass recalls of deathtrap designs, or caused the death of a famous celebrity, or in one case I can recall, produced a gory internet viral pic. They are absolutely not created because someone wrote a report on it. In the exact same way a police officer is not an independent source in that case, the aviation investigators are not independent sources for aircrash notabilty. Same for rail accidents, and doubtless countless other fields where you can find ample 'official report' type coverage. As for the idea that the only thing holding back our aircrash coverage is the lack of access to truly secondary but specialised/technical sources, you will find a wealth of info online in sources like the Aviation Safety Network, even for historical incidents (and tbh, even the primary official reports are all online these days, even archive ones). The idea that if 'multiple' sources like the ASN cover it with words, it would pass as 'independent secondary sources' for the purposes of the GNG, without any other coverage, like documentaries, books, etc, just demonstrates how your approach does not fit with our clearly understood mission. People like the ASN have their mission (to be a specialist source documenting and analsying every air crash), we have ours (to be a general encyclopedia which carries some specialist info if it is considered truly notable by people outside of those sources). We are not competitors of the ASN, not in the slightest. Just like we are not competitors to CNN, or the IMDB, or technical/scientific Journal publishers, or even national libraries/archives. If you think we are, then seriously, go and a draft Guideline for aircrashes that uses your ideas here, and put it out there. It would fail to get consensus, or anything even approaching it. Consider the reams and reams of the sort of coverage you describe as obvious notability above, that is generated for an incident like, say, a cabin door seal failing in mid flight causing an emergency landing. That is the exact sort of Wikipedia article that even most of the people voting keep in that Afd would vote delete on (and not even merge, but delete), even though it often even gets news coverage too. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to its analysis and synthesis of actual primary sources such as photographs of the wreckage and flight data recorder information, an accident report for an aircrash is a secondary source. Unlike most auto accident investigations, any report for a crash of a commercial aircraft in which multiple people died will itself be significantly covered by reliable media sources. The pendency of the report, and coverage of it, is not the only factor which supports notability, however. Others include the number of fatalities in a single incident, and significant coverage by credible news organizations throughout the world. It is my firm hope that you will one day appreciate the collective wisdom expressed by the community in AFD discussions. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, it is actually possible to write an article from primary sources. Not advisable on an encyclopoedia, but possible, simply by using available documentation. If 'raw data' like magnetic tape info and photographs is where you are setting the bar at, for what is a primary source, and as soon as someone writes anything about it, it becomes a secondary source, then it becomes pretty obvious that your defintion is completely and utterly implausible. To use the WP:OR analogy of research papers being primary sources, and research review papers being secondary sources, it only becomes more obvious. By your perception, a first level research review paper would actually be a tertiary source! This is not supportable in any way. As for the rest of what you said, it's all been covered above, I'm losing the will to even discuss those things anymore for want of some actual, proper discussion on them. Consensus is worthless if you cannot even present the argument in such a way that someone can understand and accept it because of the logic of your argument and what you backed it up with, while still disagreeing. If you want me to accept the 'consensus' that the news coverage in that article is 'significant', rather than run of the mill see it on Google News every day all gathered from pretty much the same primary source with no depth or originality or persistence type wire repeating 'reporting', then knowing what I know about our mission, our policies, other articles, and news organisations in general, I am personally still at the 'wtf?' stage, and the 'why the hell do we even bother writing things like EVENT stage', rather than the 'well, I see what you mean, I can see how our mission/policy/precedent might support that view, but I think you are wrong' stage. MickMacNee (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, this is probably the problem. If you can think a crash report is a secondary source, you will probably have no problem thinking that a routine news report is evidence of some Columbo level of interest by news organisations. The flaws in the argument are the same - if the report is the secondary source, how could any editor hope to write an article on the primary sources? And if the basic news reporting in that article is not routine, then what part of the daily 24 hour news cycle output BBC/Al-Jazeer/CNN daily output, can be considered routine? MickMacNee (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While review papers are preferred sources, research papers, published in credible journals, are secondary sources insofar as they analyze the data collected and draw conclusions and this analysis is considered and affirmed by the peer reviewers of the journal in which published (otherwise we would have serious policy problems in using research papers for references, as is the current practice where insufficient review papers are available, or have been located by contributing users.) It is certainly possible to adequately warn editors against the practice of cherry-picking a few of the many research papers available to support their preferred point of view, synthesizing experimental data to support conclusions not drawn by the papers' authors, or using individual research papers to negate review papers' conclusions, without mischaracterizing the whole issue, as the text of WP:NOR currently does. We are fortunate that the actual policy is derived from a consensus of experienced editors throughout Wikipedia, not whatever text happens to be found in a policy page at any given point in time (which discourages much edit warring on policy pages.) Editors in AFD discussions seem perfectly capable of distinguishing routine newscasting from a 21 fatality crash of a commercial aircraft. You are well advised to do the community of which you are (currently) a part more credit than to claim that "consensus is worthless" because you personally cannot "understand and accept" its logic. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A research review paper is a tertiary source, as it analyses other documents that analyse and discuss each other, in addition to their own primary data. If the research papers do not discuss their data in reference to other research papers, then they are not serious research publications.

A secondary source relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. For fundamentally, it transforms the primary information, creating new information that is the product of the new author. Reports, news, or crash, are not usually secondary sources, but are comment-free reproduction of the known facts. A police report on a car crash is barely above this. The police may make comment on the suitability of the speed for the road, but generally they write a report of someone subsequent to analyse, with a collection of similar data. Road patrol officers are not usually considered analytical. The product of an aviation accident or incident investigation is much more than a police report containing the important facts. If it discusses, analyses, decides, recommends, then it is beyond a primary source and is a secondary source.

True, we are not competitors of the ASN. But we should cover what the ASN covers. We should provide a passing summary of ASN content itself, excluding that sorted under "database". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you, aircrash investigation reports are not secondary sources. The same author/body/entity that holds the primary data that goes into them, is the same body that analyses it, and is the same body that publishes it, and is the same body that makes recommendations on it. This is not the same as a research paper that has then been peer-reviewed and published by an independent journal. That's the whole point of requiring independence as per the GNG. And Peter, I did not say I did not understand the logic, I said it has not even been presented here in relation to to any policy or argument that would make it anything more than blind assertion or a personal opinion on what Wikipedia is and is WP:NOT. Sure, people might blithely manage to type 'that's notable' in an Afd, but on the issue of properly analysing and considering whether that particular body of news reporting is significant or not, then no, that is not how you build consensus at all, and no, such weak argumentation deserves no respect. And to Joe, "we should cover what the ASN covers" - prove it. It's not what we do now, and it's not what any topic specific draft guidance has even come close to, and that is most certainly not due to lack of online access to non-database like information. I will repeat, all the reports both of you want to contend are secondarys sources, are all available online. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 November 2010

[edit]

Debrahlee Lorenzana – Deletion Endorsed for now. I advise the nomimator to give this some time rather then renominating every few weeks as this clearly affected some of the voting. There also seems to be a clear groundswell that a userspace draft would be a better vehicle then just keeping on nominating this at DRV. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to overturn Reviewing the discussion, I see no consensus to overturn. Several editors have suggested userification to improve and add new sources, and this closer reads this as the only clear consensus out of DRV#4. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded rationale on closure review of Debrahlee Lorenzana DRV#4

This particular DRV asked a specific question, "was the AfD Close valid". This question has been asked in two of the three preceding DRVs (the DRV of 26 August was a challenge to a G4 deletion of a recreation). This time, many of the votes to endorse expressed weariness on revisiting this same issue again, and I have given those less weight based on the notion that consensus can change. So did consensus change? In essence, all substantial votes point to the three previous DRVs and the arguments already exposed there on the application of BLP1E.

Out of DRV#4 I mostly retain the following comments:

User:Snottywong: "Userify (...) there appears to be enough coverage of this individual to suggest that there is a possibility that BLP1E could be overcome. I would suggest copying the original article to userspace (or starting a new article in userspace, whichever is more appropriate), and have a motivated party create a neutral article using the sources available. Hopefully, this new article would highlight why BLP1E is not applicable."

User:SmokeyJoe: "Getting closer, but no, or not yet. The new sources are using the subject as an example in a more general commentary. This is not really coverage of the subject. The subject is incidental. Better to cover the real subject (perhapsDress_code#Work_place), and to mention Debrahlee to only the extent she is mentioned in the sources. No secondary source provided is about Debrahlee, and so we should not have a general article on her."

User: IronGargoyle "In cases such as this, involving controversial WP:BLPs and repetitive nominations for review, a new userspace draft is needed."

User:Jclemens: "But in combination with the later coverage, it demonstrates that 1E does not apply. What else has happened since then is that Lorenzana keeps getting occasional mentions. Of course, this DRV is a mess because no one has put this all together in a NEW userspace draft that incorporates all of the coverage into a coherent and cited whole."

I read no consensus to overturn, but at the same time the clear implication that a userspace draft could have swayed several votes to allow recreation. In essence, two challenges are proposed to the original AfD close: either that the substance of the article should be mentioned elsewhere (an argument in one of the previous DRVs made the point that we have an article on the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod but not on Sherrod herself) and if that line of reasoning is followed, a redirect from Lorenzana to such other mention requires no DRV to establish. Or that there is sufficient coverage to extend notability beyond 1E. If the latter is followed, the applicable policy (WP:BLPDEL reads:

When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

The most efficient way to demonstrate that the concerns have been addressed is a working userspace draft, and that one such would be helpful is the only true consensus in this round. Accordingly, this closer recommends following this course of action and seek userification if this article remains desirable. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This discussion has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

List of sponsored sports competitions – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of sponsored sports competitions (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The original article was deleted as a work in progress for having too wide a critiera for inclusion. I have now narrowed the critera so I'd like to request undeletion. What I would like placed back on the page is shown where I have made the improvements at User:The C of E/List of sponsored sports competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What's the encyclopaedic purpose of this list?—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, It is bringing together all the top level comptetitions that have been sponsored for ease of reference and navigation for those looking for certain sports competitions known better under a sponsor name or for those looking for the effects of sponsorship and it could even be a helpful reference for those wanting to research advertising. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You include Canada Life Premier League as the top tier teams in the Isle Of Man compete in it, however all the teams are amateur teams (not suprising given the Islands small population), so seems somewhat out of place compared to the Carling Cup (say). i.e. The inclusion criteria is apparently rather arbitary rather than particularly meaningful and realistically doesn't do much to limit the size of the list (particularly if you include the historic sponsors also such as the Football League Cup having 7 different sponsers over the last 7 yeras. Navigationally I can't see it as too useful, since (a) it could be pretty big (b) you'd need to know to go there first and (c) the redirects like Coca Cola Cup perform the function you describe. And for research purposes given the arbitary inclusion criteria isn't that great (not to mention I can't imagine anyone using this to do such research since there is no real way of telling how comprehensive it actually is). Much of this is of course points for an AFD, but similar were bought up during the AFD, so I can't see you've really gotten past the problems yet. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well the IOM league can be removed as I suppose it's not the countrie's top tier league as I believe they fall under the English FA's juristiction. As for previous sponsors names, we can always change the critera further to only include the current sponsor names and none of the previous (at least not in this list). Well the original complaint was that it was too broad in that it could include anything down to a local league as long as it had a sponsorship and I feel under WP:SALAT I have fixed the issue by limiting the scope to only top level in a sport's juristiction. You can see what I've cut it down from here. As for the issue of comprehension, that we can easily stick the incomplete template on untill we can be sure we have it all or we could just say it covers the world or failing all those we could split it all up into continental lists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To be clear I'm not suggesting any of it should/shouldn't be changed. I understand what you are trying to do, I guess I'm questioning if it's actually the right way to do it since it just creates other issues (Not that I have any smart suggestions of better ways to do it). I certainly don't think that the incomplete template should be added for that reason, it'd be on there forever and we (wikipedian's) shouldn't end up being the primary source to say it's definitive anyway... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So, you have no problem with this page being brought back? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To get it back in mainspace it doesn't matter that much, anyone is free to recreate it and it doesn't need to come to DRV. There are however two problems - WP:CSD#G4 has it sufficiently changed/addressed the original reasons for deletion so that G4 doesn't apply, I'm not totally convinced on that, so I'm neutral. If this DRV endorses a recreation it's a pretty strong case for it not being speedied. The other problem is would it survive a future AfD? that's a harder question to answer and the outcome here will have no influence. In that regard I suspect that it is not yet ready for mainspace, as above I still think the criteria being used to try and restrict the list makes it rather arbitary and I'm not convinced of the overall encyclopaedic worth. That however is just my opinion, which you can ignore (as it's not the job of DRV to second guess future XfDs) in favour of other opinions here, or if others roughly concur you can take it on board and try and work some more before recreation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well a sincere effort's been made to overcome the concerns raised in the AfD. It's not well-sourced, but, WP:OR is not an obstacle because it's a navigational list, not an analysis that leads to conclusions of any kind. There are no BLP issues. If a good faith editor wants this in the mainspace, then I don't see any good reason to refuse.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:OR applies to lists as much as it does any other subject. So yes, original research is an obstacle considering I don't see the subject itself being used by any reliable sources. From WP:LIST "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Original research is not just about conclusions reached, but the actual subject should not be original either. At least that is my interpretation. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Of course, I'd like it back in mainspace But I suppose my vote doesn't count as page creator, majority editor and Deletion Review requestor. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Nobody's vote is counted. But the fact that you, a good faith editor, sincerely want this material to be in the mainspace will mean that the material will probably be restored unless someone raises a policy-based objection, so your opinion does "count", if not in a strictly numerical sense.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- The closing admin made the right call regarding the deletion discussion. However there's certainly nothing preventing an admin to restore the contents to your user space, where you can work on it. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's all been done, Reyk. What we're discussing is whether the material should be restored to the mainspace now that it's been worked on.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: Per the reasons I gave above. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I fall to see how the userspace version addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, that the majority of sporting competitions are name/sponsored by outside places, groups, individuals, businesses, etc... What is especially notable about something so commonplace? Tarc (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It addresses the concerns that there would be an unlimited amount of competitions if it was left how it was. What I have done is limited it to is top level competitions only to remove the issue of it being too broad. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] How do you define "top level"? SnottyWong ^babble 20:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would define it as the top level of competition within domestic or continental sports. Such as the English Premier League for Football, The English Premiership and Heineiken Cup for Rugby Union, Telstra Premiership for Rugby League, KFC Big Bash, for Cricket for example are all what I would call top level competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and keep deleted Making up arbitrary criteria do not solve the problems with this list. Sports sponsorship is so common this is as banal as List of buildings with double glazed windows. Changing that to List of buildings in England with double glazed windows or List of four storey buildings with double glazed windows do not solve the problem, they are just arbitrary criteria like the ones used on the draft. O Fenian (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The critera is now changed and narrowed to cut down the unlimited number we could have had. As S Marshall says, it is meant as a navigational list and is not to jump to any specific or contraversial conclusions. The flags were correct for the respective sports and competitions if that's the issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I guess the question is why chose that criteria to limit it? Why not those where the sponsership started in 1990, or those where the sponser name starts with "A", or those where the sport is unknown in China etc. Those are of course rather silly criteria and we could come up with any number of such if our aim is simply to try and restrict the list to managable size. The question is does the criteria being used make sense i.e. what is the signficance of top tier relative to the subject? Is the classification into tiers for this sensible (i.e. would a list of second tier make sense and would we spend lots of time arguing about which tier they should appear in...) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The deletion was correct. I don't think the change in the criteria deals with the issues that resulted in the deletion. I don't see any reliable third party sources that have this as a subject, we should not be the first. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you missed the good observation made by S Marshall that perfectly describes the list in itself in that "it's a navigational list, not an analysis that leads to conclusions of any kind." The issue was that it was too broad and could include any sponsored competitions, so I've made it for the top tier competitions only. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not only did I not miss it, I responded to it. Lists must follow the exact same rules other articles do, and conclusions are not the only things limited by OR, the subject itself also cannot be OR. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That just making the cut-off point for inclusion rather arbitrary. This is a poorly-conceived idea for a list article. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted, the concept of a list like this fails WP:LC items 6, 7, 8, and 10 and always will. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's an essay. Not a policy or guideline. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] An essay with some very important points that are relevant to creating an encyclopedia. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of sponsored sports competitions – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The original article was deleted as a work in progress for having too wide a critiera for inclusion. I have now narrowed the critera so I'd like to request undeletion. What I would like placed back on the page is shown where I have made the improvements at User:The C of E/List of sponsored sports competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the encyclopaedic purpose of this list?—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It is bringing together all the top level comptetitions that have been sponsored for ease of reference and navigation for those looking for certain sports competitions known better under a sponsor name or for those looking for the effects of sponsorship and it could even be a helpful reference for those wanting to research advertising. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You include Canada Life Premier League as the top tier teams in the Isle Of Man compete in it, however all the teams are amateur teams (not suprising given the Islands small population), so seems somewhat out of place compared to the Carling Cup (say). i.e. The inclusion criteria is apparently rather arbitary rather than particularly meaningful and realistically doesn't do much to limit the size of the list (particularly if you include the historic sponsors also such as the Football League Cup having 7 different sponsers over the last 7 yeras. Navigationally I can't see it as too useful, since (a) it could be pretty big (b) you'd need to know to go there first and (c) the redirects like Coca Cola Cup perform the function you describe. And for research purposes given the arbitary inclusion criteria isn't that great (not to mention I can't imagine anyone using this to do such research since there is no real way of telling how comprehensive it actually is). Much of this is of course points for an AFD, but similar were bought up during the AFD, so I can't see you've really gotten past the problems yet. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the IOM league can be removed as I suppose it's not the countrie's top tier league as I believe they fall under the English FA's juristiction. As for previous sponsors names, we can always change the critera further to only include the current sponsor names and none of the previous (at least not in this list). Well the original complaint was that it was too broad in that it could include anything down to a local league as long as it had a sponsorship and I feel under WP:SALAT I have fixed the issue by limiting the scope to only top level in a sport's juristiction. You can see what I've cut it down from here. As for the issue of comprehension, that we can easily stick the incomplete template on untill we can be sure we have it all or we could just say it covers the world or failing all those we could split it all up into continental lists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I'm not suggesting any of it should/shouldn't be changed. I understand what you are trying to do, I guess I'm questioning if it's actually the right way to do it since it just creates other issues (Not that I have any smart suggestions of better ways to do it). I certainly don't think that the incomplete template should be added for that reason, it'd be on there forever and we (wikipedian's) shouldn't end up being the primary source to say it's definitive anyway... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have no problem with this page being brought back? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To get it back in mainspace it doesn't matter that much, anyone is free to recreate it and it doesn't need to come to DRV. There are however two problems - WP:CSD#G4 has it sufficiently changed/addressed the original reasons for deletion so that G4 doesn't apply, I'm not totally convinced on that, so I'm neutral. If this DRV endorses a recreation it's a pretty strong case for it not being speedied. The other problem is would it survive a future AfD? that's a harder question to answer and the outcome here will have no influence. In that regard I suspect that it is not yet ready for mainspace, as above I still think the criteria being used to try and restrict the list makes it rather arbitary and I'm not convinced of the overall encyclopaedic worth. That however is just my opinion, which you can ignore (as it's not the job of DRV to second guess future XfDs) in favour of other opinions here, or if others roughly concur you can take it on board and try and work some more before recreation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a sincere effort's been made to overcome the concerns raised in the AfD. It's not well-sourced, but, WP:OR is not an obstacle because it's a navigational list, not an analysis that leads to conclusions of any kind. There are no BLP issues. If a good faith editor wants this in the mainspace, then I don't see any good reason to refuse.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR applies to lists as much as it does any other subject. So yes, original research is an obstacle considering I don't see the subject itself being used by any reliable sources. From WP:LIST "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Original research is not just about conclusions reached, but the actual subject should not be original either. At least that is my interpretation. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd like it back in mainspace But I suppose my vote doesn't count as page creator, majority editor and Deletion Review requestor. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's vote is counted. But the fact that you, a good faith editor, sincerely want this material to be in the mainspace will mean that the material will probably be restored unless someone raises a policy-based objection, so your opinion does "count", if not in a strictly numerical sense.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- The closing admin made the right call regarding the deletion discussion. However there's certainly nothing preventing an admin to restore the contents to your user space, where you can work on it. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all been done, Reyk. What we're discussing is whether the material should be restored to the mainspace now that it's been worked on.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: Per the reasons I gave above. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I fall to see how the userspace version addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, that the majority of sporting competitions are name/sponsored by outside places, groups, individuals, businesses, etc... What is especially notable about something so commonplace? Tarc (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses the concerns that there would be an unlimited amount of competitions if it was left how it was. What I have done is limited it to is top level competitions only to remove the issue of it being too broad. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "top level"? SnottyWong ^babble 20:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would define it as the top level of competition within domestic or continental sports. Such as the English Premier League for Football, The English Premiership and Heineiken Cup for Rugby Union, Telstra Premiership for Rugby League, KFC Big Bash, for Cricket for example are all what I would call top level competitions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and keep deleted Making up arbitrary criteria do not solve the problems with this list. Sports sponsorship is so common this is as banal as List of buildings with double glazed windows. Changing that to List of buildings in England with double glazed windows or List of four storey buildings with double glazed windows do not solve the problem, they are just arbitrary criteria like the ones used on the draft. O Fenian (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The critera is now changed and narrowed to cut down the unlimited number we could have had. As S Marshall says, it is meant as a navigational list and is not to jump to any specific or contraversial conclusions. The flags were correct for the respective sports and competitions if that's the issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is why chose that criteria to limit it? Why not those where the sponsership started in 1990, or those where the sponser name starts with "A", or those where the sport is unknown in China etc. Those are of course rather silly criteria and we could come up with any number of such if our aim is simply to try and restrict the list to managable size. The question is does the criteria being used make sense i.e. what is the signficance of top tier relative to the subject? Is the classification into tiers for this sensible (i.e. would a list of second tier make sense and would we spend lots of time arguing about which tier they should appear in...) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The deletion was correct. I don't think the change in the criteria deals with the issues that resulted in the deletion. I don't see any reliable third party sources that have this as a subject, we should not be the first. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the good observation made by S Marshall that perfectly describes the list in itself in that "it's a navigational list, not an analysis that leads to conclusions of any kind." The issue was that it was too broad and could include any sponsored competitions, so I've made it for the top tier competitions only. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I not miss it, I responded to it. Lists must follow the exact same rules other articles do, and conclusions are not the only things limited by OR, the subject itself also cannot be OR. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That just making the cut-off point for inclusion rather arbitrary. This is a poorly-conceived idea for a list article. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, the concept of a list like this fails WP:LC items 6, 7, 8, and 10 and always will. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay. Not a policy or guideline. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An essay with some very important points that are relevant to creating an encyclopedia. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 November 2010

[edit]

User:Barts1a/discussion1 – Already being discussed at MfD. No need to have two discussions on the same thing open at the same time. – T. Canens (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Barts1a/discussion1 (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Not following this guideline with this edit Barts1a (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment the CSD tag was removed apparently on the basis of this and is now at MFD. I'm don't think the guideline you link actually supports your position - "deletion of subpages that have not had other significant contributors" or "user talk archives created by page move, may not be deleted in this way". Frankly the objection posted to deletion and your listing here suggest some underlying dispute which DRV is probably not the best place to resolve. That said I personally can't see much of a reason the page wouldn't be deleted and the MFD seems to heading that way, so why the urgency? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think MuZemike's edit may have been in accordance with the guideline, because it's a page that's received significant contributions from other users, but I'd just like to see MuZemike's version of events before I endorse. I agree with 82.7.40.7 that there looks like there's a whole background and history to this that may or may not belong at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Premature The MfD discussion has not yet closed. At this point it seems to be heading for delete, but it is only been running 4 days. This is an area where the rules are unclear, and when the rules are unclear or ambiguous, the way to resolve a situation is necessarily IAR. Muzimke's action was within the range of IAR, of going by the spirit of the rules. IAR is subject to review by the community , and the community is reviewing it at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse continuing process. The deletion of userspace pages contain non-trivial edits from multiple editors should normally be discussed at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse use of MfD As the page technically doesn't meet the speedy criteria and speedies are generally a bad place for IAR when there is an objecting party. Hobit (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Deleting/MFD-nominating admin – First off, thank you for notifying me of this </sarcasm>. Anyways, as far as bringing it to MFD as opposed to DRV, most talk page archives are normally cut-and-paste moves from actual talk pages (unless a user elects to use the "page move" method of archiving), which I thought this was. I was not aware that another user commented on the archive page itself in an attempt to continue discussion, mainly because people normally don't do that (at least I don't with mine, and I don't watchlist my archives precisely for that reason). After the deletion was contested, and I looked more closely the page's history, I felt that restoring and sending to MFD was an appropriate venue for something like this. As an aside, less the two contributions by Piotrus on that page, the actual history behind this page is available at whatever talk page this came from. I think that is where some of the dispute is coming from. –MuZemike 04:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Barts1a/discussion1 – Already being discussed at MfD. No need to have two discussions on the same thing open at the same time. – T. Canens (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Not following this guideline with this edit Barts1a (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the CSD tag was removed apparently on the basis of this and is now at MFD. I'm don't think the guideline you link actually supports your position - "deletion of subpages that have not had other significant contributors" or "user talk archives created by page move, may not be deleted in this way". Frankly the objection posted to deletion and your listing here suggest some underlying dispute which DRV is probably not the best place to resolve. That said I personally can't see much of a reason the page wouldn't be deleted and the MFD seems to heading that way, so why the urgency? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think MuZemike's edit may have been in accordance with the guideline, because it's a page that's received significant contributions from other users, but I'd just like to see MuZemike's version of events before I endorse. I agree with 82.7.40.7 that there looks like there's a whole background and history to this that may or may not belong at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Premature The MfD discussion has not yet closed. At this point it seems to be heading for delete, but it is only been running 4 days. This is an area where the rules are unclear, and when the rules are unclear or ambiguous, the way to resolve a situation is necessarily IAR. Muzimke's action was within the range of IAR, of going by the spirit of the rules. IAR is subject to review by the community , and the community is reviewing it at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse continuing process. The deletion of userspace pages contain non-trivial edits from multiple editors should normally be discussed at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse use of MfD As the page technically doesn't meet the speedy criteria and speedies are generally a bad place for IAR when there is an objecting party. Hobit (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting/MFD-nominating admin – First off, thank you for notifying me of this </sarcasm>. Anyways, as far as bringing it to MFD as opposed to DRV, most talk page archives are normally cut-and-paste moves from actual talk pages (unless a user elects to use the "page move" method of archiving), which I thought this was. I was not aware that another user commented on the archive page itself in an attempt to continue discussion, mainly because people normally don't do that (at least I don't with mine, and I don't watchlist my archives precisely for that reason). After the deletion was contested, and I looked more closely the page's history, I felt that restoring and sending to MFD was an appropriate venue for something like this.

As an aside, less the two contributions by Piotrus on that page, the actual history behind this page is available at whatever talk page this came from. I think that is where some of the dispute is coming from. –MuZemike 04:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of statistically superlative countries The result was no consensus to overturn, defaulting to restore and relist. The procedural "endorses" in this DRV have been given less weight because while (in my view) they involve entirely valid criticisms of the nominator's approach to this DRV, more editors than the nominator are seeking review of this decision and it's not at all clear why the failure to follow non-obligatory procedure (albeit on a repeat basis) should affect the outcome of this review. There are also a number of substantive !votes on both sides of this DRV that have been given less weight because they haven't added much to the discussion by way of reasoning. This DRV is obviously very evenly balanced on the numbers, leaning slightly to "overturn" by my count. On the arguments, this DRV is also closely balanced. The contributions of S Marshall and Sandstein are illuminative and demonstrate the particular difficulty with AfDs in which the discussion doesn't deeply interrogate the relevant policies, particularly when the policies are contentious to the point of being vaguely worded. There is a consensus that the closing admin was correct to give less weight to a number of keep !votes, but there is no consensus that that lead to a delete outcome. For example, a number of editors have questioned whether the delete !votes were well reasoned. A number of editors have also questioned whether the keep !votes were disregarded to too great an extent. There is not a consensus to overturn. Nor is there a consensus to endorse. The relevant DRV policy states If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. In the circumstances, I am treating this no consensus as equivalent to a relist. This DRV has shown - through points made by both endorse and overturn !votes - that the AfD could have benefited from better arguments on both sides. If the deletion action was not supported by a consensus here at AfD, the logical outcome is to avoid the permanently binding effect of the subpar AfD and open it up for another round. The AfD will be re-opened and listed on the first day's log. It can be closed after 168 hours. Editors who have already !voted will have the chance to flesh out their points of view, and the involvement of new editors will help the AfD reach a satisfactory conclusion. While there is no consensus to endorse the close, I want to make it clear that does not imply that there was any real community support in this DRV for the view that closing adminstrator acted in any way improperly, by super!voting, bias or otherwise. Quite the opposite. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of statistically superlative countries (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Appears to have been closed as delete with a supervote instead of no consensus. A vague reference to WP:Info was given as the reason Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse because Richard Arthur Norton knows better than to escalate to DRV without engaging the deleting administrator in a civil discussion prior to alleging a supervote. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:LandingCheck?landing_page=WMFJA1&language=en&country=RU[reply] You aren't supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You should be arguing on the merits of the case, not over your personal animus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The merits of the case are clear: it's premature. You've escalated stuff to DRV prematurely before, such that it is clear that failure to follow process isn't a newbie mistake. BURO is not an excuse for having an honest, straightforward conversation with the deleting administrator first. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've started a discussion with user:Black Kite about the article. Can we hold on to see what happens there? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. That's an interesting deletion summary. 6 votes to keep, 3 votes to delete, with one editor not sure what to choose. Even if some keep votes have to be given ~~lesser~~ null weight because they are just a variation of "interesting", there are still 3 keep votes that are not about "interesting", so it is no consensus. And in the course of the deletion discussion, the article's content has been limited to include exclusively the rankings present on current Wikipedian lists (Lists of countries, Category:Lists of countries etc) or maps. Do all those lists or a majority of them fail WP:IINFO? Should the article Lists of countries be deleted too? GreyHood ^Talk 11:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:IINFO is a confusing muddle. It's a particularly egregious example of the kind of compromise wording you get where policies are designed by committee. Policy ought to be clearer than that, and I'm not surprised that RAN found the closing rationale "vague"—which is not a criticism of Black Kite. It's not so much a problem with what Black Kite said, as a problem with the policy itself. I suspect that the substantive issue at this DRV will involve a detailed parsing of WP:IINFO. Jclemens is technically correct but I do just wonder whether a dialogue between RAN and Black Kite would have been productive at all; both are tremendously experienced Wikipedians who understand the issues and know the deletion process backwards, and neither is noted for their willingness to back down in the face of disagreement. I should imagine this would have ended up at DRV regardless. I guess we could insist on seeing a week-long wordy communications failure happening on Black Kite's talk page before it's brought back to DRV but that seems overly bureaucratic to me. I'll reserve my !vote til I've seen Black Kite's response.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse my own close for what it's worth. I was expecting this, of course. It's a no-win situation really when you're closing the "AfDs that everyone else has shied away from" as I was last night, in fact some of them were 3 days overdue. The problem is that if you merely count votes you get accused of vote-counting, whilst if you actually evaluate the strength of the comments then you get dragged to DRV anyway because you haven't "measured consensus". For what it's worth, practically all of the Keep votes were not based in policy. The first one suggested how the article could be fixed, although it did not address the basic problems with it. The second Keep ("the article is informative") is clearly worth little. The third was basically the same, with added WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The "Keep/Delete" vote can clearly not be taken as supporting either view, although it probably leans towards Delete. DGG points out that "useful" can be a positive for lists, but again still doesn't address the indiscriminate basic nature of the list. Dream Focus' comment does not address anything at all, let alone any reason for keeping. The final comment is merely "it's interesting" and "it's notable". Given that, I could not see how the claim that the article fails a policy, IINFO, specifically pointed out by Sandstein and alluded to by the other three Delete votes (including the nom), was refuted. If we are going to decide AfD by counting numbers, it'd probably make everything a lot easier as you wouldn't need admins to close them - anyone who can count could do it. And the editor who brought this DRV actually knows this very well, so for them to claim that I closed with a supervote is completely egregious. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Above rationale is a textbook example of a supervote. All !votes from opposing opinions are invalidated by wikilawyering like they were hanging chads in Bush v. Gore, until the preselected outcome is achieved. It is also like the tests given to people for literacy before they can vote to disenfranchise them. If you can't construct your arguments in a way that satisfies the people in charge of the !vote, your !vote is invalidated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, but that's completely ridiculous (as well as verging on NPA - "preselected outcome"? - yeah right, on an article I'd never seen before in my life. Jeeezus.). If I post a comment at AfD which merely says "Keep: It's notable", or "Delete: Not notable", I need to expect that comment to be disregarded. A closing admin is not doing their job properly if they just count votes. If editors are unable to construct their comments at an AfD so that it actually addresses the issue at hand rather than just blindly voting, that's hardly anyone else's problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would be convinced if I saw an equal amount of effort to invalidate the delete votes, but you had not one word of criticism for them, hence it gives the appearance of a bias, even if you don't recognize the bias yourself. That is why in the sciences we use double blind methods, and that is why election districts moved to machine voting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Equally, I would be more convinced if I was not having this conversation with an editor whose AfD track record is of !voting "Keep" on practically everything, often with little rationale. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Stick to the vote at hand please, no need to stray into generalized personal attacks. You can save them all up for an ANI. Unless you can show me some statistics on my votes, your just showing your personal bias, again, as we discussed earlier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, so it's OK for you to assume bad faith in my close, which is purely an opinion of yours, but not for me to point to your editing history at AfD, which is a matter of record which anyone is free to peruse? I think you've made my point for me. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Exactly. I have shown the actual statistics for your disenfranchising the keep votes. I have also shown the statistics for you showing no criticism or disenfranchisment of any delete votes in this debate. You haven't shown any statistics on my voting record to say that I "[vote] "Keep" on practically everything, often with little rationale." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Why would I need to "show statistics on your voting record" when any editor can confirm the fact for themselves by looking at your contribution history at AfD? But since I've got a spare five minutes, [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] etc. Meanwhile, you still haven't rebutted any of my points as to why the "Keep" votes were weak, presumably because you can't. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Consensus for retention was disregarded in the close and issues of notability of a list of this type were directly addressed by participants. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Eh? A bunch of people saying "it's notable" addresses notability? No it doesn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you stop ignoring me, you'll see that at least some of that bunch of people did address notability. And technically, when one says it is notable, he does address notability. GreyHood ^Talk 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I hope we can all accept two of Black Kite's points: First, that it wasn't an easy close; and second, that the !vote count is a red herring. It's necessary to evaluate the strength of the arguments. After reading what Black Kite says I'm of the view that the substantive question is whether it was true to say that this list contravened WP:IINFO. (The other arguments for deletion suggest that this is a "list of trivia", but that doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's a list of ways in which various countries are at the top of various league tables. Some of the individual items on the list are trivia. But others are substantive. Thus, though many of the "keep" !votes may be dismissed out of hand, two of the "delete" !votes may be treated in the same way. We're left with Sandstein's point alone.) Sandstein alleges that the list violates WP:IINFO. DRV can't evaluate whether the AfD was closed correctly without deciding whether Sandstein was right, so we need to establish which limb of IINFO was allegedly contravened. WP:IINFO specifically says that the following things are forbidden: 1.Plot-only description of fictional works; 2.Lyrics databases; 3.Excessive listing of statistics; 4.News reports; 5.Who's who; and 6.FAQs. The only one of those items that this list could possibly have contravened is the third one: an excessive listing of statistics. Stipulating for the moment that it was an excessive listing of statistics, was that unfixable? Wouldn't it have been possible to trim it down to a relevant and non-trivial list of statistics instead? On the face of it, this deletion strikes me as a bit harsh. May I notify Sandstein of this debate and invite him to explain his !vote in more detail?—S Marshall T/C 15:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Pointing to a pillar of Wikipedia "notability" and saying it meets that standard should not be invalidated as a hanging chad, despite the essay WP:Whatnottosay. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Concur with your comment, generally. Read also my answer to Black Kite below, discussing the IINFO, and the three stronger keep votes. GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] 1st keep. Once again, I didn't merely propose how the article could be fixed, I actually implemented one of my proposals. Have you checked the changes in the article before closing AfD? The article was basically turned into an extended version of the Lists of countries, sorted by country at the top or at the bottom of a list from there. Actually, I can go right now to the Lists of countries and try inserting top/bottom country beside all the ranked lists there, and in effect that'd be the representation of the same information as in the deleted list, but in a less handy format. And I hardly can expect that anyone ever will delete the List of Lists of countries because of IINFO. 3rd keep. Therexbanner said that there is no reason for the deletion of the list of ratings which are found in other good wiki articles, unless you can justify deleting of those ratings and those articles. This is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this is the refuting of the claim that the list fails IINFO. It doesn't fail, and not because other stuff exists, but because this list is composed of that other stuff, this is a technical list which provides a handy access to the ratings sorted by the top/bottom country. And that's how we come to the 5th keep. The list is useful. It is included into all templates at the Category:Country list templates. From there by one simple click you can go either to the plain List of Lists of countries, or to the similar list of lists sorted by the top/bottom country - the deleted List of statistically superlative countries. Such a representation of data is handy. Look, people even create games based on the list in question. I think that there is no good ground to disregard at least the three mentioned keeps, which puts us in the situation of no consensus instead of supervote. And I've shown that the list doesn't fail IINFO. Mind me, I've presented most of these arguments at the AfD discussion and answered all pro-deletion users there, except of Sandstein, and I'd have answered him too, if not for the closing of AfD. GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I don't agree with Black Kite's characterisation of the keep votes. "Useful" is a criterion for list articles, and evidence was provided for its usefulness. Assertions in the opposite direction without evidence should carry little or no weight. I like the essay WP:OSE, but it's not a policy. In list articles, notability is in practice borrowed from other articles - red links mean a presumed non-notability and blue links the opposite. It's not a clinching argument, but it shows that WP:OSE is not a universal practice. The opportunity to discuss issues of indiscriminate inclusion was, as the first keep vote stated, undermined by going straight to Afd rather than discussing on the talkpage. At the very least, given that editors were making suggestions, and one editor was cutting things down, to meet WP:IINFO objections, this should have been closed as no consensus, if not keep.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The nominator is 100% aware from dozens of previous discussions of the correct procedure to follow when he disputes a deletion debate outcome, and if he is not willing to follow it, I am not willing to consider reversing the outcome. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Er, there are other people interested in this than just the one editor. Given that Black Kite has said that he expected this to come to DRV, and given that on his own talkpage in response to my attempt to have a discussion there, he said he would deal with the matter here, I don't see the point in simply dismissing the DRV now it's up and running. Are you and/or Jclemens suggesting that this one should be rejected and then refiled again? Wouldn't that be a bit pointless? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You aren't supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You should be arguing on the merits of the case, not over your personal animus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd say jumping to DRV without bothering to discuss with the closing administrator is far more disruption. Considering you know how this process works, perhaps you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. AniMate 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I think this close was correct. SnottyWong ^confabulate 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Elaborate your opinion please, otherwise according to the method of Black Kite your vote has no weight, just like the two previous endorsements based purely on the DRV procedure issues. GreyHood ^Talk 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I purposely !voted that way in the hopes that someone who opposes the close would comment that my vote was WP:JUSTAVOTE. It appears you have taken the bait. Hopefully now it is clear why the majority of keep !votes at this AfD should be ignored. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 20:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately you have captured a wrong fish, and the hook is too small to hold the capture. Any of the keep votes in the related AfD discussion is more elaborate and has more arguments than your hook. And even if we take only the better argumented votes - a method that I've already accepted in my comments above - we still arrive to no consesus. GreyHood ^Talk 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What a masterful strategy worthy of Sun Tzu, except you aren't supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think my attempts to enlighten you can reasonably be characterized as disruption. From now on, all of my votes will be in the form of a kōan. SnottyWong ^communicate 04:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The reason given for the close "the basic point that the article fails WP:IINFO has not been refuted," is not supported by the facts: But IINFO reads in summary: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and a statement of what country is leading is a particular quality of importance is not indiscriminate, but about as highly discriminating as possible. Since a list of countries in order of whatever would be routine and does not fail IINFO, a compilation of the top entries from those lists is certain not under that rule. Whether this is seen as a supervote or a summary of the discussion, it is just plain wrong. There could have been an argument that the qualities measured were selected indiscriminately, but looking at them (life expectancy, winner of most cricket world cups (and of many other major sports), people in prison, GDP, largest producer of uranium (and of many other important products), they do not seem indiscriminate. Some of them are of debatable importance, perhaps, but that's a content dispute. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Although my view may be colored by having participated in the AfD, I think that both a "keep" on the numbers and a "delete" based on the arguments are defensible closures in this difficult case. To reply to DGG and others above, the list was unremediably indiscriminate because there is a practically unlimited number of verifiable country rankings on Wikipedia and the list does not have any other inclusion criteria. One can (not: should) make a country ranking about essentially every non-unique article subject. For instance - Special:Random - "country with most Huachuca springsnails" (which is the United States, because the animal is endemic to that country) would be a valid entry. On the other hand, a list of this type by type of statistic, for instance List of statistically superlative countries in the Olympic Games, would be discriminate and acceptable. Sandstein 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In its last version (already implemented by the time of your vote at AfD), the article was limited to statistics found on the lists or maps with rankings present on Wikipedia, that is to the most notable statistics approved by the community. The number of verifiable country rankings is pretty limited on Wikipedia, actually most of them are already on the templates in the Category:Country list templates, and all of those templates have been very stable for a recent year with few to none additions. The list in question also didn't grow significantly for many months, despite its large viewership. And once again, the scope of the list mostly coincide with that of the Lists of countries, which is hardly an indisriminate collection of information, but a technical list of encyclopedic lists and rankings. GreyHood ^Talk 22:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse This is a reasonable close. Sandstein puts it quite nicely, so I won't repeat anything he's said. AniMate 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, it is not nice, sorry. I'm a bit tired of answering this kind of straw man comments such as claiming that the list is indiscriminate because of the possible inclusion of the "country with most Huachuca springsnails" or "the country with the longest average toenail length" (back from AfD). No such things can be included into the list according to the criteria set in its latest version, at least until the Wikipedian community approves the creation of the List of countries by number of Huachuca springsnails or the List of countries by average toenail length. This or that way, the list's scope can be limited to the most notable statistics, and the rubbish can be set aside. GreyHood ^Talk 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- Having read the original discussion and Black Kite's detailed explanation at this DRV, I cannot convince myself that Black Kite acted improperly. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It'd be very ironical if Black Kite's action is ultimately endorsed on the basis of such votes, adding nothing to the discussion but just the vote itself ;)GreyHood ^Talk 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The purpose of DRV isn't to rehash or put forth new arguments for or against deletion. The purpose is to discuss whether or not the close was reasonable or not. Reyk's comment is perfectly in line with that. AniMate 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think that discussion of "whether or not the close was reasonable or not" includes taking into account the arguments against the close, which have been ignored to a large degree, and not just approving or disapproving the actions of the others, but specifying at least some reason for this. Black Kite actually built much of his closing summary on WP:JUSTAVOTE (broadly understood), and it looks really funny when the people start to support the close in this manner. GreyHood ^Talk 23:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] My opinion is not the first you've attempted to dismiss as WP:JUSTAVOTE and you've been wrong both times. Furthermore, I find your sarcastic badgering of endorsers rather distasteful. Reyk _YO! 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd just like to mention that Sandstein's reply doesn't seem to fully address what I said above. Sandstein may possibly have shown that the material as written was in violation of WP:IINFO, but the AfD should then have considered whether the material could have been made to comply via regular editing. In other words, by defining the list's scope and trimming out those parts thought to be trivia, could this have been fixed? AfD participants are supposed to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before concluding that the material needs to be removed. I don't see any evidence that any alternatives were considered at all.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Please can we keep any animosity between Richard A Norton and other editors off this discussion? Even if it was wrong not to discuss with Black Kite on his talkpage first, Black Kite himself chose (as is perfectly acceptable) to continue discussion here when I went to his talkpage to discuss the matter. There are other editors besides the nominator who believe the closing was mistaken. We're here now, so let's put all that baggage away. On that note, this DRV is not (or should not be) an attack on the closing admin's integrity. This is a normal procedure when challenging a decision. Black Kite has done nothing "improper". That is not the same as saying his judgement in this matter is thereby unimpeachable. They are two different issues, as I'm sure we would all agree. Thirdly, I would ask editors not to interpret WP:NOTAVOTE as meaning either (a) all minority closings cannot be challenged (rather than "minority closings can be correct") which is implied heavily in a couple of arguments here, or (b) that head counts are entirely irrelevant. Here is what WP:CLOSE says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrators own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The administrator is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy. This particular AfD looks like a very good example of "no consensus", given that actually very few of the !votes fulfill the criteria for discarding, and any tightening of the criteria leads to !votes on both sides (e.g. "useful/not useful") being rejected. Even Sandstein says either keep or delete would have been "defensible" - which shouts out "no consensus" as the proper result. Have we abandoned "no consensus" as an outcome? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The very moment that RAN decides he is willing to follow the standard DRV procedure, I shall be willing to consider his requests on their merits. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Stifle - can I be clear on this - you think this DRV should start all over again only once Black Kite has discussed the issue on his talkpage? This strikes me as an unnecessary waste of time now that we're all here (and given that Black Kite would plainly not have changed his mind in a more informal talkpage discussion). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I often agree with Stifle, but in this case I don't. This doesn't need in-depth discussion because there's a pre-existing consensus (most recently here): RAN was under no obligation to consult the deleting admin before raising the DRV. It would have been polite if RAN had done so, but the consensus is that DRV shouldn't penalise him for being rude.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I couldn't care less about not being informed, but apparently it's also OK for him to assume bad faith ("All !votes from opposing opinions are invalidated by wikilawyering like they were hanging chads in Bush v. Gore, until the preselected outcome is achieved"). If RAN thinks that evaluating !votes with poor rationales is "wikilawyering", perhaps he needs to read up on our deletion processes again. Should we be encouraging stuff like this? Black Kite (t) (c) 12:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There are good reasons why I've avoided discussing the conduct issues at this DRV. This page is a drama-free zone, and there are better places to deal with whatever accusations are going around (on both sides). The purpose of DRV is scrutiny of the close, so I'm focused on the evidence that policy was complied with in this specific case. That doesn't mean that I'm unsympathetic to what you say about conduct—there's an extent to which I agree with you about that—it just means that I don't think this is the place to deal with it.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh, an RfC is indicated, it's just that raising an RfC on an editor whose entire AfD edit history consists of making weak "Keep" votes just seems pointless to me because the usual suspects will drop by to support him. And it's irrelevant to this DRV anyway, because he didn't comment. Wikipedia is utterly useless at sanctioning those who misuse its processes, yet can provide little to stop them doing so. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That deserves a reply but we're ranging far outside DRV's scope. I'll email you.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – After reading the AFD, the arguments for deletion were stronger and more policy-based than the arguments for retention. That is what closing admins are expected by the community when determining a deletion discussion outcome. –MuZemike 04:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could you explain what make the delete arguments stronger in your opinion? Hobit (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to NC I agree the keep arguments were weak, but as S Marshall points out, the delete arguments were also generally weak. Given the numbers (and yes, counting noses does play a role here) I'd say it leaned toward keep, but NC was probably the right result. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The closing admin clearly inserted his own opinion as his reference to WP:IINFO was the only one made by anyone in the discussion. The keep and delete camps both argued on the same general grounds and there was no consensus between them. The weakness of their arguments does not provide an occasion for the closer to provide his own. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What opinion did I insert that wasn't mentioned by any of the commenters on the AfD? Black Kite (t) (c) 09:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "The basic point that the article fails WP:IINFO (a policy) is not refuted". No-one made this point. The rest of the close did not represent the discussion accurately either. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That point was made by User:Sandstein. Feel free to try again. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, Sandstein's argument was "Not useful for any purpose of information that I can think of;" - a classic argument to avoid. He did not cite policy in any clear way and certainly did not provide a satisfactory basis for claiming a consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, very funny, now try quoting Sandstein's whole sentence - "Not useful for any purpose of information that I can think of; indiscriminate collection of information". Did you miss the next part? As I said, feel free to prove your initial comment, or you could always admit that you're wrong and strike it? Black Kite (t) (c) 06:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn WP:IINFO is a very confusing policy, and thus, more attention, not less, should be paid to the opinion of the people who actually commented in the discussion, who clearly tended towards a keep outcome. I share the above editors' concern about the premature escalation to DRV, but now that we're here, we should discuss the merits, not the procedure by which it got here, since it seems it would've gotten here anyhow. Ray^Talk 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - More knee-jerk bloc voting from the usual gang. The "keep" calls were weak and never adequately refuted the rationale to delete. Weak opinions == less weight, well within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Which delete !votes did you find strong and why? As noted, I tend to agree with S Marshall that only one delete !vote had much strength and as the problem was fixable, not all that much. I'm curious how you read them. Hobit (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your rather pedantic question goes to the heart of why I detest these frivolous filings; DRV should not be used to simply second-guess, it should be used for legitimate concerns that something wrong was done. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The question is not pedantic in the slightest, and this is not about "wrongdoing", but a review of a decision we should presume as a matter of course was made in good faith. There are editors apart from the nominator raising concerns, including a few admins. What on Earth has Richard A Norton done that makes so many people here dismiss the concerns of other editors? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Tarc, you were happy to discount the keep !votes as being weak but won't address the delete !votes? Heck, I've not seen any of the endorsers really claim that the delete !votes were any stronger than the keep !votes. If the arguments are both weak, then given the numbers I'd then expect this to be a keep or no consensus close. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - Although I also participated in the AfD vote, I feel like I must explain my vote here, and also re-state my opinion. The article did not violate any of the 6 points of WP:IINFO. The only one that comes close is the "excessive listing of statistics." However, if you actually read the point description and not just the title, you will see that it refers to the readability, neatness, and explanation of the data. Unless one can prove that the article was unreadable, or not neat, there should be no argument in relation to WP:IINFO. In case a consensus emerges that the article is messy, a cleanup proposal should be made, but I believe deleting it was inappropriate. Black Kite mentioned WP:IINFO as the main reason for deletion. I'd like to know why the article (list) was deleted before a civil and good-faith AfD discussion came to a consensus.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because an AfD lasts 7 days and this one was already overdue. More to the point, IINFO has nothing whatsoever to do with readability and/or messiness, it has to do with information being indiscriminate. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Noted. Could you please define indiscriminate in this context and specfically, how the list was "indiscriminate." The "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate..." section of WP:IINFO has 7 sub-points. Which one of them applies in this case?--Therexbanner (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The point that immediately applies is 3) "Excessive listing of statistics". The point was made in the AfD that there was no criteria of notability or importance being applied to the listing of such data ("a big list of trivia", "a collection of endless trivia with no cohesion","indiscriminate collection of information in which such gems as "Best performance at Sidecarcross World Championship" are given equal importance to statistics such as "Highest Human Development Index""), and that effectively the article had no boundaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The problem had been fixed, but you ignored it, and you continue to ignore it throughout this discussion. Here you misrepresented my comments and activities on the AfD as just proposals and as not addressing the basic problems, while actually one of the proposals was implemented, and the basic problems, such as notability and scope, were directly addressed. The criteria were set for inclusion into the list, effectively limiting the boundaries of the article to statistics represented as ranked lists or maps on Wikipedia, which is a finite number at a given time. If that wasn't enough, we could impose even stronger criteria, there was no problem in that. The list is not unamendable in principle. Despite the persistent claims of containing the endless trivia, it was pretty much stable in size for many months, and contained mostly the notable statistics. Such gems as "Best performance at Sidecarcross World Championship" should have been excluded under the new criteria, I've just overlooked that entry while cutting the list down. GreyHood ^Talk 22:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not ignoring anything; I could only close the AfD on the basis of the comments, and editors could only comment on what was extant at the time of the AfD, not what could possibly exist in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I still hope you didn't just evaluate the comments while not checking how the article has changed during the AfD. I specifically noted it in that discussion, but you and Sandstein, judging from his straw man argument here, appear to have missed it. And obviously, editors can comment not only on a present shape of an article but also on how to improve and amend it. Do you claim the article was irrepairably wrong? GreyHood ^Talk 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yup, you had to close on the basis of the debate. The point being made here is that the debate itself was flawed in that it failed to consider the alternatives to deletion. Ideally, the participants would have discussed whether a trimmed version of the list with a defined scope could exist. That didn't happen. It's fair to consider that at DRV, because considering alternatives is a part of the deletion process. I don't think it would be fair to censure Black Kite personally because of it. We've agreed that it was a difficult close that nobody else wanted to make, and we're considering whether the debate (rather than the close) was defective. In the circumstances no blame should attach to BK.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have nothing personal against Black Kite, but I strongly disagree with his specific action on the discussed AfD, and his ~~blatant~~ obvious misrepresentation of my comments and activities on that AfD here, in this discussion. You seem to share the concern that if we start to address keep votes with especial scrutiny (a method which I'm ready to accept, though not to the point of absolute ignoring of "lesser quality" votes) we should give at least the same degree of scrutiny to delete votes. You also just stated, that the alternatives to deletion should have been considered before the actual deletion. You said at the very beginning, that WP:IINFO can be confusing muddle and you proposed its detailed parsing. Well, the policy has been parsed,"the point that immediately applies is 3)", and I've shown how the list doesn't fail this point. I fully appreciate Black Kite's emphasis on keeping the AfD procedure within one week time limit, and his attempt to bring more judgement than just a simple count of votes, but this doesn't mean that all other aspects of that AfD can be disregarded. And if we agree, that the vote was defective (from the very beginning, actually, when the nominator missed the opportunity to discuss the problems on the list's talk page), we have to agree also that Black Kite should have recognised the vote as defective and should have given more time to further discussion, or should have closed it with no consensus. GreyHood ^Talk 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Blatant misrepresentation" is a bit strong, Greyhood, and I respectfully ask that you consider retracting it. I agree with you on the substantive point, because as I explained right at the beginning of this debate, I also don't see exactly which part of WP:IINFO applies. I do not agree that Black Kite should necessarily have recognised the vote as defective. His job is to weigh the policy-based arguments on one side against the policy-based arguments on the other. His job is certainly not to close based on arguments that were not raised in the AfD at all—and indeed if he'd done that, he really would have been guilty of the alleged "supervote". He quite correctly restricted his close to what the participants had actually said. Overruling the debate itself is a prerogative restricted to DRV or to a subsequent AfD. It's quite right that individual admins don't get to do that. I also want to say that it's possible to disagree with a close without questioning the closer's competence. Questioning the closer's competence doesn't even belong here. (The right place is the admin's talk page followed if necessary by an admin recall petition or a RFC, but I definitely advise you not to try any of those.) Generally DRV should be respectful of closers and particularly respectful of the rather smaller number of closers who're willing to deal with the hard cases like this one.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, forgive me for my not so masterful usage of subtle distinctions in English language. I've changed it to "obvious misrepresentation" (it is clearly seen from the original AfD that I didn't just proposed, but actually limited the scope of the article, and I did specifically address the issues of notability instead of just saing "it is notable"). >His job is certainly not to close based on arguments that were not raised in the AfD at all When it comes to the merits of the article in question, I've not brought much new arguments here, I've mostly repeated old arguments from the AfD discussion, which were not refuted at that time, and which were disregarded in the closing summary. >''He quite correctly restricted his close to what the participants had actually said. Well, yes, but not all what had been said appears to have beeen taken into account, and we both share concern at the procedure of weighing of what had been said. >''I also want to say that it's possible to disagree with a close without questioning the closer's competence. I don't question anyone's competence, I just don't have enough information to make general statements on competence in this case. Here we question a specific action, which might have better alternatives. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, or takes decisions which could have been better. >Questioning the closer's competence doesn't even belong here. Sorry, if I made an impression of such questioning. Perhaps I was influenced by the spirit of this discussion, which obviously shows too much of background of personal issues between the nominator, Richard Arthur Norton, and other editors. >The right place is the admin's talk page followed if necessary by an admin recall petition or a RFC, but I definitely advise you not to try any of those. I've never resorted to such things, and don't see why me or anyone else should resort to this in the present case. >Generally DRV should be respectful of closers and particularly respectful of the rather smaller number of closers who're willing to deal with the hard cases like this one. Agreed. GreyHood ^Talk 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse: This article was both an excessive list of statistics and synthesis, because it took each 'superlative' from its own source and not one source that reliably covered the subject. The closer correctly viewed the discussion as not a vote, because the 'keep' arguments were much weaker and less policy based than the delete arguments. By and large the keep votes were simply assertions that it was "interesting", "encyclopedic", and "notable" (though they did not explain why), and they addressed the nominator more by attacking him than by refuting his arguments. Quigley (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note This is not true. Only one keep !voter commented on the nominator, and unlike the persistent bickering about the nominator here, it was a mild teasing comment that did not derail discussion at all. It is not the closer's role to choose which arguments he or she prefers. It is to eliminate all arguments not related to policy, and then see what the dominant view is - that is, which policy is generally considered by "responsible editors" more pertinent in this case. As "useful" is a criterion for list pages, such !votes cannot be dismissed or ignored. As has been commented, the "delete" arguments weren't, if one applies that view even-handedly, particularly forceful either. Furthermore, sourcing was not an issue at the AfD, so should not be brought up here. This is not a rehash of the discussion. (In any case, that is not an argument for deletion - it is an argument to add sources. I presume that Quigley is not arguing that there are no sources). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - There are days in which I wish that people understood what indiscriminate meant. I mean no offense to the closer whatsoever, but does he really suggest that he sees indisciminate apply to the page in question? (How is this in any way comparable to a list of all the phone numbers in an area?) These kinds of statistics are incredibly common in encylopedias. And the "discussion" in the AfD was rather lacking. And one thing a closer is supposed to do is assess the "discussion" in light of the broader policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, anyone?) I just don't believe that that was done here. - jc37 05:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Whatever the reasons for deletion, they were not enough to persuade enough of the participants at the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of statistically superlative countries The result was no consensus to overturn, defaulting to restore and relist.

The procedural "endorses" in this DRV have been given less weight because while (in my view) they involve entirely valid criticisms of the nominator's approach to this DRV, more editors than the nominator are seeking review of this decision and it's not at all clear why the failure to follow non-obligatory procedure (albeit on a repeat basis) should affect the outcome of this review. There are also a number of substantive !votes on both sides of this DRV that have been given less weight because they haven't added much to the discussion by way of reasoning.

This DRV is obviously very evenly balanced on the numbers, leaning slightly to "overturn" by my count. On the arguments, this DRV is also closely balanced. The contributions of S Marshall and Sandstein are illuminative and demonstrate the particular difficulty with AfDs in which the discussion doesn't deeply interrogate the relevant policies, particularly when the policies are contentious to the point of being vaguely worded. There is a consensus that the closing admin was correct to give less weight to a number of keep !votes, but there is no consensus that that lead to a delete outcome. For example, a number of editors have questioned whether the delete !votes were well reasoned. A number of editors have also questioned whether the keep !votes were disregarded to too great an extent.

There is not a consensus to overturn. Nor is there a consensus to endorse. The relevant DRV policy states If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

In the circumstances, I am treating this no consensus as equivalent to a relist. This DRV has shown - through points made by both endorse and overturn !votes - that the AfD could have benefited from better arguments on both sides. If the deletion action was not supported by a consensus here at AfD, the logical outcome is to avoid the permanently binding effect of the subpar AfD and open it up for another round. The AfD will be re-opened and listed on the first day's log. It can be closed after 168 hours. Editors who have already !voted will have the chance to flesh out their points of view, and the involvement of new editors will help the AfD reach a satisfactory conclusion.

While there is no consensus to endorse the close, I want to make it clear that does not imply that there was any real community support in this DRV for the view that closing adminstrator acted in any way improperly, by super!voting, bias or otherwise. Quite the opposite. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Appears to have been closed as delete with a supervote instead of no consensus. A vague reference to WP:Info was given as the reason Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse because Richard Arthur Norton knows better than to escalate to DRV without engaging the deleting administrator in a civil discussion prior to alleging a supervote. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:LandingCheck?landing_page=WMFJA1&language=en&country=RU[reply]

You aren't supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You should be arguing on the merits of the case, not over your personal animus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merits of the case are clear: it's premature. You've escalated stuff to DRV prematurely before, such that it is clear that failure to follow process isn't a newbie mistake. BURO is not an excuse for having an honest, straightforward conversation with the deleting administrator first. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion with user:Black Kite about the article. Can we hold on to see what happens there? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. That's an interesting deletion summary. 6 votes to keep, 3 votes to delete, with one editor not sure what to choose. Even if some keep votes have to be given ~~lesser~~ null weight because they are just a variation of "interesting", there are still 3 keep votes that are not about "interesting", so it is no consensus. And in the course of the deletion discussion, the article's content has been limited to include exclusively the rankings present on current Wikipedian lists (Lists of countries, Category:Lists of countries etc) or maps. Do all those lists or a majority of them fail WP:IINFO? Should the article Lists of countries be deleted too? GreyHood ^Talk 11:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IINFO is a confusing muddle. It's a particularly egregious example of the kind of compromise wording you get where policies are designed by committee. Policy ought to be clearer than that, and I'm not surprised that RAN found the closing rationale "vague"—which is not a criticism of Black Kite. It's not so much a problem with what Black Kite said, as a problem with the policy itself. I suspect that the substantive issue at this DRV will involve a detailed parsing of WP:IINFO.
Jclemens is technically correct but I do just wonder whether a dialogue between RAN and Black Kite would have been productive at all; both are tremendously experienced Wikipedians who understand the issues and know the deletion process backwards, and neither is noted for their willingness to back down in the face of disagreement. I should imagine this would have ended up at DRV regardless. I guess we could insist on seeing a week-long wordy communications failure happening on Black Kite's talk page before it's brought back to DRV but that seems overly bureaucratic to me.
I'll reserve my !vote til I've seen Black Kite's response.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own close for what it's worth. I was expecting this, of course. It's a no-win situation really when you're closing the "AfDs that everyone else has shied away from" as I was last night, in fact some of them were 3 days overdue. The problem is that if you merely count votes you get accused of vote-counting, whilst if you actually evaluate the strength of the comments then you get dragged to DRV anyway because you haven't "measured consensus". For what it's worth, practically all of the Keep votes were not based in policy.

The first one suggested how the article could be fixed, although it did not address the basic problems with it.
The second Keep ("the article is informative") is clearly worth little.
The third was basically the same, with added WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
The "Keep/Delete" vote can clearly not be taken as supporting either view, although it probably leans towards Delete.
DGG points out that "useful" can be a positive for lists, but again still doesn't address the indiscriminate basic nature of the list.
Dream Focus' comment does not address anything at all, let alone any reason for keeping.
The final comment is merely "it's interesting" and "it's notable".

Given that, I could not see how the claim that the article fails a policy, IINFO, specifically pointed out by Sandstein and alluded to by the other three Delete votes (including the nom), was refuted. If we are going to decide AfD by counting numbers, it'd probably make everything a lot easier as you wouldn't need admins to close them - anyone who can count could do it. And the editor who brought this DRV actually knows this very well, so for them to claim that I closed with a supervote is completely egregious. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above rationale is a textbook example of a supervote. All !votes from opposing opinions are invalidated by wikilawyering like they were hanging chads in Bush v. Gore, until the preselected outcome is achieved. It is also like the tests given to people for literacy before they can vote to disenfranchise them. If you can't construct your arguments in a way that satisfies the people in charge of the !vote, your !vote is invalidated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's completely ridiculous (as well as verging on NPA - "preselected outcome"? - yeah right, on an article I'd never seen before in my life. Jeeezus.). If I post a comment at AfD which merely says "Keep: It's notable", or "Delete: Not notable", I need to expect that comment to be disregarded. A closing admin is not doing their job properly if they just count votes. If editors are unable to construct their comments at an AfD so that it actually addresses the issue at hand rather than just blindly voting, that's hardly anyone else's problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be convinced if I saw an equal amount of effort to invalidate the delete votes, but you had not one word of criticism for them, hence it gives the appearance of a bias, even if you don't recognize the bias yourself. That is why in the sciences we use double blind methods, and that is why election districts moved to machine voting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, I would be more convinced if I was not having this conversation with an editor whose AfD track record is of !voting "Keep" on practically everything, often with little rationale. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the vote at hand please, no need to stray into generalized personal attacks. You can save them all up for an ANI. Unless you can show me some statistics on my votes, your just showing your personal bias, again, as we discussed earlier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's OK for you to assume bad faith in my close, which is purely an opinion of yours, but not for me to point to your editing history at AfD, which is a matter of record which anyone is free to peruse? I think you've made my point for me. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I have shown the actual statistics for your disenfranchising the keep votes. I have also shown the statistics for you showing no criticism or disenfranchisment of any delete votes in this debate. You haven't shown any statistics on my voting record to say that I "[vote] "Keep" on practically everything, often with little rationale." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need to "show statistics on your voting record" when any editor can confirm the fact for themselves by looking at your contribution history at AfD? But since I've got a spare five minutes, [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] etc. Meanwhile, you still haven't rebutted any of my points as to why the "Keep" votes were weak, presumably because you can't. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Consensus for retention was disregarded in the close and issues of notability of a list of this type were directly addressed by participants. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? A bunch of people saying "it's notable" addresses notability? No it doesn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop ignoring me, you'll see that at least some of that bunch of people did address notability. And technically, when one says it is notable, he does address notability. GreyHood ^Talk 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hope we can all accept two of Black Kite's points: First, that it wasn't an easy close; and second, that the !vote count is a red herring. It's necessary to evaluate the strength of the arguments. After reading what Black Kite says I'm of the view that the substantive question is whether it was true to say that this list contravened WP:IINFO. (The other arguments for deletion suggest that this is a "list of trivia", but that doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's a list of ways in which various countries are at the top of various league tables. Some of the individual items on the list are trivia. But others are substantive. Thus, though many of the "keep" !votes may be dismissed out of hand, two of the "delete" !votes may be treated in the same way. We're left with Sandstein's point alone.)
Sandstein alleges that the list violates WP:IINFO. DRV can't evaluate whether the AfD was closed correctly without deciding whether Sandstein was right, so we need to establish which limb of IINFO was allegedly contravened.
WP:IINFO specifically says that the following things are forbidden: 1.Plot-only description of fictional works; 2.Lyrics databases; 3.Excessive listing of statistics; 4.News reports; 5.Who's who; and 6.FAQs. The only one of those items that this list could possibly have contravened is the third one: an excessive listing of statistics.
Stipulating for the moment that it was an excessive listing of statistics, was that unfixable? Wouldn't it have been possible to trim it down to a relevant and non-trivial list of statistics instead?
On the face of it, this deletion strikes me as a bit harsh. May I notify Sandstein of this debate and invite him to explain his !vote in more detail?—S Marshall T/C 15:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to a pillar of Wikipedia "notability" and saying it meets that standard should not be invalidated as a hanging chad, despite the essay WP:Whatnottosay. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your comment, generally. Read also my answer to Black Kite below, discussing the IINFO, and the three stronger keep votes. GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st keep. Once again, I didn't merely propose how the article could be fixed, I actually implemented one of my proposals. Have you checked the changes in the article before closing AfD? The article was basically turned into an extended version of the Lists of countries, sorted by country at the top or at the bottom of a list from there. Actually, I can go right now to the Lists of countries and try inserting top/bottom country beside all the ranked lists there, and in effect that'd be the representation of the same information as in the deleted list, but in a less handy format. And I hardly can expect that anyone ever will delete the List of Lists of countries because of IINFO.

3rd keep. Therexbanner said that there is no reason for the deletion of the list of ratings which are found in other good wiki articles, unless you can justify deleting of those ratings and those articles. This is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this is the refuting of the claim that the list fails IINFO. It doesn't fail, and not because other stuff exists, but because this list is composed of that other stuff, this is a technical list which provides a handy access to the ratings sorted by the top/bottom country. And that's how we come to the

5th keep. The list is useful. It is included into all templates at the Category:Country list templates. From there by one simple click you can go either to the plain List of Lists of countries, or to the similar list of lists sorted by the top/bottom country - the deleted List of statistically superlative countries. Such a representation of data is handy. Look, people even create games based on the list in question.

I think that there is no good ground to disregard at least the three mentioned keeps, which puts us in the situation of no consensus instead of supervote. And I've shown that the list doesn't fail IINFO. Mind me, I've presented most of these arguments at the AfD discussion and answered all pro-deletion users there, except of Sandstein, and I'd have answered him too, if not for the closing of AfD. GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I don't agree with Black Kite's characterisation of the keep votes. "Useful" is a criterion for list articles, and evidence was provided for its usefulness. Assertions in the opposite direction without evidence should carry little or no weight. I like the essay WP:OSE, but it's not a policy. In list articles, notability is in practice borrowed from other articles - red links mean a presumed non-notability and blue links the opposite. It's not a clinching argument, but it shows that WP:OSE is not a universal practice. The opportunity to discuss issues of indiscriminate inclusion was, as the first keep vote stated, undermined by going straight to Afd rather than discussing on the talkpage. At the very least, given that editors were making suggestions, and one editor was cutting things down, to meet WP:IINFO objections, this should have been closed as no consensus, if not keep.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nominator is 100% aware from dozens of previous discussions of the correct procedure to follow when he disputes a deletion debate outcome, and if he is not willing to follow it, I am not willing to consider reversing the outcome. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, there are other people interested in this than just the one editor. Given that Black Kite has said that he expected this to come to DRV, and given that on his own talkpage in response to my attempt to have a discussion there, he said he would deal with the matter here, I don't see the point in simply dismissing the DRV now it's up and running. Are you and/or Jclemens suggesting that this one should be rejected and then refiled again? Wouldn't that be a bit pointless? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say jumping to DRV without bothering to discuss with the closing administrator is far more disruption. Considering you know how this process works, perhaps you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. AniMate 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I think this close was correct. SnottyWong ^confabulate 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate your opinion please, otherwise according to the method of Black Kite your vote has no weight, just like the two previous endorsements based purely on the DRV procedure issues. GreyHood ^Talk 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely !voted that way in the hopes that someone who opposes the close would comment that my vote was WP:JUSTAVOTE. It appears you have taken the bait. Hopefully now it is clear why the majority of keep !votes at this AfD should be ignored. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 20:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you have captured a wrong fish, and the hook is too small to hold the capture. Any of the keep votes in the related AfD discussion is more elaborate and has more arguments than your hook. And even if we take only the better argumented votes - a method that I've already accepted in my comments above - we still arrive to no consesus. GreyHood ^Talk 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a masterful strategy worthy of Sun Tzu, except you aren't supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my attempts to enlighten you can reasonably be characterized as disruption. From now on, all of my votes will be in the form of a kōan. SnottyWong ^communicate 04:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The reason given for the close "the basic point that the article fails WP:IINFO has not been refuted," is not supported by the facts: But IINFO reads in summary: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and a statement of what country is leading is a particular quality of importance is not indiscriminate, but about as highly discriminating as possible. Since a list of countries in order of whatever would be routine and does not fail IINFO, a compilation of the top entries from those lists is certain not under that rule. Whether this is seen as a supervote or a summary of the discussion, it is just plain wrong. There could have been an argument that the qualities measured were selected indiscriminately, but looking at them (life expectancy, winner of most cricket world cups (and of many other major sports), people in prison, GDP, largest producer of uranium (and of many other important products), they do not seem indiscriminate. Some of them are of debatable importance, perhaps, but that's a content dispute. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although my view may be colored by having participated in the AfD, I think that both a "keep" on the numbers and a "delete" based on the arguments are defensible closures in this difficult case. To reply to DGG and others above, the list was unremediably indiscriminate because there is a practically unlimited number of verifiable country rankings on Wikipedia and the list does not have any other inclusion criteria. One can (not: should) make a country ranking about essentially every non-unique article subject. For instance - Special:Random - "country with most Huachuca springsnails" (which is the United States, because the animal is endemic to that country) would be a valid entry. On the other hand, a list of this type by type of statistic, for instance List of statistically superlative countries in the Olympic Games, would be discriminate and acceptable. Sandstein 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In its last version (already implemented by the time of your vote at AfD), the article was limited to statistics found on the lists or maps with rankings present on Wikipedia, that is to the most notable statistics approved by the community. The number of verifiable country rankings is pretty limited on Wikipedia, actually most of them are already on the templates in the Category:Country list templates, and all of those templates have been very stable for a recent year with few to none additions. The list in question also didn't grow significantly for many months, despite its large viewership. And once again, the scope of the list mostly coincide with that of the Lists of countries, which is hardly an indisriminate collection of information, but a technical list of encyclopedic lists and rankings. GreyHood ^Talk 22:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This is a reasonable close. Sandstein puts it quite nicely, so I won't repeat anything he's said. AniMate 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not nice, sorry. I'm a bit tired of answering this kind of straw man comments such as claiming that the list is indiscriminate because of the possible inclusion of the "country with most Huachuca springsnails" or "the country with the longest average toenail length" (back from AfD). No such things can be included into the list according to the criteria set in its latest version, at least until the Wikipedian community approves the creation of the List of countries by number of Huachuca springsnails or the List of countries by average toenail length. This or that way, the list's scope can be limited to the most notable statistics, and the rubbish can be set aside. GreyHood ^Talk 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- Having read the original discussion and Black Kite's detailed explanation at this DRV, I cannot convince myself that Black Kite acted improperly. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be very ironical if Black Kite's action is ultimately endorsed on the basis of such votes, adding nothing to the discussion but just the vote itself ;)GreyHood ^Talk 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of DRV isn't to rehash or put forth new arguments for or against deletion. The purpose is to discuss whether or not the close was reasonable or not. Reyk's comment is perfectly in line with that. AniMate 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that discussion of "whether or not the close was reasonable or not" includes taking into account the arguments against the close, which have been ignored to a large degree, and not just approving or disapproving the actions of the others, but specifying at least some reason for this. Black Kite actually built much of his closing summary on WP:JUSTAVOTE (broadly understood), and it looks really funny when the people start to support the close in this manner. GreyHood ^Talk 23:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not the first you've attempted to dismiss as WP:JUSTAVOTE and you've been wrong both times. Furthermore, I find your sarcastic badgering of endorsers rather distasteful. Reyk _YO! 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to mention that Sandstein's reply doesn't seem to fully address what I said above. Sandstein may possibly have shown that the material as written was in violation of WP:IINFO, but the AfD should then have considered whether the material could have been made to comply via regular editing. In other words, by defining the list's scope and trimming out those parts thought to be trivia, could this have been fixed? AfD participants are supposed to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before concluding that the material needs to be removed. I don't see any evidence that any alternatives were considered at all.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please can we keep any animosity between Richard A Norton and other editors off this discussion? Even if it was wrong not to discuss with Black Kite on his talkpage first, Black Kite himself chose (as is perfectly acceptable) to continue discussion here when I went to his talkpage to discuss the matter. There are other editors besides the nominator who believe the closing was mistaken. We're here now, so let's put all that baggage away. On that note, this DRV is not (or should not be) an attack on the closing admin's integrity. This is a normal procedure when challenging a decision. Black Kite has done nothing "improper". That is not the same as saying his judgement in this matter is thereby unimpeachable. They are two different issues, as I'm sure we would all agree. Thirdly, I would ask editors not to interpret WP:NOTAVOTE as meaning either (a) all minority closings cannot be challenged (rather than "minority closings can be correct") which is implied heavily in a couple of arguments here, or (b) that head counts are entirely irrelevant. Here is what WP:CLOSE says:

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrators own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The administrator is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy.

This particular AfD looks like a very good example of "no consensus", given that actually very few of the !votes fulfill the criteria for discarding, and any tightening of the criteria leads to !votes on both sides (e.g. "useful/not useful") being rejected. Even Sandstein says either keep or delete would have been "defensible" - which shouts out "no consensus" as the proper result. Have we abandoned "no consensus" as an outcome? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very moment that RAN decides he is willing to follow the standard DRV procedure, I shall be willing to consider his requests on their merits. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle - can I be clear on this - you think this DRV should start all over again only once Black Kite has discussed the issue on his talkpage? This strikes me as an unnecessary waste of time now that we're all here (and given that Black Kite would plainly not have changed his mind in a more informal talkpage discussion). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I often agree with Stifle, but in this case I don't. This doesn't need in-depth discussion because there's a pre-existing consensus (most recently here): RAN was under no obligation to consult the deleting admin before raising the DRV. It would have been polite if RAN had done so, but the consensus is that DRV shouldn't penalise him for being rude.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less about not being informed, but apparently it's also OK for him to assume bad faith ("All !votes from opposing opinions are invalidated by wikilawyering like they were hanging chads in Bush v. Gore, until the preselected outcome is achieved"). If RAN thinks that evaluating !votes with poor rationales is "wikilawyering", perhaps he needs to read up on our deletion processes again. Should we be encouraging stuff like this? Black Kite (t) (c) 12:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are good reasons why I've avoided discussing the conduct issues at this DRV. This page is a drama-free zone, and there are better places to deal with whatever accusations are going around (on both sides). The purpose of DRV is scrutiny of the close, so I'm focused on the evidence that policy was complied with in this specific case. That doesn't mean that I'm unsympathetic to what you say about conduct—there's an extent to which I agree with you about that—it just means that I don't think this is the place to deal with it.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, an RfC is indicated, it's just that raising an RfC on an editor whose entire AfD edit history consists of making weak "Keep" votes just seems pointless to me because the usual suspects will drop by to support him. And it's irrelevant to this DRV anyway, because he didn't comment. Wikipedia is utterly useless at sanctioning those who misuse its processes, yet can provide little to stop them doing so. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That deserves a reply but we're ranging far outside DRV's scope. I'll email you.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – After reading the AFD, the arguments for deletion were stronger and more policy-based than the arguments for retention. That is what closing admins are expected by the community when determining a deletion discussion outcome. –MuZemike 04:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain what make the delete arguments stronger in your opinion? Hobit (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I agree the keep arguments were weak, but as S Marshall points out, the delete arguments were also generally weak. Given the numbers (and yes, counting noses does play a role here) I'd say it leaned toward keep, but NC was probably the right result. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The closing admin clearly inserted his own opinion as his reference to WP:IINFO was the only one made by anyone in the discussion. The keep and delete camps both argued on the same general grounds and there was no consensus between them. The weakness of their arguments does not provide an occasion for the closer to provide his own. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What opinion did I insert that wasn't mentioned by any of the commenters on the AfD? Black Kite (t) (c) 09:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The basic point that the article fails WP:IINFO (a policy) is not refuted". No-one made this point. The rest of the close did not represent the discussion accurately either. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That point was made by User:Sandstein. Feel free to try again. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, Sandstein's argument was "Not useful for any purpose of information that I can think of;" - a classic argument to avoid. He did not cite policy in any clear way and certainly did not provide a satisfactory basis for claiming a consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, very funny, now try quoting Sandstein's whole sentence - "Not useful for any purpose of information that I can think of; indiscriminate collection of information". Did you miss the next part? As I said, feel free to prove your initial comment, or you could always admit that you're wrong and strike it? Black Kite (t) (c) 06:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:IINFO is a very confusing policy, and thus, more attention, not less, should be paid to the opinion of the people who actually commented in the discussion, who clearly tended towards a keep outcome. I share the above editors' concern about the premature escalation to DRV, but now that we're here, we should discuss the merits, not the procedure by which it got here, since it seems it would've gotten here anyhow. Ray^Talk 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - More knee-jerk bloc voting from the usual gang. The "keep" calls were weak and never adequately refuted the rationale to delete. Weak opinions == less weight, well within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which delete !votes did you find strong and why? As noted, I tend to agree with S Marshall that only one delete !vote had much strength and as the problem was fixable, not all that much. I'm curious how you read them. Hobit (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your rather pedantic question goes to the heart of why I detest these frivolous filings; DRV should not be used to simply second-guess, it should be used for legitimate concerns that something wrong was done. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question is not pedantic in the slightest, and this is not about "wrongdoing", but a review of a decision we should presume as a matter of course was made in good faith. There are editors apart from the nominator raising concerns, including a few admins. What on Earth has Richard A Norton done that makes so many people here dismiss the concerns of other editors? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tarc, you were happy to discount the keep !votes as being weak but won't address the delete !votes? Heck, I've not seen any of the endorsers really claim that the delete !votes were any stronger than the keep !votes. If the arguments are both weak, then given the numbers I'd then expect this to be a keep or no consensus close. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Although I also participated in the AfD vote, I feel like I must explain my vote here, and also re-state my opinion. The article did not violate any of the 6 points of WP:IINFO. The only one that comes close is the "excessive listing of statistics." However, if you actually read the point description and not just the title, you will see that it refers to the readability, neatness, and explanation of the data. Unless one can prove that the article was unreadable, or not neat, there should be no argument in relation to WP:IINFO. In case a consensus emerges that the article is messy, a cleanup proposal should be made, but I believe deleting it was inappropriate. Black Kite mentioned WP:IINFO as the main reason for deletion. I'd like to know why the article (list) was deleted before a civil and good-faith AfD discussion came to a consensus.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because an AfD lasts 7 days and this one was already overdue. More to the point, IINFO has nothing whatsoever to do with readability and/or messiness, it has to do with information being indiscriminate. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted. Could you please define indiscriminate in this context and specfically, how the list was "indiscriminate." The "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate..." section of WP:IINFO has 7 sub-points. Which one of them applies in this case?--Therexbanner (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point that immediately applies is 3) "Excessive listing of statistics". The point was made in the AfD that there was no criteria of notability or importance being applied to the listing of such data ("a big list of trivia", "a collection of endless trivia with no cohesion","indiscriminate collection of information in which such gems as "Best performance at Sidecarcross World Championship" are given equal importance to statistics such as "Highest Human Development Index""), and that effectively the article had no boundaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem had been fixed, but you ignored it, and you continue to ignore it throughout this discussion. Here you misrepresented my comments and activities on the AfD as just proposals and as not addressing the basic problems, while actually one of the proposals was implemented, and the basic problems, such as notability and scope, were directly addressed. The criteria were set for inclusion into the list, effectively limiting the boundaries of the article to statistics represented as ranked lists or maps on Wikipedia, which is a finite number at a given time. If that wasn't enough, we could impose even stronger criteria, there was no problem in that. The list is not unamendable in principle. Despite the persistent claims of containing the endless trivia, it was pretty much stable in size for many months, and contained mostly the notable statistics. Such gems as "Best performance at Sidecarcross World Championship" should have been excluded under the new criteria, I've just overlooked that entry while cutting the list down. GreyHood ^Talk 22:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not ignoring anything; I could only close the AfD on the basis of the comments, and editors could only comment on what was extant at the time of the AfD, not what could possibly exist in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still hope you didn't just evaluate the comments while not checking how the article has changed during the AfD. I specifically noted it in that discussion, but you and Sandstein, judging from his straw man argument here, appear to have missed it. And obviously, editors can comment not only on a present shape of an article but also on how to improve and amend it. Do you claim the article was irrepairably wrong? GreyHood ^Talk 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you had to close on the basis of the debate. The point being made here is that the debate itself was flawed in that it failed to consider the alternatives to deletion. Ideally, the participants would have discussed whether a trimmed version of the list with a defined scope could exist. That didn't happen. It's fair to consider that at DRV, because considering alternatives is a part of the deletion process. I don't think it would be fair to censure Black Kite personally because of it. We've agreed that it was a difficult close that nobody else wanted to make, and we're considering whether the debate (rather than the close) was defective. In the circumstances no blame should attach to BK.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing personal against Black Kite, but I strongly disagree with his specific action on the discussed AfD, and his ~~blatant~~ obvious misrepresentation of my comments and activities on that AfD here, in this discussion. You seem to share the concern that if we start to address keep votes with especial scrutiny (a method which I'm ready to accept, though not to the point of absolute ignoring of "lesser quality" votes) we should give at least the same degree of scrutiny to delete votes. You also just stated, that the alternatives to deletion should have been considered before the actual deletion. You said at the very beginning, that WP:IINFO can be confusing muddle and you proposed its detailed parsing. Well, the policy has been parsed,"the point that immediately applies is 3)", and I've shown how the list doesn't fail this point. I fully appreciate Black Kite's emphasis on keeping the AfD procedure within one week time limit, and his attempt to bring more judgement than just a simple count of votes, but this doesn't mean that all other aspects of that AfD can be disregarded. And if we agree, that the vote was defective (from the very beginning, actually, when the nominator missed the opportunity to discuss the problems on the list's talk page), we have to agree also that Black Kite should have recognised the vote as defective and should have given more time to further discussion, or should have closed it with no consensus. GreyHood ^Talk 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Blatant misrepresentation" is a bit strong, Greyhood, and I respectfully ask that you consider retracting it.
I agree with you on the substantive point, because as I explained right at the beginning of this debate, I also don't see exactly which part of WP:IINFO applies. I do not agree that Black Kite should necessarily have recognised the vote as defective. His job is to weigh the policy-based arguments on one side against the policy-based arguments on the other. His job is certainly not to close based on arguments that were not raised in the AfD at all—and indeed if he'd done that, he really would have been guilty of the alleged "supervote". He quite correctly restricted his close to what the participants had actually said. Overruling the debate itself is a prerogative restricted to DRV or to a subsequent AfD. It's quite right that individual admins don't get to do that.
I also want to say that it's possible to disagree with a close without questioning the closer's competence. Questioning the closer's competence doesn't even belong here. (The right place is the admin's talk page followed if necessary by an admin recall petition or a RFC, but I definitely advise you not to try any of those.) Generally DRV should be respectful of closers and particularly respectful of the rather smaller number of closers who're willing to deal with the hard cases like this one.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forgive me for my not so masterful usage of subtle distinctions in English language. I've changed it to "obvious misrepresentation" (it is clearly seen from the original AfD that I didn't just proposed, but actually limited the scope of the article, and I did specifically address the issues of notability instead of just saing "it is notable").
>His job is certainly not to close based on arguments that were not raised in the AfD at all When it comes to the merits of the article in question, I've not brought much new arguments here, I've mostly repeated old arguments from the AfD discussion, which were not refuted at that time, and which were disregarded in the closing summary.
>''He quite correctly restricted his close to what the participants had actually said. Well, yes, but not all what had been said appears to have beeen taken into account, and we both share concern at the procedure of weighing of what had been said.
>''I also want to say that it's possible to disagree with a close without questioning the closer's competence. I don't question anyone's competence, I just don't have enough information to make general statements on competence in this case. Here we question a specific action, which might have better alternatives. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, or takes decisions which could have been better.
>Questioning the closer's competence doesn't even belong here. Sorry, if I made an impression of such questioning. Perhaps I was influenced by the spirit of this discussion, which obviously shows too much of background of personal issues between the nominator, Richard Arthur Norton, and other editors.
>The right place is the admin's talk page followed if necessary by an admin recall petition or a RFC, but I definitely advise you not to try any of those. I've never resorted to such things, and don't see why me or anyone else should resort to this in the present case.
>Generally DRV should be respectful of closers and particularly respectful of the rather smaller number of closers who're willing to deal with the hard cases like this one. Agreed. GreyHood ^Talk 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: This article was both an excessive list of statistics and synthesis, because it took each 'superlative' from its own source and not one source that reliably covered the subject. The closer correctly viewed the discussion as not a vote, because the 'keep' arguments were much weaker and less policy based than the delete arguments. By and large the keep votes were simply assertions that it was "interesting", "encyclopedic", and "notable" (though they did not explain why), and they addressed the nominator more by attacking him than by refuting his arguments. Quigley (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is not true. Only one keep !voter commented on the nominator, and unlike the persistent bickering about the nominator here, it was a mild teasing comment that did not derail discussion at all. It is not the closer's role to choose which arguments he or she prefers. It is to eliminate all arguments not related to policy, and then see what the dominant view is - that is, which policy is generally considered by "responsible editors" more pertinent in this case. As "useful" is a criterion for list pages, such !votes cannot be dismissed or ignored. As has been commented, the "delete" arguments weren't, if one applies that view even-handedly, particularly forceful either. Furthermore, sourcing was not an issue at the AfD, so should not be brought up here. This is not a rehash of the discussion. (In any case, that is not an argument for deletion - it is an argument to add sources. I presume that Quigley is not arguing that there are no sources). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - There are days in which I wish that people understood what indiscriminate meant. I mean no offense to the closer whatsoever, but does he really suggest that he sees indisciminate apply to the page in question? (How is this in any way comparable to a list of all the phone numbers in an area?) These kinds of statistics are incredibly common in encylopedias. And the "discussion" in the AfD was rather lacking. And one thing a closer is supposed to do is assess the "discussion" in light of the broader policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, anyone?) I just don't believe that that was done here. - jc37 05:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Whatever the reasons for deletion, they were not enough to persuade enough of the participants at the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 November 2010

[edit]

Veronica Moser – I've reviewed the deleted unsourced BLP, and there is no way we are going to restore it, or even mail it to anyone to use as a starting point. The user is free to start a new biography of Ms. Moser that complies with current BLP guidelines. (Any admin who disagrees with me upon review of the deleted material is free to revert me, of course, but the material is sufficiently egregious a BLP violation that there is no way to restore it for non-admin comment) – Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
page=Veronica_Moser reason=You deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Moser The reasons given for deletion are not entirely clear. What was given as reasons are that it was "derogatory" and that it was a PORNBIO. "Derogatory" is a matter of subjective opinion (and one that was not explained at all) and so cannot be used as a criteria for determining if a page should be deleted. I suspected that the deletion of this page may have been motivated by religious values and so I took a look at Eluchil404 user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eluchil404 Religion: "BC St. Ignatius apse window 3.jpg This user is a High Church, conservative adherent of Anglican Christianity." This may lend a better perspective of what might have been meant by "derogatory". The PORNBIO criteria is not clearly defined and nothing was stated about what PORNBIO criteria were used to match the deleted page. And so for the two reasons given for deleteion -- derogatory and PORNBIO -- it appears that there is not one criteria that is reasoned. The page was deleted without well-reasoned argument. This should not have happened. The talk page for Veronica Moser was also deleted and so comments about the deletion cannot be placed there. The talk page should not have been deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veronica_Moser&action=edit&redlink=1 The talk page should be restored so that it can be used as for a proper discussion on the page's deletion and about its restoration. While I agree that Veronica Moser is controversial, factually correct information about this person should not have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.225.206 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Veronica Moser – I've reviewed the deleted unsourced BLP, and there is no way we are going to restore it, or even mail it to anyone to use as a starting point. The user is free to start a new biography of Ms. Moser that complies with current BLP guidelines. (Any admin who disagrees with me upon review of the deleted material is free to revert me, of course, but the material is sufficiently egregious a BLP violation that there is no way to restore it for non-admin comment) – Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

page=Veronica_Moser

reason=You deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Moser

The reasons given for deletion are not entirely clear. What was given as reasons are that it was "derogatory" and that it was a PORNBIO.

"Derogatory" is a matter of subjective opinion (and one that was not explained at all) and so cannot be used as a criteria for determining if a page should be deleted.

I suspected that the deletion of this page may have been motivated by religious values and so I took a look at Eluchil404 user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eluchil404 Religion: "BC St. Ignatius apse window 3.jpg This user is a High Church, conservative adherent of Anglican Christianity."

This may lend a better perspective of what might have been meant by "derogatory".

The PORNBIO criteria is not clearly defined and nothing was stated about what PORNBIO criteria were used to match the deleted page.

And so for the two reasons given for deleteion -- derogatory and PORNBIO -- it appears that there is not one criteria that is reasoned.

The page was deleted without well-reasoned argument. This should not have happened.

The talk page for Veronica Moser was also deleted and so comments about the deletion cannot be placed there. The talk page should not have been deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veronica_Moser&action=edit&redlink=1

The talk page should be restored so that it can be used as for a proper discussion on the page's deletion and about its restoration.

While I agree that Veronica Moser is controversial, factually correct information about this person should not have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.225.206 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 November 2010

[edit]

List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes – Neither nominator or closer noticed that Twinkle had not placed a notification template correctly on the page in question. Discussion will be reopened and relisted. – Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` Okay every week before I watch a new episode of The Nostalgia Critic on youtube, I check the list here on Wikipedia. I missed the last episode and now I am trying to look for the list of episodes and now it is gone. The list didn't break any rules that I know of and the last time I checked, there was no deletion template. Another fan has complained on Talk:That Guy with the Glasses for the same reason. That was wrong to delete that article. I really want it back! SeanWheeler (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] For the discussion which resulted in deletion of the page, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes (2nd nomination). The page was deleted for failing to prove the notability of its topic (and rightly so, in my opinion); however, while checking the deleted page history, I could not find where it was tagged for deletion. I have notified the AfD nominator and closer. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I used Twinkle, so if there was no deletion template placed on page, it must have malfunctioned and I didn't notice. I thought it was tagged. I think we should use common sense here and not reinstate the article (and its deletion discussion), as the discussion was quite conclusive and went without opposition. SeanWheeler does not mention anything that would have changed the discussion. Thanks. —Half Price 20:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There was a discussion six months ago that was a landslide speedy keep, and then a discussion one month ago that was a unanimous delete. That's really a bit unusual and I wonder what's going on. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because this is very simple. The purpose of this page is to decide whether the deletion process was correctly followed. If there was no deletion template on the article, then the procedure wasn't correctly followed. It's not surprising that the material was be deleted without opposition, considering that none of the editors who gave us the speedy keep from the previous discussion only six months ago were even aware a fresh AfD was in progress. Overturn, restore and list at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, restore and list at AfD. per S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, restore, list at AFD. The Google-cached version of the article, scraped while the AFD was in progress, shows that no AFD template appeared on the page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks to Black Falcon for notifying me. I used an automated tool for the closing, so didn't notice the lack of a template. Given we're not talking about a copyright violation or attack page, I agree the most appropriate course of action would be to relist. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes – Neither nominator or closer noticed that Twinkle had not placed a notification template correctly on the page in question. Discussion will be reopened and relisted. – Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Okay every week before I watch a new episode of The Nostalgia Critic on youtube, I check the list here on Wikipedia. I missed the last episode and now I am trying to look for the list of episodes and now it is gone. The list didn't break any rules that I know of and the last time I checked, there was no deletion template. Another fan has complained on Talk:That Guy with the Glasses for the same reason. That was wrong to delete that article. I really want it back! SeanWheeler (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the discussion which resulted in deletion of the page, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes (2nd nomination). The page was deleted for failing to prove the notability of its topic (and rightly so, in my opinion); however, while checking the deleted page history, I could not find where it was tagged for deletion. I have notified the AfD nominator and closer. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used Twinkle, so if there was no deletion template placed on page, it must have malfunctioned and I didn't notice. I thought it was tagged. I think we should use common sense here and not reinstate the article (and its deletion discussion), as the discussion was quite conclusive and went without opposition. SeanWheeler does not mention anything that would have changed the discussion. Thanks. —Half Price 20:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion six months ago that was a landslide speedy keep, and then a discussion one month ago that was a unanimous delete. That's really a bit unusual and I wonder what's going on.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, because this is very simple. The purpose of this page is to decide whether the deletion process was correctly followed. If there was no deletion template on the article, then the procedure wasn't correctly followed. It's not surprising that the material was be deleted without opposition, considering that none of the editors who gave us the speedy keep from the previous discussion only six months ago were even aware a fresh AfD was in progress. Overturn, restore and list at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, restore and list at AfD. per S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, restore, list at AFD. The Google-cached version of the article, scraped while the AFD was in progress, shows that no AFD template appeared on the page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Black Falcon for notifying me. I used an automated tool for the closing, so didn't notice the lack of a template. Given we're not talking about a copyright violation or attack page, I agree the most appropriate course of action would be to relist. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 – While there is indeed substantial overlap with the previous discussion decision, there appears to be consensus that a separate discussion is appropriate in this case, given the age of the previous CfD. Unlike articles, there is no way a category can avoid being "substantially identical" to a previously deleted category. Since Black Falcon has offered, I'll notify him to start the discussion at CfD – Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The deletion discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22#Wikipedian Service Award Level categories. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) (N.B.: This request covers Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 through Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level nn and related categories. These are the categories associated with the various service awards.) Contested speedy. Here's the deal: on 25 October 2007, After Midnight deleted Category:Editors with service awards after a CfD discussion here. It was a reasonable close, not the kind of close that would usually come here to DRV, although in my opinion it was arguably a marginal close (the headcount was 6-3 in favor of deletion, but most of the discussion was back-and-forth between two editors, with neither editor clearly gaining the upper hand, and the closer didn't give any reason why he chose Delete.) My understanding is that the deletion included several related categories (I'm not sure of this). A reverse of this close would have obviated the need for this DRV, but User talk:After Midnight declined my recent request to reverse the close, partly on the grounds that he can't remember the particulars and isn't available right now for extensive reconstruction of the matter. OK, in (I think) July of this year someone created a number of categories, such as Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 and its sister categories, the numbers running from 01 up into the teens. I'm given to understand that these are essentially the same as Category:Editors with service awards and its related categories, and I guess this is so. An editor (BlackFalcon) deleted Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 et al under Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) G4, recreation of deleted material. I contested this, and contested speedy deletions are often reversed, but not always, and this certainly applies to CSD G4's. BlackFalcon vouchsafed that he felt duty-bound to apply CSD G4 and couldn't honor my request. He's expected to perform his admin duties to advance the best interests of the Wikipedia as he sees them, so that's his prerogative. However, this raised in my mind the question: does availability of a category to CSD G4 deletion ever expire? The deletion review category states "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." However, categories don't contain information, so it's impossible to write a "new" version. So does this mean that a category, once deleted (even in a marginal close) can never be recreated? This seems overly rigid to, and raises a couple of questions: I note that nine people commented in the original 2007 CfD discussion. Of these, either four or five (depending on your criteria) are no longer active editors. Does this matter, I wonder. (What if it was nine of nine? To what extent are we bound forever to the opinions of people who are not Wikipedia editors (any longer)?) The original CfD was three years ago. Does this matter I wonder. (What if it had been five years ago? Eight? Ten?) Another point: the "[S]ignificant new information has come to light" clause may be said to be met in that: The Service Awards seem more used now than in 2007, in my perception. I don't know if this is new information but it's a new condition. I don't have new information for the category, but I have new information for a new discussion if there is one, in form of refs pointing to material on motivation of volunteers. In the original 2007 discussion, no refs were used and no sources cited. As another data point: the person conducting the G4 speedy, User:BlackFalcon, was also the primary advocate for deleting the categories in the original 2007 CfD. There's nothing actually wrong with that (I guess) and I don't think that BlackFalcon is acting in bad faith, but still... hmmm. This may be a technical point, since BlackFalcon could have asked another admin to do the deletion. But then, on the other hand, if he had done that, the other admin might have been more favorable to my contesting of the speedy.I (Herostratus) retract this point, since Black Falcon did consult with other admins. In summary, I'd say that in most any case (except copyvio etc.) where there's a reasonable chance that an entity would survive an XfD (as there is here), then the entity shouldn't be speedied. In the case of a G4, fine, we can't reargue cases immediately. But I think three years is long enough. Herostratus (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment G4 for what is project based material does seem to have quite a few wrinkles, as the community evolves content policies don't seem to shift too much (be that a good or bad thing), whereas the project area seems much more fluid to me. In such case a reasonable consensus has changed (or may have) sort of argument seems to be possible. I don't see a particular time limit for G4 validity (some would attempt to game such a limit), but if we are beyond reasonable memory of the discussion (i.e. it hasn't been discussed in other forms recently) then I can't see any problem with further discussion be that at CFD or wherever, though I doubt DRV is the really the best place for it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The G4 deletion is probably relevant the discussion at the bottom of the page at WT:DRV. I think that DRV participants are fundamentally not in agreement about G4. I think in this case it's all fairly clear: to use G4 on a category on the basis of a 3 year old CfD is to deny that consensus could have changed in the meantime. In theory, there should have been a discussion. In practice, I don't think there's any point. CfD is controlled by a small number of editors who care about categories; they have a clear vision of what should and what should not be allowed; and that vision won't have changed since 2007. Long experience tells me that CfD's decisions are never successfully challenged at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 10:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] But if there is a restore and a new CfD, I propose that I would publicize this a bit, say with a notice a the village pump or wherever. I think it'd be justified to ask for a bit more input than the usual CfD watchers. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Herostratus' summary of the background is mostly accurate, so I can add only a few more facts. The rest will be opinion or interpretation (of policies and consensus). Per my interpretation of WP:CSD, there is no time limit for CSD G4. My opinion is that there should not be a time limit, except in two cases: when the recreated page is not "substantially identical" to the deleted page or when there is evidence that consensus has changed. The first criterion is, indeed, difficult to satisfy when dealing with categories, although there are certain situations where it applies: e.g., a category deleted for being underpopulated and recreated with more members. The second criterion touches on the reason that CSD G4 should not have an expiration date—namely, that arguments do not expire. An argument made in 2007 is no more or less valid than one made in 2010 if overall consensus has not changed. If consensus has changed, then a new discussion is appropriate. In the case of the Service Awards categories, neither criterion seems to apply. The scope of the category is the same as before (only the title was different) and there is no evidence that consensus on the matter has changed. The subpages of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive (including the topical index) contain hundreds of discussions since 2007 which reinforce the same principle: user categories are not intended to be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices. For what it's worth, I did ask two other admins about the speedy deletion, and both were of the opinion that CSD G4 applied. I do not think that the 2007 close was "marginal" (although, of course, I was involved in the discussion), and I do not think that it matters that some of the participants have retired. The people making the arguments may no longer be here, but the arguments themselves remain, and it is the arguments which should determine the outcome of a discussion. So, I endorse my deletion under CSD G4, but am (of course) willing to reverse my actions if consensus requires it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] These are quite interesting questions in terms of policy precedent, to the point that I don't feel I can add anything more. However, I'm willing to support the re-deletion of these pages because I don't think that they're particularly useful. Finding all the sysops? Useful. Finding all the French speakers? Useful. Finding all the Firefox users? Borderline. Finding all those who ~~meet~~ claim to meet arbitrary ranking metrics? Useless. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] But both of you are (partly) discussing the merits of the case, and this is not the proper forum for that - leave it for the new CfD (if there is one). I will have plenty to say there, myself. But here we are discussing the principle of whether the speedy should be overturned. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Only insofar as it is in response to your assertion that the 2007 close was "marginal". It is not possible to consider the validity of a closure without giving some consideration to the nature of the arguments presented (policy-based versus WP:ILIKEIT, for instance). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment The 2007 close was based on a lack of consensus to delete. How could that be anything other than "marginal"? VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could you clarify, please? The 2007 close ended with "delete all" as the outcome, i.e., there was consensus to delete. Are you, perhaps, referring to another discussion? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I simply reviewed the discussion and saw a very obvious lack of consensus to delete. What is there to clarify? How is it even possible to believe there was a consensus to delete? The close was clearly made by someone who had his own agenda. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In the 2007 discussion, no side got the clear upper hand in terms of strength of argument, in my opinion. And if the closer was closing on strength of argument, he didn't say so. And the numbers were 6-3 delete. That's 67%, but its not like an 18-9 67%. At 6-3, flip one "vote" and you've got a 5-4 tie. And if the closer was closing on numbers, he didn't say so. In my opinion, "No consensus to delete" would have been a better close, and the failure of the closer to provide any rationale makes the close somewhat iffy. And this is a valid data point. If the Delete "vote" had been 19-5 or 7-1, or if the Delete advocates had made some irrefutable points, or if the closer had said "closed as Delete, because [cogent reasons]", fine; we wouldn't be here. But none of that happened. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I noted below, I think that the "strength of argument" is at the heart of the issue, and this is (not surprisingly) one point on which neither one of us can be entirely impartial. In my opinion, there was unambiguous consensus to delete based on strength of arguments and participation. I don't think that the hypothetical "flip" tells the story that well, since the same could just as easily be said for the reverse (7–2, or 78%). In any case, the "flip" scenario is a hypothetical only and is too ... quantitative (i.e., it does not consider the strength of arguments and previous consensus on user categories). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please assume good faith, or at least don't assume bad faith (just to be clear: my comment is in response to your assertion that the closer "clearly ... had his own agenda"). As for the other point: it is very easy for me to believe that there was a consensus to delete. I need only to consider the strength of arguments in that particular discussion (yes, I realize that this lies at the heart of the disagreement) and the identical outcomes of many other similar user category discussions which took place before and after that one (see here and here for partial lists). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore and List at CfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No criticism at all of the deletion citing G4. Recreations are what G4 is for. But we shouldn't have run the DRV for every contested G4, they should be easily challenged, and the best forum would be at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Deletion review has received less and less appeals over the past few months, so I see no problems with the occasional contesting of a G4 at DRV. By your argument, any contested G4 will, whether the circumstances have changed, have to go through another bureaucratic XfD. Because I see no indication that the original arguments for deletion no longer apply, I oppose restoration. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think this debate shouldn't be at DRV to the extent that there is no serious contention that either: (1) the G4-deleting admin did anything remotely wrong; or (2) there was anything wrong with the XfD. I see Herostratus' nomination here as a continuation (not review) of the original XfD, and think it would be better placed at CfD. By "restore", I mean "temporarily restore for the purpose of discussion" so that non-admins can see any, or the lack of any, novel content. I'd also like, in principle, to be able to see any recently removed memberships, in case there is some relevant new use, not anticipated in the original XfD. As a member of Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants, I encourage you to spend more time at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore, optional list at CfD. Consensus can change. For most articles, or images, or categories, it is fairly easy to tell if the consensus for the type of content and the type of problem may possibly have changed. For some, especially those relating to some aspect of Wikipedia organization or mechanics, there may be no reasonable precedent to look for--the relevant issue may never since have arisen. We need some way of addressing these, and a new XfD is the best way. Whether it should require agreement here first is hard to say--it will prevent discussing unlikely pages at XfD, at the cost of discussing them here. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree that consensus can change, but is there any reason in this case to believe that it has? User category discussions since 2007 (see the topical index) have fairly consistently supported the principle that user categories are not intended merely as bottom-of-the-page userbox replacements. If a recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion must, in the absence of an indication that consensus has changed, undergo another deletion discussion to re-determine consensus, then where does that leave CSD G4? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse original close and subsequent G4 deletions. The original close was reasonable, and the G4 deletions were fully within policy. Consensus can change, so I wouldn't mind if this discussion were more geared towards if consensus has changed or not, but in terms of actual process, it was sound here. As for if consensus has changed or not, I think the arguments for keeping and deleting are the same as they were in the first discussion. Grouping users by what service award category they have does not benefit the encyclopedia, and deletion of the categories certainly doesn't prevent usage of the userboxes, which is all anyone really needs. User categories are for grouping users to facilitate collaboration, no such use can be found in these categories, so there is no reason to believe consensus has changed. VegaDark (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn No evidence that speedy deletion is justified. If there is a valid concern that these categories should not exist then the appropriate step is to take this to CfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Care to elaborate? I would have to work to see how WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply to this scenario. To say "no evidence that speedy deletion is justified" is to completely ignore the wording of G4. Let's go through the criteria line by line and see how anyone could possibly think G4 doesn't apply in this scenario. A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy (check), having any title (check), of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. (check) This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version (this was substantially identical, so does not meet this exception), pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies (the original arguments for deletion still apply, so doesn't meet this exception), and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy) (doesn't meet this exception). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review (doesn't meet this exception), or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). (doesn't meet this exception) (italics for original wording, my comments in bold). There is no conceivable argument in my view that a G4 speedy deletion was not procedurally proper in this case. Now, if we are trying to argue that consensus has changed, that's something completely different. We can endorse the speedy deletion as within process and still say that the categories should be brought to cfd again to determine if consensus has changed (the proper venue for this discussion is here at DRV, so even if Black Falcon wanted to restore these categories, the procedurally proper course of action would still be to delete them per G4 and bring the discussion here to see if consensus has changed. But to charge Black Falcon with an improper G4 deletion here because "no evidence that speedy deletion is justified" is flat out absurd. VegaDark (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure and the G4 deletion The closer correctly divined the consensus at the 2007 debate as delete. I see neither new arguments offered nor a change in the circumstances to invalidate the 2007 debate. (I do not consider more editors using the service awards as satisfying the "[S]ignificant new information has come to light"; this argument has no bearing on the rationale for deletion: Such categories "inevitably creat[e] a false sense of hierarchy".) Therefore, this is a valid application of G4. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Argh, again with the merits of the case. You "see [no] new arguments offered" because this is a DRV, not a CfD and we are not supposed to present new arguments here. I could offer new arguments, but this is not the venue. Give me the venue, and I will. Herostratus (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've replied below to the new argument you have provided. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would like to see specific evidence that consensus here has, has not, or might have changed. I browsed WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedia, but I didn't see anything particularly relevant. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The specific subsections for Wikipedians by award or activity status (since the Service Awards reflect edit count and account age), as well as Wikipedia:User categories, may be more relevant. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse original close, weak endorse G4. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that consensus has changed. I found a few other old CfDs that seemed to affirm the deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. If consensus changes, it would be evident through a community discussion prior to the recreation of any category or its listing at DRV after its deletion under G4. Restoring these categories now would set a terrible precedent—bring any category to DRV after an arbitrary amount of time claiming consensus can or did change, without any evidence other than the category's recreation. — ξ ^xplicit 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] But what would be the venue for a community discussion to recreate a deleted category? Is there one? An RfC, I guess. If an entity is deleted, is it legit to open an RfC discussing its recreation? Some people might look askance at that, I think, as an end-run around the deletion process? Perhaps I should have opened an RfC instead of this DRV, I don't know. Anyway, I didn't. As to the consensus changing, I don't know... for one thing, more people use service awards than in 2007, if that matters. For another thing, the category was re-created in (I think) July, and nobody complained until now, and you could say that, by now, that creates an existing state of affairs per fait accompli. For example: if I place an image in article, and stays there for some time, this creates an implied consensus that the image should be in the article, and if there is then a discussion about removing it with no agreement either way, the image stays (I ran into this very thing recently, and I think this is written down somewhere, but I couldn't find it in WP:CONSENSUS). I mean, suppose the category had been re-created and existed unnoticed for five years, would that create by default an implicit consensus that it should exist? Yes it would. Can you G4 speedy an entity that has existed for five years? Of course not. I don't know if five months is long enough to create an "existing state of affairs", but I don't know that it isn't either, and since we are talking about speedy-delete here - bang, no discussion, entity destroyed, shut up and go home - I think we should err on the side of caution. Herostratus (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have always been under the impression that DRV is the proper venue for discussing if consensus has changed as well as the usual scope of DRV in looking purely at the deletion process. That is, come here and say "I don't object to the original deletion or the subsequent speedy deletion. They were procedurally sound. However, I would submit that consensus has changed since the first discussion, so I would ask that this be permitted for re-creation. (followed by reasons why consensus has changed)." I doubt any admin would speedy close such a nomination. I've seen similar things at DRV before of this nature as, like you say, there is no other venue that seems proper to discuss bringing back something that has been deleted procedurally soundly. As for your other points, very few users police user categories. If a select few users became inactive or stopped dealing with user categories, I could easily see something that has been deleted and recreated survive for years without being noticed. This category slipped through the cracks of the few users patrolling for a few months, I don't think that should give it a free pass to circumvent G4 deletion. I would disagree with your assertion that we could "of course not" G4 previously deleted content that has existed for 5 years. An article that lots of users have edited, sure, but some obscure user category that only has 1 member in it I wouldn't hesitate to G4 after 5 years so long as the original arguments for deletion still apply and there is no reason to believe consensus has changed. As per above, G4 doesn't have a time limit, although admins should of course use their best judgment as to when to actually apply it (and the length of time since being recreated is certainly a factor to consider). VegaDark (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] @Herostratus: Not an RFC (I'm just using RFC for lack of a more relevant venue) to recreate a deleted category, but an RFC to: a) reassess the relevant CFD discussion and its merits; b) reflect on the guideline for user categories, and whether or not the deleted categories are, as Black Falcon points out, nothing more than bottom-of-the-page notices. As the guideline states, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." On a side note, aren't service awards mostly self-awarded anyway? The RFC could have taken place at WT:SA, with a relevant notice left at WT:CAT. That's my opinion on how to get those gears grinding, though there's no set precedent on how to handle a situation like this. Categories are often recreated and go unnoticed because the few users who patrol new categories, and the fact that categories are often titled quite differently, so it's that much more difficult to track them down. Can you G4 speedy an entity that has existed for five years? Of course not. That depends and should be applied on a case-by-case basis. Articles can be recreated after an AFD and meet G4 if it an identical copy and doesn't address the issue which led to its deletion in the first place. If the article is essentially the same except for a slight change in the wording, even if it went unnoticed for five years, it wouldn't meet G4? I wouldn't how how to not apply G4 in such a case. As recreation of deleted categories will more than likely serve an identical, if not the exact same purpose as before, it falls directly into the wording of G4 exactly as it's written. G4 has no time limit, nor do I see a compelling reason to impose one solely for categories. — ξ ^xplicit 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] @VegaDark: That doesn't sound like a "consensus has changed, allow recreation and relist if necessary", but more of a "well, it's been a while since it was deleted, allow recreation and relist it to see if consensus has changed". From reading the restore/overturn arguments, I see zero evidence that consensus has changed, and those arguments seem to fall directly into my latter example. — ξ ^xplicit 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree that the discussion so far reflects your latter example, I was merely stating that such a use of DRV would in theory be procedurally proper should there be arguments presented that consensus has changed. VegaDark (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Still unclear how this consensus-change would be shown, but how about this: at the time the categories where cleared out for the speedy delete, how many users were in the category? I don't know, but I suspect it was several score or even several hundred (a close approximation could easily be gotten but counting the number of transclusions of the service award template). Granted that these users placed themselves in the categories by transcluding the template, and some or even most may have been unaware that they were thereby adding themselves to a category. But some weren't unaware. And each of these instances of an editor adding themselves to the categories being debated here may be seen an instance of that editor "voting with his feet" so to speak in support of the existence of the categories. Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do not see how that would invalidate the policy-based arguments advanced at the CfD. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore per above reasons --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore since consensus may have changed per Wikipedia policy that consensus is not static and can change over time. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because there is no indication that consensus has changed per Wikipedia policy, the original discussion is still valid. That the discussion is three years old is no reason to invalidate the policy-based arguments advanced there. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I strongly disagree that there was consensus in the first place. I saw no valid policy arguments for the original delete. In fact, after a second review of the arguments, I don't see any policy arguments for the delete other than the one very weak invalid attempt to use WP:MYSPACE which does not appear to apply at all. Exactly what policy arguments do you see there? VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think it would be more accurate to say "policy-, guideline-, and precedent-based" rather than just "policy-based", but here is a partial summary of the arguments: Arguments to delete: "creates a false sense of hierarchy"; "does not foster encyclopedic collaboration"; categorizing by number of edits and time served is "arbitrary and uninformative". Arguments to keep: "the awards are merely a statement, or appreciation, of time spent and experience at Wikipedia" (the discussion concerns the categories, not the awards, and user categories are not intended to be used merely as bottom-of-the-page "statements"); "nominator (and the Delete !voters) seem to be against the service awards as a whole, and not merely the categories" (not accurate and also irrelevant, as the user categories are not an indivisible part of the userboxes); "statistical interest" (??? ... in any case, the same information is available via Special:WhatLinksHere); "if you don't like it, don't participate" (pages on Wikipedia do not belong just to the people who use them; "harmless, ... useful or interesting" (WP:HARMLESS, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING ... assertion != argument). In order to develop a better idea of the validity and applicability of each of these arguments to user categories, I encourage you to please look through the user category discussion archives or the topical index. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I checked your referenced guidelines against (WP:OC/U and WP:USERCAT) and saw nothing supporting deletion. Instead I saw support in both for keep; please see the first appropriate type "Categories which group users by participation in Wikipedia" which specifically states "This includes any grouping of users by participation in a formal WikiProject". The service awards are specifically defined as part of the formal WikiProject Wikipedia Awards (WP:WPWPA). I also checked the topical index and saw nothing which appears to be relevant to this category. If you know of something there related to a Wikiproject participation category, please point it out. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. The deleted categories were not for editors involved with the Service Awards project (which would be a useful category, in my opinion), but rather grouped editors by what award(s) they had given to themselves. The relevant section within the topical index would be the section for categories which grouped Wikipedians by award; very few WikiProject participation categories ever have been nominated for deletion, and usually only when the project became defunct or was never started. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore per VMS Mosaic. BlackFalcon should have sought discussion a other than acting on a three year old discussion. Mootros (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So if you had it your way, people could have a field day recreating every page that has ever been deleted via xfd so long as the discussion was more than 3 years old, and none of them should be deleted per G4, correct? I'm really thankful that the G4 criterion says no such thing. VegaDark (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Concur with VegaDark. Allowing categories deleted three years ago to have immunity from G4, even when no changes in the circumstances have occurred, creates a horrible precedent. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 – While there is indeed substantial overlap with the previous discussion decision, there appears to be consensus that a separate discussion is appropriate in this case, given the age of the previous CfD. Unlike articles, there is no way a category can avoid being "substantially identical" to a previously deleted category. Since Black Falcon has offered, I'll notify him to start the discussion at CfD – Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22#Wikipedian Service Award Level categories. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

(N.B.: This request covers Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 through Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level nn and related categories. These are the categories associated with the various service awards.)

Contested speedy. Here's the deal: on 25 October 2007, After Midnight deleted Category:Editors with service awards after a CfD discussion here. It was a reasonable close, not the kind of close that would usually come here to DRV, although in my opinion it was arguably a marginal close (the headcount was 6-3 in favor of deletion, but most of the discussion was back-and-forth between two editors, with neither editor clearly gaining the upper hand, and the closer didn't give any reason why he chose Delete.) My understanding is that the deletion included several related categories (I'm not sure of this). A reverse of this close would have obviated the need for this DRV, but User talk:After Midnight declined my recent request to reverse the close, partly on the grounds that he can't remember the particulars and isn't available right now for extensive reconstruction of the matter.

OK, in (I think) July of this year someone created a number of categories, such as Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 and its sister categories, the numbers running from 01 up into the teens. I'm given to understand that these are essentially the same as Category:Editors with service awards and its related categories, and I guess this is so.

An editor (BlackFalcon) deleted Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 01 et al under Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) G4, recreation of deleted material. I contested this, and contested speedy deletions are often reversed, but not always, and this certainly applies to CSD G4's. BlackFalcon vouchsafed that he felt duty-bound to apply CSD G4 and couldn't honor my request. He's expected to perform his admin duties to advance the best interests of the Wikipedia as he sees them, so that's his prerogative.

However, this raised in my mind the question: does availability of a category to CSD G4 deletion ever expire?

The deletion review category states "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." However, categories don't contain information, so it's impossible to write a "new" version. So does this mean that a category, once deleted (even in a marginal close) can never be recreated? This seems overly rigid to, and raises a couple of questions:

I note that nine people commented in the original 2007 CfD discussion. Of these, either four or five (depending on your criteria) are no longer active editors. Does this matter, I wonder. (What if it was nine of nine? To what extent are we bound forever to the opinions of people who are not Wikipedia editors (any longer)?)
The original CfD was three years ago. Does this matter I wonder. (What if it had been five years ago? Eight? Ten?)

Another point: the "[S]ignificant new information has come to light" clause may be said to be met in that:

The Service Awards seem more used now than in 2007, in my perception. I don't know if this is new information but it's a new condition.
I don't have new information for the category, but I have new information for a new discussion if there is one, in form of refs pointing to material on motivation of volunteers. In the original 2007 discussion, no refs were used and no sources cited.

As another data point: the person conducting the G4 speedy, User:BlackFalcon, was also the primary advocate for deleting the categories in the original 2007 CfD. There's nothing actually wrong with that (I guess) and I don't think that BlackFalcon is acting in bad faith, but still... hmmm. This may be a technical point, since BlackFalcon could have asked another admin to do the deletion. But then, on the other hand, if he had done that, the other admin might have been more favorable to my contesting of the speedy.I (Herostratus) retract this point, since Black Falcon did consult with other admins.

In summary, I'd say that in most any case (except copyvio etc.) where there's a reasonable chance that an entity would survive an XfD (as there is here), then the entity shouldn't be speedied. In the case of a G4, fine, we can't reargue cases immediately. But I think three years is long enough. Herostratus (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment G4 for what is project based material does seem to have quite a few wrinkles, as the community evolves content policies don't seem to shift too much (be that a good or bad thing), whereas the project area seems much more fluid to me. In such case a reasonable consensus has changed (or may have) sort of argument seems to be possible. I don't see a particular time limit for G4 validity (some would attempt to game such a limit), but if we are beyond reasonable memory of the discussion (i.e. it hasn't been discussed in other forms recently) then I can't see any problem with further discussion be that at CFD or wherever, though I doubt DRV is the really the best place for it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The G4 deletion is probably relevant the discussion at the bottom of the page at WT:DRV. I think that DRV participants are fundamentally not in agreement about G4. I think in this case it's all fairly clear: to use G4 on a category on the basis of a 3 year old CfD is to deny that consensus could have changed in the meantime. In theory, there should have been a discussion. In practice, I don't think there's any point. CfD is controlled by a small number of editors who care about categories; they have a clear vision of what should and what should not be allowed; and that vision won't have changed since 2007. Long experience tells me that CfD's decisions are never successfully challenged at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 10:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But if there is a restore and a new CfD, I propose that I would publicize this a bit, say with a notice a the village pump or wherever. I think it'd be justified to ask for a bit more input than the usual CfD watchers. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus' summary of the background is mostly accurate, so I can add only a few more facts. The rest will be opinion or interpretation (of policies and consensus).
Per my interpretation of WP:CSD, there is no time limit for CSD G4. My opinion is that there should not be a time limit, except in two cases: when the recreated page is not "substantially identical" to the deleted page or when there is evidence that consensus has changed. The first criterion is, indeed, difficult to satisfy when dealing with categories, although there are certain situations where it applies: e.g., a category deleted for being underpopulated and recreated with more members.
The second criterion touches on the reason that CSD G4 should not have an expiration date—namely, that arguments do not expire. An argument made in 2007 is no more or less valid than one made in 2010 if overall consensus has not changed. If consensus has changed, then a new discussion is appropriate.
In the case of the Service Awards categories, neither criterion seems to apply. The scope of the category is the same as before (only the title was different) and there is no evidence that consensus on the matter has changed. The subpages of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive (including the topical index) contain hundreds of discussions since 2007 which reinforce the same principle: user categories are not intended to be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices.
For what it's worth, I did ask two other admins about the speedy deletion, and both were of the opinion that CSD G4 applied. I do not think that the 2007 close was "marginal" (although, of course, I was involved in the discussion), and I do not think that it matters that some of the participants have retired. The people making the arguments may no longer be here, but the arguments themselves remain, and it is the arguments which should determine the outcome of a discussion.
So, I endorse my deletion under CSD G4, but am (of course) willing to reverse my actions if consensus requires it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are quite interesting questions in terms of policy precedent, to the point that I don't feel I can add anything more. However, I'm willing to support the re-deletion of these pages because I don't think that they're particularly useful. Finding all the sysops? Useful. Finding all the French speakers? Useful. Finding all the Firefox users? Borderline. Finding all those who ~~meet~~ claim to meet arbitrary ranking metrics? Useless. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But both of you are (partly) discussing the merits of the case, and this is not the proper forum for that - leave it for the new CfD (if there is one). I will have plenty to say there, myself. But here we are discussing the principle of whether the speedy should be overturned. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only insofar as it is in response to your assertion that the 2007 close was "marginal". It is not possible to consider the validity of a closure without giving some consideration to the nature of the arguments presented (policy-based versus WP:ILIKEIT, for instance). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 2007 close was based on a lack of consensus to delete. How could that be anything other than "marginal"? VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify, please? The 2007 close ended with "delete all" as the outcome, i.e., there was consensus to delete. Are you, perhaps, referring to another discussion? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I simply reviewed the discussion and saw a very obvious lack of consensus to delete. What is there to clarify? How is it even possible to believe there was a consensus to delete? The close was clearly made by someone who had his own agenda. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the 2007 discussion, no side got the clear upper hand in terms of strength of argument, in my opinion. And if the closer was closing on strength of argument, he didn't say so. And the numbers were 6-3 delete. That's 67%, but its not like an 18-9 67%. At 6-3, flip one "vote" and you've got a 5-4 tie. And if the closer was closing on numbers, he didn't say so. In my opinion, "No consensus to delete" would have been a better close, and the failure of the closer to provide any rationale makes the close somewhat iffy. And this is a valid data point. If the Delete "vote" had been 19-5 or 7-1, or if the Delete advocates had made some irrefutable points, or if the closer had said "closed as Delete, because [cogent reasons]", fine; we wouldn't be here. But none of that happened. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I noted below, I think that the "strength of argument" is at the heart of the issue, and this is (not surprisingly) one point on which neither one of us can be entirely impartial. In my opinion, there was unambiguous consensus to delete based on strength of arguments and participation.
        I don't think that the hypothetical "flip" tells the story that well, since the same could just as easily be said for the reverse (7–2, or 78%). In any case, the "flip" scenario is a hypothetical only and is too ... quantitative (i.e., it does not consider the strength of arguments and previous consensus on user categories). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please assume good faith, or at least don't assume bad faith (just to be clear: my comment is in response to your assertion that the closer "clearly ... had his own agenda"). As for the other point: it is very easy for me to believe that there was a consensus to delete. I need only to consider the strength of arguments in that particular discussion (yes, I realize that this lies at the heart of the disagreement) and the identical outcomes of many other similar user category discussions which took place before and after that one (see here and here for partial lists). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and List at CfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism at all of the deletion citing G4. Recreations are what G4 is for. But we shouldn't have run the DRV for every contested G4, they should be easily challenged, and the best forum would be at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review has received less and less appeals over the past few months, so I see no problems with the occasional contesting of a G4 at DRV. By your argument, any contested G4 will, whether the circumstances have changed, have to go through another bureaucratic XfD. Because I see no indication that the original arguments for deletion no longer apply, I oppose restoration. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this debate shouldn't be at DRV to the extent that there is no serious contention that either: (1) the G4-deleting admin did anything remotely wrong; or (2) there was anything wrong with the XfD. I see Herostratus' nomination here as a continuation (not review) of the original XfD, and think it would be better placed at CfD.
By "restore", I mean "temporarily restore for the purpose of discussion" so that non-admins can see any, or the lack of any, novel content. I'd also like, in principle, to be able to see any recently removed memberships, in case there is some relevant new use, not anticipated in the original XfD.
As a member of Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants, I encourage you to spend more time at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, optional list at CfD. Consensus can change. For most articles, or images, or categories, it is fairly easy to tell if the consensus for the type of content and the type of problem may possibly have changed. For some, especially those relating to some aspect of Wikipedia organization or mechanics, there may be no reasonable precedent to look for--the relevant issue may never since have arisen. We need some way of addressing these, and a new XfD is the best way. Whether it should require agreement here first is hard to say--it will prevent discussing unlikely pages at XfD, at the cost of discussing them here. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that consensus can change, but is there any reason in this case to believe that it has? User category discussions since 2007 (see the topical index) have fairly consistently supported the principle that user categories are not intended merely as bottom-of-the-page userbox replacements. If a recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion must, in the absence of an indication that consensus has changed, undergo another deletion discussion to re-determine consensus, then where does that leave CSD G4? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original close and subsequent G4 deletions. The original close was reasonable, and the G4 deletions were fully within policy. Consensus can change, so I wouldn't mind if this discussion were more geared towards if consensus has changed or not, but in terms of actual process, it was sound here. As for if consensus has changed or not, I think the arguments for keeping and deleting are the same as they were in the first discussion. Grouping users by what service award category they have does not benefit the encyclopedia, and deletion of the categories certainly doesn't prevent usage of the userboxes, which is all anyone really needs. User categories are for grouping users to facilitate collaboration, no such use can be found in these categories, so there is no reason to believe consensus has changed. VegaDark (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No evidence that speedy deletion is justified. If there is a valid concern that these categories should not exist then the appropriate step is to take this to CfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to elaborate? I would have to work to see how WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply to this scenario. To say "no evidence that speedy deletion is justified" is to completely ignore the wording of G4. Let's go through the criteria line by line and see how anyone could possibly think G4 doesn't apply in this scenario.
A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy (check), having any title (check), of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. (check) This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version (this was substantially identical, so does not meet this exception), pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies (the original arguments for deletion still apply, so doesn't meet this exception), and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy) (doesn't meet this exception). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review (doesn't meet this exception), or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). (doesn't meet this exception) (italics for original wording, my comments in bold).

There is no conceivable argument in my view that a G4 speedy deletion was not procedurally proper in this case. Now, if we are trying to argue that consensus has changed, that's something completely different. We can endorse the speedy deletion as within process and still say that the categories should be brought to cfd again to determine if consensus has changed (the proper venue for this discussion is here at DRV, so even if Black Falcon wanted to restore these categories, the procedurally proper course of action would still be to delete them per G4 and bring the discussion here to see if consensus has changed. But to charge Black Falcon with an improper G4 deletion here because "no evidence that speedy deletion is justified" is flat out absurd. VegaDark (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and the G4 deletion The closer correctly divined the consensus at the 2007 debate as delete. I see neither new arguments offered nor a change in the circumstances to invalidate the 2007 debate. (I do not consider more editors using the service awards as satisfying the "[S]ignificant new information has come to light"; this argument has no bearing on the rationale for deletion: Such categories "inevitably creat[e] a false sense of hierarchy".) Therefore, this is a valid application of G4. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh, again with the merits of the case. You "see [no] new arguments offered" because this is a DRV, not a CfD and we are not supposed to present new arguments here. I could offer new arguments, but this is not the venue. Give me the venue, and I will. Herostratus (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've replied below to the new argument you have provided. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see specific evidence that consensus here has, has not, or might have changed. I browsed WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedia, but I didn't see anything particularly relevant. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The specific subsections for Wikipedians by award or activity status (since the Service Awards reflect edit count and account age), as well as Wikipedia:User categories, may be more relevant. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Endorse original close, weak endorse G4. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that consensus has changed. I found a few other old CfDs that seemed to affirm the deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If consensus changes, it would be evident through a community discussion prior to the recreation of any category or its listing at DRV after its deletion under G4. Restoring these categories now would set a terrible precedent—bring any category to DRV after an arbitrary amount of time claiming consensus can or did change, without any evidence other than the category's recreation. — ξ ^xplicit 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what would be the venue for a community discussion to recreate a deleted category? Is there one? An RfC, I guess. If an entity is deleted, is it legit to open an RfC discussing its recreation? Some people might look askance at that, I think, as an end-run around the deletion process? Perhaps I should have opened an RfC instead of this DRV, I don't know. Anyway, I didn't. As to the consensus changing, I don't know... for one thing, more people use service awards than in 2007, if that matters. For another thing, the category was re-created in (I think) July, and nobody complained until now, and you could say that, by now, that creates an existing state of affairs per fait accompli. For example: if I place an image in article, and stays there for some time, this creates an implied consensus that the image should be in the article, and if there is then a discussion about removing it with no agreement either way, the image stays (I ran into this very thing recently, and I think this is written down somewhere, but I couldn't find it in WP:CONSENSUS). I mean, suppose the category had been re-created and existed unnoticed for five years, would that create by default an implicit consensus that it should exist? Yes it would. Can you G4 speedy an entity that has existed for five years? Of course not. I don't know if five months is long enough to create an "existing state of affairs", but I don't know that it isn't either, and since we are talking about speedy-delete here - bang, no discussion, entity destroyed, shut up and go home - I think we should err on the side of caution. Herostratus (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been under the impression that DRV is the proper venue for discussing if consensus has changed as well as the usual scope of DRV in looking purely at the deletion process. That is, come here and say "I don't object to the original deletion or the subsequent speedy deletion. They were procedurally sound. However, I would submit that consensus has changed since the first discussion, so I would ask that this be permitted for re-creation. (followed by reasons why consensus has changed)." I doubt any admin would speedy close such a nomination. I've seen similar things at DRV before of this nature as, like you say, there is no other venue that seems proper to discuss bringing back something that has been deleted procedurally soundly. As for your other points, very few users police user categories. If a select few users became inactive or stopped dealing with user categories, I could easily see something that has been deleted and recreated survive for years without being noticed. This category slipped through the cracks of the few users patrolling for a few months, I don't think that should give it a free pass to circumvent G4 deletion. I would disagree with your assertion that we could "of course not" G4 previously deleted content that has existed for 5 years. An article that lots of users have edited, sure, but some obscure user category that only has 1 member in it I wouldn't hesitate to G4 after 5 years so long as the original arguments for deletion still apply and there is no reason to believe consensus has changed. As per above, G4 doesn't have a time limit, although admins should of course use their best judgment as to when to actually apply it (and the length of time since being recreated is certainly a factor to consider). VegaDark (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Not an RFC (I'm just using RFC for lack of a more relevant venue) to recreate a deleted category, but an RFC to: a) reassess the relevant CFD discussion and its merits; b) reflect on the guideline for user categories, and whether or not the deleted categories are, as Black Falcon points out, nothing more than bottom-of-the-page notices. As the guideline states, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." On a side note, aren't service awards mostly self-awarded anyway? The RFC could have taken place at WT:SA, with a relevant notice left at WT:CAT. That's my opinion on how to get those gears grinding, though there's no set precedent on how to handle a situation like this. Categories are often recreated and go unnoticed because the few users who patrol new categories, and the fact that categories are often titled quite differently, so it's that much more difficult to track them down. Can you G4 speedy an entity that has existed for five years? Of course not. That depends and should be applied on a case-by-case basis. Articles can be recreated after an AFD and meet G4 if it an identical copy and doesn't address the issue which led to its deletion in the first place. If the article is essentially the same except for a slight change in the wording, even if it went unnoticed for five years, it wouldn't meet G4? I wouldn't how how to not apply G4 in such a case. As recreation of deleted categories will more than likely serve an identical, if not the exact same purpose as before, it falls directly into the wording of G4 exactly as it's written. G4 has no time limit, nor do I see a compelling reason to impose one solely for categories. — ξ ^xplicit 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@VegaDark: That doesn't sound like a "consensus has changed, allow recreation and relist if necessary", but more of a "well, it's been a while since it was deleted, allow recreation and relist it to see if consensus has changed". From reading the restore/overturn arguments, I see zero evidence that consensus has changed, and those arguments seem to fall directly into my latter example. — ξ ^xplicit 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the discussion so far reflects your latter example, I was merely stating that such a use of DRV would in theory be procedurally proper should there be arguments presented that consensus has changed. VegaDark (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still unclear how this consensus-change would be shown, but how about this: at the time the categories where cleared out for the speedy delete, how many users were in the category? I don't know, but I suspect it was several score or even several hundred (a close approximation could easily be gotten but counting the number of transclusions of the service award template). Granted that these users placed themselves in the categories by transcluding the template, and some or even most may have been unaware that they were thereby adding themselves to a category. But some weren't unaware. And each of these instances of an editor adding themselves to the categories being debated here may be seen an instance of that editor "voting with his feet" so to speak in support of the existence of the categories. Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how that would invalidate the policy-based arguments advanced at the CfD. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per above reasons --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore since consensus may have changed per Wikipedia policy that consensus is not static and can change over time. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no indication that consensus has changed per Wikipedia policy, the original discussion is still valid. That the discussion is three years old is no reason to invalidate the policy-based arguments advanced there. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that there was consensus in the first place. I saw no valid policy arguments for the original delete. In fact, after a second review of the arguments, I don't see any policy arguments for the delete other than the one very weak invalid attempt to use WP:MYSPACE which does not appear to apply at all. Exactly what policy arguments do you see there? VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more accurate to say "policy-, guideline-, and precedent-based" rather than just "policy-based", but here is a partial summary of the arguments:
Arguments to delete: "creates a false sense of hierarchy"; "does not foster encyclopedic collaboration"; categorizing by number of edits and time served is "arbitrary and uninformative".
Arguments to keep: "the awards are merely a statement, or appreciation, of time spent and experience at Wikipedia" (the discussion concerns the categories, not the awards, and user categories are not intended to be used merely as bottom-of-the-page "statements"); "nominator (and the Delete !voters) seem to be against the service awards as a whole, and not merely the categories" (not accurate and also irrelevant, as the user categories are not an indivisible part of the userboxes); "statistical interest" (??? ... in any case, the same information is available via Special:WhatLinksHere); "if you don't like it, don't participate" (pages on Wikipedia do not belong just to the people who use them; "harmless, ... useful or interesting" (WP:HARMLESS, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING ... assertion != argument).
In order to develop a better idea of the validity and applicability of each of these arguments to user categories, I encourage you to please look through the user category discussion archives or the topical index. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your referenced guidelines against (WP:OC/U and WP:USERCAT) and saw nothing supporting deletion. Instead I saw support in both for keep; please see the first appropriate type "Categories which group users by participation in Wikipedia" which specifically states "This includes any grouping of users by participation in a formal WikiProject". The service awards are specifically defined as part of the formal WikiProject Wikipedia Awards (WP:WPWPA).
I also checked the topical index and saw nothing which appears to be relevant to this category. If you know of something there related to a Wikiproject participation category, please point it out. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. The deleted categories were not for editors involved with the Service Awards project (which would be a useful category, in my opinion), but rather grouped editors by what award(s) they had given to themselves. The relevant section within the topical index would be the section for categories which grouped Wikipedians by award; very few WikiProject participation categories ever have been nominated for deletion, and usually only when the project became defunct or was never started. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per VMS Mosaic. BlackFalcon should have sought discussion a other than acting on a three year old discussion. Mootros (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if you had it your way, people could have a field day recreating every page that has ever been deleted via xfd so long as the discussion was more than 3 years old, and none of them should be deleted per G4, correct? I'm really thankful that the G4 criterion says no such thing. VegaDark (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with VegaDark. Allowing categories deleted three years ago to have immunity from G4, even when no changes in the circumstances have occurred, creates a horrible precedent. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 November 2010

[edit]

Rachel Roxxx – Endorsed. Currently userfied without history; if it is restored in future, history should be undeleted. Work can continue there if justified. – Chick Bowen 05:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rachel Roxxx (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) OK, the last real AFD was in April 2008, since that, every new article was deleted speedly. I think the admins make huge mistake, even if she has only one nomination, she is really popular in the industry. So I propose a new AFD-discussion with all arguments! Just google Rachel Roxxx to see the relevance, I know this is not much relevant, but in this case it is really informative. Since April 2008 have gone 2 and 1/2 years, and she is very active in the industry...She played in Big Tits at School 1&2 (award-winning - Best Big Bust release), and This Ain't Cheaters XXX (best known Hustler-series). She has 45 scenes on Brazzers, one of the biggest internet porn sites, behind Shyla Stylez (51) she has the most scenes on this site. This person has 6 international wikis and 35 pics on Wiki Commons. She has +100 articles on AVN.com and worked for all big companies. Only if you hold straight on the Wikipedia:PORNBIO and don´t think outside the box, she is not relevant for en.wiki. Greets --Hixteilchen (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - WP:PORNBIO is a lower standard that the general notability guideline; it is there to provide an easier-to-meet threshold for pornstars to meet and thus get Wikipedia articles. If this person cannot even reach the lowest of the low-hanging fruit, then there's nothing else for us to do. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse until actual reliable sources are provided that meet WP:N or at least clearly meet WP:PORNBIO. The AfD is clearly closed correctly and barring reliable sources the article should remain deleted. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore - If you don´t accept sources like AVN.com it´s difficult to show the relevance for the porn industy. And my opinion is she passes Wikipedia:PORNBIO point 3 in groundbreaking or blockbuster feature Big Tits at School and This Ain´t Cheaters. If you have another oppinion, I want a clear definition what is meant with groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. Nevertheless she has a huge popularity around the world and in the industry and deserves an article. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can you change this to a comment as your nomination is taken as a vote and you are not allowed to vote twice. And yes there are issues with AVN which means you need better sources. If you don't have them then the subject remains unsourced so I Endorse the deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note that immediately after the deletion of this page the user recreated the article at Abby_Brooks in order to circumvent the AFD/G4. This was before they raised this DRV, which was their next action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I saw the version that had been deleted and as I said in the summary, there was nothing that would indicate the subject was notable. And a side note to Tarc: true PORNBIO is probably lower than GNG, but IMO it's a higher standard than ANYBIO because it requires nominations in successive years. Tabercil (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse It may be possible to create an article for the subject that establishes notability, but the reliable and verifiable sources that would be needed to meet the notability standard have not been demonstrated and speedy deletion was appropriate at this point. Alansohn (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, reluctantly, and send to AFD. As I noted when I recently PRODded this article, the claim of an award nomination received after the original AFD is an entirely new claim of significance sufficient to survive G4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wait. Enough to survive G4, but since this article has been deleted lots of times (7 times including the ones created under Rachel Roxx) is not a matter a re-creating the article again and again every time we have news about the character. I have create the article under my userpage here: User:Neo139/Rachel_Roxxx. Feel free to edit there. When the article shows enough notability with proper references, we will ask some admins to reconsider recreating this article.--Neo139 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rachel Roxxx – Endorsed. Currently userfied without history; if it is restored in future, history should be undeleted. Work can continue there if justified. – Chick Bowen 05:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

OK, the last real AFD was in April 2008, since that, every new article was deleted speedly. I think the admins make huge mistake, even if she has only one nomination, she is really popular in the industry. So I propose a new AFD-discussion with all arguments! Just google Rachel Roxxx to see the relevance, I know this is not much relevant, but in this case it is really informative. Since April 2008 have gone 2 and 1/2 years, and she is very active in the industry...She played in Big Tits at School 1&2 (award-winning - Best Big Bust release), and This Ain't Cheaters XXX (best known Hustler-series). She has 45 scenes on Brazzers, one of the biggest internet porn sites, behind Shyla Stylez (51) she has the most scenes on this site. This person has 6 international wikis and 35 pics on Wiki Commons. She has +100 articles on AVN.com and worked for all big companies. Only if you hold straight on the Wikipedia:PORNBIO and don´t think outside the box, she is not relevant for en.wiki. Greets --Hixteilchen (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - WP:PORNBIO is a lower standard that the general notability guideline; it is there to provide an easier-to-meet threshold for pornstars to meet and thus get Wikipedia articles. If this person cannot even reach the lowest of the low-hanging fruit, then there's nothing else for us to do. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse until actual reliable sources are provided that meet WP:N or at least clearly meet WP:PORNBIO. The AfD is clearly closed correctly and barring reliable sources the article should remain deleted. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - If you don´t accept sources like AVN.com it´s difficult to show the relevance for the porn industy. And my opinion is she passes Wikipedia:PORNBIO point 3 in groundbreaking or blockbuster feature Big Tits at School and This Ain´t Cheaters. If you have another oppinion, I want a clear definition what is meant with groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. Nevertheless she has a huge popularity around the world and in the industry and deserves an article. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you change this to a comment as your nomination is taken as a vote and you are not allowed to vote twice. And yes there are issues with AVN which means you need better sources. If you don't have them then the subject remains unsourced so I Endorse the deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that immediately after the deletion of this page the user recreated the article at Abby_Brooks in order to circumvent the AFD/G4. This was before they raised this DRV, which was their next action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I saw the version that had been deleted and as I said in the summary, there was nothing that would indicate the subject was notable. And a side note to Tarc: true PORNBIO is probably lower than GNG, but IMO it's a higher standard than ANYBIO because it requires nominations in successive years. Tabercil (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It may be possible to create an article for the subject that establishes notability, but the reliable and verifiable sources that would be needed to meet the notability standard have not been demonstrated and speedy deletion was appropriate at this point. Alansohn (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, reluctantly, and send to AFD. As I noted when I recently PRODded this article, the claim of an award nomination received after the original AFD is an entirely new claim of significance sufficient to survive G4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Enough to survive G4, but since this article has been deleted lots of times (7 times including the ones created under Rachel Roxx) is not a matter a re-creating the article again and again every time we have news about the character. I have create the article under my userpage here: User:Neo139/Rachel_Roxxx. Feel free to edit there. When the article shows enough notability with proper references, we will ask some admins to reconsider recreating this article.--Neo139 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 November 2010

[edit]

Petra Olli – No consensus to overturn; of course, this is without prejudice to the outcome being modified in accordance with the result of the anticipated RfC on this issue. – T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have begun the RfC.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Petra Olli (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) One !delete, two !keeps per my count is a no consensus, even a keep, not a delete. Yes, the article was a BLP on a minor, but was properly sourced to cover the information in the article, which was totally uncontroversial. This was an inappropriate use of admin discretion against consensus on a sourced uncontroversial BLP, I'm afraid. Procedurally, I'd ask for an overturn with no prejudice against a relist at AFD. Str Pby (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. There were two delete recommendations (the nominator Travelbird, and myself) not just one. My concern was not the "BLP of a minor" issue, but notability in general and WP:ATHLETE. The only source cited was a page from the official web site of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics -- no independent sources were provided at all. The closing admin correctly noted that the subject "clearly doesn't have any "prolonged or substantial coverage'" that would help establish her notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Out of scope. Send it to RFC. Black Kite raises a point that's well worth discussion—if our policies to protect living people are strict, then how much stricter should our policies be to protect children? It's quite arguable that every article about a living person who's under 18 should be fully protected, if it's allowed to exist at all. And I believe I would support such a rule. But DRV can't enforce a rule we don't have, and DRV can't create a new rule on its own authority. This suggests that we should overturn the outcome to no consensus, but I think we should set that consideration aside for the moment in the best interests of the child.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] RfC We do not have consensus on the notability of junior athletes, and it makes no sense to decide each article individually with the inevitable random results. I do not personally have any strong position on the subject, and can see the sense of the arguments on both sides; I am equally willing for us to adopt either the position that high-level notability for junior athletes (possibly at a higher relative level than for senior) is notability , or that it is not, But we do need to decide this one way or the other. Unlike SMarshall , I se no BLP issues. I cannot see how an article about the facts of a junior athlete's athletic career from RSs can possibly harm their interests--that's an absurd use of BLP. Both they and their guardians have chosen to engage in activities where they know, and hope, will lead to major public awareness. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] True, but this is still a child. It strikes me as a very different case from a BLP on a publicity-seeking adult.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What DGG said, except for the BLP question — child protection is a worthwhile goal and BLP should be interpreted all the more strictly in these instances. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do interpret BLP more strongly for children, and I have always !voted and acted accordingly. But I do not see how reporting the favorable accomplishments of a child done --as with all child athletes--with the approval of their parents or guardians--is a BLP violation even under the necessary strong interpretation. It would affect when a child is, say, the victim of an internet meme, where we should indeed interpret the notability requirements much more restrictively. Child status affect BLP, but there is no BLP problem. The question is whether child status affects notability for athletes, and to what degree this person is in fact notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. I think there may well be an exceptionally strong worry about vandalism (perhaps more likely and more harmful), but I'd like to discuss rather than admin-fiat our way there. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin. I think an RfC would be useful here. Obviously I endorse my own close, but I think DGG is missing the point. Whether or not the article currently is uncontroversial or not, there is the basic point as to whether BLPs of barely-notable (if notable at all) children should be allowed to exist in the first place. I would also point out that the author of this article has created many more on Junior Olympic competitors, so the RfC would be useful to ascertain whether they should all be allowed to stay or also be removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn (no consensus/keep). The AfD did not contain a consensus to delete. I can see no BLP issues of concern. By entering an international event, the person, even a child, forgoes a realistic claim to be a private person. The closing statement is not derived from the debate, and was thus a supervote that should have been added as a new contribution to the discussion. AfD is not a forum for closers to make policy. Regarding the merits of the article, its content is not significantly beyond the content about the subject still found at Finland at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, and a result of redirect to that article due to the notability concern BIO1E, seems reasonable to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You missed the fact that one of the Keep !votes was dependent on a consensus that YO competitors are notable, but no such consensus or decision appeared to exist. On that basis, we would have three deletes and a Keep. Regardless, my close was not a supervote - there is a lot of precedent of deleting marginal BLPs when there is no consensus in the AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "that one of the Keep !votes was dependent on a consensus that YO competitors are notable, but no such consensus or decision appeared to exist" seems a complex and subtle reason to negate someone's opinion, and no one did so in the discussion, so I reject this logic. It was a supervote in that the close contained original points with respect to the discussion. The close adjudicated (albeit not unreasonably) on what really reads as a no-consensus to me, even tending to keep. There is a "lot of precedent of deleting marginal BLPs when there is no consensus in the AfD", I think not (no data at had though. It has been my impression that repeatedly, proposals for no-consensus on BLPs to default to delete have been rejected. One rationale, which I hold, is that individual wikipedians participating in a BLP deletion discussion should already appreciate the greater seriousness of us hosting an improper BLP. If there do not appreciate the seriousness, then they need educating, immediately. I do not disagree with your sentiments expressed in the close, and I might have agreed with you !vote if so cast, if I came to the discussion, but I do not agree that it is a proper way to close, that is, to make new policy. I would have been happy, however, if you closed no consensus with a critical comment, and then proceeded, as a respected editor, to convert the article to a redirect (I still contend that a redirect is a good idea, she is mentioned elsewhere in mainspace, and that there was nothing in the article required removable from the history). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Black Kite, I've supported you so far; but that's not a balanced representation of the facts. There certainly isn't "a lot of precedent", despite what certain editors active at the Wikipedia Review might wish. There are a handful of precedents that have made it as far as DRV. Those which were endorsed by DRV were generally those where there were special circumstances, such as David Shankbone. The most recent AfD wherein the closer tried to pretend that BLPs could default to delete in the absence of any special circumstances was, quite rightly, resoundingly overturned at DRV here. This is a special situation in that the article's subject was a child. BLPs about adults are a different matter, particularly where the adult has courted publicity, and admins certainly do not have discretion to delete them on a "no consensus" outcome unless special circumstances apply.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There needs to be a pretty good consensus to keep child BLPs, and that didn't exist here, as the discussion showed. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could you point to the relevant policy or guideline that supports that stance? If it's just a personal opinion I'm good with you !voting that way, but don't think the tools should be used to support such an opinion... Hobit (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] overturn to NC, start an RfC I don't like out-of-process deletions though I fully understand where Black Kite is coming from here. But given there was no consensus for deletion, the right ordering would seem to be an RfC and then deletion if that's the result of the RfC. Let's discuss the general case then come back. I don't know enough about the event to know if it does meet WP:ATHLETE, though my suspicion is that it does not. I see no harm in letting this stay here during the RfC (it will be watched now), so I see no reason for an IAR delete here. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a stand against inclusionism run amok. We're seriously having people advocate for articles on child athletes now? Whether by "special circumstances" (protecting minors from unwarranted scrutiny) or by established guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#High school and pre-high school athletes), this was a correct close within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- seems a reasonable reading of this debate. Reyk _YO! 02:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] How is it a "reasonable reading" when it was effectively the closing admin's own delete !vote? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because, in my opinion, that's what the consensus was. We have the nominator and Metropolitan90 making good, policy-based arguments to delete. Bds69's keep !vote depended on consensus for the idea that participation at the Youth Olympics bestows automatic notability, and Bds69 explicitly stated that their !vote should be read as a delete in case that consensus doesn't exist (and it doesn't). I therefore read three policy-based arguments to delete against one. That, to my mind, is enough to infer a consensus to delete. And this is before considering Courcelles's and Black Kite's BLP concerns. Consensus to delete plus BLP of a minor? Yeah, deletion is pretty much the only thing that could have happened here. Reyk _YO! 04:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Start an RfC per Hobit, but I don't know that the article needs to be restored in the mean time. This is uncharted territory, and I neither begrudge Black Kite the discretion to handle this in such a manner, nor do I see DRV as the appropriate venue in which to decide such a project-wide question. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] My claim is that the AfD didn't support a delete closure (which is the main issue here). Opinions about WP:ATHLETE were split with neither argument stronger than the other. I'd expect such a situation to result in a NC close. I see no reason to IAR this one. Hobit (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment If the suggestion is that we do not include BLPs of children unless they are very notable, this a new proposal, and needs to be discussed as such, and endorsed by the entire community. It is no part of present BLP policy, and this is not the place to make it, and decisions that rely on it should be reversed until there is agreement. The closing admin says he did not take that into account in the close, so this is not a place to raise it. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] My reading of "There needs to be a pretty good consensus to keep child BLPs, and that didn't exist here, as the discussion showed" indicates he did something pretty similar. Am I missing some subtle difference? Hobit (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If Black Kite is right, then I would like to see him add a line or two, covering this situation, to WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn closing admin identifies this as a questionable call, unfortunately one that is not supported by the actual consensus reached by the participants. There is plenty of room to call for an RfC on the subject of notability but to try to force the issue by contradicting consensus, rather than following a well-defined procedure for raising such issues, seems inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and then RfC, per Hobit. It's not hard to understand BK's concerns, but the article itself was not a problem and there is therefore no reason to short-circuit the normal process for dealing with this sort of policy issue. I find it distasteful in light of the fiasco that emerged from the efforts of some to ram "BLP-no-consensus-default-to-delete" via a thoroughly illegitimate (non)process, and I see nothing here that requires bypassing RfC as a means of achieving a productive outcome. Do it the right way and we'll have much less strife and an outcome with a much higher level of legitimacy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would like to see a copy of the article first before I comment on the decision (it doesn't seem to be up on Google Cache any more). Could someone please send me an email with the article text please (or restore it to a noindex-ed sandbox)? Thank you. NW (Talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Finally got a topic. Tarc and RayAYang get my view down almost exactly here, so no need to repeat what they said. Endorse. NW (Talk) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and RfC Even without mentioning the BLP issue, about which a RfC is probably a good idea, my reading of the notability argument sees one straight assertion that youth olympics athletes pass WP:ATH, one keep conditioned on the fact that they do, followed by an unrefuted knockdown of that argument. I suppose we could overturn to NC and relist for more comment, but we've already burned enough electrons on this one, and IMO this falls pretty squarely within admin discretion in closing an AfD. Ray^Talk 08:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn obviously. When a close acknowledges a DRV is likely then anything but no consensus is foolish. Working to find a way to make the article/content work is goal one. Stop closing XfD if your vision remains cloudy in these matters.Wroted (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closer please note that the author of this personal attack (which clearly indicates they haven't actually read the closing rationale or the rest of this DRV) is a brand new editor with an "interesting" edit history that includes throwing around terms like COI and POV, and using templates, in their first few edits. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Petra Olli – No consensus to overturn; of course, this is without prejudice to the outcome being modified in accordance with the result of the anticipated RfC on this issue. – T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun the RfC.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

One !delete, two !keeps per my count is a no consensus, even a keep, not a delete. Yes, the article was a BLP on a minor, but was properly sourced to cover the information in the article, which was totally uncontroversial. This was an inappropriate use of admin discretion against consensus on a sourced uncontroversial BLP, I'm afraid. Procedurally, I'd ask for an overturn with no prejudice against a relist at AFD. Str Pby (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There were two delete recommendations (the nominator Travelbird, and myself) not just one. My concern was not the "BLP of a minor" issue, but notability in general and WP:ATHLETE. The only source cited was a page from the official web site of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics -- no independent sources were provided at all. The closing admin correctly noted that the subject "clearly doesn't have any "prolonged or substantial coverage'" that would help establish her notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Send it to RFC. Black Kite raises a point that's well worth discussion—if our policies to protect living people are strict, then how much stricter should our policies be to protect children? It's quite arguable that every article about a living person who's under 18 should be fully protected, if it's allowed to exist at all. And I believe I would support such a rule. But DRV can't enforce a rule we don't have, and DRV can't create a new rule on its own authority.
This suggests that we should overturn the outcome to no consensus, but I think we should set that consideration aside for the moment in the best interests of the child.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RfC We do not have consensus on the notability of junior athletes, and it makes no sense to decide each article individually with the inevitable random results. I do not personally have any strong position on the subject, and can see the sense of the arguments on both sides; I am equally willing for us to adopt either the position that high-level notability for junior athletes (possibly at a higher relative level than for senior) is notability , or that it is not, But we do need to decide this one way or the other. Unlike SMarshall , I se no BLP issues. I cannot see how an article about the facts of a junior athlete's athletic career from RSs can possibly harm their interests--that's an absurd use of BLP. Both they and their guardians have chosen to engage in activities where they know, and hope, will lead to major public awareness. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but this is still a child. It strikes me as a very different case from a BLP on a publicity-seeking adult.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What DGG said, except for the BLP question — child protection is a worthwhile goal and BLP should be interpreted all the more strictly in these instances. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do interpret BLP more strongly for children, and I have always !voted and acted accordingly. But I do not see how reporting the favorable accomplishments of a child done --as with all child athletes--with the approval of their parents or guardians--is a BLP violation even under the necessary strong interpretation. It would affect when a child is, say, the victim of an internet meme, where we should indeed interpret the notability requirements much more restrictively. Child status affect BLP, but there is no BLP problem. The question is whether child status affects notability for athletes, and to what degree this person is in fact notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think there may well be an exceptionally strong worry about vandalism (perhaps more likely and more harmful), but I'd like to discuss rather than admin-fiat our way there. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin. I think an RfC would be useful here. Obviously I endorse my own close, but I think DGG is missing the point. Whether or not the article currently is uncontroversial or not, there is the basic point as to whether BLPs of barely-notable (if notable at all) children should be allowed to exist in the first place. I would also point out that the author of this article has created many more on Junior Olympic competitors, so the RfC would be useful to ascertain whether they should all be allowed to stay or also be removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus/keep). The AfD did not contain a consensus to delete. I can see no BLP issues of concern. By entering an international event, the person, even a child, forgoes a realistic claim to be a private person. The closing statement is not derived from the debate, and was thus a supervote that should have been added as a new contribution to the discussion. AfD is not a forum for closers to make policy. Regarding the merits of the article, its content is not significantly beyond the content about the subject still found at Finland at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, and a result of redirect to that article due to the notability concern BIO1E, seems reasonable to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the fact that one of the Keep !votes was dependent on a consensus that YO competitors are notable, but no such consensus or decision appeared to exist. On that basis, we would have three deletes and a Keep. Regardless, my close was not a supervote - there is a lot of precedent of deleting marginal BLPs when there is no consensus in the AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - "that one of the Keep !votes was dependent on a consensus that YO competitors are notable, but no such consensus or decision appeared to exist" seems a complex and subtle reason to negate someone's opinion, and no one did so in the discussion, so I reject this logic. It was a supervote in that the close contained original points with respect to the discussion. The close adjudicated (albeit not unreasonably) on what really reads as a no-consensus to me, even tending to keep. There is a "lot of precedent of deleting marginal BLPs when there is no consensus in the AfD", I think not (no data at had though. It has been my impression that repeatedly, proposals for no-consensus on BLPs to default to delete have been rejected. One rationale, which I hold, is that individual wikipedians participating in a BLP deletion discussion should already appreciate the greater seriousness of us hosting an improper BLP. If there do not appreciate the seriousness, then they need educating, immediately. I do not disagree with your sentiments expressed in the close, and I might have agreed with you !vote if so cast, if I came to the discussion, but I do not agree that it is a proper way to close, that is, to make new policy. I would have been happy, however, if you closed no consensus with a critical comment, and then proceeded, as a respected editor, to convert the article to a redirect (I still contend that a redirect is a good idea, she is mentioned elsewhere in mainspace, and that there was nothing in the article required removable from the history). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Black Kite, I've supported you so far; but that's not a balanced representation of the facts. There certainly isn't "a lot of precedent", despite what certain editors active at the Wikipedia Review might wish. There are a handful of precedents that have made it as far as DRV. Those which were endorsed by DRV were generally those where there were special circumstances, such as David Shankbone. The most recent AfD wherein the closer tried to pretend that BLPs could default to delete in the absence of any special circumstances was, quite rightly, resoundingly overturned at DRV here.
    This is a special situation in that the article's subject was a child. BLPs about adults are a different matter, particularly where the adult has courted publicity, and admins certainly do not have discretion to delete them on a "no consensus" outcome unless special circumstances apply.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There needs to be a pretty good consensus to keep child BLPs, and that didn't exist here, as the discussion showed. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you point to the relevant policy or guideline that supports that stance? If it's just a personal opinion I'm good with you !voting that way, but don't think the tools should be used to support such an opinion... Hobit (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC, start an RfC I don't like out-of-process deletions though I fully understand where Black Kite is coming from here. But given there was no consensus for deletion, the right ordering would seem to be an RfC and then deletion if that's the result of the RfC. Let's discuss the general case then come back. I don't know enough about the event to know if it does meet WP:ATHLETE, though my suspicion is that it does not. I see no harm in letting this stay here during the RfC (it will be watched now), so I see no reason for an IAR delete here. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a stand against inclusionism run amok. We're seriously having people advocate for articles on child athletes now? Whether by "special circumstances" (protecting minors from unwarranted scrutiny) or by established guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#High school and pre-high school athletes), this was a correct close within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- seems a reasonable reading of this debate. Reyk _YO! 02:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a "reasonable reading" when it was effectively the closing admin's own delete !vote? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because, in my opinion, that's what the consensus was. We have the nominator and Metropolitan90 making good, policy-based arguments to delete. Bds69's keep !vote depended on consensus for the idea that participation at the Youth Olympics bestows automatic notability, and Bds69 explicitly stated that their !vote should be read as a delete in case that consensus doesn't exist (and it doesn't). I therefore read three policy-based arguments to delete against one. That, to my mind, is enough to infer a consensus to delete. And this is before considering Courcelles's and Black Kite's BLP concerns. Consensus to delete plus BLP of a minor? Yeah, deletion is pretty much the only thing that could have happened here. Reyk _YO! 04:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Start an RfC per Hobit, but I don't know that the article needs to be restored in the mean time. This is uncharted territory, and I neither begrudge Black Kite the discretion to handle this in such a manner, nor do I see DRV as the appropriate venue in which to decide such a project-wide question. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My claim is that the AfD didn't support a delete closure (which is the main issue here). Opinions about WP:ATHLETE were split with neither argument stronger than the other. I'd expect such a situation to result in a NC close. I see no reason to IAR this one. Hobit (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the suggestion is that we do not include BLPs of children unless they are very notable, this a new proposal, and needs to be discussed as such, and endorsed by the entire community. It is no part of present BLP policy, and this is not the place to make it, and decisions that rely on it should be reversed until there is agreement. The closing admin says he did not take that into account in the close, so this is not a place to raise it. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reading of "There needs to be a pretty good consensus to keep child BLPs, and that didn't exist here, as the discussion showed" indicates he did something pretty similar. Am I missing some subtle difference? Hobit (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Black Kite is right, then I would like to see him add a line or two, covering this situation, to WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closing admin identifies this as a questionable call, unfortunately one that is not supported by the actual consensus reached by the participants. There is plenty of room to call for an RfC on the subject of notability but to try to force the issue by contradicting consensus, rather than following a well-defined procedure for raising such issues, seems inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and then RfC, per Hobit. It's not hard to understand BK's concerns, but the article itself was not a problem and there is therefore no reason to short-circuit the normal process for dealing with this sort of policy issue. I find it distasteful in light of the fiasco that emerged from the efforts of some to ram "BLP-no-consensus-default-to-delete" via a thoroughly illegitimate (non)process, and I see nothing here that requires bypassing RfC as a means of achieving a productive outcome. Do it the right way and we'll have much less strife and an outcome with a much higher level of legitimacy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a copy of the article first before I comment on the decision (it doesn't seem to be up on Google Cache any more). Could someone please send me an email with the article text please (or restore it to a noindex-ed sandbox)? Thank you. NW (Talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally got a topic. Tarc and RayAYang get my view down almost exactly here, so no need to repeat what they said. Endorse. NW (Talk) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and RfC Even without mentioning the BLP issue, about which a RfC is probably a good idea, my reading of the notability argument sees one straight assertion that youth olympics athletes pass WP:ATH, one keep conditioned on the fact that they do, followed by an unrefuted knockdown of that argument. I suppose we could overturn to NC and relist for more comment, but we've already burned enough electrons on this one, and IMO this falls pretty squarely within admin discretion in closing an AfD. Ray^Talk 08:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn obviously. When a close acknowledges a DRV is likely then anything but no consensus is foolish. Working to find a way to make the article/content work is goal one. Stop closing XfD if your vision remains cloudy in these matters.Wroted (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer please note that the author of this personal attack (which clearly indicates they haven't actually read the closing rationale or the rest of this DRV) is a brand new editor with an "interesting" edit history that includes throwing around terms like COI and POV, and using templates, in their first few edits. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 November 2010

[edit]

All nuked page that contribution by Cnrail37592114 – G5 endorsed, with the caveat that any non-banned editor is welcome to recreate verifiable content as desired, and the closing administrator is reminded to make G5 deletions explicit in the deletion log – Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
` It has a hurdreds pages have contributions to wikipedia that mostly pages are not meeting criteria to be deleted, improve first are main pinciple of wikipedia. Please restore first, and norm for deletion or speed deletion if idvinidal page are meet the criteria regurdless of user. TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Less than a year ago there was a reaffirmation of the principle behind Db-g5, here. Abductive (reasoning) 07:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for informing me of this. I really appreciate it. </sarcasm> Endorse own deletions as this is exactly what we do with questionable unapproved mass article creations. We delete them all because no other method is practical. Especially when the articles are created by a sockpuppeteer who has created questionable articles before. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] User talk:Cnrail37592114, for those who wish to check the history of communication with this user, who does not appear to be a native speaker of English and was active for less than two hours before being indefinitely blocked. There's no evidence that the user understood why he was blocked and some evidence that he was trying, with limited English, to engage in discussion. Tim Song, is the sockpuppeteer allegation substantiated, or did you indefinitely block the user as a duck? I ask because while I agree with the block, I'm not convinced it needed to be indefinite. This seems to have been a genuine if misguided attempt to improve our encyclopaedia, and I would be happier if this user's case wasn't absolutely dismissed out of hand.—S Marshall T/C 01:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It was Confirmed by checkuser here. T. Canens (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hmm. And looking at it again now, Tim, are you fully comfortable that sufficient efforts have been made to communicate with this user and to harness his interest in the encyclopaedia and his script-writing skills for our benefit?—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it is our purpose to hold hands here and expect basic competence to just materialize. This person has had several accounts blocked for unapproved scripting/botting so far, and it appears that the current account, TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk · contribs) is picking up right where the former socks left off and needs admin attention. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, Tarc, I can see what you're saying but I also don't agree. I mean, if the person who raises a DRV is an experienced user who's just being a wazzock, then yeah, DRV can deal with him quite sharply. That would be right. But I think most people who come to DRV are here because they genuinely think they're not being treated fairly. And this is one of those cases. DRV's not doing its job unless the person who raised the DRV goes away thinking that real scrutiny of the admin's actions has taken place, and the admin's been genuinely challenged over what s/he did, and the person who raised the DRV understands the decision we've made and all the reasons for it. To you and me, Tim Song's actions in this case make a lot of sense and truth to tell if I was sitting where Tim Song's sitting I might well have done the same. But we've been here a while and we've got some kind of understanding of the place, and we can't expect that of everyone. That's the reason why I usually try and find some kind of reason to start a discussion about the closer's actions on most DRVs.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Let's see. As JustbeBPMF (talk · contribs) they mass-created a bunch of articles in November 2009 and filed a BRFA for ChinaRailwayENGED (talk · contribs) around March 31. The BRFA got rejected because all the articles ChinaRailwayENGED created before - without approval - are single-sentence unreferenced stubs. In the mean time, they created Tratra22395768 (talk · contribs) and used it to mass-create yet another set of articles. When it was brought to my attention I indef'd Tratra22395768 on March 20 until they could explain themselves, and their unblock request consisted of "I want to fill red links and let number of articles goes up". So by March 31 at the latest, they know that a BRFA is needed - because they filed one. Then Cnrail was created in June and engaged in exactly the same thing that got them blocked in the first place. You may notice that various editors have left messages for Tratra and ChinaRailwayENGED before they got blocked. They never responded to any. T. Canens (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I can see that. I can also see similar contributions across several foreign-language Wikipedias. Whoever it is, the content they're creating with their script seems to be uncontroversial but doesn't comply with policy. It seems to be someone who doesn't speak English, and finds it easier to give up and come back with a new account than to try to communicate with us. I'm willing to bet money that the text at the top of this DRV is a machine translation, and the DRV request was composed a foreign language. We've dealt with it, but we could deal with it much better if we could find out what this user's native language is and speak to them personally.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I doubt that. No reputable machine translator could produce so many spelling errors. And if they want to speak Chinese (given that lots of their articles are on Chinese railroad stations), well, look at my userpage... T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I suppose talking to him in Chinese is worth a try. :) Nothing else seems to be working.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] question are the railroad stations verifiable? DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletions as valid WP:CSD#G5, but ask Tim to in future include a reference to G5 and a link to the evidence that the user was banned or block-evading, for the sake of a proper log. Allow undeletion of any of the pages on a reasonable request by an editor in good standing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

All nuked page that contribution by Cnrail37592114 – G5 endorsed, with the caveat that any non-banned editor is welcome to recreate verifiable content as desired, and the closing administrator is reminded to make G5 deletions explicit in the deletion log – Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

It has a hurdreds pages have contributions to wikipedia that mostly pages are not meeting criteria to be deleted, improve first are main pinciple of wikipedia. Please restore first, and norm for deletion or speed deletion if idvinidal page are meet the criteria regurdless of user. TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Less than a year ago there was a reaffirmation of the principle behind Db-g5, here. Abductive (reasoning) 07:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me of this. I really appreciate it. </sarcasm>
Endorse own deletions as this is exactly what we do with questionable unapproved mass article creations. We delete them all because no other method is practical. Especially when the articles are created by a sockpuppeteer who has created questionable articles before. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Cnrail37592114, for those who wish to check the history of communication with this user, who does not appear to be a native speaker of English and was active for less than two hours before being indefinitely blocked. There's no evidence that the user understood why he was blocked and some evidence that he was trying, with limited English, to engage in discussion.
Tim Song, is the sockpuppeteer allegation substantiated, or did you indefinitely block the user as a duck? I ask because while I agree with the block, I'm not convinced it needed to be indefinite. This seems to have been a genuine if misguided attempt to improve our encyclopaedia, and I would be happier if this user's case wasn't absolutely dismissed out of hand.—S Marshall T/C 01:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was Confirmed by checkuser here. T. Canens (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. And looking at it again now, Tim, are you fully comfortable that sufficient efforts have been made to communicate with this user and to harness his interest in the encyclopaedia and his script-writing skills for our benefit?—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is our purpose to hold hands here and expect basic competence to just materialize. This person has had several accounts blocked for unapproved scripting/botting so far, and it appears that the current account, TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk · contribs) is picking up right where the former socks left off and needs admin attention. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Tarc, I can see what you're saying but I also don't agree. I mean, if the person who raises a DRV is an experienced user who's just being a wazzock, then yeah, DRV can deal with him quite sharply. That would be right. But I think most people who come to DRV are here because they genuinely think they're not being treated fairly. And this is one of those cases. DRV's not doing its job unless the person who raised the DRV goes away thinking that real scrutiny of the admin's actions has taken place, and the admin's been genuinely challenged over what s/he did, and the person who raised the DRV understands the decision we've made and all the reasons for it.
    To you and me, Tim Song's actions in this case make a lot of sense and truth to tell if I was sitting where Tim Song's sitting I might well have done the same. But we've been here a while and we've got some kind of understanding of the place, and we can't expect that of everyone. That's the reason why I usually try and find some kind of reason to start a discussion about the closer's actions on most DRVs.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's see. As JustbeBPMF (talk · contribs) they mass-created a bunch of articles in November 2009 and filed a BRFA for ChinaRailwayENGED (talk · contribs) around March 31. The BRFA got rejected because all the articles ChinaRailwayENGED created before - without approval - are single-sentence unreferenced stubs. In the mean time, they created Tratra22395768 (talk · contribs) and used it to mass-create yet another set of articles. When it was brought to my attention I indef'd Tratra22395768 on March 20 until they could explain themselves, and their unblock request consisted of "I want to fill red links and let number of articles goes up". So by March 31 at the latest, they know that a BRFA is needed - because they filed one. Then Cnrail was created in June and engaged in exactly the same thing that got them blocked in the first place. You may notice that various editors have left messages for Tratra and ChinaRailwayENGED before they got blocked. They never responded to any. T. Canens (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I can see that. I can also see similar contributions across several foreign-language Wikipedias. Whoever it is, the content they're creating with their script seems to be uncontroversial but doesn't comply with policy. It seems to be someone who doesn't speak English, and finds it easier to give up and come back with a new account than to try to communicate with us. I'm willing to bet money that the text at the top of this DRV is a machine translation, and the DRV request was composed a foreign language.
        We've dealt with it, but we could deal with it much better if we could find out what this user's native language is and speak to them personally.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I doubt that. No reputable machine translator could produce so many spelling errors. And if they want to speak Chinese (given that lots of their articles are on Chinese railroad stations), well, look at my userpage... T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose talking to him in Chinese is worth a try. :) Nothing else seems to be working.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
question are the railroad stations verifiable? DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions as valid WP:CSD#G5, but ask Tim to in future include a reference to G5 and a link to the evidence that the user was banned or block-evading, for the sake of a proper log. Allow undeletion of any of the pages on a reasonable request by an editor in good standing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 November 2010

[edit]

Kresimir Chris Kunej – Deletion endorsed – -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kresimir Chris Kunej (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The following chronology is obvious on the deleted article’s talk page; Article gets kept at AfD. Several editors dislike this decision and they continue to attempt to get the article deleted, meanwhile breaching policies like WP:CIVIL (trying to out the creator, etc). Other individual WP:DISRUPTIVE claims are arguable, but not far-fetched. These editors hit a nerve with WP:COI. Their groupation constitutes a “COI tag consensus”. Article creator seeks help at COIN, and gets lucky- an even-handed admin gets on the mediation case (Atama states “article is in no danger of deletion in a very long time”!!). Later, this admin takes a break. Creator asks for help at COIN again a month later and editor SmartSE enters the picture. Smartse completely disregards Atama’s mediation, simply guts the article, removes sources as sees fit (some were removed that were secondary and relevant), and nominates for deletion. Article gets deleted. Several AfD participants pointed out unfair activity (even a delete voter). I do not have a problem with the admin’s closure, the delete result is obvious, but what is to stop someone from going on a rampage through the project of copying this activity and removing all individual’s works per WP:NOTDIR, gutting articles and repeatedly nominating for deletion while referring to this case and decision? I mean, nominate a very notable subject enough times, it may just get deleted. Also, Smartse deleted a contribution of another editor who voted “keep” during the AfD (PamelaBMX), thus creating a precedent to allowance of retribution (I could now go and dissect the articles created by editors who voted different than I and simply again reference this case and decision). What am I missing? Do enlighten me if I am wrong. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Overturn~~, proceduraly close the AfD as a disruptive bad faith nomination, revert article to what it was before Smartse’s edits, block the involved editors from ever editing it (including creator), and somehow reprimand editor Smartse.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Refactored to remove multiple opinions from nominator. ^Bongo_matic 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This request is totally inexplicably to me. A number of things seem very confused. I don't know what a "COI tag consensus" is. Looking at the third AfD it seems contentious and more problematic than average, but I don't see any reason to overturn the deletion. As a style note, the person starting a DRV is assumed to be in favor of overturning a deletion unless otherwise specified, so a second comment with the bolded "overturn" is unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - DRV isn't a venue for people who didn't get their way in a deletion discussion. Closing admin read the consensus to delete from the discussion, there's nothing else to do here. The nomination rationale was never really adequately addressed by any of the keepers anyways. Tarc (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] unfortunate endorse I agree that the consensus was to delete. Numerically it was clearly that way and arguments were leaning that way IMO. That said, even after reading the previous AfD I feel like there is something else going on here. An article that was kept in April probably shouldn't be deleted in November if nothing has changed. It feels like people might be using the article as a stand in for an RfC on an editor, and that's really not acceptable. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hobit, please don't take the editor's claims of victimhood too seriously. When Turqoise tagged Julian Hibberd for notability, as he points out below, an article Smartse created, it already had this reference to an article in Nature (journal) that hailed him as one of "Five crop researchers who could change the world". That tag was nothing but being pointy, some tit-for-tat act of vengeance. Besides, the third AfD featured plenty of new editors with no previous history with this case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Thanks, Horses, but I have had enough harassment and wish to move on. You did forget to mention the closure with the fantastic rationale. Regarding your “rampage” comment, I do believe a crusade of that kind would actually be more fun than constant defense of my articles, so I may embark on one. These same editors are now watching each other’s backs; I tried tagging Julian Hibberd for notability and they quickly removed that. The lesson is: create a group of your buddies, call it something cute like a cabal, have a name (hey, we can be “the porkchops”) and push our POV’s with strength in numbers.Turqoise 127 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please assume good faith. You're going to find a lot of people uniting against you when you accuse them of uniting against you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hey I'm in Turqoise's cabal, but this article was always problematic. The closing admin acted within their discretion, the other criticisms are not for this venue.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The nominator failed to mention in summarizing the "obvious" chronology that prior to being kept at an AfD discussion, the article had been previously deleted and recreated. As to the deletion review, the close reflected the clear consensus. DRV is for addressing bad closes, not un-wished for consensuses. ^Bongo_matic 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The closer correctly perceived that the consensus is that this person is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I voted weak keep both the 2nd and 3rd time, but I recall this time wondering if it should be instead "very weak keep" I'd rather have this article in than out, but I merely gave an opinion both times, and did not think the case worth extensive argument. It is very clearly on the borderline, and I think that if I had to summarize the overall consensus, it would be to delete. I think the moral is that for such decisions, often it depends on who shows up at the AfD as much as what the intrinsic merit is. Not just as weight of numbers, but as whether the people present at the various positions know how to make good. arguments. But we have to decide somehow, and I think this should conclude it until he does work that shows greater notability with better references for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- this seems like a fair reading of the discussion. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, closure reflected consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Deletion - Webhat (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Any particular reason? SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Probably because it is the first person on here that actually read the nomination...Turqoise 127 01:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, that user is following me around, voting the opposite of what I opined in various AfDs--a bit of sour grapes, I think. Sorry Turqoise, Drmies (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse When you have editors who argued "keep" endorsing the deletion (see DGG above) that's always a pretty good sign that proper process was followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs) Endorse As distasteful as I find the process of repeating AfDs until the desired result is reached, the consensus at this AfD was for deletion. If there are reliable and verifiable sources available to support an article, I see no reason that an appropriately created article could be created. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kresimir Chris Kunej – Deletion endorsed – -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The following chronology is obvious on the deleted article’s talk page; Article gets kept at AfD. Several editors dislike this decision and they continue to attempt to get the article deleted, meanwhile breaching policies like WP:CIVIL (trying to out the creator, etc). Other individual WP:DISRUPTIVE claims are arguable, but not far-fetched. These editors hit a nerve with WP:COI. Their groupation constitutes a “COI tag consensus”. Article creator seeks help at COIN, and gets lucky- an even-handed admin gets on the mediation case (Atama states “article is in no danger of deletion in a very long time”!!). Later, this admin takes a break. Creator asks for help at COIN again a month later and editor SmartSE enters the picture. Smartse completely disregards Atama’s mediation, simply guts the article, removes sources as sees fit (some were removed that were secondary and relevant), and nominates for deletion. Article gets deleted. Several AfD participants pointed out unfair activity (even a delete voter). I do not have a problem with the admin’s closure, the delete result is obvious, but what is to stop someone from going on a rampage through the project of copying this activity and removing all individual’s works per WP:NOTDIR, gutting articles and repeatedly nominating for deletion while referring to this case and decision? I mean, nominate a very notable subject enough times, it may just get deleted. Also, Smartse deleted a contribution of another editor who voted “keep” during the AfD (PamelaBMX), thus creating a precedent to allowance of retribution (I could now go and dissect the articles created by editors who voted different than I and simply again reference this case and decision). What am I missing? Do enlighten me if I am wrong. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~, proceduraly close the AfD as a disruptive bad faith nomination, revert article to what it was before Smartse’s edits, block the involved editors from ever editing it (including creator), and somehow reprimand editor Smartse.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Refactored to remove multiple opinions from nominator. ^Bongo_matic 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is totally inexplicably to me. A number of things seem very confused. I don't know what a "COI tag consensus" is. Looking at the third AfD it seems contentious and more problematic than average, but I don't see any reason to overturn the deletion. As a style note, the person starting a DRV is assumed to be in favor of overturning a deletion unless otherwise specified, so a second comment with the bolded "overturn" is unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - DRV isn't a venue for people who didn't get their way in a deletion discussion. Closing admin read the consensus to delete from the discussion, there's nothing else to do here. The nomination rationale was never really adequately addressed by any of the keepers anyways. Tarc (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunate endorse I agree that the consensus was to delete. Numerically it was clearly that way and arguments were leaning that way IMO. That said, even after reading the previous AfD I feel like there is something else going on here. An article that was kept in April probably shouldn't be deleted in November if nothing has changed. It feels like people might be using the article as a stand in for an RfC on an editor, and that's really not acceptable. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, please don't take the editor's claims of victimhood too seriously. When Turqoise tagged Julian Hibberd for notability, as he points out below, an article Smartse created, it already had this reference to an article in Nature (journal) that hailed him as one of "Five crop researchers who could change the world". That tag was nothing but being pointy, some tit-for-tat act of vengeance. Besides, the third AfD featured plenty of new editors with no previous history with this case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Thanks, Horses, but I have had enough harassment and wish to move on. You did forget to mention the closure with the fantastic rationale. Regarding your “rampage” comment, I do believe a crusade of that kind would actually be more fun than constant defense of my articles, so I may embark on one. These same editors are now watching each other’s backs; I tried tagging Julian Hibberd for notability and they quickly removed that. The lesson is: create a group of your buddies, call it something cute like a cabal, have a name (hey, we can be “the porkchops”) and push our POV’s with strength in numbers.Turqoise 127 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. You're going to find a lot of people uniting against you when you accuse them of uniting against you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm in Turqoise's cabal, but this article was always problematic. The closing admin acted within their discretion, the other criticisms are not for this venue.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The nominator failed to mention in summarizing the "obvious" chronology that prior to being kept at an AfD discussion, the article had been previously deleted and recreated. As to the deletion review, the close reflected the clear consensus. DRV is for addressing bad closes, not un-wished for consensuses. ^Bongo_matic 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer correctly perceived that the consensus is that this person is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I voted weak keep both the 2nd and 3rd time, but I recall this time wondering if it should be instead "very weak keep" I'd rather have this article in than out, but I merely gave an opinion both times, and did not think the case worth extensive argument. It is very clearly on the borderline, and I think that if I had to summarize the overall consensus, it would be to delete. I think the moral is that for such decisions, often it depends on who shows up at the AfD as much as what the intrinsic merit is. Not just as weight of numbers, but as whether the people present at the various positions know how to make good. arguments. But we have to decide somehow, and I think this should conclude it until he does work that shows greater notability with better references for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- this seems like a fair reading of the discussion. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closure reflected consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion - Webhat (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason? SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is the first person on here that actually read the nomination...Turqoise 127 01:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that user is following me around, voting the opposite of what I opined in various AfDs--a bit of sour grapes, I think. Sorry Turqoise, Drmies (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse When you have editors who argued "keep" endorsing the deletion (see DGG above) that's always a pretty good sign that proper process was followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs)
Endorse As distasteful as I find the process of repeating AfDs until the desired result is reached, the consensus at this AfD was for deletion. If there are reliable and verifiable sources available to support an article, I see no reason that an appropriately created article could be created. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 November 2010

[edit]

San Vaknin – Allow recreation (see comments at bottom of discussion) – C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sam Vaknin (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I think that the deletion of Sam Vaknin - should be overturned as: there is no question that Sam Vaknin is notable (currently with 64,600 ghits and see also [59][60][61][62])[63]). His notability is continually increasing over time. (Compare with Chris Williams (cricketer, born 1983) a cricketer whose only claim to fame is that he played in a single professional cricket match). the proposer of the AFD was permanently banned user User:Zeraeph whose forceful opinions seem to have also influenced the vote of others. I also suspect that User:Senihele and User:72.16.41.16 were sockpuppets of hers. It was an established fact that User:Zeraeph did use sockpuppets from time to time (she admitted it) and she even has an associated IP range block. the vote was far from unanimous with 3 voting to keep. I only stumbled upon the AFD quite recently. It seems that several attempts have since been made to recreate Sam Vaknin including administrator User:Eugene van der Pijll. I have not had a response from administrator User:Johnleemk who closed the AFD. His account now seems to be semi-dormant. Administrator User talk:C.Fred allowed me to update and improve the article at User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin. I have tried to be NPOV and balanced. There are about 12 secondary references in User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin mainly from the high quality press. I have no problem with somebody starting a new AFD on my new version User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin but it is only fair that the slate is wiped clean and the old AFD is disregarded. Penbat (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse original AfD. Since the issue raised is the original AfD, I don't see how it can be proven that a deletion that has stood for four years was improperly closed or biased in the course of discussion. That said, I restored the article to Penbat's user space to see if it could be improved. There were secondary references in place at the time of the AfD; I do not see where any new sources have been added. Since the article would be speedy deletable under criterion G4, I recommend that the draft remain in userspace until additional clear assertions of notability are made. As an additional point of information, the version I deleted on 18 October 2010 was not the same version that was restored to Penbat's userspace. The version I deleted then was so short with so little assertion of significance that it could have been speedy deleted under criterion A7 as well as G4. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC) amended 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment This is complete nonsense. There were plenty of secondary sources in the 2006 AFD version anyway but i have added plenty more secondary sources including: I, Psychopath CBC Newsworld May 20 2009 Global Politician Editors International Analyst Network Project Gutenberg - books by Sam Vaknin Adrian Tempany When narcissism becomes pathological Financial Times September 4 2010 Barack Obama - Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic? Global Politician 8/13/2008 James Lewis Obama's Malignant Narcissism American Thinker March 04, 2010] Woolaston, Sam Last night's TV The Guardian, Tuesday February 6, 2007 Yvonne Roberts The monster in the mirror The Sunday Times September 16, 2007 Fenichel, Otto (1938). "The Drive to Amass Wealth". Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 7: 69–95. --Penbat (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Allow Recreation The userspace version of the article makes a credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. The result of the previous AfD appears to be moot at this point. Alansohn (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yup, I'm with Alansohn in this instance. The 2006 deletion seems to have been closed correctly but its finding that Sam Vaknin is non-notable can't continue to stand in the face of sources like this from 2010. Move the userspace draft into mainspace. However, I do recommend removing the "controversies and rebuttals" section entirely. That's a magnet for BLP problems. His criticisms of Wikipedia should remain in the article, though.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for pointing out the FT article; I missed that one. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation per Marshal and Alan. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment on "Controversies and rebuttals" section - I can see some arguments for retaining it, deleting it could be counterproductive and Vaknin's rebuttal is clearly signposted. Probably best discussed on article talk page.--Penbat (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation. Sources in the userspace draft definitely show notability per WP:BASIC. Will need to be pretty highly watched for BLP issues, but so do many others. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closing and allowing recreation. I suggested that Penbat send this article to DRV because I was not convinced that there was sufficient improvement to the article to allow recreation. Since I'm the only editor opposing recreation, I feel like it's the flipside of an AfD discussion, where I'm the only voice saying to delete in a sea of keeps. In that situation, I could withdraw my !vote and the discussion would be closed as a speedy keep. Accordingly, I'm closing this discussion early and moving the article back to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

San Vaknin – Allow recreation (see comments at bottom of discussion) – C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I think that the deletion of Sam Vaknin - should be overturned as:

there is no question that Sam Vaknin is notable (currently with 64,600 ghits and see also [59][60][61][62])[63]). His notability is continually increasing over time. (Compare with Chris Williams (cricketer, born 1983) a cricketer whose only claim to fame is that he played in a single professional cricket match).
the proposer of the AFD was permanently banned user User:Zeraeph whose forceful opinions seem to have also influenced the vote of others. I also suspect that User:Senihele and User:72.16.41.16 were sockpuppets of hers. It was an established fact that User:Zeraeph did use sockpuppets from time to time (she admitted it) and she even has an associated IP range block.
the vote was far from unanimous with 3 voting to keep.

I only stumbled upon the AFD quite recently. It seems that several attempts have since been made to recreate Sam Vaknin including administrator User:Eugene van der Pijll.

I have not had a response from administrator User:Johnleemk who closed the AFD. His account now seems to be semi-dormant.

Administrator User talk:C.Fred allowed me to update and improve the article at User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin. I have tried to be NPOV and balanced. There are about 12 secondary references in User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin mainly from the high quality press.

I have no problem with somebody starting a new AFD on my new version User:Penbat/Sam Vaknin but it is only fair that the slate is wiped clean and the old AFD is disregarded. Penbat (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original AfD. Since the issue raised is the original AfD, I don't see how it can be proven that a deletion that has stood for four years was improperly closed or biased in the course of discussion. That said, I restored the article to Penbat's user space to see if it could be improved. There were secondary references in place at the time of the AfD; I do not see where any new sources have been added. Since the article would be speedy deletable under criterion G4, I recommend that the draft remain in userspace until additional clear assertions of notability are made.

As an additional point of information, the version I deleted on 18 October 2010 was not the same version that was restored to Penbat's userspace. The version I deleted then was so short with so little assertion of significance that it could have been speedy deleted under criterion A7 as well as G4. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC) amended 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is complete nonsense. There were plenty of secondary sources in the 2006 AFD version anyway but i have added plenty more secondary sources including:

I, Psychopath CBC Newsworld May 20 2009
Global Politician Editors
International Analyst Network
Project Gutenberg - books by Sam Vaknin
Adrian Tempany When narcissism becomes pathological Financial Times September 4 2010
Barack Obama - Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic? Global Politician 8/13/2008
James Lewis Obama's Malignant Narcissism American Thinker March 04, 2010]
Woolaston, Sam Last night's TV The Guardian, Tuesday February 6, 2007
Yvonne Roberts The monster in the mirror The Sunday Times September 16, 2007
Fenichel, Otto (1938). "The Drive to Amass Wealth". Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 7: 69–95.

--Penbat (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Recreation The userspace version of the article makes a credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. The result of the previous AfD appears to be moot at this point. Alansohn (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm with Alansohn in this instance. The 2006 deletion seems to have been closed correctly but its finding that Sam Vaknin is non-notable can't continue to stand in the face of sources like this from 2010. Move the userspace draft into mainspace. However, I do recommend removing the "controversies and rebuttals" section entirely. That's a magnet for BLP problems. His criticisms of Wikipedia should remain in the article, though.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the FT article; I missed that one. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation per Marshal and Alan. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "Controversies and rebuttals" section - I can see some arguments for retaining it, deleting it could be counterproductive and Vaknin's rebuttal is clearly signposted. Probably best discussed on article talk page.--Penbat (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. Sources in the userspace draft definitely show notability per WP:BASIC. Will need to be pretty highly watched for BLP issues, but so do many others. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing and allowing recreation. I suggested that Penbat send this article to DRV because I was not convinced that there was sufficient improvement to the article to allow recreation. Since I'm the only editor opposing recreation, I feel like it's the flipside of an AfD discussion, where I'm the only voice saying to delete in a sea of keeps. In that situation, I could withdraw my !vote and the discussion would be closed as a speedy keep. Accordingly, I'm closing this discussion early and moving the article back to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges – No consensus to restore the material. I'm not sure if Jclemens emailed Geo Swan the "links" version of the page, but I'll be happy to do it if asked. – T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) This was deleted as an WP:CSD#G10. I think the original page, an official charge sheet, ended up on this user-page through a good faith mistake on my part -- as it was material that would have been completely compliant for inclusion on wikisource, and would have been more useful there. When the page was drawn to my attention I immediately transwikied it to wikisource. At the old page I left a link to the new wikisourced version, and a list of terms mentioned in the charge sheet. I did this because I thought these were all terms that might, potentially, merit a reference to wikisourced page. I planned to look at each one, later, and decide whether I thought they merited that reference. The deletion log says the deleting administrator explained the reason for their deletion on my talk page. That would be this comment. Not putting this page at wikisource in the first place was a mistake. That is where it belonged. That is where it would have been more useful. Why the admin thinks I would have purposely limited the usefulness of a page by putting it on the wrong WMF project page is beyond me. I dispute the admin′s characterization that I was being disingenious. The admin did not address my justification for how I planned to use the last version of the page. I think the purpose I said I was going to use the page for was completely compliant with WP:User pages, and all our other policies, guidelines and conventions. For what it is worth I told the administrator in question that I was concerned that their emotions seemed to be too involved, and I requested them to take off their administrator hat when addressing concerns they have with material I have contributed. They have declined, even to the extent of declining to email me the last version of pages they deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Deleting admin's comment. From 14 November 2008 until 3 November 2010, this was a totally unsourced page of allegations, including sections "conspiracy" and "aiding the enemy", which was at every moment a BLP G10 speedy deletion candidate. After I requested Geo Swan to delete the page (instead of doing so myself immediately, since he had asked me to give him a chance to clean up his user space himself), he changed the contents of the page completely, and added a comment that feigned ignorance: "It has been suggested that this page of notes does not comply with WP:User pages. I don't understand how it lapses from WP:User pages, and will ask the individual making this suggestion for a fuller explanation. " Considering that he had just removed all the previous contents of the page, this clearly indicates that he was, despite his claims to the contrary, extremely well aware of how the page "lapsed from WP:User pages", and more damning from WP:BLP. Anyway, the end result was a page with the BLP violating titel "Abdul Zahir charges", which was filled with negative "associations" in the forms of e.g. a redlink to Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans, The Nuclear Bomb of Islam, International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders, accountant for al Qaida, and the wonderful harmless but funny bluelink of photocopy machine. Fram (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No offense, but I am concerned that this deletion is not firmly based in what WP:User pages says. I am concerned that this deletion is trying to apply a higher standard to userspace pages than we apply to actual articles -- which I suggest is in direct contrast to what WP:User pages says. WP:User pages says that contributors have always been allowed greater latitude in the basically non-public userspace pages than we allow in article space. Yet, when someone, or a group of people, have a policy-based concern about an article, or a portion of an article, and that concern is addressed, no one argues that the article should be deleted anyhow, because there was once a version that did not comply with policy. But, it seems to me that this is what the deleting admin is arguing. Any contributor who has a serious concern over a userspace page is entitled to raise that concern with the contributor who created that userspace page. I think WP:User pages informs contributors they should take the concerns of administrators more seriously. But I think if an administrator voices a concern, and that concern is addressed, they are not authorized to delete the page anyhow, because they didn′t want to see their concerns addressed, they were only prepared to accept the contributor deleting the page. The deleting admin did suggest I request deletion of this page. They did not, however say WHY they thought the page should be deleted. I looked at the page, in good faith. I made changes to the pages, in good faith. And, rather than telling me they still had concerns, or, better yet, explaining what those concerns were, the deleting admin simply deleted this page. I think the deleting admin's BLP concerns are open to question. As I understand it BLP is not intended to protect individuals from ever facing allegations, only to protect them from facing irresponsible, slanderous allegations that aren′t neutrally written, properly referenced, etc. I suggest that since an WP:RS did use these exact phrases in Abdul Zahir′s charge sheet it is not a BLP violation to list them, following a transwiki link to his charge sheet, on a user page. WRT to deleting admin's concerns over the redlinks... In addition to the redlinks the deleting admin mocked, it contained close to four dozen blue links to articles like the 1998 United States embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombings. The charge sheet tied Abdul Zahir to the conspiracy to effect those bombings. I suggest that considering including a reference to the wikisource document in articles like those two is completely reasonable. WRT to the redlinks, quoting from the charge sheet: On or about May 29, 1998, Usama bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God." I suggest that if Osama bin Laden really did issue a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam" that it is not unreasonable to consider whether we should have an article on that title. I think it is reasonable to consider this even if it was now widely believed he had not issued this statement, but sufficient RS had once asserted he did in sufficient detail to support an article, just as we cover the flat-earth theory, even though no one believes in the flat earth anymore. Having a redlink to a significant document does not merit uncollegial mockery. If I understand the deleting admin's comment they may be arguing that since they thought it lay within their authority to delete an earlier version of this page, they were still entitled to delete any subsequent versions of this page, even if their concerns had been addressed. Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You again do not understand my comment, no. I did not claim that only the earlier version of the page was BLPdeletable, the version I actually deleted was also speedy deletable. I have highlighted in my response to DGG below the most explicit parts of the BLP policy which were the reason for this deletion. My reference to the redlinks like "the nuclear bomb of Islam" have nothing to do with "uncollegial mockery", and everything to do with the reason this page wa deleted. Please consider for once that these deletions are not about you, but about the deleted pages. You state that "I suggest that if Osama bin Laden really did issue a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam" that it is not unreasonable to consider whether we should have an article on that title." Fine, no problem, but such consideration should not be posted in a page that is called Abdul Zahir charges, obviously. Fram (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note also that Geo Swan's claim "When the page was drawn to my attention I immediately transwikied it to wikisource." is false: the Wikisource page [64] did not only exist long before this deletion or before I noted the page on hus user talk, but even already a few minutes before the page on Wikipedia was created. This was simply a fork of a Wikisource page, violating BLP, as the deleted version, to a lesser extent, clearly still did. Fram (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] My apologies. My memory played me false. Wikisource did have wikisource:United States of America v. Abdul Zahir (2006/01/20), but it did not have wikisource:Abdul Zahir charges. Forgive me for remembering looking for wikisource:Abdul Zahir charges and not finding it, and then spending considerable time working on this material on a few days ago, and remembering this as transwikifying it. My apologies. Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore The basis of BLP policy is to do no harm, as well as the general principle of fairness. Supposing a person completely innocent of any hostile act were detained in Gitmo. In what possible sense can an article here citing the official allegations against him, however unfounded or mistaken, however excessive, do him harm, or be unfair to him? The harm that may have been done to him, the unfairness of his case, will not have come from Wikipedia. If anything, publicity may possibly help him. Consider someone actually guilty of war crimes, similarly detained and charged. Again, how is Wikipedia doing harm? . The deletion of articles like this is a perversion of BLP, the use of the BLP policy to harm someone and promote the unfairness to him. I find it really hard to imagine how anyone in this position would be other than helped by the publishing of the information of the charges. Those who think them heros will do so and continue acting accordingly ; those who think them innocent martyrs will do so, and continue acting accordingly, those who consider them guilty of horrible crimes will continue to do so, those who have hostile and malign prejudices against them will continue to have them. The Wikipedia article might possible do good, and can do no evil. I find it hard to understand the perspective of those who apply BLP to this situation--either they do not believe their own arguments, and actually wish to harm the people by hiding information, or they are seeing matters of good and evil in a way that I consider to have no positive correlation with reality or humanity. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your comments are not based in policy. We have an article, Abdul Zahir (Guantanamo Bay detainee 753), which presents the facts, all sides, a link to the wikisource material... Why do you tolerate a POVfork of this, a one-sided, incomplete, unsourced page of charges? We are not here to harm anyone, we are not here to help anyone either. We are not here to present only a portion of the facts, no matter which side is helped or hindered by this. We are here to write fair, balanced, neutral articles. Keeping only part of what is already in the main namespace lying around in user space is allowing POV forks, incomplete fake articles, and on a BLP to boot. DGG, as an admin, you should know our BLP policy, or reread it if you want to comment on and overturn a BLP deletion. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your arguments are not based on what the policy actually says, only on your interpretation of the "do no harm" principle. Have you read the "misuse of primary sources" section? Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Care to explain how the deletion of this page was not covered by the policy? Fram (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] you are wikilawering by using literal reading of the wording to do an action contrary to the intent: the intent is "do no harm" — not "do no good". To explain, NPOV and V are the bases of encyclopedic article writing, but BLP is the one place at Wikipedia where there is firm consensus that we deviate slightly from literal NPOV by requiring stricter sourcing for one aspect of the material than the other. By themselves, NPOV & V mean that we cover the subject in a way that tells the truth from all aspects. Add BLP into it, and we tell the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth.(Some of us objected to this aspect of our BLP policy on exactly the grounds that it compromised NPOV, but the consensus was that we do make this compromise, essentially out of common decency. As I recall, Fram, you have argued very strongly for this.) We limit what we include so as to come as close to NPOV as possible, while still doing the least harm. In other words, we deliberately bias the coverage of materials on living individuals to avoid the possibility of harming their interests, except when it's a supervening matter of public interest, or their interests cannot be substantially harmed. (Fram, I think you agree with me so far.) What harms an individual, or, worse, harms an individually unfairly? Normally, our assumption is that it is information linking the individual to something disreputable, most particularly a crime, and very most particularly a crime that he has not been convicted of. This accounts well for all normal situations. There have been some situations where the BLPs have however accepted, (or even desired, and sometimes strongly promoted) publicity for their disreputable or criminal actions; either because they think their actions justified, or because they think that taken together with surrounding events it shows them in a good light overall; or because they think they have been persecuted and wish to draw attention to their situation. This has come up in various contexts, and it has been generally accepted that when adults accept or court publicity for the negative material in question, it is absurd for us to "protect" them from disclosure of it. In this particular instance , I do not think we know the explicit desires of the subject, but in essentially all known analogous cases of people detained at GITMO we do: they want publicity. Sometimes, they are proud of the deeds that are being called crimes. But almost always, they hope that disclosure of their case will lead to support for them and perhaps even to freedom. This can be proven by looking at who has sought since the opening of Gitmo to deny them publicity--the US Government, their accuser, and their enemy. The subjects of this group of articles have fought for years for some information to be provided of their situation, and the US government has persistently resisted providing more than the public opinion of the world--and some court decision--have forced them to provide. So what is to their interest? What does no harm? What might even do the subjects of these articles good? It is you, Fram, and those who share your position, who are the ones trying to use the rules meant to protect them to have the effect of harming them. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's a novel one, wikilawyering by using the very explicit wording of the policy, even as it stands in the lead. DGG, you are wrong. The lead of the policy clearly explains that contentious material should be immediately removed, even if the material is positive. How do you rhyme this with your "the intent is "do no harm" — not "do no good". " So, no, when you end your first paragraph with "(Fram, I think you agree with me so far.)", I have already stopped analyzing yiour further TLDR arguments, as I don't even agree with your first sentences. If you would avoid things like "it has been generally accepted that when adults accept or court publicity for the negative material in question, it is absurd for us to "protect" them from disclosure of it.", which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, it would become easier to find your actual arguments why the policy doesn't apply in this case. All I read in your reply is that it is good for this BLP to have a onesided POVfork where all kinds of terrorism-related terms are linked to his name, since this may be a good thing for him. Even if you are right about the outcome of this BLPviolating POVfork, it is still an unacceptable article-like use of the userspace. If you feel that our coverage of this person is not fair, balanced, BLPcompliant, then go and change the article we have on him, but don't support policy-violating pages with your very one-sided cherrypicking of the spirit of the policy. Fram (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] you are selectively quoting the policy. I consider the US reporting as endorsed by Brookings a reliable source for the accusations against him. The reason I do not edit the articles is that dealing with this material while maintaining a NPOV is an excessive emotional burden for me. I respect Geo for being able to do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "sekectively quoting"? I am quoting the relevant portions of the policy, yes, I can hardly duplicate the whole policy here. And the page had no "endorsement by Brookings", it was a one-sided list of allegations, which was reduced in the final, deleted version, to a "selective quoting" of some terms, many of them extremely negative. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Users don't get to keep their favorite versions of articles in userspace, especially if it is a forked, POV hitpiece on an actual person. Didn't a whole shitpile of Geo Swan's sub-pages come through MfD recently? If this is the kind of tripe that is down there, then this BLP-violating behavior should become blockable at some point soon. I'm a bit taken aback that DGG has set his "keep everything" mindset above simple WP:BLP policy, too. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I can see various strands and nuances to this, but let's begin with the easy bit. I ask myself first: If Fram felt our BLP policies were being violated, was he within his rights to summarily delete this content out of Geo Swan's userspace? And surely he was. Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines treat anything related to BLPs like toxic waste, and admins have very wide latitude to perform arbitrary deletions on BLP grounds. This does include userspace. I ask myself second: Did Fram genuinely feel that our BLP policies were violated in this case? Surely he did. Fram's firm and forceful self-justification above are quite convincing and I can only conclude he was acting in good faith. With those two facts established I can only endorse the deletion. And that's everything that DRV should have to say on the matter. The rest is partly a dispute between DGG and Fram about how our policy should be interpreted—a discussion that should continue, and one in which I can see both sides but agree more closely with DGG—and a discussion between Fram and Geo Swan that should have happened on their talk pages before the DRV was opened. I want to end by saying to Geo Swan: The lesson here is, don't keep anything pertaining to living people in userspace. At all. I think our current rules on BLPs have completely jumped the shark, but they are our rules and DRV has to enforce them. Everything I have about living people is in the form of text documents on my USB flash drive and will be uploaded to Wikipedia only in the form of finished articles in the mainspace, and I recommend this to everyone who's interested in working on the subject. And I also want to end by saying to Fram that first, after this is endorsed, you probably shouldn't delete anything else out of Geo Swan's userspace because you're no longer uninvolved; and second, while I've endorsed your actions, I think there might be learning points for you about talk page behaviour. When dealing with good faith editors (as Geo Swan and DGG are) who have a genuinely different view from you, it helps defuse the situation if you use less of the emphatic declarative and spend a bit more time asking questions.—S Marshall T/C 09:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] How exactly am I no longer uninvolved? Is every admin allowed one administrative action against edits by another user before he becomes involved with that user? Editors routinely object to their content being deleted or being put up for deletion. If that means that in such cases, the admin who deleted things, or the eeditor who nominated things, is an involved editor wrt to the editor of who some edits were targeted, then you give basically free reign to any editor to remove one by one all admins from his edits. Considering the vast, vast amount of problematic pages Geo Swan had and still has, I believe that by this interpretation of "involved" we run the risk of running out of admins before we run out of pages by Geo Swan that should be deleted... Fram (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, the amount of conflict that I can see between you and Geo Swan is quite high. I just think it should be left to cool off and another administrator should handle future deletions from Geo Swan's userspace. Yes, I do realise that we're desperately short of admins but DRV can't really solve that.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The only conflict I see is Geo Swan objecting to deletions, and casting aspersions on my motives for doing this. I will not let such a tactic work. The only argument Geo Swan has is that I continue to delete some pages and to nominate a lot of others for deletion. Since those are regular actions, open to scrutiny (like here), and without an underlying content reason for them (i.e. I have no stake in the Guantanamo articles, and don't let my deletions or nominations be guided by a preference for any side in the situation), and since they are not part of a pattern of anti-Geo Swan editing (I have not interfered in ant other articles he is working on, or in other discussions he may or may not have), I have no reason to stop doing my job as an admin. If I would become aware that other admins are scrutinizing his user space as well and that the problematic pages would just as soon go away without my intervention, I would gladly stop browsing his userspace. But I will not ignore the rather massive amount of problematic BLP articles in his userspace because he doesn't like what I am doing. Fram (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's up to you. I've endorsed your deletion and expressed my view, and it's your choice whether to listen to me.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, both for the endorsement and the view. I honestly don't believe that I am involved (in the way usually used on Wikipedia: obviously I am involved with the deletions), but it is clear that some people disagree, which is allright. It's just that I wuold hope that certainly Geo Swan, who first made these claims, would provide some diffs to support this. It would make it easier for me to understand why they claim I am involved, and to believe that it is not just shorthand for "I don't like what you are doing". 12:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC) It's not really about that; it's not about who's objectively right. It's about how editors feel. You see, it's not enough that we do the right thing, we have to be seen to do the right thing. We have to show FairProcess to our contributors. If you look at what Geo Swan's saying, you'll see real feelings there. This isn't an excuse or a tactic. Geo Swan genuinely feels that he's not being treated fairly. And in this collaborative project that's not okay. Geo Swan needs to go away from this DRV knowing that he's had a fair hearing and that if Fram deletes any more material from his userspace, we will examine that deletion thoroughly and properly. If I had to put my finger on the main thing that bothers me about this, Fram, it's that you and Geo Swan aren't listening to each other. You ask each other questions but they're rhetorical; both sides are completely sure they're right and both sides seem to have exhausted the assumption of good faith. In those circumstances I would not feel comfortable with a closure of this DRV that lets you think you have carte blanche to clean out Geo Swan's userspace. I think another admin should do that, starting with a dialogue.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Whatever the outcome of this DRV, I know that I don't have carte blanche on his (or ayone's) user space. I speedy delete only a small minority of the pages I check, and nominate a few more for deletion, and let the majority alone, as many of them are either utterly harmless or potentially useful. They may need revisiting in six months or a year time, but I have no plans to go on a massive deletion spree. Fram (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good, that's reassuring. Your earlier mention of a "massive amount of problematic BLP articles in his userspace" had me quite concerned that you might mean to remove them all.—S Marshall T/C 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] For the record, I consider both Fram and myself to have excessive involvment to take admin action regarding this material or involving Geo or each other. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] But with respect to my "keep all " ideology as charged by Tarc, that is a falsehood, as demonstrated by my admin log--I have deleted about 11,000 articles since I came here, mostly speedies and expired prods, but including AfD closures. I have not kept track of my AfD votes, but I think the ration is about 3 keep : 1 delete : 1 other. This is not a "keep all" ideology. (If I were to !vote on every AfD my !votes would be about 1:2:1, because I see no need to pile on, and only vote where there's a real dispute & I have an opinion, or when I have something special to say. Most articles sent to AfD are, as they should be, deleted without much controversy. I would like a retraction for what I consider slander. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is no honest or good-faith rationale for ever wishing to retain an attack page directed at a living person, as you did here. This is disgraceful. My comment stands. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Given that the initial clause is self-evident, I think it also self-evident that DGG does not consider this an attack page. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I question the basic competence of one who considers it otherwise. Tarc (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have already explained in sufficient detail, but for anyone joining this discussion now, I summarize: calling it an attack page is a perverse use of legalism. An attack page is a page whose purpose is to attack, rather than present a NPOV view. That is not the intent or the effect of the Wikipedia page. Judging whether something is an attack page makes use of the principle of BLP, to do no harm. Having this page does him no harm, and may even do him good, but that second part is just a supplementary comment. I doubt anyone could find any scenario by which it does harm to him. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Couldn't this be settled by some uninvolved admin giving Geo Swan a copy of the page before deletion, and he could set up his link page, which is not a violation of BLP? I personally think Fram drastically overreacted - Geo Swan is a very strong and knowledgeable editor in the context of Guantanamo-related articles, and it is natural that he will need research aids in his own, non-indexed user space, which will include things like, say, transcripts and annotated copies of official documents. To delete these and disrupt his work is not in any way helpful to Wikipedia. Ray^Talk 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] He has a copy of the page at Wikisource, no need for another copy of the same page. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:User pages says, in several places, that, traditionally, good faith contributors are granted considerable leeway in userspace. How is the version of the page you deleted more useful to me than the version at wikisource? Spelling out the absolutely obvious, wikisource is a whole other wiki. Unlike the wikilinks within a wiki cross-wiki links (1) are not bidirectional; (2) they don't render in red if the target is non-existent; (3) the "what links here" button does not work on cross-wikilinks; (4) cross-wiki links cannot be added to our watchlists. I believe I already explained that I planned to review the links on the list. If they were bluelinks, consider whether those articles would be improved by a reference to the wikisourced document. If they were redlinks, consider whether there were other references sufficient to support starting a new, neutrally written, policy compliant article on that topic. Given that WP:User pages says good faith contributors are granted considerable leeway in userspace, given that I have done considerable work in this area, and that I have a long record as a good faith contributor, if you cannot substantiate a genuine policy concern, I would appreciate an explanation for why you are npt prepared to simply defer to my assurance that I do think the page will be useful to me. If you want to know how I think a page will be useful because you have a genuine interest in also working on these topics, I'll be happy to go into more detail. Geo Swan (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn the deletion, but do not restore the material to en.wiki I've reviewed the revisions of the document in question. It does not appear to be an attack page. It represents itself as a copy of an indictment. While such a source is clearly more appropriate for Wikisource, it is not an attack page per se. The fact that it was NOINDEX'ed at the time this took place lends further weight to DGG's observation that it is not an attack page. Failing to email the page to the user in such circumstances would be inappropriate. I'm not sure whether or not that has happened to date, so I have emailed Geo Swan the most complete version of the page, which he can subsequently upload to Wikisource or another appropriate venue. I echo RayAYang: Fram drastically overreacted. BLP is not a license for admins to seek and destroy content we disagree with in other user's userspaces. The article was NOINDEXed, and the most questionable content had apparently been hidden in the revision history before the deletion occurred. An MfD nomination would have been appropriate, a conversation with Geo Swan about why a Wikisource document was here on en.wiki would have been appropriate, and even tagging the article with {{db-attack}} would have been appropriate, since I believe Fram acted in good faith, though incorrectly. I would consider Fram an INVOLVED administrator in all future interactions with Geo Swan, and encourage Fram to adopt this position as well. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, but I won't. No one has yet shown how I am involved, only that they feel that a page that links Abul Zahir with Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans, The Nuclear Bomb of Islam, International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders, accountant for al Qaida (all of this in the final, deleted version of the page) is not a BLP violation or a negative unsourced page, needs a crash course in our BLP policy. Your other comments show that you haven't followed the discussion and the history of what happened at all (e.g. mailing the page to Geo Swan, who had had it at Wikisource years ago already, is a futile and unnecessary action), making it hard for me to take any conclusion you make serious. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fram, didnt you use the edit summary "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation." in this comment... I accept, at face value, that you honestly do not recognize how comment like this one compromises the appearance that your subsequent exercises of administrator authority were made objectively, on their merits. Nevertheless numerous administrators have indicated to you, both here, and on your talk page, that they think you should consider that your objectivity is compromised. If I am not mistaken some of those administrators have explicitly informed you they believe your objectivity has been compromised. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ahh yes, the "involved admin" approach. This is a fun tactic of the Israeli-Palestine topic area, the global warming area, and no doubt countless other hot-button places around the project; Administrator A intervenes with User B, disagreements ensue, B declares "you're now too involved with me to be impartial!" to A, to bring te admin actions to a halt. I find this tactic to be quite deplorable, honestly. If Fram had had past involvement with you in regards to all these articles or somewhere in the subject area....says you were opposing sides in talk page debates, XfDs, etc...then yea, I'd buy the "involved admin claim. But that does not appear to be the case here (unless you have evidence to the contrary). Rather, this admin has approached the matter from an administrative point-of-view, taking action to what he believes to be editing and policy violations on your part by starting the deletion process aganst a bulk of your user-space files. The "involved" card simply doesn't carry weight here, IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In my opinion our administrators should try not to lose their cool. In my opinion administrators who have obviously lost their cool should recuse themselves. FWIW administrators who havent lost their cool, but who let slip a careless comment that gives the appearance they have lost their cool should also recuse themselves, because it is damaging to the project to have administrator powers exercised by someone who has lost the appearance of fairness and objectivity. And, FWIW, I wish we could count on all administrators who are capable of masking that they have lost their cool to recuse themselves from threads once they realized they had lost their cool. So, yes, in your example, if Administrator A has lost their cool, they should recuse themselves. Period. If administrator A realizes they are emotionally involved, but feels, nevertheless, that there is a substantive policy issue at stake, and that the normal mechanisms available to all wikipedians are too slow, they can always request a previously uninvolved administrator to look in. And, if I am not mistaken, this is what the administrator′s guidebook suggests. Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, everyone should try to remain cool. But when User B essentially goads Administrator A into such action with a massive WP:IDHT campaign into order to declare "you're involved, now go away", that's just not gonna fly. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am not emotionally involved, I have changed the positive idea I have about most editors (AGF) to a neutral one for you (ANF, not ABF), and look at your edits and pages from a policy point of view, without bothering to look for your cooperation in cleaning up the mess. If you do cooperate, no problem, if you don't, no problem either. I don't care about how you feel one way or the other, I care about getting BLP violations off Wikipedia. But it seems that some people are more concerned about their relations with other editors than with maintaining our policies. This is a worrying trend. Fram (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fram, you have asserted, elsewhere, that I have asserted you are acting in bad faith. On the contrary, I accept, at face value, that you honestly think that all your recent activities are consistent with your obligations as a wikipedian and an administrator. But let's do a reality check. Please consider the timing of your comment of your comments and your actions. You deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges two minutes after you wrote, "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation." I am going to repeat this: You deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges two minutes after you wrote, "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation." I accept, at face value, that you don't understand how this frankly stunning comment, followed two minutes later by this deletion, gives the appearance not of neutrality but of an act triggered by strong emotion. User:Tarc, who seems to be in writing to support your right to react emotionally, when you feel provoked, seems to be suggesting that I provoked you, brought on your emotional reaction, by "goading" you. I believe what the record shows however is that You suggested, on November 2nd, that I consider requesting the deletion of 13 userspace pages. Please note, your suggestion did not offer a single reason why I should request deletion of these pages. Over the next day or so I looked at all 13 of those pages, and considered your suggestion. I do my best to take my time and consider every good faith question or concern voiced about my contribution on its merits, and offer a civil, meaningful reply. For three or four of those pages, after having them drawn to my attention, I agreed that requesting deletion was in order, and I did request deletion. I honestly couldn't see which policy, guideline or convention other pages lapsed from. I left what I believe were civil and responsible notes at the top of those pages, stating that unstated concerns had been expressed about the page, that the nature of the concern wasn't apparent to me, and I was going to ask the concerned wikipedian (ie you) for a fuller explanation. I started a table, summarizing my thinking about each of these pages. You read my summary, and it triggered what I continue to regard as a highly uncollegial reply, followed almost immediately by a deletion that continues to seem to me to be triggered by anger -- seriously misplaced and inappropriate anger. So, contrary to any suggestions you or Tarc have made, I wasn't willfully defying a properly issued directive from someone exercising administrator authority, as deputized to them by the community, as per a wikipedia, policy, guideline or convention. First, in your suggestion of November 2nd you did not identify yourself as a wikipedia administrator. Second, you did not state or hint that although your suggestion was phrased as a suggestion, I should regard it as carrying the weight of a directive from a wikipedia administrator. Third you provided no explanation as to the nature of your concern over those pages. I think ordinary wikipedians are entitled to know when a comment is not just a comment from a fellow wikipedian, but when they should recognize it as carrying the weight of a wikipedia administrator. I think that if a wikipedia administrator directs an ordinary contributor to do something, like request deletion of an article, image, or userspace page, the ordinary contributor is entitled to be informed of what policy, guideline or convention justifies that directive. This is not just common courtesy, this is essential for the wikipedia to function properly. No good faith contributor wants to be unknowingly repeat good faith mistakes, that are nevertheless mistakes. If, for the sake of argument, I am making a series of good faith mistakes, I think the entire community is entitled to admonish the administrator who notices an instance of a good faith contributor making a good faith mistake, who can't be bothered to explain why they think it is a mistake. That administrator is not just wasting the time of the good faith contributor. The good faith contributor's time is likely to be wasted through making the same mistake in future. And the time of other good faith contributors, who notice those future mistakes.. So, please don't state or imply that I was acting in bad faith, or ignoring a properly formed and exlained directive from an adminstrator when you neither identified yourself or explained yourself in your suggestion. Fram, I have written this in other recent discussions, I believe you are using an interpretation of our policies, particularly of WP:User pages, that is not supported by what WP:User pages actually says. As I have written before, when someone raises a policy based concern over an actual article, a policy concern that is generally recognized as valid, we keep that article if that policy concern is adequately addressed. Even if the concern had been unaddressed for so long that the concern wikipedian nominates the article for deletion, we keep the article if the community decides the concern has been addressed. A significant fraction of {{afd}}s include comments like: "I would have voiced a delete for the version of this article, at nomination, but since it has been fixed, I voice a keep." Or "I voiced a delete opinion initially, but, given the new references/reformatting since then, I am striking that and changing to a keep.". You seem to be saying that any userspace page I started, that had a version that you thought was deletable, should be deleted, even if your deletion justification was no longer valid. WP:User pages says contributors have traditionally been granted considerable leeway in userspace. So why would you apply a higher standard to those pages than we require in article space? The main defense you have offered of your deletion is that the page was unsourced. However I think you and I both know that the version you deleted on November 4th was sourced. In the interests of honest, open and transparent decision making, I request you acknowledge this was inaccurate and that the version you deleted was sourced. Would you have been authorized to delete, on sight, the version of November 2nd, on the grounds it was unsourced? I dunno. Maybe. I am willing to accept that this is an interpretation of our policies that some administrators would endorse. However, I think just about any administrator who had deleted the page, on the basis of it being unsourced, would have restored it immediately once they were provided a URL to one of the WP:RS that contained the source. For this reason alone I strongly suspect most administrators would skip the drama of deleting a page, on the basis of it being unsourced, when it seemed very likely the missing source was a good faith mistake, easily correctable after a very brief web search. You have also claimed that both the version of November 2nd, and the version of November 4th, did not comply with BLP, because they repeated charges against Abdul Zahir. Well, with regard to the version of November 2nd -- could we not quote from Abdul Zahir's charge sheet, in article space? I know there are some who interpret BLP in an extreme way, and assert we should never repeat allegations that haven't been proven in a court of law. Following that interpretation our article on OJ Simpson couldn't say he was suspected of murdering his wife and her friend. Our article on Richard Jewell couldn't say he was suspected of planting the bomb he found. Now, maybe I am mistaken, but if we can quote something in article space, good faith contributors should be able to quote from it in userspace. With regard to the version of November 4th, which was basically a list of about four dozen phrases from the charge sheet -- your representation of that list of phrases as "charges" shows bias, on your part. That list also included, Military Order of November 13, 2001, Kart-E-Parwan Province, U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Bagram Air Base, Gardez Air Base. These clearly aren't charges. Lots of US journalists, diplomats, aid workers and GIs have visited Karti Parwan, and the airbases and embassy. Wikilinks that tied those Americans to those locations aren't charges. The list also included the names of about two dozen individuals. Those names aren't charges either. I am pretty familiar with who US intelligence considers an enemy, yet I recognized just three of those names -- Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and Abdul Hadi al Iraqi. If you check the "what links here" for OBL you will see that being tied by a wikilink to a terrorist does not make one a terrorist. The first three individuals I see when I click on OBL's "what links here" are OBL's main enemy in Afghanistan, a US President, who is also an enemy, and a US Congressman. Wikilink are not charges. Readers may wonder why an article or page links somewhere. Readers may follow a link, may read the page or article at the other end of that link. And that may lead them to conclude the information on the other end of the link suggests two individuals were allies -- or enemies. You have suggested that the name, itself, of this page is a BLP violation, because it includes the word "charges". Please, renaming pages is trivial. I suggest that a concern so easily addressed should never be offered as a justification for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Tarc, my counsel is not based on the mere existence of administrative actions, but their lack of objective reasonableness. Anyone can make a call in an area and not be involved. That Fram did so, has heard other people tell him he overreacted, and continues to maintain his correctness indicates that he should not personally exercise administrative powers in future, similar situations. Good faith, in this case, is not incompatible with poor judgment. When in doubt, an admin receiving such a message should feel free to continue monitoring things, but notify another admin--any other admin--and give them the rationale for the desired administrative action, such that the second admin acts as a sanity check. Fram, please feel free to consult me for such a sanity check in the future. Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] One must also consider the source of said counsel, and how much weight to give it. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn the deletion -- echoing the reasons given by Jclemens. Writing as someone who's frequently disagreed with GeoSwan, I'll say that he's the last person I would ever accuse of doing an attack page. This is really a case of someone getting all his ducks in a row before putting something in an article. I'm astounded that it could be deleted without a second thought. -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] G10 is for attack pages and negative unsourced BLPs. How hard is that to understand? I have deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim for the exact same reason. I hope that such pages would make you reconsider your opinion of Geo Swan, as he is well capable of letting unsourced negative BLPs lay around for years in his userspace. Fram (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You've seriously deleted another page out of Geo Swan's userspace while this DRV is still in progress? I'm not convinced that was the wisest of moves.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh, more than one. I've always reported them to Geo Swan on his talk page. Apart from not being happy that I did the deletion, can you find any fault in that (or the other) speedy deletions I did last week? Perhaps it is time that someone indicated to Geo Swan that instead of attacking the messenger, he should go through his user space and remove all potential BLP problems himself. If he doesn't clean up his mess, someone else has to do it, and no one has volunteered so far. Fram (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse -- Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTANARCHY + WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND + WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY + WP:IDHT. -- IQinn (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges – No consensus to restore the material. I'm not sure if Jclemens emailed Geo Swan the "links" version of the page, but I'll be happy to do it if asked. – T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This was deleted as an WP:CSD#G10. I think the original page, an official charge sheet, ended up on this user-page through a good faith mistake on my part -- as it was material that would have been completely compliant for inclusion on wikisource, and would have been more useful there. When the page was drawn to my attention I immediately transwikied it to wikisource. At the old page I left a link to the new wikisourced version, and a list of terms mentioned in the charge sheet. I did this because I thought these were all terms that might, potentially, merit a reference to wikisourced page. I planned to look at each one, later, and decide whether I thought they merited that reference.

The deletion log says the deleting administrator explained the reason for their deletion on my talk page. That would be this comment. Not putting this page at wikisource in the first place was a mistake. That is where it belonged. That is where it would have been more useful. Why the admin thinks I would have purposely limited the usefulness of a page by putting it on the wrong WMF project page is beyond me. I dispute the admin′s characterization that I was being disingenious. The admin did not address my justification for how I planned to use the last version of the page. I think the purpose I said I was going to use the page for was completely compliant with WP:User pages, and all our other policies, guidelines and conventions. For what it is worth I told the administrator in question that I was concerned that their emotions seemed to be too involved, and I requested them to take off their administrator hat when addressing concerns they have with material I have contributed. They have declined, even to the extent of declining to email me the last version of pages they deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's comment. From 14 November 2008 until 3 November 2010, this was a totally unsourced page of allegations, including sections "conspiracy" and "aiding the enemy", which was at every moment a BLP G10 speedy deletion candidate. After I requested Geo Swan to delete the page (instead of doing so myself immediately, since he had asked me to give him a chance to clean up his user space himself), he changed the contents of the page completely, and added a comment that feigned ignorance: "It has been suggested that this page of notes does not comply with WP:User pages. I don't understand how it lapses from WP:User pages, and will ask the individual making this suggestion for a fuller explanation. " Considering that he had just removed all the previous contents of the page, this clearly indicates that he was, despite his claims to the contrary, extremely well aware of how the page "lapsed from WP:User pages", and more damning from WP:BLP. Anyway, the end result was a page with the BLP violating titel "Abdul Zahir charges", which was filled with negative "associations" in the forms of e.g. a redlink to Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans, The Nuclear Bomb of Islam, International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders, accountant for al Qaida, and the wonderful harmless but funny bluelink of photocopy machine. Fram (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I am concerned that this deletion is not firmly based in what WP:User pages says. I am concerned that this deletion is trying to apply a higher standard to userspace pages than we apply to actual articles -- which I suggest is in direct contrast to what WP:User pages says. WP:User pages says that contributors have always been allowed greater latitude in the basically non-public userspace pages than we allow in article space. Yet, when someone, or a group of people, have a policy-based concern about an article, or a portion of an article, and that concern is addressed, no one argues that the article should be deleted anyhow, because there was once a version that did not comply with policy. But, it seems to me that this is what the deleting admin is arguing. Any contributor who has a serious concern over a userspace page is entitled to raise that concern with the contributor who created that userspace page. I think WP:User pages informs contributors they should take the concerns of administrators more seriously. But I think if an administrator voices a concern, and that concern is addressed, they are not authorized to delete the page anyhow, because they didn′t want to see their concerns addressed, they were only prepared to accept the contributor deleting the page. The deleting admin did suggest I request deletion of this page. They did not, however say WHY they thought the page should be deleted. I looked at the page, in good faith. I made changes to the pages, in good faith. And, rather than telling me they still had concerns, or, better yet, explaining what those concerns were, the deleting admin simply deleted this page.
- I think the deleting admin's BLP concerns are open to question. As I understand it BLP is not intended to protect individuals from ever facing allegations, only to protect them from facing irresponsible, slanderous allegations that aren′t neutrally written, properly referenced, etc. I suggest that since an WP:RS did use these exact phrases in Abdul Zahir′s charge sheet it is not a BLP violation to list them, following a transwiki link to his charge sheet, on a user page.
- WRT to deleting admin's concerns over the redlinks... In addition to the redlinks the deleting admin mocked, it contained close to four dozen blue links to articles like the 1998 United States embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombings. The charge sheet tied Abdul Zahir to the conspiracy to effect those bombings. I suggest that considering including a reference to the wikisource document in articles like those two is completely reasonable. WRT to the redlinks, quoting from the charge sheet:
  On or about May 29, 1998, Usama bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

I suggest that if Osama bin Laden really did issue a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam" that it is not unreasonable to consider whether we should have an article on that title. I think it is reasonable to consider this even if it was now widely believed he had not issued this statement, but sufficient RS had once asserted he did in sufficient detail to support an article, just as we cover the flat-earth theory, even though no one believes in the flat earth anymore. Having a redlink to a significant document does not merit uncollegial mockery.

If I understand the deleting admin's comment they may be arguing that since they thought it lay within their authority to delete an earlier version of this page, they were still entitled to delete any subsequent versions of this page, even if their concerns had been addressed. Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You again do not understand my comment, no. I did not claim that only the earlier version of the page was BLPdeletable, the version I actually deleted was also speedy deletable. I have highlighted in my response to DGG below the most explicit parts of the BLP policy which were the reason for this deletion. My reference to the redlinks like "the nuclear bomb of Islam" have nothing to do with "uncollegial mockery", and everything to do with the reason this page wa deleted. Please consider for once that these deletions are not about you, but about the deleted pages. You state that "I suggest that if Osama bin Laden really did issue a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam" that it is not unreasonable to consider whether we should have an article on that title." Fine, no problem, but such consideration should not be posted in a page that is called Abdul Zahir charges, obviously. Fram (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Geo Swan's claim "When the page was drawn to my attention I immediately transwikied it to wikisource." is false: the Wikisource page [64] did not only exist long before this deletion or before I noted the page on hus user talk, but even already a few minutes before the page on Wikipedia was created. This was simply a fork of a Wikisource page, violating BLP, as the deleted version, to a lesser extent, clearly still did. Fram (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. My memory played me false. Wikisource did have wikisource:United States of America v. Abdul Zahir (2006/01/20), but it did not have wikisource:Abdul Zahir charges. Forgive me for remembering looking for wikisource:Abdul Zahir charges and not finding it, and then spending considerable time working on this material on a few days ago, and remembering this as transwikifying it. My apologies. Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The basis of BLP policy is to do no harm, as well as the general principle of fairness. Supposing a person completely innocent of any hostile act were detained in Gitmo. In what possible sense can an article here citing the official allegations against him, however unfounded or mistaken, however excessive, do him harm, or be unfair to him? The harm that may have been done to him, the unfairness of his case, will not have come from Wikipedia. If anything, publicity may possibly help him. Consider someone actually guilty of war crimes, similarly detained and charged. Again, how is Wikipedia doing harm? . The deletion of articles like this is a perversion of BLP, the use of the BLP policy to harm someone and promote the unfairness to him. I find it really hard to imagine how anyone in this position would be other than helped by the publishing of the information of the charges. Those who think them heros will do so and continue acting accordingly ; those who think them innocent martyrs will do so, and continue acting accordingly, those who consider them guilty of horrible crimes will continue to do so, those who have hostile and malign prejudices against them will continue to have them. The Wikipedia article might possible do good, and can do no evil. I find it hard to understand the perspective of those who apply BLP to this situation--either they do not believe their own arguments, and actually wish to harm the people by hiding information, or they are seeing matters of good and evil in a way that I consider to have no positive correlation with reality or humanity. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments are not based in policy. We have an article, Abdul Zahir (Guantanamo Bay detainee 753), which presents the facts, all sides, a link to the wikisource material... Why do you tolerate a POVfork of this, a one-sided, incomplete, unsourced page of charges? We are not here to harm anyone, we are not here to help anyone either. We are not here to present only a portion of the facts, no matter which side is helped or hindered by this. We are here to write fair, balanced, neutral articles. Keeping only part of what is already in the main namespace lying around in user space is allowing POV forks, incomplete fake articles, and on a BLP to boot. DGG, as an admin, you should know our BLP policy, or reread it if you want to comment on and overturn a BLP deletion. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your arguments are not based on what the policy actually says, only on your interpretation of the "do no harm" principle. Have you read the "misuse of primary sources" section? Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Care to explain how the deletion of this page was not covered by the policy? Fram (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are wikilawering by using literal reading of the wording to do an action contrary to the intent: the intent is "do no harm" — not "do no good". To explain, NPOV and V are the bases of encyclopedic article writing, but BLP is the one place at Wikipedia where there is firm consensus that we deviate slightly from literal NPOV by requiring stricter sourcing for one aspect of the material than the other. By themselves, NPOV & V mean that we cover the subject in a way that tells the truth from all aspects. Add BLP into it, and we tell the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth.(Some of us objected to this aspect of our BLP policy on exactly the grounds that it compromised NPOV, but the consensus was that we do make this compromise, essentially out of common decency. As I recall, Fram, you have argued very strongly for this.) We limit what we include so as to come as close to NPOV as possible, while still doing the least harm. In other words, we deliberately bias the coverage of materials on living individuals to avoid the possibility of harming their interests, except when it's a supervening matter of public interest, or their interests cannot be substantially harmed. (Fram, I think you agree with me so far.)

What harms an individual, or, worse, harms an individually unfairly? Normally, our assumption is that it is information linking the individual to something disreputable, most particularly a crime, and very most particularly a crime that he has not been convicted of. This accounts well for all normal situations. There have been some situations where the BLPs have however accepted, (or even desired, and sometimes strongly promoted) publicity for their disreputable or criminal actions; either because they think their actions justified, or because they think that taken together with surrounding events it shows them in a good light overall; or because they think they have been persecuted and wish to draw attention to their situation. This has come up in various contexts, and it has been generally accepted that when adults accept or court publicity for the negative material in question, it is absurd for us to "protect" them from disclosure of it.

In this particular instance , I do not think we know the explicit desires of the subject, but in essentially all known analogous cases of people detained at GITMO we do: they want publicity. Sometimes, they are proud of the deeds that are being called crimes. But almost always, they hope that disclosure of their case will lead to support for them and perhaps even to freedom. This can be proven by looking at who has sought since the opening of Gitmo to deny them publicity--the US Government, their accuser, and their enemy. The subjects of this group of articles have fought for years for some information to be provided of their situation, and the US government has persistently resisted providing more than the public opinion of the world--and some court decision--have forced them to provide. So what is to their interest? What does no harm? What might even do the subjects of these articles good? It is you, Fram, and those who share your position, who are the ones trying to use the rules meant to protect them to have the effect of harming them. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a novel one, wikilawyering by using the very explicit wording of the policy, even as it stands in the lead. DGG, you are wrong. The lead of the policy clearly explains that contentious material should be immediately removed, even if the material is positive. How do you rhyme this with your "the intent is "do no harm" — not "do no good". " So, no, when you end your first paragraph with "(Fram, I think you agree with me so far.)", I have already stopped analyzing yiour further TLDR arguments, as I don't even agree with your first sentences. If you would avoid things like "it has been generally accepted that when adults accept or court publicity for the negative material in question, it is absurd for us to "protect" them from disclosure of it.", which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, it would become easier to find your actual arguments why the policy doesn't apply in this case. All I read in your reply is that it is good for this BLP to have a onesided POVfork where all kinds of terrorism-related terms are linked to his name, since this may be a good thing for him. Even if you are right about the outcome of this BLPviolating POVfork, it is still an unacceptable article-like use of the userspace. If you feel that our coverage of this person is not fair, balanced, BLPcompliant, then go and change the article we have on him, but don't support policy-violating pages with your very one-sided cherrypicking of the spirit of the policy. Fram (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are selectively quoting the policy. I consider the US reporting as endorsed by Brookings a reliable source for the accusations against him. The reason I do not edit the articles is that dealing with this material while maintaining a NPOV is an excessive emotional burden for me. I respect Geo for being able to do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"sekectively quoting"? I am quoting the relevant portions of the policy, yes, I can hardly duplicate the whole policy here. And the page had no "endorsement by Brookings", it was a one-sided list of allegations, which was reduced in the final, deleted version, to a "selective quoting" of some terms, many of them extremely negative. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Users don't get to keep their favorite versions of articles in userspace, especially if it is a forked, POV hitpiece on an actual person. Didn't a whole shitpile of Geo Swan's sub-pages come through MfD recently? If this is the kind of tripe that is down there, then this BLP-violating behavior should become blockable at some point soon. I'm a bit taken aback that DGG has set his "keep everything" mindset above simple WP:BLP policy, too. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see various strands and nuances to this, but let's begin with the easy bit. I ask myself first: If Fram felt our BLP policies were being violated, was he within his rights to summarily delete this content out of Geo Swan's userspace? And surely he was. Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines treat anything related to BLPs like toxic waste, and admins have very wide latitude to perform arbitrary deletions on BLP grounds. This does include userspace.
I ask myself second: Did Fram genuinely feel that our BLP policies were violated in this case? Surely he did. Fram's firm and forceful self-justification above are quite convincing and I can only conclude he was acting in good faith.
With those two facts established I can only endorse the deletion. And that's everything that DRV should have to say on the matter. The rest is partly a dispute between DGG and Fram about how our policy should be interpreted—a discussion that should continue, and one in which I can see both sides but agree more closely with DGG—and a discussion between Fram and Geo Swan that should have happened on their talk pages before the DRV was opened.
I want to end by saying to Geo Swan: The lesson here is, don't keep anything pertaining to living people in userspace. At all. I think our current rules on BLPs have completely jumped the shark, but they are our rules and DRV has to enforce them. Everything I have about living people is in the form of text documents on my USB flash drive and will be uploaded to Wikipedia only in the form of finished articles in the mainspace, and I recommend this to everyone who's interested in working on the subject. And I also want to end by saying to Fram that first, after this is endorsed, you probably shouldn't delete anything else out of Geo Swan's userspace because you're no longer uninvolved; and second, while I've endorsed your actions, I think there might be learning points for you about talk page behaviour. When dealing with good faith editors (as Geo Swan and DGG are) who have a genuinely different view from you, it helps defuse the situation if you use less of the emphatic declarative and spend a bit more time asking questions.—S Marshall T/C 09:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly am I no longer uninvolved? Is every admin allowed one administrative action against edits by another user before he becomes involved with that user? Editors routinely object to their content being deleted or being put up for deletion. If that means that in such cases, the admin who deleted things, or the eeditor who nominated things, is an involved editor wrt to the editor of who some edits were targeted, then you give basically free reign to any editor to remove one by one all admins from his edits. Considering the vast, vast amount of problematic pages Geo Swan had and still has, I believe that by this interpretation of "involved" we run the risk of running out of admins before we run out of pages by Geo Swan that should be deleted... Fram (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the amount of conflict that I can see between you and Geo Swan is quite high. I just think it should be left to cool off and another administrator should handle future deletions from Geo Swan's userspace. Yes, I do realise that we're desperately short of admins but DRV can't really solve that.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only conflict I see is Geo Swan objecting to deletions, and casting aspersions on my motives for doing this. I will not let such a tactic work. The only argument Geo Swan has is that I continue to delete some pages and to nominate a lot of others for deletion. Since those are regular actions, open to scrutiny (like here), and without an underlying content reason for them (i.e. I have no stake in the Guantanamo articles, and don't let my deletions or nominations be guided by a preference for any side in the situation), and since they are not part of a pattern of anti-Geo Swan editing (I have not interfered in ant other articles he is working on, or in other discussions he may or may not have), I have no reason to stop doing my job as an admin. If I would become aware that other admins are scrutinizing his user space as well and that the problematic pages would just as soon go away without my intervention, I would gladly stop browsing his userspace. But I will not ignore the rather massive amount of problematic BLP articles in his userspace because he doesn't like what I am doing. Fram (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's up to you. I've endorsed your deletion and expressed my view, and it's your choice whether to listen to me.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, both for the endorsement and the view. I honestly don't believe that I am involved (in the way usually used on Wikipedia: obviously I am involved with the deletions), but it is clear that some people disagree, which is allright. It's just that I wuold hope that certainly Geo Swan, who first made these claims, would provide some diffs to support this. It would make it easier for me to understand why they claim I am involved, and to believe that it is not just shorthand for "I don't like what you are doing". 12:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        It's not really about that; it's not about who's objectively right. It's about how editors feel. You see, it's not enough that we do the right thing, we have to be seen to do the right thing. We have to show FairProcess to our contributors. If you look at what Geo Swan's saying, you'll see real feelings there. This isn't an excuse or a tactic. Geo Swan genuinely feels that he's not being treated fairly. And in this collaborative project that's not okay. Geo Swan needs to go away from this DRV knowing that he's had a fair hearing and that if Fram deletes any more material from his userspace, we will examine that deletion thoroughly and properly.
        If I had to put my finger on the main thing that bothers me about this, Fram, it's that you and Geo Swan aren't listening to each other. You ask each other questions but they're rhetorical; both sides are completely sure they're right and both sides seem to have exhausted the assumption of good faith. In those circumstances I would not feel comfortable with a closure of this DRV that lets you think you have carte blanche to clean out Geo Swan's userspace. I think another admin should do that, starting with a dialogue.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever the outcome of this DRV, I know that I don't have carte blanche on his (or ayone's) user space. I speedy delete only a small minority of the pages I check, and nominate a few more for deletion, and let the majority alone, as many of them are either utterly harmless or potentially useful. They may need revisiting in six months or a year time, but I have no plans to go on a massive deletion spree. Fram (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Good, that's reassuring. Your earlier mention of a "massive amount of problematic BLP articles in his userspace" had me quite concerned that you might mean to remove them all.—S Marshall T/C 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I consider both Fram and myself to have excessive involvment to take admin action regarding this material or involving Geo or each other. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But with respect to my "keep all " ideology as charged by Tarc, that is a falsehood, as demonstrated by my admin log--I have deleted about 11,000 articles since I came here, mostly speedies and expired prods, but including AfD closures. I have not kept track of my AfD votes, but I think the ration is about 3 keep : 1 delete : 1 other. This is not a "keep all" ideology. (If I were to !vote on every AfD my !votes would be about 1:2:1, because I see no need to pile on, and only vote where there's a real dispute & I have an opinion, or when I have something special to say. Most articles sent to AfD are, as they should be, deleted without much controversy. I would like a retraction for what I consider slander. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - There is no honest or good-faith rationale for ever wishing to retain an attack page directed at a living person, as you did here. This is disgraceful. My comment stands. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that the initial clause is self-evident, I think it also self-evident that DGG does not consider this an attack page. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I question the basic competence of one who considers it otherwise. Tarc (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already explained in sufficient detail, but for anyone joining this discussion now, I summarize: calling it an attack page is a perverse use of legalism. An attack page is a page whose purpose is to attack, rather than present a NPOV view. That is not the intent or the effect of the Wikipedia page. Judging whether something is an attack page makes use of the principle of BLP, to do no harm. Having this page does him no harm, and may even do him good, but that second part is just a supplementary comment. I doubt anyone could find any scenario by which it does harm to him. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't this be settled by some uninvolved admin giving Geo Swan a copy of the page before deletion, and he could set up his link page, which is not a violation of BLP? I personally think Fram drastically overreacted - Geo Swan is a very strong and knowledgeable editor in the context of Guantanamo-related articles, and it is natural that he will need research aids in his own, non-indexed user space, which will include things like, say, transcripts and annotated copies of official documents. To delete these and disrupt his work is not in any way helpful to Wikipedia. Ray^Talk 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He has a copy of the page at Wikisource, no need for another copy of the same page. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:User pages says, in several places, that, traditionally, good faith contributors are granted considerable leeway in userspace. How is the version of the page you deleted more useful to me than the version at wikisource? Spelling out the absolutely obvious, wikisource is a whole other wiki. Unlike the wikilinks within a wiki cross-wiki links (1) are not bidirectional; (2) they don't render in red if the target is non-existent; (3) the "what links here" button does not work on cross-wikilinks; (4) cross-wiki links cannot be added to our watchlists. I believe I already explained that I planned to review the links on the list. If they were bluelinks, consider whether those articles would be improved by a reference to the wikisourced document. If they were redlinks, consider whether there were other references sufficient to support starting a new, neutrally written, policy compliant article on that topic. Given that WP:User pages says good faith contributors are granted considerable leeway in userspace, given that I have done considerable work in this area, and that I have a long record as a good faith contributor, if you cannot substantiate a genuine policy concern, I would appreciate an explanation for why you are npt prepared to simply defer to my assurance that I do think the page will be useful to me.
  - If you want to know how I think a page will be useful because you have a genuine interest in also working on these topics, I'll be happy to go into more detail. Geo Swan (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the deletion, but do not restore the material to en.wiki
1. I've reviewed the revisions of the document in question. It does not appear to be an attack page. It represents itself as a copy of an indictment. While such a source is clearly more appropriate for Wikisource, it is not an attack page per se. The fact that it was NOINDEX'ed at the time this took place lends further weight to DGG's observation that it is not an attack page.
2. Failing to email the page to the user in such circumstances would be inappropriate. I'm not sure whether or not that has happened to date, so I have emailed Geo Swan the most complete version of the page, which he can subsequently upload to Wikisource or another appropriate venue.
3. I echo RayAYang: Fram drastically overreacted. BLP is not a license for admins to seek and destroy content we disagree with in other user's userspaces. The article was NOINDEXed, and the most questionable content had apparently been hidden in the revision history before the deletion occurred. An MfD nomination would have been appropriate, a conversation with Geo Swan about why a Wikisource document was here on en.wiki would have been appropriate, and even tagging the article with {{db-attack}} would have been appropriate, since I believe Fram acted in good faith, though incorrectly. I would consider Fram an INVOLVED administrator in all future interactions with Geo Swan, and encourage Fram to adopt this position as well. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I won't. No one has yet shown how I am involved, only that they feel that a page that links Abul Zahir with Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans, The Nuclear Bomb of Islam, International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders, accountant for al Qaida (all of this in the final, deleted version of the page) is not a BLP violation or a negative unsourced page, needs a crash course in our BLP policy. Your other comments show that you haven't followed the discussion and the history of what happened at all (e.g. mailing the page to Geo Swan, who had had it at Wikisource years ago already, is a futile and unnecessary action), making it hard for me to take any conclusion you make serious. Fram (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fram, didnt you use the edit summary "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation." in this comment... I accept, at face value, that you honestly do not recognize how comment like this one compromises the appearance that your subsequent exercises of administrator authority were made objectively, on their merits. Nevertheless numerous administrators have indicated to you, both here, and on your talk page, that they think you should consider that your objectivity is compromised. If I am not mistaken some of those administrators have explicitly informed you they believe your objectivity has been compromised. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahh yes, the "involved admin" approach. This is a fun tactic of the Israeli-Palestine topic area, the global warming area, and no doubt countless other hot-button places around the project; Administrator A intervenes with User B, disagreements ensue, B declares "you're now too involved with me to be impartial!" to A, to bring te admin actions to a halt. I find this tactic to be quite deplorable, honestly. If Fram had had past involvement with you in regards to all these articles or somewhere in the subject area....says you were opposing sides in talk page debates, XfDs, etc...then yea, I'd buy the "involved admin claim. But that does not appear to be the case here (unless you have evidence to the contrary). Rather, this admin has approached the matter from an administrative point-of-view, taking action to what he believes to be editing and policy violations on your part by starting the deletion process aganst a bulk of your user-space files. The "involved" card simply doesn't carry weight here, IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - In my opinion our administrators should try not to lose their cool. In my opinion administrators who have obviously lost their cool should recuse themselves. FWIW administrators who havent lost their cool, but who let slip a careless comment that gives the appearance they have lost their cool should also recuse themselves, because it is damaging to the project to have administrator powers exercised by someone who has lost the appearance of fairness and objectivity. And, FWIW, I wish we could count on all administrators who are capable of masking that they have lost their cool to recuse themselves from threads once they realized they had lost their cool.
        So, yes, in your example, if Administrator A has lost their cool, they should recuse themselves. Period. If administrator A realizes they are emotionally involved, but feels, nevertheless, that there is a substantive policy issue at stake, and that the normal mechanisms available to all wikipedians are too slow, they can always request a previously uninvolved administrator to look in. And, if I am not mistaken, this is what the administrator′s guidebook suggests. Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, everyone should try to remain cool. But when User B essentially goads Administrator A into such action with a massive WP:IDHT campaign into order to declare "you're involved, now go away", that's just not gonna fly. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I am not emotionally involved, I have changed the positive idea I have about most editors (AGF) to a neutral one for you (ANF, not ABF), and look at your edits and pages from a policy point of view, without bothering to look for your cooperation in cleaning up the mess. If you do cooperate, no problem, if you don't, no problem either. I don't care about how you feel one way or the other, I care about getting BLP violations off Wikipedia. But it seems that some people are more concerned about their relations with other editors than with maintaining our policies. This is a worrying trend. Fram (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fram, you have asserted, elsewhere, that I have asserted you are acting in bad faith. On the contrary, I accept, at face value, that you honestly think that all your recent activities are consistent with your obligations as a wikipedian and an administrator. But let's do a reality check. Please consider the timing of your comment of your comments and your actions. You deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges two minutes after you wrote, "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation."
        
        I am going to repeat this: You deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges two minutes after you wrote, "Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation."
        
        I accept, at face value, that you don't understand how this frankly stunning comment, followed two minutes later by this deletion, gives the appearance not of neutrality but of an act triggered by strong emotion.
        
        User:Tarc, who seems to be in writing to support your right to react emotionally, when you feel provoked, seems to be suggesting that I provoked you, brought on your emotional reaction, by "goading" you. I believe what the record shows however is that
        You suggested, on November 2nd, that I consider requesting the deletion of 13 userspace pages. Please note, your suggestion did not offer a single reason why I should request deletion of these pages.
        
        Over the next day or so I looked at all 13 of those pages, and considered your suggestion. I do my best to take my time and consider every good faith question or concern voiced about my contribution on its merits, and offer a civil, meaningful reply.
        
        For three or four of those pages, after having them drawn to my attention, I agreed that requesting deletion was in order, and I did request deletion.
        
        I honestly couldn't see which policy, guideline or convention other pages lapsed from. I left what I believe were civil and responsible notes at the top of those pages, stating that unstated concerns had been expressed about the page, that the nature of the concern wasn't apparent to me, and I was going to ask the concerned wikipedian (ie you) for a fuller explanation. I started a table, summarizing my thinking about each of these pages.
        
        You read my summary, and it triggered what I continue to regard as a highly uncollegial reply, followed almost immediately by a deletion that continues to seem to me to be triggered by anger -- seriously misplaced and inappropriate anger.
        
        So, contrary to any suggestions you or Tarc have made, I wasn't willfully defying a properly issued directive from someone exercising administrator authority, as deputized to them by the community, as per a wikipedia, policy, guideline or convention. First, in your suggestion of November 2nd you did not identify yourself as a wikipedia administrator. Second, you did not state or hint that although your suggestion was phrased as a suggestion, I should regard it as carrying the weight of a directive from a wikipedia administrator. Third you provided no explanation as to the nature of your concern over those pages.
        I think ordinary wikipedians are entitled to know when a comment is not just a comment from a fellow wikipedian, but when they should recognize it as carrying the weight of a wikipedia administrator.
        I think that if a wikipedia administrator directs an ordinary contributor to do something, like request deletion of an article, image, or userspace page, the ordinary contributor is entitled to be informed of what policy, guideline or convention justifies that directive. This is not just common courtesy, this is essential for the wikipedia to function properly. No good faith contributor wants to be unknowingly repeat good faith mistakes, that are nevertheless mistakes. If, for the sake of argument, I am making a series of good faith mistakes, I think the entire community is entitled to admonish the administrator who notices an instance of a good faith contributor making a good faith mistake, who can't be bothered to explain why they think it is a mistake. That administrator is not just wasting the time of the good faith contributor. The good faith contributor's time is likely to be wasted through making the same mistake in future. And the time of other good faith contributors, who notice those future mistakes..
        So, please don't state or imply that I was acting in bad faith, or ignoring a properly formed and exlained directive from an adminstrator when you neither identified yourself or explained yourself in your suggestion.
        Fram, I have written this in other recent discussions, I believe you are using an interpretation of our policies, particularly of WP:User pages, that is not supported by what WP:User pages actually says. As I have written before, when someone raises a policy based concern over an actual article, a policy concern that is generally recognized as valid, we keep that article if that policy concern is adequately addressed. Even if the concern had been unaddressed for so long that the concern wikipedian nominates the article for deletion, we keep the article if the community decides the concern has been addressed. A significant fraction of {{afd}}s include comments like: "I would have voiced a delete for the version of this article, at nomination, but since it has been fixed, I voice a keep." Or "I voiced a delete opinion initially, but, given the new references/reformatting since then, I am striking that and changing to a keep.". You seem to be saying that any userspace page I started, that had a version that you thought was deletable, should be deleted, even if your deletion justification was no longer valid. WP:User pages says contributors have traditionally been granted considerable leeway in userspace. So why would you apply a higher standard to those pages than we require in article space?
        The main defense you have offered of your deletion is that the page was unsourced. However I think you and I both know that the version you deleted on November 4th was sourced. In the interests of honest, open and transparent decision making, I request you acknowledge this was inaccurate and that the version you deleted was sourced.
        Would you have been authorized to delete, on sight, the version of November 2nd, on the grounds it was unsourced? I dunno. Maybe. I am willing to accept that this is an interpretation of our policies that some administrators would endorse. However, I think just about any administrator who had deleted the page, on the basis of it being unsourced, would have restored it immediately once they were provided a URL to one of the WP:RS that contained the source. For this reason alone I strongly suspect most administrators would skip the drama of deleting a page, on the basis of it being unsourced, when it seemed very likely the missing source was a good faith mistake, easily correctable after a very brief web search.
        You have also claimed that both the version of November 2nd, and the version of November 4th, did not comply with BLP, because they repeated charges against Abdul Zahir. Well, with regard to the version of November 2nd -- could we not quote from Abdul Zahir's charge sheet, in article space? I know there are some who interpret BLP in an extreme way, and assert we should never repeat allegations that haven't been proven in a court of law. Following that interpretation our article on OJ Simpson couldn't say he was suspected of murdering his wife and her friend. Our article on Richard Jewell couldn't say he was suspected of planting the bomb he found. Now, maybe I am mistaken, but if we can quote something in article space, good faith contributors should be able to quote from it in userspace.
        With regard to the version of November 4th, which was basically a list of about four dozen phrases from the charge sheet -- your representation of that list of phrases as "charges" shows bias, on your part. That list also included, Military Order of November 13, 2001, Kart-E-Parwan Province, U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Bagram Air Base, Gardez Air Base. These clearly aren't charges. Lots of US journalists, diplomats, aid workers and GIs have visited Karti Parwan, and the airbases and embassy. Wikilinks that tied those Americans to those locations aren't charges.
        The list also included the names of about two dozen individuals. Those names aren't charges either. I am pretty familiar with who US intelligence considers an enemy, yet I recognized just three of those names -- Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and Abdul Hadi al Iraqi. If you check the "what links here" for OBL you will see that being tied by a wikilink to a terrorist does not make one a terrorist. The first three individuals I see when I click on OBL's "what links here" are OBL's main enemy in Afghanistan, a US President, who is also an enemy, and a US Congressman. Wikilink are not charges. Readers may wonder why an article or page links somewhere. Readers may follow a link, may read the page or article at the other end of that link. And that may lead them to conclude the information on the other end of the link suggests two individuals were allies -- or enemies.
        You have suggested that the name, itself, of this page is a BLP violation, because it includes the word "charges". Please, renaming pages is trivial. I suggest that a concern so easily addressed should never be offered as a justification for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tarc, my counsel is not based on the mere existence of administrative actions, but their lack of objective reasonableness. Anyone can make a call in an area and not be involved. That Fram did so, has heard other people tell him he overreacted, and continues to maintain his correctness indicates that he should not personally exercise administrative powers in future, similar situations. Good faith, in this case, is not incompatible with poor judgment. When in doubt, an admin receiving such a message should feel free to continue monitoring things, but notify another admin--any other admin--and give them the rationale for the desired administrative action, such that the second admin acts as a sanity check. Fram, please feel free to consult me for such a sanity check in the future. Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        One must also consider the source of said counsel, and how much weight to give it. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the deletion -- echoing the reasons given by Jclemens. Writing as someone who's frequently disagreed with GeoSwan, I'll say that he's the last person I would ever accuse of doing an attack page. This is really a case of someone getting all his ducks in a row before putting something in an article. I'm astounded that it could be deleted without a second thought. -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G10 is for attack pages and negative unsourced BLPs. How hard is that to understand? I have deleted User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim for the exact same reason. I hope that such pages would make you reconsider your opinion of Geo Swan, as he is well capable of letting unsourced negative BLPs lay around for years in his userspace. Fram (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've seriously deleted another page out of Geo Swan's userspace while this DRV is still in progress? I'm not convinced that was the wisest of moves.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, more than one. I've always reported them to Geo Swan on his talk page. Apart from not being happy that I did the deletion, can you find any fault in that (or the other) speedy deletions I did last week? Perhaps it is time that someone indicated to Geo Swan that instead of attacking the messenger, he should go through his user space and remove all potential BLP problems himself. If he doesn't clean up his mess, someone else has to do it, and no one has volunteered so far. Fram (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTANARCHY + WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND + WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY + WP:IDHT. -- IQinn (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives – I have emailed Geo Swan the portions of his user page which were not an exact copy of bits of the study. I do not comment on whether or not the page was in fact a copyright violation, but regardless there is no reason he cannot use the study itself rather than the wiki-code for his own purposes. – lifebaka++ 01:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) This user page was deleted as a lapse from WP:COPYVIO. I would appreciate being emailed me the source of this subpage. I thought I had explicitly requested the administrator in question to email me the source of this subpage. It appears however that, since they had explicitly flatly refused to email me any source to any material I contributed that they deleted, in my reply to their note about this deletion I did not explicitly request that source. FWIW they repeated their general unwillingness to email me any deleted material the day before, and in their reply to my reply, and in several other comments in the time since then. I am a good faith contributor, I believe I am entitled to the assumption of good faith. No good faith contributor wants to unknowingly repeat mistakes. I suggest that even if the deleting administrator is POSITIVE material they deleted violated a policy like WP:COPYVIO, they should still comply with a good faith request to email the deleted material to a good faith contributor. I think even if multiple administrators reviewed the deleted material, and they were all positive it violated a policy the material should still be emailed to the good faith contributor who initially contributed it. I think withholding that email from a good faith contributor is a serious mistake. If the material OBVIOUSLY violated a policy it may be that seeing the offending material is all the good faith contributor will need to (1) see the error of their ways in this particular instance; (2) remind them of other instances where they unknowingly made similar mistakes. Alternately, even the most mature, knowledgeable and experienced administrator is going to make the occasional good faith mistake themselves. If I understand the deleting administrator′s position of this list, as per Fiest v. Rural, copying the Brookings Institute list of facts about released captives does not violate anyone′s intellectual property rights, as lists of facts aren′t copyrightable. If I understand the deleting administrator′s position they say I carried into User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives certain footnotes and that some of those footnotes, passed the bar for de minimus. I like to think of myself as careful. I′d like to think I am generally careful enough that I wouldn′t make that kind of mistake. I know I am capable of error. I think it is reasonable for me to see what I uploaded for myself, to see how much I lapsed. I use the pages I create in user-space. If the only problem with this material is some footnotes, maybe I can trim those footnotes and use the uncopyrightable remainder somewhere. Alternately, maybe it wouldn′t be worth the effort. I′d like to see for myself. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The source is [65], as indicated in the deletion summary, which you see when you go to the redlink. The problem is not with "some footnotes", and I don't know where you got that idea. I also did not claim that I would not send you any deleted material, I refused to send you any material deleted for WP:BLP or copyright violations. You didn't conrtibute this page, you copied it from the source given, contents and layout. I clearly explained on your talk page the problem with that page, "Your page was a pure, direct and very blatant copy of that list, including all the comments they added," and gave a clear example of such a comment. It isn't hard to follow the link to the pdf and to note that the example text comes verbatim from page 89 of the pdf, while the full 52,000 bytes were a copy with the exact same layout, sections, section headers, etcetera from page 69 to 90 of this study. I also don't believe that any study which draws conclusions, i.e. not only reports facts, is copyrightfree contentwise, even ignoring the copies of remarks, layout, ... Fram (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the deletion log points to [66]. This deletion log is of no use to a good faith contributor, like myself, who would like to see for themselves how their challenger thinks they lapsed from policy. You write above that User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives copied from pages 69 to 90 of the document. Well, pages 69 to 84 of the document are, I suggest, a mere collation. On those pages I suggest there is not a single passage that passes de minimus, and is copyrightable. You write “I also don't believe that any study which draws conclusions, i.e. not only reports facts, is copyrightfree contentwise, even ignoring the copies of remarks, layout...” A document can contain portions that are copyrightable and portions that are not copyrightable. If a document included a PD image, that image would remain PD. If a document contained passages from the Declaration of Independence, of the NYC phone book, those passages would remain uncopyrightable. De minimus is a low bar. Should I have included pages 85 to 90... In addition to collating in the titles of other documents the final column of those entries adds phrases, like “ISN and nationality match. Imperfect name match”. It uses half a dozen phrases like that. For my purposes one of the most useful parts of those lists is the collation of the captives names with the title of their habeas corpus. Those half dozen, or dozen phrases could all be excised, or replaced with “matches partially” and the list would be just as useful for my purposes. As I wrote above I am concerned over how you interpret WP:User pages. As I wrote in the DRV above this one, WP:User pages, says, several times, that contributors are allowed greater leeway in userspace than in article space. But you seem intent on requiring the userspace pages I use to measure up to a higher standard than we require in article space. When articles are nominated for deletion, and any real policy lapses that triggered the nomination are addressed, the article is kept. However, you seem to be arguing that any userspace material I contributed that triggered your concern has to be deleted, it cannot be fixed. If, for the sake of argument, those half dozen or dozen phrases, rose to de minibus, excising them, or replacing them with “matches partially”, would make the page compliant. Geo Swan (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:User pages allows greater leeway, but not with regards to copyright policy or BLP policy, which apples equally to all namespaces. Apart from that, a table which has a column "basis for conclusion", and sections like "LIMITED DOCUMENTATION – TENTATIVE CONCLUSION" can not be considered a list of hard, uncopyrightable facts, but a study, an interpretation of facts, an opinion of the authors based on reading sources. Changing some words, removing some comments, ... won't help here. Fram (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I initially requested someone email me the source of this userspace page. I am not going to change my request now, even though I think the deleting admin′s deletion justification contains multiple flaws. Yes, I would welcome informed opinions on the deleting admin′s concerns, but I am sticking with my initial request. Geo Swan (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If it's a copyvio, emailing it to you is also a copyvio. (I am not expressing an opinion on whether or not it is, in fact, a copyvio, just commenting.) Stifle (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (speedy close) - Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTANARCHY + WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND + WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. -- IQinn (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives – I have emailed Geo Swan the portions of his user page which were not an exact copy of bits of the study. I do not comment on whether or not the page was in fact a copyright violation, but regardless there is no reason he cannot use the study itself rather than the wiki-code for his own purposes. – lifebaka++ 01:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This user page was deleted as a lapse from WP:COPYVIO. I would appreciate being emailed me the source of this subpage. I thought I had explicitly requested the administrator in question to email me the source of this subpage. It appears however that, since they had explicitly flatly refused to email me any source to any material I contributed that they deleted, in my reply to their note about this deletion I did not explicitly request that source. FWIW they repeated their general unwillingness to email me any deleted material the day before, and in their reply to my reply, and in several other comments in the time since then.

I am a good faith contributor, I believe I am entitled to the assumption of good faith.

No good faith contributor wants to unknowingly repeat mistakes. I suggest that even if the deleting administrator is POSITIVE material they deleted violated a policy like WP:COPYVIO, they should still comply with a good faith request to email the deleted material to a good faith contributor. I think even if multiple administrators reviewed the deleted material, and they were all positive it violated a policy the material should still be emailed to the good faith contributor who initially contributed it. I think withholding that email from a good faith contributor is a serious mistake. If the material OBVIOUSLY violated a policy it may be that seeing the offending material is all the good faith contributor will need to (1) see the error of their ways in this particular instance; (2) remind them of other instances where they unknowingly made similar mistakes.

Alternately, even the most mature, knowledgeable and experienced administrator is going to make the occasional good faith mistake themselves.

If I understand the deleting administrator′s position of this list, as per Fiest v. Rural, copying the Brookings Institute list of facts about released captives does not violate anyone′s intellectual property rights, as lists of facts aren′t copyrightable. If I understand the deleting administrator′s position they say I carried into User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives certain footnotes and that some of those footnotes, passed the bar for de minimus. I like to think of myself as careful. I′d like to think I am generally careful enough that I wouldn′t make that kind of mistake. I know I am capable of error. I think it is reasonable for me to see what I uploaded for myself, to see how much I lapsed.

I use the pages I create in user-space. If the only problem with this material is some footnotes, maybe I can trim those footnotes and use the uncopyrightable remainder somewhere. Alternately, maybe it wouldn′t be worth the effort. I′d like to see for myself. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is [65], as indicated in the deletion summary, which you see when you go to the redlink. The problem is not with "some footnotes", and I don't know where you got that idea. I also did not claim that I would not send you any deleted material, I refused to send you any material deleted for WP:BLP or copyright violations. You didn't conrtibute this page, you copied it from the source given, contents and layout. I clearly explained on your talk page the problem with that page, "Your page was a pure, direct and very blatant copy of that list, including all the comments they added," and gave a clear example of such a comment. It isn't hard to follow the link to the pdf and to note that the example text comes verbatim from page 89 of the pdf, while the full 52,000 bytes were a copy with the exact same layout, sections, section headers, etcetera from page 69 to 90 of this study. I also don't believe that any study which draws conclusions, i.e. not only reports facts, is copyrightfree contentwise, even ignoring the copies of remarks, layout, ... Fram (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the deletion log points to [66]. This deletion log is of no use to a good faith contributor, like myself, who would like to see for themselves how their challenger thinks they lapsed from policy. You write above that User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives copied from pages 69 to 90 of the document. Well, pages 69 to 84 of the document are, I suggest, a mere collation. On those pages I suggest there is not a single passage that passes de minimus, and is copyrightable.
You write “I also don't believe that any study which draws conclusions, i.e. not only reports facts, is copyrightfree contentwise, even ignoring the copies of remarks, layout...” A document can contain portions that are copyrightable and portions that are not copyrightable. If a document included a PD image, that image would remain PD. If a document contained passages from the Declaration of Independence, of the NYC phone book, those passages would remain uncopyrightable.
De minimus is a low bar. Should I have included pages 85 to 90... In addition to collating in the titles of other documents the final column of those entries adds phrases, like “ISN and nationality match. Imperfect name match”. It uses half a dozen phrases like that. For my purposes one of the most useful parts of those lists is the collation of the captives names with the title of their habeas corpus. Those half dozen, or dozen phrases could all be excised, or replaced with “matches partially” and the list would be just as useful for my purposes.
As I wrote above I am concerned over how you interpret WP:User pages. As I wrote in the DRV above this one, WP:User pages, says, several times, that contributors are allowed greater leeway in userspace than in article space. But you seem intent on requiring the userspace pages I use to measure up to a higher standard than we require in article space. When articles are nominated for deletion, and any real policy lapses that triggered the nomination are addressed, the article is kept. However, you seem to be arguing that any userspace material I contributed that triggered your concern has to be deleted, it cannot be fixed.
If, for the sake of argument, those half dozen or dozen phrases, rose to de minibus, excising them, or replacing them with “matches partially”, would make the page compliant. Geo Swan (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:User pages allows greater leeway, but not with regards to copyright policy or BLP policy, which apples equally to all namespaces. Apart from that, a table which has a column "basis for conclusion", and sections like "LIMITED DOCUMENTATION – TENTATIVE CONCLUSION" can not be considered a list of hard, uncopyrightable facts, but a study, an interpretation of facts, an opinion of the authors based on reading sources. Changing some words, removing some comments, ... won't help here. Fram (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initially requested someone email me the source of this userspace page. I am not going to change my request now, even though I think the deleting admin′s deletion justification contains multiple flaws. Yes, I would welcome informed opinions on the deleting admin′s concerns, but I am sticking with my initial request. Geo Swan (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a copyvio, emailing it to you is also a copyvio. (I am not expressing an opinion on whether or not it is, in fact, a copyvio, just commenting.) Stifle (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (speedy close) - Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTANARCHY + WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND + WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. -- IQinn (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

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

7 November 2010

[edit]

Prince François, Count of Clermont – Withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding arguments to overturn. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Prince François, Count of Clermont (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I was clearly in the minority with my opinion that the subject of this article is not notable, my opinion has not changed but I respect consensus. However, with this case we are left with an unreferenced WP:BLP. Sources were brought up in the deletion discussion but not added to the article because they are behind a paywall. Alternatives to deletion including a redirect, userfication, and incubation were suggested until the article is properly sourced. I requested the closing admin to reconsider his decision but our opinions differ. Thank you. —J04n(talk page) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Or you can just link to the paywalled sources, and have people presented with a login screen, assuming people can actually substantiate what the paywalled content says. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I can't link to an article that I can't read, the editor merely said that sources are "out there", there is no indication that they were read. —J04n(talk page) 01:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. No serious BLP concerns (assuming "mentally disabled from congenital toxoplasmosis" is in sources and unchallenged). A pretender to the throne of a major nation is not a private person. Sources clearly demonstrated to exist. Free content, not free sources, is our requirement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's easy to source this article. Start with ISBN 2913211003 and ISBN 226201583X.—S Marshall T/C 02:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The article already contains details of four substantial sources and so the complaint above is counterfactual and there is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Consensus at AfD was for retention and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources to back the claim. In our Internet age we always love to have sources that can be verified by clicking on a link, but some sources, such as books and subscription-based websites, may require a bit more effort to verify while still being verifiable. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw, feel free to close this, clearly I missed the boat. Thank you all for looking it over and giving your opinions. —J04n(talk page) 19:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Prince François, Count of Clermont – Withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding arguments to overturn. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I was clearly in the minority with my opinion that the subject of this article is not notable, my opinion has not changed but I respect consensus. However, with this case we are left with an unreferenced WP:BLP. Sources were brought up in the deletion discussion but not added to the article because they are behind a paywall. Alternatives to deletion including a redirect, userfication, and incubation were suggested until the article is properly sourced. I requested the closing admin to reconsider his decision but our opinions differ. Thank you. —J04n(talk page) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can just link to the paywalled sources, and have people presented with a login screen, assuming people can actually substantiate what the paywalled content says. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't link to an article that I can't read, the editor merely said that sources are "out there", there is no indication that they were read. —J04n(talk page) 01:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. No serious BLP concerns (assuming "mentally disabled from congenital toxoplasmosis" is in sources and unchallenged). A pretender to the throne of a major nation is not a private person. Sources clearly demonstrated to exist. Free content, not free sources, is our requirement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to source this article. Start with ISBN 2913211003 and ISBN 226201583X.—S Marshall T/C 02:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article already contains details of four substantial sources and so the complaint above is counterfactual and there is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus at AfD was for retention and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources to back the claim. In our Internet age we always love to have sources that can be verified by clicking on a link, but some sources, such as books and subscription-based websites, may require a bit more effort to verify while still being verifiable. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, feel free to close this, clearly I missed the boat. Thank you all for looking it over and giving your opinions. —J04n(talk page) 19:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 November 2010

[edit]

5 November 2010

[edit]

Goldsea – Userfied to User:S Marshall/Goldsea. – T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Goldsea (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Applying the G4 Criterion for speedy deletion was improper in this case because this entry was substantially different and addressed the concerns cited in the original deletion decision. An older version of the article, which I did not write, was deleted in 2009, apparently due to objections over its lack of supporting references or notability and some vague objections to its tone. On October 28 I posted another Article under the title Goldsea. It was written painstakingly to avoid tonal controversies. It contained 31 references that supported every one of the material statements int he article. was improved upon by several others as well as myself. Today, it was deleted without warning on the ground that that the original had been deleted following discussion. In short, there was no opportunity for anyone to review the deletion decision on what is essentially a completely different article. This is particularly troubling in light of the thousands of Wikipedia articles are stubs that are not supported at all by outside references and are not written with nearly as much care, skill and useful information. For example, even within the category of Asian American Media, articles like Asianave, Asianweek, Little India, Koream Journal, Asianave fall far short of the standards used in writing the Goldsea entry. Given that Goldsea is the longest running professionally written Asian American website, and given that it was founded by the publisher of the first national magazine for Asian Americans, I believe it easily meets the notability criterion. Therefore, I believe the article merits review by some objective editors who have not been involved in this process. And if the deletion decision stands, it should be supported not only by clear rationale, but some clear standard as to in what form it can be resurrected. AA Patrol (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC) AA Patrol (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The article contained 31 "references". 29 of these were to Goldsea's own web site, and the other tow were links to web pages which do not even mention Goldsea. Thus the article gave no independent sources at all, and did not address the reasons for deletion. As for "there was no opportunity for anyone to review the deletion decision", a message was posted to AA Patrol's user page at 11:41, 7 August 2009 drawing attention to the earlier deletion discussion when the same user had reposted the article before. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion per JamesBWatson. The original reason for deletion was no objective coverage in independant reliable sources. This version does nothing to address that. I count the same 29 to Goldsea itself, two to support other facts but make no mention of Goldsea. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore Google News shows three of the most important news sources for the area (Asian Week, Malaysia Star, China Post)refer to its awards as being significant. [67].I think this sort of reference shows notability, but if people disagree, then it still deserves a full AfD discussion. Such questions are for AfD , not here--we are not afd2. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] And the article didn't introduce any of those. Most were avaialble at the time of the original AFD, so those checking sources then presumably already did discount them. Indeed those opining delete refer to having done such. So the day at AFD to look to that has already been and gone. If the article had been rewritten to include better independant sourcing, it would have overcome the reasons for the original deletion and the CSD wouldn't have applied and we wouldn't be here. Of course an endorsement of the CSD here doesn't prohibit recreation as an article which actually does address the original reason for deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Let's not get too tied up in the bureaucracy at this stage. The nominator asks reasonable questions that we can easily answer. Let's start with that. I think the most important question is for "some clear standard as to in what form it can be resurrected." When the nominator has got as far as this page without anyone having the decency to tell him that, it's pretty clear evidence that our procedures have failed. The other important question boils down to "why delete my article when there are others similar ones that weren't deleted?" I'm off out to Guy Fawkes Night celebrations now, so I don't have time, but I will answer those questions when I come back, if nobody else has in the meantime.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay, the way to write an article that Wikipedians will approve of is to start by writing a list of reliable sources. These sources must (a) be independent of the subject, (b) have a reputation for fact-checking, and (c) cover the subject in reasonable depth. (If there aren't any sources that meet those criteria, then you basically can't write about that subject on Wikipedia until a reliable source does write about it.) The preferred sources are academic publications, textbooks, other encyclopaedias, or reputable news agencies such as the BBC, and what those sources say should be given the greatest weight. Then you read what the sources say, and then summarise it in your own words. Don't breach copyright in the process. For each fact that is challenged, or might be challenged, provide an inline citation to a reliable source. If you're have any technical difficulties with issues like formatting the citations, put {{helpme}} on your talkpage and someone will come and help you. I think what you may have fallen foul of, with this version of the article, is the tendency of experienced Wikipedians to skip over the article's content and evaluate its sources first. (We do that because it's a fast, heuristic way of spotting material with potential issues.) In this case the sources weren't independent and Wikipedians objected. The other point, about why delete this article when others with similar issues have not yet been deleted, is an entirely fair one. You (quite reasonably) expect Wikipedia to be consistent, and our processes are moderately consistent, but we don't try to deal with every single article all at the same time--that would be impossible. We have to deal with them one by one, in the order that people raise them. In other words, if another article that only differed in the name of the site was brought through the AfD and DRV process, it would likely be treated in the same way, but not all articles have been through that yet, and there may well be quite a few older ones that have yet to be brought to our attention. Making sure all our older articles comply with our current rules is a herculean task, particularly when we have processes designed to ensure that everyone has their say about what should be done! What that means is that while we are reasonably consistent, there's such a huge backlog that in terms of content decisions, we can often appear to be totally inconsistent. I'm sorry about that and I assure you that we have absolutely no wish to be unfair to anyone. In the circumstances, I'm personally willing to help you resurrect (as you put it) this article. If you'd like me to help, please place a list of the independent, reliable sources you've found here on this page. You'll find that if the sources are satisfactory, then everything else related to deletion on Wikipedia can be overcome.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] First, I'd like to thank the editors DGG and S Marshall for taking the time to address this in a way that suggests that there are fair-minded, caring minds behind Wikipedia's policies. I was feeling a bit beleagured by the swiftness with which my efforts had been rendered meaningless. I have to admit that there are no readily available major news stories about Goldsea, which is why I used the NY Times and LA times articles to lay the historical foundation about Kagy and his groundbreaking magazines, then linked his mission to the Goldsea site via the Goldsea 4-Part piece on Asian American Media History. I felt that Kagy's notability as a publisher, combined with the sheer number of cites that Goldsea has garnered on Wikipedia itself, not to mention other media stories, was sufficient to establish notability. However, I will try to come up with some mentions of Goldsea's Most Inspiring Asian Americans in articles of reputable news media like the ones cited by DGG. AA Patrol (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy of a non-offensive article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Userfy for User:S Marshall or incubate in preference to immediate listing is acceptable or preferable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per the editors' suggestions, to show a few of the countless times Goldsea is cited as a reference in a wide variety of articles in media of all types, from newspapers to marketing trade journals to personality profiles, here are some examples I've garnered from an hour of browsing Google. I hope this is not too cumbersome, but it's the easiest way for me to show a sampling of the type of cites and the variety of media and subject areas for which Goldsea has been cited over the years: Article on H Mart Shopping Center: "In an article on Asian shopping centers, the Asian-American online newspaper GoldSea.com said H Mart is "the place you take non-Asian friends when you want to impress them with just how modern and sophisticated Asians are."" http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/06/large_korean_grocery_coming/ Article on Branson Country Music Performer Shoji Tabuchi: "Tabuchi's unusual-for-country-music ethnicity, he felt, actually worked to his advantage. "Say person A and person B play just as good," he told an interviewer from the Goldsea Asian American Profiles website. "Who stands out, me or him?"" http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3443600070.html Article on Hong Kong Pop Star Leehom Wang: "For this occasion, World Vision Taiwan recently invited acclaimed singer Wang Leehom — one of the most inspiring Asian Americans of all time according to the Goldsea Asian American Daily, and a longtime ambassador for the charity — to visit the Republic of Sierra Leone in West Africa and witness the improvement Taiwan's help had brought to people's livelihoods there." http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/int%27l--community/2009/06/07/211236/Wang-Leehom.htm Article on Hong Kong Pop Star Leehom Wang: "Wang Leehom was one of the first torchbearers for the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics, and performed in the Olympics' closing ceremony in Beijing. Wang Leehom was listed among "The 100 Most Inspiring Asian Americans of All Time" by Goldsea Asian American Daily." http://www.suzhou-expat.com/news-mainmenu-87/272-2010-music-man-tour-in-changshu.html Article on Actor B.D. Wong: "Awards: “100 Most Inspiring Asian Americans of All Time” Goldsea Asian American Daily; 2003", http://www.asianweek.com/2009/05/06/chinese-american-hero-bradley-darryl-wong/ I am having trouble saving all the entries. It keeps cutting me off. I will try adding the rest in a separate save. AA Patrol (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Without burdening this page too much more, here are a few more examples of Goldsea being cited by other media: Goldsea listed as one of the expert multicultural media resources. http://multiculturalmarketingresources.com/expertsshowcase.html Article on Asian American Women in Business: "The Goldsea site is devoted to inspiring stories of attaining your dreams and ways to protect your business, and lists influential people as well as Asian heroes." http://www.asianamericanalliance.com/Asian-Women-in-the-Business-World.html Article on Silicon Valley Businesses: "America's 100 Top Asian Entrepreneurs The GoldSea 100 annually honors the most successful Asian American entrepreneurs. It now includes six billionaires, including a 32-year-old who also happens to be the youngest entrepreneur ever to make the top 10." http://entrepreneurs.about.com/od/famousentrepreneur/ Article on an Advertising Campaign by Ford: "To reach China, Korea and Vietnam, Ford is also buying ad takeovers of sina.com and goldsea.com and has purchased air time on Asian TV networks." http://www.adotas.com/2006/12/ford-unleashing-major-cross-media-ad-blitz/ Listing of Asian American Media "Goldsea: Asian American Supersite Large full-featured magazine. See especially Media Watch: Monitoring Asian progress in American mass media" http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/GenderMedia/asian.html Discussion on a Japan Today Magazine site Forum: "I don't think it really matters how the world spells it as most of them are now used to Korea. However, if the country does change it officially to Corea, I think the world would follow. Some links: www.geocities.com/neue_strassenbahn/corea.html www.medeasin.com/coreaspelling.htm goldsea.com/Air/Issues/Corea/corea.html" http://forum.japantoday.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=907175 AA Patrol (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and send to AfD. G4 not appropriate for article not substantially identical to previously deleted article. ^Bongo_matic 05:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, please don't send it to AfD in its current state. Please userfy it to me instead, for the moment; I don't want to see it put into the mainspace til it's got inline references to independent, reliable sources. I'll collaborate with AA Patrol on a bit of a rewrite and then move it directly into the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Userfy should be fine here. With some evidence of decent sourcing available, this has potential for future improvement but isn't mainspace ready yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, userfy, and close Probably not a good G4. Probably not worth sending to AfD at this point. Let the experienced editor fix it. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Goldsea – Userfied to User:S Marshall/Goldsea. – T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Applying the G4 Criterion for speedy deletion was improper in this case because this entry was substantially different and addressed the concerns cited in the original deletion decision.

An older version of the article, which I did not write, was deleted in 2009, apparently due to objections over its lack of supporting references or notability and some vague objections to its tone.

On October 28 I posted another Article under the title Goldsea. It was written painstakingly to avoid tonal controversies. It contained 31 references that supported every one of the material statements int he article. was improved upon by several others as well as myself. Today, it was deleted without warning on the ground that that the original had been deleted following discussion.

In short, there was no opportunity for anyone to review the deletion decision on what is essentially a completely different article.

This is particularly troubling in light of the thousands of Wikipedia articles are stubs that are not supported at all by outside references and are not written with nearly as much care, skill and useful information. For example, even within the category of Asian American Media, articles like Asianave, Asianweek, Little India, Koream Journal, Asianave fall far short of the standards used in writing the Goldsea entry.

Given that Goldsea is the longest running professionally written Asian American website, and given that it was founded by the publisher of the first national magazine for Asian Americans, I believe it easily meets the notability criterion. Therefore, I believe the article merits review by some objective editors who have not been involved in this process. And if the deletion decision stands, it should be supported not only by clear rationale, but some clear standard as to in what form it can be resurrected. AA Patrol (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC) AA Patrol (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article contained 31 "references". 29 of these were to Goldsea's own web site, and the other tow were links to web pages which do not even mention Goldsea. Thus the article gave no independent sources at all, and did not address the reasons for deletion. As for "there was no opportunity for anyone to review the deletion decision", a message was posted to AA Patrol's user page at 11:41, 7 August 2009 drawing attention to the earlier deletion discussion when the same user had reposted the article before. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per JamesBWatson. The original reason for deletion was no objective coverage in independant reliable sources. This version does nothing to address that. I count the same 29 to Goldsea itself, two to support other facts but make no mention of Goldsea. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Google News shows three of the most important news sources for the area (Asian Week, Malaysia Star, China Post)refer to its awards as being significant. [67].I think this sort of reference shows notability, but if people disagree, then it still deserves a full AfD discussion. Such questions are for AfD , not here--we are not afd2. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the article didn't introduce any of those. Most were avaialble at the time of the original AFD, so those checking sources then presumably already did discount them. Indeed those opining delete refer to having done such. So the day at AFD to look to that has already been and gone. If the article had been rewritten to include better independant sourcing, it would have overcome the reasons for the original deletion and the CSD wouldn't have applied and we wouldn't be here. Of course an endorsement of the CSD here doesn't prohibit recreation as an article which actually does address the original reason for deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get too tied up in the bureaucracy at this stage. The nominator asks reasonable questions that we can easily answer. Let's start with that.
I think the most important question is for "some clear standard as to in what form it can be resurrected." When the nominator has got as far as this page without anyone having the decency to tell him that, it's pretty clear evidence that our procedures have failed. The other important question boils down to "why delete my article when there are others similar ones that weren't deleted?"
I'm off out to Guy Fawkes Night celebrations now, so I don't have time, but I will answer those questions when I come back, if nobody else has in the meantime.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the way to write an article that Wikipedians will approve of is to start by writing a list of reliable sources. These sources must (a) be independent of the subject, (b) have a reputation for fact-checking, and (c) cover the subject in reasonable depth. (If there aren't any sources that meet those criteria, then you basically can't write about that subject on Wikipedia until a reliable source does write about it.) The preferred sources are academic publications, textbooks, other encyclopaedias, or reputable news agencies such as the BBC, and what those sources say should be given the greatest weight.
Then you read what the sources say, and then summarise it in your own words. Don't breach copyright in the process. For each fact that is challenged, or might be challenged, provide an inline citation to a reliable source. If you're have any technical difficulties with issues like formatting the citations, put {{helpme}} on your talkpage and someone will come and help you.
I think what you may have fallen foul of, with this version of the article, is the tendency of experienced Wikipedians to skip over the article's content and evaluate its sources first. (We do that because it's a fast, heuristic way of spotting material with potential issues.) In this case the sources weren't independent and Wikipedians objected.
The other point, about why delete this article when others with similar issues have not yet been deleted, is an entirely fair one. You (quite reasonably) expect Wikipedia to be consistent, and our processes are moderately consistent, but we don't try to deal with every single article all at the same time--that would be impossible. We have to deal with them one by one, in the order that people raise them.
In other words, if another article that only differed in the name of the site was brought through the AfD and DRV process, it would likely be treated in the same way, but not all articles have been through that yet, and there may well be quite a few older ones that have yet to be brought to our attention. Making sure all our older articles comply with our current rules is a herculean task, particularly when we have processes designed to ensure that everyone has their say about what should be done!
What that means is that while we are reasonably consistent, there's such a huge backlog that in terms of content decisions, we can often appear to be totally inconsistent. I'm sorry about that and I assure you that we have absolutely no wish to be unfair to anyone.
In the circumstances, I'm personally willing to help you resurrect (as you put it) this article. If you'd like me to help, please place a list of the independent, reliable sources you've found here on this page. You'll find that if the sources are satisfactory, then everything else related to deletion on Wikipedia can be overcome.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to thank the editors DGG and S Marshall for taking the time to address this in a way that suggests that there are fair-minded, caring minds behind Wikipedia's policies. I was feeling a bit beleagured by the swiftness with which my efforts had been rendered meaningless. I have to admit that there are no readily available major news stories about Goldsea, which is why I used the NY Times and LA times articles to lay the historical foundation about Kagy and his groundbreaking magazines, then linked his mission to the Goldsea site via the Goldsea 4-Part piece on Asian American Media History. I felt that Kagy's notability as a publisher, combined with the sheer number of cites that Goldsea has garnered on Wikipedia itself, not to mention other media stories, was sufficient to establish notability. However, I will try to come up with some mentions of Goldsea's Most Inspiring Asian Americans in articles of reputable news media like the ones cited by DGG. AA Patrol (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy of a non-offensive article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for User:S Marshall or incubate in preference to immediate listing is acceptable or preferable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the editors' suggestions, to show a few of the countless times Goldsea is cited as a reference in a wide variety of articles in media of all types, from newspapers to marketing trade journals to personality profiles, here are some examples I've garnered from an hour of browsing Google. I hope this is not too cumbersome, but it's the easiest way for me to show a sampling of the type of cites and the variety of media and subject areas for which Goldsea has been cited over the years:

Article on H Mart Shopping Center: "In an article on Asian shopping centers, the Asian-American online newspaper GoldSea.com said H Mart is "the place you take non-Asian friends when you want to impress them with just how modern and sophisticated Asians are."" http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/06/large_korean_grocery_coming/

Article on Branson Country Music Performer Shoji Tabuchi: "Tabuchi's unusual-for-country-music ethnicity, he felt, actually worked to his advantage. "Say person A and person B play just as good," he told an interviewer from the Goldsea Asian American Profiles website. "Who stands out, me or him?"" http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3443600070.html

Article on Hong Kong Pop Star Leehom Wang: "For this occasion, World Vision Taiwan recently invited acclaimed singer Wang Leehom — one of the most inspiring Asian Americans of all time according to the Goldsea Asian American Daily, and a longtime ambassador for the charity — to visit the Republic of Sierra Leone in West Africa and witness the improvement Taiwan's help had brought to people's livelihoods there." http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/int%27l--community/2009/06/07/211236/Wang-Leehom.htm

Article on Hong Kong Pop Star Leehom Wang: "Wang Leehom was one of the first torchbearers for the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics, and performed in the Olympics' closing ceremony in Beijing. Wang Leehom was listed among "The 100 Most Inspiring Asian Americans of All Time" by Goldsea Asian American Daily." http://www.suzhou-expat.com/news-mainmenu-87/272-2010-music-man-tour-in-changshu.html

Article on Actor B.D. Wong: "Awards: “100 Most Inspiring Asian Americans of All Time” Goldsea Asian American Daily; 2003", http://www.asianweek.com/2009/05/06/chinese-american-hero-bradley-darryl-wong/

I am having trouble saving all the entries. It keeps cutting me off. I will try adding the rest in a separate save. AA Patrol (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without burdening this page too much more, here are a few more examples of Goldsea being cited by other media:

Goldsea listed as one of the expert multicultural media resources. http://multiculturalmarketingresources.com/expertsshowcase.html

Article on Asian American Women in Business: "The Goldsea site is devoted to inspiring stories of attaining your dreams and ways to protect your business, and lists influential people as well as Asian heroes." http://www.asianamericanalliance.com/Asian-Women-in-the-Business-World.html

Article on Silicon Valley Businesses: "America's 100 Top Asian Entrepreneurs The GoldSea 100 annually honors the most successful Asian American entrepreneurs. It now includes six billionaires, including a 32-year-old who also happens to be the youngest entrepreneur ever to make the top 10." http://entrepreneurs.about.com/od/famousentrepreneur/

Article on an Advertising Campaign by Ford: "To reach China, Korea and Vietnam, Ford is also buying ad takeovers of sina.com and goldsea.com and has purchased air time on Asian TV networks." http://www.adotas.com/2006/12/ford-unleashing-major-cross-media-ad-blitz/

Listing of Asian American Media "Goldsea: Asian American Supersite Large full-featured magazine. See especially Media Watch: Monitoring Asian progress in American mass media" http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/GenderMedia/asian.html

Discussion on a Japan Today Magazine site Forum: "I don't think it really matters how the world spells it as most of them are now used to Korea. However, if the country does change it officially to Corea, I think the world would follow. Some links: www.geocities.com/neue_strassenbahn/corea.html www.medeasin.com/coreaspelling.htm goldsea.com/Air/Issues/Corea/corea.html" http://forum.japantoday.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=907175 AA Patrol (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AfD. G4 not appropriate for article not substantially identical to previously deleted article. ^Bongo_matic 05:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't send it to AfD in its current state. Please userfy it to me instead, for the moment; I don't want to see it put into the mainspace til it's got inline references to independent, reliable sources. I'll collaborate with AA Patrol on a bit of a rewrite and then move it directly into the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy should be fine here. With some evidence of decent sourcing available, this has potential for future improvement but isn't mainspace ready yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, userfy, and close Probably not a good G4. Probably not worth sending to AfD at this point. Let the experienced editor fix it. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

BUDDY SOCIETY – Restored and sent to AfD. – Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
BUDDY SOCIETY (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) This letter is intended to request the undeletion of the Buddy Society Wikipedia page. The page existed for several months documenting the Los Angeles based fashion label. On October 16th, 2010 new information was added to the page regarding the history of shows hosted by Buddy Society. This resulted in an immediate deletion. Prior to this addition, the page had been approved by an editor and was a part of Wikipedia. The request for undeletion is an effort towards the return of Buddy Society's Wikipedia page in it's former state, prior to the addition of new information that was considered to violate Wikipedia's regulations. The editor that deleted the page was contacted in search for a resolution for this issue. S/he declared that the original page contained adjectives that did not adhere to the the site's neutral point of view policy. These adjectives are not necessary to provide factual information on Buddy Society and can be omitted from the page without changing the content. The purpose of the page is to document information about the label that has been published in other sources, and the intention was never one of advertisement. Another reason the editor used for deletion was that the article linked to various pages documenting other artists. These links existed because they were previously requested by another editor who found the links necessary for the Buddy Society page to exist. These links, as well as the above mentioned adjectives, may or may not be a part of Buddy Society's page without affecting the information provided by it. Please review this deletion and provide any information you may have on how Buddy Society can be a part of Wikipedia once more. Thank you! Crystalroseluv (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Send to AfD--but i strongly advise trying to get some more references from good fashion news sources. I certainly would not have deleted it as G11, for it is somewhat descriptive, not "exclusively promotional," which is the speedy G11 criterion. (I interpret "exclusively" as meaning wholly and unambiguous purely promotional--and it's not that I am unwilling to use it--I've speedy-deleted many thousands of articles for failing this criterion--there is an appalling amount that does fall in the category. In practice, admins (including myself) tend to use G11 more liberally if the article also is about s subject that appears non-notable--this leads to a very wide variation in what does or does not get deleted as G11--it is necessary, but still is a dangerous criterion, but we've tried unsuccessfully for years to find some practical way of clarifying it. ( But the article is not about a A7 no claim to notability company, for celebrities wearing their work could be considered a plausible claim to notability, enough to require an AfD discussion, not the speedy. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Procedurally I should think this could reasonably be sent to AfD; as DGG rightly says, there are arguable procedural grounds on which the speedy might be contested. But let's not rush to do that, because I don't think the text of the cached article would survive the AfD, and I wouldn't imagine that the nominator would be satisfied by a seven-day process that leaves the situation exactly as it was. I think it would be better to userfy the material and ask the nominator to add reliable sources. When that's been done the nominator could come back to DRV with the improved article, and provided the article accurately reflected good sources, we would approve it for return to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy of a non-offensive article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as per all of the above; not unsalvageably promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is borderline; I would not have deleted this myself but don't feel that the decision to delete it was altogether unreasonable. Looking at the bigger picture, this article doesn't have a snowball's chance at AFD, so as S Marshall points out, at the end of the AFD we will be exactly where we are now, with nobody the better for it. So I'll ask whether the nominator supports userfication of the article and undertakes to improve it; if so I would userfy, and if not I would keep deleted. In the event that the article is undeleted, we should rename it so that it's not all-caps, as per standard naming conventions. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could an administrator restore the article only for purposes of the deletion review? The Google cache no longer remains. --Bsherr (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

BUDDY SOCIETY – Restored and sent to AfD. – Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This letter is intended to request the undeletion of the Buddy Society Wikipedia page. The page existed for several months documenting the Los Angeles based fashion label. On October 16th, 2010 new information was added to the page regarding the history of shows hosted by Buddy Society. This resulted in an immediate deletion. Prior to this addition, the page had been approved by an editor and was a part of Wikipedia. The request for undeletion is an effort towards the return of Buddy Society's Wikipedia page in it's former state, prior to the addition of new information that was considered to violate Wikipedia's regulations. The editor that deleted the page was contacted in search for a resolution for this issue. S/he declared that the original page contained adjectives that did not adhere to the the site's neutral point of view policy. These adjectives are not necessary to provide factual information on Buddy Society and can be omitted from the page without changing the content. The purpose of the page is to document information about the label that has been published in other sources, and the intention was never one of advertisement. Another reason the editor used for deletion was that the article linked to various pages documenting other artists. These links existed because they were previously requested by another editor who found the links necessary for the Buddy Society page to exist. These links, as well as the above mentioned adjectives, may or may not be a part of Buddy Society's page without affecting the information provided by it. Please review this deletion and provide any information you may have on how Buddy Society can be a part of Wikipedia once more. Thank you! Crystalroseluv (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send to AfD--but i strongly advise trying to get some more references from good fashion news sources. I certainly would not have deleted it as G11, for it is somewhat descriptive, not "exclusively promotional," which is the speedy G11 criterion. (I interpret "exclusively" as meaning wholly and unambiguous purely promotional--and it's not that I am unwilling to use it--I've speedy-deleted many thousands of articles for failing this criterion--there is an appalling amount that does fall in the category. In practice, admins (including myself) tend to use G11 more liberally if the article also is about s subject that appears non-notable--this leads to a very wide variation in what does or does not get deleted as G11--it is necessary, but still is a dangerous criterion, but we've tried unsuccessfully for years to find some practical way of clarifying it. ( But the article is not about a A7 no claim to notability company, for celebrities wearing their work could be considered a plausible claim to notability, enough to require an AfD discussion, not the speedy. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally I should think this could reasonably be sent to AfD; as DGG rightly says, there are arguable procedural grounds on which the speedy might be contested. But let's not rush to do that, because I don't think the text of the cached article would survive the AfD, and I wouldn't imagine that the nominator would be satisfied by a seven-day process that leaves the situation exactly as it was. I think it would be better to userfy the material and ask the nominator to add reliable sources. When that's been done the nominator could come back to DRV with the improved article, and provided the article accurately reflected good sources, we would approve it for return to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy of a non-offensive article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per all of the above; not unsalvageably promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is borderline; I would not have deleted this myself but don't feel that the decision to delete it was altogether unreasonable. Looking at the bigger picture, this article doesn't have a snowball's chance at AFD, so as S Marshall points out, at the end of the AFD we will be exactly where we are now, with nobody the better for it. So I'll ask whether the nominator supports userfication of the article and undertakes to improve it; if so I would userfy, and if not I would keep deleted. In the event that the article is undeleted, we should rename it so that it's not all-caps, as per standard naming conventions. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could an administrator restore the article only for purposes of the deletion review? The Google cache no longer remains. --Bsherr (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alexis Fields – Retain as userspace draft While improvements in the article since the previous DRV appear to be steps in the right direction, there is no support for restoring this article to mainspace at this time. On the other hand, there is also no indication that this userspace BLP draft is in any way problematic. Nominator is encouraged to keep looking for appropriate sources and to return when appropriate. – Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alexis Fields (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This my second time putting this article through deletion review, the last time dating back to September. Since then, I have found a number of magazine publications and added them in my userpsace for subject: User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields. Here are the following links: [68] [69] [70]. Proving that her acting career has received some coverage. If this fails notability, I truly give up on trying to have this subject overturned. Quasy Boy 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Question can you tell me which of the sources you've now listed provide the general notability guide level of non-trivial coverage. i.e. that address the subject directly, in detail, and aren't just passing mentions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted for now. Sorry, these are name-drops and a sentence or two, and really does not meet the WP:GNG which calls for "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To answer both your questions, yes the actress is strictly mentioned in short in the references I provided, but that is simply because she has never had an actual starring or co-starring role in a television series. But as far as her recurring roles go, she has done ample projects to warrant notability according to the first rule in WP:ENT. But I am sure if the actress had starring or co-starring role in a television series not a recurring role, her career would've gotten more coverage and we wouldn't be having this argument. Quasy Boy 16:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:ENT are secondary criteria and are meant to be indicative of those likely to meet the basic criteria, which is still requires non-trivial coverage. The whole point is to remove the subjective element from wikipedia editors to the world at large, do they believe that the person is of note. If so they will note them, by writing about them in such a way to demonstrate that. If they don't the chances are the world simply isn't interested in the detail of that person. This seems to be the case here. Ragarding what WP:ENT actually says is "Has had significant roles". i.e. it's not about having multiple recurring roles, it's about significant roles. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] So in other words rule 1 of WP:ENT does not apply to the subject at all, Simply because her recurring roles in notable television series do not count as significant roles. But let's also take into account the page was created more than five or so times, indicating her popularity obviously but that shall not pass because the subject was not profiled significantly in a independent reliable source. If that is the case, I rest my case once and for all. Quasy Boy 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In my view the significance of the roles will also be determined by what the world outside wikipedia considers, so much the same standard if they are writing about the person in that role in the reliable sources then chances are the role is significant. The amount of times it's attempted to be created in wikipedia is again not an indication, it only takes one person to try and create an article, and they are anonymous, we can't tell if they have some conflict of interest in creating the article. (Wikipedia has the rather contradictory camps with those desparate to get an article about themselves and seeing it as a huge positive, and those desparately trying to make sure they don't have an article.). However I suggest you look to the discussions, what other people say here etc. to get a broader set of views (there can be plenty of disagreement on wikipedia as to what/what doesn't warrant inclusion), also things change, the person can start getting broader coverage or wikipedia's expectations can shift. The only thing to be careful of is that there are some articles where we seem to have one or two editors waiting for one more passing mention to be made to jump up and recreate certain articles, hoping this will be the one which pushes it over the line, this activity is rarely constructive, despite the attempts to be objective in inclusion standards, such "desparation" is rarely seen as a good thing and increases the overall level of scruitiny, probably quite unfairly making it harder to get agreement on inclusion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry. Tarc is right. Passing mentions won't do. The subject has to be covered directly, at least little bit. "she has never had an actual starring or co-starring role in a television series" and "if the actress had starring or co-starring role in a television series not a recurring role, her career would've gotten more coverage and we wouldn't be having this argument" are clear statements countig against inclusion. The subject must already be demonstrated as notable using evidence from reliable sources. You are conceding that she isn't wikipedia-notable, but that she could've been, if only ... . --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alexis Fields – Retain as userspace draft While improvements in the article since the previous DRV appear to be steps in the right direction, there is no support for restoring this article to mainspace at this time. On the other hand, there is also no indication that this userspace BLP draft is in any way problematic. Nominator is encouraged to keep looking for appropriate sources and to return when appropriate. – Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This my second time putting this article through deletion review, the last time dating back to September. Since then, I have found a number of magazine publications and added them in my userpsace for subject: User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields. Here are the following links: [68] [69] [70]. Proving that her acting career has received some coverage. If this fails notability, I truly give up on trying to have this subject overturned. Quasy Boy 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question can you tell me which of the sources you've now listed provide the general notability guide level of non-trivial coverage. i.e. that address the subject directly, in detail, and aren't just passing mentions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now. Sorry, these are name-drops and a sentence or two, and really does not meet the WP:GNG which calls for "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer both your questions, yes the actress is strictly mentioned in short in the references I provided, but that is simply because she has never had an actual starring or co-starring role in a television series. But as far as her recurring roles go, she has done ample projects to warrant notability according to the first rule in WP:ENT. But I am sure if the actress had starring or co-starring role in a television series not a recurring role, her career would've gotten more coverage and we wouldn't be having this argument. Quasy Boy 16:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT are secondary criteria and are meant to be indicative of those likely to meet the basic criteria, which is still requires non-trivial coverage. The whole point is to remove the subjective element from wikipedia editors to the world at large, do they believe that the person is of note. If so they will note them, by writing about them in such a way to demonstrate that. If they don't the chances are the world simply isn't interested in the detail of that person. This seems to be the case here. Ragarding what WP:ENT actually says is "Has had significant roles". i.e. it's not about having multiple recurring roles, it's about significant roles. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words rule 1 of WP:ENT does not apply to the subject at all, Simply because her recurring roles in notable television series do not count as significant roles. But let's also take into account the page was created more than five or so times, indicating her popularity obviously but that shall not pass because the subject was not profiled significantly in a independent reliable source. If that is the case, I rest my case once and for all. Quasy Boy 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the significance of the roles will also be determined by what the world outside wikipedia considers, so much the same standard if they are writing about the person in that role in the reliable sources then chances are the role is significant. The amount of times it's attempted to be created in wikipedia is again not an indication, it only takes one person to try and create an article, and they are anonymous, we can't tell if they have some conflict of interest in creating the article. (Wikipedia has the rather contradictory camps with those desparate to get an article about themselves and seeing it as a huge positive, and those desparately trying to make sure they don't have an article.). However I suggest you look to the discussions, what other people say here etc. to get a broader set of views (there can be plenty of disagreement on wikipedia as to what/what doesn't warrant inclusion), also things change, the person can start getting broader coverage or wikipedia's expectations can shift. The only thing to be careful of is that there are some articles where we seem to have one or two editors waiting for one more passing mention to be made to jump up and recreate certain articles, hoping this will be the one which pushes it over the line, this activity is rarely constructive, despite the attempts to be objective in inclusion standards, such "desparation" is rarely seen as a good thing and increases the overall level of scruitiny, probably quite unfairly making it harder to get agreement on inclusion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Tarc is right. Passing mentions won't do. The subject has to be covered directly, at least little bit. "she has never had an actual starring or co-starring role in a television series" and "if the actress had starring or co-starring role in a television series not a recurring role, her career would've gotten more coverage and we wouldn't be having this argument" are clear statements countig against inclusion. The subject must already be demonstrated as notable using evidence from reliable sources. You are conceding that she isn't wikipedia-notable, but that she could've been, if only ... . --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 November 2010

[edit]

Exbii – Deletion endorsed. Although I will be happy to userify the article for anyone who wants to improve it. The procedural concerns expressed by a minority of reviewers do not overcome the arguments provided in the AfD. – Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Exbii (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Not given enough time after relisting for debate. 59.92.130.187 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think there was not enough time,room given after relisting it for debate.It was relisted yesterday,and as someone tried to abuse the editors,did repeated vandalism,I think the discussions closed immaturely and the Delete decision was taken.I tried to talk with the admin who closed,but his page shows that he will be away for 10-14 days and hence creating this page.I'm just looking for more room for discussion,as closing the discussion,even before something was discussed(after relisting) seems little odd. 59.92.130.187 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - There were several calls to delete, and the only loose keep opinions, by an IP and two new accounts (one indefinitely blocked already), rested on arguments discounted by WP:ALEXA. It's an Indian porn board that apparently no reliable sources talk about; not much else one can do, and no other way to read the AfD other than a consensus to delete. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] RelistA relist is an attempt to get additional arguments. No additional arguments were presented, just a repetition of the previous ones. Closing a relist after less than 24 hours seems to defeat the purpose. the basic argument for keeping was that an exception should be made to the normal criteria, based on the ranking, and there should have been a chance to see if anyone supported it. (I have no opinion on the underlying merits at this point), DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think it's fair to say that there will be a great deal of room for discussion if the nominator would be kind enough to list the reliable sources he intends to add to the article if we agree to overturn the deletion. Without such sources I don't really expect this nomination to succeed.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Relist-Per DGG. Closing so quickly after a relist defies the entire point.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] While it is entirely permissible to close a relisted debate if consensus becomes clear without waiting for the end of the relist period (see WP:RELIST), in this case I cannot say that consensus has in fact become clear. As Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, however, I would support S Marshall's suggestion that the nominator briefly outline the reliable sources on which he proposes to rely. As the closing administrator is marked away, I assume that it is for this reason and not out of discourtesy that the nominator has omitted to consult with him prior to opening this listing. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't have any specific points to put in that discussion.All I wanted to point out is that, the debate didn't progress when it got relisted,as it got closed prematurely.People may put forward /debate further if we relist the debate.59.92.146.163 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted then; no sources = no article. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Before the debate was relisted, the consensus was to delete. The delete positions voiced by Mechanical digger (talk · contribs), Bearcat (talk · contribs), and Kinu (talk · contribs) were persuasive and policy-based. Those who supported retention failed to rebut the concerns that the website lacks coverage in reliable sources and that it fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) stated: "my keep is contingent: keep if and only if reliable sources can be used on the article". No reliable sources have been provided. The remaining "keep" opinions—mainly from single-purpose accounts—were not policy-based and were therefore accorded less weight by the closing admin. If the nominator can provide third-party reliable sources about Exbii, I will support a relist. Otherwise, I oppose a relist because the AfD debate will inevitably be closed again as delete if no sources are provided. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] how can you possibly know in advance what arguments people will find? DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] My primary reason for endorsing deletion is "Before the debate was relisted, the consensus was to delete." Process was followed and reached the conclusion to delete. To answer your question: unless reliable sources can be found, I do not believe this article would be kept after an AfD relist. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – I see nothing procedurally wrong with the deletion discussion. It was listed, and then it was relisted; the consensus for deletion has not changed, and, after reading the above, I don't see how relisting would change that. –MuZemike 08:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Exbii – Deletion endorsed. Although I will be happy to userify the article for anyone who wants to improve it. The procedural concerns expressed by a minority of reviewers do not overcome the arguments provided in the AfD. – Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Not given enough time after relisting for debate. 59.92.130.187 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was not enough time,room given after relisting it for debate.It was relisted yesterday,and as someone tried to abuse the editors,did repeated vandalism,I think the discussions closed immaturely and the Delete decision was taken.I tried to talk with the admin who closed,but his page shows that he will be away for 10-14 days and hence creating this page.I'm just looking for more room for discussion,as closing the discussion,even before something was discussed(after relisting) seems little odd. 59.92.130.187 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - There were several calls to delete, and the only loose keep opinions, by an IP and two new accounts (one indefinitely blocked already), rested on arguments discounted by WP:ALEXA. It's an Indian porn board that apparently no reliable sources talk about; not much else one can do, and no other way to read the AfD other than a consensus to delete. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RelistA relist is an attempt to get additional arguments. No additional arguments were presented, just a repetition of the previous ones. Closing a relist after less than 24 hours seems to defeat the purpose. the basic argument for keeping was that an exception should be made to the normal criteria, based on the ranking, and there should have been a chance to see if anyone supported it. (I have no opinion on the underlying merits at this point), DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say that there will be a great deal of room for discussion if the nominator would be kind enough to list the reliable sources he intends to add to the article if we agree to overturn the deletion. Without such sources I don't really expect this nomination to succeed.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist-Per DGG. Closing so quickly after a relist defies the entire point.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is entirely permissible to close a relisted debate if consensus becomes clear without waiting for the end of the relist period (see WP:RELIST), in this case I cannot say that consensus has in fact become clear. As Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, however, I would support S Marshall's suggestion that the nominator briefly outline the reliable sources on which he proposes to rely.
As the closing administrator is marked away, I assume that it is for this reason and not out of discourtesy that the nominator has omitted to consult with him prior to opening this listing. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any specific points to put in that discussion.All I wanted to point out is that, the debate didn't progress when it got relisted,as it got closed prematurely.People may put forward /debate further if we relist the debate.59.92.146.163 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep deleted then; no sources = no article. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Before the debate was relisted, the consensus was to delete. The delete positions voiced by Mechanical digger (talk · contribs), Bearcat (talk · contribs), and Kinu (talk · contribs) were persuasive and policy-based. Those who supported retention failed to rebut the concerns that the website lacks coverage in reliable sources and that it fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) stated: "my keep is contingent: keep if and only if reliable sources can be used on the article". No reliable sources have been provided.
The remaining "keep" opinions—mainly from single-purpose accounts—were not policy-based and were therefore accorded less weight by the closing admin.
If the nominator can provide third-party reliable sources about Exbii, I will support a relist. Otherwise, I oppose a relist because the AfD debate will inevitably be closed again as delete if no sources are provided. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how can you possibly know in advance what arguments people will find? DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My primary reason for endorsing deletion is "Before the debate was relisted, the consensus was to delete." Process was followed and reached the conclusion to delete. To answer your question: unless reliable sources can be found, I do not believe this article would be kept after an AfD relist. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – I see nothing procedurally wrong with the deletion discussion. It was listed, and then it was relisted; the consensus for deletion has not changed, and, after reading the above, I don't see how relisting would change that. –MuZemike 08:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carli Banks – ~~Both AFD and G4 deletion endorsed.~~ AfD deletion endorsed; consensus here is to keep the article deleted, but given that there is an open discussion elsewhere on the applicability of G4 in these circumstances, it is unnecessary and probably imprudent to draw any conclusion on G4 applicability based on this discussion. – T. Canens (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC) modified per request, 04:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Carli Banks (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This article should be restored, because she is well-known in the industry and I think the admin made a big mistake deleting this article with no reason. She hasn´t won a award yet, but she has 1 nomination, is a Penthouse-Pet, worked for all big companies in the business. She even has a film named "PPV-3111: Carli Banks J/O Encouragement 4". So these are all facts that weren´t recognized. Look to the german article, then you can see the relevance clearer. By the way, the first deletion was a joke, because it should be keeped, and the 2nd deletion built up on this deletion. And my 2nd article was much better then the first one. --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Deletion review is not to be used to challenge the deletion of articles for reasons previously presented; rather, it is to be used when an administrator has failed to follow the deletion process somehow. DRV will not substitute its judgment for that of AFD where the administrator's action was reasonable. In practice, I tend to apply the Wednesbury test in deletion reviews, which is to say we should look to overturn outcomes only where the closer gave weight to something to which he should not have given weight, omitted to give weight to something to which he should have given weight, or where the decision arrived at was one at which no reasonable administrator could arrive. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] As always, where an article has been deleted and is not protected, anyone is free to recreate the article if they can overcome the reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] While I would endorse the 2007 deletion as Stifle has done, it was more than three years ago now and it seems possible that new sources have arisen. If so, we may wish to allow creation of a fresh article. The article in German is here, but it has insufficient sources by en.wiki's standards. Hixteilchen, please could you list the sources you propose to use?—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore and relist Consensus can change in 3 years. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - We're here to review the actions of the closing admin at the last AfD, not to play games of "maybe she's blown enough porn actors on-screen by now, let's make a article!" If someone wants to work on something in userspace to see if it can pass the WP:GNG, or failing that, WP:PORNBIO, fine. But that isn't what DRV is for, especially in a nomination consisting of handwaving at sources allegedly out there somewhere. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Absent actual sources this is pretty much an exercise in futility. Either create an article with sources or write a draft in userspace but don't waste other editors' time with unsubstantiated assertions of notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore Ok, my sources are Freeones.com, AVN.com, IMBD and own recherche. I think relevance is clearly given, because she is really popular in the business. Just google to see the relevance (740000 sites), this is much more than other porn actors. I should say, I see huge admin mistake in deleting this article under false conditions (as I described), so it´s right to ask deletion review!--Hixteilchen (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] AVN.com may possibly be a reliable source. Or at least, there are discussions on the talk page of WikiProject Pornography here and here which indicate that WikiProject Pornography think so. Winning an AVN award is one of the specific examples they give for passing WP:PORNBIO. (Carli Banks has not won one, but it may speak to the reliability of the source.) Banks also has pictures on Wikimedia Commons with, apparently, OTRS permission for us to use, and an article on de.wiki. Neither of those mean that she passes en.wiki's strict rules concerning BLPs, but I think they do suggest we should take this request seriously.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Multiple sources are required so AVN on its own isn't enough even if there wasn't a dispute about its reliabilily. Wikiprojects don't yet superceed community standards and I have seen plenty of arguments about AVN being inaccurate over facts that suggest that there is a good faith argument that it isn't a RS. Sorry but for a BLP we need to do much better then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Note that the article survived a prior AfD and is not eligible for speedy deletion of any sort, including G4, per WP:CSD. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's a very extreme interpretation of CSD as it was deleted after the second AFD so you cannot possibly argue that it is wrong to G4 something because there was a prior discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Very bad faith not to mention AfD #2, which resulted in a delete, clemens. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm going to assume that you missed AfD #2. Because otherwise, if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, any article that survives at least one AfD can be recreated at will. I'm not going to mention specific articles, but anyone with any sense of Wikipedia's history will know what I'm talking about and why that this is an incredibly bad idea. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To reply to all three at once: 1) It's not extreme, it's a plain reading of WP:CSD, which says, and has for some time now, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." It could say, but does not, "If a page as survived an immediately prior deletion discussion". A previous discussion, at WT:CSD, failed to achieve consensus for a change to this wording just a couple of months ago. Thus, it doesn't matter how many additional deletion discussions have happened, per the current wording of CSD, it wasn't eligible. No assumption of bad faith or overlooking the second deletion discussion is necessary to my point, because a subsequent deletion discussion, closed as delete, doesn't erase the first one. If there hadn't even been a second discussion, just an outright G4 without any prior deletion AfD, this would be an entirely different conversation. Spartaz and Tarc, you are welcome to post appropriate retractions and apologies. IronGargoyle, you bring up a good point, but one that can be dealt with without needing a change to CSD: if there has been a previous deletion discussion survived, then one that an article should be deleted, it may then be appropriate to discuss WP:SALTing. Absent that, the CSD process expects that once something has been kept in a deletion discussion, it will forever after get the benefit of an AfD discussion. That's not so unreasonable or extreme: if consensus can change, then the expectation that consensus can change back does not require much imagination. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Previous discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#G4 clarification. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This might need separate discussion. Let's just say that I agree with IronGargoyle's interpretation where, and only where, (1) the article in question is a BLP, or (2) the most recent deletion has been confirmed via DRV. I agree with Jclemens' interpretation in other cases, because for low-risk material has been kept once and then deleted once, then it's reasonable to presume the matter's borderline and the consensus could have changed again.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you're right that this needs a separate discussion, S Marshall. Thank you to Jclemens for pointing out that language in the preamble of the CSD policy. My thoughts, however, are that specific criteria overrule general principles (but I could see how a reasonable person could disagree on this point). If we leave G4 relatively toothless for multiple-AfD articles, as Jclemens would suggest, it doesn't encourage the improvement of the article (and over time our editorial criteria should become stronger). I don't think it's unreasonable that we should expect ANY article to be substantively improved for restoration if it fails ANY AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] When we prevent G4 for multiple AfDs where one was a keep, almost all will be one keep and one delete and there is no reason to suppose the later decision invariably the better. It would not discourage the improvement of articles--repeated re-creation without improvement often leads to salting at the subsequent afd. The idea is that if a prior AfD any time said keep, then it is not a rationally incontestable deletion, for at least one closer thought otherwise. Multiple AfDs bias the process to deletion; this decreases the bias, but it is still be biased that way. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The problem is that denying G4 in multiple-AfD cases relegates the later AfDs into near meaninglessness. It turns them into a glorified PROD. I also don't think that it necessarily biases the process towards deletion as you assert. Consider that many repeated nominations attract speedy keep !votes. In many cases, this is despite legitimate flaws in the article that should indeed warrant deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it does. Repeated AfDs tend to have an air of stare decisis about them, where a nominator is expected to put forth a compelling argument why the previous consensus was incorrect. Failing a good rationale (and given adequate AfD participation), the decision is often reconfirmed by the new AfD. Thus, there is some amount of churn on repeated nominations, but not significantly more or more futile when a previous deletion discussion has been "keep" or "delete". Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Many is the time an article is kept at the first AfD or even the first 2 AfDs and eventually deleted, either because standards have changed for the better, or because different people have contributed to the discussion. The reciprocal should be permitted equally. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse speedy deletion. The addition of an IMDB reference (which should not be considered to be a sufficiently reliable source for a BLP) is not a substantive improvement for the article to be immune from CSD G4. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn doesn't qualify per the wording of G4 (been kept in the past). It's not a clear cut case, and frankly that last (2007) AfD wasn't exactly stellar. Let it go to AfD, get deleted or kept. If deleted we could salt if if folks are overly worried about recreations. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per IronGargoyle's interpretation of G4 and Generalia specialibus non derogant (need a separate article for that). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm going to respond to this and to the general G4 point on the DRV talk page, lest this DRV be completely taken over by parsing the language of G4.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] My POV is that this article was deleted on G4-base in speed proceed. That was wrong because she fulfills at least model criteria with 22 photo shootings for the Penhouse Magazine. In german wiki there is a deletion discussion, but 2/3 want to keep the article: see here => [71]. So I see there is a general diskussion about the validity of this deletion and that´s good. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ich glaube Carli Banks wird auf de.wiki behaltet und auf en.wiki gelöscht. Wir haben unterschiedliche Regeln.—S Marshall T/C 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Weak endorse, sources presented seem to fall short. Considering the AfDs – both in 2007 and neither really well attended – either deleting or declining the G4 would have been within admin discretion. A draft is the best way forward, but I don't want to waste Hixteilchen's time if the sources are obviously inadequate. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per the fact that the original reason behind the deletion has not been addressed and that restoring would introduce additional BLP concerns. If other sources come up that are reliable and can provide at least something more than a mere mention, then we may have something to talk about. Otherwise, going through another AFD which would likely end with another deletion would be pointless. –MuZemike 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- I agree with IronGargoyle's interpretation of G4 as this more accurately expresses the spirit of the thing. Jclemens's interpretation is mere quibbling and I don't see the point. Best to leave cases like this to the discretion of the administrator. Reyk _YO! 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Carli Banks – ~~Both AFD and G4 deletion endorsed.~~ AfD deletion endorsed; consensus here is to keep the article deleted, but given that there is an open discussion elsewhere on the applicability of G4 in these circumstances, it is unnecessary and probably imprudent to draw any conclusion on G4 applicability based on this discussion. – T. Canens (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC) modified per request, 04:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article should be restored, because she is well-known in the industry and I think the admin made a big mistake deleting this article with no reason. She hasn´t won a award yet, but she has 1 nomination, is a Penthouse-Pet, worked for all big companies in the business. She even has a film named "PPV-3111: Carli Banks J/O Encouragement 4". So these are all facts that weren´t recognized. Look to the german article, then you can see the relevance clearer. By the way, the first deletion was a joke, because it should be keeped, and the 2nd deletion built up on this deletion. And my 2nd article was much better then the first one. --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Deletion review is not to be used to challenge the deletion of articles for reasons previously presented; rather, it is to be used when an administrator has failed to follow the deletion process somehow. DRV will not substitute its judgment for that of AFD where the administrator's action was reasonable. In practice, I tend to apply the Wednesbury test in deletion reviews, which is to say we should look to overturn outcomes only where the closer gave weight to something to which he should not have given weight, omitted to give weight to something to which he should have given weight, or where the decision arrived at was one at which no reasonable administrator could arrive. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, where an article has been deleted and is not protected, anyone is free to recreate the article if they can overcome the reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I would endorse the 2007 deletion as Stifle has done, it was more than three years ago now and it seems possible that new sources have arisen. If so, we may wish to allow creation of a fresh article. The article in German is here, but it has insufficient sources by en.wiki's standards. Hixteilchen, please could you list the sources you propose to use?—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and relist Consensus can change in 3 years. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - We're here to review the actions of the closing admin at the last AfD, not to play games of "maybe she's blown enough porn actors on-screen by now, let's make a article!" If someone wants to work on something in userspace to see if it can pass the WP:GNG, or failing that, WP:PORNBIO, fine. But that isn't what DRV is for, especially in a nomination consisting of handwaving at sources allegedly out there somewhere. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Absent actual sources this is pretty much an exercise in futility. Either create an article with sources or write a draft in userspace but don't waste other editors' time with unsubstantiated assertions of notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Ok, my sources are Freeones.com, AVN.com, IMBD and own recherche. I think relevance is clearly given, because she is really popular in the business. Just google to see the relevance (740000 sites), this is much more than other porn actors. I should say, I see huge admin mistake in deleting this article under false conditions (as I described), so it´s right to ask deletion review!--Hixteilchen (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVN.com may possibly be a reliable source. Or at least, there are discussions on the talk page of WikiProject Pornography here and here which indicate that WikiProject Pornography think so. Winning an AVN award is one of the specific examples they give for passing WP:PORNBIO. (Carli Banks has not won one, but it may speak to the reliability of the source.) Banks also has pictures on Wikimedia Commons with, apparently, OTRS permission for us to use, and an article on de.wiki. Neither of those mean that she passes en.wiki's strict rules concerning BLPs, but I think they do suggest we should take this request seriously.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are required so AVN on its own isn't enough even if there wasn't a dispute about its reliabilily. Wikiprojects don't yet superceed community standards and I have seen plenty of arguments about AVN being inaccurate over facts that suggest that there is a good faith argument that it isn't a RS. Sorry but for a BLP we need to do much better then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article survived a prior AfD and is not eligible for speedy deletion of any sort, including G4, per WP:CSD. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very extreme interpretation of CSD as it was deleted after the second AFD so you cannot possibly argue that it is wrong to G4 something because there was a prior discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very bad faith not to mention AfD #2, which resulted in a delete, clemens. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to assume that you missed AfD #2. Because otherwise, if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, any article that survives at least one AfD can be recreated at will. I'm not going to mention specific articles, but anyone with any sense of Wikipedia's history will know what I'm talking about and why that this is an incredibly bad idea. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To reply to all three at once: 1) It's not extreme, it's a plain reading of WP:CSD, which says, and has for some time now, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." It could say, but does not, "If a page as survived an immediately prior deletion discussion". A previous discussion, at WT:CSD, failed to achieve consensus for a change to this wording just a couple of months ago. Thus, it doesn't matter how many additional deletion discussions have happened, per the current wording of CSD, it wasn't eligible. No assumption of bad faith or overlooking the second deletion discussion is necessary to my point, because a subsequent deletion discussion, closed as delete, doesn't erase the first one. If there hadn't even been a second discussion, just an outright G4 without any prior deletion AfD, this would be an entirely different conversation. Spartaz and Tarc, you are welcome to post appropriate retractions and apologies. IronGargoyle, you bring up a good point, but one that can be dealt with without needing a change to CSD: if there has been a previous deletion discussion survived, then one that an article should be deleted, it may then be appropriate to discuss WP:SALTing. Absent that, the CSD process expects that once something has been kept in a deletion discussion, it will forever after get the benefit of an AfD discussion. That's not so unreasonable or extreme: if consensus can change, then the expectation that consensus can change back does not require much imagination. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Previous discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#G4 clarification. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This might need separate discussion. Let's just say that I agree with IronGargoyle's interpretation where, and only where, (1) the article in question is a BLP, or (2) the most recent deletion has been confirmed via DRV. I agree with Jclemens' interpretation in other cases, because for low-risk material has been kept once and then deleted once, then it's reasonable to presume the matter's borderline and the consensus could have changed again.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you're right that this needs a separate discussion, S Marshall. Thank you to Jclemens for pointing out that language in the preamble of the CSD policy. My thoughts, however, are that specific criteria overrule general principles (but I could see how a reasonable person could disagree on this point). If we leave G4 relatively toothless for multiple-AfD articles, as Jclemens would suggest, it doesn't encourage the improvement of the article (and over time our editorial criteria should become stronger). I don't think it's unreasonable that we should expect ANY article to be substantively improved for restoration if it fails ANY AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        When we prevent G4 for multiple AfDs where one was a keep, almost all will be one keep and one delete and there is no reason to suppose the later decision invariably the better. It would not discourage the improvement of articles--repeated re-creation without improvement often leads to salting at the subsequent afd. The idea is that if a prior AfD any time said keep, then it is not a rationally incontestable deletion, for at least one closer thought otherwise. Multiple AfDs bias the process to deletion; this decreases the bias, but it is still be biased that way. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is that denying G4 in multiple-AfD cases relegates the later AfDs into near meaninglessness. It turns them into a glorified PROD. I also don't think that it necessarily biases the process towards deletion as you assert. Consider that many repeated nominations attract speedy keep !votes. In many cases, this is despite legitimate flaws in the article that should indeed warrant deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think it does. Repeated AfDs tend to have an air of stare decisis about them, where a nominator is expected to put forth a compelling argument why the previous consensus was incorrect. Failing a good rationale (and given adequate AfD participation), the decision is often reconfirmed by the new AfD. Thus, there is some amount of churn on repeated nominations, but not significantly more or more futile when a previous deletion discussion has been "keep" or "delete". Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Many is the time an article is kept at the first AfD or even the first 2 AfDs and eventually deleted, either because standards have changed for the better, or because different people have contributed to the discussion. The reciprocal should be permitted equally. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion. The addition of an IMDB reference (which should not be considered to be a sufficiently reliable source for a BLP) is not a substantive improvement for the article to be immune from CSD G4. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn doesn't qualify per the wording of G4 (been kept in the past). It's not a clear cut case, and frankly that last (2007) AfD wasn't exactly stellar. Let it go to AfD, get deleted or kept. If deleted we could salt if if folks are overly worried about recreations. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per IronGargoyle's interpretation of G4 and Generalia specialibus non derogant (need a separate article for that). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond to this and to the general G4 point on the DRV talk page, lest this DRV be completely taken over by parsing the language of G4.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- My POV is that this article was deleted on G4-base in speed proceed. That was wrong because she fulfills at least model criteria with 22 photo shootings for the Penhouse Magazine. In german wiki there is a deletion discussion, but 2/3 want to keep the article: see here => [71]. So I see there is a general diskussion about the validity of this deletion and that´s good. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich glaube Carli Banks wird auf de.wiki behaltet und auf en.wiki gelöscht. Wir haben unterschiedliche Regeln.—S Marshall T/C 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse, sources presented seem to fall short. Considering the AfDs – both in 2007 and neither really well attended – either deleting or declining the G4 would have been within admin discretion. A draft is the best way forward, but I don't want to waste Hixteilchen's time if the sources are obviously inadequate. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the fact that the original reason behind the deletion has not been addressed and that restoring would introduce additional BLP concerns. If other sources come up that are reliable and can provide at least something more than a mere mention, then we may have something to talk about. Otherwise, going through another AFD which would likely end with another deletion would be pointless. –MuZemike 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I agree with IronGargoyle's interpretation of G4 as this more accurately expresses the spirit of the thing. Jclemens's interpretation is mere quibbling and I don't see the point. Best to leave cases like this to the discretion of the administrator. Reyk _YO! 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 November 2010

[edit]

Murder of Aristotelis Goumas – No consensus to overturn, will e-mail wikitext of article to requestor. Courcelles 08:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Murder of Aristotelis Goumas (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) On October 22, Black Kite (talk · contribs) speedily deleted this article, which I had created the day before, following a discussion on AN/I. I now realize that there were BLP issues, however, the deletion by Black Kite is problematic, particularly considering the edit summary IAR deletion: probably a sock of a banned user; probably something that needs to be dealt with via Wikinews; if I am wrong, please DRV. I am not a sock but an experienced editor in good standing. This suggests that the deletion was carried out hastily and without due diligence. Following this WP:BLP/N discussion [72], it was agreed that the title was problematic and I understood that the article had BLP issues, and I pledged to address them all. However, that discussion seems to have fizzled out. What am I asking here is that the article be undeleted and userified to my namespace under the agreed-upon title of "Death of Aristotelis Goumas", so that I can work on the BLP issues, which can be easily addressed. If the article is undeleted, I will work on the BLP issues immediately. The topic of the article itself is not in violation of BLP guidelines, and I believe notable enough to warrant an article. If notability is an issue, that should be discussed in an AfD, but either way the article shouldn't have been summarily deleted without community consensus. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] While this does not seem unreasonable, in the interests of caution I'd like to suggest an alternative solution: let the text be emailed to Athenean, so that he can fix the BLP issues and then upload it to his userspace.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's perfectly fine by me. Athenean (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The article was violating basic BLP principles and wasn't notable at all, so I'm against any kind of undeletion. However, if he wants his content I'm not against emailing it to him.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The idea is that content will be e-mailed to me so that I can work on the BLP issues and re-create the article. If you feel that it is not notable, you are welcome to create an AfD, where the community will decide whether it is notable or not. Athenean (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please could we discuss this issue without bringing the sparring between the various Balkan factions to DRV? Thanks.—S Marshall T/C 19:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Userify Looking at the cached article, I see no serious BLP problems except replacing the word "murder" in the title and the text with "death", soI can see no objection to moving to user space, if those ware immediately fixed. I do not consider the speedy deletion justified, as BK could instead have moved the article and fixed the text himself. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Murder of Aristotelis Goumas – No consensus to overturn, will e-mail wikitext of article to requestor. Courcelles 08:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

On October 22, Black Kite (talk · contribs) speedily deleted this article, which I had created the day before, following a discussion on AN/I. I now realize that there were BLP issues, however, the deletion by Black Kite is problematic, particularly considering the edit summary IAR deletion: probably a sock of a banned user; probably something that needs to be dealt with via Wikinews; if I am wrong, please DRV. I am not a sock but an experienced editor in good standing. This suggests that the deletion was carried out hastily and without due diligence. Following this WP:BLP/N discussion [72], it was agreed that the title was problematic and I understood that the article had BLP issues, and I pledged to address them all. However, that discussion seems to have fizzled out. What am I asking here is that the article be undeleted and userified to my namespace under the agreed-upon title of "Death of Aristotelis Goumas", so that I can work on the BLP issues, which can be easily addressed. If the article is undeleted, I will work on the BLP issues immediately. The topic of the article itself is not in violation of BLP guidelines, and I believe notable enough to warrant an article. If notability is an issue, that should be discussed in an AfD, but either way the article shouldn't have been summarily deleted without community consensus. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this does not seem unreasonable, in the interests of caution I'd like to suggest an alternative solution: let the text be emailed to Athenean, so that he can fix the BLP issues and then upload it to his userspace.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine by me. Athenean (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was violating basic BLP principles and wasn't notable at all, so I'm against any kind of undeletion. However, if he wants his content I'm not against emailing it to him.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that content will be e-mailed to me so that I can work on the BLP issues and re-create the article. If you feel that it is not notable, you are welcome to create an AfD, where the community will decide whether it is notable or not. Athenean (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could we discuss this issue without bringing the sparring between the various Balkan factions to DRV? Thanks.—S Marshall T/C 19:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userify Looking at the cached article, I see no serious BLP problems except replacing the word "murder" in the title and the text with "death", soI can see no objection to moving to user space, if those ware immediately fixed. I do not consider the speedy deletion justified, as BK could instead have moved the article and fixed the text himself. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 November 2010

[edit]

Tetrafusion – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC) (As Cirt was closing this, I was userifying the article for the author; it now lives at User:Msm041/Tetrafusion) Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tetrafusion (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) User:MuZemike directed me here, so I will use my same reason I used at the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion page. Article was covering a very notable underground band who just released an album on Nightmare Records, who are distributed by RED Distribution, which is a branch of Sony Music Entertainment -- is this not a notable indie label situation, according to No evidence from WP:RS that band meets WP:MUSIC. No recordings on major labels or notable indie labels.? This band's album also charted at #13 on Amazon's Bestsellers Chart under the 'Hard Rock & Metal' category, which I figured was a form of a national chart (which you can view at Altered State (Tetrafusion album) under the References section). Both of these band's albums have received non-trivial reviews on just about any music review website (which you can view on the recently deleted pages at Absolute Zero (Tetrafusion album) and Altered State (Tetrafusion album). This article was NEVER updated with anything resembling WP:COI and was only updated with notable, objective, and neutral information. There are plenty of bands who have Wikipedia pages that are even less resourceful than this one that never got deleted, such as Scale the Summit, who are also distributed by RED Distribution just as Tetrafusion are. Animals as Leaders only has two references as my article did, both even from the same resources (Blabbermouth.net and a local newspaper publication in their respective hometown). Periphery (band) lists a ton of very non-neutral information that has absolutely no references or sources to back it up, going on about who left the band and what guitar pedals they use...how is this viable information compared to what my article contained? Why are pages like these still existing when this one was deleted, although EVERY sentence on Tetrafusion's page had a source to quote it from? The band isn't quite large enough to have a lot of options for sources, but has enough to establish a solid level of notability in my opinion for a small, basic article with minimum information. The sources they do have are perfectly valid, while few. Every single statement on the article was quoted by another source, leaving practically nothing in the article that I posted from my own knowledge. I only referenced other articles in my claim because that is what I used to construct this one; they proved to be active, working articles, so I molded them similarly to have a starting point...I used the article wizard as well. Please restore the article and do NOT delete it, it has been attended to with totally objective information and care. This article also went unedited and undeleted for a year, so I don't understand why anything has changd 18 months later? Thanks. Msm041 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin – I'll basically repeat what I said here: The lone rationale for retention seemed to be directly refuted there, and moreover a rough consensus for deletion was indeed formed. This seems like a continuation of the deletion discussion than the close. I also note that User:AllMusicReview is in fact the same person as User:Msm041; obviously the account switch occurred after the AFD, so that had no effect on my close, but it needs to be pointed out as far as this DRV is concerned. –MuZemike 03:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Response – Could you possible be a little more specific with why it was deleted? That's a pretty vague and wordy response and doesn't really support your reasoning. I'm basically trying to figure out how an article with valid sources used to support every sentence isn't considered reliable, and how other pages that do not meet these guidelines co-exist. I understand that other articles have nothing to do with this article in question, but it's without a doubt most articles are molded after others of similar content. I originally used User:AllMusicReview as my main account, but was sent a message saying that my account cannot be representing a collective group (which was not my intention, just a user name I picked), so I re-made an account to abide by those policies; no malicious intentions, period. Msm041 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] In closing a deletion discussion, the admin is supposed to make a determination as to whether a rough consensus supporting deletion has occurred, which I felt occurred. Multiple editors have disputed your claim of the reliability and amount of coverage of the sources provided. –MuZemike 03:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Response – I can't disagree there, but I think permanently locking the page forever is completely unnecessary. Bands continue to gain more and more viability, sources, and credentials over time, so eventually soon this page should be able to serve it's intended purpose with no oppositions. This also doesn't answer my question as to why other articles with less coverage are still existing. It's either a result of poor administration or bias, apparently. Fair justification and supportive reasoning is all I'm asking. I'm also unsure why our article was suddenly requested for deletion after sitting still for 18 months with no problems. I only tried to re-create it because I had added more sources each time in hoping it would stay. What can we do about unblocking it, or possibly submitting it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator page? Msm041 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment DRV is not AFD round 2, as the instructions say it's about if the process was followed correctly, not just because you disagree with the outcome. Regarding some of your poitns though. WP:WAX the existance of other articles you believe are similar isn't the yardstick by which articles are measured, by similar logic within that the length of time the article has been on wikipedia is also irrelevant, just because no one decided to nominate it for deletion doesn't mean anything. Someone in the AFD said about it being difficult to have reliable sources for this band because of various reasons, you say similar above, if that's the case then it's a pretty good indication they aren't read for a wikipedia article yet. The article seems to have been salted by another admin due to it being recreated, it can of course by undone later if things change. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I endorse the deletion but recommend unsalting to allow the creation of a redirect, or optionally, a protected redirect. I think that we have here is a case where the closer correctly divined the consensus, but the consensus was wrong. The AfD participants correctly decided that the sourcing for this article was not sufficient to prove that it's independently notable. In other words, the standard required by WP:N was not met and this band should not have its own article. So far, so good. The AfD participants then wrongly decided that a failure to meet WP:N meant that the article should be a redlink. What they should have done is to decide that there were sufficient sources to prove that this band exists, in other words that WP:V was met. They should have been mindful of both WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. They should have examined and exhausted the alternatives to deletion. Alternatives to deletion are always preferred. The AfD participants failed to consider that and it must fall to DRV to correct their mistake. A perfectly reasonable alternative to deletion exists: this title should be a redirect to some variant of the list of heavy metal bands where Tetrafusion could be mentioned (WP:V and preserving the sources) without giving it its own article (so WP:N is complied with). I also take issue with the somewhat ignorant dissing of non-English-language sources that took place in the AfD. Reliable sources don't have to be in English, and if the debate participants don't speak French or Italian or Swahili or whatever it is, then there are uninvolved Wikipedians who do, and the correct recourse is to ask an uninvolved person who speaks the language for help.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Response I appreciate the defense, as it's what I've been getting at. I never understood why things are just instantly deleted rather than worked on to be improved. Administering isn't just deleting things, but it appears to be so. Some help, whether involved with the creator or not, could have been sought to possibly adjust the article to meet WP:N, versus just deleting it every single time. Unsalting this article would be great, what can we do? Even unlocking it and let someone entirely different create it and I'll just leave it alone? The re-direct option sounds fine, and at what point should I attempt to re-make the article? Like I said, I honestly thought I had enough notable sources before, and this band will only continue to keep getting more of the same type of sources, so I'm not sure when to act. WP:WAX is a pretty silly thing to call this out on, as that's not quite the type of logic I was using to even create the article. Other articles were used to get an idea of a starting point...I didn't create it BECAUSE they existed. The fact that this article was being deleted while other IDENTICAL articles (that only differed in, practically, the name of the band) that had similar credentials did not make sense, so that's all I was wondering. I realize this isn't ADF round 2, but the instructions were to "re-administer my reason" because at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion my reason was ignored, so this was my first time to ever offer one. Apologies there. Msm041 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You say, "The fact that this article was being deleted while other IDENTICAL articles (that only differed in, practically, the name of the band) that had similar credentials did not make sense..." and that's a common experience among people who're confronted with Wikipedia's processes. You (quite reasonably) expect Wikipedia to be consistent, and our processes are moderately consistent, but we don't try to deal with every single article all at the same time--that would be impossible. We have to deal with them one by one, in the order that people raise them. In other words, if another article that only differed in the name of the band was brought through the AfD and DRV process, it would likely be treated in the same way, but not all articles have been through that yet, and there may well be quite a few older ones that have yet to be brought to our attention. Making sure all our older articles comply with our current rules is a herculean task, particularly when we have processes designed to ensure that everyone has their say about what should be done! What that means is that while we are reasonably consistent, there's such a huge backlog that in terms of content decisions, we can often appear to be totally inconsistent. I'm sorry about that and I assure you that we have no wish to be unfair to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] (Addition) I should have explained that "unsalting" in this case would be for the purpose of creating a redirect page, not for letting someone else create a fresh article. I have suggested that Tetrafusion receives some coverage on Wikipedia but not its own article. For example, in one of the Star Wars films there's a minor character called E-3PO. If you search for E-3PO on our site, then you won't find a separate article, but will find something a bit more helpful than a redlink. I propose a similar solution here.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Makes sense, and I understand pure consistency is unreal to ask for, but didn't know if it was simply that or another over-looming issue. A redirect wound be fine, but who is responsible for setting that up? I feel like I'm walking on eggshells here already so I'm hesitant to try to create anything as I feel I'll have to endure this entire, redundant process a second time. Also, when will the article be available to be re-created entirely? If this band becomes huge or something, it would make no sense to keep them at a small redirect level, and at some point they should have a full page with full coverage. The point at which this can happen is still quite hazy to me because Wikipedia's standards with notability seem pretty vague to begin with, so please let me know. I'm personally unable to tell the difference between a notable article and a non-notable article. Specifics on how to go about any of this would be appreciated if possible. Msm041 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You asked who would set up the redirect, and if such is the consensus, it will be the administrator who closes this debate in a few more days. You also asked when will the article be available to re-create entirely, and the answer is, when the band reaches one of the standards mentioned in WP:BAND. You said "Wikipedia's standards with notability seem pretty vague", and although they may seem so, I assure you that they are as objective as they can be under the circumstances. The point of the "notability" criterion is twofold: (1) To try to see that subjects receive coverage in proportion to their importance. Wikipedia isn't very good at this. We have no separate article about Agriculture in France, but we have over 4,800 words about Sexuality in Star Trek. There are over 200 articles that contain a summary of the plot of Star Wars, but our article on Pope Benedict VI is a few words copy/pasted from an out-of-copyright Catholic encyclopaedia. But notability is our attempt to improve. 2) Wikipedia is content that anyone can write, for free, that has high visibility on google. That means that it's very attractive to marketers. Notability is our attempt to make some kind of objective distinction between articles that belong in an encyclopaedia and articles created by those who'd like to advertise something. So what we require is that to have an article, something should have received non-trivial coverage (i.e. more than just a passing mention) in more than one reliable source. The point of this is to ensure that subjects get articles if they've already attracted significant attention. Editors aren't allowed to create articles in the hope that attention will be attracted.—S Marshall T/C 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I created this article because everywhere I looked I saw this band's name, whether in some review or article. I'm just unsure of how the sources I used aren't reliable. I've read WP:BAND over and over and the sources I had seem to fit that criteria. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an album review on a very notable website isn't the band talking about themselves, a press release, or an advertisement. They aren't school papers, or postings about track listings, concert dates, etc. It was a totally unbiased review on the work. I don't mean to keep egging this on, but the thing is, as far as sources, this is all bands really have...reviews and articles about their music (as far as #1 on the WP:BAND list). I can attest to the following criteria (Grammys, TV, album charting, etc.), but just wasn't sure how the sources I used were invalid. To my understanding it fits criterion 1, they have been the subject of numerous online published works [73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] appeared in several magazines, Progression Magazine (Issue #57 / June 2009)[90], Rock Hard Magazine (Issue #267 / August 2009) [91], and Decibel Magazine (Issue #59 / September 2009)[92]. Are these the wrong types of sources to be using? To close this out, I appreciate the redirect concession, and when this band fits criterion #2-#10, we'll discuss the full page then. Let me know about the sources though I just mentioned... Msm041 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. although a BLP, the question is about notability , not improper material. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Response: Great, I hope this is a step in the direction to help improve the article and hopefully restore it. I do understand that it isn't regarding proper material, and it's about notability, but that's what I was originally asking: I was unsure of how all of those sources I linked were non-notable. As the message says, I'm doing my best to appeal its deletion and have thoroughly provided everything I can to restore it in some fashion. Not sure where to go with it from here, but just wanted to have my point across. I hope we can come to a resolving compromise. Msm041 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tetrafusion – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC) (As Cirt was closing this, I was userifying the article for the author; it now lives at User:Msm041/Tetrafusion) Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User:MuZemike directed me here, so I will use my same reason I used at the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion page. Article was covering a very notable underground band who just released an album on Nightmare Records, who are distributed by RED Distribution, which is a branch of Sony Music Entertainment -- is this not a notable indie label situation, according to No evidence from WP:RS that band meets WP:MUSIC. No recordings on major labels or notable indie labels.? This band's album also charted at #13 on Amazon's Bestsellers Chart under the 'Hard Rock & Metal' category, which I figured was a form of a national chart (which you can view at Altered State (Tetrafusion album) under the References section). Both of these band's albums have received non-trivial reviews on just about any music review website (which you can view on the recently deleted pages at Absolute Zero (Tetrafusion album) and Altered State (Tetrafusion album). This article was NEVER updated with anything resembling WP:COI and was only updated with notable, objective, and neutral information. There are plenty of bands who have Wikipedia pages that are even less resourceful than this one that never got deleted, such as Scale the Summit, who are also distributed by RED Distribution just as Tetrafusion are. Animals as Leaders only has two references as my article did, both even from the same resources (Blabbermouth.net and a local newspaper publication in their respective hometown). Periphery (band) lists a ton of very non-neutral information that has absolutely no references or sources to back it up, going on about who left the band and what guitar pedals they use...how is this viable information compared to what my article contained? Why are pages like these still existing when this one was deleted, although EVERY sentence on Tetrafusion's page had a source to quote it from? The band isn't quite large enough to have a lot of options for sources, but has enough to establish a solid level of notability in my opinion for a small, basic article with minimum information. The sources they do have are perfectly valid, while few. Every single statement on the article was quoted by another source, leaving practically nothing in the article that I posted from my own knowledge. I only referenced other articles in my claim because that is what I used to construct this one; they proved to be active, working articles, so I molded them similarly to have a starting point...I used the article wizard as well. Please restore the article and do NOT delete it, it has been attended to with totally objective information and care. This article also went unedited and undeleted for a year, so I don't understand why anything has changd 18 months later? Thanks. Msm041 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin – I'll basically repeat what I said here: The lone rationale for retention seemed to be directly refuted there, and moreover a rough consensus for deletion was indeed formed. This seems like a continuation of the deletion discussion than the close. I also note that User:AllMusicReview is in fact the same person as User:Msm041; obviously the account switch occurred after the AFD, so that had no effect on my close, but it needs to be pointed out as far as this DRV is concerned. –MuZemike 03:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response – Could you possible be a little more specific with why it was deleted? That's a pretty vague and wordy response and doesn't really support your reasoning. I'm basically trying to figure out how an article with valid sources used to support every sentence isn't considered reliable, and how other pages that do not meet these guidelines co-exist. I understand that other articles have nothing to do with this article in question, but it's without a doubt most articles are molded after others of similar content. I originally used User:AllMusicReview as my main account, but was sent a message saying that my account cannot be representing a collective group (which was not my intention, just a user name I picked), so I re-made an account to abide by those policies; no malicious intentions, period. Msm041 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In closing a deletion discussion, the admin is supposed to make a determination as to whether a rough consensus supporting deletion has occurred, which I felt occurred. Multiple editors have disputed your claim of the reliability and amount of coverage of the sources provided. –MuZemike 03:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response – I can't disagree there, but I think permanently locking the page forever is completely unnecessary. Bands continue to gain more and more viability, sources, and credentials over time, so eventually soon this page should be able to serve it's intended purpose with no oppositions. This also doesn't answer my question as to why other articles with less coverage are still existing. It's either a result of poor administration or bias, apparently. Fair justification and supportive reasoning is all I'm asking. I'm also unsure why our article was suddenly requested for deletion after sitting still for 18 months with no problems. I only tried to re-create it because I had added more sources each time in hoping it would stay. What can we do about unblocking it, or possibly submitting it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator page? Msm041 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DRV is not AFD round 2, as the instructions say it's about if the process was followed correctly, not just because you disagree with the outcome. Regarding some of your poitns though. WP:WAX the existance of other articles you believe are similar isn't the yardstick by which articles are measured, by similar logic within that the length of time the article has been on wikipedia is also irrelevant, just because no one decided to nominate it for deletion doesn't mean anything. Someone in the AFD said about it being difficult to have reliable sources for this band because of various reasons, you say similar above, if that's the case then it's a pretty good indication they aren't read for a wikipedia article yet. The article seems to have been salted by another admin due to it being recreated, it can of course by undone later if things change. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the deletion but recommend unsalting to allow the creation of a redirect, or optionally, a protected redirect. I think that we have here is a case where the closer correctly divined the consensus, but the consensus was wrong.
The AfD participants correctly decided that the sourcing for this article was not sufficient to prove that it's independently notable. In other words, the standard required by WP:N was not met and this band should not have its own article. So far, so good.
The AfD participants then wrongly decided that a failure to meet WP:N meant that the article should be a redlink. What they should have done is to decide that there were sufficient sources to prove that this band exists, in other words that WP:V was met. They should have been mindful of both WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. They should have examined and exhausted the alternatives to deletion. Alternatives to deletion are always preferred. The AfD participants failed to consider that and it must fall to DRV to correct their mistake. A perfectly reasonable alternative to deletion exists: this title should be a redirect to some variant of the list of heavy metal bands where Tetrafusion could be mentioned (WP:V and preserving the sources) without giving it its own article (so WP:N is complied with).
I also take issue with the somewhat ignorant dissing of non-English-language sources that took place in the AfD. Reliable sources don't have to be in English, and if the debate participants don't speak French or Italian or Swahili or whatever it is, then there are uninvolved Wikipedians who do, and the correct recourse is to ask an uninvolved person who speaks the language for help.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I appreciate the defense, as it's what I've been getting at. I never understood why things are just instantly deleted rather than worked on to be improved. Administering isn't just deleting things, but it appears to be so. Some help, whether involved with the creator or not, could have been sought to possibly adjust the article to meet WP:N, versus just deleting it every single time. Unsalting this article would be great, what can we do? Even unlocking it and let someone entirely different create it and I'll just leave it alone? The re-direct option sounds fine, and at what point should I attempt to re-make the article? Like I said, I honestly thought I had enough notable sources before, and this band will only continue to keep getting more of the same type of sources, so I'm not sure when to act. WP:WAX is a pretty silly thing to call this out on, as that's not quite the type of logic I was using to even create the article. Other articles were used to get an idea of a starting point...I didn't create it BECAUSE they existed. The fact that this article was being deleted while other IDENTICAL articles (that only differed in, practically, the name of the band) that had similar credentials did not make sense, so that's all I was wondering. I realize this isn't ADF round 2, but the instructions were to "re-administer my reason" because at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion my reason was ignored, so this was my first time to ever offer one. Apologies there. Msm041 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "The fact that this article was being deleted while other IDENTICAL articles (that only differed in, practically, the name of the band) that had similar credentials did not make sense..." and that's a common experience among people who're confronted with Wikipedia's processes. You (quite reasonably) expect Wikipedia to be consistent, and our processes are moderately consistent, but we don't try to deal with every single article all at the same time--that would be impossible. We have to deal with them one by one, in the order that people raise them.
In other words, if another article that only differed in the name of the band was brought through the AfD and DRV process, it would likely be treated in the same way, but not all articles have been through that yet, and there may well be quite a few older ones that have yet to be brought to our attention. Making sure all our older articles comply with our current rules is a herculean task, particularly when we have processes designed to ensure that everyone has their say about what should be done!
What that means is that while we are reasonably consistent, there's such a huge backlog that in terms of content decisions, we can often appear to be totally inconsistent. I'm sorry about that and I assure you that we have no wish to be unfair to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Addition) I should have explained that "unsalting" in this case would be for the purpose of creating a redirect page, not for letting someone else create a fresh article. I have suggested that Tetrafusion receives some coverage on Wikipedia but not its own article. For example, in one of the Star Wars films there's a minor character called E-3PO. If you search for E-3PO on our site, then you won't find a separate article, but will find something a bit more helpful than a redlink. I propose a similar solution here.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, and I understand pure consistency is unreal to ask for, but didn't know if it was simply that or another over-looming issue. A redirect wound be fine, but who is responsible for setting that up? I feel like I'm walking on eggshells here already so I'm hesitant to try to create anything as I feel I'll have to endure this entire, redundant process a second time. Also, when will the article be available to be re-created entirely? If this band becomes huge or something, it would make no sense to keep them at a small redirect level, and at some point they should have a full page with full coverage. The point at which this can happen is still quite hazy to me because Wikipedia's standards with notability seem pretty vague to begin with, so please let me know. I'm personally unable to tell the difference between a notable article and a non-notable article. Specifics on how to go about any of this would be appreciated if possible. Msm041 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked who would set up the redirect, and if such is the consensus, it will be the administrator who closes this debate in a few more days. You also asked when will the article be available to re-create entirely, and the answer is, when the band reaches one of the standards mentioned in WP:BAND. You said "Wikipedia's standards with notability seem pretty vague", and although they may seem so, I assure you that they are as objective as they can be under the circumstances. The point of the "notability" criterion is twofold:
(1) To try to see that subjects receive coverage in proportion to their importance. Wikipedia isn't very good at this. We have no separate article about Agriculture in France, but we have over 4,800 words about Sexuality in Star Trek. There are over 200 articles that contain a summary of the plot of Star Wars, but our article on Pope Benedict VI is a few words copy/pasted from an out-of-copyright Catholic encyclopaedia. But notability is our attempt to improve.
2) Wikipedia is content that anyone can write, for free, that has high visibility on google. That means that it's very attractive to marketers. Notability is our attempt to make some kind of objective distinction between articles that belong in an encyclopaedia and articles created by those who'd like to advertise something. So what we require is that to have an article, something should have received non-trivial coverage (i.e. more than just a passing mention) in more than one reliable source. The point of this is to ensure that subjects get articles if they've already attracted significant attention. Editors aren't allowed to create articles in the hope that attention will be attracted.—S Marshall T/C 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because everywhere I looked I saw this band's name, whether in some review or article. I'm just unsure of how the sources I used aren't reliable. I've read WP:BAND over and over and the sources I had seem to fit that criteria. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an album review on a very notable website isn't the band talking about themselves, a press release, or an advertisement. They aren't school papers, or postings about track listings, concert dates, etc. It was a totally unbiased review on the work. I don't mean to keep egging this on, but the thing is, as far as sources, this is all bands really have...reviews and articles about their music (as far as #1 on the WP:BAND list). I can attest to the following criteria (Grammys, TV, album charting, etc.), but just wasn't sure how the sources I used were invalid. To my understanding it fits criterion 1, they have been the subject of numerous online published works [73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] appeared in several magazines, Progression Magazine (Issue #57 / June 2009)[90], Rock Hard Magazine (Issue #267 / August 2009) [91], and Decibel Magazine (Issue #59 / September 2009)[92]. Are these the wrong types of sources to be using? To close this out, I appreciate the redirect concession, and when this band fits criterion #2-#10, we'll discuss the full page then. Let me know about the sources though I just mentioned... Msm041 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. although a BLP, the question is about notability , not improper material. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Great, I hope this is a step in the direction to help improve the article and hopefully restore it. I do understand that it isn't regarding proper material, and it's about notability, but that's what I was originally asking: I was unsure of how all of those sources I linked were non-notable. As the message says, I'm doing my best to appeal its deletion and have thoroughly provided everything I can to restore it in some fashion. Not sure where to go with it from here, but just wanted to have my point across. I hope we can come to a resolving compromise. Msm041 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 November 2010

[edit]

Jimbo Matison – Withdrawn by nominator. – Stifle (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo Matison (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This AfD was nominated by someone who was wikistalking me and nominating pages for deletion (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly). It was on AfD for over 2 weeks with no interest at all. I decided to ask the Article Rescue Squadron if the page could be improved any - and they contributed even more sources. Immediately after this, two people came out of nowhere and voted Delete, with (in my opinion) weak reasoning. (It has been suggested that these people may have noticed this AfD only because I posted on the AfR board - would this count as reverse CANVASsing?). The day after these delete votes were posted, and in the midst of discussing the merits of the reasoning, the AfD was closed as DELETE. I don't believe any consensus was reached in the less than two days of active discussion. During this time one of the delete voters also AfD'ed another article I created, without even notifying me, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang. I'm not sure what's going on here, but regardless of all this strange activity, I don't believe consensus was reached. comment I forgot to mention that I did discuss this with the closing admin, and others, here[93] Tduk (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The article in question has been incubated. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse there is nothing in the purported sources that amounts to anything even approaching the standard for article inclusion. Essentially primary, unreliable or extremely tangential sourcing. The AFD was right to discount the sourcing provided so the close was correct. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think the incubated article is ready for the mainspace quite yet. Needs more reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, this is not AFD round 2. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] What? What indication is there that consensus was reached? Tduk (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The close by the administrator who made the decision. Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can you please be a little more helpful? I'm trying to understand why there is a beilef that consensus was reached, when there was really less than 48 hours of activity on the AfD, there was still discussion going on as well as changes to the article, and there were only 3 votes. Tduk (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] It was relisted twice, there is absolutely no way you can claim there was only 48 hours of activity. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes I can, there was only one keep vote for two weeks, with no discussion, and then, after the second relisting, and subsequent request at the rescue squadron, there were two delete votes that occurred on the same day. The AfD was closed the day after those delete votes were placed, in the midst of ongoing discussion. The reason it was relisted twice was precisely because there was no activity until that point. Tduk (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Not really any other way this could've been closed. I see it's been incubated; that's the place to work on it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Actually, based on a "holistic" view of the discussion, "no consensus" would have been a valid exercise of admin's discretion. I would endorse either close and I'm endorsing this one. Once the article graduates from the incubator we can revisit the issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I will agree that the nomination in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly was pretty pathetic. Its a shame when an editor gets bummed like this seeing his contributions challenged in close succession, and the collaborative nature of the project breaks down. I am glad the article was userified in good faith. Tduk has made good contributions and I hope he continues to do so. If I was closing the AfD at issue here, I would know I could have closed in my discretion either as no consensus without prejudice to renomination in the near future, or as delete, so I can't recommend that Cirt be overturned in this case.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the onus of keep voters is to find independent reliable sources. There was inadequate demonstration of this so delete is correct result. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Its everyone's responsibility to look for sources when notability is at issue. Most importantly, when relevant, is that it is the onus of the nominator to look for sources before nominating, and the nominator here has failed to do that sometimes in the past with the same article creator's articles, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly. Its very disappointing when nominations like that occur, especially to the article creator, and it damages the collaborative work ethic of the project. This article creator is upset because of hasty nominations of his work, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang. So, even though I say this close should be endorsed, you can see why he has gotten upset.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Milowent - although I have to correct you. I'm not upset, I'm disappointed. Anyway, you are absolutely right that, 9. Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist... In fact, much of WP:BEFORE seems to have been ignored in this case (and many other cases I've seen), particularly points 9 and 10 - and then, after nomination, the nominators argue their favorite parts of policy as reasons for deletion, while ignoring the fact that they did not strictly or literally follow the suggestions here... and then, there seems to be no recourse for this. Yes, I think disappointed is the word to use. Tduk (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ... If it's not notable, that's one thing, but to not even allow this deletion discussion to complete - to close it the day after the first vote came in - seems to _not_ indicate consensus. It may be that the article is not worthy of keeping around, it may be that the sources there are currently no good, but I still don't see how any consensus was reached. Tduk (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as the AfD consensus was read correctly, you don't get to fight your battle again at DRV. Take the advice given; work on the article in userspace or wherever and see what happens from there. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I'm not arguing that there weren't more delete votes than keeps (by one). It does seem troubling though that the AfD was not closed until immediately after someone voted delete - and before the responded to my points about it. If this AfD had been allowed to run the full additional week - or at least to get a week's worth of discussion - then I would not have contested it... but leaving it open for over 2 weeks, then immediately closing it after someone votes delete does not seem to indicate any consensus. It's even implied by the nominator here[94] that the guy is notable, just the sources suck. In cases like this, aren't articles supposed to be improved rather than deleted? I have no vested interest in this particular article, but I am looking at this as an example for how wikipedia functions. Tduk (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Do you actually have any decent sources? Without them this is essentially a total waste of your time as the sources at the time of deletion are nowhere near those required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Isn't wikipedia supposed to be a collaborative effort? WP:BEFORE states that If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.... Why do people keep asking me if I have sources? I've just seen him on TV. I'm not a researcher. That's the nature of the collaboration here - or I thought it was. Tduk (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The point is no-one has come up with any sources so the evidence is that the subject doesn't meet the inclusion standard. Existing is not the same as sources and the onus is on those asserting notability to demonstrate sources to prove them. You can be assured that users voting delete in the discussion will have reviewed the sources and had a locck themselves (well some of them anyway). Sorry, but collaboration and AGF are not an excuse to ignore our standards. Time to drop the stick. The horse already got beat to death. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please understand, I am trying to understand the process here, NOT to get this article undeleted if it should have been deleted. If what you are saying is that the entry was not suitable for inclusion, and that this is the reason it was deleted, then why did it have to wait until two delete votes came in? Ron Ritzman could easily have looked at the article - and either voted himself, or deleted it, if the article was deleted based on sources. The implication is that those delete votes were important - so the implication there is that two delete votes vs one keep vote is consensus. What I am asking is, was it deleted because of consensus, or because it is unsuitable? People have said both. Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Tduk, it's time to WP:LETGO, and take Tarc's excellent advice. you're wasting time here when you could be improving articles. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] By nominating them for deletion? Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, you had more than a fortnight to come up with sources, and WP:RELIST is clear that a relisted debate may be closed once there is consensus, without any necessity that the debate have taken a whole number of weeks. Nominator is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON before replying further. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The article was deleted the day following my request for exactly what you are talking about - assistance finding sources. The article was being worked on by the rescue squadron. It sat there for 2 weeks on AfD, and no one said anything - so why would I be looking for sources on this article? Never mind that I am simply someone who is contributing to the encyclopedia, NOT someone with a vested interest in this article one way or the other. This just seems like the process failed at this point - and if it did not, someone should explain to me how. People are saying "consensus was reached", but that is not much of an explanation given the circumstances. Please don't be snarky with me - as if I am not feeling bludgeoned by the wikistalking I've described above. Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can I withdraw this? It's going nowhere and wasting everyone's time. Tduk (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jimbo Matison – Withdrawn by nominator. – Stifle (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This AfD was nominated by someone who was wikistalking me and nominating pages for deletion (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly). It was on AfD for over 2 weeks with no interest at all. I decided to ask the Article Rescue Squadron if the page could be improved any - and they contributed even more sources. Immediately after this, two people came out of nowhere and voted Delete, with (in my opinion) weak reasoning. (It has been suggested that these people may have noticed this AfD only because I posted on the AfR board - would this count as reverse CANVASsing?). The day after these delete votes were posted, and in the midst of discussing the merits of the reasoning, the AfD was closed as DELETE. I don't believe any consensus was reached in the less than two days of active discussion. During this time one of the delete voters also AfD'ed another article I created, without even notifying me, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang. I'm not sure what's going on here, but regardless of all this strange activity, I don't believe consensus was reached.

comment I forgot to mention that I did discuss this with the closing admin, and others, here[93] Tduk (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article in question has been incubated. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there is nothing in the purported sources that amounts to anything even approaching the standard for article inclusion. Essentially primary, unreliable or extremely tangential sourcing. The AFD was right to discount the sourcing provided so the close was correct. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the incubated article is ready for the mainspace quite yet. Needs more reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this is not AFD round 2. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? What indication is there that consensus was reached? Tduk (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The close by the administrator who made the decision. Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you please be a little more helpful? I'm trying to understand why there is a beilef that consensus was reached, when there was really less than 48 hours of activity on the AfD, there was still discussion going on as well as changes to the article, and there were only 3 votes. Tduk (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was relisted twice, there is absolutely no way you can claim there was only 48 hours of activity. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes I can, there was only one keep vote for two weeks, with no discussion, and then, after the second relisting, and subsequent request at the rescue squadron, there were two delete votes that occurred on the same day. The AfD was closed the day after those delete votes were placed, in the midst of ongoing discussion. The reason it was relisted twice was precisely because there was no activity until that point. Tduk (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not really any other way this could've been closed. I see it's been incubated; that's the place to work on it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on a "holistic" view of the discussion, "no consensus" would have been a valid exercise of admin's discretion. I would endorse either close and I'm endorsing this one. Once the article graduates from the incubator we can revisit the issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will agree that the nomination in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly was pretty pathetic. Its a shame when an editor gets bummed like this seeing his contributions challenged in close succession, and the collaborative nature of the project breaks down. I am glad the article was userified in good faith. Tduk has made good contributions and I hope he continues to do so. If I was closing the AfD at issue here, I would know I could have closed in my discretion either as no consensus without prejudice to renomination in the near future, or as delete, so I can't recommend that Cirt be overturned in this case.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the onus of keep voters is to find independent reliable sources. There was inadequate demonstration of this so delete is correct result. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its everyone's responsibility to look for sources when notability is at issue. Most importantly, when relevant, is that it is the onus of the nominator to look for sources before nominating, and the nominator here has failed to do that sometimes in the past with the same article creator's articles, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly. Its very disappointing when nominations like that occur, especially to the article creator, and it damages the collaborative work ethic of the project. This article creator is upset because of hasty nominations of his work, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang. So, even though I say this close should be endorsed, you can see why he has gotten upset.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Milowent - although I have to correct you. I'm not upset, I'm disappointed. Anyway, you are absolutely right that, 9. Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist... In fact, much of WP:BEFORE seems to have been ignored in this case (and many other cases I've seen), particularly points 9 and 10 - and then, after nomination, the nominators argue their favorite parts of policy as reasons for deletion, while ignoring the fact that they did not strictly or literally follow the suggestions here... and then, there seems to be no recourse for this. Yes, I think disappointed is the word to use. Tduk (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... If it's not notable, that's one thing, but to not even allow this deletion discussion to complete - to close it the day after the first vote came in - seems to _not_ indicate consensus. It may be that the article is not worthy of keeping around, it may be that the sources there are currently no good, but I still don't see how any consensus was reached. Tduk (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as the AfD consensus was read correctly, you don't get to fight your battle again at DRV. Take the advice given; work on the article in userspace or wherever and see what happens from there. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not arguing that there weren't more delete votes than keeps (by one). It does seem troubling though that the AfD was not closed until immediately after someone voted delete - and before the responded to my points about it. If this AfD had been allowed to run the full additional week - or at least to get a week's worth of discussion - then I would not have contested it... but leaving it open for over 2 weeks, then immediately closing it after someone votes delete does not seem to indicate any consensus. It's even implied by the nominator here[94] that the guy is notable, just the sources suck. In cases like this, aren't articles supposed to be improved rather than deleted? I have no vested interest in this particular article, but I am looking at this as an example for how wikipedia functions. Tduk (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you actually have any decent sources? Without them this is essentially a total waste of your time as the sources at the time of deletion are nowhere near those required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't wikipedia supposed to be a collaborative effort? WP:BEFORE states that If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.... Why do people keep asking me if I have sources? I've just seen him on TV. I'm not a researcher. That's the nature of the collaboration here - or I thought it was. Tduk (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point is no-one has come up with any sources so the evidence is that the subject doesn't meet the inclusion standard. Existing is not the same as sources and the onus is on those asserting notability to demonstrate sources to prove them. You can be assured that users voting delete in the discussion will have reviewed the sources and had a locck themselves (well some of them anyway). Sorry, but collaboration and AGF are not an excuse to ignore our standards. Time to drop the stick. The horse already got beat to death. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please understand, I am trying to understand the process here, NOT to get this article undeleted if it should have been deleted. If what you are saying is that the entry was not suitable for inclusion, and that this is the reason it was deleted, then why did it have to wait until two delete votes came in? Ron Ritzman could easily have looked at the article - and either voted himself, or deleted it, if the article was deleted based on sources. The implication is that those delete votes were important - so the implication there is that two delete votes vs one keep vote is consensus. What I am asking is, was it deleted because of consensus, or because it is unsuitable? People have said both. Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tduk, it's time to WP:LETGO, and take Tarc's excellent advice. you're wasting time here when you could be improving articles. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By nominating them for deletion? Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, you had more than a fortnight to come up with sources, and WP:RELIST is clear that a relisted debate may be closed once there is consensus, without any necessity that the debate have taken a whole number of weeks. Nominator is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON before replying further. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted the day following my request for exactly what you are talking about - assistance finding sources. The article was being worked on by the rescue squadron. It sat there for 2 weeks on AfD, and no one said anything - so why would I be looking for sources on this article? Never mind that I am simply someone who is contributing to the encyclopedia, NOT someone with a vested interest in this article one way or the other. This just seems like the process failed at this point - and if it did not, someone should explain to me how. People are saying "consensus was reached", but that is not much of an explanation given the circumstances. Please don't be snarky with me - as if I am not feeling bludgeoned by the wikistalking I've described above. Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I withdraw this? It's going nowhere and wasting everyone's time. Tduk (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Turkish exonyms – While not terribly well attended, the unanimous consensus here was to Restore the article. Any editor is free to renominate the article for a fresh AfD should it be desired. – Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I'm not sure why it needed deleting to begin with since it was the same format and type of content of scores of other exonym articles that all survived a previous mass deletion attempt (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms) and the arguments for deletion were a caricature of the article's actual contents. A vast majority of the entries were true exonyms and not the phonetic transliteration type such as "Şikago" (Chicago) cited. Since retention of exonym lists at Wikipedia has been the rule, I ask that either the article be undeleted or permit me to restore an article on Turkish exonyms similar to that which was deleted. The closing admin, User:Angr, restored the article to my talk page here but asked that I discuss it here before restoring it to mainspace. — AjaxSmack 05:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore. One of the delete !voters was a sock of the nominator, which should on its own be enough to vacate an AfD as finely balanced as this. I'm far from convinced it was a delete close anyway: Mandsford's valid points went unanswered.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand on that a but. Of the two keeps one seems to be an otherstuff exists type arguement. Mandsford's two points I can see is (1) an assertion of notability without reference to policy etc. (2) A suggestion that many are of historic interest. I can't see either as particularly strong. (Albeit the deletes as primarily not a dictionary could be better) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring more to his/her points about the impossibility of a transwiki - but admittedly the closing admin picked up on that too. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our deletion processes rely on users commenting in good faith. That one was seriously sock-tainted and the proportion of sockpuppet input was so high that we have to consider the outcome unsafe. Angr could not have known when he made the close that so much bad faith was involved. And certainly, we should not reward sockpuppetry by suffering it to achieve its goals. In short, I'm with Mkativerata. Overturn and restore, but I want to add that if this is the outcome, it should be permissible for a good-faith user to raise a fresh AfD if they wish.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both Mkativerata and SMarshall in that considering the amount of baid-faith changes and subsequent processes in the article, merits the article being reinstated for the time being. Jab843 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and optionally relist, per S Marshall. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of relationships in the Total Drama series – NAC voided and closed as delete. The article can be temp restored if anyone wnats to do the transwiki – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Illegitimate close: non-admin close by a new account, closed as "no consensus" despite zero keep votes (and a growing consensus to delete). Possibly a sock account? Hairhorn (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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