Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2009 Deletion review archives January 2010 >

31 December 2009

[edit]
  • Dave Elitch – Endorsed for now. This was a minimal stub with quite unreliable sources (not only are the sources from non-standard media, they admit uncertainty within the linked pages). It falls in the gray area of BLP policy, since nothing here is private information, but can still be considered contentious, in that there seems to be a lot of heated debate about who exactly is in this band at the moment. Thus, I'm reluctant to undelete under current circumstances. It ought to be clarified quite soon anyway. Some question has been raised about whether this technically qualified as an A7--it's borderline, but falls within the acceptable area since its assertion of notability contradicted itself and the sources discussed "rumors." It goes without saying that any new article that relies on reliable sources will not be eligible for G4, particularly but not only if Elitch can be confirmed to be in the band. – Chick Bowen 02:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Elitch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe that Dave Elitch is notable as he is well known for being the replacement of Thomas Pridgen and for touring with Mars Volta, and for other reasons I am willing to bring up if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iminrainbows (talk • contribs) 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please could you list the sources you propose to use for your article?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now. Our Thomas Prigden article states, "In late 2009 rumours of Thomas Pridgen parting ways with The Mars Volta circulated the internet. As of December 2009 the band has still made no official statement, however, in their most recent shows they have been performing with drummer Dave Elitch. Whether this is permanent or not has yet to be confirmed." There is absolutely no harm in waiting until it's actually known if he's a member of the band or just filling in for a show or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Pridgen article is not up to date. Since then Pridgen has said that he has left and Dave Elitch has said that he has joined. My sources will be:

Iminrainbows (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are acceptable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say David Elitch's personal website is a reasonable primary source. Hobit (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This doesn't need to come to DRV; the speedy doesn't prevent creation of a new article with a sufficient claim of significance. Just do it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, though a restoration of the article would probably be helpful (I can't see it as the cached article I'm seeing is of the band). userfy for now. I think we need to wait until an independent reliable source covers that he's now in the band. No objection to recreation as him being in the band (even for a short while) would be a reasonable claim of notability and not allow an A7 deletion, but it's probably easier to wait and get the closing admin to restore once notability is established. Also, question for an admin: Did the article deleted on Dec 29th claim he was in the band? Hobit (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. It indicated that he "is currently" a member of the band, but also noted that he "will replace" Pridgen on one leg of a particular tour. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz- a speedy deletion doesn't prevent creation of an acceptable article- if you have the sources, write it. An admin may provide you with a copy of the old article, or even put it in your userspace at their discretion. The new article will be subject to our normal deletion policies, but as the article was not deleted after discussion, speedy deletion criteria G4 would not apply. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would saying that he is well known for being rumored to be in The Mars Volta be a significant claim of notability, even if there is no solid source saying that he is in the band? Because I think he's become pretty well known for these rumors, even if it turns out that in fact he isn't an official member. Iminrainbows (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion under criterion A7. An article does not need to prove the notability of its subject in order to avoid speedy deletion, but it does need to indicate the significance of its subject, which is a much lower threshold. Being rumoured to be a member of a notable musical group is not really an assertion of significance as anyone can spread any rumour about anyone. I suggest waiting for confirmation of the rumour in a reliable source before recreating the article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn not a valid A7 as importance of the subject was asserted in the article (per Black Falcon's comments). It's not up to the admin doing A7 to verify if the facts are true. Just that importance was asserted. A claim to be in a notable band is an assertion of importance. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Was speedily deleted by User:SchuminWeb on the basis of (F7: Violates non-free use policy: Not different enough that the idea could not be conveyed by a current free image). The criteria has not been correctly applied in this case as it is no longer possible to create a free image of the vessel in its Royal Navy form. The vessel was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. The Pakistan Navy uses a different colour scheme, the quadruple Exocet launcher in B position was removed, a Harpoon launcher replaces it, the Sea Cat launcher has been removed and the hangar modified to take a larger helicopter. It is not possible to replace the none free image with a free equivalent. Justin talk 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Because the ship looks different is not a good enough reason to toss the decision aside. — The Hand That Feeds YouBite 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? The image cannot be recreated so we should ignore the free use justification and use some utterly unrelated image just 'cos its free. Sorry that argument is utterly illogical. Justin talk 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, as you point out in the nom, it's not "an unrlated image," it's the same ship with modifications. We can use a free image of the current version of the ship. You said it was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. So it is the same ship, it just looks different. Your argument is akin to saying we can't use a modern picture of an actress because now she's 80 and had three face-lifts, so she doesn't look the same as her Oscar-award winning performance 60 years ago. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err no, the article is about HMS Ambuscade in Royal Navy service, on ship articles where ships have seen service in several navies, each service has its own article. e.g. ARA General Belgrano and USS Phoenix (CL-46). So your analogy doesn't reflect the situation here. Hence, my comment about the logic in your argument; it doesn't reflect the situation here. Justin talk
Just because it's got articles on each separate service doesn't invalidate our image rules. The boat still exists, so a free image can be made. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of invalidating image rules, it is perfectly permissible within the image rules. And no a free image is not possible in this case and your suggestion that an unrelated image will do is utterly specious. Justin talk 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said "an unrelated image will do," so I don't know where you're getting off calling my argument "specious."If your argument is that the boat currently doesn't look like it did when it was designated HMS Ambuscade, I don't think you'll satisfy the image rules. The ship still exists. We can still make a free image of it. Therefore, a non-free image is not necessary. The fact that it has been modified doesn't change that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its specious because it is an unrelated image. The article is about HMS Ambuscade, the image is to illustrate her in the service of the Royal Navy. There cannot be a free image as HMS Ambuscade no longer exists. To shove in an image of the ship in Pakistan Navy service is to use an unrelated image. A non-free image is impossible because HMS Ambuscade no longer exists. Justin talk 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - If you'll look through the admin's talk pages, there are quite a few similar instances - quick skim through his contributions over the last few weeks there's several "oops I was too quicksI over stepped" - itchy delete finger? --71.54.72.13 (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - As the lister says, no free image can now be made, so it's explicitly allowed under the non-free content guideline, just like a person who is dead or a hermit, or a band that no longer exists. The closing admin's suggestion of using a picture of some other ship is ludicrous; if we adopted that line of reasoning we could get rid of all free-use pictures of people by using a free picture of somebody else! -- Zsero (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, list at FFD. Closer's summary ("not different enough") and Justin's argument indicate enough of a substantial content issue is involved to require community discussion rather than summary action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at FfD. Not clear-cut enough for a speedy. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Not a speedy case as it isn't clearly replaceable. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn - whatever else may be decided, this was an inappropriate speedy delete Thparkth (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD if desired. WP:CSD states that "administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." This is clearly not an obvious case, given the strong contention that no free equivalent can be created. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly it was and is replaceable by other (non-free) images such as File:HMS Amazon (F169).jpg. Why waste anyone's time at FFD? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? How can it be replaced by a picture of a different ship?! Would you also say that a picture of a deceased person may be replaced by that of somebody else of the same sex, age, race, and general build? -- Zsero (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but ships aren't people. These ships were all built to one plan and - so far as I can recall - all underwent the same visible changes. Apart from the pennant number, which is all but illegible in these shots, they were visibly identical. Only a total anorak could possibly tell the difference and anyone that obsessive should have pictures of these which they took at some Navy Day which they can release under a free license. We can't lose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So if a famous dead person had an identical twin who was still alive, and someone wanted to upload a photo for fair use, you would suggest taking a photo of the twin instead, on the grounds that nobody would know the difference? -- Zsero (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not a really great analogy the first time you tried it out and I don't find that fine-tuning is helping. The subject here is a big inanimate steel thing. If it is analogies you want think cars, not people. Do we insist on picturing every possible trim level and engine variant in an article? Every little detail change? Or do we say "here's a three-door VW Golf Mk2" and "here's a four-door Ford Escort Mk1"? You're asking for a picture of the "three-door VW Golf Mk2 1.6 GLi automatic with the optional five-spoke alloy wheels and metallic paint". Even the Volkswagen Golf Mk2 article, dealing with a subject where there are enormous numbers of free pictures available, doesn't depict that level of detail. It settles for representativeness. So too can the article where this image was used. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn't about the type of ship, it's about the ship itself. If we say "here's a picture of the car Kennedy was shot in", we don't put up a picture of one just like it if we can get one of the car itself. We don't put a picture of Apollo-12 in an article about Apollo-11, just because they looked alike (if they did). -- Zsero (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the argument that it is a completely different ship none of the Type 21 had exactly the same build standard, there were differences between members of the class. HMS Antelope for example was never fitted with Exocet. Justin talk 09:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn argument for fair use negates possibility of speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 7 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:RebShimon.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:RavYosefLeibBloch.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The images are very probably in the public domain, but just in case they're not I added a fair use rationale, and noted this in the discussion, calling for it to be closed as a keep, either way. Instead, and to my horror, User:Fastily deleted them! I have attempted to reason with him, but he takes the absurd position that if a file is definitely PD it may be kept, and if it's definitely copyright but fair use then it may also be kept, but if we're unsure which one it is it must be deleted! Deleting these files did nothing to improve the encyclopaedia, and I request that they be undeleted. For now they should be treated as fair use, just as a precaution; eventually enough time will have passed that we can confidently call them PD and use them more freely. Zsero (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This seems to be essentially the same issue as discussed here Wikipedia:Deletion_review#File:Hiram_Bithorn.JPG, where the consensus right now seems to be to be to allow the image as fair use. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn with relist possible. Similar DRV just concluded, rejected general deletion of such cases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist if desired was not found to be in the PD, but no argument was made in the FfD why it doesn't meet our requirements as non-free content (which it was listed as at the time of deletion). I've no clue if it does or doesn't as I've not seen the image or context for it. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment But this wasn't a FfD debate; it was a WP:PUF listing. The issue at hand was that someone had to prove the image was free, or otherwise satisfy WP:NFCC. Over the course of the two-month listing, no one did that. This, therefore, was a perfectly reasonable way to close a listing at PUF. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unable to prove beyond doubt that the photos were PD, since my attempts to contact the author of the article from which they were copied (in order to find out where he copied them from) failed. But for that very reason I added a fair use rationale as a backup, and therefore the PUF should have immediately been closed as a keep. Instead they were deleted. -- Zsero (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did miss where the discussion occurred, but I still think that this shouldn't be deleted simply for not being a free image once there is a fair use rational. No issue with listing at FfD if it is felt that NFCC isn't met. I certainly disagree with "A Stop at Willoughby" that just because you don't know who (if anyone) owns the image you can't meet NFCC#2. If we want that requirement added to NFCC, it should be explicit. Hobit (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist - there is absolutely no legal problem with saying "this is probably PD, but if it's not here is the fair use rationale". Thparkth (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion On Wikipedia, we assume that images aren't public-domain until proven otherwise. Therefore, because Zsero failed to prove that this was public domain during the two months this was listed at WP:PUF, we must assume that this is non-free content. So the question is whether this meets WP:NFCC. That policy states that non-free content "may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" (emphasis mine). Here's the deal: If you don't know who the copyright holder is, your image cannot meet WP:NFCC#2. You may argue all you like that #2 would be met easily if you knew who the copyright holder was, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot be sure. And WP:NFCC requires that all 10 (not "most of the") criteria are (not "may be") met. Therefore, this was a perfectly reasonable deletion/WP:PUF closure. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not agree that "If you don't know who the copyright holder is, your image cannot meet WP:NFCC#2." All #2 requires is that the content is not "not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". This can usually be easily assessed even without knowing who the copyright holder is. Thparkth (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. How do you know what the original market role without knowing the copyright holder? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick. Who owns the copyright on the 1976 London Philharmonic recording of the Blue Danube? Who knows. What is the market role of that recording? That's easy - it's a commercial soundrecording sold in its complete form in retail, and licensed commercially for use in film, radio and television. How does, say, a five second sample of that recording "replace the original market role"? Answer: it doesn't. There you go, an absolutely correct and complete assessment of WP:NFCC#2 without ever knowing who owns the copyright. It may sometimes be necessary to know who the copyright holder is to assess the impact of a non-free-use but it's not a universal requirement, and it is not the intention behind WP:NFCC#2. Thparkth (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely (and despite the wording of the policy) what matters is not the original market role but the current one. Remember that the purpose of #2 is to avoid taking business away from the copyright holder, which can only happen now, not 70 or 80 years ago. And in this case the answer to "what is the current market role of these photos" is "none". Nobody is selling them. Nobody knows who might have the right to sell them. It is very likely that nobody has this right. They are not generating any revenue for anyone, and it is nearly certain that they never will.
But if we must consider the original market role, then that is simple and obvious. The photos could only have been taken for a limited number of purposes: 1. For the private use of the subjects; if so, #2 is irrelevant. 2. To sell newspapers; if so, the issues in which they appeared were sold, used to wrap fish, and thrown away the better part of a century ago, and the newspapers themselves no longer exist. 3. For a fundraising brochure for the subjects' employer; if so, reproducing them on WP will not prevent them from doing so again should they want to. So whichever way you look at it, #2 is satisfied. -- Zsero (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at FfD. If it is uncertain whether it is in the public domain or not, it should be treated as fair-use and that's it. To delete an image based on a problem that could be fixed by removal of the PD tag makes scant sense to me. The NFCC issues were never aired during the PUF listing, and I'm frankly uncertain whether they warrant deletion. I am certain, however, that the error here was not harmless, and a discussion at the appropriate venue—FfD—is required. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Until the {{di-no author}} template is deleted or deprecated a failure to provide author information will be one reason for deletion under WP:CSD#F4. The uploader is normally to be allowed a two-day grace period to remedy this defect in the case of non-free content. In this case the interval was rather closer to two months than two days and still there was no progress. No other outcome was possible. On the other hand I have no particular objection to relisting at FFD although I do question the usefulness of doing so. But perhaps the horse will learn to sing in the next two weeks or so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This is craziness. These images are either legitimate fair use, or they are PD. Either way they are no legal risk either to us, or our downstream reusers. The only thing achieved by this deletion is to reduce our readers' understanding of the topics, squarely against the purpose of WP:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I can only assume Fastily suffered from a moment of temporary insanity here. It is quite reasonable to say, in words, that an image is likely to public domain while backing that up with a fair use rationale to mitigate against any lingering uncertainty. A public domain tag would have been inappropriate, but that doesn't seem to have been present on the deleted images. If someone wants to challenge the fair use rationale then that is fine thing to discuss, and could motivate relisting, but the closer was in error to delete these without any attempt to consider whether NFCC was satisfied. The closer is also wrong in his subsequent discussion to imply that NFCC can't be satisfied simply because the author is currently unknown. Dragons flight (talk) 03:34, 6 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Xavier bowl games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a standard navigational template for American football bowl games; in this case, those which the now-defunct Xavier Musketeers football team played in. The template was nominated for deletion on the reasonable grounds that it contained one redlink and was orphaned. During the discussion I wrote the Xavier Musketeers football article and adding the template, so it was no longer orphaned. Only one other editor participated in the discussion, and s/he opined that the navbox wasn't "useful." Usefulness as such as an editorial question and not a reason for deletion. The template was deleted by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on these same usefulness grounds. I have asked him to reverse himself, and he has declined, so I'm bringing the matter here for wider attention. I would ask that the deletion be overturned so that the way is clear for restoring the navigational template to the article. Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I presume that you are referring to Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? I think the close itself was reasonable; it makes little sense to have a navbox with only one link in it. However, if the number of links can be expanded, there should be no barrier to recreation. So endorse close but permit recreation of a navbox with a larger number of links. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of the deleting administrator. I deleted the template because it made little sense to keep a navigational template with just one link in it, which, by the way, is a redlink (1950 Salad Bowl). I agree with Timotheus Canens that this navbox can be recreated if sufficient number of articles are written. Ruslik_Zero 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's no longer a red link, and I still don't see how this would be a rationale for deletion in the first place. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion lists four reasons to delete a template, and this isn't one of them. Of course a template may be deleted if there's consensus to do so, but when the only two editors commenting disagree on the merits surely there isn't consensus to do so. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, let me ask this. If I take the {{Navbox}} template and use it directly on the article to create a link, I assume no one would view that as overturning this outcome since it's strictly an editorial decision. That being the case, why is it a problem to take that and place it within its own template? No actual guideline is being violated (and I'll write an article on the bowl in question, once this is overwith). Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I see nothing wrong with the closing administrator's actions. While participation in the discussion was low, the argument that the navigational template was of no use because it contained just one redlink was the stronger one. In that respect, I think those seeking deletion won the debate. That said, Mackensen is correct that no guidelines were actually violated by the template, as WP:NAV is an essay and the relevant guideline, WP:CLN, does not appear to prohibit templates with very few links. That does not mean the delete arguments were invalid, however; it simply means that they were based on common sense. I have no problem with Mackensen creating a new template with multiple blue links (such as 1950 Salad Bowl) in it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since I !voted "Delete" in the TFD, I won't bother saying "Endorse" here. However, I would like to point out that it is common practice at TFD to delete navigation templates that have very few working links, so whether the link was functional or not had little impact on its fate. I've never seen a navbox with just one or two links survive a TFD; generally any navbox with less than five working links is at high risk. There is no established guideline on how many links are required, but the pattern is well-established in practice. But at the same time, I don't know of any serious objection to such templates being recreated if a robust number of relevant links can be provided. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Students for Economic Justice (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I saw this page was deleted, and am a bit confused as to why it is. The group itself is linked on other wiki pages. A google search for "students for economic justice" michigan state university pulls 88,000 articles, many from non-student news sources (that is, excluding the Michigan Daily and State News - articles were published in the Lansing City Pulse, Lansing State Journal, Democracy Now, Media Mouse, Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, etc., among others. A Lexis search pulls up Associated Press articles, the Tampa Tribune, the Washington Times, Grand Rapids Press, South Bend Tribune, and, of course, the Univeresity Wire (MSU and U of M). It's a bit confusing because it appears the editors recommending deletion seem not to have checked Lexis, given that 44 of the articles on Lexis about Students for Economic Justice were published prior to the deletion recommendation. Since deletion, the articles published include the Tampa Tribune and Washington Times.

Sorry, as an update, I also found this page, which contains additional reasons for deletion, all of which I think are answered above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SEJ

As well as several entries on google books, including http://books.google.com/books?id=aWkvLXn48YYC&pg=PT193&dq=students+for+economic+justice+michigan&cd=3#v=onepage&q=students%20for%20economic%20justice&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.133.240 (talk • contribs) 13:54, December 30, 2009

  • Comment - Those deletion reviews are from 2006 and 2005 (respectively). I can't see the actual article contents, but from the AfD discussions it sounds like there wasn't much sourced material to go on. I suggest that the nominator create a new article, sourced per WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show us a draft, otherwise there's nothing we can do here. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Bottom line: student clubs at a single school are virtually never notable enough for an article. If you really think this one is that one-in-a-million exception to the rule, then prove it by producing an impeccably-sourced draft in your user space that unquestionably passes WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - I think that the appellant is unclear about the role of DRV. It is not for us to re-run the AfD or evaluate search results; rather we are here simply to judge whether the close should be overturned. I accept that the AfD could have been closed as 'no consensus', and a fuller closure statement would have helped, but it was within the closing admin's discretion to support the deletion arguments that the sources shown failed to meet WP:ORG. The way forward, as suggested above, is for a new draft to be produced in user space and then come back here with a request for it to be moved back into main space. TerriersFan (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks When I looked at the page, it said that I had to write here before editing the page, so I did that. I'll do it in on a separate page and try to get it moved back - thanks for all your help!
  • allow recreation Not on just one campus at this point. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The sources aren't all great (school papers, local smaller papers) but I don't see the need for a userspace article first. Looks like the topic meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Three participants in the AfD sought deletion – two on the basis that they were unable to find sufficient sources, and one on the basis that they believed the article was promotional. Another participant voted to keep only if sufficient sourcing could be found. A fifth participant voted "weak keep," noting the necessity of better sourcing. All things considered, I think there was a consensus to delete here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think all agree that the debate from more than 2 years ago was correctly closed. But restoration now there there are sources (or more accurately, now that sources are easier to find) seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hide it behind a curtain"? What? Nothing is being "hidden." And why not let the editor start the article with a clean slate?
  • Because the editor working on the article should get to use the old article as a starting point if they wish. I don't see why we shouldn't allow that, and no one has provided any reason that I can see. If the old article is horrible, fine. But even then it might have well formatted references or something else. I don't understand this desire to make others do extra work with no reason given. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Had you considered that poor wording/sourcing would make it harder to create a good article? (ie. sorting through all the cruft, rather than starting fresh from the new author's own wording & sourcing) That said, it's standard for AfD's closed so long ago to simply start over from scratch with a userfied version. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I trust that the editor working on the article is better off making that decision than us making that decision. This isn't 1st grade and we aren't the teachers. Adults don't need others to hide stuff from them on the off chance it will make their work worse. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adults also don't need vague accusations of "hiding" things thrown around. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:29, 6 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Malvern_Instruments (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Unfair deletion. No chance to review content. Steven.redgewell (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by deleting admin: As per this long, long discussion on my talk page, the article is a cut-and-paste of a press release by the company, and Mr Redgewell is a current or former employee (current employee when claiming the right to release the press release under CC-BY-SA, former employee when reminded of our policy on conflicts of interest). The article was therefore an unambiguous and admitted copyright violation, an advertisement ("...one of the world’s leading materials characterization companies, highly respected for its innovation and leadership in particle characterization..." and "They provide essential information that supports the understanding, improvement and optimization of many industrial processes...") and a flagrant conflict of interest. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 12:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, copyvio, advertising, COI... there are a cornucopia of reasons why this should have been deleted, and the correct call was made by the deleting admin. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse and Speedy Close - Copyvios are non-negotiable. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, speedy close. Copyvios should go ASAP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author: As a new user to Wikipedia I don't feel I was given the chance to amend the content. Malvern Instruments' competitors have Wikipedia pages and these have been allowed. From my 24 hours of Wikipedia experience, my first impressions are of an organisation that doesn't nuture new users. I would gladly amend the content to prevent copyright violation, even though it is publically available anyway. Steven.redgewell (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I acknowledge the conflict of interest, however this was not the original reason for you to delete the article. I am trying to point out that I wasn't given a fair chance to make necessary changes to the article, your original actions were extreme and you could have dealt with the article better. I know the COI makes all of this irrelevant now and applaud you in your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Steven.redgewell (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Obvious copyvio is obvious. You are free to work on the article offline. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if the company passes WP:CORP, then in time someone will create an article on it who isn't an employee of the company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, hold your horses everyone: what we're providing to this new editor isn't FairProcess. The message we've sent, collectively, is "you may not write this article". And I'm rather disappointed that we haven't then gone on to say, "... but you can request that someone else should write it, via the AfC process", or ask about sources, or in fact do anything at all that's actually helpful for the new user or indicates any desire to engage them in the encyclopaedia-building process.

    I think we need to be aware of this. "You can't do this" is often an appropriate response at DRV, but it need to be tempered with "... but what you can do is this."—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except, in the long conversation on my talk page before this DRV, Mr Redgewell admitted that the company doesn't pass WP:CORP and isn't notable: "Due to the nature of the business, there is nobody unrelated to the company that would have anything to do with them." On that basis, inviting him to write the article again elsewhere would be a waste of everyone's time as it couldn't possibly survive. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Cyclopia/List of dichotomies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) speedily deleted this subpage of mine with the justification that it met CSD G5 criteria (see discussion at my talk page. Problem is, it doesn't meet G5 for the simple reason that it underwent substantial edits by other users (yours truly). Even if they amounted to trimming and refactoring, fact is that the deleted version of that page was no more only the work of the banned user. I am ok with the deletion of the revisions of the banned users, but I am much less ok with deletion of my own revisions, especially if they belong to a userfied page that was kept for further work. At the very minimum, I would appreciate if the wikicode can be sent to me by email, so that I can use it as a start for refactoring (being a list, the listed items would be the necessary material). Thanks. Cyclopiatalk 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) - Withdrawn. Explanations on my talk page were enough to understand the issue at stake. I would be nevertheless happy if in the future some more explanation, even if private and partial, can be made when having to delete stuff in this way, for respect towards editors. --Cyclopiatalk 16:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cyclopia rearranged the content a little, but did not author any content on this page. I have recommended that they talk to Arbcom before initiating this DRV. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • G5 talks of "substantial edits", not of "authoring content". In any case, I trimmed the thing down heavily and reorganized it. The structure of an article is part of its content, obviously: "Dog bites postman" is different from "Postman bites dog", even if the words are the same. About ArbCom, I am sure User:John Vandenberg will be more than glad to explain here, without omission of detail, why and how I should contact ArbCom: unfortunately in my discussion with him on my talk page and later by email, he asked me to contact it but explained basically nothing. --Cyclopiatalk 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to take John's advice. There is good reason for not posting a lot of detail publicly, so when you're told to contact privately, do that. This DRV needs speedy closure, and you need to listen better. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is obviously unacceptable. "We know better" cannot be a reason for any admin action -it can never be a reason. Refusing to give any explanation, even privately, for action which (at least) border on being out of process cannot be accepted. It only shows contempt not only for me, but for the whole editors' community. --Cyclopiatalk 15:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • False. Editors elected by the community to bear special responsibility (such as John) or entrusted by ArbCom with special responsibility sometimes are aware of things that cannot or should not be made public. That's just the way it is. You can accept it, or not, but you can't change it, and if you cause too much disruption about it, defeating the purpose of keeping the matter quiet in the first place, you may be sanctioned. You don't have the facts in the matter, and you're not going to get all of them. If you choose not to accept that, you may wish to find another project to participate in. Sorry to be blunt but it's apparent that a softer approach was tried and you didn't respond appropriately. You need to listen better. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't need all the facts. It's not a matter of trust in you, but of respect of us. Editors are not dumb sheeps. I only demand enough facts to understand why this is the way it is, and have this settled. At least in private, if public discussion concerns you so much. It also seems I am not the only one to feel that a different behaviour from admins -at least, a bit more respect to editors- would be very much appreciated. Expressions like "respond appropriately" or "you need to listen better" are utterly uncivil when dealing with adult and good-intentioned editors. --Cyclopiatalk 15:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • My read of this is that you were encouraged to contact ArbCom privately before starting this DrV, and you didn't. I'm glad that you're going to try a different tack here, now. No one wants anything unpleasant to happen. It's just that this is an important issue that is difficult to deal with effectively in full public glare. I'd reiterate, the people handling this do have a special level of trust and should be allowed some latitude if they say "trust us, please". I'm sorry for being blunt but it didn't seem like softer touches were working. Can this DRV be withdrawn now, please? ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • After your explanation, yes. It would have been that easy if it was explained to me from the start. Next time however please use different tones when dealing with editors. Not softer, simply try not to just assume that anyone will accept that "you know better." and try instead to treat them like sentient people. That's all I asked, after all, from start. --Cyclopiatalk 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Bit of a strange situation. I've left a message about it for Jayjg, the closing admin, but he hasn't gotten back to me, so DRV seemed the next best step. Basically, the AfD discussion was not fully closed. The AfD involved two articles: a type of martial art called Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, and the inventor of said martial art, Bill Church (Tang Soo Do). Both were nominated for AfD and discussed together in the one discussion. As the closing admin, Jayjg properly stated that the consensus was for delete, but only deleted Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, leaving Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) without any determination. Essentially, one of four things should happen with the latter article: 1) keep (although this shouldn't happen as there is definitely no consensus for that), 2) delete, 3) re-listed for further discussion (or, alternatively, re-nominated in its own AfD), or 4) closed with no consensus (again, I think the !votes were definitely towards delete, so I don't believe this is a real option either). Singularity42 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Climategate scandal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were a significant number of opinions expressed in support of keeping the article and after reviewing the arguments the issue seemed far from settled. Further, a close on a disputed AfD less than 12 hours after it was opened when it doesn't meet speedy conditions seems very premature. jheiv (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal

The nominator of this review has acceded to an agreement between the original creator and the sysop who closed the deletion discussion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal#Closure). The author will work on it in his userspace at User:Wikidemon/Climategate_scandal, and thanks all for the positive feedback on this subject.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:Angry students turning over police cars.jpg – This is difficult one as the discussion was defective and the closing admin should really have explained the deletion in such circumstances and also, the compelling arguments came very late in the day. However, its is unarguable that the image was incorrectly licensed on Flickr. The photostream concerned is clearly from multiple sources and the image is clearly marked in a way that shows its not the original work of the uploader. The site concerned is clearly labeled as all righst reserved so this means that both the attributation and original copyright status are are no longer clear enough for this to qualify under the NFCC. Essentially this becomes a copyvio and we don't undelete copyvios. – Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Angry students turning over police cars.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

quote:Reason=As other pictures in the article, this one conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and also proves that what is said in the sentence is true (assuming, of course, the photo was really taken there and then, which is not being challenged, though). I say keep until a free image showing the same (or a reasonably similar) scene is available. Jimmy Fleischer. Arilang talk 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and Relist, at the risk of sounding unpopular, the image had a fair use rationale, and nobody argued for keep delete other than the nominator. Closing as "Delete" under those circumstances without a further rationale is bizarre. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Awaiting comment from the closer before registering my !vote. My preliminary view at the moment is that the comment quoted above seems to be arguing that the use satisfies WP:NFCC#8; since that's the FfD nominator's only point here, I'm uncertain how one can gauge a consensus from this debate. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment, as requested. Two arguments that this image satisfies NFCC were put forth: 1/ that it conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and 2/ that it proves that what is said in the sentence is true. The former is deficient, as the image adds nothing to understanding that words would not, as the subject is not striking and easily understood with words: students tipped over a vehicle. Lack of a FU image must be significantly detrimental to understanding; none of those supporting keep provided any actual evidence that understanding of the riots would be significantly hampered by loss of this image. The second argument, that it "proves what is said in the sentence is true" is a nonstarter, as we use reliable sources for that, not ambiguous images. Badagnani's argument was summarily ignored as baseless.
As a minor note not touched on in the FFD, it is probably deletable because of invalid source information, since the source provided—this flicker page—releases it under CC-BY-SA, while other images in that stream also marked as CC are probably not owned by the user, since they are screenshots from My Chief and My Regiment, a Chinese television show. So the flickr user probably does not own the image in the first place, therefore the source information is invalid, which makes it deletable anyway. The image also contains the text "www.boxun.com", which further clouds source information. ÷seresin 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I request that the closing administrator bear a few things in mind when closing this DRV. First, that consensus is not determined by numbers; neither here nor in an FfD. Consensus comes from policy-based, effective and relevant arguments. Arguments which have no bearing when determining consensus include ones which to do not address the issue at hand (like Badagnani's in the FfD, as all ten NFCC must be met, not only one), or ones which do not address substantive issues of closure (like Colonel Warden's here, as the timestamps on the closure and deletion give no indication as to how much time was spent reading the debate, if that even mattered). Given that consensus does not derive from numbers, comments like Cyclopia's are meaningless, as a consensus to delete can exist if only the nominator supports deletion. As consensus requires policy-based, effective and relevant arguments, if none were provided (as I contend here) then there is a consensus to delete (remember that the nominator's arguments are not excluded from interpretation of the debate). The closer should examine the arguments presented in the FfD and consider whether they actually explain why this image is necessary to understand the article in question (NFCC 8), or whether text is sufficient to explain to the reader what the image conveys: people overturned a vehicle. If you find Jimmy Fleischer's argument more convincing than Ricky81682's, and more convincing than my discussion about it above, then I suppose closing this as faulting my closure is forthcoming. I do, though, wish to draw your attention to my note above about source information, and consider that in the effective result of your closure here, irrespective of your finding about my closure. ÷seresin 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**Overturn and relist per my comment above. There is a fairly strong argument that the photo meets WP:NFCC#8, which has not been rebutted. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC) changed to endorse; see below. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the NFCC#8 claim—I still think there is no consensus either way, and if anything, the keep seems to be more well-argued. Nonetheless, you are correct about the source information issue. On that ground and that ground alone, and since we are not a bureaucracy, endorse deletion, but not the rationale. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Two keep comments out of two, and a delete outcome? Really? Come on. --Cyclopiatalk 14:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, I didn't see the image, I might say keep or I might say delete once I see it. Clearly there is no consensus to delete. If this qualifies for speedy deletion then re-close as a speedy delete, citing the reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The image was nominated for deletion for failing WP:NFCC#8. One of the keep comments was basically WP:ILIKEIT ("Strong keep this irreplaceable image") and the other was not focused on this image ("As other pictures in the article...much better than words..."). Since neither keep was a direct comment on the merits of this picture, I support the closer giving them less weight. Celestra (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Had Jimmy Fleischer left off his introductory phrase and said simply "This picture conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can ...." would your endorsement stand as strongly? The fact that he thinks the other pictures in the article also convey the situation much better than words should not prejudice this image one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because the introductory phrase merely highlights the fact that the keep argument does not argue the merits of this photo. A persuasive argument would have explained how this photo "significantly increase readers' understanding" of students overturning cars. That is the standard, not "much better than words". Celestra (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse what is the point of restoring an image that can never be used because it fails nfcc#8, and therefore can be speedy deleted under CSD:F5 anyway. Talk about process wonkery!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.126.27 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist - Images simply cannot be deleted at a whim, against clear consensus to keep. Violating our project's consensus-based norms is simply wrong and we cannot ever allow, condone, or encourage such behavior, as some above commenters seem to be doing. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist if so desired. This clearly should not have been closed as "delete," as only the nominator supported deletion and his arguments were not especially strong. Some of the "keep" arguments weren't especially strong either, but Jimmy Fleischer made a strong case for why the image met WP:NFCC#8. This close was improper. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The timestamps on this and other contemporaneous closures by the same admin indicate that the discussion was not properly read. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A) The only consensus that existed was to keep. B) If you are going to close contrary to the !vote consensus you should _really_ have a closing statement and C) per Colonel Warden for now. I'm unclear on how the closer could have evaluated so many of these so quickly while reading the details of each. Is there a batch process or some such where you can queue up these deletions and then delete them all in one go? Hobit (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close itself was done by a bot a couple hours after the image has been deleted. I don't know what the closer did, but it would make sense to read through the page, click the "delete" link on the ones you want to delete, then actually delete them all when you are done reading. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A closing process that lets one close and delete without providing a rationale is defective. Some of the addons/bots can operate so as to not effectively give the opportunity, but should not be used that way. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, the question is, what is going to be done about this (it was done no fewer than four times, for four different images), and, specifically, what are you going to do about it? If there is no censure or ramifications for the admin who abused his/her powers, such abuse will go on and on. There must be an end to this, and I'm looking forward to the response of what you personally are going to do to see that it does not happen again, specifically in the case of the admin who did it in this case. Badagnani (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We should not link to a source that is obviously violating copyright. Chick Bowen 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Procedurally defective - the closing admin deleted the image despite an apparent policy-based consensus to keep. Absent any explanation the only thing to assume is that the admin placed his/her personal interpretation of policy over the consensus. I have no opinion on the underlying question of whether the non-free use rationale is strong enough to support the use in that article, although I do note that there were arguments in the delete discussion that it does. Like most listed images this one did not generate enough discussion to really have a meaningful result, although some of the comments here could perhaps be taken into account and/or those commenting here would take the time to weigh in if it is relisted. Looking through the admin's other recent activity I see quite a number of problematic deletes, some (as in a picture of a defunct rock band) that pretty clearly go against the guideline, which specifically mentions defunct groups. The level of opposition and concern here should be a sign to the admin to start leaving rationales for any decision likely to be disputed, and try not to go so far out on a limb that so many of the deletions are overturned. Sourcing is a side issue here. If someone wants to nominate it on that basis then it should run through the proper course on that, which would give people time to track down the source, presumably via boxun.com - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. In response to the above, I cannot say that sourcing is a side issue; it is the central issue. Many of the points made about process are entirely appropriate, and I understand the relist type arguments. In fact, this may be considered as favoring relist if it will help obtain consensus. My strongest feeling, however, after looking at the image (with "www.boxum.com" in large red letters), is that we only can say this isn't a probable copyright violation with a wink and a nod. I'm just don't favor being willfully oblivious when the non-free rationale is so tenuous. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that sourcing is not relevant to this DR because it was not considered in the deletion discussion. If an article is inappropriately deleted for one reason, I don't think it's a good argument to say that the deletion should stand because there is another undiscussed reason why it could have been deleted. We should try to find a good source. But note, the real issue is that we don't know the source - the fact that it was copied from a copyvio page doesn't affect our NFC analysis or our right to use it. The fact that we don't know the source, though, makes it harder to be sure about some of the points. For example, if it is a news service photo then I think the general agreement is that we can't use it even if it satisfies all the other criteria, because we're interfering with their business of taking photos to illustrate historic events. If it does get relisted, I think we should make a point of discussing the sourcing problem, and if that doesn't get resolved while the listing is open then the image has to be deleted after all. I hope that makes sense. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it makes sense to undelete something if process has not been followed but it is likely to be eventually deleted anyway has been much debated and is as yet unresolved. But that argument doesn't apply to copyright issues: we are obligated by WMF policy to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright. In this case, clearly an image uploaded with a valid source would not be a G4, but I don't see how an admin in good conscience can undelete this image given the problems with both the markings on the image and the listed source on the image description page. Chick Bowen 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Likely to be deleted anyway" doesn't really work because that's what deletion discussions are for, there isn't a foregone conclusion unless you're suggesting this is an WP:IAR scenario. Sourcing isn't a copyright problem though - whether the flickr user stole the image isn't relevant to whether our use is or is not a copyright violation. Anyway, like I said, if the image source isn't complete someone ought to make an attempt to find the actual source, right? Would relisting the article mean we have to undelete it in the meanwhile? I don't see why that's really necessary. The deletion discussion links to the flickr page so anyone participating int he discussion can find it. Then it would stay deleted if there's a consensus that it doesn't meet the 10 criteria OR if nobody comes up with a source by then. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion can be continued at FFD, including further attempts to track down the provenance of this image or to find another one that will serve the same function, without undeleting it. Similarly, much unnecessary drama could be avoided if consensus were gathered at Talk:2008 Weng'an riot before an image were uploaded, with the understanding that, when it comes to non-free images, the burden lies on establishing their necessity rather than the other way around. I certainly don't think an "endorse" outcome here would mean the end of the conversation. Chick Bowen 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks. Sure, if we delete the image they can always re-add this or another image if they come up with a source and a better rationale, and agree on it over there. So no harm done. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 4 January 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Zhou Shuguang(Zola) and Li Shufen's family.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) was the first Chinese citizen reporter who showed support for Li Shufen's family when all the main stream Chinese media refused to take up the story. Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) used his mobile phone and internet cafe to file his report, and has since became famous among Chinese netizens. Arilang talk 09:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, I'm not seeing anything in the debate that suggests WP:NFCC are satisfied in this case—one comment saying that it was irreplaceable (NFCC#1) and another saying that the subject is important. Neither says anything about the other NFCC—NFCC#8 in particular. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist - Images simply cannot be deleted at a whim, against clear consensus to keep. Violating our project's consensus-based norms is simply wrong and we cannot ever allow, condone, or encourage such behavior, as some above commenters seem to be doing. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as inevitable, but there's no consensus either way in the debate. The two "keep" voters' arguments did not address the nominator's concern, which was that the image did not meet WP:NFCC#8. Seresin should have argued for deletion in the debate, which would have allowed another admin to close and prevented this DRV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:PresidentRamonMagsaysay.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but it seems it might be appropriate so I'll ask here. I've skipped the step of informing the admin who deleted the file because it's more of a policy question and perhaps due to a technicality in this particular case deletion could be justified although I'm unsure because the page has already been deleted. I suspect, however, this topic will come up over and over again in the future, so I'd like to request guidance on proper procedure when it does so that a more permanent solution may be developed.

The picture is of the 7th President of the Philippines Ramon Magsaysay. He died in 1957. According to Philippine law, as described in the license template {{PD-Philippines}}, pictures after 50 years enter the public domain. Because of this I'm uncertain why the picture of President Magsaysay was deleted. It is now 2009, 52 years after his death. One rationale I can see is that Wikipedia states that it has a benchmark of 80 years to conform with U.S. law. If this is the reason for deletion then the {{PD-Philippines}} template is useless and is misleading to anyone using it. A side issue this raises is of systemic bias since then it would increase the likelihood that pictures from the United States government or foreign governments will be relied upon. It would seem as if a Philippine government picture of a Philippine president even if conforming with Philippine law is not eligible for use on Wikipedia. I must also note the Philippine government is not particularly diligent in labeling pictures so the 50 year limitation is pretty important in keeping things simple. Anyway, I guess my question is this: If someone wished to upload a picture of a long since deceased president of the Philippines what rationales are acceptable? Must one rely upon non-free rationales? Lambanog 2 edits. (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't really DRV fare, but you're essentially correct that all images must first and foremost be acceptable under US copyright law. The various country-specific templates are only there to give information on potential ramifications to using images elsewhere. In this case, a fair use tag for uses in the US, plus a Philippine public domain tag would indicate that the image is not PD in the United States, but it is in the Philippines, and people in that country can freely use it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
So many such country tags are purely for information purposes and on their own do not contain any information that might prevent the deletion of a picture? That should be made far clearer. The image uploading process is messy for anyone not willing to spend considerable time trying to sort through the pages dealing with the restrictions. I get the feeling those patrolling images would do themselves a favor by reorganizing the information pages. The page that says a rationale must be provided with an information template for example is not as obvious as it should be. Thank you for the response. Lambanog (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is this resolved? Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it up for a while longer. No solution has been proposed. A solution is in the interest of all parties. One can only wonder how much time has been wasted by such photos being uploaded then deleted then uploaded then deleted with people going around in circles because the fundamental issue has not been adequately addressed. Lambanog (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed resolution: If the image was used in an article and a plausible fair-use claim can be made, restore it and tag it properly. If it can be used in an article in a fair-use way, and someone wants to do so, restore it or allow it to be re-uploaded, but make sure it is tagged properly. Otherwise, treat it as an orphan fair-use image and let it stay deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 December 2009

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

This is a brief biography of an outstanding teacher in the field of ballet and his association with The Juilliard School, which is included in Wikipedia. The editor(s) accuse me of "copy and paste" when, in fact, the article has been re-written several times in my own words. There may certainly be similarities between my article and the various sources used to obtain and validate information. If, for example, I list ballet companies that Alfredo Corvino was associated with and I provide this information in chronological order, which would seem to be the most reasonable and rational way of presenting this information, then it may indeed appear similar to existing references that provide the same information. Sometimes there is only one way to express something - for example: "... died on August 5, 2005...". Can you suggest an alternate way to express this same fact that is both reasonable and rational? Indeed, in my attempt to "rewrite" common phrases numerous times, it is quite possible that an "already used wording" could spring to the mind. That is, after all, a part of how the human cognitive process works.

(Here is a challenge to you - how many really different ways could you write and rewrite you own resume? And how many of those versions would be reasonable, logical and rational?)

My article on Alfredo Corvino contains basically three parts - (1) his training/development (2) his career as both dancer and ballet instructor and (3) his philosophy and knowledge that made him one of the outstanding ballet teachers of the 20th century. The editor(s) seems fixated on the obituary from the New York Times and looking for similarities.

I read on the Wikipedia site that the Editors should "ASSIST" rather than merely "DELETE". You can certainly tell by my membership, that I am a new/novice contributor to Wikipedia. It seems that "DELETE" may be used just to clear someone's desk. I signed on to Wikipedia to find that my article is already deleted without the opportunity to address the issues with the editor.

I recognize that I was in error with my very first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia when I presented a copy of an obituary from the New York Times (newspaper) but in fairness, I had fully documented the article with complete credit to the author, the publication, the date published and even the internet address (http://). (I documented the material in the very same way that I would have done in my thesis or doctoral dissertation.) Instead, I am accused of "vandalizing" Wikipedia!

If there is something specific in my article on Alfredo Corvino that offends the editors, I will be more than happy to attempt another revision. I would appreciate the opportunity to revise rather than have the editor use "copyright violations" and "repeated submisson" to merely push my article out of his or her way.

Thank you. Seamanjg (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about making a draft in your own space (i.e. User:Seamanjg/Alfredo Corvino)? Otherwise, I have to endorse said pretty much all deletions as they look like clear copypasta from whichever sources given. Remember that you can use external sources as a source of content but not as a source for your sentences. It's just like in school where plagiarism is very much forbidden. –MuZemike 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12. Seamanjg, I recommend reading through WP:CFAQ, which is very useful when it comes to understanding Wikipedia copyright policy. This passage, in particular, may help you:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. ... You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw.

Drafting in userspace may be the best path forward. Good luck. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much for your review and feedback. I believe, based on reading through the responses, that the current problem with the article on Alfredo Corvino is that the revisions I made are still more like "derivations" of existing phrases... similarity infringement... in other words, while I changed words, the structure of the phrases in my article was still too similar to the original material.

How do I address a situation where I may wish to use a direct quote? Is this possible? For example, if I wanted to include a segment of an actual conversation by an individual... such as a direct quote by Alfredo Corvino... can this be done? Sometimes, things are said or written so precisely... so perfectly... that they can not be rewritten and have the same impact.

Although it may not seem like it to you, I really am trying to learn and to do things in a correct manner. What really frustrated me yesterday was that my article was blocked and I could no longer make any modification or revisions... and all the messages from editors accusing me of vandalizing wikipedia! (They did seem a bit harsh.)

I will also explore the second suggestion... drafting in userspace ... I am not sure what this exactly means but I will certainly investigate. I am quite sure that new/novice contributors like me, are a constant source of annoyance and irritation to editors, like you... and I do apologize for any inconvenience I have caused.

Thank you for your time! Seamanjg (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Polite Sleeper (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the band has more than enough notoriety to meet the notability criteria in WP:BAND. Some notable reviews for their latest album are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and several others. Their latest album reached #177 on the U.S. national College Music Journal charts. All three of their albums were released on Sabotage Records, which has existed since 2002 and has released albums by Japanther, Team Robespierre, and Autistic Youth. Mcurtes (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn: The reviews show that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist This should be treated as a contested PROD, as the AfD was closed with only two users expressing an opinion – hardly enough for a definitive consensus, particularly given the sources identified above, which were never mentioned in the debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Userify, Work on, Restore, and (if anyone feels like it) Relist I'm not seeing any other way Coffee could have read that debate- strictly be the numbers it is 2 for delete to no other opinions- and this is after 14 days of listing. Since the lister here is the original author of the article, and some of these sources were published before this article ever went to AfD, why wern't they included in the original article? Bottom lining this, the close is not erroneous. Move it to Mcurtes userspace, let him add the sources identified above, and rework the article to clearly establish notability, and then it can be moved back into mainspace. If this is done, when it returns to mainspace, I doubt anyone will bother going back to AfD. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close, since it went two weeks and nobody spoke up to say they were notable. It's hardly unreasonable to close as delete under those circumstances. That said, I think this could benefit from being Recreated if an acceptable draft can be presented. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • overturn close to no consensus as there wasn't any. Further, the band likely meets our inclusion guidelines at this point. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but allow recreation - It's the norm for AFDs like this to be closed as delete (as I'm sure any administrator would agree), as they're basically expired PRODs when there's no discussion for the inclusion. However, this does not mean that the article can not be recreated, and I'm fine with that being the outcome. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PROD deletions are, and should be, undeleted on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, don't get me wrong I don't have any problem with this getting relisted or anything, I just closed it per typical procedure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two questions: #1 if you feel this should be treated as a contested PROD, why haven't you undeleted it at this point? Secondly, can you point me to a policy, guideline or generally accepted essay that says we should delete things as PRODs in this case? At the least shouldn't your closing statement provide guidance explaining your logic (and that you are willing to undelete upon request)? Hobit (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just looked at your talk page. You send the person to DrV even though you felt it was a PROD? Could you explain that? Hobit (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I say "like a PROD" I don't literally mean a PROD, it's still an AFD and the editor should go through the proper venues to get it undeleted. As far as where the consensus for closes like this is: there was a discussion on WP:AN a few weeks ago that discussed AFD relisting, and from what a lot of the people said there, when closing AFDs with no !votes for inclusion that have been relisted, they should be deleted. If you look at AFD, a lot of AFDs have been closed like this recently. I'm not trying to be a "rouge admin" or anything, just trying to follow common procedure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close per the other endorse !voters' rationale. Userfy, improve, restore. I had a quick look at the sources given by Mcurtes, and they ought to pass muster IMO. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per A Stop at Willoughby. --Cyclopiatalk 22:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Fair close, but Mcurtes (talk · contribs) appears to have missed the discussion period. He seems to be new, so let's make sure he is made to feel welcome. Undelete for Mcurtes to edit and improve. It looks like he can readily bring the article up to standard. If he can't do it in a short time, userfy (move to User:Mcurtes/Polite Sleeper), or relist at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to allow the DRV requester to improve the article. Otherwise, I don't see much a reason to either continue the AFD or to find error on the closing admin on the close. –MuZemike 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Close is reasonable, but since it would never be deleted had the sources been presented, it should be restored. I disagree with requiring userfication – the editor is entitled to work on it in mainspace, as the deletion was in error. A second AfD at editorial discretion. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As SmokeyJoe suggested, I am a new editor so everyone's patience is appreciated. It looks as thought the article has been relisted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polite_Sleeper but I don't see any of the original article. It's not clear to me whether I should begin recreating the article now or wait for further discussion here, as it sounds like there are some people who believe that the article should be restored without me having to recreate it. Any guidance is appreciated.Mcurtes (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but restore. Incubation or userfication would allow Mcurtes to work without drive-by tagging. I've watched the page and will help with minor cleanup. Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 December 2009

[edit]
  • Comparison between Roman and Han Empires – closure endorsed. The way this was closed was certainly unusual, but that is not to imply it was bad. There seems to be a general consensus here that Spartaz's reading of the consensus and subsequent stubbification of the article were a decent way forward and reflected the consensus at the discussion. The ultimate solution to the disagreement here is to produce and publish the new and better version of the article. – ~ mazca talk 12:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This article, I feel, was wrongly closed by User:Spartaz. The discussion on the AFD was clearly a no consensus, so the close should have been, by wiki standards, a no consensus closure with encouragement to discuss and improve the article (which has been vastly improved during the AFD, largely ridding it of the concerns that caused the nomination in the first place). Instead, the article was blanked, protected, and moved to a new "article" Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft. This arrangement is a de facto delete/userification, and will only inconvenience the reader, so I propose an overturn to No consensus. I previously contacted the user to explain my concerns, but as they have not been addressed I feel DRV is the only proper course. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closing admin Technically I can't see that DRV has any scope here as I haven't deleted the article and the content remains in the article history so this was a technical keep close. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I suppose I could agree with Spartaz that this isn't strictly speaking a matter for DRV. But I think it would be reasonable to say something about what the right forum is in which this use of admin discretion could be assessed. The nom here clearly has a concern, and if this isn't the right place for it, fine -- but Spartaz perhaps you could start your own thread on AN or AN/I to get feedback on whether this method of closing an AfD and dealing with a content dispute is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Xfd. Do not relist for two months. But what the hell has been done with the mainspace page. A hat noted mainspace blank page? That is not OK. We don't do blank pages. Restore a reasonable version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:SmokeyJoe and User:Nomoskedasticity, you have stated exactly what I thought; the way this AFD is closed is absurd. I believe that is the consensus here. The dispute here is not whether the article should be kept or deleted (it is clearly keep), but whether a reasonable version should be restored or the current arrangement should continue. I thought DRV was the best place to put this as DRV says it is the place to discuss all disputed "Deletion-related" discussions. (Quote from DRV "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.") If not appropriate, I will put my concerns elsewhere.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the problem with this article is that it's dreadfully borderline. It's something (I think) that we would all agree is a potentially interesting topic, and something that has a tiny smattering of academic sources, but there's a ton of room for OR given the undeveloped state of the topic in academia. That itself would not normally be a problem, except that Teeninvestor is really very adamant about his version of the article (despite all the fuss and bother it has generated) and will doubtless - as we can see from this DRV - reinstate it as soon as he is given the opportunity. I've read over his 'new' draft, and while it it has removed a lot of the more obvious synthesis there is still a lot of questionable material (as well as erroneous material and copy edit issues) that need to be addressed. On the other hand, as SmokeyJoe points out, we can't really leave it in a blanked, locked state. I'd suggest the following (sorry, best I can do given the peculiar status of the article):
    1. write a quick generic introduction, and add that into the blanked article along with a stub tag
    2. get Teeninvestor to formally agree not to edit the article directly until the article reaches a stable, non-stubbed state (though he can edit it indirectly through other editors, such as the Article Rescue Squadron people).
      • If he agrees, unlock the article and let normal editing create a new version - let him make change suggestions and leave other editors to evaluate their scholarly merits
      • if he refuses to agree, leave the article locked and only allow changes through {{editprotected}} requests
    3. revisit the article in six months and see if anything useful has come of it. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The current version of the article is relatively well sourced and although not perfect, errors can be pointed out and edited out using the normal wikipedia process. Banning the main contributor from editing the article is not exactly the best process to improve the wikipedia. It is wikipedia policy only to blank article content that is harmful, such as copyright violation, hoaxes, etc.. The current article is clearly nothing of the sort. The version of the article that caused fuss and controversy is not the current version (which has in fact received the support of many ex-delete voters).Teeninvestor (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • it may not be the best process, but when the "main editor" (assuming that can be said in a non-article-ownership sort of way) has demonstrated a broad disregard for wp:OR and a tendentious attitude about including questionable material, then some sort of moderation is required. If you won't agree to self-moderate, then the moderation will have to be done by others. Either way, I don't think it would be appropriate to allow you to blindly reinstate material that is still viewed with skepticism by a good-sized number of editors. --Ludwigs2 03:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. I nominated because there were long-standing concerns from several editors on the talk page; but I feel that the present state, while meeting some concerns, has other fatal problems and said so at length, quite late in the process. Teeninvestor saw and responded to this; he knows my concerns were not met.
This solution is innovative and may well work; DRV has every right to review it, but it is functionally equivalent to Userify which would have been a perfectly routine closure to such a discussion.
Please note that this DRV is immediately preceded on the draft talk page by an inquiry by Teeninvestor whether anybody objected to simply restoring the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh, Pmanderson, it's fatal problems appear to be that it doesn't fit your views; you didn't write a single piece of actionable advice in that diff, instead resorting to personal attacks. This solution is definitely not a routine close to the discussion, which would be No consensus. Work was already being done on the article by several editors, some of which had formerly voted delete, until it was disrupted.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be feasible to place this article in the WP:INCUBATOR and temporarily salt the title in the mainspace, so it can be worked on easily without having that unsightly notice out in the front of the house? (This would retain the current requirement of at least one admin reviewing it and judging the new version ready to "go live") Quite frankly, I think a few red links scattered around is better than having this "stub" out there. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually took a look at the link (and read Gun Powder Ma's post) and I was simply unable to found anything along these lines. Gun Powder Ma points out that many statements of Sinologist (historians who have studied ancient China) are faulty (perhaps because the scholars in question know alot about ancient China but precious little about ancient Rome). Gun Powder Ma didn't write that he was unable to insert a pro-Roman POV (or anything similar). He correctly points out that historians who have dedicated themselves to only one of the two empires will be ignored in this article because they don't make a comparision between the two. In other words: You (Teeninvestor) are seeing things where there are none. Flamarande (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I am not seeing an issue with the closing admin's actions. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not at all a specialist of this subject, and I am also not at all a specialist of conflict resolution in wikipedia. I also don't know the whole story of this so maybe I miss something. I am just looking due to the request for comments.
    • My feeling is that the solutions found are too complex. In my simple knowledge of wikipedia, I thought that:
      • deleting a page needs some good reason for that. This is obviously not the case here, since everybody recognizes that the subject is notable.
      • if there is consensus to believe that this page has a right to exist, then what is happening should be seen an edit conflict and treated like all edit conflicts: those who criticize the version of Teeninvestor should just bring some edit of their own until a final better version is found.
    • The solution that has been found seems to me:
      • a bit unusual
      • a bit one-sided: those who criticize a version should not simply request the guy who had made the work to redo it. They should bring their own modifications.
    • On the wikipedia page about wikipedia, it is written that the growth of the number of pages is slowing and also that "A 2009 study suggested there was "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content."[1]". When there is such risk I would err on the side of accepting the content.Voui (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close In effect, saying "stubbify and rewrite" has the same effect as saying "non-consensus"--in both cases, it means, it needs improvements, or it will be nominated again. In this case, it goes a little further to recommend that pretty drastic improvements are needed--but I think that was the consensus of those who wanted to keep it--the basic argument was that the topic was notable, not that the article was satisfactory. DGG ( talk )
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 December 2009

[edit]

23 December 2009

[edit]

22 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing Admin acknowledgedly counted raw votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments in the face of our police. The votes to keep didn't really addressed the problems raised in the nomination. --Damiens.rf 09:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were 3 votes to keep the image:
    1. The first (by the uploader) just stated the nomination was wrong.
    2. The second completely ignored the nomination's concerns and mentioned unrelated policy criteria.
    3. The third argued without evidence the image was PD.
  • There was one vote to delete, that reaffirmed the nomination's concerns, and explained why we can't affirm the image is PD. --Damiens.rf 10:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I endorse the close, because if there's no consensus to delete, then the closer shouldn't have to take any shit from DRV for not deleting. But I do think the discussion itself was unsatisfactory. Damians.rf's concerns were not properly addressed at all. I suggest that DRV should refer this to the copyright noticeboard, in the hope of getting a view from people who understand the issues more clearly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I also endorse the close per S Marshall's reasoning and believe that an opinion of the copyright noticeboard would be most helpful in this situation. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete FfD is a debate, not a vote. Yes, there were more "keep" voters than "delete" voters, but the nominator and the other "delete" voter had the stronger reasoning by far. One "keep" voter did not address the policy issues in detail. The second "keep" voter failed to explain how the image could meet WP:NFCC#2 when the copyright holder is unknown. And a third "keep" voter asserted that the image was in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice – but provided no evidence that that was the case. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion were strong. The nominator and the other "delete" voter both raised valid concerns about the unknown copyright status, copyright holder, and source of the image. The burden was on the keep voters here to show either that the image was in the public domain or that the image met all the nonfree content criteria; they did not, their arguments were weaker, and because the headcount was 3-2, it's not fair at all to say there was a consensus to keep the image. However, while I disagree with Od Mishehu's closure, I commend him for taking on the unsavory task of interpreting consensus at such a challenging debate. Someone's gotta do it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome as accurate reflection of the deletion debate, more or less in line with SMarshall. The debate wasn't very helpful, but I think this falls on the acceptable nonfree use side because the image quality is so low and because much better images are available through Getty Images, indicating market value is essentially nil. Also agree that discussion elsewhere would be more helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close was within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • XfD, and especially FfD, is not a votecount. The reasons supporting keep were not based in what our policies require, while those supporting delete were. So the result should have been delete. ÷seresin 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theoretical, qualified overturn and comment. This is a major hole in our policy. Theoretically we require the original source--i.e., the copyright holder--while practically we have generally accepted the most immediate source--the place where the uploader got the image--even when that source is pretty clearly violating copyright itself. We are actually violating two policies when we do this: we are linking to a copyright-violator, which is specifically banned at WP:External links, and we are also not attributing the image to its proper owner, which is both ethically and legally what we should do. We should do this also because it is in keeping with our general respect for attribution; one of the great ironies of this site is that we are much more careful about attribution for free content then we are for non-free content! However, I recognize that the problem goes way beyond this one image, and I'm not certain that a single debate over a single image is the way to get us to shape up, when there are surely thousands of images affected in exactly the same way (but the kicking and screaming if those images are deleted en masse will be huge, I'm sure). I don't know the way forward here, I confess, only that the status quo is untenable. Chick Bowen 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Theoretically we require the original source". Since when? WP:CITE#IMAGE explicitly says to supply the source where the uploader found it, not the original source. -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Chick Bowen has largely covered my point of view. I think the correct close was to delete the image , though I am aware that there is not unanimity in the interpretation of how to close such debates. Most, if not all, of the sources I have seen this image at are rather dodgy on copyright—sourcing from them is somewhat dubious. In the case of this image, I believe that it can be sourced (libraries are the key), and is probably (but not definitely) free due to lack of copyright renewal. If sourced then perhaps the new (free) version will be not such poor quality ?. The largest problem here, and with many images, is that the standards have changed. On this point I note that my first upload here File:1829.jpg was dodgy on many counts and yet was uploaded in the belief that it met the criteria of the time - Peripitus (Talk) 10:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, could have gone either way; the close seems reasonable given the arguments that have been raised though. Also, DRV is not FFD part two. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse - I am not seeing the issue with the admin's closure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per S Marshall, mostly. There is, at best, no consensus in the discussion. Tim Song (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have raised what I see as the principal issue here at WP:AN. As I say there, I don't think it is appropriate to determine it just in relation to this image, and I am not trying to canvas this debate--in fact I think this close should probably be endorsed for now, even though I am hoping we come to our senses and delete all such images in the future (after, of course, giving adequate time to determine authorship). Chick Bowen 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. Based on the !votes from Tony and Jmundo in the original discussion, which in my view identify the key policy issue re the NFCC, and note that this use is absolutely on-track with our accepted community standards. I also think Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's analysis above here of the NFCC#2 issue is accurate and decisive. Regarding Peripitus's !vote in the original discussion, his comment seems more directed to whether the image was free or not, rather than whether it was legitimate fair use or not. Closer was therefore correct to go with the weighted balance of the arguments presented. Jheald (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by "identify the key policy issue re the NFCC"? What do you think about articles using non-free content copied from copyrights lenient websites (that's what the whole issue is about)? --Damiens.rf 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's irrelevant. The issue is whether we (and our downstream reusers) can reasonably use the image legally, not its use on some other completely different website. Giving this immediate source is useful, because it establishes that the image has already been somewhat widely available.

        Policy in this area is set at WT:NFC. The issue of sourcing was discussed at length there in March, here and here, as a result of which the words if possible were re-inserted into policy, to establish that, while deeper sourcing information is a nice thing to have, it is not a requirement.

        Standing advice to XfD closers is to down-weight contributions which are not based on a correct understanding of policy. That appears to be the case with your intervention here. Jheald (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. Closer apparently did not give due weight to policy and may have been misled by the bold bad advice in Wikipedia:deletion guidelines for administrators. (No "in doubt, don't delete" provision can or should apply at FFD or PUF when dealing with non-free content, as we shall see). Wikipedia:non-free content criteria, the policy which ultimately governs our use of non-free content, states that non-free material may only be used when "properly attributed or cited to its original source or author". Nitpickers may argue that this is in relation to non-free text, but if there's a reasonable argument for images being credited in a less strict fashion I don't see it. One need only compare the disparity in the way we treat freely licensed text contributions (difficult to see who wrote what with multiple clicks) and the freely licensed image contributions (attribution prominently displayed just one click away) to see that it can never have been the intention that we should not credit the copyright owner and/or author of non-free images, whatever the badly worded text here may currently seem to say. NFCC closes by reminding us that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale", so reversing the burden of proof which DGFA presumes to exist ("if in doubt, do delete"). While there must of course be an element of subjectivity when considering the ten non-free content criteria, and especially points 1 and 8, there can be none when it comes to providing a source since the policy is very clear indeed in the only statement it makes as to what constitutes a source. The only reasonable outcome here was and is to delete the file in question as it fails to meet the requirements of the non-free content criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images are not text. You can't quote the policy about text and then say it applies to images because you don't like the fact that the actual policy for images, specifically adopted (as noted above) after extensive discussion and consideration, says the opposite. You might like to reflect on the thought that what adds value to a quote, making it non-replaceable (rather than replacing it with our own paraphrase), is the authority of the person to whom the quote can be attributed. There are other things which make images non-replaceable. Jheald (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This DRV is not the best place to have a meta-discussion about our Non-free policy. I do not see an issue with the close. BTW, the description page does include two sources as require by policy: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" )
Im also asking Damiens to stop nominating the image as speedy delete, and wait for the outcome of this discussion. I'm reverting one more time, but Im not starting an edit war over this, so maybe someone should watchlist the file. --Jmundo (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's fair use, so what difference does it make if we don't know who the copyright holder is, or even whether one exists? We don't need permission to use it. If we knew that there was a copyright holder, and who it was, it would be wrong not to acknowledge them; but not being able to do so is no reason to delete the image! -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It's fair use, so what difference does it make if we don't know who the copyright holder is" - If you don't know who the copyright holder is, how can you tell your use is not replacing the original market role for the material? I agree that "fair use" sounds a lot like "blanket permission for ignoring copyrights", but in reality, they are not the same. --Damiens.rf 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely you jest. How can this low-quality image scanned from an old newspaper possibly damage the owner, assuming there is one? The "original market role" was to appear in the daily paper; it did so, and fulfilled its role. Assuming there was an owner who was still making money from it, he would be doing so with the original negative, not with this. And assuming he existed and was doing so, we would surely be able to easily find him; how can you do business if nobody can find you? Your question cannot be taken seriously. -- Zsero (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • They original market role was to illustrate Mr. Bithorn in some text about Mr. Bithorn. Old images like this usually belong to commercial image banks like Wired, that make money from licensing this image for illustrating texts about Mr. Bithorn. --Damiens.rf 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 December 2009

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

I expect that the article was deleted by people who know nearly nothing about software testing or on request of some SW company. I added explanation there: [7] Havlatm (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close - No reason was given to suspect the closer's rationale was improper. Havlatam is simply assuming bad faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, despite inappropriate comments by the editor who opened this review. The !votes split evenly, making this presumptively a "no consensus" case, and few of the !voters on each side made nongeneric comments, again indicating no consensus. I see the IBM developer link cited by Downsize43 as sufficient justification for keeping the article, absent a consensus otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close There is no rationale to overturn the AfD, which was obviously closed correctly. SPA accounts were ignored, ILIKEIT votes were ignored, and sources provided were evaluated by other editors who still said delete. Leaving this open is a waste of time. It is a waste of time leave process open for accounts that want to remain willfully ignorant about basic Wikipedia guidelines. Miami33139 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The closing admin correctly discarded "keep" votes based on WP:GHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. Another "keep" voter's argument was promptly discredited. The "delete" voters had the stronger arguments, and it looks like reliable sources were not added to the article before it was deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Nominator is not assuming good faith and has not presented a valid reason to overturn. There are also conflict of interest concerns based on their comment in the request they link to. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close According to the notification on my talk page I took money to delete this article. IN fact the opposing side made highly detailed contributions that demonstrated thorough attempts to find sources and the keep arguments were neither policy based not anywhere near good enough to rebut the well founded policy arguments made by the delete side. Consensus is not nose counting, its assessing arguments against policy and by that basis I had absolutely no basis on which to close this in any other way. Spartaz Humbug! 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 December 2009

[edit]
  • Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery – I have blocked Ton-Metallicon as an advocacy account being paid to use wikipedia as a battleground. Since wikipedia is not here as a place for other people to import their disagreements I am shutting this down. Subject to a neutral and balanced article being presented in draft by an unconnected editor this location and that of Tamara Bane Gallery can be unsalted and the article moved to mainspace. Until then the participants can find somewhere else to have their dispute – Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

On his talk page, Mr. Malik Shabazz, has made it quite clear that he won't brook any differences about a page he has deleted. So although one is encouraged to dialogue with the administrator, I am appealing his decision directly because he has convinced me that I would be wasting my time with him.

The page that I wrote (Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery) faithfully reports, with ample footnotes, a federal court case that is of public interest. It is not an attack page any more than the wikipedia page about Bernard Madoff is an attack page. You cannot define something as an "attack" page simply because the page describes criminal or tortious acts that are ruled on by a court of law.

I make no disparaging comments about Mr. Bane personally or his businesses. The ONLY statements about Mr. Bane's behavior are direct quotes (footnoted) from two federal courts.

Nor does the page I created here resemble the Tamara Bane Gallery page which was deleted over a week ago. That page (as I have noted elsewhere) contained contentious material and disparaging remarks. It also did not follow precisely what the federal courts ruled. Mine does.

One reason to delete this page is NOT that it's an 'attack' page, because that's simply not true. Nor can this page be deleted because the information is not verifiable. All statements are verfied. So what is the reason, in that case? Ton-Metallicon (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was the one who originally tagged the article as an attack page. When I skimmed over it, it read read like a page making disparaging comments about one of the parties. I will also point out that this article came to my attention do to an edit on Manga which referenced one of the litigants in this case. It should also be noted that the OC and the person starting this DRV, admitted to being paid to write this "report" on Wikipedia by an undisclosed party, quite possibly one of the litigants, and therefore has a conflict of interest. —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Romania – Sri Lanka relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

First, this discussion was previously wrongly closed early (it was closed before 7 days had passed by User:Sandstein) so this discussion didn't get a full seven days to be discussed before it was closed. Second, there was clearly a disagreement about whether it should have been kept. (There was 1 Strong Keep vote, 2 Keep votes, 5 Delete votes in addition to the nomination, and 1 Week Delete vote). Of course, deletion of an article is not just a vote, and in the event that there is a doubt about consensus, the article should be kept. (See number 4 at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete.) Third, it was clear that 3 of the delete votes based their opinion on the idea that no 3rd party independent sources existed, something that was clearly not true at the time. (See also further improvements I have made to the article since deletion at User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations.) Fourth, the nominator, User:LibStar, as much as admitted that he had not done a thorough search for sources, despite the fact that the absence of sources was the reason he nominated the article for deletion. He disputed that he needed to do so, despite the fact that WP:GNG clearly says a good faith search for sources is necessary before nomination. Finally, as a matter of policy, the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge. Notability in this situation should really be secondary to the fact that this information is clearly encyclopedic. The deleting administrator, User:X!, did not address the failure to find consensus regarding the "significance" of third party coverage when given a chance to reevaluate the delete .[8] All in all, the result should have been no consensus at the very least. Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no-consensus which seems the best I can make from the discussion. It would have helped if the closing admin had given a reason for the verdict. On his talk page he says that he personally doesn't think the subject was notable, which is irrelevant, as he is supposed to be judging consensus. If he judged the topic so, he would have done better towards deleting the article to give a reasoned argument to that effect in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Most of the "delete" votes came in at a time when the sources were not provided, so it is best to allow them an opportunity to re-evaluate those sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse By simple vote counting, with 7 deletes (including the nom) and 3 keeps, there's consensus for deletion. Taking into account the weakness of the !keeps, that consensus is only clearer: two of the three keep votes don't address notability at all, they simply state that the relations exist; these should be ignored. The idea that early votes should be discounted is, IMHO, ridiculous, as it assumes that those voters weren't following subsequent developments. Maybe they weren't, or maybe we were, but WP:AGF requires that we assume the later. Finally, despite Cdog's good intentions and thorough efforts, none of the sources he dug up at the 11th hour actually qualify as "direct detailed" coverage of the topic of these county's bilateral relations. Notability remains unproven, as argued by a supermajority of the debate's participants.Yilloslime TC 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Supposed early final close was, at worst, a trifling 12 minutes early. Closer's determination appears to be withn administrative discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as closing admin) - I stand by my decision. I would also like to dispute the comments that I brought my personal opinion into this debate &emdash; I have not. If I made it sound that way, I did not mean it. I deleted it because the sources that were brought up did not satisfy a claim of notability. The notability outlines for foreign relations wikiproject give these 6 guidelines as to notability:
  1. They have been engaged in a war.
  2. They engage in significant trade.
  3. They have been/are in an alliance.
  4. They share a border.
  5. They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict.
  6. They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.
  • Romania and Sri Lanka are clearly not in a war, and they clearly do not share a border. There is no significant conflict or trade dispute between them. There has been no formal declaration of an alliance, or at least, none that is covered by sources. This brings us to the last point, which is that they are engaged in significant trade. From what has been presented, there does not appear to be enough significant trade between the two countries to make this article notable. Yes, it's a wikiproject, it's non-binding, and exceptions do exist. However, there did not, and still does not appear to be enough to make this article noteworthy. I am asserting that this close was well within my discretion. (X! · talk)  · @140  ·  02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I'm not seeing a problem with the admin's closure. This decision was well within his discretion. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for two reasons. First, because by the number of votes and strength of the arguments, the "delete" side clearly won the argument. Second, because Cdogsimmons' additions to the article in no way demonstrate notability. For those who aren't familiar with this user, he is one of those people who crams articles of this sort with every conceivable form of trivia in order to "rescue" them at AfD. It's odd that, 1506 days into his Wikipedia career, he still understands so little about our notability policy. These comments are a perfect illustration of what I mean. If he truly believes that a direct link to the "PAYMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUMANIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC", which (obviously) isn't discussed in any secondary source (given that no one outside Wikipedia has even noticed this "topic" exists) constitutes the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG (to say nothing of the inherent WP:PSTS problem there) — well, then I don't know what to say. What I do know is that our articles should revolve around topics the notability of which is immediately apparent through multiple substantial mentions in independent sources, not pieces of yellowing paper sitting in UN archives that haven't seen the light of day in a half century. He may wish to ponder that before he goes on his next expansion spree. - Biruitorul Talk 03:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear and accurate reading of the discussion, in which the policy arguments for delete were stronger.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well within the closing admins discretion. It is difficult to see how this could have been closed any other way. Kevin (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm not seeing clear error here; I think a relist along the lines proposed by King of Hearts is perfectly reasonable, but I do not see how the closer exceeded their discretion by not relisting. Tim Song (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation at least. The weighting of arguments by closing admin is questionable, given that the keep !votes correctly pointed at the existence of sources, but is indeed within discretion. The article as it is now in userspace however presents plenty of sources and worthwile information, and deserves to come back. --Cyclopiatalk 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout slap the closing admin for not giving a closing rationale, which could have averted the need for DRV. Endorse closure, as the keep !voters didn't adequately demonstrate the existence of significant coverage, and none of the guidelines for notability of relations were met. Scraping together an article from one press article, single sentences in books and some government websites isn't the way to go. Fences&Windows 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing that necessitates a closing statement. I guess he could have rehashed the standard "Consensus is that the topic is not notable enough for inclusion" etc., but the AfD is clear enough that it should be obvious. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no such thing as obvious when there's a contested AfD, especially for these bilateral deletion discussions. Not giving a rationale is practically inviting a deletion review in this kind of case, and to not give one when there are non-SPAs hotly contesting your close just seems bloody minded and high handed. What's wrong or so difficult with explaining your actions as an admin? My trout remains. Fences&Windows 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read it, it was consensus that an admin should leave a closing statement in a disputed AfD, but that they need not. Violations of should can result in people calling for the fish. As well they should (or something like that...). In this case it would have been helpful. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it was never found to be consensus that we "should", only that it's nice. Frankly, I'm not to much into "nice" getting in the way of simply closing a discussion. As I see it, a lot of the time a huge drama war can be avoided, by not leaving a closing statement. Because people love to read into admin's closures, and find a way to take it to DRV. So there should, IMO, never even be a should clause to adding a statement, as it's decided on a case by case basis. And I'm pretty sure we can handle that ourselves quite fine, thank you. Regards, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the old "I don't have to explain myself" option. And if I do, people just get mad. I've worked for bosses like that. Oddly people near them seem to get highly annoyed. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse the so called "faulty" source finding of my nomination is no reason to overturn. the WP community has 7 days in any AfD to find evidence of notability (ie significant third party coverage). At best, Cdogsimmons found verification of a few agreements not treaties. there is no evidence in the AfD discussion of typical things we have seen in bilateral AfDs that makes things notable such as many state visits, military or economic assistance, significant migration, diplomatic incidents and so on. The article's information better sits in a Foreign relations article in anyway. "the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge" is not a reason for an overturn in deletion review. secondly WP clearly does not cover all human knowledge, see WP:NOT and only entities that are notable. It should also be noted that besides Cdogsimmons the other keep votes had pretty weak arguments with no evidence. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that before we can endorse an AfD's decision, we need to be satisfied that the AfD properly considered all the sources. If not all the sources were considered, then there's reasonable doubt about the outcome. I agree with King of Hearts that we cannot be sure in this case, so I see "relist" as the appropriate outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse I think it's not unreasonable to say that the sources were addressed and found wanting in the AfD. That said, I really can't tell what the closer was thinking and wish there had been a meaningful closing statement as it might have saved us from this DrV. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no showing that the relations are significant enough to meet the GNG's threshold of multiple reliable sources. Reading this AfD, I'd have been fine with either a 'Delete' or a 'No Consensus' closure within admin discretion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, "Keep" arguments were weak. I'd echo the calls to the closing administrator to pre-emptively explain the reasoning applied when closing any XFD that is likely to be even remotely controversial. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse - Closing statement would have indeed been nice, but not crucial. However I think it's an accurate decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Odette Krempin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Krempin is honorary consul of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Germany, an official diplomat and listed as such on the website of the German Foreign Service, 2) the article cited significant coverage in reliable published indepedent sources (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau, in both of which she was profiled, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Hessischer Rundfunk), 3) the article followed the BLP policy after being entirely rewritten. Hekerui (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. Although I favoured (weakly) deletion, I must note that the first four deletion !votes asserted a lack of sources, but by the time the article was deleted coverage in mainly German-language sources had been demonstrated and included in the article, and the contents of the article had been verified by German-speaking editors. So these initial !votes don't hold much water. Delete #5 by No5oo was incomprehensible. The only other delete argument was from me arguing for deletion on grounds of BLP1E, and that rationale was hotly contested and possibly refuted by several !voters. I think Coffee didn't fully see the evolution of the discussion from an initial run of delete voters changing to a significant run of keeps. What Coffee saw as canvassing wasn't canvassing: the article was raised as a test case at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Non English sources by Off2riorob (who !voted delete) for whether articles can be written using mostly or all non-English sources. That's not canvassing. Fences&Windows 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently you weren't looking at the right places for the canvassing. There was an IP going around posting the debate at various people's talk pages. That is canvassing, and some of the keeps actually came from those canvassing links. It's within my discretion to discount those !votes, especially when they say something like this: "BLP doesn't come into this, since there is not a single unsourced negative statement about her in the article." Yeah that's a really rock hard argument for it's inclusion. Aside from the canvassing you had keeps like this one: "Weak keep, add {{current}} and wait for more coverage." Oh yeah I just can't wait to see us do that for every article now. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it'd help if you'd use diffs for proving canvassing as editors don't read minds... Here's the supposed canvassing:[9] An IP editor contacted various German-speaking editors with a notice about the AfD: "Issue w/German sources. Hi. You may be able to help out w/the deletion discussion at this page. Many thanks.--68.173.96.196 (talk) 17 December 2009". If you read WP:CANVASS, you'll see that "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". This was a "friendly notice" to some editors who might be able to help with the German-language sources about Krempin. Fences&Windows 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diffs wouldn't have helped. There was no canvassing, as I had already indicated below. German-speaking does not here mean a propensity to vote keep. (and not all did). Does closer have any proper fact or policy-based reason for the close? None have been offered.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "canvassing" itself looked innocent (and perhaps was), but the !votes that came from it were not very high in knowledge of our deletion policies. Therefore I didn't think they were viable for the inclusion of the article, as they didn't cite anything strong enough for the nomination and original problems to be overrided. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wasn't canvassing. Even "canvassing". It was, as you say, innocent. It did not reflect reaching out to people on one side of the issue. It was classic non-canvassing. As to the knowledge of deletion policies of the German translators; theirs was far higher than the German-phobe (conflating "Nazi" w/"German") and the I-misread-core-policies keep voters. Not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, but at any rate, the delete's opinions were much more rooted in policy. Therefore they have the consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • That wasn't the rationale that you gave in your close. And it isn't what all 10 people commenting here believe (including me). You certainly are not impressing me with your ability to respect consensus in this discussion. Instead, you are saying that all 10 of us are wrong, and you are right. Especially as an admin, I would expect you to set an example for others as to respect for consensus here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please, I beg you to not read into my comments here. What I am simply saying is that even though it does seem that this close will be overturned, I still believe that my decision was within my discretion. I am not saying that you all are wrong, quite the opposite. Regards, --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I'm not impressed with the closure, which should be keep, as there is surely no consensus for deletion. At lot of less significant stuff is tolerated on en-WP, so one wonders why this colorful bio draws so much flak? The first five !votes up to Dec 12 are all delete, as the article was badly sourced then. Since, new sources were added to the article, which is reflected by the final five !votes, all keep. Also, I'm puzzled by the emotions of some editors, especially the one who broke Godwins Law. That person should have been banned from the discussion for being way off topic (if not blocked for incivility). Also, it remains a secret why exactly the article was deleted. Lack of notability? Hardly. No English sources? Apparently - and that is quite a slippery slope. Well, to sum it up: Wikipedia is just not important enough (or anymore) to waste time with it. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) -- Matthead  Discuß   18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensuskeep. The worst closure I've seen in many weeks. Well said by the others. The only "canvassing" wasn't that at all -- it was various editors being contacted who listed themselves as having a high level of facility with the German language (after some editors indicated that they had trouble because sources were in German). None of the editors contacted, to my knowledge, indicated a prior propensity to vote keep on this issue or delete. The delete voters here were rife with inaccurate understanding of wikipedia's core content policy, and POV. And even with that, there was no consensus to delete--I was wondering if a thoughtful closer would close as keep (given that delete voters based their views on such peculiar thoughts as suggestions that articles written in German should be discounted because of the World War 2 concentration camps, or based on complete misunderstandings of wikipedia core policies), and thini that is how it should have been closed . No basis for this closure.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus When the closing statement acknowledges that there was no clear consensus, as is the case here, there is no reason to delve into "better" arguments, when the close of no consensus is the obvious option. Simply put, when there is no clear consensus, close as no consensus without interjecting personal biases to judge policy. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as the close obviously goes against consensus. The only deletion argument offerred after sources were presented was that those sources are not in English, which is a silly, dumbing-down, reason for deletion. Let's get the real issue out into the open here. This is one of a series of disruptive deletions by one of a small group of editors/admins who think that if someone screams "BLP" it means that all rational arguments should be discarded and that anyone who argues for keeping an article is the spawn of the devil. This behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud as it is preventing the building of an encyclopedia, which is what we are supposed to be doing here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep- notability arguments should have been discarded out of hand. Notability was proven and then some. As for BLP1E, it was argued but refuted. Since there were no viable delete arguments, there was no possible reason to close as delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- this is "no consensus, default to delete" in all but name. Congratulations to the deleting admin for not actually trying to use that rationale this time, but the result can't be allowed to stand all the same, given that there was no consensus at the AfD for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Clearly no consensus, defaulting to keep, and in the absence of any substantive explanation from the closer the default, reflecting the numerical !voting results, the default result should stand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn An astonishing close. Have Godwin's law and wikipedia's content policies been repealed and replaced by their opposites?John Z (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's statement - Woah I thought that AFD wasn't a vote? This decision is well within my discretion. The majority of the keep votes were total crap, some of them saying that just because of only one event that she was notable, 1 even said that they didn't know a lot about what is notable. The delete votes actually cited good policy as a reason for the deletion. I'm frankly starting to get sick of the "AFD is a vote" attitude going around here at DRV. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**I'm starting to think you can't be trusted with closing AfDs. Fences&Windows 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Struck Fences&Windows 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Second that. Closing an AfD poorly is one thing. When every commenter (ten 12 here so far; including delete voters) has indicated that the closer has closed the AfD against consensus, for him/her to argue the propriety of his close confirms to me that the wrong end of the mop is being used.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • @F&W That's more than a little ridiculous. Considering that only about 1% of my AFD closes have been taken to DRV, I think I'm doing quite well. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Admittedly, I've not had prior experience w/you that I can recall off-hand, and am basing my broad conclusion only on two things -- this close, and your reaction to the 10 people who have indicated (without any opposition) that this close was not appropriate. Didn't mean to suggest that my conclusion was based on anything more, but I do think these are fairly emphatic mis-steps; especially the second--the digging in of the heels in the face of unanimous reaction, even from delete voters, suggests to me a problem in listening to others. It's just the sort of thing that would lead people to vote against a sysop-to-be at an RfA. One side point--I think it would be great if we did have stats that showed us how many closes of a closer were brought here, and how many (what percentage) were overturned. As a first step to a review of closing rights.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well you bring up an even better point. I think I've had only 1 or 2 actually get overturned here. In all honesty, that has got to be the lowest rate for any admin at AFD. I'm not being controversial, I made I close that I saw fit according to policy. I'm actually saddened that Fences & Windows is trying to turn this into more than he knows it to be. I've been more than civil with him, but his constant calls on my conduct are starting to wain on my patience. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually I just checked, this is the only deletion I've had overturned, and it wasn't even because of how I closed it, it was because the person who the article was about, became more notable. This shows that I'm not near as controversial as Fences & Windows is trying to make me sound. Just because he has disagreed with some of my recent AFD closes, he has usually been in the minority, this is the only time that it appears that a DRV, on one of my closes, that he has !voted overturn in, might actually close that way. Please stop drama mongering F&W, I don't appreciate it. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 06:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was the nominator. If the discussion would have maintained the course it started on, I would have easily closed it as a delete. However, sources were added that the group seemed to accept as being reliable. Notability is still a grey area to me, but I'd rather err on the side of keeping. She seems to be somewhat of an international figure and errant diplomat who makes the news where she surfaces. I see that the closing statement mentions canvassing, which I have not had a chance to investigate. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fine line between appropriately discounting comments that are contrary to policies and guidelines, and inappropriately substituting one's judgment for that of the community by picking one side over the other in a legitimate difference of opinion on how policies and guidelines should be applied. The fact that XfDs are not votes does not mean that closers can discount comments simply because they do not agree with them. In this particular AfD here, the initial flurry of deletes argued that there are no sources, but then sources were presented, so the basis for these deletes have vanished. Of the editors who participated after the sources were presented, a clear majority supported keeping on the ground that notability has been established. While AfD is not a vote, and several editors (F&W, for example) supported deletion despite the sources, both sides presented reasonable, cogent arguments that basically involves a legitimate disagreement over the proper interpretation of the notability guidelines. All things considered, this is, in my view, in the middle between a "no consensus" and a "keep". Since it is at the very best a "no consensus", there is no admin discretion to delete. Therefore, overturn to no consensus, at a minimum. Tim Song (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. Clear evidence of notability was brought during the AfD, and it is baffling how the closing admin has discarded them. The closing rationale makes no sense in light of the AfD discussion. --Cyclopiatalk 10:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As the closing admin noted himself, the closure was a partisan action. The member should have simply commented like everyone else. Reopen the discussion (overturn speedy keep) and allow the MFD to reach a normal conclusion.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tony Wang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Zelysion (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and a lack of established sources. The article has been updated to match those criteria. See the current version of the page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelysion/Tony_Wang

  • Eh The Seventeen source looks new since the deletion. The school paper is large enough it might count as a RS. I'd say restore as clearly not a speedy candidate for recreation as the sourcing appears to be new (from what I can tell from the AfD). But I suspect it won't survive AfD2 without further improvement. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is no need for s reference to be an in depth discussion. The standard in the GNG is less, significant coverage, and it is that. I am a little more concerned about whether it is actually independent. But I would not be willing to restore this article until it was rewritten free of promotionalism--regardless of notability, I consider the latest version a clear G11 as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not independent coverage if the author and the subject are friends with each other, especially when the editorial control appears to be relatively lax, as it seems to be the case. Not to mention that the proposed draft is, as DGG says, promotional. Keep deleted. Tim Song (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted due to definite lack of independence in the sources and text reads as advertorial. It doesn't help that the requester and sole author is a single-purpose account. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The new reference did not change the article substantially enough to prevent such a deletion, and even if it did, G11 would probably still apply. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not recreate If that user-page article was in mainspace, it would be sent to AfD, if not tagged as a G11 in a New York minute. The 'Seventeen' sources are, in this instance, a woman named "Katie"'s blog, and video of "her friend"'s fashion show. Not independent, not by any stretch of the word, and hence not enough to overturn. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Masis Voskanian (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hovhannesk (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and a lack of established sources. The article has been updated to match those criteria. He has debuted and played games now. Hovhannesk (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without showing us a userspace draft or at least some sources, I'm not sure what we can do here. The article is not salted, so you can go ahead and recreate it; but DRV cannot, and should not, preempt a G4 speedy without a draft. Tim Song (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but no objection to creation of a new article with reliable sources that establish notability under WP:BIO. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - at the time of the AfD, the article clearly failed the general notability guideline and Voskanian had not yet played in a fully-pro league. I can find no evidence that this has changed, but if someone can show that Voskanian has played in a fully-pro competition (or otherwise satisfies the notability guideline), I wouldn't object to creation of new article. Jogurney (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show us a draft Like Tim Song said, there's nothing DRV can do without seeing the proposed article. In cases like this DRV can be closer to Articles for Creation by committee. The delete close in that AfD was clearly correct at the time it was made. Of course, you can be bold and just place the new article in mainspace, where it will be dealt with by the usual practices, which might be a G4 speedy. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Endorse deletion. Decision was correct at the time, but if circumstances can now be shown to have changed so that the subject of the article meets the notability criteria, then the article can and should be recreated. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yu-Gi-Oh!_The_Abridged_Series (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think this now counts as notable as the series recently won the Mashable Open Web Awards in the "Funniest Youtube Channel" category —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox295 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation with the creation of a viable draft: I think winning an OWA (technically, LittleKuriboh did, but that's splitting hairs) gives it enough notability to pass WP:WEB. Sceptre (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Unless this win resulted in some reliable coverage, I can't see how this can possibly lead to a verifiable article. Spartaz Humbug! 04:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. *sigh* technically, it is notable, but there are verifiability problems. Changing vote. Sceptre (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While the author may now be notable, the series is not, and there are verifiability issues in regards to both; no amount of editing will overcome this. Furthermore, the debate was not interpreted erroneously; there was a clear, valid consensus for deletion in each relevant discussion, and so DRV is not the correct place for this particular discussion. I have no prejudice against a later recreation, but due to the number of previous such recreations of this article, I will ask that if, in the future, an article on this topic is created, and said article fails to meet the criteria for inclusion, that it be salted upon deletion. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) (edited by Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Its already salted. Spartaz Humbug! 18:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Award is not notable, and has been won by canvassers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted. I remain unconvinced. At a minimum, show us a userspace draft first. Tim Song (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Mashable Open Web Awards my left foot. There is no shortage of awards like this, and they are absolutely not a guarantee of notability. Where are the reliable independent secondary sources primarily about the subject? Guy (Help!) 09:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both deletion and salting. Is the award a well-known, independent award independent award? That's what WP:WEB requires, and there's no indication yet that this meets those criteria. If a draft that passes WP:OR and WP:WEB can be created in userspace or at WP:AfC, then by all means please create it. But until then, there's no reason to permit re-creation. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, for the second time, and keep it salted This AfD has already been taken to DRV before, and endorsed. Anyone can hand out internet awards- they're utterly meaningless until written about by a reliable source. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, basically per JzG above. I see no indication that winning what appears to be a very minor award tips this series over into notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep deleted Frankly, I'm calling this out on verifiability grounds as a check on the winners show that CardGamesFTW was chose as the "Funniest YouTube Channel".[10] On top of that, this award doesn't appear to be well known, as required by WP:WEB. And given that this is nothing more than a popularity contest, I wouldn't give the award much credibility to begin either. —Farix (t | c) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse salting. Completely irrelevant award as far as notability goes. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse salting. Everyone can start a New Internet prize tomorrow. Why this one worth notice and more important how much "weight" should it be given to this award recipients? Knowing the colorful history of this article, i think the most circumspection is required and will not support recreation unless "unquestionable" evidences of notability are provide. Right now this isn't the case. --KrebMarkt 22:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mike Corley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted ages ago and has now been re-created by someone else(eventualism at work); I think there was more in the original than the current version so can someone please review it for WP:BLP compliance (I believe it predates the policy) and restore the history if appropriate. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there were no sources other than Corley's web site, I have deleted this as a negative unsourced BLP. If someone wants to recreate it they will have to do a lot better on the sourcing first. Kevin (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Laurance W. Marvin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello, The Page of Laurance W. Marvin was deleted without reason by strange user....[Jayjg].I have already tried resolving the issue with said user. No acceptable reason can be given for said users actions. All in formation on the page was factually accurate and up to date. I wish to file a complaint against this user [Jayjg]. And for the page Laurance W. Marvin to be restored. If you need additional information I can put you in contact with Mr. Marvin. the majority of his history is on actual paper not on the net which was stated on the page to start with. Also any issues with the page should have come up on the discussion section for this page and said user did not even go to the trouble to try and resolve any issue nor were the issues stated by said user. Please contact me.I wish to get this issue resolved as soon as possible..Thankyou.--Yoko-Litner (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Coccinella (software) – Deletion endorsed. If reliable sources are found or become available that provide significant coverage of the software, then recreation of the article can and should be considered. While a large number of sources were offered in the discussion, the absolute majority do not appear to pass as reliable sources and/or provide limited coverage of Coccinella. A source like the Linux.com article provides significant coverage, but it appears to be the only example; others, such as the SourceForge.net and Xmpp.org sources, provide only limited information about the software or indicate only that it exists.
    If appropriate sources are found, my suggestion would be to create a userspace draft of the proposed article so that it can be evaluated at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This extra step will help to ensure that the new article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and is not subject to speedy deletion as an unimproved recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.
    I will gladly restore the contents of the article to the userspace of any editor who finds reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Coccinella and is willing to actively improve the article by incoporating said sources. – –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Coccinella (software) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Why you remove all articles ? It is a good client which exist since 2002, still in development and one of first (or the first) with the Whiteboard.

Extended content

← Neustradamus, you're still not getting it. All those links do is show that the software exists. They do nothing to satisfy WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On August 12, 2008 Coccinella was mentioned on Ehrensenf, a German Internet television station which is notable enough being mentioned on the notable German Wikipedia which claims there are a notable 30,000 people watching this station. The notable University of Wisconsin–Madison, ranking very high in the world (see section about rankings in the Wikipedia article), recommends Coccinella to its more than 30,000 students and staff members. In fact, they even thought it is notable enough to write a tutorial. Speaking about natability, there once was a Coccinella screencast on Genbeta. This is a popular Spanish website that seems to be more notable in Spain compared to the website of the Spanish government. Anyway, as a former Wikipedia contributor, I don't care whether the Coccinella article is being deleted or not. If stpeter didn't posted the thread Wikipedia deletions, I would not have cared to spend my precious time on posting this message here (Neustradamus asked me to speak here after this reply). My questions to the Wikipedians are simple: did you people actually objectively analyze your own statistics? Why is there a declining trend in the number of edits per day since 2007? Why are the number of active wikipedians and the number of very active wikipedians going down more drastically? Did you analyze why other large open-source projects like Linux and Wine are still experiencing rapid growths in the number of contributors and contributions? Did you analyzed whether your current deletions policies hurt the motivation of new and existing contributors? Shouldn't it be easier to *improve* content instead of deleting contributions? Personally, the key reason why I stopped investing my time in the Wikipedia project is because I preferred investing this time in other open-source projects (like Coccinella) for the simple reason that my contributions to these other projects would not be deleted. Wikipedia really should change its deletion policies if it wants to survive in the long term. PS: if you want feedback, please comment on the Coccinella website or ask Neustradamus to ping me because I won't follow this page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.100.241 (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Don't see anything out of process here. And why exactly are we keeping this open given the clear offsite canvassing? Tim Song (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Nothing wrong with this closure. Take away the invalid "keep" arguments based on WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT, and you're left with a strong, policy-grounded consensus to delete. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Quite frankly, existing is quite different from notability. This discussion has proven, beyond any doubt, that this software in fact exists. It may even be a quality piece of code. Bombarding us with dozens of unreliable sources doesn't equal a show of notability. And, to 84.194.100.241, if Wikipedia is so prone to delete stuff, why has the number of articles on Wikipedia increased constantly, and is still increasing? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 December 2009

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

Already request keep before deletion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/AMSN (which removed)

  • You can see the notability of aMSN here : http://sourceforge.net/top/topalltime.php?type=downloads (number of download).
  • The number of pages on Google (+/- 2 510 000).
  • It is for all OS system (example Linux distribution, Apple Mac OS, MS Windows, and more... — Neustradamus (✉) 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: malformed DRV fixed; deleting admin notified. Tim Song (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin here None of these are accepted reasons for the subject of an article to be considered notable and therefore worthy of inclusion. The traditional way to do this is to provide multiple substantial non-trivial sources from publications that are considered to meet our standards for secondary reliable sources. The AFD was closed as delete because none of the keep arguments addressed this issue adequately and the only policy based arguments were the ones arguing that sourcing was inadequate. The talk page of the AFD lists a number of new sources. The youtube videos I am ignoring but 3 sources in particular were presented:
    • OSNews This is an interview so is primary not secondary and I am not clear whether OSNews is considered to meet our RS guideline.
    • ITAvisen.no For the non-Nordic speakers this means IT news in Norwegian. The article appears to be a review from a named contributor and the publication appears to have an editor and a publishing house behind it so I guess it could meet RS but really needs a Norwegian speaker or someone more familiar with the subject to comment.
    • gmane newsgroup posting News groups are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of considering notability.
  • None of the above sources were presented to the AFD and had they been I would have gone with the consensus from the discussion on whether the accept them. To me it looks like we have 1 likely source and two disallowed sources but its not really for me to substitute my opinion on these sources for that of the community. I was approached on my talk page to discuss but did not get round to do so before the DRV was listed. I frankly have no opinion on whether or not we should have this article and, were I an outside observer, might lean towards endorsing the original close as inevitable and relisting if there is a consensus here that these sources are worth discussing further at AFD. Personally I think they are a little thin but further discussion might generate further sources. Spartaz Humbug! 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Suggest giving it a chance for improvement, and allow possibility of new AFD if appropriate later. However, I also find no fault with the original close by Spartaz (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] ( Translated: [23] ) (aMSN used on a Spanish TV show: Divinos. Includes an official reply from Miquel Olavarria who was responsible for the technology used, confirming that aMSN was in fact used there) , [24] (At -5:31 they mention aMSN). Aiviv (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn exactly per Cirt. I don't think the AfD could have been closed any other way, but I think this could stand some additional eyes. I _do_ disagree that an interview can't count toward notability. If a 3rd party interviews someone about their work, that still is coverage of the work. But I realize not everyone agrees with that and in any case, I don't see how it could how it could have been closed as keep. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original close, but let's permit recreation without prejudice to another AFD in light of the new sources. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original article included no sources at all (except from aMSN's own webpage). Without being very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, I do agree that it should be deleted. You suggest "permit recreation", and I think the sources I cited above could be used to prove its notability on a new article. Aiviv (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, draft first recreation This article needs to be re-drafted with sources. The first article had no sources at all, so let us see a new article drafted from scratch with the sources presented. I do not think the potential sources presented show notability, these are mostly blogs, download sites, and insignificant reviews. Miami33139 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the sources, significant or not, the recreated article will not be a G4 - IIRC DRV recently overturned a couple G4s on this very ground. It would be inappropriate for DRV to insist on a userspace draft here. Consideration of the sourcing, if necessary, should be done at a subsequent AfD, not DRV. Tim Song (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply don't understand what kind of notability you want? aMSN was featured in an egyptian tv show, and in a spanish movie (and we got a request from another movie director for featuring it in his next film).. for it to get this kind of attention from movie directors, does it not show notability, or are those not reliable sources too ? It is one of the most well known clients at least amongst the Mac community (which lacks a proper official client for MSN). I pleaded my cause here if some of you have not read it yet : Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/AMSN. If you also look at the link "Most popular software overall" link at the bottom of http://sourceforge.net you will see that aMSN is the 16th most downloaded software, and the second most popular instant messenging client from sourceforge.net (after pidgin) with a very small gap between the two. If a movie's notability can be defined by number of tickets sold, or a book's notability by the number of sales, why not define notability on a software for the number of downloads? And about Spartaz's "News groups are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of considering notability.", that's not a news group, that's just an archive of an email sent by a Microsoft HR employee from the Windows Live team, who was offering a job to aMSN developers. I think that if Microsoft noticed us and wanted to hire us, that would qualify as notable, no? Or is Microsoft not notable enough either ?
  • We gave you lots of links to different articles, and you can google for 'amsn messenger -wikipedia.org -amsn-project.net' and there are over 3.5 million results. I don't think a rewrite from scratch is necessary because we already spent a lot of time writing the original aMSN article, so you should restore it (as well as every modified article as a consequence of that delete) and then we'll improve it and add links to the sources you wanted.
  • Also, like I said, aMSN is the first client to implement direct p2p file transfer support, webcam support, voice clips support, audio/video call support. If you accept clients like Emesene and Jabbin simply because it's "contested" and because Jabbin is the first to have VoIP support, then I think it applies to aMSN too. Kakarotoks (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation Personally I might have closed as non-consensus, but the close was reasonable. It would really have helpedif the closer had given a reason at the time. Perhaps we should actually require it. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The close was a clear no consensus. Moreover, this nomination and deletion is a clear case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT: aMSN is one of the most popular Unix chat clients. Sources brought by Aiviv are more than enough. --Cyclopiatalk 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or permit recreation – if the abovementioned sources are indeed reliable (including the ones that Eastmain provided in the AFD), then I don't see much a problem recreating or userfying it. MuZemike 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • personally I can't see the point keeping this open any longer - we already have a clear consensus. I'm happy for any stray passing admin to restore this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jabbin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)


  • It seems Nuestradamus re-created the article by wholesale copy and paste (with a few very minor changes) from the deleted version. Nyttend deleted this as he believed it broke the GFDL, as none of the previous authors were attributed in the visible page history. ÷seresin 15:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Derek Michael Sheldon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel that Circ was unfair in deleting this page. I have updated information. Mr. Sheldon just won the best blogger of 2009 by the largest social media review website. I have contacted Circ several times in efforts to restore this page to no avail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt He referred me to this page.I am not a pro at this and I do NOT understand why this is so difficult!I am requesting that this page get restored to a full page..Thank you. Lovingmusic Lovingmusic (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The efforts of the nom are in their own kind amazing, yet the subject seems to fail WP:V pretty badly. The award does not look nearly enough. I am happy to reconsider my !vote if sources come out (tried to look, didn't find), but for now my advice to Lovingmusic is to work on the sandbox and wait for WP:RS to pick up the guy. --Cyclopiatalk 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AFD consensus was clear. And if Cyclopia can't find a reason to restore an article, that probably means that there's no reason to be found... Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know to have become a notability thermometer! You could put me on WP:GNG: If it doesn't passes Cyclopia, it doesn't belong here for sure! --Cyclopiatalk 11:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a draft in her userspace at User:Lovingmusic/Sandbox. Only external sources are about the Mashable.com award. Note also in the talk page of the editor that she admitted to work for the article subject, so there is a strong COI flavour in this all. --Cyclopiatalk 11:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Judging by the userspace draft, a PerezHilton wannabe whose greatest skill is making fun of people's names. And if "Taylor Boobless Swift" is an example of his best work, he makes the alcoholic screamer who hangs around my local train station sound like Noel Coward. The AFD consensus was clear, and nothing his employee writes about him makes him seem anything but not notable. And that "award" shouldn't count for much, since there's still a canvassing popup on his website calling for multiple/repeat voting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 December 2009

[edit]

14 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Sst7.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The image was speedy deleted for non-free use. However, the image is not replaceable. This was stated on the File's talk page in response to the deletion tag placement. There was no reply to my discussion entry prior to deletion. The article is about a band that has released two CDs, taken multiple national tours and does so no longer because members have left. Fair use applies because the image displays the entire seven-piece band and such a free image does not exist. The image was also low resolution. However, if the image is restored and resolution is an issue the image can be made smaller. - Steve3849 talk 07:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A site specific google search of a Seattle journal such as thestranger.com brings predominate appearances this passed year by "Skerik's Syncopated Horn Quartet". However I do see the mention in a forum of a "very rare show" of all 7 members in 2009. I still think a free image of the entire band is highly unlikely. - Steve3849 talk 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was one in 2009, I'd say it's not unlikely a free version can be found later. Send to XfD I don't think this is a clear-cut enough case for a speedy. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at FfD per Hobit. As there is a legitimate dispute over whether a free picture of the full band performing can be taken, this should not be a speedy candidate. Let FfD figure out whether this band still exists as such and whether a free replacement is potentially available. Tim Song (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for numerous reasons. 1) The uploader did contact the administrator who deleted the image, but just 30 minutes later brought it here to drv, without giving the admin a chance to respond. Nor was I, the person who tagged it with the replaceable fair use tag, notified of this drv. 2) The article states the band is still together and as such a free image could reasonably be found or created. 3) Unlike what the uploader states now, he made no discussion on the image talk page in response to the deletion tag placement, while editing other Wikipedia articles, so he was here in the two-day notification time frame. Aspects (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually did put a discussion entry on the image talk page. That is one of the reasons I came here. My attempt at discussion was speedy deleted without response. - Steve3849 talk 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC) The edit would have been Dec 12 between 3:45 and 4:00, although I don't see a record of it. There is a possibility I didn't save the edit properly and assumed it was finished. Would the entry be currently visible? A mistaken edit exists here (BTW -- the history of this speedy delete template indicates the directions could be improved) - Steve3849 talk 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. As WP:CSD states, "administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." The file was deleted under WP:CSD#F7, for files with invalid fair-use claims. While the deleting admin did not err in doing so (the uploader had sufficient time and opportunity to contest the speedy tag), it is clear that this is no longer an obvious case. The speedy deletion therefore should be overturned; further pursuit of deletion should be through a FfD discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The image is quite clearly replaceable. There already is a free image of the bandleader, and one of the full band could be obtained. People have had success with contacting copyright-holders directly--the band themselves may be willing to release an image under a free license, or this Flickr photographer could be asked (since "All rights reserved" is the default on Flickr, many people there don't know about licenses and have never considered the benefits of a free license). There are instructions for how to do this, including sample letters that have worked in the past, at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Chick Bowen 16:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You feel that it's clear enough it qualifies as a speedy? Hobit (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, though I see and acknowledge your point--speedies by definition need to be clear-cut. I think this one meets the standard; after all, replaceability is a pretty straightforward concept in a case like this--this is not comparable to some of the debates of the past about things like unbuilt buildings or people who are inaccessible to photography. A band is pretty easily photographable by anyone in attendance at a concert. I do not know of a band that has given regular concerts during the Wikipedia era for which we've considered a promo photo to be irreplaceable. Chick Bowen 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BS.Player (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Though the deletion nominator claimed that the article's external links about the reviews do not guarantee its notability, as all software are eventually reviewed, the software is still highly notable as it is reviewed by at least three reputable software sites (including Download.com and Softonic.com), and the reviews do not only state its history and features and are positive (Download.com rated it five stars). RekishiEJ (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted Went through AfD, went through DRV, went through undeletion, was moved to main, an admin said nothing changed but an added link to a download site. Nothing has changed for this content. This is not AfD round 5. Miami33139 (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this is becoming disruptive. Went through DRV before where the nom was mightily impressed with the 5 star rating, suggested WP:IAR to ignore the consensus of the deletion discussion, was pointed out how to go about getting notability standards changed etc. Nothing has changed since then. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Slip-n-Slide Records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Although this label is notable, because of a lack of sources an administrator (unfamiliar with the subject of hip hop music?) deleted it assuming that it failed WP:MUSIC. I wrote a draft of this article from scratch; this label has signed several notable rap artists so it should have an article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an expired prod so should be restorable immediately on request, so this DRV isn't really needed. One point though, a lack of sources is an entirely appropriate reason to delete, verifiability determines that things should be sourceable. If articles meet the verifiability requirement, then familiarity is a non-issue, in fact if the existance relies solely on familiarity, then original reasearch is likely an issue. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the article. PROD is meant to be uncontroversial, and upon essentially any request, PROD deletions are reversed so a DRV isn't necessary. Andrew, not sure if you knew, but I was simply deleting the article out of process (going through the list of expiring PRODs), and since the nomination looked reasonable, I deleted it. Regards, JamieS93 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 December 2009

[edit]
  • Google Watch – A bit of both - There is no consensus for the article/history deletion to be overturned. There is however much argument that the redirect should remain. Dredging through all this I'm closing this as deletion/merge of the article as done endorsed, but with a consensus that there should be a simple redirect left in its place (with no history behind it). I note that with or without the redirect a search for "Google Watch" here will end you up at basically the same place. Having the redirect just makes it quicker. I will recreate the simple redirect, then protect to prevent this article's recreation. – Peripitus (Talk) 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Google Watch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
  • Here we go again, folks. Page was deleted, even though the consensus at the AFD was for a merge. Brandt requested that the redirect be deleted, and User:NuclearWarfare complied. The result of the AFD was a merge, and the deletion of the redirect was not agreed to anywhere in that AFD. The deletion of this redirect seems to me to be a violation of the proper procedure for deleting redirects, which would be to list them at Redirects for Deletion. I ask that the article be undeleted and posted there so that community can discuss the issue and decide whether or not to delete the redirect, as opposed to one admin unilaterally deciding the best course of action. It seems logical to leave redirect at Google Watch to point searchers to the current location of the information at Criticism of Google, so the reason given in NuclearWarfare's edit summary ("No reason to keep this redirect around") is not sufficient to account for this article's deletion.
  • Overturn (i.e. allow the redirect to be restored) , per nom. The closer is of course entitled to agree with Brandt, but should go through the proper venues to propose such a deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, for pities sake. Are we to be Daniel Brandt's puppets? Restore the redirect and page history, that deletion was totally without justification. Fences&Windows 21:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore come on, really? Hobit (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why the deletion is necessary, especially since it effectively prevented editorial overturning of the merge, the ground upon which the previous DRV was closed. Given the numerous serious irregularities pointed out during the AfD, I wonder if that debate is safe enough as a basis for taking action. Tim Song (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting admin: I have already provided a copy of the Wikitext of the article to Cyclopia and will happily do so again to anyone who requests it, provided that they attribute it properly when merging information. The history of the article has been preserved. The redirect was causing an annoyance to the website operator and was not really necessary for us (really, what good does it do?), so I decided to exercise my judgment and delete the article. NW (Talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, "being banned does not prevent" administrators from acting on a genuinely justified request for "deletion on BLP grounds." However, any deletion (or other administrative action) requires some articulated basis beyond the mere fact that a banned user requested the action. Andrea105 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me with a straight face how a simple redirect for a reasonable search term to an article that never, ever cites Brandt be "Brandt-hate". He doesn't want the link because of the quirks of Google ranking algorithms, but that's hardly our problem, and that's hardly "hating" him to maintain a simple redirect. Please. --Cyclopiatalk 03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I calls 'em as I sees 'em, Cyclopia. How many Brandt-related articles ended up at DRV in the last month or so? Personally, I'm no fan of the man - everyone knows that, especially given that his website informed a stalker as to my whereabouts. Old news now. But this nonsense needs to stop, once and for all - Alison ❤ 03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the memo where it said "We must delete all trace of Daniel Brandt from Wikipedia". What merits this treatment that means we must comply with his wishes to delete all articles about him and his enterprises, regardless of editorial judgement? You're all looking like his useful idiots. Fences&Windows 03:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "regardless of editorial judgment" - that's already been made and the article has been rightfully deleted. But here we are again, at another pointless divisive DRV. The article quite simply failed WP:WEB, plain and simple. Yet somehow, these articles are so vital to Wikipedia, somehow, that we have to fight tooth-and-nail to keep them. Now why is that?? - Alison ❤ 03:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tooth and nail? I gladly accepted the merge outcome, despite my feeling that the topic was worth an article in itself. As you can see, at least I am quite open to compromise. But deleting the redirect is plain wrong. The close made no mention of that, the deletion happened only after and without discussing it, and no one can disagree that it is a reasonable search term. About the "why", however, it is maybe because, ehm, such subjects are actually notable? --Cyclopiatalk 03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Wikipedia Review is quite honestly becoming the new IRC for arranging shady actions, and I really hope at some point to see something done about that, to whatever extent it can be. Aside from my own personal strong distaste for that, however, the redirect does not meet any speedy deletion criteria, nor is BLP of any relevance here (the title of the redirect has nothing to do with any living person, it's the name of a website!) It's certainly a search term someone might use, and there is interest in merging (which requires leaving the redirect intact). If Nuclear Warfare feels the redirect should be deleted, there's a place for that, but it's not speedyable, and I see no rationale for why an exception is warranted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore article history. This gamery has got to stop. If people want the article deleted, close the original Afd as delete, and we can have the deletion review of that extremely screwy debate, because NW either cannot or will not answer some simple questions about his closure as merge, as well as now deleting it outright after a bit of undocumented offsite negotiations. Any article other than a Brandt one and that's a desysyopping right there tbh. You simply cannot close something as merge, throw out a DRV because it was a merge, stick two fingers up at everyone and go and delete it anyway, and then claim you are somehow doing the right thing. MickMacNee (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but restore the redirect. The game of poking Brandt with a sharp stick has long since lost its novelty. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly matters, but the admins who abuse their tools in this way should resign in shame.--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over the principle of the thing. If you take sides in a debate, you don't even close the debate, you certainly don't take administrative action in contradiction to what you know to have been the outcome of the debate. If you can't be trusted over the small things, you can't be trusted.--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:NuclearWarfare/Recall or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. If you want to call for my head, please do so through proper channels instead of dramamongering. NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't you I necessarily meant... But it would be nice if admins who have done wrong would admit and reverse their mistakes instead of trying to justify them or blaming others for pointing them out. --Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- it's one thing to invoke IAR in the absence of a community discussion -- but using it to override/ignore a discussion that has already taken place goes much too far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overriding a community discussion? I'm not sure I ever did that. I closed an AfD as "the article should not exist as a standalone one." I merged it, perhaps not in the standard way of move content + redirect, but I still merged it in a way that was fine for our licensing. The AfD could have been even been closed as delete; there was a perfectly fine consensus to do so at the AfD itself... NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully support deletion of anything involving Daniel Brandt. The man has a long history of outing Wikipedia editors who say things he doesn't like, and there are children and vulnerable people who edit Wikipedia. We don't need to be leaving booby traps for our people.

    However, we should be more honest about the reasons why we delete Brandt-related articles.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • S Marshall, I'm not really sure what you mean. I never hid the fact that I deleted a measly redirect per DB's request. Could you explain further please? NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not accusing you of hiding anything, NW; nor in fact am I accusing you of anything at all. I just think this DRV will be read in conjunction with the previous one for Scroogle and editors who aren't familiar with Brandt may be perplexed at the outcomes which are not strictly consistent with normal Wikipedian custom and practice.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (later) On re-reading that remark, it may not shed any light. I was trying to say that I think Wikipedia is officially oblivious to Mr Brandt, and I think that is as it should be. But I think the reason Wikipedia turns a blind eye has to do with a long, long series of dramas. MZM hints at this early in the discussion thread but didn't make it explicit.

        I've no doubt whatsoever that you, NW, fully understood what MZM was saying and gave his view appropriate weight. I think editors unfamiliar with the preceding drama may find this decision perplexing and more on the history would be helpful in the closing statement.

        None of the above remarks are meant as criticism of you, in any way.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn This is unjustified. Deletion of the redirect was entirely outside and contrary to process. The AfD was closed as mere, not delete. The only grounds on which such a deletion of the redirect without specific consensus to do so could be justified would be as an office action, and if so it should have been stated. Tthis is to some extent compatible with what S Marshall just stated, about how it must be done if it is to be done; I do not however endorse his reason. letting outsiders dictate the contents of Wikipedia is contrary to NPOV; removing redirects because we do not like the person is equally so, and shows irresponsibility. Perhaps that what Brandt was trying to get us to do--prove that we were incapable of following our own principles. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, at RFD, redirects default to delete on a "no consensus" outcome; there's plenty of precedent for deleting a redirect without consensus. Whether that's as it should be is another question (and I think not one to be discussed at a Brandt-related DRV).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion.... (disclaimer: I participated in the AFD) Deleting the redirect of the name of the website has nothing to do with BLP reasons. It's about the owner of the website wanting to reduce the Page Rank of the name in wikipedia for his own personal reasons. There is no policy anywhere to do any such thing, and no consensus to abide to such requests. As other say, let's be clear here about the real reasons for deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.D.: the history has been posted in the other talk page for attribution, NuclearWarfare already performed a merge[27], and other content was merged by Cyclopia [28]. So, there is no problem with keeping the history deleted, I think that we can simply re-create the redirect. But I'll note that deleting the history was out of process anyways and that it wouldn't have been done if there hadn't been off-wiki pressure. All of these actions were just patches to fix the problems caused by having abided to external pressures that go against our policies on content. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of the redirect. The AFD was not closed as delete, nor was there a DRV discussion to change that result. The redirect does not meet any CSD criterion, and there was no RFD discussion of it. The only justification for this completely out-of-process, IAR deletion is that it was requested by Brandt based on a supposed "BLP issue". But the destination article does not contain unsourced or critical material about Brandt, nor does it even mention his name. The "BLP issue" he raised: that Google might lead people to the Criticism of Google article when they searched for him! This "issue" is in no way a violation of the WP:BLP policy or any other policy, guideline or common consensus. We do not have a policy that we will help people manipulate the results given by third-party search engines. Searching for my name produces as a top result a WP article about an attempted Presidential assassin. That does not mean I should approach an admin with a request for an out-of-process deletion of that article as a "BLP issue". Absent this ridiculous pseudo-BLP complaint, it is hard to imagine what would justify the deletion of the redirect, since "Google Watch" is a reasonable search term associated with criticism of Google, and the destination article does discuss the site. Brandt is entirely within his rights to raise legitimate BLP issues when they exist, but that does not include a right to remove anything dislikes by trumping it up as a "BLP issue". --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The decision to delete the redirect was a good and proper one, and supported by the consensus on the AfD SirFozzie (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The eventual outcome is the right one, and as SirFozzie notes is supported by the AfD consensus. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion of this unnecessary and inflammatory redirect. *** Crotalus *** 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inflammatory? There appears to be one person in the entire world who is "inflamed" by it. I understand the Endorse comments that think the AFD should have been closed as delete in the first place, but I don't see how a redirect that would seem perfectly reasonable under normal circumstances can be classified as "inflammatory" based on one person's irrational complaints. --RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as Guy mentions, this is just stick poking for the sake of stick poking GTD 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me at least it is a matter of process. Do we really delete redirects to relevant articles because someone asks us to? Or even worse, because someone threatens us? Maybe that's process for processes sake, but I'm very uncomfortable with it. Hobit (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There surely are people who did not vote Keep in the Afd and will not vote Overturn here fearing repercussions.--M4gnum0n (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Repercussions? Like what, an ASCII horse's head left on someone's user page? Tarc (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like being listed at Hivemind... –xenotalk 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The AfD resulted in Merge, so merge it. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. "Merge" =/= "delete", even if you rearrange the letters. --Calton | Talk 02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BLP question was at the AfD and was not accepted there. BLP as applying to the redirect is ridiculous as it amounts to saying that being associated with the criticism of google is a libel or untrue. BLP questions are resolved by the community, and the only ones capable of overriding that is Office. No one individual admin, is a better judge--and this out of process deletion of the redirect shows that very well. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Per DGG. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Behind-the-scenes talk on Wikipedia Review, IRC, whatever shouldn't affect any potentially-controversial administrative actions on-wiki. If the redirect is problematic, put it up for deletion. ThemFromSpace 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Very clearly against normal procedure for merge closes, and after an AfD where there were reasons for questioning the deletes, not the keeps. No reason based in policy or common sense for not having a redirect with history as usual.John Z (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of redirect I think that the decision to delete the redirect was perfectly reasonable. In all honesty, from my quick reading of the AFD, the consensus was really to delete anyway. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of redirect Clearly out of process deletion of redirect. This is an appropriate redirect per Wikipedia:Redirect#Sub-topics and small topics in broader contexts and there was no basis in policy or guideline for the unilateral deletion of the redirect after closing the discussion as merge. No one arguing for endorse above, or for delete in the AFD has provided any policy or guideline basis for why thie redirect is inappropriate and the arguments that are not on that basis should be ignored in making the closure. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I noted in the AfD discussion that this would inevitably close as delete, which would be completely WP:IAR no matter what window dressing and huge helpings of discussion we lathered upon it. The merge and deletion of the redirect was the crafty method used. The reinstatement of the redirect, which appears to be the consensus view here, is going to open the door to the recreation of the Google Watch article again (which could easily happen due to the myriad sources discussing it, which would normally pass 99 out of 100 AfDs for any other article). And any recreation will immediately lead to another deletion nomination. So if the redirect is reinstated, I suggest it be permanently protected so we can go on building an encyclopedia. Whether Google Watch has its own article or a few mentions in the merged article is of extremely minimal importance in the big picture, and this series of related-article debates has wasted huge amounts of editor time.--Milowent (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of redirect, per DGG, an out of process deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of redirect. I'm not clear why there was an IAR deletion, given the dozens of souces, but a delete and redirect seems harmless. In fact, it may better forestall the recreation of an article. Abductive (reasoning) 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nathan Keyes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was dropped off at the AfD's talkpage, copying it to here: "5 votes over a period of just a few days does not translate to concensus. The article was a mess and looked like it had been written by a fan, but a little time should have been given for other persons to edit it, clean it up, and establish notability for Mr. Keyes. According to the Internet Movie Database, Keyes has had recurring roles in a number of TV shows, in addition to his co-starring role in Ben 10:Alien Swarm. I suggest that we restore this article, and heavily rewrite it to convey notability and remove the bias. Michaelh2001 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
treelo radda 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kairosis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Change in Reliable Sources policy since 2008 Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Went to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Kairosis who recommended WP:DRV; statement from there was, Kairosis was deleted in circumstances where accepted PhD theses were not appropriate nor High Quality reliable sources. Sourcing policy has changed since mid 2008, and PhD theses available for consultation that have been accepted are RS. The grounds for the deletion of this article being overturned I requested that the deleting administrator reverse their deletion on 4 November 2009. I believe a sufficient amount of time has passed to allow that administrator to respond, and they haven't done so (they're on an extended leave). As such I would like Kairosis undeleted, as the deletion rationale is no longer an element of wikipedia policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Might be a good idea to relist this at AfD as the notability issue was not fully addressed by nom, but the change in WP:RS may justify a new discussion. Tim Song (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because this article might not be deleted today given the changes to reliable sources policy. Relist at AfD if so desired. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration in user space This needs fuller discussion. Sources are not either Reliable or Not-Reliable--there is a gradation. Though phd theses often can be RS for many purposes, they rank relative low in the hierarchy of academic writing, and the use of an idiosyncratic term in one does not make something notable--unlike the case of its use by a major author in the field. If the only author using it in the manner suggested here is Russell in his thesis, I would not say it was notable. If the application to Emma is in the thesis it can be quoted--the source is sufficiently reliable for that, though not for notability , but otherwise it is OR. On the other hand, if Kermode did use this word in this manner, it would probably be notable since he is a major academic critic, and his use of the term would be enough. But I'm not sure he did (I don't have the book at hand today) --he is more likely to be referring instead to the closely related term Kairos-- certainly that is the word and the meaning in all the GBooks quotes that refer to his use. [29]. (The adjective kairotic seems to usually refer just to Kairos). I would suggest the rewritten article try to give more of the context. I am by no means convinced. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Sound rationale as given above by Fifelfoo (talk · contribs), who is experienced with sourcing issues. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Crit. Trusted editor thinks they can fix the issues, I say let them try. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore without prejudice to another AFD. Given the change in WP:RS, let's allow some reconsideration. Tim Song (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Diana Napolis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD was closed as delete, allegedly for WP:BLP concerns. Problems I identify with the closure are:

  • There was no real consensus. Bare count shows 14 Deletes and 10 Keeps ; many of the delete !votes are one-liners that sometimes did not cite policy or guidelines at all (see first 3 ones for example); while keep !votes often brought sources relevant to the page notability and directly addressed the possible BLP1E concerns
  • Many of the delete !votes acknowledged nonetheless that the page passes notability guidelines, per links to academic books and by the fact that she is notable for several incidents
  • The subject did not request deletion
  • When asked on the talk page, the closer admin explained the closure with arguments that, in my opinion [30] basically amounted to "I don't like it": the line She was only known for "stalking" celebs, and an article like that would always have serious BLP issues. is especially worrying because (1)we are not here to judge why a subject is notable, per WP:NPOV (2)we do not delete for issues that are not yet present, and that can anyway be dealt with editing, per deletion policy

For all these reasons I believe the correct closure should have been no consensus and, per our deletion policy, default to keep. Cyclopiatalk 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Juliancolton and KillerChihuahua, I would appreciate if you can withdraw, or at best explain, your comments. My intention is not that of doing forum shopping or Afd part 2. This is a problematic close, at least in my view, because it does not comply properly with policy and the debate, and DRV, as far as I understand, is meant exactly for this kind of concerns. There are many AfD I participated where I was against consensus and I gladly accepted the outcome without further questioning. This is not one of these cases, and, in my own opinion, for good reasons. If you have problems with the existence of DRV per se, that's another question. Thank you. --Cyclopiatalk 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of late, any non-straightforward BLP-related AfD is brought to DRV by someone who happens to disagree with the result. Then there's a long, drawn-out debate, with all the usual suspects, and the admin barely scrapes by with his head intact. DRV should be used only if there's a real reason to believe the closing admin made a blatantly erroneous closure, not to try to get the desired result by starting a new thread—which, with all due respect, is what I believe is happening here. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the delete !votes were frankly wrong. Claiming BLP1E and not being able to cite what the one event is indicates a serious problem. Those !votes probably should have been greatly discounted. Getting the "delete" close required a fair bit of IAR. Plus we have admins who are trying to change policy via their closes (and in many cases admit it). Those clearly need to come to DrV. As does the one where a new admin made a pretty wrong-headed closing statement. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juliancolton, my personal guess is that if any non-straightforward BLP-related AfD is brought to DRV by someone who happens to disagree with the result. is not for mere disagreeing with the result, but because BLPs are often being treated by a small subset of admins very differently than other articles: what I mean, more differently than allowed by WP:BLP or other policies. I guess that if BLP articles are deleted correctly following consensus and policies, there will be a sudden drop in such DRVs. --Cyclopiatalk 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit: it's not up to the closing admin to decide which votes are "wrong" or "right", just to determine which ones present more reasonable and solid arguments. Yes, changing a policy unilaterally and then closing an AfD based on the new rules is an error... but I don't see anything like that in this AfD.

    @Cyclopia: I'm sure you understand the significance of the BLP issue and the desperate need to resolve it. Yes, BLPs should unquestionably be dealt with differently than "normal" articles. BLP, like all policies and guidelines, merely describes the most common situations and how to deal with them; it is by no means fully comprehensive. That's why we elect admins—to decide how to best deal with the circumstances at hand. I'm not explicitly endorsing this DRV yet, because I haven't evaluated the AfD thoroughly enough to do so fairly, but just my $0.02. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • By "wrong" I meant that they claimed the article was in violation of a policy (BLP1E) that it clearly wasn't. So those !votes should be greatly discounted as they were neither reasonable nor based in policy. I think we agree on the idea that an admin should discount (reduce in value, not ignore) !votes that lack a policy-based reason for the action they suggest. With respect to the more general issue, we've also had closers "defaulting to delete" and one new admin who overstepped the bounds between !voting and closing. Those all certainly belong here as there were serious problems with those closes. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juliancolton: First, if BLP is not comprehensive and if there is a systematic need for more guidelines and policies, let's propose and discuss them. Admins should decide "how to best deal with the circumstances at hand" by following policy and guidelines. They are, nor should be, demigods acting against community consensus and consensual guidelines. If policies and guidelines need to be implmented or changed, they have to be extensively discussed before with the community, otherwise this becomes an admin-based oligarchy, and for sure it's not what we want.
Second, I frankly see no "desperate need to resolve it". I personally think that, while for sure BLPs have presented problems, the whole BLP issue is way inflated and that the so-called BLP problem, while important, is not as huge as thought by several editors. Now, I for sure understand that BLPs need special attention, but I see no BLP issue solved through deletion. If an article is not neutral, is defamatory, subject to vandalism etc., all of this can be solved by editing and protection levels. If the BLP is really in truth describing a single event (BLP1E), usually a rename/redirect and merge, or a refactoring of the article to address the event are more than enough. I see the BLP issue as a need to have better quality control, but there is no way in which deleting articles here and there will be useful. Once notability is established, we should not decide further what is worth of inclusion and what not: we should just follow the sources. --Cyclopiatalk 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Second, I frankly see no "desperate need to resolve it". I personally think that, while for sure BLPs have presented problems, the whole BLP issue is way inflated and that the so-called BLP problem, while important, is not as huge as thought by several editors." All due respect, as always, but if that is really your view than I suggest it's probably best to avoid BLP-related discussions, since you clearly don't comprehend what a big problem they present. Wikipedia articles routinely ruin people's lives and reputations. Vandalism and libel inserted into BLPs has the potential to get someone fired. OTRS regularly deals with requests from individuals to delete their articles. And yet here we are, hiding beyond our pseudonyms, deciding whether marginally noteworthy people who might have, at best, received to a couple passing mentions in newspapers should be subject to that. Surely you can agree that's a bit of a problem? Surely you can agree it's downright rude to let people be miserable in real life because they happen to meet some arbitrary notability guideline? Surely you can agree that Wikipedia is a real-word entity that causes issues every day? This is very disappointing Cyclopia. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't avoid BLP-related discussion precisely for my view. I expect WP to be a thoroughly comprehensive encyclopaedia. That is, the goal should be that everything which has been covered by WP:RS should be included in some form. In the case of BLPs, it seems this goal is actively repudiated, and this is a form of self-censorship I cannot accept. Because if in the short run we maybe make a couple of people happier, in the long run we make this project a laughable self-censored caricature of what it should have been, and we lose forever a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind. No reputable journalist ever restrains her/himself from freely reporting public and reasonably widespread information about a subject like we currently do. No reputable journalist retires a factual, non-libelous article from circulation only because the subject doesn't like it. If there is public information out there, good or bad, it is our duty to report it for the sake of building the encyclopedia. There is nothing "rude" in that; if you happen to be notable and already covered in public sources, everyone has the right to report such information -unless you think that reporting public facts is somehow rude. Now, I understand all what you say about BLPs, yet it doesn't make a case for deletion of any biography covered by RS. It just makes a case for being more careful about them (for example, I would endorse semiprotection-by-default of such articles). And again, yes, all what you say happens, yet when attempted to quantify it (see this thread for an example of a rough back of the envelope calculation), estimates are that ~0.1% of all ~500.000 BLPs ever presented some kind of trouble. Which is not irrelevant, given the huge amount of biographies, but for sure not as troubling as it could be, given the nature of WP. But again, that's not the point. The point is that none of these problems will be solved by deletion, unless you want to go the tough way and delete every BLP from here (I know of people who would like so). To do so, however, you need to change policy in such direction. And to change policy, you need consensus of the community. And such consensus should be firmly established and consolidated into explicit policies and guidelines. When this will happen, I will acknowledge that. If it doesn't, admins should refrain from pushing by force what they can't obtain by consensus, and live with that. If this disappoints you, well, sorry for you. --Cyclopiatalk 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try this again. No website is worth ruining people's real lives for. Wikipedia was largely initiated as an experiment, to see what would happen if a bunch of nobodies with computers started editing a website together. I love Wikipedia; I use it every day, I've been a contributor and sysop for years, and I think it's a great example of what the Internet is capable of. But I think we're taking ourselves far too seriously if we think deleting content on utterly non-notable people reduces our potential to be "a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind".

Obviously, public figures such as Tiger Woods should know they're going to be subject to extremely close scrutiny, and thus it's not unreasonable to include information on their controversies and issues. But the vast majority of all BLP subjects are not public figures, nor are they even to be considered "noteworthy" in any legitimate sense of the word. Notability is a term that WP has frankly FUBAR'd. We have hundreds of thousands of articles on non-public figures who have been mentioned in two or three websites, and those are the articles we need to be particularly careful of, and delete if we deem appropriate. Of course, it will take years and thousands of kilobytes of discussion to get notability guidelines changed; but again, this is why we have AfD, to decide which articles aren't worth of inclusion. It's not "self-censorship", it's a matter of common sense. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No website is worth ruining people's real lives for. -You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If we want a right to free speech , including the right to report factual information for knowledge purposes, we have to accept the risk that something goes awry here and there. To make an analogy: Cars kill a lot of people. I suspect no Saturday night with friends, or no puntuality at the dentist are worth ruining people's real lives for. Yet we continue to use cars for these purposes, and even more frivolous ones, and I'm sure you would not like if tomorrow someone obliges you to take a car only for life-or-death things. We simply accept a compromise, and live with that. I can't see why here it cannot be the same.
Notability is a term that WP has frankly FUBAR'd. - I happen to think instead that the WP definition of notability is the best one, because it is as objective as possible. It requires little opinion or guessing: if you have been covered in RS, it means one can derive material for an entry; therefore you deserve an entry. If we should write only about "notable" subject in the meaning of "known to the layman", you realize this project would immediately become worthless.
But I think we're taking ourselves far too seriously if we think deleting content on utterly non-notable people reduces our potential to be "a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind" - We should take ourselves seriously. This can seem a wacky website, but it is actually one of the most thorough and gigantic (even if flawed and idiosyncratic) structured compendia of information ever built by humankind, and it should be preserved with care. Now, deleting what you call "utterly non notable people" is far more worrying than deleting Barack Obama or Julius Caesar. Because even if WP disappears tomorrow, on these subjects there will be always thousands of books, essays etc., and we are superflous to document them for the future. But obscure subjects is exactly where Wikipedia shines. We can thoroughly document and collect information about subjects whose knowledge could be otherwise forever scattered among dozens of sources, often to the point of being, with all our shortcomings, the best source available on such subjects. I cannot imagine how valuable will be such a thing only 100 years from now. Imagine magically having a Wikipedia coming to us from the Roman empire: We would be reading their articles on Cicero or Nero, but we would be much more busy discovering about people whose name we would have otherwise forgot forever, to understand fully that society.
Finally, where can we move this discussion? It is going to be waaay offtopic. My place or your place? :) --Cyclopiatalk 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, there is no "right of free speech" on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep, it is clear that no consensus was established in this debate. Cerebellum (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak endorse I personally think the arguments to delete were poor. If people want to delete an article due to a policy (BLP1E) they should explain why it applies when asked. I'm still unsure what the claimed "one-event" was. That said, this one probably hits the "do no harm" part of WP:BLP and while I'd have certainly closed it as no consensus to delete due to the weak !votes for deletion, I think it was within admin discretion to delete due to the BLP issues (mental health issues). Just because many of the !votes cited the wrong policy, doesn't mean the admin can't accept them for what they were trying to argue. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bah, I'm moving to overturn honestly per Protonk. Counting and looking again, the arguments to delete were weak (as I said above) and while I would likely !vote to delete this by IAR (as "icky") I don't really see consensus to delete. I'm quite sympathetic to the desire to delete this, but don't see any justification in the AfD or policy to support it. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Looks like a reasonable close to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate those BLP DRVs. Endorse per Hobit, mostly. The BLP1E argument was fairly weak, but there are serious BLP concerns here independent of the BLP1E issue. Tim Song (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns that cannot be addressed with editing, protection etc.? Which ones? Neither the closer nor you ever explained why such "concerns" qualify for deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rarely do this, but I think this is just one of the subjects on which we should not have an article, not because she does not pass WP:N or WP:1E, but because it's just unseemly, in my view, to have an article on a mentally disturbed person whose only claim to notability is due to her mental disturbance. This is not a biography that we absolutely must have. If necessary, consider this an explicit invocation of WP:IAR as a basis for my !vote. Tim Song (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concerns, really. I think that cherry-picking subjects that you personally deem unfit ("unseemly") for an article, despite notability, is a WP:NPOV violation: it brings, at least, a substantial bias on our scope. However thanks for your clarification. --Cyclopiatalk 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again? If you think this is forum shopping, all of DRV is. I listed several points which made the closure problematic. As I said above, I accepted tons of AfD where I was against consensus without blinking, when the closure was correct. Now, you're more than entitled to disagree with the DRV and endorse the closure, but please avoid such poor attempts at reading my mind. It is a shame I have to remind an admin to assume good faith. That said, could someone please, please explain everyone with some detail what are such vague "BLP concerns" that absolutely require deletion instead of editing or protection? --Cyclopiatalk 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of what AGF says, I'm also well aware of what policy wonkery is. You need to stop citing that one page as a reason for why admins can't close these AFDs per IAR. Things can change, even if you don't think they are changing the way you want them to. I don't understand why some of you want to keep an article, no matter what problems arise from it. We have to protect Biographies of living people, more than other articles. I just don't get why there's so much fuss about something that should be uncontroversial. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they were indeed "changing", it would be apparent from the consensus in that WT:DEL thread. But that page shows that consensus on that matter is pretty the opposite. So, you can delude yourself that "things are changing" but fact is, they aren't. At least not as fast as you would like. The fact is that there is a small group of idiosyncratic admins which happen to be paranoid with respect to BLPs, to the point of deleting them against consensus, and since these people call up to arms at once when these articles are concerned, they manage to skew individual AfD's/DRV's consensus with narrow margins sometimes. But that thread pretty much showed that this kind of decisions are not really endorsed by the community. Oh, and if you don't get why there's so much fuss about something that should be uncontroversial. maybe it means that it is controversial, what do you think? --Cyclopiatalk 22:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Given the nature of the page, deletion falls within the realm of admin discretion. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as nominator is either unable or unwilling to articulate a valid reason for a review of the closing administrator's actions beyond "I don't like it". Simple disagreements make this a 2nd chapter of the AfD, which is not what the venue is meant to be. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The (main) reason is: the closer appealed a non-existent consensus. And no, again, this is not meant to be AfD part 2, this is meant to debate the outcome of the AfD. Would you all please put your straw men down? --Cyclopiatalk 03:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, this isn't a strawman; don't use terms you do not understand, pls. You disagree with the closer about consensus. That is all this is, there is no assertion that the closer did something wrong. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand perfectly what is a straw man argument, thanks. It will surprise you, Tarc, but people who disagree with you are not necessarily dumb or disingenous. Now, one thing is disagreeing with the outcome; another is disagreeing about consensus. DRV is for sure not the place for the first. But it is the venue for the second: If a closer reads consensus where there is none (or v/v), I'd call it something wrong. --Cyclopiatalk 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you really don't, but whatever. This is a flawed and disruptive DRV brought for no other reason than you disagree with the close. That is abuse of the process, and should be dealt with accordingly. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Dealt with accordingly"? Is it your habit to intimidate everyone who happens to disagree with you? But let me quote WP:DEL just for the sake of argument: If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.. I followed these steps, the closure is far from being obvious, and what is disruptive, if anything, are your attempts at misrepresenting the opinion of people who disagree with you, and intimidating them. --Cyclopiatalk 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and optionally relist, I don't see a consensus either way here, and no consensus as delete clearly did not have consensus to implement in the absence of a subject request. I also see the coverage being quite substantive and for multiple events here. BLP is intended to exclude unsourced or poorly sourced information. I don't see any evidence of source unreliability or lack of sources here, so it doesn't apply. Also, the closing administrator does not seem to have taken into account the fact that several of the editors appearing at the AfD appear to have been canvassed [32]. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, please read the final comment in that thread. The closing admin was part of that discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Tarc. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn though the article needs to be written carefully and watched, she is nonetheless notable. BLP policy does not say that if an article is susceptible to BLP problems, we remove it. IAR applies to situations where the action is so necessary to improve the encyclopedia that essentially everyone who in in good faith will endorse it. It does not mean, do as you please, regardless of the consensus. If there is no consensus that it applies, then it does not.. There is no admin discretion to ignore the community, our discretion is to do what the community wants even though there is no specific rule provided. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This close is well within the bounds of admin discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I'm not seeing an issue with this admin's decision here - Alison ❤ 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as original AFD nominator). I don't want to revisit the whole debate, but it's important to point out that the claimed academic source coverage consisted of a two-paragraph (one rather long) footnote (De Young) and a case study (Bocij), which could fairly be evaluated as insufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No consensus default to keep per noms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it statement (because this opinion seems to be present even at this DRV and per DGG's persuasive argument. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn - Subject known for 2 different topics separated in time and space (was an important figure in creating the 1980s SRA panic, and later became mentally ill): thus WP:BLP1E rationale cannot be applied. Closing admin misrepresented the level of consensus. Closing admin was also on a messageboard where votes were canvassed.[33] - that alone taints the AfD (and this DRV) with WP:MEAT and WP:TAGTEAM. And most importantly, WP:BLP does not, last I recall, demand the complete deletion of articles on notable people - only that all defamatory information which cannot be sourced is immediately deleted. I agree with DGG and JoshuaZ above. Put the article back and delete all insufficiently sourced assertions, if that's what you feel is needed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse perfectly valid close and I'm fairly sick of treating living people as a inhouse football.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore - clearly passes notability, clearly not notable for just one event, clearly covered in many, many sources that focus specifically on the subject and the article was not disparaging, mocking, cruel or otherwise abusive of the subject. Everything was sourced to a reputable news outlet, there was no original research and neutrality was never brought up as a concern. Remove the BLP1E and there are a lot of "do no harm/I don't like it" !votes that don't really make sense - no harm was done, and there are a lot of people who "like" the article, as in think it is informative and encyclopedic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per "no consensus defaults to keep" and DGG's poignant commentary on "admin discretion". Per WLU, notability was clearly established and BLP1E does not apply. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the various "do no harm" arguments these are knee jerk reactions to content editors don't like unless the nature of possible harm can be explained, bare minimum. No one was forthcoming with such an explanation. People just believe in their gut that its wrong to have an entry about this person, but that needs a valid policy rationale or else its just "i don't like it". If BLP policy needs strengthening this nonsensical application of current policy is not the way to go about doing so.PelleSmith (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this was a proper close. Do No Harm and BLP concerns override many other potential objections. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The closing admin himself said he was not convinced by the allegations of BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This business of picking and choosing what are "icky subjects" is disconcerting. There are BLP concerns and were this the AfD I could be convinced that the subjects marginal notability wasn't enough, but I can't justify counting numbers in that debate and coming up with "delete". Protonk (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree with Alison (talk · contribs) on this one. The close by admin Secret (talk · contribs) was appropriate. Cirt (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - could someone clearly articulate the harm that was done by the article as it existed before deletion? I don't see it as it read as neutral, well-sourced and free of original research, disparagement and other reasons to !vote delete. We have articles on John Hinkley and Florentino Floro, both of whom are very, very comparable - mentally ill and allegedly mentally ill subjects who did one big thing that got them in the press. If we're applying standards evenly, those pages should probably be deleted as well (certainly Floro), but if I were to nominate it for deletion, what would I write? "I think this page is harmful to its subject, please vote delete"? If "do no harm" is a standard that can be applied to justify deletion then we should articulate it in a more substantive way so it can be referred to with clearer criteria. I don't edit many BLP pages, if there is a clear rationale that I just don't know about, please refer me to it using my talk page so I don't miss it. I'm trying to learn a general principle here, and so far all I'm seeing is opinions that can't be extended and seem to be arbitrarily applied. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both sides said their piece, and here they're just repeating it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, pretty reasonable close, given the BLP circumstances around this one. There is no real damage done to Wikipedia by not having an article around this extremely marginally notable person, but there can be damage done to the person if we do keep it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Google Watch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • The outcome of this AFD was a merge with Criticism of Google. The reason given was "there is sufficient consensus in this AFD that the article should not exist as a standalone article." Considering the breakdown of !votes (18 for deletion, 9 against, a few for a merge), no such consensus exists.

Also, if one looks at the rationales given by those in favor of deletion, some discrepancies will appear: one user, MzMcBride, supported deletion but did not provide a coherent argument in favor of it, (his reason was "it's not good to do anything half-assed), and this argument was cited by two other users as the basis for their own decisions.

This aside, there were two main arguments for deletion: the article is no longer notable, and a lack of reliable sources. As for the first, see WP:NTEMP, and for the second see Cyclopia's comment in the AFD where she linked three separate books which discussed the website in detail. There are also many web sources.

Add to these reasons a violation of WP:CANVASS (see the AFD for details), and I think it would be best to get some more eyes on this.

NOTE: I have already discussed this with the closing admin. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Merge of Google Watch. Cerebellum (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse result and call for an admonishment of this user for initiating a frivolous, XfD Round 2-style discussion. The DRV process is supposed to be to call for a review of a closure when there is clear indication of an admin doing something wrong, ignoring or bypassing policy and the like. It is not supposed to be a venue to air simple disagreements with how an XfD was closed. Yes, you believe the sources gave substantive coverage to the subject matter. Yes, you have made the canvassing allegations. Guess what? Someone didn't agree with those assessments. Get over it. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose - challenging deletion decisions for the reasoning behind this DRV, particularly the following quote: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." I have not had any experience with the DRV process before and I apologize if I have indeed misused this venue. If I have misinterpreted the above quote, please explain how. Cerebellum (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral : On one hand, the closure was a reasonable compromise. On the other, it is true that the AfD was tainted by the Google Watch's webmaster canvassing, and it is reasonable to think that without such outside pressure, the AfD outcome would have been much different, given the amount of sources on the website. But, to avoid stirring further the drama, all what is necessary is, I think, that the merge indeed includes most if not all the material of the article. By the way: It would make much more sense to DRV Daniel Brandt, since the merge compromise of the latest AfD fell to pieces with the latest deletions/merges and he hasn't ceased to be notable. Just a suggestion, definitely not to discuss here, and not something I am going to do soon (so keep guns down :) ). --Cyclopiatalk 03:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I do not see that anywhere on the DRV page or in WP:DP. Could you please explain this? Cerebellum (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longstanding practice at DRV is to speedy close requests that do not require use of the admin tools, such as changing among keep/merge/redirect/no consensus. Those decisions can be overridden instead by a local consensus at the appropriate talk page. The standard essay to cite is WP:ND3. Tim Song (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Epona (IRC services) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contested prod per [34] and [35] --Tothwolf (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vladimir Correa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The majority of KEEP !votes do not appear to be based on policy or guidelines, in contrast to the DELETE !votes. More than one KEEP !vote explicitly notes that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO ([36], [37]). When asked to review their closure, User:Cirt first appeared to agree that the article should have been closed as delete, but suggested that I give editors more time to find references. When asked to overturn their closure and delete, their response was "nope". Following this, they started a thread at BLPN "help you to get some more eyes on it" even though what I had asked for was the deletion of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nom misrepresents my comments. I will assume good faith that this was an honest mistake. This comment I made [38] suggested that I believe the AfD consensus to keep the article was a reasonable one, and that if Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) really felt like it he could re-nom for AfD at a later date. I was not endorsing his view of delete. Cirt (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly misunderstood to what you were applying "seems pretty reasonable". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. :) No worries, Cirt (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 December 2009

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

Surely the creator of lethal injection, the most commonly used method of execution, is notable. 75.33.217.192 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that page per {{db-attack}} not {{db-bio}}, as it was a negative unsourced wp:BLP. That doesn't preclude anyone writing a neutral, sourced encyclopaedic article on a notable person of that name. But I would suggest starting afresh rather than by restoring the page I deleted. ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:Chicago Spire.jpg – Ridiculous deletion, you can't speedy something that has been kept after a discussion and there seems to be a lone voice arguing against the fair use claim. The FUR needs improving but I'm going to short-circuit this because we need another long row about image policy like we need a hole in the head and the outcome is evident – Spartaz Humbug! 03:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Chicago Spire.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure.

A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus.

User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete".

Admin User:Xeno recommended I add a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to discuss this. Users and administrators seem to agree that a speedy delete of this image, considering the previous nomination was keep, was too hasty. User:Xeno stated "Rama appears to have also bypassed the procedure outlined at WP:CSD#F7 (i.e. add Template:Rfu and wait 2 days)." An admin (User:Jayron32) summarized the whole issue well and stated re: Rama's delete - "Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion. I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image."

In my opinion and many of the users/admins on the ANI is that the image should not have been deleted. The fair use rationale, copyright tag, and permission tag all were sufficient and followed all requirements.

Finally the "free" images Rama uploaded on Commons have been nominated by for deletion [39] because he simply recreated a copyrighted work.

If anyone disagrees that this copyrighted image can be used here, I would be happy to discuss - good points were brought up on the ANI. DR04 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention there is no XFD page because Rama performed a speedy delete on the image. The original 2007 discussion still exists on the image talk page, however File talk:Chicago_Spire.jpg. DR04 (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as out of process, but without prejudice to FFD. I believe fair use is permitted here and the "user created" version is actually a copyright violation. See also comments at the related ANI thread [40]. –xenotalk 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matt Kassel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was no consensus to delete Matt Kassel. The discussion initially centered around the lack of reliable sources. When sources were highlighted to establish notability, multiple editors agreed that WP:ATHLETE did not supersede WP:BIO / WP:GNG. As argued in the AfD, it does not matter whether or not Kessel passes the subject specific guideline, WP:ATHLETE; once he passes WP:BIO, he fulfills Wikipedia's inclusion requirements — "WP:ATHLETE is NOT an exclusive guideline".

The closer asks what makes Kessel notable. My answer is that an "unusual amount of national media coverage over an extended period of time, for a college player" (Washington Post, ESPN, and New York Post) establish that Kassel is notable per WP:N. An unremarkable soccer player from Maryland would not receive coverage from the Washington Post if he were truly non-notable.
The closer referenced WP:NTEMP, it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. However, these articles span the course of two years — certainly not the "short burst of news reports" to which WP:NTEMP applies.

I asked Black Kite (talk · contribs) to reconsider the close, and he responded, "No, I'd like it to DRV please, I think there's an important point at stake here." The closer is supposed to evaluate the consensus in the discussion, not make a casting vote. This close should be overturned.

Addendum: The article in the Google cache is different from the deleted article. In the article that has now been deleted, I added the reliable sources presented in the discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn WP:ATHLETE is one of the weakest SNGs we have and I'm not comfortable citing it as a keep or delete rationale at all. On the other hand, the GNG is the strongest and most widely accepted notability guideline, and this bio meets it, with the sources presented in the debate. At the least, there was no consensus here, and the admin's presumption that WP:ATHLETE takes precedence of WP:N is something that should be made as an opinion in the debate, but not as a closer. ThemFromSpace 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- several valid sources were provided in the AFD showing that the member passes the GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus WP:ATHLETE is a great argument for retention, but an awful one for deletion, especially if the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that it meets general notability guidelines as is the case here. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article needs to be clarified if undeleted. The last version at deletion stated that Kassell played for the Red Bulls, but the sources linked say no such thing, only that he attended the team academy ("had been in the New York Red Bulls' youth system"). Obviously this is not inconsequential to the AfD, though there may be sufficient grounds for notability anyway, not sure. No opinion on overturning. Chick Bowen 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Okashina Okashi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was previously deleted for "WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:AB" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi. I'd like to request the deleted versions of this page be undeleted and have the history be merged into the recreated article at Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was any of the content from older versions used in the current article? lifebaka++ 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably was, but there may be some that isn't as well. I'd like to merge any useful information from previous versions into the current version. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:KPCKim.jpg – The essential character of consensus is that it is based on strength of argument not headcount and the overturn side does not adequately rebut the well argued reasons for this failing NFCC#8. Essentially its not a vote so appealing to the community being able to reach a consensus NFCC doesn't really comedown to a proper analysis of whether the close properly weighted the consensus of the discussion and the arguments about the image not meeting NFCC#8 have not been adequately rebutted either in the AFD ot the DRV. Finally, I should say that I am specifically not closing with nay regard to whether non-consensus in NFCC defaults to delete – Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:KPCKim.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The outcome of the discussion does not support delete, instead the result should have been keep. I discussed this with the closing admin, but he did not agree. Dreadstar ☥ 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion (original nominator). FFD is not a headcount. There was one keep argument, brought forward by a couple of editors, which was refuted by two experienced administrators; no arguments were then offered in response to those refutations. This makes Seresin's closure a reasonable reading of the result of the debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Contrary to the statement of the editor requesting review, the discussion does support deletion - a prima facie case was made that the image use did not satisfy citerion 8 and the attempts to refute this by those advocating retention were, to give the most charitable characterisation, unconvincing. CIreland (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep I disagree with the above that the argument was unconvincing. I stand by my original argument. RP459 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn delete (as DRV nominator). Contrary to some of the comments above, no one has merely "counted votes" in this case, so that's purely a straw man. The prima facie argument given that the image does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 fails when one looks beyond that first appearance and sees that it was refuted by the keep comments which maintained the image was an alternate view of the character providing contextual significance for the alternate life, which is the underlying source of the character's abilities, and illustrates the alternate appearance of the character. It's a matter of opinion as to what it adds or doesn't add to the article, it's not as cut-and-dried as the delete comments would have you believe. And thanks, Tim Song, for your supportive comment...the entire "experienced administrators" business as mentioned by the endorser is just a red-herring argument, another straw man - and one that attempts to present an opposing opinion as a 'refutation', when it's merely a subjective difference of opinion, proving nothing. There were good arguments on both sides, and the result should have been at the very least "no consensus, default to keep" - if not outright keep. Dreadstar ☥ 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The debate boils down to the question whether the image passes WP:NFCC#8. That question is one that should be resolved by the community on a case-by-case basis. In this particular debate at hand, I see no consensus on this question, and the closer's rationale basically picked one side that they agree with. This they cannot do. Overturn to no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In NFCC cases, there is no "no consensus default to keep". Fair use rationales, like every other piece of content, are subject to conensus editing. You need a consensus for a fair use rationale in order for it to stay and be considered valid. No consensus here means "no consensus for fair use", hence no consensus to keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (deletion) - Fut.Perf. has it correctly here. Where there is no consensus that an image passes the non-free content criteria, it is deleted (not kept), and there was no consensus that it did pass in this case. The foundation resolution on licensing makes it clear that the non-free policy here is intended to exclude all but a limited range of images. Looks like a normal and correct FfD closure. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was discussed at length in August. It emerged that, historically, no consensus for NFC images had not defaulted to delete; and there was no consensus to change this. On the one hand, closing admins should disregard contributions which are incompatible with policy. But where contributions have been made on both sides that are compatible with viable interpretations of policy, so that there is no consensus that an image is incompatible with policy, then it should not be deleted. But there is latitude for the closing admin to weigh the strength of argument presented, not just the number of !votes. Jheald (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drawing any form of consensus from that discussion is a long bow to draw. I see the result of that discussion as simply restating various editors already known positions but no clear consensus being formed - Peripitus (Talk) 00:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse deletion. It seems to me that were the two personae as distinct (and distinctive) as say Clark Kent and Superman, then there would be grounds for two images. But neither of the two character "looks" here seems so distinctive that additionally showing it would add significantly to user understanding. So I think it was a fair call by Seresin on the arguments presented; and I see no reason to overturn it looking at the fundamentals. Jheald (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to nc (keep) There is general agreement that if the picture illustrated significant differences between her normal self and secret self the picture would stay otherwise it should go. Our NFCC rules support that. The majority felt that was the case. So as this boils down to a matter of opinion, not a reading of NFCC, I don't see a consensus to delete. And NC in image discussions defaults to keep as far as I know. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Besides the nominator, only Peripitus had an argument that didn't make my brain hurt to read it. I'm not sure why anyone wasted time writing WP:NFCC if three editors in a darkened room hidden down in the basement can vote to ignore it whenever it suits them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be helpful if the image could be temporarily undeleted. That way everyone here could make an informed judgment as to whether there's enough difference between the two images to make this a matter of opinion or a slam dunk by the closer. Incidentally, I'm uneasy about the fact that the image lacks an identifiable source; if it's good fan/fake artwork, or has been modified from the actual screenshot, it would probably be unsuitable regardless of NFCC issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closing discussions at WP:FFD should be about upholding WP:F, not making a head count. In the main image the character wears a sweat shirt and combats, while in the deleted image she wears a short sleave top with skirt, while holding pom-poms. Consequently, the arguments for keeping the image weren't plausible, the image merely depicts the character wearing some different clothes, and so could easily be replaced with text. PhilKnight (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but not closure This FfD shouldn't have been closed as "delete," per se, as there was no obvious consensus to delete, with experienced administrators split over whether deletion was warranted. However, I agree with some of those above me in that a no consensus close at FfD in cases of disputed fair use rationales should default to delete. In other words, this ideally would've been closed as "no consensus, default to delete." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn If anything, consensus in the discussion suggested that there was sufficient reason to show the different versions of the character. No consensus does not default to delete for fair use images. There's no compelling policy reason to have deleted this image. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Consensus was obviously for keeping it, and the delete argument does not seem enough compelling to trump the keep ones. --Cyclopiatalk 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Peripitus (talk · contribs) has the right idea from the original delete rationale. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, clearly a consensus to keep. Yabadabadoozie (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The discussion is at User_talk:Karanacs#Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston

User:Karanacs speedily deleted Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston and Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston - He had previously filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Indonesia in Houston, which ended in the keeping of the consulate articles. There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston, filed by another user, which ended in a no consensus. Likewise there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston, filed by another user, which ended in the deletion of the subject consulate article.

I asked Karanacs to restore the two articles and file an AFD. Instead he told me to make a DRV on his page. I believe that saying X is a consulate is, in and of itself, a sufficient assertion of notability, and that a user challenging the notability of a consulate should use AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • An article with (decent or better) references should never be deleted via A7. On that point alone I advocate overturning and restoring both of these and let users take them to AfD as they wish. Taking them on their merits, it might be worthwhile to condense these (and any other consulates in Houston) into one article, but that's merely one option to explore, and not really the point here. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. It cannot seriously be argued that, while a high school in a small town is presumptively notable, a consulate of a sovereign country is not even an indication of importance. Tim Song (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. I suspect some high schools are larger and more influential than a regional consulate, but these definitely weren't speedy candidates. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that if high schools are considered presumptively "notable", consulates should be at least an "indication" of "significance", which is a much lower threshold than notability. Tim Song (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not even sure such subjects could fall within A7 and there's certainly enough of an indication of significance to take the specific articles out of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Endorse deletion (I was the deleting administrator). The previous AfD on Consulate-General of the UK in Houston rejected the idea that there is inherent notability for consulates. The Switzerland article does not even discussn an active consulate. Neither of these articles had independent sources that provided significant coverage of the topic; at best the sources verified that the consulate exists/existed but provided zero assertion of notability. Before deleting I checked Wikiproject International Relations and its talk page archives, and they have given no guidance that consulates hold any special presumption of notability. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor a point, but how does this analysis bring the subjects under A7, especially since there's consensus in the discussion cited by the editor who started this discussion that such consulates can be notable? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 December 2009

[edit]
  • Rachel Uchitel – deletion endorsed. A strictly by-the-numbers breakdown results in a majority opining to endorse the deletion of this article; ordinarily this would be more than enough to call the discussion and walk away. The entire process was a bit convoluted due to the somewhat novel rationale behind its original closure, and this has led to a number of arguments to overturn the result on procedural grounds alone, as well as a number of calls to repudiate the close while upholding the end result. There is no longer any need to repudiate the close as the original closer has modified the statement some, but in a way this muddies the waters further still, as I now have a handful of editors whose contributions to this discussion do not entirely make sense. Ultimately it is obvious from this discussion that there is a consensus to uphold the deletion of this article and therefore it will be upheld. I will note that there were also interesting (and well-stated) arguments that the original deletion nomination may have been misguided due to additional sources that may have alleviated any BLP issues, and these editors present a strong argument that an article on this subject that does satisfy BLP may be written. As such there is no prejudice against the re-creation of this article with the understanding that special care be taken not to run afoul of the issues that brought it to this point now; I would highly suggest any such interested editors formulate a draft in userspace for review prior to recreation in the mainspace to avoid just such problems. – Shereth 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rachel Uchitel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closure rationale is "no fully unanimous consensus, default to delete". The "no consensus BLP default to delete" has recently been discussed to death here, and clearly the majority of the community thinks, from that discussion, that no consensus BLP should default to keep like any other article, unless an explicit request of the article subject comes out. The current policy wording has been discussed and ultimately changed to reflect the outcome of the previous discussion, and now says: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate.". The deletion should therefore be overturned per policy, as no consensus-default to keep. Cyclopiatalk 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse deletion This is slippery wording here. I DO NOT believe that the deletion closure here is inconsistant with the fact that the community has not (yet) supported a "default to delete". Firstly, the closer said "no unanimous consensus" - well we don't need unanimity to see a debate endorsing deletion. IN this case the delete supporting arithmetic was over 60%. If you read the rest of the closer's statement he has not just "defaulted to delete" he's actually weighed the !votes and concluded that the delete case is not only numerically but also in policy the stronger - which is perfectly within the closing admin's normal discretion. His wording here may not please everyone, but the result is quite within normal practice. Further when BLP concerns are expressed, whilst we don't default to delete, we do need to err on the die of caution - a 60+% vote and the closer's view that the majority had the better arguments is certainly enough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus finding, overturn to keep: In addition to Cylopia's comments re the BLP-default-to-delete idea already being sunk recently, two attempts at a "no consensus, default to delete" outcome have been overturned at DRV in the last month., i.e., DRV for Human disguise and DRV for Wendy Babcock.
Furthermore, if you look at the exact close language, "no fully unanimous consensus" -- such a creature is rare indeed in any active AfD discussion, and that standard (anything less than unanimous keep) would result in the delete of most any BLP brought to AfD. E.g., I could nominate Glenn Beck, and he would surely draw some delete !votes. So this is far from normal pratice, and bad wording to endorse. Lastly, I added a fair number of references to the Rachel Uchitel article while it was in AfD, most of which predated October 2009. I was blown away at the amount of coverage she has received since 2001 -- I was at first skeptical about the article, but when I actually researched it, I moved away from the knee-jerk "oh this tiger woods B.S. has gotta go" reaction. Sadly, many of the delete !votes did not investigate the subject matter.--Milowent (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if after a widely participated, month-long discussion, that kind of judgement has been explicitly rejected by the community, so far that policy has been clarified to reflect that? I agree that "some level of judgement" is to be had, but here we talk of an option which has been just explicitly rejected by the community. --Cyclopiatalk 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Since I know someone will bring it) To be precise, is almost never a valid close. There is one specific exception, when the subject has explicitly requested deletion, where it may default to delete. It is not the case here, however. --Cyclopiatalk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But whenover 60% favour deletion and (in the closer's view) the deletion arguments are far stronger, if has always been in the closer's discretion to close as a delete consensus. Hasn't it? There's nothing new here, except perhaps a badly worded close.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer has agreed the discussion a "no consensus". If it is "no consensus" (and it seems almost everyone agrees on that), it defaults to keep, per policy and per precedent thorough discussions on this very subject. It is simple as that. If you personally think it was a consensus to delete (which most probably isn't), fine, but that's not your closure we are debating. --Cyclopiatalk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to Scott Mac (Cyclopia must type faster): *Perhaps it could have been closed that way, but it wasn't. It was closed as a "default to delete", which I think would set a bad precedent if endorsed. Assuming good faith, it wasn't closed as a straight delete because it really was a no consensus in the mind of the closing admin.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- The AFD mentioned some information on the person that was in connection to 9/11. Anyone have anhy sources they can bring to the table for that? If so, that would be an indicator that there was notability prior to this information with Tiger Woods, which would severely undercut the BLP1E arguments in the AFD. If nothing about that, or information regarding notability prior to this Tiger Woods stuff can be produced, then the BLP1E arguments are correct. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not AfD part 2, umbralcorax. Closer closed wrong, bottom line. That is being decided on, not the notability or lack thereof of this lady (and let me go on record that it is sad and horrible this article is on Wiki, it makes me puke, I do not think it should be on the project. But, if it meets policy, who cares what I think?Turqoise127 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Turquoise that this is not AfD part II, but the question of Umbralcorax is meaningful. I hope to create no problems if I copy the relevant part from the Google Cache copy of the article: Her fiance, investment banker James Andrew O'Grady, was killed in the September 11 attacks of the World Trade Center.[8] A few days later, she appeared on the front page of the New York Post holding a picture of O'Grady.[9][7] [10][11] Uchitel and her fiance's family subsequently debated the disposition of his estate.[12][8]. --Cyclopiatalk 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, umbralcorax, Uchitel received signifigant coverage after 9/11 because her fiance died in the attack. The NY times and other papers did followup pieces, as 9/11 fiances received nothing while wives were compensated. In 2004, the NY times covered her wedding. In 2005-06, various sources covered her new job as a VIP host for celebrity nightclubs. Other articles over time, in U.S. and foreign papers, would revisit her 9/11 story on 9/11 anniversaries. There are no doubt tons of BLP articles on wikipedia for people who have done far less, not including allegedly sleeping with tiger woods.--Milowent (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Milowent, that clears some things up for me. The fact that the person in question is not notable for just one event, for me at least, means that BLP1E arguments should have been given less weight in the AFD, turning a "no consensus", into a "keep". So in this case, I vote to Overturn. In response to Turqoise127, I asked the question because I wanted to know how much weight I felt the BLP1E arguments should have been given. If her only source of notability was the affair with Tiger Woods, then a delete outcome would have been a valid one (but not as a no-consensus default to delete... I am getting really tired of seeing those). Umbralcorax (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 1
  • Overturn to No Consensus defaults to Keep, per Cyclopia. Frankly, these attempts to create precedents and change policy so that no consensus defaults to delete are becoming bothersome. As Cyclopia stated in the nom, this had been discussed at length and community showed in huge numbers that this policy was NOT to change. The blatant disregard of certain admins in still attempting to change this thru precedents and thru misuse of admin rights by closing against policy is troubling and must be addressed somehow. There is nothing much to discuss on this DRV. AfD was clearly no consensus, regardless of the weight of the argument being slightly stronger for the delete side. There were numerous votes on each side, and most were reasonable, that is enough to create no consensus; because any other decision disregards and disrespects the numerous editors on the opposing side (whether it is keep or delete). The AfD is, in fact, a classic illustration of a no consensus, and the closer sees this, states so in the rationale, yet closes default to delete against policy. Ridiculous. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm a bit confused here. The closing admin says there was no unanimous consensus for deletion, and he says in his close that the arguments and volume of the reasons for deletion outweigh the reasons for retention. Maybe there was some sort of rough consensus for deletion here? Perhaps the closing admin can clarify this better? MuZemike 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how you skin that cat, AfD was classic example of no consensus. Many on one side, many on the other. No consensus defaults to keep. Sorry I am WP:Bludgeoning every commenter, I will stop now.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there was a consensus to delete (all be it not unanimous). A closing admin is quite entitled to rule a 60/40 split where he thinks the 60 have the best arguments as delete. This happens all the time.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin "defaulted to delete" - you don't default to anything if consensus actually shows keep or delete. There's no need to re-interpret what the close really meant. An endorse on this close is endorsing "default to delete" as a valid rationale for closure.--Milowent (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TO SCOTT MAC: I respectfully disagree. Maybe so if the split is closer to 80/20, and if there were not sooo many editors opining on each side. This arbitrary decision has hung all the keep voters out to dry and has disregarded their opinions. Is that an admin job well done? Clear cut case no consensus.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - largely per Scott Mac above, who sums it up better than I could. Given the numbers and given this is a contentious BLP, I'm not seeing an issue with the closing admin's decision here - Alison ? 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No consensus AfDs, including BLPs, default to keep per current policy, and attempts to change this policy (something that I would be cautiously sympathetic to) have so far failed. Until policy is changed, AfD closures must follow it. I have not evaluated, however, if the "delete" closure would have been defensible had the closer simply found consensus for a "delete" closure on the basis of strength of argument.  Sandstein  18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no fully unanimous consensus" != "no consensus". The closer's rationale sounds like he found a rough consensus to delete. But then the "default to" language is normally not used if one found such a rough consensus. Taking into account the closer's actual reasoning and the debate, endorse deletion solely on the ground that the closer was justified in finding, in effect, that there is a rough consensus to delete, but troutslap closer for the contradictory and unclear closing statement. I emphatically note that this !vote is limited to this particular debate at hand, and does not have anything to do with the "no consensus BLP default to delete" business. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in this case "no fully unanimous consensus" was meant as a proxy for "no consensus", as the closing admin originally closed the mater a day early as "no consensus, default to delete"[43]. After reopening, there were 4 more keeps and 4 more deletes added. --Milowent (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making it clearer. Endorse the closer's conclusion that numerically the arguments for deletion is more numerous as clearly correct. Endorse the closer's conclusion that the arguments for deletion are stronger as reasonable. As a result of these two conclusions, it follows necessarily that there is a rough consensus to delete. Therefore endorse deletion in accordance with that rough consensus and revise the closure to delete. I note again that this !vote has nothing to do with "no consensus to keep, defaulting to delete". Tim Song (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, keep. This string of "breaching experiments" has become disruptive and should stop. The community has conspicuously rejected the principle the closer advances. Given the requirement that the closing admin be "disinterested," I think it's inappropriate for an administrator who's been actively pressing the issues involved (on either side) to close a contentious AFD in a matter which promotes his or her position, and the disruptive consequences of such closes are becoming increasingly clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If the discussion is clearly trending towards delete, but the consensus is not 100% strong as one would wish. The closure was correct, if worded poorly. I agree with Tim Song when he says "The closer's rationale sounds like he found a rough consensus to delete. But then the "default to" language is normally not used if one found such a rough consensus." The consensus was not 100% firm, but what discussion on Wikipedia ever is? A "medium" consensus of sorts instead of a strong consensus does not automatically imply no consensus at all. Scott Macdonald expresses my feelings pretty well. NW (Talk) 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural endorse - I'm not a big fan of this "no consensus, default to delete" business. AfD is run by consensus, and it's important to respect that. If there is truly no consensus, it should be closed accordingly. If, however, there is consensus to delete—which I believe may very well be the case here—then just say that and provide a rationale. So, I endorse this close, but on procedural grounds since it should stay deleted in my opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not understanding well what you mean. Do you endorse the deletion or not? And what do you mean by "on procedural grounds"? Because your wording seems to state that you want it to be overturned, but... --Cyclopiatalk 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion, just not the means by which is was deleted. (Hopefully that makes sense. :) ) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 2
  • Closing Administrator's Comment - I closed the AFD this way for a reason, the main argument for the inclusion of it was that she was notable before the Tiger Woods incident. This argument, while it sounds good, is in no way true. She had been on the New York Times front pages, after her fiance died on 9/11. This wouldn't have made an article by itself, and adding another BLP1E on top of it, doesn't make the subject any more notable, even if they are in the news. The majority of the delete !votes were citing the BLP policy and the COATRACK policy, both which are applicable with this article. The majority of the delete !votes were strong and well based in policy, and (in case you didn't notice) made up the majority, by 20 more !votes. I find it amusing that some of you here are trying to game the system, just because I used the extremely accurate term "no fully unanimous consensus". This term, while thought provoking, makes sense and isn't as deep as it sounds. If you need me to break it down, I'll gladly change it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete, which practically means the same thing. This isn't a second AFD, you can't act like the majority of the consensus wasn't for deleting the article. So please stop trying to game the system by hanging over the words on how it was closed. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete. Now try to argue with that reasoning... --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay: "no consensus to keep" is not a reason to delete. Deletion requires consensus to delete. I assume that the reason you didn't close it with "the consensus of the discussion was to delete" in the first place (or even now) was that there wasn't such a consensus. I'm also puzzled by the words "adding another BLP1E" -- doesn't that make it WP:BLP2E? And by the way, coatrack is an essay, not a policy (not even a guideline). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing to argue with Coffee. As I noted on your talk page yesterday, "no consensus, default to delete" has been roundly rejected as a valid close rationale; I appreciate you clarifying that your rationale for deletion here was that you didn't find a consensus to keep, so you "defaulted" to delete, as you have advocated in favor of at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Default_to_delete_for_BLPs, which didn't go anywhere.--Milowent (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nomo: Thank you for trying to read my mind, you sadly failed. The reason I said no consensus to keep, is to provoke thought, which it evidently did. Having 2 completely unrelated events to your name does not make you notable, so yes, it's a BLP2E, but it still means the exact same thing. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Milowent: Thank you for informing me of something I'm already well aware of, however I disagree. In BLP AFDs we should be looking for a consensus to keep, not a consensus to delete. Stop gawking over the use of the word default, if I had left that word out, does that mean you wouldn't be commenting here? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you just wanted to delete it, you should have left out the word "default". Adding that word makes it an attempt at policy change. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)
            • Frankly yes, Coffee. If you had determined that consensus was to delete, I know that it would likely be a close within admin discretion. It would set no significant precedent. Shifting the burden to to look for a "consensus to keep" on BLPs will have a significant effect marshalling in favor of deletion of such articles. You closed the article the way you did to force the issue, so my gawking merely recognises your subtly significant adjudication. Its no surprise that a number of the endorse votes to date seek to endorse your outcome but not the rationale.--Milowent (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(contribs) 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Coffee:
        • (1)WP:COATRACK is a mere essay, not even a guideline and by any standard not policy. Not that I disagree with it, but for sure it is not policy
        • (2)That !votes cite policy does not mean that they cite it correctly, which is the only thing that counts. Most of them cited WP:BLP1E, and they were obviously very debatable, since there were several events that made her notable. WP:COATRACK is just a reasonable essay, as anyone can see, and good motivations for the coatrack were not substantially given. I understand that you disagree, but the keeping or deletion of a page cannot rest on your personal disagreements.
        • (3)The deletion policy is clear on the subject (and it was at the moment of your closure): The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept . This has been recently added, but it has been done following the discussion I linked in the nom, as the rational outcome of that month-long debate.
        • (4)Therefore, your In BLP AFDs we should be looking for a consensus to keep is only your mere opinion, but is directly and explicitly contrary to policy. We should (perhaps:I respectfully disagree), but we do not.
        • (5)You reiterated that there was no consensus to delete. On which we agree, at least, and makes the points of a couple of endorsers here moot.
      • In short: I'm sorry to sound harsh, but it is painfully clear that you deleted this non-consensus AfD only because your personal opinion was to delete it, in explicit disregard of policy and community consensus on how to treat non-consensus articles'default. --Cyclopiatalk 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - Only one thing that you said do I find necessary to reply to, as the rest of your points, I've already gone over here. To 5.: I at no point said that there wasn't consensus to delete the article, and if you can find anything to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. The current closed rational is, no consensus to keep. That means the same thing as, a rough consensus to delete. ---Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Poppycock. If you'd closed as "consensus was to delete" you'd have saved a lot of time. The burden shifting of adopting a standard of needing to find a "consensus to keep" to keep a BLP article is a significant change in policy. There are frequent BLPs that close as "no consensus", which means no consensus to keep or delete, and they are kept. Your rationale would end in a delete. --Milowent (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Tim Song and partially what I said above, which is what I thought the closing admin meant. MuZemike 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While the closer's statement could have been clearer, he did indicate that there was a rough consensus to delete, which is a reasonable reading of the debate. Kevin (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To closing admin: Do you think we are stupid? I mean, if other editors and WP policies are stupid, just say so, please, don't beat around the bush.

Your comment: "I find it amusing that some of you here are trying to game the system, just because I used the extremely accurate term "no fully unanimous consensus". This term, while thought provoking, makes sense and isn't as deep as it sounds. If you need me to break it down, I'll gladly change it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete, which practically means the same thing."

It is troubling that you are amusing yourself as an admin on the account of the community. It is YOU as a backer of "BLP no consensus default to delete" side who is gaming the system with immature silly wordings in closes. Your term is neither extremely accurate, thought provoking nor deep. It is childish, dorky and plain stupid. Let me educate tell you on about closing, Mr. Admin (I who have only a few hundred edits to my name): It is either Close, Keep, Merge or No Consensus. No consensus defaults to keep. Someone already pointed out that you previously prematurely closed this AfD with "no consensus default to delete" wording[44]. This careless disrespectful chatter you have on your talk pages on this issue with same-camp-deletionist Alison (discussing underwear and congratulating each other)is indicative of your utter disregard of other editors and/or current policyUser_talk:Coffee#BLP_defaults_to_delete. All of this WP disruptive behavior coupled with your snotty "deep thinker" loser comment above makes me sure you are incorrectthat there should be steps taken that you not close another AfD ever.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turquoise, please edit the above so to avoid personal attacks. While I can understand the reasons of your comment, and I personally can agree with some of its content, the vicious attacks you're making at the closing admin make me sure that there should be steps taken that you not comment another DRV (to use your words). --Cyclopiatalk 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you and your 458 edits go to RFA, and then we'll see if you can make blanket statements like that. Sorry if my opinions don't completely agree with you, but I honestly don't care. The encyclopedia's reputation is at stake with BLPs, and I'm more interested in that than your hurt feelings. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my inappropriate comments. I tend to be overly passionate at times. I am not as patient and do not have so much tact like editors Cyclopia or Milowent. When I find something unjust and disrespectful to the project I overreact. Will work on this. Have struck out mean parts. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No consensus defaults to a keep result, there is no such thing as no consensus to keep. there has to be a consensus to delete. Wikipedia policy about this is totally unambiguous. There are apparently a few admins who do not yet realise it--strange, because it has always been that way, and someone who insists otherwise, needs to review WP:Deletion policy before closing further afds. The arguements given by the closer for why it ought to be deleted belong at an afd--if thecloser had an opinion about that , they should have joined the discussion, rather than closed a disputed AfD based on both their own opinion and mistaken policy,. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- when the closer closed the debate the first time, 30 hours too early, he/she used the following formulation in the edit summary: "Closing debate, result was no consensus, default to delete". This is simply an error. It was a further error to perform the close again, after the full period had elapsed, with virtually the same mistaken rationale. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 3
  • Suggestion: this drama is all the fault of an incompetently worded close. I am a BLP deletionist who supports a default to delete, but that is utterly irrelevant here, and I'm as irritated as the other side by the wording of this. However, I think we are confusing the result with the stupid and confused rational. The closer is now saying there was a "consensus to delete" - which is what is ought to have said in the first place and spared us this shitstorm. I suggest that what we need to do is: uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as a misstatement of policy), then trout-slap closer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since, as noted immediately above, the closer discerned "no consensus" the first time he/she closed it, it would be powerful strange to switch to perceiving "consensus for delete" at this stage (after the first close, keep and delete views were added in equal measure). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, consistent with my expanded views above. Though I'm more partial to exploding whales...... Tim Song (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, even the closing admin has repeated that it is a no consensus. Are we trying tricks to keep it deleted despite AfD outcome and despite policy violations? --Cyclopiatalk 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close this marginal BLP anyways. Secret account 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly we need to form a policy with these marginal BLPs. BLPs aren't like any other subject in this project. They have the potential of causing great harm to this project if we treat these articles wrongly. We should delete BLPs that have marginal notability. Coffee shouldn't have closed this debate because he has a clear point of view, but the delete closure was correct. How would Uchitel feel that she has an article on Wikipedia because of an alleged affair. We shouldn't create articles based on this kind of information. Lets stop policy wonking each other, and discuss a solution to what is becoming a major crisis in our hands. Secret account 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, overturn no consensus to delete if needed. There appears to be no consensus on the notability of this person, however none of the keep votes have addressed the BLP problems whatsoever, meaning there is consensus that the page should be deleted for BLP concerns. The overall consensus therefore should have been delete. There is no reason to quibble over the closing admin's choice of words. Triplestop x3 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What BLP problems? There were BLP problems that required deletion? Only BLP-based argument I am aware of was WP:BLP1E, and this has been addressed extensively. --Cyclopiatalk 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closing argument has been clarified as "no consensus to keep, default to delete", which has been explicitly rejected as an acceptable rationale several times. This should be reopened and an admin who is not trying to use their position to effect a change in policy can close it instead. Fences&Windows 23:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not forum shopping. The deletion close is being contested, and this is deletion review. Don't Wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
F&W, The close is an accurate reading of the consensus, and if some of the people commenting here would look past the bold letters, they would understand that. IMO this is just an attempt to shut down the term "default to delete", whether or not the close was done correctly. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV does seem rather political as of late... –Juliancolton | Talk 09:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Yes, a bit awkwardly worded, but the rationale of weighing the strength of the arguments is sound, and the arguments to keep were poor, to put it charitably. Yet another DRV nomination intended to stoke maximum eDrama. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to procedural error. The AfD was closed one day early by the same closer who came to the same conclusion the next day (with a shortened version of the wording). Editors would interpret this to be a message that the outcome is going to be the same regardless of whatever they had expressed/!voted there. It really should have been handled by another admin. Whatever conclusion that comes out of it, whether concur or otherwise, is another story altogether. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete I am a firm believer that BLP cases should default to delete if no-consensus but I think this was the wrong close as BLP1E clearly applies and this was not adequately refuted by the keep side. Therefore overturn no-consensus to a clear delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is not AfD part 2, but BLP1E does not "clearly" apply, sorry. Read the above. There is not one single event where the article could have possibly been renamed/merged. Again: !votes that handwave policy are not more powerful just because they handwave policy, they have to do that unambiguously correctly. I wait for the day someone will delete a dead person article citing BLP... --Cyclopiatalk 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that. BLP applies for dead people as well if there are living rellys to be affected by an article. Do no harm isn't just for christmas. Spartaz Humbug! 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closure rationale does include the phrase "no fully unanimous consensus, default to delete", which some people here seem to object to. However, it also says: "The delete !votes are far more compelling and cite stronger policy than the keep !votes, and the consensus (by percentage) mostly leans toward deleting the article. Therefore per my full reading of the discussion, it warrants deletion." and that seems like a reasonable closure to me. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Scott Mac. Enigmamsg 06:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion I count 42 delete !votes and 25 for keep, with one for merging to Tiger Woods. (I may be off a few, but the toolserver count is off due to changed votes). So, in the end result, it doesn't matter, around 62% supporting deletion. The merging idea never got any traction at all, so let us discount it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but, if the closing admin believes the 62% have stronger arguments than the 37% on the other side, I'm okay with him/her closing the debate with the majority's argument. This tells admins to gauge "rough consensus", which I believe Coffee found in this discussion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Re-close The close as written should not be endorsed. The reasons have been pointed out in many of the comments above and don't need rehashing by me. However if an admin not using his statement as a platform in a policy debate read that afd as a consensus to delete I'd have no arguement.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete; the closer does not appear to have found consensus to delete. Thus, keep was the appropriate result. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion If those making the complaints would read the statement "The delete !votes are far more compelling and cite stronger policy than the keep !votes, and the consensus (by percentage) mostly leans toward deleting the article" instead of just the bold text, I don't think that this would be an issue. Perhaps the bolded portion was poorly worded, but the justification for the delete is most certainly sensible. --Shirik (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus != unanimity & the closing statement did not suggest that it was. As the closing admin stated, both the numeric weight and the weight of policy based arguments were on the side of deletion. It cannot be clearer. Nancy talk 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn No consensus is no consensus. I would have likely argued for deletion in this case. But that's not the consensus and despite repeated claims, there's no communal decision that no consensus defaults to deletion in BLPs. If someone wants to make an argument that a policy interpretation overrides here then they might have something resembling an argument. Close as no consensus, and renominate it in a few months. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC) = Per Scott's remark below. To be very clear. This is a wretched close reasoning. There's no communal decision that no consensus defaults to deletion in BLPs. Repeated attempts to push it through have failed. However, this could be closed on better policy and consensus grounds as Scott summarizes below. So I want to overturn and replace close with a close noting the consensus for deletion based on clear BLP1E and consensus in the discussion. I'm concerned that this close was chosen to make it more likely that the community would see this as an acceptable case to adopt no-consensus defaulting to deletion. That's exactly the sort of policy-football that Scott refers to below. Thus, I'm making this formally a call for overturning and replacing with a proper reason for deletion. (Also I damn well hope that the closer look up what the word unanimity means. Either the closer doesn't know what that word means or the closer is so far from anything that even the most die-hard deletionists want...) JoshuaZ (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, now back to overturn The fact is that there's a very good argument that this is not a BLP1E given the coverage from well before the current matter. Given that, and the very bad close decision this should be overturned. Defaulting to deletion is not a policy, and without that sort of claim (which has been rejected by the community) there isn't a good argument to delete this article. I'm moreover concerned by Coffee's comments here and elsewhere which seem to suggest that anything less than unanimity allows a delete close. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there was a consensus. Leave aside the whole "default to delete" nonsense here - which is a policy argument that really has nothing to do with this particular article, and what have you got? A 62%-38% vote, with the closer finding the 62% to have the stronger policy case. Now, I find the closer's wording unfortunate, but do we really restore this article to prove a policy point that's for a different debate? I'm happy to agree that there's no consensus for a "default to delete", but restoring this article is wikilawering and almost a WP:POINT violation. If this is restored it will be immediately renominated and almost certainly deleted with a better worded close. So we really want to use the biography of a living person as a pointless policy football?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 4
  • Overturn to delete and encourage admins to close debates as "delete" instead of "no consensus-delete" if they feel particular policies necessitate deletion. I don't like the idea of no consensus defaulting to delete and I don't think it should be used, but administrative discretion on touchy debates like this can and should be used and a delete close would be well within that discretion. No consensus-delete only gets people fired up. ThemFromSpace 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No Consensus, Overturn Delete- Although I argued for the deletion of this article, I disagree with the result. There was no consensus, and it should have been closed as such. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This was the correct reading of the AfD, regardless of the way the closer put it. Chick Bowen 01:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete Consensus to delete, or at least definitely to not keep. Reywas92Talk 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to nc, default to keep Firstly, if the closer found no consensus to delete, it should be kept. Secondly, the keep arguments were stronger, as she was notable per WP:N previous to the "one event" and therefor BLP1E doesn't apply. Finally, there really was no consensus to delete that article, so it should be kept. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Delete was the correct outcome, overturning over the issue with the closing admin's wording would be bureaucracy. Many of the delete arguers felt that the subject's 9/11 connection and the article about her as a nightclub manager did not amount to notability, therefore BLP1E did apply. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, without question (to no consensus, default to keep). I did not comment or vote in the AFD, but I am here to state that the verdict given by the closing admin verges on abuse of process. When there is no consensus on a highly-controversial AFD involving many, many participants, the default is to keep, not to delete. —Lowellian (reply) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. "No consensus = delete" has been continually rejected by the community with good reason. This blog post may also provide some insight into Coffee's actions. He accuses those opposed to his close of stupidity and playing politics. But it is he who is factionalising here, with his dismissal of "inclusionists". By making such a controversial close it is he who is being political, trying to make it a fait accompli and set a precedent.

"I'll just run off to make more closes like this. And in ways where you can't dispute it."

"I don't give a shit what any inclusionist says"

  • I also suggest that Coffee has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of consensus as used on Wikipedia, first referring to it as "by percentage" and second describing it as "mostly leaning" towards deletion. Consensus does not "lean" towards an outcome - it exists or it does not. If it does not exist here (as he asserts himself in the close) then the article should be kept. the wub "?!" 14:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion. A completely valid close. I didn't comment in the AfD but looking through I find Coffee's close to be entirely fine. Wizardman 14:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This probably won't affect the discussion but I feel it should be mentioned. Apparently Ms. Uchitel is in talks to pose for Playboy [46]. I know this isn't AFD part 2, but this information does, I think, go further to negate some of the BLP1E arguments, given that she's not trying to remain out of the public spotlight. 04:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - This isn't supposed to be AfD part 2, but it is. In the original AfD, 8 years of coverage was decided to be a BLP1E (obviously incorrect). In this DRV, a no consensus was deemed to be a delete. I hope the closer gives a long explanation as to why both of those things should be ignored if they close as an endorsed delete. And, if they say "by consensus", I'd like to hear why this local consensus overrules the global consensus at the policy and guideline pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a role-comprehension failure on the part of the closer, here. Admins are elected to enforce the rules we have. They aren't elected to enforce rules we don't have, and "no consensus defaults to delete" is a rule we don't have. Attempts to introduce this as a rule have repeatedly failed to attract the necessary support and, unsurprisingly, the necessary support is not evident in this DRV either. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as a misstatement of policy), then trout-slap closer (per Scott MacDonald above). I was about to say essentially the exact same thing but Scott expressed it very well. Reading through the AfD (in which I did not participate), it's quite clear that closing as "delete" is well within administrator discretion, and Coffee should have simply closed it as such. Probably would have gone to DRV but it would have been upheld. Like Coffee and others here I'm in favor of having the option to close no consensus BLP AfDs as "default to delete," but we've recently established that this is not currently the community consensus. Closing in this fashion was thus a poor, out of policy decision which needs to be repudiated here at DRV, and furthermore it was completely unnecessary since one can make a strong argument that there was a consensus for deletion. So another way to put my view is that I think we should Overturn to delete, thus vacating the original "no consensus, default to delete" close, but in point of fact maintaining the status quo vis a vis the article itself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A lot of folks don't want to admit this, but closing a deletion requires two judgments, one about the consensus of the participants and the other about the weight of the arguments. When the consensus isn't obvious (what we call "no consensus") it requires the discussion to be closed on the arguments. It was certainly wrong to say the word "default" in this, but the closer made it clear the the weight of the arguments was to delete. We need more closes like this that take an depth look and think about the result instead. The closer should be congratulated for using his brain and not a numeric count. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • 'Endorse deletion but allow a redirect to an article on Woods' travails. This violates WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do realize that she had significant coverage (in one case an entire article solely about her, plus a fair number of coverage elsewhere including the NYT) before the Woods thing? Hobit (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 5
  • More or less per Scott: Uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as poorly worded), then trout-slap closer ... followed by a whale-slap for those policy wankers who are arguing that we need to overturn this, just so someone can post a different closing rationale. Good grief. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one pushing for changes in policy via AfD/DrV rather than by discussion. Are you really claiming that closing statements don't play a role there? Hobit (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that closing statements don't play a role? How do you derive that from what I said? I'm not seeing any such assertion by me. Of course they play a role. And this one is flawed, and could stand to be changed, and should be. But getting the statement changed by mutual agreement, which I favor, isn't at all the same thing as an actual overturn. It would be sheer process wankery to force an overturn just to change the close if one agreed with the outcome. We don't have time for such tomfoolery. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so assuming Coffee is unwilling to change is closing statement for the second time, what should us "wankers" do? Just let the closing statement stand? Plus, as I've argued elsewhere (and Coffee noted for the record) the discussion had no consensus. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar is expressing distaste for the people who see a consensus to delete but are nevertheless calling for an overturn. He's not referring to people like you, who believe there was no consensus to delete. I hope that clarifies things. Equazcion (talk) 05:20, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I slap back all the campaigning admins who are canvassing on Wikipedia Review and abusing their positions to force a change in practice contrary to policy and consensus, and who call other users wankers. Get a grip. Fences&Windows 23:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So many fallacies in two sentences. I suspect it is your grip that needs improving, not mine. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Preacher's back. sorry I couldn't resist --Cyclopiatalk 12:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get thee behind me, Satan. sorry I couldn't resist ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but not closure per Scott and Bigtimepeace. I think there was a consensus to delete here; the whole "no consensus, default to delete" controversy should've been avoided. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just change the closing rationale - Coffee was told, on his talk page by a few people, myself included, that his closing wording was inaccurate and would be seen as a problem. He was stubborn about listening to advice though, as he often is. No one really disagrees about the delete, just about this "default" nonsense. Force a change in the closing rationale, and everyone will probably be happy. If he had changed that himself when people started commenting on his talk page (which was before this DRV even started), this could all have been avoided. Equazcion (talk) 03:13, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    • "No one really disagrees about the delete"? I certainly do, quite strongly. The delete !voters are living in a world where when someone who _is_ notable really sees serious press coverage for something silly (like this) they suddenly label them as not notable. Had the Woods thing not happened, no one would have sent an article about her to AfD--she was plainly notable before that (easily met WP:N and WP:BIO). But the Woods thing did happen, and the article got created because of that. And so we have people arguing BLP1E when it doesn't apply just because _that_ is what prompted someone to create the article. She easily met WP:N a year ago. !votes that argue to delete for BLP1E should be greatly discounted. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't AfD II. If you have a problem with the closing because you think the voters against you were wrong, that's not what DRV is for. Equazcion (talk) 03:38, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
        • You said no one disagrees with the delete. That's factually untrue as many of us do. The question here is how the closer should have closed the debate. And part of that, perhaps most of it, is looking at the strength of the arguments on both sides. In this case the subject plainly, met the letter of WP:N before the "One Event". So arguments citing WP:BLP1E as a reason to delete should be taken with a grain of salt. One can argue those sources weren't enough to establish notability (and a few people did in the AfD). But most let them pass without comment. Hobit (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main cause of this drama is Coffee's stubbornness. But he's always right, so what can we expect... Fences&Windows 03:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm truly surprised in the bitterness in that statement. I try not to think that I'm always right, but I usually don't stand behind a view unless I feel that it's the best for everyone. I'm not just some drama-mongering idiot. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hope this doesn't come off as the same bitterness you're referring to, but my frank response to this is "so prove it". Change your closing rationale to get away from the "no consensus" and "default" stuff so that this long waste of time and effort can end. Equazcion (talk) 05:48, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
        • It helps to do so with a good amount of tact, which is left much to be desired especially after reading the blog post. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting Coffee's change to the closing rationale, I now endorse the deletion, and thank Coffee for making the change. Seeing as the concerns of most of overturn voters have been addressed, this DRV can probably be closed. Equazcion (talk) 00:56, 14 Dec 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the deletion rationale has been changed (though I personally could see a no consensus close), I think the revised rationale was within closer's discretion. The "default to delete" rationale being repudiated for good was my primary concern.--Milowent (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd certainly object to closing this early even given this third close by the same closer. Let's let this play out by the book. There is no need to make this more of a farce than it already is by closing out of process. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There were two important issues at hand here. One was problematic wording of the close that attempted to push an agenda in a subtle way. I applaud the wording change by Coffee, and this has resolved one issue of this DRV (coincidentaly, seeing the closing editor's blog explains much, this is a very young contributor). The other, equally important issue at hand was the allegation that the closer was not correct in his interpretation of the AfD itself and closed incorrectly as Delete (no matter how it was worded). Numerous experienced editors have argued this above and it is not fair to disregard their opinions. This is absolutely not AfD part 2, we are deciding here on the issue of whether or not the closer interpreted the arguments correctly and if policy based arguments for keep were given sufficient weight. Personally, even in completely disliking this article and considering it not worthy of inclusion nor encyclopedic, I believe keep arguers offered well reasoned policy based opinions. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth does being a young contributor have to do with the close? I'm over the age of majority in the US, and there are editors here a hell of a lot younger than that. I took the blog post down that I made earlier, for a few reasons. (One of them being that I was on Percoset (wisdom teeth were removed) at the time of writing it which impaired my judgment, granted I'm still on it now, just a lower dose) The consensus was for delete in that AFD, just looking at the rough numbers (discounting the SPAs). 67% of the !votes were to delete while 33% were for keep. In my book that's a pretty damn good consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD Relist?. I have no opinion on the merits of the article or of the closing, and don't plan to form one. But in the circumstances, maybe a relisting, with a brief summary of the policy/fact arguments made in the initial AFD, would help. Rd232 talk 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need for that. This AFD had plenty of discussion, and the consensus was obviously for delete. A relist would just create more unnecessary drama. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh Coffee, you should just let this run its course at this point and see what happens. Your initial AfD close was no consensus, default to delete. If the consensus was obviously for delete, it would be been, well, obvious.--Milowent (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Scott (first comment) who said it best. I completely agree with the end closure itself, and it was the only logical decision if you actually look at the votes and their reasons. Even a number-crunching admin would have seen the +60% (apparently it's more like 67%) and clearly closed it as "delete". The only problem here was the closure reason which stated "no consensus, default to delete" (might not be an exact quote, sorry) as a fact. Like it or not, that's inaccurate, and the initial statement was worded poorly. But I strongly agree with the decision to delete; Wikipedia is not a tabloid paper, and the consensus was actually pretty strong. Relisting is a generally bad idea, given the subject, and would only cause more drama. JamieS93 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what worries me. If a subject met WP:N before they became "tabloid bait", shouldn't they meet it afterwards also? I think people are trying to delete notable things because we "aren't a tabloid". I'm waiting for us to remove Tiger Wood's article next. Same principle, different degree. (Yes, that's hyperbole, but where do we draw the line with this? I've no doubt if she'd had a wiki article before event it would have been kept at AfD. Plenty of sources including an article solely about her and how she did her job, plus a NYT piece about her wedding, plus plenty of other minor sources.) Bah I say. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen the sources. They stack up to "notability" that's quite marginal. Add in the BLP problems—the fact that she's mostly being highlighted for one controversial reason, and that she's currently tabloid material. All I ask is that we try being a self-respecting encyclopedia. JamieS93 23:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Me too. It is that we have different notions of self-respecting. Self-censorship (even good-intentioned one) is not self-respecting in my opinion, but YMMV. --Cyclopiatalk 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the type of thing the media criticize us about: accepting biographies relating to the latest huge celeb fodder story with "pedia" in our name. We will never agree, so any further discussion is best left unsaid. JamieS93 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is one entire article on her and the job she does. It's quite long and detailed. One article on her wedding in the NYT (very few weddings get that kind of coverage). Those together are more than enough for WP:N. Then there are a handful of articles that discuss her in the context of 9/11 and the settlements. Now there is all the Wood's stuff. How on Earth doesn't that meet the requirements of WP:BIO? I doubt that 50% of our BLPs have the coverage that she had before the Woods stuff. I doubt 2% have the coverage she has now. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion based solely on my feeling that a finding of rough consensus was within admin discretion. I am troubled by the closer's stated rationale, and indeed, I personally would have closed this as no consensus. I also find this to be a poor case to argue for "no consensus, default to delete," as any use of that rationale (which I have supported when appropriate) is essentially an appeal to IAR. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus = keep The closer acknowledges that there is no clear consensus here and appears to have substituted personal biases in weighing arguments. This is a classic no consensus that should be closed as such. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Poor original wording of the close aside, both numerical superiority AND strength of arguments put this WELL within admin discretion. In fact, I'd say that consensus is clear enough that if it had been closed as "no consensus", it quite likely would have been brought here for review. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Appropriate close, good call within admin discretion. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So here we are on day 8 of the deletion review. I don't know all the closing rules, but there are a significant number of editors recommending an overturn (at least 18 by my count), though not a majority. Among those effectively endorsing the closure, they are a varying range of rationales none of which have any consensus (running from "it was fine", "it was badly worded", "endorse but change rationale and trout yadda yadda", etc.) The closing review guidance says: "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, here the original closing decision has been amended a few times, and questioned by a number of endorsers. Dare I say: "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."--Milowent (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Milowent. I abstained to comment until now, trying to make my mind on, but what Milowent says seems the most reasonable solution. This has become mess upon mess. Let us give this a fresh restart, relist it and hope in a fair outcome. --Cyclopiatalk 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Given the issue pointed out by Mailer Diablo (talk · contribs) above and the multiple revisions of the closing rationale, I have no strong objections to a relist to achieve an appearance of fairness, although IMO it's probably unnecessary, and I stand by my view, expressed above, that the AfD shows a rough consensus to delete. Tim Song (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it is running almost 2:1 endorse, I really do not see the merit of the proposal. This is leaning decidedly towards an endorsement as it stands now, a deletion that certainly was fair. Relisting serves no purpose other than prolonging the eDrama over yet another marginal BLP. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Kerberos/Sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page should have been deleted. Reason #1, This is a user page article that violates WP:WEBHOST and WP:SOAPBOX. The user fully admits this page is being hosted as a POV fork of Environmental effects of wind power in anticipation that his POV will be exonerated by scientific opinion in the future. Local consensus can override guidelines like notability, but limited discussion cannot violate core policies. Userspace cannot be turned into a POV free-for-all. Reason #2, the discussion shows a clear consensus to delete. Miami33139 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I suggest you give it a few months and then submit it for deletion again. What you're asking is for us to re-argue the AfD, which is explicitly not what DRV is for. There is not a "clear consensus to delete" in that AfD, and you've not shown a problem with the AfD process for DRV to contest. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean MFD rather then AFD? Spartaz Humbug! 14:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Maybe I should've said XfD. It was a general point, not specific to that debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Indian surnames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (XfD2)

From the deletion log it is seen it was restored numerous times by different users. Therefore many people think that this category is necessary. Indeed, it is a well-defined category, i.e., with reasonably verifiable inclusion criterion: family names originated in the Indian subcontinent. Unlike European names, usually there is usually little dispute of Indian origin. I find it inappropriate to delete numerous very different, although superficially similar, categories under a single deletion discussion. The categorization of Indian surnames deserves a separate discussion. Thank you. Twri (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable band that has never charted a single song and isn't signed to a notable label. Zero gnews hits. A review of the first 100 ghits couldn't find a single reliable source. Mostly facebook/myspace and youtube stuff or unreliable music sites. Fails WP:BAND Amari42 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joe McElderry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although the closing admin was IMO absolutely correct in the way they closed the AfD, subsequent events mean there may now be grounds for inclusion. Specifically, it is now known that Joe McElderry will be placed in the top three in the X Factor and thus meets criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the closing admin interpreted the discussion correctly and made the appropriate decision, so I am not asking them to reconsider. In the light of new events, I guess the community needs to reconsider. (I have posted a comment to talk:The X Factor (UK series 6) and will also notify the admin.) I42 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the thing is that DRV normally does not consider requests to overturn "redirect" to "keep" or vice versa, since from DRV's point of view they are one and the same. The standard venue for these cases is the article's talk page. Tim Song (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; thx. I'll take it there instead. I42 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Horizon episodes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted without community discussion and consensus as required by WP:Deletion, solely by one individual, and wrong reason for deletion was given (A7), which does not apply in this case. If this article is to be deleted there should be a formal discussion first, so that consensus may be reached. And as was brought up by Fabrictramp on my userpage "The article didn't fall under A7 by any stretch (and there's a lot of consensus against admins speedying A7s on sight), "written like a review" is not a deletion issue, and OR / unreferenced are not speedy issues. (Unreferenced was recently brought up as a potential speedy reason and shot down by consensus.)". George (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleting admin Sample: Horizon takes Michael Portillo on a search for a humane way of executing people. The waddling Tory watches as a dummy is hanged. He sees a pig carcass being electrocuted. He is exposed to CS gas and in one extraordinary scene becomes euphoric and nearly dies from hypoxia in a Dutch training lab. It's grimly fascinating, but what's the real agenda here? For a start, the UK doesn't execute people any more, so the science of pain-free state killing is only a live issue for Horizon's US viewers (at whom its programmes appear to be increasingly aimed). There's a sense that this is more about the grisly stunts we get to witness, along with some chilling archive clips. What it does very effectively is give the lie to the idea that execution, as it is currently practised, is anything like humane. Personal attack on a living person, WP:OR, non-encyclopaedic, unsourced. My reason for speedy deletion may have been overly concise, but I stand by my action if only because of the attack on Portillo. I actually think it reads as if its copied from somewhere, but I can't find the source, so it may just be "something I made up at school today" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you on that, I still don't understand why delete the whole article, without giving a chance to community to improve it by tagging it appropriately/removing editing certain content, having a discussion about it?--George (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 clearly does not apply. As to G10, other than this arguable attack on Portillo, is there any other incidents? I can't find much, but then perhaps I'm very not familiar with the nuances of the English language, not being a native speaker myself. If that is the only incident, I would think that G10 is a bit excessive. Tim Song (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although could be other valid reasons to delete this list (even when complete), this wasn't suitable for an A7 speedy. ThemFromSpace 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an A7. I would however have deleted it as a G12 because it's clearly copied from somewhere, by the language probably a TV listings page or similar. We don't have to have an obvious source to do this. Since it wouldn't survive an AfD anyway (WP:NOT#DIR), I don't think there's much point in resuscitating it. Black Kite 00:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and send to AfD It's not an A7. Unless you can show where it was copied from its not a copyvio. " Just something made up i school one day" is the classic case for deletion via Prod, not speedy. OR and SYN are good reasons for deletion if they can't be fixed, but via AfD. Attack on Portillo-- If they can show it, we can describe what they show. (It can hardly be simultaneously copyvio and made up in school one day, so giving both as reasons mean delete because we don't like it.) I am not predicting what I'll !vote at a proper discussion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list has been recreated. I think this DRV can be seen as moot since nobody is endorsing the criteria for which it was deleted under. DGG's suggestion on an AfD might be a good idea right around now. ThemFromSpace 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, speedy close. Nothing left for DRV to do here. Tim Song (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lolene (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

When the page was deleted (later to be WP:SALTed), the subject was not notable. Now the subject has a #5 single on the Billboard Dance/Club chart (link), giving notability per #2 on WP:BAND.

I am not requesting that the deletion to be overturned, but that the page be unprotected; a user has created a new article on the subject, located at User:Lolene, that should be moved to the mainspace as the subject is now notable. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Michaele Salahi – Phew, what a mess. There is no doubt that there is a clear consensus to overturn the close so the AFD outcome is hereby voided, but the question is what to overturn it to? Opinions are split between delete, merge and redirect but merge and redirect are subsets of keep so we can hardly overturn a keep to a .. er .. keep and, while AFD may have a tradition of closing discussions as merges, it is clearly outside the scope of DRV to do likewise. In any event, I am confident that the article has enough eyes to allow a meaningful discussion of the merge/redirect option to take place locally. I am not seeing a clear consensus to delete in either the AFD or the DRV discussion. My conclusion is that we know the outcome was wrong but we have no binding consensus from DRV on what the close should have been. I am therefore closing this as overturn to no-consensus with a strong recommendation for users on the article talk page to take the content of this discussion into account when considering the merits of the merge proposal. – Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michaele Salahi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am bringing this here with the agreement of the closing admin, who admits there may be problems with his close and that the matter needs further discussion.

This concerns a marginally notable BLP. Salahi became newsworthy as a result of gatecrashing a Whitehouse function. That incident and her involvement in it, despite being little more than passing news, merits inclusion in the 'pedia, and gets it at 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Other than that, she's famous for being (I quote from the article) "an American self-proclaimed model and socialite... [who] is hoping to land a part in an upcoming reality show." i.e. not notable at all outside the event.

The Afd, unfortunately, hinged around the interpretation of BLP1E and whether it applied. There are sources which speak about her (unnoteworthy?) activities outside of the gatecrashing incident - but are these really derivative because of her fame there? Does BLP1E apply when such other sources exist?

It seemed to me that most people in the discussion favoured merging or deleting the article. Those favouring keeping it argued on the basis that BLP1E did NOT apply here, but they really never explained why keeping the article was otherwise a good thing. Why do we want a seperate article here?

My problem with the closing is that Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) simply told us what his own interpretation of BLP1E is. Now, some people might agree with him. But is that is rather beside the point, since the question is what is the consensus about this problematic BLP. We certainly could do with defining BLP1E better, but the pressing question is what to do with this article ON ITS OWN MERITS. Here I think the consensus of those who were commenting on the article and not the wikilegal questions is clear. This article should be merged or deleted (I care not which).

Aside from that, the article is a marginally-notable disgrace. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as I commented on the closer's talk page, the closing statement was poor. But otherwise I saw no problems with this close. A merge might well be appropriate, but deferring to local consensus is usually a good idea (in other words, take it to the talk page). Hobit (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, with a redirect left behind. The close was fundamentally flawed. BLP1E is a valid argument to show lack of notability, and it's a judgment call to evaluate whether it really was one event or not. The closer cannot just discount BLP1E when a significant number of commenters make good, valid explanations of why it applies. I don't want to reargue the AfD, so suffice it to say the closer messed up and needs to be overturned. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, merging anything relevant into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Consensus pretty clearly was against 'Keep' on this AfD. What policy commenters cite (BLP1E in this case) is not relevant, all that matters is the consensus that is formed. So long as the commenter's opinions are valid, they can not be discounted because the closer disagrees with their reasoning. Prodego talk 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The arguments made seemed to be ignored at least that is what I thought when I read the summary of the closer. My read was those of us who used the argument that BLP1E applied was ignored. Most if not all the important informations is in the article 2009 White House gatecrash incident so there is no need to have this BLP nightmare. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Always good to see non-regulars at DrV. I assume this was being discussed somewhere for you all to show up at the same time. Could you please provide a link if on-wiki or let us know where the conversation occurred if not? Or, if I'm mistaken and it was coincidence you all showed up so soon after the listing, let us all know that? For the record, I got here by seeing Scott's comments on the closing admin's talk page as I'd also commented there. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All discussion was on-wiki - and openly, and very civilly, on the deleting admin's talk page if you must know. Check my contributions for evidence. I also posted a note on the article - inviting those working on it to come here too. This looks like an allegation of bad faith here. Since when did DRV become a club for regulars?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Way to assume bad faith there, Hobit. I too wasn't aware this was a private club, but if it is, can we regulars vote each other off the island? For the record, I learned of this DRV on my talk, after I was asked my opinion about the article in question and what to do about the terrifically bad close, not that it's any of your concern. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dude, no bad faith. I just wanted to know where the discussion was. Having a large group of people show up to a discussion in a place they normally don't show up to in a period of less than an hour, all !voting in the same way is highly unusual. I went out of my way to not accuse anyone of anything, even leaving open the possibility that it was a coincidence. Further, at least one of you is a regular at WR where BLP issues are discussed off-site. It was a reasonable question. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You need to work on your tone, it's showing too much snark. Or just try scanning a few talk pages first before making comments that read like bad faith (to more than just me). Besides, what if it was? WR is like AN/I-annex these days. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before this gets out of hand, could somebody answer a question for me? Under BLP1E, which is policy, the prescribed options are "keep" and "merge." Neither BLP1E nor the related BIO1E call for straight-out article deletion. It therefore strikes me that, with no policy basis for deletion, it is not appropriate to bring this to deletion review and call for an out-of-policy deletion. What is, then, the basis for bringing this dispute here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My reason for bringing this here has nothing to do with wikilegal BLP1E stuff, indeed quite the opposite. BLP1E is contentious policy, but that's not the point. Indeed, I think that the closing admin's attempt to give his opinion of it in the closing was wrongheaded. In doing so, he failed to look at the consensus which was that this article should not exist independently. The policy reason for bringing this is that the admin failed to interpret consensus properly. Had he done so he'd have closed either as delete or as merge - I doubt those voting for either of those would have cares which he chose.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close was clearly within closing administrator's range of discretion. There were four options with significant !voting support: keep, merge to gatecrashing incident, merge with husband's article, and delete. The keep or merge options were favored by roughly 60% of the !voters, supporting a rough consensus to retain the content. The decisions over whether to maintain individual articles, a single article about the couple, or a substantial section in the incident article are ordinary editing decisions and should be made through the ordinary editing processes, and the closer's decision was the choice which interfered the least with the continuing editorial processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge/redirect. It seems to me that there is (1) a fairly strong consensus that Michaele Salahi should not be a redlink (counting the keep, merge and redirect !votes), and (2) an even stronger consensus that Michaele Salahi should not be allowed to remain an article (counting the delete, merge, and redirect !votes). Under such circumstances, I think I can bring myself to say that the closer clearly erred, especially given the closing statement which tends to suggest that the closer substituted their view for that of the community. I do not see the point removing the page history, though. Tim Song (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I say that there's no consensus? Consensus seems clear to me. Indeed, so clear that I'm willing to find clear error in the close, something I rarely do. OTOH, I concur in the view expressed by some here that DRV isn't really the ideal venue for overturning a keep to a merge, but since it's here already, let it just continue. Tim Song (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? No difference between the two? Was she a politician? Was she a polo player? Did he perform with the Redskinettes at FedEx Field? Will he be a "Real Housewife"? When the police arrested him, did they arrest her as well "because they are the same"?
  • Overturn and merge with 2009 White House gatecrash incident. While AfD is not a vote, there was a 2.5:1 consensus to delete/merge rather than keep. Has this ever happened before? With regards to NW's suggestion, a well-visited AfD is as wide a discussion forum as an article is ever going to get. Obviously strength of argument must be taken into account, but as a starting point if 71% support for merging at a busy AfD isn't sufficient consensus, I do not understand how a more appropriate consensus will be achieved in a less populated area of the project. WFCforLife (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge or redirect. There is a very strong argument for merging at the AfD, and combined with the delete arguments this should have been the outcome. Kevin (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from closer: Just wanted to say that I'm terribly sorry for all the trouble I've caused surrounding this AfD. Please forgive me for this! This is something I'll definitely learn from, but I'm sorry it has to be at this expense. Again, my sincere apologies; please proceed. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Crafty (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nod. Arbitrarily0: IMHO, the best thing an admin taken to DRV can do is watch and learn... make the case for the close again, if it's at all unclear what your arguments were, and then see what everyone says... and determine how you can apply it to your next close. While I think your close was about as wrong as they come, your approach to handling the post close situation is spot on... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because no-consensus defaults to keep and a merge discussion is already underway. There is enough cited information in the article for a merge so that shouldn't be objectionable. ThemFromSpace
  • Question? If this AFD is overturned and the result is a merger, what would become of the Tareq Salahi AFD? The result of that AFD was originally to merge it with the gatecrash article, but then the closer changed it to Keep after seeing that the Michaele AFD ended with a Keep. It wouldn't make any sense to me for Tareq to have his own page if Michaele doesn't, especially since the Tareq AFD closer voiced support of a merge in his decision. If the Michaele decision is overturned, can/should we simply merge Tareq as well? Or should we do a separate DRV for Tareq? Or combined a DRV there with this one? — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I think the closer correctly interpreted policy in this instance, as WP:BLP1E requires that the subject be known only for the one event, and that they've otherwise tried to maintain a private life. Neither is true in this case, as the subject was known before the event, and has hardly remained out of the public spotlight since. Thus, the closer was, I think, correct in discarding the BLP1E arguments. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge with 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Wikipedia cannot be littered with duplicate articles. There is no point having Tareq Salahi and Michaele Salahi when exactly the same information is available at 2009 White House gatecrash incident. This deletion review must apply to both Tareq Salahi and Michaele Salahi. Tovojolo (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - a clear misreading of WP:BLP1E and, as a consequence, a poor close of the debate. Eusebeus (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge/redirect both this one and Tareq Salahi - this isn't what BLP1E means. Black Kite 00:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and either merge/leave a redirect or delete (it makes little difference to me). The closing admin (whom I highly complement for being responsive and cool-headed after receiving some criticism) simply erred in their close. This is a classic example of an admin offering a !vote as a rationale rather than explaining how they interpreted consensus, and it's important to reverse these kind of decisions whenever we come across them. Arbitrarily0 is welcome to his or her interpretation of BLP1E, but said personal interpretation simply cannot be the basis of an AfD close. "Correctly interpreting policy", as one editor suggests above, is not the core duty of an admin closing an AfD, it is rather "correctly interpreting consensus." It's not so much that Arbitrarily0 wrongly interpreted consensus (though I think that would be true for any keep close on this AfD—closing this as keep was not really possible in my view), it's that she or he did not seem to even make an effort to interpret consensus (as Arbitrarily0 has somewhat admitted, and again props for being willing to admit to and learn from a mistake—we need more admins like that!). Some of the comments above (as is typical here at DRV) re-litigate the AfD to greater or lesser extents, but I think there is no getting around the fact that the closing admin failed to interpret consensus, which means their close must be overturned, and which further means that bringing this to DRV was not only appropriate but indeed necessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Merge/Delete the Gatecrash article is the appropriate place for information about both individuals, as there appears to be nothing here beyond the incident and miscellaneous non-notable past incidents. Alansohn (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close Sources were given that showed coverage before the incident in question. In the closer's judgement (and by the judgment of a substantial number commentators in the original debate) this was enough for it not be a BLP1E. Moreover, given the individual's attempt to remain in the public sphere, it seems clear that under a Do-No-Harm test there's not any serious worry here. This is thus within admin discretion and there's no compelling reason to overturn. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse Close It is clear that this woman is a detestable gnat on humanity, yet there is far more information on her from reliable sources than for many people who have done useful things with their lives. Like the Salahis or not they are both notable outside of gatecrash incident, he as a politician, she as a wannabe TV star. Most of this debate to delete/merge seems to be emotional not dispassionate and thus misses the point of the page existing. Why don't all of the people claiming BLP1E go find the truly BLP1E entries, like the ones for the miscellaneous bloggers that dot Wikipedia (go search "blogger" and AfD those), and leave this couple's bios the hell alone? scooteristi (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is DRV, not AFD2. The point is to determine whether the close correctly interpreted consensus, not whether you believe the Salahis are notable. Black Kite 07:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case lack of consensus results in a keep and the close was proper. scooteristi (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that the problem there is that less than a quarter of the editors that commented opted for Keep. The vast majority opted for Merge, Redirect or Delete, so whilst there was probably no consensus on those 3 options, there was clearly consensus not to Keep. Black Kite 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • However there was also no consensus to delete, either. The question of whether or not a merge should take place really isn't something for DRV to decide, but rather something that should happen at the article's talk page. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seem to think that the AfD should have been closed as no consensus, yet you endorse the close above even though the closing admin closed as "keep." Keep and no consensus are, by definition, not the same thing and it's important to point that out. Had this been closed as no consensus with a decent rationale I doubt it would have ended up at DRV, or at least it would have been roundly upheld. I think your actual position Umbralcorax (pardon me being a bit presumptuous by telling you what you really think!), and probably some others here as well, is "overturn close to no consensus, defaulting to keep." It's not merely a matter of semantics, as that close would much better reflect the consensus of the community and be a better basis on which to continue discussing what to do with the article, whereas the current close completely ignores the large "don't keep" (whether delete or merge) sentiment in the AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's absolutely no reason an AFD closed as keep cannot be merged, since a merge is effectively the same thing, since the information will be kept. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I definitely agree with that, but I was making a different point, namely that it's important to bear in mind the distinction between "keep" and "no consensus, default to keep" and that AfDs should be closed as "keep" if that was truly the consensus and "no consensus" if there was none. If it makes no difference whether we close as "keep" or "no consensus" then presumably we should just get rid of one of those options. But we don't do that because "no consensus" closes show that a significant portion of those who commented (and did so based on policy) felt the article should not be kept in it's current form, and that kind of information routinely comes up in later AfDs if they ever happen or in continued discussion on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close Some people exist solely to serve as a warning to others, and such peoples' biographies should be recorded. The Salahis appear to fall into the category of notorious people, rather than famous or celebrated, but that does not disqualify them from an encyclopedia entry any more than it does an entry for Bernard Madoff. 189.216.195.229 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Overturn to No Consensus, so that we can pave the way for Bigtimepeace and others opining "delete" to start up another AfD down the road and hopefully catch a day when "keep" voters are on vacation. Closer was within his discretion to close as he did. In addition, a well reasoned rationale was provided. Any way you slice it, this AfD constituted "no consensus", that is, there were many opinions on both sides. Our policy on that is and always has been that no consensus defaults to keep. Had the closer simply stated "no consensus", we probably would not be having this discussion. I for one am happy to see an admin actually consider the community opinion and close accordingly; admin should not have apologized but should be proud of the decision. That being said, the article and the subject really make me puke every time I see it, and I hate the fact it is on the project.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but this comment is completely off the mark in my view, and to me at least almost seems to describe another AfD. If you think the AfD should have been closed as no consensus, then in point of fact you think the close was incorrect, because the admin closed as "keep" and keep and no consensus are simply not the same thing (even though "no consensus" as a rule defaults to "keep"). A "no consensus" close means the article is much more ripe for deletion in the future, whereas as a keep close suggest the community strongly did not favor deletion, merging, etc. Furthermore, you seem to be missing the point of many commenting above when you say that you are glad "to see an admin actually consider the community opinion." Normally that's exactly what an admin does when closing an AfD, and the entire point of this DRV is that the closing admin did not do that, but rather did something more akin to casting a !vote as their closing rationale. Even if you think "keep" was the right choice here, it's possible to still object to the manner in which this was closed. Indeed I think it's necessary to do so, as "this is what I think BLP1E [or any other policy] means, so I'm closing this way" type AfD closes are extremely problematic. I must say that the endorse comments on this DRV up to now are completely unconvincing, and mostly seem to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment has made me re-consider and I have changed my vote accordingly. Be that as it may, I do not appreciate your introduction to the comment in which the statement "completely off the mark" and "seems to describe another AfD" in a subtle way call me stupid. I simply felt no consensus would offer the same result, keep, and would be a waste of time.Turqoise127 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my comment seemed to imply any stupidity or other deficiency on your part as that certainly was not my intention. I do think your comment was quite off the mark (we all make comments like that from time to time) and my first thought was that it sounded like it was describing a different AfD, but probably I should not have mentioned the latter point which isn't really relevant. In any case I did not in the slightest mean to impugn your general intelligence but rather to question the aptness of your comment, and it's my fault if my reply to you had the former rather than the latter effect. Sorry to have caused you any stress, but the "hopefully catch a day when "keep" voters are on vacation" comment above was not really the best way to respond. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – there was no consensus for deletion here (full disclosure, I would have !voted delete myself, but was oblivious to this deletion discussion). If people still wish to discuss a merge, that can always be done locally on the incident's talk page. MuZemike 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was clear consensus that the article should not be kept. The merge votes were unclear because some said to her husband's article and others said to the incident article, both of which were also up for deletion at the same time. The clear consensus on her talk page and on the AFD is that it should not be kept as a separate article. Reywas92Talk 20:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: BLP1E applies here. Jonathunder (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that she A: was notable, if marginally, before the event, and B: has made no effort to stay out of the public spotlight, just how exactly does BLP1E apply? Umbralcorax (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding "consensus". Given the way the !voting broke down among the four primary options (keep, merge with husband, merge to incident, delete), it's evident that there was going to be a clear "consensus" against whichever option the closer chose. Therefore, since the "consensus against" argument would invalidate any of the main options, the only plausible alternative would be a "no consensus" close, resulting in a keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you don't understand what people were !voting. You are misinterpreting that the vote was split four ways, which it was not. If one said to merge with husband, merge with incident, or delete, it obviously means they do not want a separate article for her. There is a clear consensus that the article should not be kept. There was not consensus on where to move the information to. Unfortunately, all three of these pages were at AFD at the same time, misdirecting both voters and the closing admins. Reywas92Talk 01:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following on from that, the argument of most mergers was along the lines of WP:BLP1E (albeit not everyone quoted it). In other words, they were saying that she was only notable for the incident, and therefore she should be covered by the incident itself. The wikilawyers will doubtless argue otherwise, but in practise this was simply a less inflammatory and more constructive way of saying "delete". WFCforLife (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge with husband's article" is another way of saying "remove content entirely"? I don't think so. And anybody who cites BLP1E is citing a policy that quite expressly prescribes only two options, keep and merge, which makes it illogical to cite as a reason to delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it's illogical to delete the article. But there is still consensus to merge, either with her husband's article or the incident's. There is in absolutely no way consensus to keep. Reywas92Talk
(edit conflict) A "delete" outcome would have resulted in Michele Salahi redirecting to the gatecrash incident, or to her husband's renamed article. A merge would have resulted in the very little distinct content that there is being transferred to the relevant destination, followed by the same process. Yes, there were two different schools of thought on how best to merge, but at a basic level "merge" and "redirect" were clearly synonymous with "delete". WFCforLife (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, from where do you get the view that BLP1E "quite expressly prescribes only two options, keep and merge"? This says nothing at all along those lines, with the language that comes closest to that being "in such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." "Usually" and "expressly proscribed" are rather different obviously. Additionally, the section says nothing about persons who are only known for "one event," and where that event itself is judged to be not notable. Arguing for deletion in that case (as opposed to a merge), and referencing BLP1E when doing so, is completely appropriate in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural endorse - I would have likely argued for deletion had I been a participant in the AfD, and I can't say I agree with the closer's rationale. Regardless, it seems pretty clear to me that despite my personal opinion, there was no consensus either way. Since the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" as an outcome is marginal at best, I endorse the closure on procedural grounds. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: clear consensus to "not keep", bolstered by this indeed being a BLP1E. Sceptre (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original decision was right, and continuing coverage shows the significance. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The significance does not extend beyond a BLP1E thus the closure was in error. JBsupreme (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, at best the right description of that AfD was no consensus (thus defaulting to keep). It's funny -- a number of people who contribute regularly to DRV are very much in the habit of arguing that AfDs closed as delete were "within the administrator's discretion", "no policy problem here", etc. Here we have a DRV on an AfD closed as keep and all of a sudden those same people are very keen to overturn. What happened to admin discretion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still there, the question here (and in any other DRV) is whether the close fell within admin discretion or not. It's perfectly consistent to argue that one AfD closed as delete was within admin discretion and that another closed as keep was not, and really that goes without saying. I think the problems with this close are pretty obvious (even if you think it was technically within admin discretion), and the closing admin has basically admitted that. Of course as with any contested DRV or AfD there are undoubtedly people !voting a certain way not so much because of the specifics of the case but rather because of their meta beliefs about deletionism, inclusionisn, BLP, etc. (and I do not like when people do that). However your comment hinting not-so-subtly at bad faith or hypocrisy by one "side" is not really helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Consensus was definitely not to keep. It's a BLP nightmare anyway. Aside from the Real Housewives info, the article pretty much just calls her a liar. AniMate 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Kind of thought-provoking to see this close in DRV at the same time as Rachel Uchitel. Admin's close here is within discretion, by taking into account strength of arguments and applying existing policies, and does not try to alter those policies (which is what happened, in my own opinion, in Uchitel's case). I realize many have strong opinions on marginal BLPs and I confess I have not read whatever huge past discussions must exist on that subject. In my view, the maternalistic desire to protect through deletion in such cases is well-intentioned but often ill-advised, because it is impossible to surf the internet without running into stories about these people, and these external news stories are often drama-fests that are probably more damaging than the fairly neutral and balanced articles that Wikipedia editors will eventually arrive at. Not having a page on wikipedia is not going to help Ms. Salahi, and would only remove what is likely to be the least-biased and best summary piece about the subject from the internet.--Milowent (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was absolutely zero consensus the page should be kept, even the closing admin admitted it. No credible case for IAR either. There was no consensus the other supposed events were notable enough to undermine BLP1E. Triplestop x3 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read policy. We don't need a consensus that BLP1E doesn't apply, just a lack of consensus of the claim that it does. If there is a lack of consensus, a closer can weigh arguments. That they chose to do so in a way you don't like is not a reason to overturn. And it is a bit ridiculous given what policy actually says to claim that the close somehow relies on IAR. If anything, an overturn would be in violation of policies. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was certainly no consensus to delete, so those trying to use this DRV to delete are simply arguing their own opinion to do AfD Mk II, not reading the debate - they're instead using DRV in their campaign to delete marginal BLPs. There was no consensus on whether to keep, merge to the incident, merge with her husband's article, or delete. Debate can continue on the talk pages about where and whether to merge. Fences&Windows 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this article with the one on her husband to create one article on the Salahis. Together they strike me as noteworthy but individually they are not. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect; possibly delete the history on BLP grounds, no merge. The sourcing is decent here but given the gravity of the allegations in the article ("appear to be embellishments or outright lies") it's not good enough. Chick Bowen 01:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- Taku (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While several people have taken this as an opportunity to vote keep for a second time, (or voted keep for a first time, now that their hopes of being the hero who closed this AfD have been dashed) not a single person has rationally explained how a 29% rate of support for the article amounts to consensus to keep. That is what this discussion is about. Furthermore, not a single person has explained how an admin's personal feelings about WP:BLP1E equates to them having the discretion to make this decision, they have merely maintained that it does. If an admin truly does have discretion to say that more than two thirds of us were simply wrong and that therefore the consensus was keep, then I would suggest this as a more appropriate logo than the mop. WFCforLife (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rational explanation: The choices are (A)Keep, as solo article, (B)Keep, merge with event, (C)Keep, merge with husband, or (D)Delete article. There was no majority, much less consensus for Delete. Thus the close was correct. Whether to Keep (solo) or Merge is a separate issue entirely from the AfD (though admittedly from what I've read in the various talk threads, it's a concept most people seem to be having an exceeding difficult time wrapping their heads around). Please learn English, a "consensus" implies unanimity or an overwhelming majority, there was no such overwhelming majority for Delete in the AfD (it's not a political election where 50%+1 wins). The only consensus I could find was that nobody likes the Salahis, so the discussion is split into those people who hate them and think they should serve as a warning to others and those people who hate them and think mention of them should be censored or redacted. scooteristi (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have every right to disagree, but please don't lie to support your view: The choices you describe were (A) Keep, (B) Merge with event, (C) Merge with husband, (D) Delete. Merging with the event effectively amounts to the deletion of this article, as it is an argument that WP:BLP1E applies to the person. Therefore (B) = (D). (C) is a decision that could not be taken in this AfD because it would affect an article outside the AfD. Nonetheless it was a vote against doing nothing. Closing this as a keep was a clear statement that there is strong consensus to leave it as it is. There most certainly was not. WFCforLife (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously the definition of the word Delete escapes you. Delete means the article and the information it contains are Deleted, Gone, Sayonara, Removed altogether from Wikipedia. That is the purpose of the AfD. Nothing more, nothing less. Any future actions such as merging one or more articles are secondary issues to be handled post-AfD.scooteristi (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No argument whatsoever to delete an article about a very noteworthy person whose actions have had international consequences (US-India diplomatic relations, Organization of the US Secret Service, Defining moment in the Obama presidency, etc) that have been discussed extensively by reliable sources from around the world. The only argument I've seen here is "I don't like that she's noteworthy, I don't like what she's done to become noteworthy, and I don't like her, therefore delete the article." There is simply no reason to delete an article about a noteworthy person with reliably sourced content. Bryan Hopping T 15:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The consensus clearly was not keep. Whether the couple are merged to the incident article or a joined article about the couple does not matter, the result was not keep as a biography of an individual. Miami33139 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your math sucks, in the original AfD discussion 89 votes were cast, and only 23 (that's a mere 26%) argued for deletion. That's not a consensus, much less a majority. The full breakdown: 89 total votes, 23 delete votes, 66 keep votes (and those brokedown as 25 keep solo, 5 merge with husband, and 36 merge with article). That means even while the voting is leaning towards a merge, there is no clear consensus for one. scooteristi (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an extremely misleading characterization in my view. Merge !votes are not keep votes, they are merge votes, plain and simple. They are quite different, and in this case the 41 people asking for a merge by your count are saying this should not exist as it currently does as an article. Combine that with 23 delete votes and fully 64 out of 89 (or over 70% of those who commented) believe that the article should not exist as it currently does. I'd say that's a pretty strong consensus to do something other than maintaining the status quo in terms of keeping a full article. Given that nearly half of those who weighed in supported a merge, and that no doubt most who !voted to delete would be fine with a merge since it basically would have the same effect (i.e. Wikipedia would not have a BLP article on Michaele Salahi), closing the debate as merge would probably have been the best course of action. Regardless, suggesting that there were "66 keep votes" is sheer fantasy and conflates the "keep" and "merge" positions that are in fact quite distinct. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I hate to sound like a broken record, but obviously the definition of Delete escapes you as well. Delete means "remove or obliterate", thus if the AfD were successful then the article and the information the article contains would be obliterated from Wikipedia. That is the purpose of the AfD. Nothing more, nothing less. Any future actions such as merging one or more articles are secondary issues to be handled post-AfD.scooteristi (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The object of any discussion is about what we should cover, and how we should cover it. Arguing for deletion of an article does not automatically equate to arguing for the deletion of the content within it. As an example, I think this page should be deleted. I think much of the content within it is notable, but that the notable parts of it are more usefully covered elsewhere. I don't know how representative that view is, but I'm far from alone. Drawing such black and white conclusions as you have just done suggests that you either have not carefully considered the merits of the discussion, or that you believe doing so will give the closer no option but to opt for "all" instead of "nothing". In either case, you are misguided. WFCforLife (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scooteristi, obviously I am well aware of the definition of "delete" both in real life and on Wikipedia, as I am older than the age of 7 and have been on Wikipedia for quite some time, even to the point where I myself have "deleted" a fair number of articles, and participated in a fair number of AfDs and DRVs. I'd ask you to not speak in a patronizing fashion to other editors, and will certainly do you the same courtesy. Incidentally you completely ignored the substance of my comment, and are simply wrong in your assertion that "future actions such as merging one or more articles are secondary issues to be handled post-AfD." Sure, that can happen, but AfDs are closed as "merge" all the time, and my argument above was that, given the total number of merge, delete, and keep votes and the arguments made therein, closing as merge would have made a lot more sense as a close better reflecting the consensus of the discussion. Of course you can disagree with that, but you should recognize that there are more ways to close an AfD than "delete" or "keep" and that that was precisely my point in replying to you above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Foswiki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

notability Wwwolf3 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Foswiki started as a fork of TWiki, when the brand owner decided to act more commercial and disputed with the community. Nearly all main project developers decided to continue the work in a new community driven project. This leaded to the creation of Foswiki in 2008. Since then continously new Versions were released, which documents the vitality an maturity of this project.

Release date
1.0.0 09 Jan 2009
1.0.1 24 Feb 2009
1.0.4 19 March 2009
1.0.5 25 March 2009
1.0.6 21 June 2009
1.0.7 20 September 2009
1.0.8 29 November 2009

Furthermore many users of the predecessor TWiki decided to migrate to Foswiki as they expect that the former developers of TWiki will continue their work with the same quality and enthusiasm as they did with TWiki.

So it is not a new software, as stated in the reasons for deletion, but more the continuation of development under a different project name. More information about this can be found here. Development of Foswiki and TWiki - get the facts

It would be very nice, if you could spend some of your worthfull time to think about the 4 entries, which voted for deletion. 2 times because of stated lack of notability - this is obviously not correct 2 times "just because" - this is no argument


  • Delete Another article for a brand new software project that has not established notability in any way, and the fork is hardly controversial. §FreeRangeFrog 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

- This user is gone from wikipedia!

  • Comment It seems we have a massive conflict of interest here. Please understand articles are removed from Wikipedia because they don't meet guidelines for inclusion, not based on how many developers work on the project or what it was forked from or what its features are. §FreeRangeFrog 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- This user is gone from wikipedia!

  • Note — article tagged for coi, all involved users notified about editing with a COI, and issue reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- As explained, the participation of some of the developers in this discussion, was reasoned by the notification about the deletion of the Foswiki article.

  • Delete No evidence of notability. The Keeps seem to be all from new users unaware of our policies and guidelines and especially WP:Notability. dougweller (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- The labeling with conflict of interest has an easy to understand background, please read about it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki

  • Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- this user points out, that his job on wikipedia is to delete articles.

  • Delete - per nom. Dayewalker (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

- this user seems to has never been busy on any software related topic. As of the reactions to my evaluation of content and authenticity of the reasons leading to the last deletion, I decide to edit my post in this way. I hope the souls can calm down now. Wwwolf3 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also have a look at [47] to get an impression of how the article would look like. And be assured, the german wikipedia has the hardest fights for relevance . Wwwolf3 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A lot of new users participated in the AfD and were apparently not familiar with how we do things here. I left a detailed explanation on the AfD talk page, but it appears that nobody took notice of that. Please read it now. I will just repeat two points here:
  • The mistake was to think that the TWiki article must be forked merely because the TWiki project has forked. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Until Foswiki has enough coverage in reliable sources, both projects need to be discussed together under TWiki.
  • There seem to be ownership issues at TWiki. It should be easy to deal with them, since Peter Thoeny is the owner of the TWiki trademark and we have a conflict of interest guideline and a conflict of interest noticeboard for dealing with such cases.
Wwwolf3, I suggest that you redact your first post here as it is not constructive. The article will not be restored if you argue like that. I think it would be best for all involved to follow the advice I have given you on the AfD talk page. If you want this article restored instead, you need to point out reliable sources that discuss Foswiki in depth that didn't play a role in the original AfD. [48] [49] Hans Adler 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision Being barraged by SPA contributors like that has become a guarantee that any keep claims with actual merit will be ignored. Miami33139 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion discarding SPA comments with little or no policy/guideline basis, as is normal in AfD, the consensus was clearly in favour of deletion. The DRV nomination here doesn't offer any reason to reverse this decision, instead providing attacks on users. Hut 8.5 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – you don't challenge deletions by attacking others. This should be placed in WP:DEEPER. MuZemike 22:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your second sentence makes no sense. TWiki is notable, and its fork Foswiki is already at least borderline notable. (See the two links in my post above.) The problem is that Wwwolf3 doesn't understand how the English Wikipedia works. The user seems to know the German Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is culturally more homogeneous and probably has a higher proportion of adult users than the English Wikipedia. This allows them to work with a notion of notability that is quite different from our WP:N. In the case of software their main criterion is article quality plus at least a little bit of coverage. But in many fields they are more on the deletionist side, so it's easy to get the wrong impression that everything that is notable there is notable here as well. Hans Adler 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So in German Wikipedia is it permissible to contest deletions by openly questioning the merits of those involved in the discussion (as opposed to the arguments brought forth)? MuZemike 02:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously not. My main point was that Foswiki is already at least borderline notable and very likely to become notable in the near future. A secondary point was trying to make you understand what makes some SPAs here behave with so much suspicion. Hans Adler 11:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background: TWiki is an open source project founded in 1998 by Peter Thoeny. Since 2007 TWiki is marketed commercially by TWIKI.NET, a company also founded by Peter Thoeny. In October 2008 all developers were confronted with a choice between accepting an unpopular new governance model and being locked out of the project website. As a result, all core contributors left and TWiki was split. Since Peter Thoeny owns the trademark, the developer community had to choose a new name: Foswiki.
Pre-split TWiki had considerable notability:
  • Wolf Marbach: TWiki: Installieren * Konfigurieren * Administrieren, October 2008 [50]
  • Anja Ebersbach et al: Wiki: Web Collaboration, November 2007. Discusses MediaWiki in Chapter II (130 pages), TWiki in Chapters III-IV (170 pages), and Confluence in Chapter V (70 pages). [51] Quote: "Currently, TWiki is without doubt the flagship of the free wiki variants."
  • Dan Woods, Peter Thoeny: "Wikis for Dummies", July 2007. The TWiki founder being a coauthor, the word "TWiki" appears on most pages of this book.
  • Dan Woods, Gautam Guliani: Open source for the enterprise: managing risks, reaping rewards, July 2005. Short discussion of the business side. Quote: "One of the most successful, productized, and deeply integrated open source projects is TWikiTM. [52]
  • There are countless 1–2 page discussion of TWiki in books on marginally related topics such as enterprise use of a specific Linux flavour.
Post-split media coverage:
  • Heise online, the German online IT news source, reported the split in German and English, at a time when Foswiki still had its preliminary name "Nextwiki". [53]
  • (Slashdot story "TWiki.net Kicks Out All TWiki Contributors " submitted by "David Gerard" [54])
  • The German edition of PC World mentioned the anticipated Foswiki 1.1 release in the CMS/wiki/collaboration category of "the most important open source updates of the year". [55]
  • Heise online briefly discussed Foswiki 1.7 and the formation of the Foswiki Association. [56]
Notability is not temporary, so it was not lost in the split. But who has it now? The company/founder/trademark, or the renamed open source project?
In this situation deleting one of the two successors without even keeping a redirect to the article that discusses its history was the worst possible outcome. I believe it was not based on a rational evaluation of the facts, but was mostly a reaction to the canvassing that affected the AfD. The way this deletion review was started has caused further damage, but presumably that's the fault of an individual, not of the potential Foswiki article.
I have no connections to TWiki. I became aware of the situation after the disruption at the AfD was mentioned on a noticeboard. I will contact David Gerard, as he may have further neutral and competent input. Hans Adler 11:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect to TWiki. Largely per Hans Adler's argument. However, I looked at the deleted article, and it contained hardly any information that is worth keeping. Its only significant sections were "Features" and "Extensions", which were just pruned from the official page. It did not contain any RS that established notability. Therefore we can avoid the mongrel title "TWiki and Foswiki". — Sebastian 17:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that also makes sense. It seems I let Kalyxo's vigorous rejection of a merge influence me too much. A TWiki article with explicit mention of Foswiki in the lead and a separate Foswiki section looks like a good interim solution until Foswiki has gained notability under the new name. If we can trust these claims, that shouldn't take too long. Hans Adler 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it in the interest of Wikipedia to have authors, that are skilled, knowledgeable and eager to help populate wiki pages with relevant and neutral content? A simple redirect from Foswiki to TWiki would be a slap in the face of all those who tried to make Foswiki independent, as Peter Thoeny (in their opinion) exploited the TWiki brand for his interests. The redirect would be a statement, that Foswiki is "just TWiki", which is the opposite, of what all those people strive for. If you rename the page to TWiki and Foswiki, that might resemble the fact, that both software projects have the same roots and are still compatible. I could live with that. Just having the redirect from Foswiki to TWiki is a solution, that might be easy to implement. But it does not come close to the reality, as I understand it. By the way: It is unfair, to examine a months old wiki page, nobody worked on, as it was deleted very fast. I strongly believe, that the users of the software and other wikipedia members would have a lot of good content within the guidelines to add. I would love to see a situation, where the project could get a possibility to have their own neutral and unbiased information page. --Kalyxo (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the original closure was correct given the debate; nothing in that AfD, of course, precludes the creation of the redirect. So I'm not sure why we should overturn the close. But no objection to redirecting from me. It is a plausible search term, after all. Tim Song (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I was the original AFD nominator. Nothing was wrong with the closing and significant third party sources still have not been found to recreate the article. 16x9 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Amanda Knox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Amanda Knox has received many requests for an article, according to the administrator locking it up. Yet it is still locked up. Please unlock it and allow a discussion. This is hereby a request to unlock it so a discussion can be made to start the article.

Proof that many people want the article. There are very few people against having the article.

Could you unprotect it? I'd like to start a separate article. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done so, as multiple people have now requested I do so. Could you please alert people at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher of your decision to split off part of the article? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Obamo (talk • contribs)

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

5 December 2009

[edit]

4 December 2009

[edit]
  • List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes – Despite the inadequate explanation for the close by the closing admin there is a clear preponderance of opinion that, notwithstanding this, the outcome was reasonable and in accordance with administrative discretion. The manner of reaching the outcome (counting votes) was incorrect and would ordinarily lead to the close being overturned. That the closer got the right outcome by the wrong process doesn't mean that their approach is encouraged. So, outcome endorsed (article stays deleted) but the closing process is emphatically not endorsed. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Under any reasonable reading of the discussion, at best this was no consensus. Going on raw numbers, the discussion was 11 for deletion and 8 for keep with one neutral. On its face this adds up to no consensus. Addressing the specific comments in favor of deletion, they include "TV shows with LGBT-related episodes had already been around for years" (irrelevant), "the vast majority of the program [sic] cited in the article have no notability in their own right" (which I assume means that the commenter believes that the individual episodes are not independently notable, which is irrelevant to a list), including LGBT themes in TV shows is no longer unusual (untrue and also irrelevant), "The name of this list is simply atrocious" (irrelevant), "ridiculously long" (irrelevant), and "utterly ridiculous" (irrelevant and probably bigoted). All of these comments have no basis in any policy or guideline related to WP content and should have been ignored. The closing admin should also have ignored in their entirety the "what's next, list of X episodes that have Y?" comments, which make up roughly a third of the comments against the list. Other deleters questioned the use of "The Puppy Episode" as the dividing line despite multiple sources explaining it. Several commenters (including the nominator) failed to grasp the scope of the list, complaining that it did not include programs like Queer as Folk and Will & Grace despite repeated explanations that they fell outside the scope of the list. The list was for series that do not regularly include LGBT content and series which regularly include such content are outside that scope. The only substantive comments are regarding WP:OR, which were refuted within the discussion and for which a solution was proposed and ignored. AFD was closed with the single word "delete" and closing admin's response to questioning the closure was "If you would like a copy of the article in your user space, please let me know." which does not in any adequate way explain why this article, which had a dozen footnotes and several book-length references, was deleted. This closing does not even begin to reflect the content of the discussion. Deleting this article punches a hole through WP's coverage of this subject with no justification. Any issues with the article can be fixed through normal editing process. Deletion is entirely uncalled for. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn to nc As the closer has made it clear on his talk page he won't be explaining this close, we are left with the question "is this a reasonable close?" As the keep !votes appear to me to be stronger than the delete !votes in terms of numbers and strength I'm stuck with overturning. And a fish to the closer for having no closing statement and refusing to provide one when asked. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your one-word comment and your refusal to back up your obvious majority-rule deletion without any basis in policy or guideline are contrary to the letter and the spirit of this encyclopedia. If you have some basis for your deletion it can't possibly be that difficult to cite even a scrap of WP policy or guideline to justify it. Your failure to do so points out with blinding clarity your inability to do so. Otto4711 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just curious, you are asking for clarification about a !vote, but aren't willing to provide one for a close? Not sure if that's ironic or presumptuous. In any case, I did miscount, but still feel the keep arguments were much stronger than the delete arguments. Hobit (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. It appears that the keep votes may have had sounder reasoning than the delete votes did. I agree with Hobit's sentiment that this is an AfD where there should've been a closing statement. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as closing admin). It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion. Simply because some users have added unnecessarily lengthy (keep) comments doesn't mean the decision requires a lengthy close. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. No offense to MZMcBride, but MZMcBride seems unfamiliar with sometimes taking into consideration the strength of arguments over numbers. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Too many of the delete arguments were clearly based on a misunderstanding (e.g. , that the list doesnt show the character was there because of Elen -- which is wholly irrelevant to the title or the defined scope) or that the shows themselves were not acceptable sources for their basic plot, or were objections to the existence of the list itself regardless of any reason except IDONTLIKEIT. Otto gives some others. All such votes were not policy based and should have been discarded. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse DGG's assertion that the article was deleted because people didn't like it is completely false; nobody asserted an IDONTLIKEIT type argument in the debate. OR concerns and concerns with the scope of the article were not sufficently refuted by policy-based arguments. Keep votes were in the minority and most were exceedingly weak. ThemFromSpace 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that. I said that some of the !votes seemed to be based on that reason, & others were based on equally wrong reasons. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close was certainly within administrative discretion. Many of the delete votes reflected concerns over NPOV, NOR, and RS issues, where standards cannot be relaxed for individual articles by local consensus (not that one existed here). The central delete arguments, never addressed by more than handwaving, are that 1) the list is not encylopedic, because it is constructed to reflect/support an opinion about the significance of the Ellen episode; 2) the inclusion criteria for the list are inherently subjective, and generally undefined; and 3) the contents of the list are original research - rather than reflecting claims made in secondary source, they reflect the opinions of Wikipedia editors based on primary sources regarding the "themes" of television shows and the importance of those themes. As for the nominator's concern about "punching a hole" in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject (which isn't relevant to deletion over the cited policy issues), the answer is simple: Write an actual article on the subject, based on reliable secondary sources, presenting the full range of opinions on the matter, and placing the discussion in an appropriate context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) The significance of the Ellen episode is supported by multiple independent reliable secondary sources and claims to the contrary are simply untrue. 2) Any questions about the scope and/or inclusion criteria can be answered through normal editing. 3) WP:PSTS clearly allows editors to watch primary sources and report on their contents despite your insistence to the contrary. All of these were addressed repeatedly despite your claims otherwise. You didn't care for the answers but that's hardly the same as not being answered at all. If you believe that there is some segment of "the full range of opinions on the matter" that was not being presented, the answer is simple: edit the article to reflect this supposed range of opinions. "The article does not in my opinion reflect the range of available opinion therefore delete it" is completely outside of editing policy and guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn: this is really a "AFD part 2" argument, in that I agree with the concept, but not the dividing line. The Puppy Episode seems to be a rather arbitrary line... Sceptre (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Just because someone doesn't explicitly cite a policy in their reasoning doesn't mean their argument is completely irrelevant or that its not based in policy. I agree that an article (not a list) could be written about this topic, but a list of every single episode of a TV show after April 30, 1997 with an LGBT "theme" is not it. Mr.Z-man 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing this list to such trivialities as "List of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" and "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" is stupid and insulting, and it ignores the many, many sources which discuss the subject of the list. It amounts to a homophobic "oh, how gay people are shown on TV is unimportant" argument which ignores reality.
  • The examples there are simply examples of obvious cases. Though I completely fail to see how you get from "stupid examples" to "homophobic." Since you're only going to selectively read policies apparently, the relevant part of WP:SAL is "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." While the introduction to the list presents useful, well-sourced information, the list itself is so broad, even in its incredibly incomplete state, it adds little to the article (some of the mentions are so trivial, they arguably detract from its quality). Mr.Z-man 07:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which amounts to an editing issue. "This example is trivial" and "that example detracts from the list" are matters which can be addressed through usual editing and discussion on the talk page. Nothing at SAL places this list beyond the scope of WP. Leaving aside your unsupportable accusations about what I have and have not read, this list is on no way comparable to the "list of brand names" contemplated by the section of SAL you reference. "The list is incomplete" is an argument in favor of including the supposed missing items, not deleting the entire list. Deleting a list because not every includable item is on it yet is unimaginably stupid. Many lists are currently incomplete. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists the answer to incomplete lists is to try to complete them, not throw up our hands with the complaint that they are supposedly incompletable. "Episodes of non-LGBT related series which deal with LGBT issues" is neither too general nor too broad in scope. Any questions regarding the scope of the list can be resolved through normal editing and do not in any way require the removal of this information. Otto4711 (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The deletion of this article does not "punch a hole" in Wikipedia's coverage but rather sets The Puppy Episode not just as a turning point (as the article's supporters portrayed it), but also as a stopping point for needing coverage of the topic -- that is, after Ellen, LGBT themes on American television were no longer so unusual that every single one of them had to be reported in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that LGBT content in non-LGBT series magically became unimportant after The Puppy Episode is ludicrous on its face. Applying this bizarre notion would mean that any list which includes entries that occurred after a watershed moment would have to be deleted. Clearly there are sources which continue to discuss the presentation of LGBT-related themes and material post-Ellen so the claim that it suddenly doesn't matter any more is just plain stupid. Otto4711 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well of course the list only contained entries after the Puppy Episode, because that was the intended scope of the list. There is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking down subject matter by some temporal guideline. The failure of those who maintain the lists of first Af-Am baseball players is irrelevant to this list. This list served to assist those interested in LGBT portrayals on TV to locate those specific episodes which included such portrayals. The idea that such portrayals somehow stopped to matter following Ellen's coming out is unsupported by any source and ridiculous on its face. The idea that LGBT-themed episodes, which make up a miniscule fraction of a percentage of the TV episodes produced, have somehow become "not unusual" is unsupported by, well, REALITY, and is utterly bizarre. Presentation of LGBT content on TV remains unusual because it is, by even the most shallow of examination of TV content, NOT USUAL. Otto4711 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That those who have to date decided to limit the list as they have is in no way an argument against this list. In fact is in an argument in favor of this list. They set their parameters as they did and there is no rush to delete it based on those parameters. Yet this list also set parameters and has suffered from an ignorant clamor that by daring to set parameters the entire list is somehow wrong. I wish I could say that the resistance to LGBT content could be seen as equivalent to resistance to racial content but unfortunately it has been made abundantly clear that when it comes to homos the same standards of inclusion do not apply. Way to be bigoted, Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see the close as unreasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Despite some comments here, the keeps weren't so spell bindingly enlightening that they answered the concerns of those wanting deletion. Perhaps a closing summary would have been appropriate, but this isn't AfD Round 2 and there are comments here that are simply arguing the importance of the list; not the merits of the close. This was well within administrative discretion and to say otherwise is facetious. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point remains (responding again to the AFD nominator) that the issues raised by the deleters were not unanswered by the keepers nor were they so far beyond the scope of normal editing as to require deletion. There is a world of difference between "there may be some OR in the article as it exists" and "there is no basis for this article to exist that does not involve OR". Given the quality of comments on the deletion side of the scale it should have been a no-brainer where on the scale this article fell. Unfortunately it was closed by an admin who truly failed to use his brain. His lack of comment at the AFD and his lack of comment on his talk page both indicate no intellectual effort behind his decision. His comments here ("the numbers favor deletion by my count" and "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion") strongly indicate that he put no thought whatsoever into the close beyond totting up the numbers for and against. This is a fundamental failure to fulfill his responsibilities as an administrator. Otto4711 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. This is a notable subject area and this issues boiled down to regular editing concerns which where deletion was hardly needed and that was pointed out clearly in the discussion but apparently wasn't heard. There was some valid concerns that could help improve the list but certainly demanding that something be deleted instead of constructively working for a better article is a step in the wrong direction. The logical extension of course is that we delete everything until it's to a GA level and even then every sentence and statement has to be "cite needed" bombed. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concerns raised by those advotaing deletion were not something that could be solved by normal editing, short of completely rewriting the article. The main concern was the entire basis of the list is original research and improper synthesis. Basically there are reliable sources that The Puppy Episode was hugely influential in LGBT issues on television. There are sources (at least the episode itself) that the E.R. episode "A Hopeless Wound" portrayed a gay couple in it. However, there are no sources saying that that particular E.R. episode having a LGBT plot element is due to The Puppy Episode. Either the list is suggesting that every episode with LGBT-related plot elements is due to The Puppy Episode, in which case its purely WP:SYN, or its just a list of episodes with LGBT-related plot elements after some arbitrary date, in which case its WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. Mr.Z-man 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which might make some difference if only the list were asserting that the existence of the Ellen episode was the end-all and be-all of the change in LGBT representation. Except, of course IT DIDN'T. It noted that the episode was recognized as a watershed moment and presented a list of episodes that happened to fall after that moment. There is no assertion that every single post-Puppy Episode episode was directly influenced by TPE outside the assumptions of the deleters. Otto4711 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no explicit assertion, but the fact that such a list would be compiled at all (otherwise its just a list of TV episodes that meet some incredibly arbitrary criteria regarding content and air date) with an introduction about how TPE was such an important moment strongly implies it. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needed to be a dividing line and TPE is the logical dividing point. That other editors make assumptions is not the fault of the list, or if it is it can be corrected through normal editing to clarify. it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - We entrust administrators to use their judgment when closing deletion debates, and barring a reason to believe the admin made a blatant error, we should typically respect that. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin made an obvious error in judgement by basing his close on nothing other than pure vote count. The admin has repeatedly affirmed that his decision was based on nothing but vote count and such a basis is purely without anchor in any policy or guideline. The closing admin's rationale was "10 is more than 8" and as such should be stricken down as the simplistic vote-counting that it is. Otto4711 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But looking through the discussion, I find no compelling reason to argue that deletion was not backed by consensus. I therefore endorse their closure. It's worth noting that of the eight keep votes, two were either "weak" or "very weak". –Juliancolton | Talk 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failing to back up an opinion on any basis of guideline or policy is a clear-cut reason for discounting that opinion. The majority of those clamoring for deletion were based on nothing that had any basis in any such guideline or policy. "This is weird" and "I have personal problems with it" don't come anywhere close to the threshold required for deletion and any honest non-prejudiced assessment of the delete comment would reveal that they are based on nothing.
  • Endorse. I cannot say that the close was clearly erroneous, on the assumption that the closer did not base their decision solely on a votecount, which seems appropriate despite the absence of a closing summary. Tim Song (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer clearly and obviously based his closure solely on a vote count. "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." There is no possible explanation of this statement other than a vote count. 10 is bigger than 8, so delete. VOTE COUNT. Otto4711 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis do you "seriously" doubt it? On the basis of the one-word closing statement? On the basis of the closer's failure to offer any other reason on his talk page? Or on the basis of his flat-out statements in this discussion that he closed the debate on the basis of the 10-8 count in the AFD? How much clearer can "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." possibly be to prove that this closure was based on counting and nothing else? Does a closing admin really have to say "I counted the votes and more said delete than keep" to make it clear? "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." Vote counting, pure and simple. Ten is more than eight so delete. Vote counting. Any honest person would come to the same conclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you just accuse me of dishonesty? I doubt it because the closer is a very experienced administrator extremely familiar with deletion-related issues. Indeed, they have deleted more pages than any other admin. It seems appropriate to assume that, the terse and admittedly suboptimal explanation notwithstanding, they did not simply count !votes but also considered the strength of the argument. Tim Song (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a fair reading of the closer's comment. He's addressing the DRV issue -- which is, boiled down, whether the close was an abuse of admin discretion -- and saying that, as a general rule, closing an AFD in accordance with the majority of !votes is not an abuse of admin discretion. And, absent socking issues or compelling claims of policy violations (as opposed to disputed interpretations), I think that's a reasonable enough statement, although broader than I would consistently agree with. I do think the closer correctly anticipates that a more detailed statement at this point would result in more nonconstructive cud-chewing over the issues in the AFD itself than in the issues that DRV should be limited to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling a statement of counted votes vote-counting is a perfectly fair and reasonable reading of the statement. It even reads like a math equation: 10d ÷ 8k = Delete. Calling the statement "Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but the numbers favor deletion by my count." strongly indicates that the nominator's reason for closing the AFD as delete was based on the numbers. It is hand-waving to take these simple statements and twist them to believe that they mean that something other than vote-counting took place. Some might even call it original research. Then we have the rest of the closing admin's self-endorsement here: "Simply because some users have added unnecessarily lengthy (keep) comments doesn't mean the decision requires a lengthy close." Given that the closing admin believes that the keep !voters' comments were "unnecessarily lengthy" I have to question how much attention he actually paid to those comments. The stated purpose of DRV is to determine "if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". Overturning an AFD does not require, nor does it imply, that an admin abused his discretion. It simply means that the admin made a mistake. I did not state, nor did I imply, that the close of the AFD was an abuse of discretion. I said that based on the lack of information provided in closing the AFD and the initial refusal of the admin to explain his decision, the admin's interpretation of the AFD was in error and that when the only information the admin eventually provides indicates a reliance on pure numbers, this is a further indication of error. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether the closer counted votes or evaluated the arguments, I believe that the outcome was correct - the delete arguments were significantly stronger. Obviously if the closer closed on the basis of vote counts then this is not a good thing, but to overturn a decision because the right outcome happened for the wrong reason is pointless wikilawyering. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The delete arguments could have been addressed through editing, which you acknowledge in your statement below. This weakens the arguments for deletion considerably. Deleting a page that can be fixed through normal editing is always an error, regardless of how the closing admin arrived at that conclusion. Excusing a close with which you agree just because you agree with it despite any errors that the closing admin may have made is exactly the same as overturning it just because you disagree with it, which is expressly disallowed ("This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome"). Whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome is irrelevant and strongly at cross-purposes to the process. Wiki-lawyering? This is Wiki-jury nullification. Dismissing the concern over the issues raised as "pointless" is insulting. Otto4711 (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in my comment below I said that individually, some of the problems could be fixed by editing if they were the only problem with the page, but given that they do not occur individually and that there are also problems that cannot be solved by editing then deletion is the only way forward. You will also note that I am endorsing the outcome but not necessarily the methodology (the right thing happening, but possibly for the wrong reason) because if I were closing the original debate based on evaluating the strengths of the arguments then I too would have closed it as a delete. Undeleteing something that might have been deleted for the wrong reasons just to redelete it for the right reasons is pointless. This is very different to overturning a decision that resulted from a correct determination of consensus just because you disagree with that consensus (the right thing happened for the right reasons). Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The supposed inherent indiscrimination of the list is based on the false premise that it is commonplace for series that don't routinely feature LGBT content to do so. There were approximately 200 entries on this list, covering almost thirteen years of American television. Do you have any idea how many tens if not hundreds of thousands of television episodes have been produced in that time frame? A couple of hundred out of tens of thousands is hardly commonplace by any remotely plausible definition. GLAAD does an annual report on LGBT representation and for the 2009-10 season, out of 600 series regular and recurring prime time characters on the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox and NBC), 18, or 3%, are LGB; there are no trans characters on network TV. Of the series in which these characters appear, two have already been cancelled. On mainstream cable series (GLAAD counted 11 cable networks) there are only 25 regular LGBT characters. The number of LGBT characters is declining. Every other series being broadcast does not include LGBT characters or story lines on any regular basis, or indeed in most cases ever. The claim that LGBT representation on TV is unremarkable or routine or commonplace is an opinion, unsupported by actual facts. That 1997 marked the end of any meaningful reason to track this information is an idea that has no basis in reality. The supposed arbitrariness is addressed by asking two simple questions: Does the series routinely feature LGBT characters or story lines? If no, does a particular episode include an LGBT story line? And yes, I understand that you support the result regardless of the fatally flawed method used to obtain it. "It got done the wrong way but I got the result I wanted" is as shoddy thinking as "It got done the right way but I didn't get the result I wanted". Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree that the closer's statement above is annoying. But it doesn't make sense to overturn solely on that basis. This is actually a fundamental principle that has been affirmed at AfD many times: though it is courteous for an admin to explain closure of a close debate, it has never been required by policy. If the close was reasonable, then it was reasonable, whatever the closer says or doesn't say about it. Chick Bowen 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close, based on the content of the discussion, was NOT reasonable. That's kind of the frigging point. Closing a complex discussion with a single word and refusing to back that close up beyond saying that more people said NO than YES is an utter failure on the part of the closing admin to do his actual job. "Duh, 10 is more than 8" is the illogic of someone who has no understanding or ability to implement actual AFD policy. There was nothing presented at AFD to indicate that any supposed issues with the article could not be addressed through the normal editing process but the closing admin blundered in with "10 more big than 8" and deleted with obviously no thought given to the arguments themselves. When an admin refuses to offer any rationale other than "more said X than Y" his decisions should be highly scrutinized and his basic understanding of the process should be questioned. Otto4711 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome. While such a terse closing statement for such a verbosely contested XfD discussion is not ideal, and the apparent unwillingness to expand on it when requested is very concerning, the determination of the outcome was correct. The arguments for deletion that were not adequately refuted by those in favour of keep included that the inclusion criteria were arbitrary and arbitrarily applied; while the reason for choosing the Puppy Episode as the cutoff was properly explained and sourced, the actual items in the list were not sourced - no secondary sources were provided to show that the included themes exist in the listed items or that they were significant (and for the majority of list entries are not available) (violating WP:OR and WP:V; that the list was arbitrary as there was no distinction made between themes that were significant and those that were not; and that since the watershed moment the presence of such themes is now not unusual and as such listing all of them would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and that the only way to prevent this would be to apply arbitrary inclusion criteria). There also seems to be consensus that an article about the watershed episode and that since then such themes are not unusual is both possible and desirable, but that a list of themes is not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment is there any way of persuading closers to give proper reasons for contested AfD s in the future? If anyone wants to reopen the discussion on making that a requirement, there's the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus While there are genuine issues with the article, the balance between keep and delete votes justifies a close of no consensus, rather than delete. Many individuals voting to delete latched on to the title, despite a clear and well-sourced explanation for the non-arbitrary nature of the cutoff point. Alansohn (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't that the cutoff point is arbitrary, because as you point out it isn't - most delete and endorse !voters agree that the introduction to the list explained that well and supported it with references. The problem is that since that watershed moment, it has become unremarkable for episodes of American TV programmes to include LGBT themes. This led to the necessity of the arbitrary inclusion criteria in a vain attempt to stop it becoming a truly indiscriminate list. That the criteria were arbitrarily adhered to would not be reason, on its own, to delete the list merely to either seriously thin the list or (probably easier) just start again. That the entries on the list were not supported by reliable secondary sources, taken in isolation, is another argument to starting again. However given that the list is inherently arbitrary and/or indiscriminate doing either of these would not result in a useful, pointful list. The closest I can come to defining what the list was acutally functioning as is "List of post-Ellen American television episodes with no regular LGBT characters, story arcs or plot devices and which do not normally focus on LGBT issues, that include significant or incidental themes that original research by one or more Wikipedia editors suggests are related to LGBT issues." which shows just how arbitrary the list was. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly disagree with the unremarkability of American TV series to include LGBT themes, given the tendency of the media and other reliable sources, and interest groups on both sides to, well, remark upon them. Regardless, since the adoption of the internal combustion engine it is no longer remarkable for car manufacturers to introduce new models of existing vehicles, yet we maintain lists of automobile makes and models. Since you acknowledge that the list could have been fixed (despite your belief that deleting it was "easier", which is true of most problematic articles), deletion was not appropriate. Your description of the list is ridiculously verbose and inaccurate, since it does not require OR to determine the content of an individual episode per WP:PSTS, but since reliable secondary sources could have been added their absence is not a basis for deletion. "This is not sourced to a secondary source" is in no way the same as "this cannot be sourced to a secondary source". A scope for the list was suggested in the AFD but the discussion was closed before any additional comment was made on it. If only there were a talk page on which such issues as the scope of the list could be discussed... Otto4711 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per the nom. I particularly with his claims about the fundamental weakness of most of the delete arguments. If the closer had provided more of a rationale for his decision I might be inclined to accept it, but since so many of the delete votes smacked and WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (not to mention "the title is bad", something that should have been discussed on the talk page), I think it should have been a "No consensus" decision, especially since the total votes were so close even before you took into account some of the weak deletion arguments compared to the keep arguments... — Hunter Kahn (c) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deletes had the strength in both numbers and arguments. Quantpole (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The arguments for deletion were stronger than the keep arguments. This is a perfectly valid outcome and within the admin's discretion. AniMate 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 December 2009

[edit]

2 December 2009

[edit]
  • Tony Capucci – Overturn and delete. It all comes down to the purpose of a redirect here. Even if the list is kept, it will still be composed of notable subjects (i.e. with articles) per WP:SALAT. Although normally a redirect is "for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles," here it does not make sense to redirect to a list in which the subject is not (or should I say, will not be) even mentioned. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tony Capucci (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject of the article is a gay porn performer who fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG so a merge to List of male performers in gay porn films is inappropriate (see WP:SALAT). Additionally, the list itself is currently up for deletion. The closing admin does not seem inclined to change their closure. Please note that I was not the nominator of either of these, but I have nominated several unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers recently and a precedent is being set here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm quite torn on this as WP:SALAT is pretty clear, but I'm not sure it should be used in a deletion discussion. Are you really arguing that a style guideline should be used as a reason to delete (rather than merge) an article? I don't think I've seen a style guideline used that way before. My current thought is that this discussion belongs on the talk page of the target article, not at DrV. Lists often have red links (or black text), even lists of people (see [57], [58]). I'm a big fan of following the guidelines unless there is a reason not to, but I think this might be stretching things a bit and outside of DrV's remit. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are asking for merge to be overturned to delete, so yes, this falls squarely within DRV's jurisdiction. Endorse. I cannot find anything clearly erroneous within the close. Tim Song (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if the discussion on the list article results in removing him from the article then it will be a clear delete. But that discussion about the style guideline goes there, not here. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with the close. Hobit (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The merge target is intended to be a list of notable subjects; this has been one of the few points on which there's a very strong consensus, and it's stated clearly in opening sentence, in bold type, of the target's lede section. Deciding that the subject doesn't meet the notability standards for an individual article should preclude his inclusion on the list. On the detail level, one of the delete !votes was changed to merge, expressly relying on the fact that the subject had received an award nomination. However, the applicable guideline (WP:PORNBIO) requires nominations in multiple years; the !voter was apparently unfamiliar with this standard. (The other source mentioned by that !voter is a self-published site, Queer Porn Nation; the exact source appears to be a blog entry, and therefore can't be used as a BLP source or to establish notability.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is consensus at the article, why not just get an agreement to remove it there? The real question for DrV is if the redirect should exist or not. As long as this person is in the list article, the redirect should be there. Once gone, clearly the redirect should go. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely matching WP:AGF to do it "informally" like that. Yes, it's the article's talk page, but if it too a community discussion to reach a "consensus", the same is needed to do the opposite, especially without any time passed or changes in the situation.
Actually, we've had long discussions here about this (see the DrV talk page) and the conclusion has been that overriding a merge result is an issue for the local page. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete, always a frustrating point for me that people like to claim WP:NOHARM as a reason to just redirect any and everything under the sun. Redirects to any list need to be notable on their own. The BKP must notable on their own. Period. Also wonder how that was considered much of a consensus and question the AfD being closed seemingly at random after a relist for just 5 days and recent talk within the past 24 hours. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Redirects to any list need to be notable?" WP:REDIRECT says exactly the opposite. They are (in part) for "...for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles." Further, that's one of the biggest uses of redirects. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete The close was within the admin's discretion for this particular article, but it doesn't fall within the context of the cleanup effort at the list which is currently at AfD. If the list is deleted than the redirect would be meaningless. If the article is kept I would like to see every name on the list be a bluelink for BLP purposes, so the redirect would again be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 07:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of nontheists (surnames H to K) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  • Rather than removing a particular entry on these pages, it appears the entire pages have been removed with no discussion:
    • 08:55, 15 November 2009 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "List of nontheists (surnames H to K)" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject and not a good idea either)
    • 23:02, 24 August 2009 Grutness (talk | contribs) deleted "List of nontheists (surnames H to K)" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.203.139 (talk)
  • Comment: Malformed DRV fixed. Deleting admin notified. Tim Song (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. At the time of the most recent deletion, the list had one entry, which was not wikilinked, and no explanatory text. For the prior deletion, there were no people listed. (If this grouping is appropriate, it should be a category, not a list.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the one entry C.Fred mentions was Kasthala Venkata Vijaya Babu, on whom we have no entry. I see that his name was recently added to Atheism in India. Perhaps there's a bit of astroturfing going on here? In any case, a list with only one entry would seem to meet both the A1 and A3 criteria, so this is a valid speedy deletion. Chick Bowen 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, endorse per the above. Pretty straightforward case. Tim Song (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Pretty obvious. Grsz11 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleting admin, however I have no prejudice against a recreation of a list article with actual content that is useful (ie several working links or table form as in other lists in this series), otherwise why not merge with List of nontheists (surnames C to D) and List of nontheists (surnames E to G) to make List of nontheists(C to K). A different debate is to whether any of these lists are actually encyclopedic. But that is not the topic of this debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Though empty or essentially empty, & thus technically deleteable, doing so was poor judgment when other lists in the alphabetic series existed, and these were clearly patterns for articles in progress. In any case, they can and should be recreated after the pattern of the others. I am not at all satisfied with the inclusion criteria, but that should be discussed elsewhere (I think it should be limited to those notable specifically for their religious views, or where their views have clearly been a major influence in their career.) Whether this form of list, highlighting selected information, is polemical, is another matter also. I am undecided whether such lists should contain just the name and a brief description of dates, nationality, and career field--and a reference perhaps, though I would usually rely on a clear fully referenced statement in the article But categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely the series problem is best solved by Graeme's suggestion of just moving the current C to D list to C to K, rather than having an empty list (since Kasthala, being evidently non-notable by our standards shouldn't be included anyway)? Indeed, unless there are objections shortly I'm inclined to just do so. You're certainly right about the problem with the criteria. Chick Bowen 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, but but support a close in either direction, generally per DGG, and WP:DEMOLISH. Since open to fair deletion, I'm going to have to completely go against WP:ALLORNOTHING, this is one of only 2 pieces of the alphabet lacking articles-- both of which have been deleted at one point. Why would someone tear down what was almost a completed collection? My opinion on the necessity/notability of this isn't on the line, nor is my opinion on overcategorization in BLP... this is about assuring that alphabetical lists of things actually cover the whole alphabet. Common sense. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would the content be? The version deleted on November 15 is pretty clearly inappropriate per my comment above. Furthermore, the demolish essay doesn't really apply--deleting empty lists doesn't prevent people from working on the existing lists or writing new ones with content. As soon as someone has a few Hs and Is together they can create start the page anew. It's not like, within our software, there's any significant difference between editing an existing page with nothing on it and starting a new page. I actually think this discussion is getting a bit off track, with all respect to DGG in particular for his valid concerns. It may make sense to have something at this title, but per the wording of WP:CSD#G4 no DRV is necessary to do that. I thought we were considering the validity of the November 15 deletion, which seems to me as straightforward as you can get. Chick Bowen 01:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing against any of that. Policy-wise, yes it should stay deleted 110%. I'm just trying giving it a little faith to have content ...preferably soon. Irony being that more time as been spent discussion a DRV than ever would have been used recreating it. If it were only 2 of 10 lists created I'd support the delete, but since the full article list for alphabet is nearly complete... well, it's IAR, but physical consensus is stronger than some strange extra-blanket-on-the-bed type of moral support, so I added to my position that I'd support either close decision. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but not a terribly good choice. Technically correct, especially since the history indicates a previous empty list had already been deleted months earlier. Actual benefit to Wikipedia was infinitesimal, though. Better to have deleted the anomalous entry and added an "under construction" template or some such (also would have been better if the recreator had done so). Suggestion: the nominator should recreate the page with two properly formatted entries, and then somebody can close this discussion and we can all sleep peacefully tonight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Added to my opinion that I'd support close either way since the final final result will have this article back and populated at some point. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cardboard_coder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Lack of Citations could be due to the term often being reffered to as cardboard programmer or Rubber Duck Debugging. Such as http://redisblack.com/littlehacks/?p=5 http://compsci.ca/blog/rubber-ducks-help-best-with-computer-science/ http://everything2.com/title/Cardboard+Programmers http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki/Wiki?CardboardProgrammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

The Rubber Duck Debugging wikipedia page has a similar term written for Cardboard Coder. Uplank (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other wiki's are not reliable sources. Please read WP:RS and provide us with two sources that meet this standard for this to undeleted. Endorse both the AFD and my subsequent G4 Spartaz Humbug! 11:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD was properly closed, and the recreated article was substantially similar. If reliable sources can be found demonstrating widespread usage of the term, it's probably just as easy to start a new article from scratch than restore the old. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Given nominator's list of sources, any potential error in not relisting the AfD - if there is any - is clearly harmless. Tim Song (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, links within Wiki? No. Also can't exactly use the fact this term is mentioned on the parent article since the reference is back to the deleted page. , it's something that should be fixed immediately. Wholeheartedly endorse though, if those are of the highest quality of references available then there's no case to debate. This is basically an unknown that apparently hasn't gone anywhere-- something I've near heard at least, and Wikipedia has high standards on internet slang, memes, and any computer terminology in general. A good benchmark for digging into how niche terms don't work out here, see banhammer (without its own article). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Discussion ran for prescribed period and no editor expressed support. AFD discussion may have been a shade thin, but for an article as emaciated as this one was, delete rather than relist was clearly within the closer's discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as accurate close despite the lack of any substantial debate. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 December 2009

[edit]
  • Thomas K. Dye – I'm pretty sure I did this before, but this is the wrong venue and DRV isn't going to overturn a merge at AFD as the only option available is delete as keep, non-consensus and merge all are defaults to keep. Please don't undo this agin barbario. This is long standing practise and you shold accept it and go look for a new consensus rather then butting heads over this. – Spartaz Humbug! 19:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Thomas K. Dye (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(In line with the on-going dispute at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Edit_the_policies about refusing to discuss 'Merge' closures, I'm reopening this. As it stands, it appears there's a pretty strong rejection that 'Merge' closures can not be reviewed. Discussion on if merge closures can be discussed or not needs to take place *there* not *here*.

Speedy closing on the grounds of a disputed essay was not a great idea.--Barberio (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Two issues with this AFD. First, it was re-listed despite having more than two comments on it, and substantial policy related statements given. Second, the deleting admin has chosen Merge despite no clear consensus to do so. (Four Merge !votes to Four Keep !votes) I have attempted to ask the admin to review this, but his response is that he decided to discount the Keep arguments because in his opinion they were wrong. [59] Administrators are clearly not supposed to substitute their own judgement when a discussion results in no-consensus. Barberio (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I relisted the discussion because I did not see substantial enough discussion and saw no harm in letting the debate run an additional seven days. Consensus can be some time in forming. I take no formal opinion on the close itself (which I had nothing to do with). Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closing admin. 1. Relisting in this case was totally normal. If the guideline WP:RELIST doesn't reflect standard practice we should change it. 2. AfD is not a vote, but if you want to just look at numbers there were four keeps vs five merges and two deletes. Admins can and do weigh the strength of arguments. The arguments for keep were weak, so I gave them substantially less weight. The only argument for keep was "he won an award", but it is a minor furry fandom award, not a major award. I think my reading of the debate as favouring merge was correct. Fences&Windows 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As an extra bit of data, the original AFD took place at the same time as a major fandom convention, which may explain the lack of activity during the initial AFD period. This was then compounded as the following week was Thanksgiving in the US. Perhaps Administrators should be cautioned against closing debates over holiday weekends and allowing them explicit extra time beyond them if further debate is needed to draw consensus. --Barberio (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue The content has not been deleted, and merge is a variety of keep from the perspective of DRV. Unless the nominator wants the content deleted, which it does not appear he does, there is nothing here for DRV. Merging is subject to discussion by editors on the talk page of the appropriate article(s). Practically, I'd start by cutting this back to the reliably sourced content - which is indeed very little of the article. Then discuss whether that should be merged or not. GRBerry 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, merge is not deletion. The interview that Barberio is presenting is a nice source, but notability isn't established by a single source. At least it can be used to verify some of the content. Fences&Windows 01:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Merge isn't deletion? It sure looks like it to me. If editors tried to keep the article around they would be overridden - the alternative was merge or delete, not merge or keep. That said, I think the conclusion was correct; there's just not enough about this person in verifiable sources for a separate article to be more than a stub. GreenReaper (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, Merge results have been viewed as direction that the article should be replaced with a redirect to merged information in another article. Are you saying now that Merge results may be ignored, and should only be enacted if there's consensus on the talk pages of both articles? --Barberio (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as wrong venue. Nothing has been deleted and there's no request to overturn to delete. Therefore, because no use of the delete button is necessary, there is nothing for DRV to do here. To overturn an AfD "merge" close, start a discussion on the article's talk page and get a consensus not to merge there. See WP:ND3. Tim Song (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest you edit the Deletion policy and Deletion policy review pages to say so if this is the accepted consensus. Otherwise, as written, disputing AFD results is to occur here. --Barberio (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the above, Fences the closing admin has made the following claims about the AFD.

  1. Relisting in this case was totally normal. If the guideline WP:RELIST doesn't reflect standard practice we should change it.
    • I've seen this used as a defence many times by many people when it's pointed out that what happened doesn't match the consensus developed guidelines or policies. Sometimes it is correct, but most times it is simply that people have managed to do so un-noticed. This does not equate to 'its the accepted practice'. If Fences and Mackensen feel that the guideline here is incorrect, they should start a consensus effort to change it. But till then, I think it should stand since there hasn't been demonstrated consensus that the guideline is wrong.
  2. The only argument for keep was "he won an award".
    Not true on simply re-reading the AFD. There was an extra source identified.
  3. The interview that Barberio is presenting is a nice source, but notability isn't established by a single source.
    This is odd... Since it's not 'a single source'. It's 'a single source' *and* 'winning an award'. And had Fences read the article in question, he should have noted that there already existed a third source, of an interview conducted in 2004 with the Comixtalk magazine.
  4. Merge is not deletion.
    Merge results at AFD have been taken as direction that the article is required to be merged into another, then the content deleted and replaced with a redirect. I think it's actually a novel invention here that Merge is not a result that requires the deletion of material in some way. Clearly some material is going to be lost in the merge due, and it is a direction that now has to be over-come rather than a mere suggestion. I am also concered by those admins that claim this is the incorrect venue to discuss this. The current wording of the various policy, guideline and templates all direct disputes over AFD results to DRV. Claiming that Merge results now need to be disputed by getting consensus on the talk page of the merged-to page contradicts this, and seems to be invention of a new unwritten rule.--Barberio (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Barberio is simply wrong when he says that merge decisions cannot be overriden by normal discussion. A merge decision at an AfD can be changed by the simple expedient of getting consensus to demerge on the talk page of the merge target. Incidentally, merging and deletion is really bad because it makes the GFDL a sad panda. If we are now treating merge decisions as not easily overridable then they must move to now be within the review of DRV. In which case, I would see clear notability and go for overturning. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it needs to be made clear in policy, but speedy close, wrong venue. Hobit (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - I'm a big fan of Newshounds, but there was nothing wrong with the Merge closure. As others have pointed out, we do not delete the redirect after a merge, because that breaks GDFL. I've posted more on the Talk page, but "Merge" closures have been with us for a long time now, and standing procedure is to discuss the Merge at the merge-target page. DRV doesn't touch it unless there is something admins have to fix (ie. delete/undelete). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rob McDowall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article has been deleted twice. Once at the start of the year and once now. I have written the article, taking on feedback from before and added it tonight. I feel I have added so much information and referanced it all as much as i can. It is all fact. The person is known in LGBT circles and is a charity chairperson etc and does a lot of different work. I would appreciate if this could be looked at again. I have spoken to the admin who is not wishing to change his views.

Thanks Np097264 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting admin's comments: This was the version of the article deleted at AFD in April 2008. This is the version that I deleted today as a G4. Certainly, the articles are not identical. But the issue that caused the AFD participants to support deletion, the lack of coverage in reliable third party sources, does not appear to have been addressed in the new version, making it, I believe, G4-eligible. Steve Smith (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, send to AFD if desired. G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." This page is not substantially identical to the deleted version, as the deleting admin acknowledges. The same issue was raised in the November 23 Alison Rosen DRV, and the speedy deletion was overturned. It seems to me, reading over that discussion and the speedy policy page, when there's been a good faith effort to improve the article, and there's a reasonable case that there's been some improvement, that the decision on redeletion should be made by the community absent some compelling factor like copyvio or BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per HW. Not a clear G4, let's just ship it off to AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Looking at the lead sentences, there are new assertions about the individual. I agree that there are enough differences that the new version must stand on its own–even if that means getting deleted in another AfD, it at least should get the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since User:Np097264 is the same username as the user who uploaded this evidently self-taken image to commons, I gather that the article author is, in fact, Mr McDowall? As often with conflict-of-interest cases, ideally there would be significant interest in the article from other people. That said, I think a new AfD is reasonable here. Chick Bowen 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Scroogle – endorsed. The previous DRV on this matter was reviewed and taken in to account; I have essentially treated this as a continuation thereof. The relist based on a somewhat early close is probably not the best idea, particularly not in a contentious case such as this one, but what is done is done. In any event, while it may be accurately stated that there is no strong consensus one way or another in either this debate or the one that preceeded it, I am simply not seeing a compelling argument to belabor this issue any further, nor am I seeing any continued discussion as resulting in anything other than more continued discussion. The sanest suggestion I have seen is to discuss this at Talk:Criticism of Google to see if it warrants any mention there, but there is no sense in making a zombie of this topic by kicking it back to AfD to be relisted ad nauseum. – Shereth 16:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Scroogle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An earlier DRV (23 November) was closed early because of perceptions of bad faith and abusiveness on the part of the nominator (I don't dispute those perceptions). The person who closed the DRV has suggested here that the way to approach this is to lodge a more reasonable nomination. So here we are. The AfD (available here in unblanked form) rather clearly shows no consensus; the error, then is to have closed a no-consensus AfD as delete. There is particular concern from the fact that in the original run of the AfD there was clear consensus for keep; it was relisted -- and then closed later the very same day -- as delete. This was hasty in the extreme, particularly insofar as the discussion was by that point evenly split. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that DRV was relisted by agreement with the closer. See the DRV nomination statement at the top. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't, The nominator misunderstood my meaning - or I wasn't be very clear one or the other. I wasn't referring to the Scroogle DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Meaning no offense to Tim, I don't believe that should have been relisted, it was an obvious keep at that point, and certainly didn't meet WP:RELISTs guideline for relisting. Even when it was closed the !vote was nearly even and there was no need to then close it so soon after the relist. In short, it shouldn't have been relisted, and if it was, the relist should have been left to allow more discussion until consensus was clear (which the closing noted it wasn't...) Hobit (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I relisted due to the SPA keep !vote, with which discounted there was less than three !votes on either side. At the time of the relist, I thought that it could be closed with a couple more keeps and actually said that in response to an IRC query. How wrong I was...... Tim Song (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reasonable point, but WP:RELIST has it as relisting if there is only one or two commenters (including the nominator). That one was at 3 or 4 depending on how you count. I agree we commonly see discussions relisted with more comments so I understand that reality and the rules-as-written vary. But I really think it should have been closed there as keep. That said, the early close after the relist seemed quite problematic as I don't believe consensus can be said to have formed by that point. Hobit (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing to add to the remarks I made at the previous DRV, but I should be grateful if the closer would take those remarks into account when closing this one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same request as SMarshall. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn put simply, at the AfD , there just was no consensus to delete. The correct action would have been to keep the relist open the full time & if the situation did not change, to close as non-consensus. There was a group of keeps before the relist, and some deletes afterwards. Closing as soon as there were enough delete comments to balance, was wrong. I think it was just a careless misjudgment. If we are judging the close, not the ultimate issue, the close was wrong. Thedesire to end discussion on a contested debate early normally fails to end the discussion, and just sends it here. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was the first to question the rationale for closure of the AFD, however I was satisfied with the answer. However I would still like to see an article on Scroogle. On the topic of the earlier DRV, I feel it should have been left open, but attacks removed, or hidden. This is because early closure does not end the debate! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The original AFD close was procedurally appropriate and this nomination is a premature collateral attack on it that is time-barred because of the recent DRV. MBisanz talk 23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and close this DRV - smacks of "make 'em vote again until they get it right".--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What SMarshall said. NW (Talk)
  • Endorse and close early. What on earth is going on here? It's dead - let it go already. Geez, people :( - Alison ❤ 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both the original AfD and the recent DRV. Kevin (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Carlo Garavaglia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

He managed Serie C2 teams for almost 10 years. Serie C2 is a fourth division professional championship,like Football League Two. On wikipedia there are thousands of articles about professional fourth division footballers and managers of many different countries,so I think they are accepted. In addiction he managed in one Serie A match replacing the lead coach,even if I think this is not a relevant fact. The article was referenced. Der Schalk (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Day It All Made Sense (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

this article has no sources and there for i think should be removed. Charaba (talk) 9:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC). Original timestamp was incorrect; correct one appended. Tim Song (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

then nominate it for deletion via prod or AfD--after you have checked to see that there are in fact no sources available. This is the place to review decision that have already been made , not to discuss them for the initial discussion. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ Jim Giles After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust? New Scientist 04 August 2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December&oldid=420278378"