Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 September 3
2007 September 5 >

4 September 2007[edit]

  • Richardson family murders – Overturn deletion and restore outright. There is a firm consensus below that the BLP concerns were unjustified. With only the original admin dissenting, there is no need to list this matter at AfD, as (per the BJD ArbCom decision), a "consensus to restore" exists here. – Xoloz 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Richardson family murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't see how BLP justifies speedy deletion here... there was a conviction, every line was referenced... are we just not allowed to write about recent crimes any more? 20 different published sources were mentioned... this meets notability requirements. If names were being given out in violation of some proviso of WP:BLP, isn't that a reason to fix the article rather than delete it and prevent re-creation? Deletion seems unjustified here, let alone speedy deletion. --W.marsh 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - Actually, it isn't a recent crime as it happened over a year ago, so NOT news probably won't apply. WP:CSD#G10 attack page is the only speedy delete mentioned at WP:BLP and that doesn't seem to apply. Part of the trouble is the article is written in tabloid fashion. -- According to friends of xxx. According to friends of xxx. He allegedly told his friends that he xxx. However, later, an acquaintance of xxx said. -- The article seems to be written to bring out sensational information rather than be a factual account of the topic. The article includes names of living people which need not be included. The article needs to be written with sensitivity to the event and the living people affected by that event. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is an example of the overzealous use of BLP--a sue which will compromise our integrity. All non-obvious instances need discussion first. I note that I support the policy, and I myself have speedy-deleted under BLP/G10 when appropriate--there are several clear instances each day at WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - the issue here is that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The main notable thing about this case - that someone was accused of being the youngest multiple murderer ever - also presents a huge problem in that we're identifying a minor, and, more to the point, doing so in violation of Canadian law. Obviously we're not bound by Canadian law, but this is a non-trivial point - the encyclopedic value of this article is minimal. Furthermore, the article named a number of non-notable people, including child victims and the other accused killers, all of whom are non-notable in every sense of the word.
    • It is possible, in theory, to write an article on this subject, but in all honesty the only notable thing - the age of the youngest accused multiple murderer in Canada - is a piece of trivia that could be included in another article, and this one could be redirected to it. BLP allows for the removal of harmful information about non-notable people even if it is sourced, and that's the issue here. It's not a salting of the topic, and people are free to recreate, but there were no real usable old versions there. Phil Sandifer 01:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable in the objective sense only refers to multiple non-trivial sources with information we can use... it was hardly reported on just by tabloids. It's just your opinion that this is a tabloid story... if an article is to be deleted every time one of our thousands of admins thinks a portion of it doesn't comply with some interpretation of BLP, that's incredibly frustrating and I can't imagine anyone would contribute their time and energy to writing articles in such conditions. Until 2007 there was no precedent for having to get articles perfect (in the minds of every single admin) or face immediate deletion with no effort made to fix the problems first... it's just unrealistic. --W.marsh 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canadian law is immaterial, and Wikipedia clearly doesn't go around censoring itself to comply with every country's law, unless any and every article that could be considered pornographic has been deleted to comply with the laws of Iran. It's not that someone was accused of being the youngest multiple murderer in Canadian history—she was actually convicted of it. This isn't a BLP issue; someone made it disappear without following policy, and it should be restored. dcandeto 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability was not just the actual age (12) of the murderer, but the surrounding circumstances--despite the level to which we have become accustomed to with such events. BLP does not require the removal of this information, which is unimpeachably sourced; and questions of fairness are obviated by the fact that she has been convicted. I would not have supported the article had she not been. DGG (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to overzealous and inappropriate application of BLP (also, what I said above). dcandeto 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. BLP is to ensure we do not have unsourced contentious material, and all it mandates is that we remove such material. If it sourced and contentious, it stays. If it is unsourced and non-contentious, tag it with {{fact}}. What BLP does not mandate is the hysterical, hamfisted and arbitrary deletion of articles you don't happen to like. BLP is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Neil ム 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn BLP is to remove unsourced statements. If a 3rd party states X, and we base our statement X upon theirs its not a BLP issue. If we are the sole site to state negative fact Y about a living subject, not only is it original research, but it should be removed per WP:BLP.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several of the !votes here are apparently unaware of the changes to BLP, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. In short, we must take care not to create articles that are "tabloid" in nature, only focussing on one embarrassing/scandalous instance in the person's life. Specifically, WP:BLP1E:
    • If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
-- Kesh 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, isn't that what this article does? It's about an article about the murders, not biographies of the murderers or the victims. The language you quote would cover the biography of a person notable only for being involved with a crime, but not an article on the crime. Your summary of your quote seems to be incorrect. --W.marsh 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The event, not the person, is/was the focus of the article. dcandeto 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hence why I was not adding a !vote to this DRV. Some of the above comments seemed based on a misunderstanding of BLP as it currently stands, so I was simply pointing out the current wording. -- Kesh 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'd severely cut back the article myself, removing the image, the last sentence of the first paragraph (not yet convicted on the evidence herein, restore when/if a conviction becomes reliably sourced), all but the last sentence of the second paragraph, and all of the third through fifth paragraphs. The outcome of the case against the boyfriend should be added if it can be reliably sourced. But all of that is editorial action to make the article better; not based in BLP, just based in writing an encyclopedia. Deletion was incorrect, BLP citation is even more incorrect given the level of sourcing the article had. GRBerry 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A conviction is quite reliably sourced. It's in the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and the CBC. dcandeto 17:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sentence applied to the third person charged, as an accessory. The article didn't even assert a conviction of that person. GRBerry 12:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Canadian law doesn't matter. I think it's notable because of her age. A.Z. 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Although a few names were mentioned, there were no harmful details about these people, aside from the well-sourced info on the convictions and the identification of the deceased. This was a fairly dry and concise stub, its summary execution was too rash. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Ken Evoy – Undelete and speedy close. Sources provided and deleting admin concurs with restoration – Eluchil404 01:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ken_Evoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to review this decision. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the AfD decision as the Globe & Mail article can be found in the article's citations. It's a live link that quotes the article directly from the Globe & Mail site. The other articles are, in fact, third party as Ken Evoy does not own The Montreal Gazette or CJAD - both of which are well-known local media organizations in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Furthermore, additional information can be added to this article and there were temporary "placeholders" for that. While the article should seriously be reconsidered on the basis that there was the requested consensus, it can also be sent to my userspace so that it can be updated to better meet Wikipedia standards. That being said, if there is a specific reason why this article is being rejected then please clarify as statements like "X is not Y" is not a reason for an article to not be included (or included for that matter, I brought up the topic since the three people are involved in the tech sector). For example, Buzz_Hargrove is not Steve Jobs either but he has an entry on Wikipedia because he's notable (indeed, he is also male). Thank you for any additional understanding that can be had here. Overturn per Whpq comments which also led to the definition of consensus. -- Maltiti2005 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yorkie poos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Keeping in mind that AFD is not a vote, the closing administrator declared that there was a consensus to keep when only two users out of six supported keeping the article. I feel the discussion was prematurely ended, and that the admin based their decision on a personal opinion on the matter rather than enacting the consensus (or lack thereof) present in the discussion. Move to change the result to no consensus. VanTucky (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure it's really worth bringing up on DRV as the end result is practically the same but technically you're right, this should have been no consensus as opposed to a flat-out keep. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point, but this could make huge difference if this is ever nominated again. The past results of AFD's do have a significant impact on any further ones. But that fact notwithstanding, I think that getting the process right is important, especially considering the closing admin was very recently promoted. VanTucky (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No consensus permits a quicker return to AfD than a Keep close (where three months between AfD#1 and AfD#2 is typical for a Keep close of AfD #1). -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but you point out yourself below that the apparant lack of consensus can be mentioned if/when this is renominated :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You probably already knew what I had posted above. Sorry for implying that you did not. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you're both saying about mentioning the lack of consensus if or when another AFD comes up sounds reasonable in this context. But thinking ahead to the actual debate, saying that there was a lack of consensus will be immediately shot down if a firm keep was endorsed in a DRV. If you honestly think there was no consensus, I urge you to help change the result of the AFD to reflect that. VanTucky (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you need 1. Provide links to the policies/guidelines that would permit DRV to change the result from keep to no consensus and 2. Justify the request under those policies/guidelines. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Redirect is a subspecies of keep, so a keep consensus is quite clear. GRBerry 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since when was deleting all the content and redirecting to a different article to prevent expansion a subspecies of keep? That's nonsense. VanTucky (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, VanTucky, you’re too sensitive to bring this afd to DRV. Not that because I’m afraid of confrontation, but is it worth really becoming so involute? “Keep” is exactly what I meant and it was not a mistake from my own. Furthermore, I had no personal opinion in decision and read the afd with careful inspection. Once again, I have to say that AfD is not a vote, thus it’s understandable that one can close it with different result compared to what is presented in such afd. Ironically, it is you who declared this truism but you were too obsessed with the ratio of 2 keep supporters over 4 redirect ones. I understand your concerns, and let me clarify.
  1. The 1st vote: “Delete and redirect to poodle hybrids, per nom, for lack of reliable sources.” Not mention that WP:PERNOMINATOR vote is really annoying, the comment is mostly based on the misinterpreting of the nominator’s rationale (your rationale is not about lack of sources, but rather than unexclusive sources). The article includes only 3 sentences and supported by 3 reliable sources. The only unreliable source was removed already. This vote could be cast off. I highly doubt if this voter ever read the article or saw its history.
  2. The 2nd vote: “Redirect per the exact same reasoning I gave for the Lhasa Poo AfD.” Once again, this kind of comment truly makes the closer frustrated. Each article stays for its own. To make sure, I checked this user’s reasoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhasa Poo and to my disappointment, the reasoning exclusively fits for Lhasa Poo only.
  3. The 3rd vote: “Yep. I guess someone could pull up some Reliable sources, but the point is, is that the breed by itself does not appear very WP:N even with sources..”, very ambiguous and contradictory comment. The voter opinion was “does not appear very…” which clearly demonstrated as WP:JUSTAPOLICY.
  4. The 6th vote: WP:ITSNOTABLE type of vote.
Worth to mention here is User:TheOtherBob’s cogent eligible vote/comment which I completely endorse. Turn back to your agurment that “… and no published sources exclusively and comprehensively deal with the subject, then having an article is inappropriate” appeared to be inappropriate. No policy on Wikipedia stated that the subject must be supported by exclusive and comprehensive sources to have a place on Wikipedia. Moreover, please remain a proper respect for your folks, both in AfD arguments and here (User:TheOtherBob has reminded you about this). I’ve just recently promoted, which doesn’t mean that I treat AfD like an experiment of admin privilege. @pple complain 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me @pple, but personal comments such as "you’re too sensitive" are way out of line and will not be tolerated further. I take exception of your attempt to characterize me as "obsessive", and your patronizing conduct admonishments. Making ad hominem remarks in attempt to discredit my criticism of your decision is not ever okay. Me mentioning that you have been recently promoted isn't a criticism. But I feel the decision you made was wrong, and any endorsement of such a decision in future debates would be incorrect. Second, it's not the numerical !vote ratio that is the problem here. It's that out of a tiny group of commentators, you simply took a vociferous minority to be a consensus. Needless to say, I disagree with much of your above characterization of the arguments. Saying there is no similarity between AFDs where users are aruuging to keep based on sources that do not significantly deal with the subject is not absurd. Maybe my word choice may have been unclear, but I'm not suggesting that a source must be solely about the subject to meet the definition of significant. I'm saying that having only general sources about hybrids is a reasonable argument for redirecting the descendant article into the general one. VanTucky (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VanTucky, see Wikipedia:Deletion process, AFD Process section, point 7. "If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE),". I have no idea how long those particular words have been in that place, but the principle that redirection is different from deletion has been around since before I joined the project; it probably has been around for multiple years. (Delete and redirect is not the same as redirect, and only one person said "Delete and redirect".) A Keep/Merge/Redirect AFD consensus does not preclude an editorial change to one of the other three in that set, provided that Wikipedia:Consensus's section "Asking the other parent" is complied with. GRBerry 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense GR, thanks for the clarification. VanTucky (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GRB, considering the practical effect of redirect, perhaps that statement does need revision. DGG (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - No reason to change. If the article is not improved beyond a few sentences in a reasonable time, a quick trip back to AfD would seem to be justified and you can point out why in the AfD nomination. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article. I'm going to improve this article to save it from deletion. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Flyaow – Speedy deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 13:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Flyaow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Meets WP:WEB per notes on User_talk:Chairboy/Archive2#Deletion_of_Flyaow. Would like to see it restored, or at least discussed adequately prior to deletion. 137.82.96.26 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn but list at AfD. The article had both a claim of notability and a long list of references. I agree with the anon/nom that this deserves a full discussion at AfD rather than a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion under WP:CSD#G11 is clearly incorrect. It doesn't need a total rewrite, maybe a little copyediting. GRBerry 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Definitely not a blatant advertisement. Neil ム 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. All the references are advertisements, but the article itself was not a blatant advertisement. I don't fault the speedy delete admin, however. The topic does not meet WP:N, but let AfD decide. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Seemed pretty blatant to me, but a note, I offered to restore this to his userspace for fixing up and got no reply from anyone interested in getting it. The offer is open to anyone else too, of course, if they want, my offer is clear and unambiguous at the above conversation link. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blatant emphasizes the failure to conceal the act. Flagrant, on the other hand, emphasizes the serious wrongdoing inherent in the offense.See blatant. Arranged differently, it might have been brazenly obvious. You gotta give 'em props for being creative enought to skirt around "blatant". Too bad they're not using their talents on a topic that is notable. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11 is only for clear-cut cases. Offering to restore to user space is not the same as offering to restore. DGG (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, slap me around all ye want, but I'm not going to restore it to article space in its current condition because I think it reads like an blatant advertisement and doesn't meet WP:WEB. I'll let someone with a less cohesive understanding of WP:CSD do it, or restore it to the userspace of someone who volunteers to fix it up. The person requesting this be undeleted is an IP editor, so they can't really adopt it in their userspace, and not a single other person has volunteered to take this on, which is puzzling and a bit sad. But in the meantime, I again offer to restore it to userspace to be fixed up. Will there be any takers? Or is this is procedural protest and not an honest to goodness interest in improving the project? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is fixable it is not a G11. That does not mean I personally need to be the one to fix it. Our role at Deletion Review is not to rewrite all the articles in WP that need improvement, but to avoid deleting them so that others may do so. Any of the other millions of WP editors. DGG (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Jen_Chapin – Speedy deletion overturned; given the change in the course of the discussion after the new evidence of notability was introduced mid-debate, listing at AfD is unneeded. If the article remains in a minimal state for very long, it may always be redirected to the notable father. – Xoloz 13:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jen_Chapin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Meets WP:N. At least deserves an AfD. Would like to see it restored. JJL 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list at AFD It is possible, I suppose that, this individual is notable. The article claims that she has three CDs, is touring, is the daughter of Harry Chapin, and chairs the board of directors of World Hunger Year (which he founded). That is enough that speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 should not have happened, but the article didn't validate any of those claims nor make it clear that she is notable. GRBerry 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, take to AFD. The articlementioned she has three released CDs with a record label - a crap assertion of notability, but one nonetheless. Not a speedy. Neil ム 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not list at AfD. Topic meets WP:N:
    • Artgig Studio and Jen Chapin Launch New Jenchapin.com. PR Newswire 8/29/06
    • Jen Chapin. Scene Entertainment Weekly. 8/23/06
    • Jen Chapin forges urban sound using storytelling roots. Centre Daily Times. 7/15/06
    • Barnes & Noble to Present New Event Series, Upstairs at the Square, Starting Wednesday, June 21, with Eat, Pray, Love Author Elizabeth Gilbert and Singer-Songwriter Jen Chapin. Business Wire, 6/15/06
    • Jen Chapin shares a name and a cause. South Florida Sun-Sentinel. 11/14/05
    • Family ties: Harry Chapin's daughter Jen sings Wednesday. Fort Pierce Tribune. 11/11/05
    • Don't miss: jen chapin. Orlando Sentinel. 11/11/05
    • Jen Chapin carves a niche. Sarasota Herald Tribune. 11/11/05
    • Family ties: Harry Chapin's daughter Jen sings Wednesday. Stuart News. 11/11/05
    • Linger Jen Chapin. People Magazine 4/12/04
    • Review: Jen Chapin's debut CD, "Linger" NPR All Things. 4/7/04
    • On the verge of Akron show, Jen Chapin eases into town Sunday as part of her first national tour. Akron Beacon Journal. 3/25/04
    • Jen Chapin influenced, not driven by, legacy. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 3/22/04
    • Jen Chapin accepts her musical past. Albany Times Union 3/10/04
    • Jen Chapin. Entertainment Weekley. 3/5/04
    • Daddy's little girl ; Fans who adored Harry Chapin are rooting for Jen. The Bergen Record. 3/2/04
    • It took a blow to the ego to push singer Jen Chapin into singing career AP news. 2/23/04
    • Jen Chapin's music not born of father's Cradle. Toronto Star 2/22/04
    • Look how they've grown. Two children of Illustrious performers find musical maturity. Jen Chapin shares her dad's idealism - but not his style. Boston Globe 2/20/04
    • Jen Chapin in fertile and creative place. Hartford Courant. 2/19/04
    • The far ganging Jen Chapin. Hartford Courant 6/5/03
    • Jen Chapin/Stephan Crump: Open Wide. Bass Player. 7/31/02
    • Jen Chapin sings her own songs tonight. Cleveland Plain Dealer 10/4/00
-- Jreferee (Talk) 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above. Nominally asserted importance, appears to be tons of sources to cite. --W.marsh 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I have no idea about actual notability but it clearly wasn't a speedy. DGG (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, listing optional. I suspect that a lot of that coverage is fairly trivial, but there's enough there that it may well count as extensive anyway. It would be better if some of those sources were online so their quality could be judged, but there was clearly enough asserted to overturn an A7, and probably enough to survive AfD. Three albums, if the label is at all notable, is more than enough to pass WP:BAND by itself. Xtifr tälk 09:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion took place in April and the article had minimal content. No objection to restoring, but why doesn't anybody bother writing an article that asserts significance before bringing it here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Mark Warner (Canadian politician) – moot due to creation of a new article. History undeltion, or a list of sources in the deleted article, should be provided upon request, given the consensus here prior to becoming moot. – GRBerry 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Warner (Canadian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This speedy deleted article was about a major party candidate in an upcoming Canadian by-election. While there are concerns about Notability and Autobiography these might be better tested through a standard WP:AFD rather than through speedy deletion. I suggest that the article be undeleted and listed in an AFD. Reginald Perrin 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Isn't there something fundamentally questionable about User:Reginald Perrin initiating this process calling into question the notability of Warner, and then once the Warner article has been deleted, and pending the conclusion of the discussion here, adding a reference to Warner in the article of Bob Rae, Warner's opponent in the by-election? --Canam1 04:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the edit Canam1 is referring to. In the infobox in the Bob Rae article Rae's opponents in the upcoming by-election were listed as "TBA". I updated the box by listing the names of his opponents including Mr. Warner. Could you please explain to me how this is at all "fundamentally questionable"? Are you alleging that I am showing a pro-Rae bias by listing his opponents in the infobox? If so, please explain how this edit can possibly be seen as helpful to Rae and detrimental to Warner et al? Would you prefer that the "TBA" be restored despite the fact that all the other parties have nominated candidates? Also, I did not question the "notability" of Warner, I questioned the fact that the article originally had no insufficient sources. I simply speculated on his your page that questions of notability may be why the article was deleted and above in my request to undelete the article I suggest that rather than having the article speedy deleted questions of notability could be better tested by an AFD. If I had thought that Warner was not at all notable I wouldn't have opened this deletion review, would I? Your constant grasping at straws and questioning of the motivations of others over minutae violates WP:AGF and that you are questioning motives of people who have actually shown you a bit of consideration (in my case by opening this DR for you since you are a new user and didn't know how to do it yourself) does not speak in your favour or earn you any sympathy. Reginald Perrin 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I questioned was the timing of your edit. You started the process that led to the deletion, then you add the name of the candidate you deleted to his opponents article. Kosher? BTW, the Warner article always had many sources - many more than, inter alia, for the outgoing MP Bill Graham etc, and certainly as others have noted below had over 24 sources cited at the time you sought its deletion. --Canam1 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the nth time I have never suggested or nominated the article for deletion, what I suggested is that it be looked over by neutral editors with proper sources added and the puffery removed. In fact, as opposed to trying to get the article deleted I initiated this deletion review. Again, please either explain what is wrong with my actual edit to the Bob Rae article or withdraw your insinuation that there's something improper. And no, when I came across it the Warner article it was inadequately sourced. As for the "timing" of my edit, I looked at the Bob Rae article because you kept insisting there was something wrong with it or that it was the "same" as yours. Looking at it I found that the references to education etc you claimed did not have sources were, actually, properly sourced. What I did find, however, was that the infobox was out of date, so I updated it. My edit was completely neutral, if anything I initially erred by placing Mark Warner as the first opponent when recent elections suggest the NDP is the top opponent in the riding. Reginald Perrin 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As other more experienced editors and Administrators below have shared my views of your procedural games, I withdraw nothing. You seem to think that if you repeat an inaccuracy, it becomes the truth. Again, when you came across the Warner article it had a lot of sources, and when it is restored, people will be able to see the history of your edits and see that for themselves. As I said below, the Warner article had more sources than most similar articles and at least as many sources for education etc as that for his opponents. I am not sure why you think a reference to Bob Rae's autobiography is more reliable than the source at footnote 1 of Warner's article. --Canam1 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • What procedural game have I engaged in? You have falsely accused me of "initiating" the deletion process when, in fact, GreenJoe did that and all I did was remove unsourced claims, some (but by no means all) "peacock" material, and asked you to source information. That is not a call for deletion, it's a call for improving an article that read like a piece of campaign material.
You have completely mischaracterized the comments made by others below - most of them support my request that the article be undeleted and listed in an AFD rather than speedy deleted. Not one single person has accused me of any wrongdoing let alone engaing in any "procedural game" and given the fact that I did you a favour by listing this in deletion review your tone is completely confrontational, unwarranted and uncivil. Please either cite a specific "experienced editor" who has criticized my actions or withdraw your false accusation. I am strongly considering filing a complaint against you for repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF and WP:Civility. As for your other comment, an autobiography published by a respected publishing house is more credible than someone's personal webpage - particularly for personal information such as where someone went to school etc. Please see WP:RS.
You have also completely failed to support your insinuation regarding my edit at Bob Rae. Please either state what you think was factually wrong with that edit (which simply replaced "TBA" in the "opponents" section of the infobox with a list of candidates) or withdraw your insinuation. The fact remains that the Mark Warner (Canadian politician) article as it was written is in violation of WP:AUTO and has a lot of unsourced or insufficiently sourced material as well as a lot of puffery and spin (your comment that Tories have elected an MP in Toronto Centre once a decade is pure spin designed at puffing the electoral chances of a party that has come in third in that riding in the past two elections and has nothing to do with Warner's biography). The article reads like campaign literature, frankly, which is not surprising considering it was written by the candidate and/or his supporters. As the Globe and Mail recently published an article criticizing such behaviour (see "Is Wikipedia becoming a hub for propaganda?" which is critical of politicians and their aides who edit articles on themselves) I think your aggressiveness here is short-sighted. It is also completely inappropriate for you to respond to legitimate policy concerns with personal attacks and insinuations, please apologize for the personal attacks you have engaged in and desist from such behaviour in the future. Reginald Perrin 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed at length the reasons why this article should be undeleted and not be put in the WP:AFD process in discussion on the talk pages of User:Reginald Perrin, User:GreenJoe and User:Y. With respect to autobiography, please see my comments regarding the Bob Rae and El Farouk Khaki articles. With respect to sourcing, please see my comments about the sourcing in Bill Graham, Mark Warner, Steve Gilchrist (no sourcing at all) and Bob Rae and El Farouk Khaki (arguably the same sourcing as in the Warner article. On notability, please see the footnoted references in the Warner article to newspaper articles citing Warner, not to mention the references to an independant third-party guide to leading lawyers around the world, and Warner's publication of the leading trade law tratise. It is very hard to see how Warner alone among the candidates listed in the Toronto Centre article would not meet the standard of natability. I believe this article to have been deleted in error and in extreme haste. I would stongly urge you to undelete it and not to list it in the AFD process. --Canam1 01:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)— Canam1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep delete. The guy isn't notable. GreenJoe 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AUTO was also violated on this article. Canam1 is Mark Warner. the proof. GreenJoe 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:AUTO is not a policy, it's a guideline. It can't be "violated". Smashville 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's not "proof", nobody has confirmed that Canam1 is Mark Warner. Melsaran (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone moving a biographical article from their own user page (not a subpage but the actual user page) to the mainspace and then having their Userpage redirect to the article in question as here is strongly indicative of an autobiography as is the fact that the subject of the article has called SimonP at work to complain about the deletion. There's also Canam1's edit history which consists entirely of edits to Mark Warner's article and edits about Mark Warner's article with one exception, an edit to Toronto Centre, the riding Warner is running in, that pumped up the chances of a Conservative candidate winning the riding[1]. I think Warner may well merit an article on wikipedia but I don't think it should be something that reads like campaign literature. Reginald Perrin 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I submitted the article not Mark Warner. All candidates in this riding should have wikipedia pages because they are relevant and receive press mentions. See my piece on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Warner_%28Canadian_politician%29 . Greenjoe: Keep your personal politics out of this discussion! Grandmasterkush 06:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — Grandmasterkush (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Overturn not a speedy. I'm probably biased too, but I think the Conservative candidate in the Toronto Centre by-election is notable. -- Samir 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a spam deletion, and not only that, but nomination isn't enough to establish notability. He has to have done something outside of it, otherwise every candidate for every party deserves an article. GreenJoe 14:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, just major party candidates in high-profile ridings. Virtually every MP elected from Toronto Centre (Rosedale previously) has been a cabinet member. I'd argue that it's the highest profile riding in Canada. But then again, I also think Toronto is the centre of the universe. The article also doesn't meet G11 in the least, as Neil argues below. Should definitely be re-written, but shouldn't be deleted -- Samir 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, list at AFD. Speedy deletion is only to be used for obvious cases. There is enough dissension here about notability (or lack of) to suggest that a full AFD is necessary. Neil ム 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability? This is a G11 deletion. Go write a non-spam article and we'll be ok. -- Y not? 14:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone (other than the creator) queries a speedy deletion, the usual response is to reinstate the article and take it to AFD. I'm not sure how that would hurt anyone here. And how in blue hell does an article of that length, with that many references, get written off as "G11 speedy"? If the article reads like advertising, then edit it. WP:CSD#G11 is only for Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. There's no way this article falls under those criteria - I've just had a look at it, and it is in no way an article that should have been speedily deleted. It doesn't read like spam, it reads like a well-referenced and detailed biography. It does paint the subject in a good light, but not "blatant advertising" (my emphasis). And any tone issues are something that is solved by editing, not poor interpretations of our deletion criteria. Neil ム 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you explain how or why it was a spam deletion? I don't even think there were external links in the article. Smashville 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the G11 deletion as the article was awfully promotional. An article may possibly be written about him that is not a speedy candidate, but what was there is not it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the standard for "awfully promotional"? This article would not even coming close to "promotional" if compared to the current articles about Warner's opponents Bob Rae and El Farouk Khaki either in terms of sourcing or tone. Ignoring the context here is probably what led in part to a speedy and wrong decision that should be overturned ASAP. --Canam1 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if anyone wishes to see a copy of the article, I have temporarily userfied a copy for information at User:Neil/Mark Warner. If it does remain speedily deleted I will use this copy to rewrite into a more non-glowing form and recreate it - as the article was deleted via CSD, there's no need at all for approval to do so via DRV. Given that this will take all of ten minutes, this seems silly, but them's the rules. Neil ム 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and go to AfD. The article as written was such a blatant G11 violation that I sympathize with the deletion; but an encyclopedic article could be written out of this source material (the one deleted was not it). --Orange Mike 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This isn't G11 material. A biography on a politician will inevitably cover their political involvement. A decent biography will cover the rest of their life. That's what this article does/did. GRBerry 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practice on Wikipedia has been that unelected political candidates should have articles of their own only if they're notable enough for other reasons in addition to their political candidacy; otherwise, they get merged into party candidates lists. This certainly shouldn't have been a speedy; he's absolutely and unequivocally entitled at minimum to a paragraph or two in Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (the current practice for byelection candidates is inclusion in the article on the preceding general election.) We need to balance legitimate concerns about notability against the fact that properly encyclopedic coverage of an election does require that we provide some kind of information, either a full article or a mini-bio in a merged list, about every candidate possible. Overturn and go to AFD. Bearcat 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's possibly enough notability asserted to justify an article (published several chapters in books and in academic journals, leader in the on-campus anti-apartheid movement at the University of Toronto, legal counsel to OECD, advised governments around the world on designing and implementing competition and trade laws). But restoring and merging into the Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election article would be the bare minimum. Neil ム 18:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One minute it is spam, next minute it is notability (although the Admin who deleted it has said notability is not an issue). Be that as it may, notability is grounded in the following: Candidate for major party, in prominent riding in largest city; Black candidate, if elected would be the only Black on the government side from a riding whose M.P.s usually are in Cabinet; professional stature among peers (see footnote 1); co-authorship of leading legal text with out-going M.P.; and leader of divestment / anti-apartheid movement in 1980s linked to awards received and contemporaneous articles from leading newspapers. You don't have to vote for the guy, but to say he is not notable is absurd. --Canam1 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL Bearcat. Given your history of edits of Khaki's article (Warner/Rae's opponent for the Toronto Centre riding), and stated NDP affiliation in your profile (including "worshipping" NDP party leader Jack Layton and his wife), I'm not surprised you want to trivialize Warner's mentions on Wikipedia. However, all of Rae/Warner/Khaki are very Wikipedia-worthy: all are newsworthy people, and this is a very important riding! If this article needs editing, then lets edit it. Why it was deleted instead of edited is beyond me. Grandmasterkush 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not very nice. It's never nice to laugh at people, especially Bearcat -- Samir 23:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies. I wasn't laughing at Bearcat, merely the situation that he has no issue whatsoever with the existence of articles for the other candidates in the Toronto-Centre riding. --Grandmasterkush 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and go to AfD. This article shouldn't have been speedy deleted at least for the fact that I removed the Speedy Deletion tags from it for the fact that it wasn't within the criteria of a speedy deletion. Previous deleter put the tags back on, issued me a warning (which he revoked since I was not the original author) and within about a minute, the article was deleted. The clear assertion of notability is the candidacy for an office in a major city. This meant that it was not worthy of a speedy delete. It was also edited by multiple editors and did not read spammy in the least. Clear misuse of Speedy Deletion process. Smashville 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment "Did not read spammy"? This is not encyclopedia language for a lede, this is an opening sentence for a candidate's bio in a campaign flyer: "an internationally-recognized Canadian lawyer who is frequently invited to speak, lecture and advise on competition, trade and investment law and policy around the world"! Them's peacock terms, they is! --Orange Mike 18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Them's footnoted and sourced words. Check out Footnote 1! --Canam1 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But does it meet the speedy deletion assertion of "Blatant Advertising"? Smashville 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Twenty-eight footnotes, an infobox template, a photo, details on early life, etc. The article may have needed a clean-up tag but this B article is far from G 11 spam. Trout wack for the speedy delete. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this was not blatant advertising. --W.marsh 22:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I tend to believe that major party nominees to a national legislature meet inclusion guidelines, but even if they don't automatically, they still deserve an AfD. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn not "blatant advertising" at all. Melsaran (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn based on past precedent, I suspect this article will be deleted in an AFD but it deserves an AFD full hearing and should not have been speedy deleted under any circumstances whatsoever. - Jord 21:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I imagine it'll get deleted at AfD but needs to go through that process first. Pursey Talk | Contribs 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD view - far too many peacock terms for comfort but not a G11 and the speedy procedure should only be used in clear cases. Bridgeplayer 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Today at work I was somewhat surprised to get a call from Mark Warner, who was very friendly, but also quite upset that his article was deleted from Wikipedia. I'd never met him, and am certainly not a supporter of his party, but he contacted me because of my status as a prominent Wikipedian. Looking over the case, I think the page should restored. There is a standing policy not to delete pages on Canadian politicians, rather if they cannot justify an independent page they should be redirected to a summary page, such as Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. - SimonP 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article, but not that article. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've written a non-promotional article based on several sources. Reginald Perrin 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thereby preempted this entire debate. Thank you! Somebody please close this out - this is now moot. -- Y not? 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pleasant Ridge Chili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page has since been made a redirect. This article had six references when it was deleted, many of which were full articles in major newspapers (see the vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasant Ridge Chili). I believe that the decision to delete was made based on a lack of FAME or IMPORTANCE, not lack of notability. According to Wikipedia:Notability, the article met all criteria. I did not pull the references out of imaginary newspapers. They were not ads or promotions, and the Cincinnati Enquirer, CityBeat and CiN Weekly have no affiliation or personal interest in the promotion of the restaurant. I was disappointed by this this deletion, given that it seems the administrator disregarded notability guidelines and accepted votes on imaginary criteria for deletion; ie. awards, local third party publishers, et cetera. I am also initiating this because the vote was extremely close. Being someone who does not believe everything on earth deserves an article, I do believe that when an article sites multiple reliable sources, that should be accepted; not ignored and deleted based on false notions of what notability is. The administrator who closed the discussion, incidentally, appears to not even have read the article in question. They keep mentioning 1 local award. That was a point made in the discussion. If one read the article, they would see two awards are mentioned. Also, most of the critique the administrator offered was about the points made about keeping the article, not the article. Mind meal 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per nom. Generally if an article doesn't violate a policy, it is kept. Article does meet WP:N to the letter, as Mind meal shows. It's certainly possible to delete an article on non-policy grounds, as is common for very short articles that can be merged, but (per long-standing precedent) that requires a consensus. A !vote of 5-5 doesn't indicate consensus. — xDanielx T/C 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by AFD closer -
  1. WP:N is carefully worded - that a subject is "presumed" to be notable if the stated conditions are met. Not "always is", but "is presumed to be". There will be cases where even if the basic criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" is received, some subjects are still not notable. Pleasant Ridge Chilli has received significant coverage (articles directly addressing it) in reliable sources (that allow verification), which are broadly independent of the subject. But the sources ("where to eat") have an interest in the mention and promotion of local restaurants generally, and will have promoted many this way. For example, many many local restaurants in a town can (and often do) have photocopies of media reviews of themselves available; WP:N does not seem to expect that all local restaurants that have been reviewed in local media thereby become notable. A "where to eat" section is fairly much obligated to review local restaurants; being mentioned by several over a period of many years is not evidence that the place is actually notable, so much as evidence that local reviewers cover and review most local restaurants over time. When examined, most of the reliable sources cited are not in fact evidence that Pleasant Ridge Chilli is notable.
  2. The only source that has some significance otherwise was a local media award decided upon such a narrow sub-sub-categorization (restaurants -> chili -> non-chain) that according to one AFD contributor, the choice was so narrow (1 restaurant) as to make the award almost meaningless. No other contributor disputed the statement.
  3. The AFD views break down as follows:
    • Delete due to only local coverage (3: TerriersFan, Corpx, Gavin Collins)
    • Delete based on lack of award notability (2: DGG, Gamaliel)
    • Speedy delete due to narrowness of award criteria negating significance of award (1: Gilliam)
    • Weak keep based on award, lack of wider coverage noted (1: Dhartung)
    • Keep due to winning of award and significant mention in local newspapers (2: Mindmeal, Youngamerican)
    • Keep based on meeting letter of WP:N (2: Craw-daddy, and I think Bearian)
FT2 (Talk | email) 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only comment I would suggest that FT2 propose a change to the language of Wikipedia:Notability concerning local media coverage of a business. I find no such wording about local reliable sources being somehow unacceptable. Maybe they could write an essay on this? So long as an article is well sourced, I fail to see this dire need to then delete it. In my opinion, when six reliable sources are offered, I see nothing but WP:POINT at play. I expect that much from non-administrators. But administrators, I previously believed, were to uphold policy and guidelines; not essays or personal opinions not founded in policy or guidelines. These weren't blog entries, advertisements, or anything even close. Additionally, in a city that is known for its chili, winning two local awards is not even close to minor. It is the equivelent of a New Orleans jazz musician being recognized by the city they hail from and perform in, for carrying on a locally significant tradition. If other restaurants can meet the notability guidelines set forward by the Wikipedia community, btw, then I'm all for their inclusion. That is what this place thrives on, both unique and mainstream content that has solid sourcing. Also, per the comments above on the sourced contents, I don't believe FT2 actually looked at or even read the sources mentioned. Again, there were two awards included in the article. Not one. Perhaps start an essay on local awards, also, and offer your views up for consideration? But continiously trying to make a point, when shown clearly how such views are not based in policy or guidelines, should be outright embarassing. I don't care if you disagree with standing policy or guidelines, or if you vocalize those disagreements. I do care when administrators ignore policy and guideline, however, in favor of their own opinion. It seems that many voters honed in on the award part, and ignored the references. FT2: "A "where to eat" section is fairly much obligated to review local restaurants." Couldn't you say the same about any newspaper section? The sports section will cover sports. The politics section will cover politics. So of course a dining section, which was not all that was offered by way of sourcing mind you, will focus on restaurants. FT2: "being mentioned by several over a period of many years is not evidence that the place is actually notable..." Actually, yes it is; provided they are independant and not advertisements or unreliable. (Mind meal 11:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah... the problem is I part agree, but (see AFD) I'm also bearing in mind WP:NOT, which requires balancing "There are reliable sources" with "the same reliable sources are fairly indiscriminate in this arena". That's the balance in this type of article subject - most restaurants get their 15 minutes of fame. Most can quote newspaper coverage. Most "eat out" reviews are on the whole favorable. Is Wikipedia therefore intended by the community to include indiscriminately all named restaurants, shops, stores, bars, that have ever had newspaper reviews? In any town, most established places of that kind have multiple newspaper coverage -- because newspapers with "eating out" or "where to shop" sections are obligated to cover places and do so fairly liberally over time. WP:N states there should be a presumption of notability. But WP:NOT requires that the line in each case is drawn to avoid indiscriminate listing or indiscriminate directories. The two both apply, and knowledge that newspaper mentions in this area are probably pretty indiscriminate over time suggests that reliance on newspaper mentions alone would breach WP:NOT. The main criterion in WP:N is deliberately labelled a presumption. In cases like this one, I think that's critical. WP:N specifically says that RS mentions create a "presumption" of notability. That's critical wording. WP:NOT is policy; whereas WP:N is a guideline. The wording and intent of the former carries weight when assessing the "presumption" of the latter, if they overlap. I would agree it's a borderline case, but ..... I think the intent and spirit of policy is clear -- Wikipedia is not intended to be indiscriminate. If the reliable sources are of a kind likely to be indiscriminate, then a "presumption" that reliable source mentions denote notability will not be sufficient to avoid indiscriminate listing. And the views to keep were not well supported at AFD either (6-5 in favor of deletion, and note it wasn't entirely marginal: one of the keeps was only "weak" whereas one of the deletes was strong/speedy; all 'deletes' cited insufficient notability as the concern). FT2 (Talk | email) 12:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Okay, maybe not my last These people were focusing on the merit of the award, not the article; those early delete votes, mind you, were inserted when the article had but two references and one award mentioned. As for not being an indiscriminate collection of information, that isn't enough. WP:NOT is very specific about what IS an indiscriminate collection of information and, outside of using the words "indiscriminite collection of information", you did not provide those purported "breaches". I don't know what your beef is with the article, but again: IT MEETS THE NOTABILITY GUIDELINE. I'm not going to continue critiquing your agruments line by line like this, as I believe the situation becomes clear without doing so. All one has to do is read the article and read the references. So what if Bob's Burger Shack would be included on Wikipedia? Let them have their article then, so long as they can establish notability. The doomsday scenario of floods of restaurants coming to create an article is simply ignorning the obvious: If they can establish notability, where is the violation? I still think you believe notability indicates some sort of importance. The best you can come up with from WP:N is the word presumption! The word presumption has several meanings, and I do not believe in this case it means assume. according to Princeton [2], there are at least four meanings; the second being: "an inference of the truth of a fact from other facts proved or admitted or judicially noticed". Given the straightforward criteria set forth by the guideline regarding the establishment of notability, what other conclusion does one make but in favor of that second definition? What is there to assume, once notability has been established? Seriously. The burden of proof is over then, and they are presumed to be notable at that point; having weighed the facts presented. (Mind meal 13:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overturn - WikiLawyering the WP:N guideline is not a basis to delete an article. Consensus agreed that the topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the closer confirms this. Who are we to put our personal, subjective opinions about the importance of a topic above those of reliable sources? That is the wrong path to head down and, fortunately, Wikipedia has yet to head down that path. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Jreferee. --W.marsh 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - JReferee, we haven't worked much together but for future, I wouldn't have made a borderline close lightly. Once review was requested, the AFD close, and the DRV and my comments above, were both run past two experienced admins in their entirety, for their 2nd opinions. (Actually 3 but the 3rd was busy and unable.) They were specifically asked the same thing independently: 1/ private review/"sanity check", and 2/ explicitly not to add their comments at this DRV (since the aim was personal double check, not non-neutral "response stacking"). They were asked simply and neutrally to check the pages and comment, for my own double check, as part of my own responsibility to the community. Both concurred and both then stated that it was an appropriate and justifiable closure decision in their view.
That check was for my own purposes, and requested in private. If asked I would be prepared to name the two admins concerned, and trust they will be willing to verify for your reassurance: 1/ that the opinion of each was independently and privately asked, 2/ each of them independently and without knowing of the other request, and with no information or statement beyond that in the AFD and DRV pages, replied they concurred with (or endorsed) the close and the further explanation, and 3/ that they were up-front explicitly requested by myself not to add their endorsing view to the DRV in order not to breach neutrality of the review. Had they not concurred, I would have stated myself that the matter was more borderline than I had thought. That is neutrality and careful closure. It's light-years from an unchecked assumption of 'lawyering. It's what one should assume all careful admins will do (or have done if necessary) on a tough closure. Unchecked assumption otherwise is not the best way to go. Hopefully we can put that worry aside now and look at the issue that counts -- how WP:NOT (policy) and WP:N (guideline and presumption) interact in a case like this, and when in addition the views of AFD contributors are as well tilted towards "delete for lack of notability". FT2 (Talk | email) 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closed correctly--the arguements fr keep were the mention by local papers, but the were trivial--The so-called best of the city award was just the placement on a list, and another was best chili restaurant-non-chain, (in the city) as compared to best chili restaurant -chain (in the city)., If awards are subdivided enough, everyone will get one--and local newspapers do it for exactly that reason. The closer properly removed the ILIKEITs. DGG (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full page articles are now considered trivial. I thought trivial was a passing mention, like "Pleasant Ridge Chili donated food to the shelter." In other words, brief mentions of them in reference to something unrelated. Full-page articles? That's trivial? Wow, I guess most articles on here should be deleted then, if all they have for references are full pages devoted to them in newspapers.(Mind meal 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Endorse excellent close and per DGG, it never had the sources that indicate notabilty outside the Cincinnatti area, to meet WP:N, an article needs to have sources indicating notabilty outside the local area, not have reliable sources period. The sources were articles like the best local chili joint, that isn't a useful source. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 00:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, sourcing need not only be present, it need be substantial. Blurbs in local papers and local awards are not substantial sources. Between the various papers here in Denver, I would venture a guess that over 100 "best of something or another" awards are given out to restaurants every year, and that guess is low if anything, and I'd very much rather see 99% of them stay redlinks, because there's just not enough source material aside from "Some critic really liked their food." Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurbs? Three of them were full page articles.(Mind meal 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Endorse logic behind the closure, if not the deletion itself. I was in the keep camp on this AfD and I do feel that the restaurant is notable enough to have an article. After extensive research of online material, however, I do not feel that there is enough sourcing of data on the 'net to illustrate that the joint does indeed merit inclusion in Wikipedia. That being said, I am wholly open to an article being created at a future date that shows that the new article meets the concerns of the original nominator and the closing admin. I would reccomend that Mind meal work on such an article in his or her sandbox and I can provide them with access to deleted material as needed. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion each home town winner of a multiple layered best of is not notable - in most small towns the newspapers have no end of yearly "best" restaurants, car dealers, real estate agents, grocery stores, dog walkers, babysitters, etc. WP would be turned into the better business bureau or the yellow pages. If notability is a threshhold requirement, then this has got to go. Closer got it right, again those citing the vote result don't understand the process; it's not a vote. WP:N applies regardless of the "vote", if you don't like that and want to change this process to a democracy, that's a whole 'nother discussion. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in other words, when each of these "home town" businesses are able to establish notability per WP:N, we are to disregard the newspapers and say we know better than they that a place is worthy of note? Interesting, I must have missed that in our policies and guidelines. (Mind meal 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You did. It's the spirit and intent of WP:NOT, which is policy to WP:N's guideline. If the reliable source is indiscriminate, then using only the existence of reliable sources (and nothing more) to decide what content should have an article will breach WP:NOT. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - when I saw the closure my initial reaction was "Wow! That's a brave closure!". That is still my reaction; it would have been so easy to have closed as 'no consensus' and moved on. However, for the reasons clearly enunciated by the closing admin, this was the correct decision. TerriersFan 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing argument was drenched in bias toward small business and local press on a subject matter, regardless of whether that press was reliable or substantial. The way I read our notability guidelines makes it pretty clear to me that proper sourcing is what establishes notability. Not awards, but whether reliable sources found a subject worthy of note. So how is this talk of awards and local press relevant to WP:N? The short answer is that it isn't relevant. Not even close. I see a lot of references to guidelines on here, but very little adherence to what they say. (Mind meal 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • It doesn't just require sourcing. It requires substantial, non-trivial sourcing, and local-paper blurbs that hundreds of restaurants get every year aren't substantial and are trivial. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that includes an indiscriminate collection of everything ever mentioned in a local paper. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "drenched in policy" is more to the point. It's now clear that others view the reasoning and policy based concerns similarly enough that it is not one (or two) people's bias. Let me try once more to explain:
There are many entities which have verifiable mention in independent reliable sources. The phone number for a plumber is one, the list of funerals another, and so on. But these are not listed in Wikipedia. The sole and only reason they are not listed is that WP:NOT sets a limit on what may be included, which says that even if there is "proper sourcing" (your term), then a wide range of matters are still not to have articles. It provides many rules to use to decide such cases, several of which sum up as "article selection is expected to not be indiscriminate". The logical conclusion is that if the actual reliable sources themselves are likely to be (or felt to be) indiscriminate (by the community), then WP:NOT imposes a higher standard, overriding with respect the "presumption" of the guideline WP:N that reliable sourcing is enough. Many things that have "proper sourcing" in newspapers don't get articles. They are verifiable, and mentioned in multiple reliable sources independent of the entity. But they fail WP:NOT's requirement-- from which you can see that 1/ WP:N is not the final arbiter of suitability, 2/ nor is "proper sourcing". Above those is the filter of WP:NOT, and beyond all these, there is a spirit and intent, a sense of appropriateness for Wikipedia, which really is the final arbiter, and that is judged by the community, and in line with communally agreed policy. So there are two issues that undermine the view that "proper sourcing" is all that matters:
  1. Whether it is the actual decisions and criteria of the community which one examines, or the relative standing of policies and guidelines, all these tests show the same result: WP:NOT (as policy) comes into play if the reliable sources themselves are (or are deemed by the community to be) indiscriminate; "proper sourcing" is insufficient to determine notability if the reliable sources are (or seem to be) indiscriminate. We see this in their wording, in their relative standing, in the use of the word "presumption", and in the specific examples from WP:NOT where lack of discrimination is pretty much the deciding factor over reliable mentions.
  2. The community's view in this specific case, also seems to be that the "keep" view was not well supported. There were 6-5 views for deletion, but of these, one "keep" was weak (author later decided to endorse the logic at DRV), and one "delete" was strong/speedy. All delete views cited notability as the problem despite RS existing. So clearly there is a fairly strong communal view in practice as well, that mere RS existance does not always equate to notability.
FT2 (Talk | email) 10:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm puzzled by the constant mention of WP:NOT that FT2 and others are mentioning, specifically the section titled "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". There are six qualifiers for what constitute indiscriminate collection of information. FT2 has failed to cite the violation; they have merely cited a subheading that has specific examples of what is considered "indiscriminate". It is so lazy to say that some policy states an article cannot exist, without addressing which part of the policy it does actually violate. The further we delve into this, it seems the more we see certain administrators are ignorant of policy and guidelines. In fact, the entire policy of WP:NOT has specific examples that have consensus; those in favor of deletion fail to mention which one backs up their argument. I'll say it again: outright bias toward small business. There is no other way to view this. (Mind meal 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Explain this bit again, several times on..... Policy isn't actually the ultimate arbiter on Wikipedia, though it's very close and usually takes that role. (So for example, policy documents what people think, and it gets edited to match that view if not a good reflection of unwritten communal consensus and practice.) The ultimate arbiter is the community, which clearly has the intended view in writing WP:NOT and other pages, that in general, articles should not be allowed to become too indiscriminate. A logical result of this is, that reliable sources that are fairly indiscriminate may well not actually meet the community's intent and opinion of verifying that the subject merits independent coverage in Wikipedia, since the subjects of their articles may in fact be covered without discrimination. WP:NOT is the policy that expresses this clearest; there are many valid reasons for removal that are capable of overriding WP:N, that deem a topic with multiple independent reliable sources to actually be unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. This in itself shows that WP:N is able to be overridden by other policy based concerns. You sometimes have to look behind policy to find the relevant intent of the community consensus that created it, a bit, too... its not like law where the written word overrides the purpose of its creators. Policy seeks to capture this communal view more than once:
  1. "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article" (WP:NOT#NEWS)
  2. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." (WP:BLP, similar statement in the context of biographies)
The idea's the same -- "proper sourcing" (as you describe it and seek to employ it) is not in fact what the community has set as the ultimate arbiter of an article being suitable for mainspace. I hope this clarifies it somewhat, but I have explained this several times, as well as in the AFD close, and at length already. There's a limit to what can be explained this way. You may have to look to other endorsers and their reasoning, to explain it better. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I think Seraphimblade hits this one on the head - there is an important and oft overlooked need for substantive and non-trivial sourcing, not just "any old sourcing". Winning a small time local award does not automatically confer notability. The closer did a good job. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, two awards. If awards must be inappropriately used as a gauge establishing notability, it is two awards. For the upteenth time. I keep hearing people mention the sources are trivial. What, for instance, was trivial about just this one article on the parlor? If we cannot come to an agreement, someone please provide me with the article so that i can tranfer it to Cincinnati chili, and do so for all of our chili parlors; as finding good, reliable sources is not difficult. Or, would this, too, be objectionable? You play by the book, but the book gets you nowhere when bias is what decides things. (Mind meal 19:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
One last time... Give or take a bit of detail, this is roughly how it works: Every day, week or whatever, cinweekly's editor says "We have to review a local place for people to eat". He (or she) calls a staffer and says "Find me somewhere to review, either new or not reviewed for a year or so". The staffer finds a place to review, and goes and eats there. This happens many times a year, over many years. One of those times he visits Jims Fish Bar, another he visits Pleasant Chili Ridge. In each case he writes a column on it for the eatery section, and retires to bed with the sense of a good days work done. Now... where in this, is any sense that Pleasant Ridge is actually discriminated from other places, or notability assured? There isn't. And that's the problem. Usually in the newspapers, if something gets significant mention in multiple sources, it's probably because there is something discriminative going on. So its likely to be evidence that it has some kind of notability. The same is not true of an eatery review of Pleasant Chili Ridge like this one. So it doesn't have that element of evidentiary value. That's a problem, since the clear intent of the community in its designing of policies and practices is clearly that Wikipedia does not do indiscriminate coverage, and that article criteria do not just mean ""proper sourcing", or "covered by sources". This is a view with an extremely high degree of "buy-in", to the extent that 2 policies specifically confirm that even if a subject has newspaper mentions, it might still not be notable. (Cited above already, please re-read.)
This is a basic part of understanding Wikipedia and policy calls, especially at AFD, and you've had it explained several times, seen several people endorse it now, and it may not be the intention, but what I get from your comment still includes bad faith antagonism ("drenched in bias", "outright bias", "bias is what decides things"), and something a bit ambiguous if you do not gain agreement ( If we cannot come to an agreement, someone please provide me with the article so that I can transfer it ... and do so for all of our chili parlors). I've tried to explain this - mostly in response to your repeated requests for explanation - six times myself in this DRV alone (this is the seventh), plus also you've seen comments by others, plus also the actual close itself. Apologies, but I may have to defer to others to explain, if that's going to be an ongoing problem. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Esperantists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This discussion was held over a major U.S. holiday weekend, and many of those most interested never knew it was happening until the category started being purged. Orange Mike 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse self (see below). The discussion started last Tuesday, August 28th Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_28#Category:Esperantists. It was open for seven days, two more days than called for. --Kbdank71 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right about the timing, but how did you find a delete consensus in that discussion? GRBerry 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I didn't count votes. As noted in Esperantist, an Esperantist is one who either speaks Esperanto or someone who doesn't speak it but supports it. This was mirrored by virtually all of the keeps. The nomination itself described how this is overcategorization, and as I pointed out in the closing, a list of speakers/advocates already exists. --Kbdank71 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with a list is that it only clues in the cognoscenti. Nothing about the existence of that list tells people interested in Irish history that the Irish rebel James Connolly was an Esperantist, in the way that him being in the category does. One of the utilities of a category is to make connections that aren't evident prima facie. The category was not that large, didn't clutter up articles the way "Category:Everybody who ever lived in California" would; I just don't find the nominator's arguments convincing. --Orange Mike 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those arguments could also be said about the category. If you search for Esperantist, what would come up first, the article or the category? And if you are looking at the article for James Connolly, a link to Esperanto is in the first paragraph. The link to the category was at the bottom of the page. And the list has an advantage of explaining what an Esperantist is, whereas the category did not (rather, it just pointed to Esperantist, which contains the list). --Kbdank71 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This needs to be undeleted. We have categories for other cultural and ideological gorups.--Sonjaaa 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm not sure about whether the holiday should have any bearing, but there was no consensus to delete. What you have said when deleting strikes me as more apropriate as a reasoned opinion, which you were entitled to expressing during the seven days the article was up. Consensus to me seems to be that Esperanto is a unique case and the category does not represent overcategorisation, although most similar categories would. Also, there is a guidline somewhere that points out that lists and categories do not fulfil the same purpose. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin: Please see the nominator's contribs in regards to WP:CANVASS. --Kbdank71 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, however, bear in mind that WP:CANVASS#Friendly_notices points out that "notifying all editors who particpated in a preceding discussion of the article or project, as long as it goes out to all editors" is acceptable. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duly noted. Also noted is that none of the people who wanted to delete were notified. --Kbdank71 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah. That changes matters somewhat. I shall see to it that they now are, though, to ensure that whatever is decided here is acceptable and valid. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for correcting my mistake, Red. --Orange Mike 21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What in the world were you thinking for deleting that Category? The vote was overwhelmingly "Keep" or "change name". Why have a vote at all if an admin with an agenda wants to ignore the vote and delete anyway? (Since you weren't counting, I did. We had 2 Delete votes if you count the nominator himself, 1 "Delete or change name" vote, and 10 "Keep" votes.) This is a terrible, terrible decision. -- Yekrats 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can show me where it states that consensus is based upon vote counting, I'll reverse my decision right now. --Kbdank71 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not based on vote counts, it's based on consensus. The consensus was KEEP THE CATEGORY. I still have yet to see any justification of why it was deleted IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONSENSUS. -- Yekrats 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies, then. I just assumed when you arrived and said I made a terrible decision right after you counted votes, I naturally assumed you were, well, counting votes. --Kbdank71 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apology accepted. You're still avoiding the question: Why was consensus was ignored in this case? -- Yekrats 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Personally I voted in the original discussion with absolutely no axe to grind - no knowledge of Esperanto, no acquiantance with anyone who speaks Esperanto. I simply regarded - and regard - the cateogry as enriching the sum of knowledge. I absolutely do not understand how anyone could have taken a discussion where only two people voted to delete as a majority for deletion. I have never seen such a poorly conducted process, anywhere, anytime. There is no point in having any due process if it is to be disregarded in that way. AllyD 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review WP:CON. Provided you do your homework right, at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own! Consensus is not determined by vote counting. --Kbdank71 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Such as "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision"'. I commend that process to you. AllyD —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllyD (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as nominator. The category was nominated well before the holiday weekend so that should have no bearing on this discussion. Closing admin correctly discounted the various "it's useful" sorts of opinions and determined that the remainder of the keep opinions did not overcome the OC concerns raised in the nomination. Otto4711 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Wow, it still stuns me that this has gone this far! -- Yekrats 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason why, or should I just assume you're sticking to your "you ignored the vote count" above? --Kbdank71 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike that, I hadn't seen your explanation above how consensus isn't based on vote counts, it's based on consensus. --Kbdank71 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it was based on consensus, then why was the category deleted? -- Yekrats 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please see WP:CON. Consensus doesn't mean majority wins. That's the same as vote counting, and that's not how consensus works. --Kbdank71 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you have an extremely warped view of what "consensus" means. So, you mean to say, one nomination and one admin agreeing with him are enough to get any article deleted despite everyone else being against it? That doesn't sound like any definition of consensus that I know of. -- Yekrats 10:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It's one thing to say "consensus doesn't mean majority wins". But when there was only one delete argument made and it was "per nom" and the nom's argument was "seems arbitrary", then consensus very clearly has not been reached. Smashville 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second you say "But when there was only one delete argument", you are vote counting. WP:CON states at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own! So yes, one person's opinion can be the deciding factor. --Kbdank71 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - You are, of course, correct (as you are in citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). I do urge all involved to consider, however, the exceptional circumstances we are dealing with here, due to the unique place of Esperanto as a movement which transcends ethnic and ideological boundaries, and appears in the most surprising of places among disparate people. I really don't think Otto's argument of overcategorization overcomes the balance of the situation to lead to a conclusion for deleting the category, rather than rewriting the cat description (or, if need be, renaming it). I hope everyone involved on both sides will have had a chance to kick in before this vote closes; I apologize for my canvassing move, and can only plead panic, since this deletion came as a complete shock to me. (Esperantists come to expect persecution; read La Danĝera Lingvo to learn why.) --Orange Mike 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Exactly. Esperanto is more than a language. It is a culture which is not represented by any country or nation. --Yekrats 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear god, deleting a category on Wikipedia is not persecution. It is not in any way comparable to persecution. Otto4711 03:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said anything about persecution??!! I just said that Esperanto is a culture, which is a fact. Don't put words into my mouth. -- Yekrats 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, Orange Mike said something about persecution and you agreed with him. Otto4711 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not, I hope, imply that it was a valid concern, nor was I accusing Otto or anybody else of actual persecution. The remark was in the context of a momentary panicky reaction and meant to imply that I might have overreacted for historical but not valid reasons. --Orange Mike 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Consensus was not as stated in the close. Also, it is error to say that Wikipedia:Overcategorization applies to categorize people by the language they speak. The delete reasoning avoided arguing that Esperantists was not a defining characteristics because Esperantists is a defining characteristics. It is error to equate holding an opinion and being an activist, when Overcategorization Opinion specifically allows for activist being a defining characteristics and identifies Category:Activists as a category for such characteristic. The delete reasonings were weak and not supported by Wikipedia:Categorization. It seems that the keep reasoning was ignored to reach a desired outcome. Trout wack for the close. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. Th quote given above fro WP:CONSENSUS is , in full "Provided you do your homework right, at times your opinion alone will be enough to tip the scales, or even decide the issue all on its own!" --in a paragraph addressed to encouraging new users. the meaning is, that if you do find a good enough reason, it will convince the others. The very opposite of deciding on the basis of a single opinion, I'd say. DGG (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And clearly, none of the keepers found a good enough reason. The reasons offered for keeping ranged from "useful" to "valuable" to "good for listing Esperantists" (isn't listing people what lists are for?) to (paraphrased) "keep it but remove people who don't fit [whatever criterion the keeper happened to mention]." Even amongst the keepers in the course of the nomination there was disagreement about who should or shouldn't be in the category or what the category should or shouldn't be for. If the people advocating for the category can't agree amongst themselves what the category is supposed to be, that's about as clear an indication that the category has no clear inclusion criterion as there is. Otto4711 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an argument for a tighter definition of the category, not for its deletion. --Orange Mike 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion this category was an ill-conceived one from the get-go: are Esperantists those who espouse or support Esperanto, or those who merely speak/read/write it? The entries were a smattering of both. If the category were limited to the former, it would be OCAT by opinion - can we now expect a Category:Anti-Esperantist for those who disagree with or have reservations about Esperanto? If the category were limited to the latter, it would be a mess because it would open up a myriad of categories for every conceivable language (Category:Spanish language speakers, Category:Cherokee language speakers and 6000 or so others) and how well must someone be able to speak/read/write it to be classified and what RS'es will tell us that the person is so able? What's worse is the conflation of the two into a single category that ends up saying nothing about whose there except tagging them with a label. The closing admin did well to allow policy to trump vote counting and close as s/he did. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Esperanto is more than just a language; it is a hobby (which we have several categories for) and has it's own culture (which we also have several categories for). -- Yekrats 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, people are not categorized by their hobbies. A number of hobbyist categories have been deleted and a number of categories have been renamed specifically to restrict them from housing hobbyists. Regardless, the existence of any other category does not serve as justification for this category. The point still remains that there is no clear inclusion criterion for this category. Not even the proponents are offering a clear inclusion criterion. Nothing that's been said either in the CFD or in this DRV overcomes that objection. Otto4711 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the way that no-one even tries to discuss an inclusion guidline, but instead decides to delete the category. I for one suggested that at the deletion discusion. It's a policy for AfD - "this article is low-quality is no reason to delete" (I don't know the exact quote, but it's basically that). The saem should aply for CfD. Try and fix it first. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, if you "fix" it to either one of the meanings - it is not keepable. Now we have "hobby" as a third possibility but as Otto explains that's not a proper basis on which to categorize people. Carlossuarez46 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the majority of the subcats for that category (Sportspeople, Ancient Roman sportsmen, Sports announcers, Auto racing people, Bullfighters, Coaches, Collectors, Sports commentators, Cricket people, Sports executives and administrators, Exercise instructors, Football (soccer) chairmen and investors, Golf administrators, Horse trainers, Sports occupations, Philatelists, Pranksters, Amateur radio people, Rugby union people, Sports journalists, Sports spectators, Streakers, Sportswriters) are for professions and not hobbies. The existence of the category in no way contradicts the general principle that in general we don't categorize people by hobbies. Otto4711 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and needless to say Otto has now put that one up for deletion. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_5#Category:People_associated_with_sports_and_hobbies. Johnbod 19:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but in the case of this category, it is part of a large association of other categories, all subcategories of Category:Esperanto. Picking out just one category from that lot, Category:Esperantists fails to recognise its role in a wider category structure. Picking at a category structure category-by-category is a piecemeal approach and leaves the category structure full of holes, like Swiss cheese. Much better to step back, take a look at the whole structure of Category:Esperanto, and devise an overall strategy/nomination for the categories you disagree with. So, can you explain why this category is any better or worse than the other categories in Category:Esperanto? Carcharoth 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, Otto, you ignore the fact that Esperanto is a culture. That's what sets it apart from the others. I could cite examples if you wish. -- Yekrats 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I actually just started a deletion review of my own until somebody pointed out that there already was one here at the bottom of the page. Here is what I wrote:
I noticed the nomination for deletion for this category a few days ago, noted the strong opposition to its deletion and assumed that it would remain as a result, but it turns out that it's been deleted. Now pages like Don Harlow are classified as "writer stubs" and "linguist stubs" which gives no idea as to the subject of the page. It seems like a no-brainer to me that there should be a category for Esperantists, since without this category we now have a lot of pages on people who have made their name through Esperanto but are now classified according to vague categories that have nothing to do with the reason why they're on Wikipedia in the first place. Mithridates 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No idea? Did you miss the first sentence of the article? Donald Harlow is an active Esperantist... If people have no idea as to the subject of the page, then they aren't paying attention, and one category at the very bottom of the article isn't going to help them one bit. --Kbdank71 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about categories as a whole, not the content of a page. Right now there's nothing to link Don Harlow together with other prominent Esperantists, category-wise. Mithridates 00:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your argument, Kbdank71, we could delete just about everything in the category namespace. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than Esperantist, which again, is right up there at the beginning of the article, no, I guess not. Good thing that there is already a way to link Don Harlow with other Esperantists. --Kbdank71 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay once more, you're talking about article content, not categories. Article content doesn't arrange pages as categories do. By the way, regarding someone else's point above about a potential anti-Esperantist category: yes, that would be possible in theory if there happened to be a person that has become well-known simply through being against Esperanto. As of yet that hasn't happened, but it would be possible. In the same manner, there are many people that, were their status as an Esperantist were to be taken out of the picture, would have no place on Wikipedia. That's the reason for the category. It's also the reason why Esperantist doesn't need to be added to everybody who speaks Esperanto if the reason why they're on Wikipedia is not because of the language. That's a judgment call about the person him/herself though, not the category. Mithridates 04:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn. Whether an article of this type constitutes WP:OCAT is strictly a subjective judgment call, as are questions of vague criteria. This category is completely orthodox, supported by precedent and involves no policy violation that could possibly be considered decisive. A 9-2 !vote in favor of keeping a category with no policy violation should be a clear indicator of consensus. — xDanielx T/C 06:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, because the rationale to undelete is frankly rather silly. We cannot and do not suspend Wikipedia process pages because there happens to be a holiday in some part of the world. We don't even increase AFD times for Christmas, for crying out loud. >Radiant< 07:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er...what's that about holidays and Esperantists? Are you sure you're in the right place? Mithridates 10:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The undelete rationale is that the deletion took place over a holiday weekend, implying that this would somehow be out of process. I find that rationale rather silly. >Radiant< 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there it is. Mithridates 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the sentiments that a category based on opinion or language spoken would be a case of overcategorisation. I voted to keep the category because I believed it to be based on significant and defining involvement in the cause of propagating Esperanto rather than those "attributes". Regarding this review, I don't feel comfortable favouring an overturning, as while an outcome so widely opposed by commenting editors may [superficially?] appear to controvert consensus, it is precisely for such situations that administrators' judgement is meant to be tapped. TewfikTalk 08:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The folks that support this deletion keep saying that Kbdank71 and Otto followed the guidelines of consensus, when really, no such thing was ever done. Consensus would mean that one of the people against the category Esperantists would have made some sort of complaint on the talk page of the category before submitting the deletion request. He should have "[thought] of a reasonable to change to incorporate [his] ideas with [ours]." According to consensus, changes should have been made incrementally so that most parties are happy with the change. Clearly there are people that think we should have some kind of category for members of the Esperanto subculture. Clearly there are people that says it should have been better defined. I don't understand why you guys want this to be an all or nuthin' thing. -- Yekrats 13:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (continued) Furthermore, I think the deleting admin should brush up on his Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which clearly states that a rough consensus should be followed, ie. the DOMINANT VIEW of the group. It also mentions strength of argument, but really only in relation to violation of policy, such as counteracting sockpuppets, copyright bugaboos, and that sort of thing. Otto complained that the definition of Esperantists was too loose. Had he mentioned that on ANY relevant talk page, I would have agreed with him and cleaned it up. I have since cleaned it up, to make it much tighter, thus eliminating that concern. The Deletion guide clearly gives an example of someone requesting deletion for a certain reason (missing reference), that problem being fixed (references added), which invalidates the deletion request. By the book, this is EXACTLY what I have done! Otto complained; I fixed. Consensus is trying to find a middle ground where the majority ("dominant view") is happy. Consensus is not "I'm the admin, and it's my way or the highway." -- Yekrats 13:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what the guidelines say, do you? Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Nowhere are the words "dominant view". You still seem to think that consensus is vote counting, based not only by your comments here and on my talk page, but here as well. And, you might want to brush up on WP:V. Since you changed Esperantist to according to the Declaration of Boulogne, a document forged at the first World Congress of Esperanto, an Esperantist is someone who knows Esperanto and uses it for any purpose (of course, you neglected to include "with complete exactness", as it states in Declaration of Boulogne), an "Esperantist" must not only be fluent in Esperanto, but per WP:V, you need verification that they speak it fluently. Therefore, the list on Esperantist can be pared down considerably, as there is no verification on Fidel Castro, for example, that he speaks Esperanto at all. Or Edward VII of the United Kingdom either, and I'm sure if I continued to check, I could remove more than half the list. Shall I check the members of the category as well? Going back to consensus for a bit, how should I take User:IJzeren Jan's comment of "It should definitely nót include people who just happen to speak the language"? Since Esperantist claims now that the Esperantist must speak the language, does that comment add to your consensus? Or how about User:Alaudo's comment: the category is useful for compiling the list of eminent Esperanto-speakers. I am sure there is a plenty of those, who would like to have a look at such a list while reading the article about Esperanto or Esperantist. Did this user actually read Esperantist, or just slap an opinion at the CfD? Because I'm sure that someone reading Esperantist would need to be blind not to see the list of eminent Esperanto-speakers that is two inches below the definition. Those are two comments that I gave less weight to. I can come up with more if you'd like. Of course, that begs the question: Can I make a judgment call on any of the comments (like the deletion guidelines state I should do)? Or do they all count the same? Because that is nothing more than a vote count. And for the last time, consensus is not vote counting. --Kbdank71 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has anything to do with the existence of the category, however. In the same way, a disagreement over what a communist actually is shouldn't result in the category on communists being deleted. It's one of those categories where you can be sure 90% of the time that a person is an Esperantist / communist, but there's always a gray area with the rest. Some obvious Esperantists are those that wouldn't have a page on Wikipedia if it weren't for their work with Esperanto. There's no other category for these people that describes them as well. Take a look at William Auld for example - there are a number of categories on the page, but really the only reason he's on Wikipedia is because he was an Esperantist. The category Esperanto literature is also a bit vague - he produced Esperanto literature, yes, but that's not all there was to him. Karl Marx for example is under the category communists, not communist literature. Mithridates 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. Read it again, especially the quote from the deletion guidelines and the comments from the CfD, and the part about judgment calls. Most of it, actually. As for your comment about how some people wouldn't have articles on WP if not for their work with Esperanto, perhaps they shouldn't. An Esperantist, thanks to Yekrats, is someone who speaks Esperanto. If I created an article about myself simply because I spoke English, it would be deleted in seconds. Why are we treating Esperanto differently than any other language? --Kbdank71 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously because it's a language that was created for a political purpose and the term Esperantist in most cases implies not just a speaker of the language but a person that believes that Esperanto is the best solution the world has for linguistic communication. That's completely different from a person who just happened to grow up with a certain mother tongue. There would also be no problem with a category for people that were part of a movement to make English the universal second language. Also, the fact that somebody made a recent edit to the page doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. In case you've forgotten, this is Wikipedia and pages can be changed. Mithridates 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. An Esperantist, per Declaration of Boulogne, is someone who speaks it with exactness. You're right, the page has been changed, as has the definition. --Kbdank71 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the English translation of that document is a bit different from the original Esperanto. -isto in Esperanto doesn't equate with the -ist in English. It technically defines what an 'Esperantisto' is in Esperanto, not what an Esperantist is in English. Here's a long explanation of the difference between the two (written by Don Harlow):
Probably not a good idea to try to translate this meaning of the suffix -ist- into English, where it doesn't really fit. I usually try to say "Esperanto speakers" (a la Mike Farris). Problem is in keeping usages from crossing over.
Thinking over the question, I at first considered that the use of -ist- in the Esperanto word "esperantisto" was something of an idiomatic form, being specially defined as it was in 1905. But then I thought about the fact that Esperanto speakers regularly use -ist- to refer to a speaker of a given language -- as long as that language is a planned language. There's no hesitation about forms such as "volapukisto", "idisto", "interlinguaisto". On the other hand, nobody would think of using -ist- with an ethnic language; "anglisto" would be a translation of Otto Jeserpsen's profession (he was not so much a general linguist as an "Anglicist"), not a term used to refer to a speaker of English. This fits, incidentally, with the convention for naming languages
planned languages are assimilated (Volapuko, Ido - that one is easy!, Interlinguao, etc.) but ethnic languages keep their adjective form, as in "la angla [lingvo]". Mithridates 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Why are we treating Esperanto differently from any other language?" We are not. There seems to be an established categorizations for speakers of international auxiliary languages. Category:Speakers of international auxiliary languages Why? It's an oddity, a hobby, a subculture which identifies people. I didn't start these categories, but it seems like a much better identifying category than Category:Sports spectators! Yekrats 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Kbdank's earlier post of 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

      • 1. Conensus is not vote counting, but I can't see how you applied a rough consensus (as suggested in the guidelines). A rough consensus states that it will be "the dominant view of the working group". What was the dominant view of our group that voted? Was it even close? A rough consensus is eyeballing the vote, seeing that it overwhelmingly said "Keep", and saying. "Well, we should keep the category, I guess." Ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the voting group and then applying your own bias was wrong.
      • 2. The list in Esperantist is FLAWED and there are several names that should definitely should not be in there. Thanks for pointing that out. I will fix it and remove the non-Esperantists as soon as I can, or someone else can! Gee, ain't it nice to see how this works! Complaint about a page... fix! It's not like it's complicated. Please see this flowchart about how consensus changes over time. But let's be sure not confuse the article with the category. The category I maintained pretty well, wanting to make sure only those in the category deserved to be there.
      • 3. As the role of an admin, I DO INDEED think you have a little bit of wiggle room for a judgement call. Certainly if the balance of the consensus is close, or in cases of policy violation, certainly you should use that judgement. If you are going against the consensus using a "judgement call", then I think you are exhibiting bias. And I think your "all or nothing" solution to the problem without regards to any consideration of the overwhelming majority was unwise.
      • 4. What I think (and hope) should happen here is an unbiased admin will... see that while both sides had empassioned arguments, the rough consensus is about 2/3 in favor of reinstating the category (not counting; just eyeballing). I'm hoping he or she will reinstate the 84 names back into the category, so that category:Esperanto is not cluttered.
      • 5. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm coming down hard on you, Kbdank71. I don't mean anything personally towards you, but this is an issue that I am quite passionate about. This is a category that I've been nurturing for over a year, so I have a great emotional investment in it. Also, Esperantists get picked on for being weird. We struggle to make our movement more mainstream, and I see this as a setback. It is probably difficult for you to understand a culture which you are not a part of, and know little about. Yet, it really exists. Furthermore, I am an admin on the Esperanto Wikipedia, and I know it is a difficult line to walk to be "fair". So, what I'm trying to say here, I am trying to understand where you are coming from, but I think this event is deletionism of a worthy category which should have been improved, not deleted. So, I think this shows a bias on your part, probably because you are an outsider to Esperanto culture, and think that Esperanto is just some made-up language. -- Yekrats 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ditto. Although I have no conflict of interest here. Before I closed the discussion the other day, I had no idea what Esperanto even was. I'm not biased towards or against it. I really don't even care about it one way or the other. I read the discussion and closed it based upon strength of arguments, the same way I do all of them. It's nothing personal. --Kbdank71 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at CfD. Yekrats has been doing a lot of work to clean up Esperantist, and while I'm on the fence now as to whether or not WP needs such a category, I'd have to say that the situation has changed sufficiently to warrant giving it another whack. If relisted, I'll stay out of the discussion and closing. --Kbdank71 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relist at CfD - As Kdbank says, this much longer discussion, and changes to the relevant article, have produced a new situation. Apart from the changed view of the closer himself, just above, I note especially the "discovery" of Category:Speakers of international auxiliary languages, which was news to me & i think all participants in the original discussion. I don't myself see difficulties in treating "auxiliary languages" differently. Not all Category:French people may actually speak French, and French-speakers are obviously not restricted to the mainly Francophone nations or areas, but I hope no one would propose Category:French-speakers, which would be pointless and prone to all sorts of difficulties. But that does not mean that all linguistic practice is a no-go area for categorisation of people. Several Indian categories are effectively categorisation by language, reflecting the realities there. I might support Category:Ukrainian politicians who don't speak Ukrainian - a very hot issue there, as in some other places. Johnbod 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - would the category have to be recreated and repopulated before being listed at CfD? If so, can I suggest that after this is done (I guess by undoing the bot actions that depopulated the category), that the editors in this subject area are given the chance to clean the category up, ensuring it is correctly populated and has a workable definition, before being relisted at CfD? Obviously the delay between recreation and re-listing cannot be too long, but tidying up a category while it is actually at CfD isn't the best practice as it can disrupt the discussion. Carcharoth 09:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this would be a good idea. Please restore and repopulate the category, and I'll continue to maintain it. The category, I think, was pretty clean before, but it suffered from a poor definition, stemming from the lame article at Esperantist. I would like the Category to show only people that at sometime used Esperanto for a useful purpose, AND were likely at some time to be a part of the Esperanto movement. This would be a bit more strict than the Declaration of Boulogne (English translation, see paragraph 5), which states that participation in the Esperanto movement is not mandatory. So, according to my definition, the category would not be for anyone that simply gave a good quote about Esperanto, like Fidel Castro or J.R.R. Tolkein. I think it should also not include people that just mouthed words of Esperanto but were not part of the Esperanto movement, so people like William Shatner and Leena Peisa would be out. Someone that once used Esperanto usefully but then abandons the movement like Kazimerz Bein and George Soros(?) would still be counted as Esperantists. All that being said, if you restore the category and give a couple of days notice, I can be sure every person in there is a verdulo, a true supporter of the Esperanto movement. -- Yekrats 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think Yekrats had well argumented. Please, apologise my lack of english knowledge, but it looks like the category has been removed however majority expressed "keep" and only a minority advocated deletion. I still think Category:Esperantists is meanfull : it lists people which actively support Esperanto, writing, singing, studying etc for it. Arno Lagrange ✉ 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_4&oldid=1136100609"