Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2009 Deletion review archives December 2009 >

30 November 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

i think i got this right. it doesnt look like there was any consensus to delete the bumblefoot page, and the merge that was done removed almost all information. it also looks like the debate was confused as there were a lot of things being discussed and it was not clear what the feelings were. i think this should be undeleted or at least relisted and posted to the music deletion discussion page since i dont think any real consensus was reached. as far as i know this guy was famous before gnr and is very notable. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • also this discussion was not even allowed to run a full week. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The Thal article was the centerpiece of a whole mess of related articles created and/or edited by Thal himself or his associates. Once we trimmed all the fat, the only real meat to the Thal article was that he is a member of Guns N' Roses. According to WP:BAND, this alone is not enough to warrant an article. He has only received trivial coverage outside of his Guns N' Roses participation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin - the discussion did run for a full week, from 13:09 18 Nov to 20:47 25 Nov, and was listed on the list of Music-related deletion discussions immediately after it was opened. I believe I closed it in accordance with a clear consensus. I am not sure whether this DRV is intended to challenge the deletion of the other three four articles concerned, but I have temporarily undeleted them as instructed here. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The close seems to have followed process and properly reflects the discussion. The arguments for deletion were reasonable and policy-based, and the only keep argument was weak. --RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Fairly straightforward. No issues that I can see. If nom wishes to reverse the merge, that should be resolved by a discussion on the appropriate talk page. Tim Song (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • well it was a clear consensus for everything else but for bumblefoot there were weak keeps and maybe merges. i am just suggesting it at least be relisted on its own if not undeleted - i think a lot of people missed the discussion because it was easy to miss that his name was in there - i missed it until it was too late. i think the page can be cleaned up and enough added so it doesnt have to be merged. he is also a record producer for instance and produced stuff for 24-7 Spyz Aisha9152 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was a completely appropriate interpretation of the discussion and was within process. Nancy talk 16:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to feel that Bumblefoot has a likelihood of being notable on his own outside of the band, but the consensus was pretty solid there. Endorse delete and suggest that the nominator create a well-sourced article in his userspace, and present it back here when it's done for consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it hasn't been deleted, just redirected; the article as it stood at merging certainly showed notability, with themes and music performed as a solo artist for various TV efforts... I'll have to give this some thought, so my opinion may change. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes and the redirect went from size 6000 to like 300. all the information was lost. i think the afd got confused because of so many issues. Aisha9152 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't lost; the old version is still available in the history. You could easily copy an old version into userspace to work on bolstering it with more evidence of independent notability for Thal. That doesn't even require help from an admin. What you need DRV for is to provide some endorsement to stop people from reverting you when you try to restore the article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as the wrong venue. The article was not deleted, just turned into a redirect. There's nothing for DRV to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • im sorry, im unfamiliar with policy here, i was just following what was said to me at [1] . please advise me how to proceed on my talk page if theres something else i should do. Aisha9152 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking consensus here for undoing the action that was prescribed by the admin closing the AfD. However, no such consensus seems to exist. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • MogileFS – deletion endorsed. There is no indication in this discussion that there was anything wrong with the closure. – Shereth 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MogileFS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I discovered the deletion when I searched WP for MogileFS after reading This cnet.co.uk article, which quotes last.fm's head of Web development about their use of MogileFS, That quote that in combination with comments during the deletion discussion suggest that MogileFS is notable and it was a bit hasty to delete the article. Thanks. 67.100.125.142 (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the closing admin of this DRV. That aside, however, I would like to see an expanded rationale for deleting this page, since there were a number of good-faith keep "votes" from experienced contributors. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, comments at AFD shouldn't be ignored simply because they're from new users. Wikipedia is a project anyone can edit, and anyone should be able to make comments. Comments should be considered based on strength of argument, not number of edits the commenter has made. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - appropriate weight was given to the !votes with policy based rationals and the ones based on GHits and how great the s/w is were discounted. Nancy talk 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – proper admin closure and consideration of arguments here (most by the single-purpose accounts were rather poor arguments for retention). MuZemike 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Thanks, Secret, for doing a proper close on the arguments. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Endorse. Not clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Mishk'vei ishah – endorsed. Allegations of canvassing are noted but the discussion does not appear to be compromised. – Shereth 21:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mishk'vei ishah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Overturn to no consensus
  • I'm not convinced there was a clear consensus. It seemed nearly evenly split to me. Consensus is not 50% + 1
  • Closing admin's rationale is nonsense:
    • "noone hasd clearly rebutted the argument that this is synth and OR". Despite the fact that the second comment made, remarks, in bold, that the article is a merge of two sections from two other large articles. And the fact that the article is covered in cites, and therefore cannot be OR.
    • "vast majority of the keep votes are by assertion". Despite the fact that none of the keep votes are by assertion. Yet there are several delete votes that are nothing much more than a mere vote.
  • There was too much voting without discussion, and no chance was given to rectify this, or allow the discussion to come to a consensus
  • There was rather a lot of involvement by people who had not made a single previous edit in over a month... Newman Luke (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the consensus did seem to support delete. I think the consensus was wrong, but that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Difficult AfD to close, to be sure, but I see no clear error. Nominator's statement itself reveals the flaw in their reasoning - to the assertion that "the article is covered by cites, and therefore cannot be OR", I will simply respond that, "according to the Bible, Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5) and Jesus said “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37)". [2] One can cite both of those statements, yet one cannot seriously argue that the Bible instructed people to go hang themselves. That is why there is such a thing that is called original research by synthesis. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Closing administrator properly implemented consensus on article deletion. The nominator of this DRV may disagree with that consensus, but, per DGG, that does not affect the propriety of the closure. -- Avi (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose closure I was blindsided by the admin's action. I expected that the article would be repaired after the closing of the AfD action, in light of the consistent support from the voting editors. Deleting it with no warning, in flagrant disregard of all the support it received struck me as an arbitrary and inconsiderate action. At the very least the article should have been relegated to private space, so that concerns could be addressed. Haiduc (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin I was not approached to discuss the deletion before the this DRV was listed nor was I notified that it was being brought to DRV. The close involved a lot of discussion to wade through but policy is clear that rough consensus comes from weighing arguments against policy not head count and that allegations of synth and OR need to be rebutted with proper sources not assertions. I remember closing this as one of the very last AFDs thats were outstanding on that day's log so there was plenty of opportunity to contribute to the discussion and I saw no procedural improprieties in the listing so I Endorse my own close Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure the closing admin followed correct procedures. There was a clear majority to delete this gross violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The assertion by Newman Luke (talk · contribs) that "There was too much voting without discussion" is total baloney, just take a look at the page yourself: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah it overflows with discussions and comments! User:Newman Luke is a sore loser and cannot let go and move on and even worse is now resorting to violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as he wages his WP:WAR against editors he disapproves of. How sad. IZAK (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion nomination statement invites a merger of "whatever is salvageable". Did this merger in fact take place, and if not, what has happened to any sourced content from the article?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the article was deemed to be original research by synthasis and the cosensus was that this sythesis wasn't properly sourced, there was no salvagable content to merge, otherwise I would closed this as a merge. Spartaz Humbug! 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • S Marshall: The consensus was for Deletion and not for any sort of merging. Had users decided upon any sort of "merging" they would have clearly indicated as such as part of their votes. Anyone is free to say either "Delete" or "Merge" regardless of what the nominator may have said. As you know, nominations can start with requests for total "deletes" and end with a "merge" or there can be a request for a "merge" that ends with "deletion" so that it's the consensus of the voting users that the closing admin must base his decision upon that matters most and not the nuances of the nominator's initial wording, otherwise it would seem that it's putting false words into users' mouths/votes, befitting WP:LAWYERING, that they never stated or intended. IZAK (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... all I did was ask a question, Izak. I was merely concerned to see that we are complying with our content licences, and I do not see how my remark even begins to warrant so vehement a response.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Vehement"? I was trying to be logical and follow the rules. Sorry for any misunderstanding. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to say that in my experience, IZAK seems to respond with quite severe incivility towards anyone who contests his argument, for any reason. I'm not sure he should be editing wikipedia if he has such contempt for WP:CIVILITY. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Newman: Your record of utter comtempt for anyone who opposes your perspectives disqualifies you from passing judgment on other's words. Kindly adhere to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and stop WP:WAR, and please stick to the subject at hand rather than trying to score cheap brownie points with your petty and uncalled for WP:NPA here. Wishing you a Shabbat Shalom. Thanks so much. IZAK (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure I fail to see the validity of the claim that there was not any ample discussion. Yossiea (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. The closing procedure was done properly, the reasons given for keeping the article seem to me (and to the closing admin) insufficient to refute those given by us who voted for deletion. Restoring the article would only cause unnecessary and incessant arguments over redeleting it. -- Nahum (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close no controversy here, straightforward.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to approach this question from another side. The nominator has been making many edits that had to be reverted for their dubious worth. Likewise he has tried to revert a few merges that had been made with consensus. His first claim is always that "there was no consensus for what you are doing" (or "consensus was feeble", or sth like that). He seems to be on some crusade of his own, which I, personally, find rather destructive. I am therefore reluctant to agree with him. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. I did not vote on the original afd since I was to late to review it. However I did review the article now and cannot agree more with the nomination. Besides for the reasons cited, the impression I had reading the article is one I never had on any other WP article regarding Biblical content. Not only did it read like OR, the sources felt somewhat like junk sources and the whole article smelled like one is trying to push something other than encyclopedic content.--Shmaltz (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus default to keep. Yes, I know, a futile vote in all likelihood. This has all the makings of snow. Debresser makes a valid point a few entries above, but I think we should always only take into account the matter at hand and not look into prior offenses unless it is relevant. Nominator's conduct has no bearing here, does it? We are looking at a process of an AfD. I have to say that I humbly agree with editor Haiduc who "was blindsided by the admin's action". This does seem to be a flagrant disregard of all the support the article received, and does reek of an arbitrary and inconsiderate action. When there is sooo much discussion, and an almost split vote with strong arguments on both sides, is that not the very definition of no consensus? Regardless of the fact that delete args do seem stronger, by not deciding no consensus here the admin effectively disregards many editors' opinion and makes a decision that contains too much self rightousness (this is no direct attack on the admin, I respect your work, but similar decisions keep popping up...)and too much power. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we don't count noses when closing discussions but rather balance arguments against policy, I was bound to delete if there was a credible argument about SYNTH and this was not effectively refuted by the keep side. I do close a lot of close AFDs, but that's because I'm often the one who closes the last few AFDs - the ones that no-one else wants to deal with. I have a good record at DRV despite closing a lot of close discussions. I'm sorry that you don't agree with the close but there does seem to be an emerging consensus that I got the right outcome here. There is always a degree of subjectivity when it comes to closing deletion discussions and I'm sorry you don't agree with my approach. I do think its unfair to accuse me of self-righteousness in this close and having too much power. I think, if you look at my admin log and contributions that you will see that I am quick to correct mistakes when they are pointed out, quick to apologise where appropriate and I'm hardly block happy, so I'm afraid that I'm not recognising the description of me that you paint. Spartaz Humbug! 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not recognize the description, Spartaz, because I used a pen and not a paint brush. If you re-read my comment, I explicitly stated it was NOT a direct attack on you and that I respect your work, your contributions and opinions; whether or not we agree. And yes, there is a consensus that your outcome was right, I stated so, and am going against the grain here purposely. When I said similar decisions keep popping up I meant by many closing admins, not you directly. I simply feel that if just as many editors opine reasonably at an AfD for keep as they do for delete, it is self-righteous of anyone to simply ignore all those editors and close on their own interpretation. We are, after all, a community, right? Tell me this, if there was an AfD that had 23 keep votes that were reasonable although not completely policy relevant and 1 delete vote that totally and directly addressed policy only, How would we close? How would you close that one, Spartaz? Turqoise127 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how Spartaz would close that one, but I won't close that. I would !vote to delete if in my view policy requires it and move on; unless of course it's one of the inviolable policies like an attack page or a copyvio, which trumps all else. Tim Song (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a ridiculous hypothetical that puts headcount over the nuances of the actual arguments. How could I possibly comment on that without reading the discussion? Theoretically any discussion with 23 deletes and one really well argued keep can also be kept but it depends very much on the actual arguments deployed. And I'm sorry, but I do consider it to be disingenuous on your part to say on one hand that you have respect for my work and contributions but in the same paragraph accuse me of being self-righteous and abusing power. ((what power by the way? Did I miss a memo somewhere on that?)). The reality is that like most contributors I'm human and sometimes make mistakes and sometimes get it right. I seem to have got it right here so your slurs are particularly unfair here. If you think there is a general problem with my closing of AFDs I suggest you leave me a note on my talk page providing detail of which specific AFDs you are concerned about and why. Otherwise, its just comes across as an unprovoked and unevidenced attack. Spartaz Humbug! 08:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turqoise127, there is an AfD that matches your description. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net and the subsequent DRV which ended in a rough consensus to relist before it was discovered that Host.net was a copyright violation. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OOh, there were a lot of really rubbish keep votes there but a couple of contributions from established editors asserting sources that were not properly challenged. I'd say there was no consensus to delete and that a later relist if the article was not improved woild be left to editorial discretion. I'm really not sure what the exercise is supposed to prove though. No-one covers themself in glory - first thing to do with any article written like an ad is to check for copy vio. Google is a great tool for that. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 11:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a great find Cunard. See, that is what I am talking about. We are a community, and many editors in that example had reasonable allbeit non-policy based views. No one said "keep, because I like it", or "keep per above". Regardless, the admin who closed took the decision out of the hands of many editors and did it himself. This is abuse of admin power and disregard of community view per admin's own interpretation of consensus, which is oftentimes flawed... Anyhow, I am taking too much of everyone's time, I apologize. And, Spartaz, I do not see why you so passionately defend yourself when I really did not attack you. If I have offended you I apologize. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close and deletion The closing comments are exactly correct. The article was not reporting fact, but rather drawing conclusions and analyzing text. This is explicitly out of bounds for Wikipedia, as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No one opposing the deletion even attempted to show that it was anything other than OR and SYNTH, and arguments that the material already existed in other articles are irrelevant. If such is the case, they should be removed from those articles as well (see [3] and [4]). The answer to a violation of Wikipedia policies is not more violations in the same vein. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It cannot be OR if it has multiple cites, by definition. As for Synth, the article was a merge of the material about the topic in The Bible and Homosexuality and in Leviticus 18 (for an explanation of why the merge was necessary, see my comments in the AfD or the article's talk page). I added nothing to it, except adding a few cites to uncited sentences. If it is synth, then so is the material in The Bible and Homosexuality and in Leviticus 18, yet no-one has complained about those. Yet none of the people wanting to delete even addressed these points - they just seem to have wanted to ignore them, and delete anyway. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it can. SYNTH is precisely that, taking unrelated cited material and combining it to create a new meaning not intended by the original writer. You really do need to read up on our basic policies a bit. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I'm disappointed to see that many of the people commenting above are the people that actually voted on the AfD, and are merely regurgitating their own votes. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment including the nominator of this DRV, I presume? -- Avi (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't nominate it any other way. However, see below.Newman Luke (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY IMPORTANT NOTE FOR CLOSING ADMIN - IZAK has been WP:MEATPUPPETing - [5], and many of the above votes may therefore need to be discounted. Newman Luke (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, you mean canvassing, not meatpuppeting. Secondly, talk page notices are not only allowed, but encouraged. See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Talk page notices are supposed to be neutral. Those are not. Tim Song (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The language is far from perfect but the basic message isn't canvassing as its a pointer to a discussion at the appropriate wikiproject. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per Spartaz; IZAK is not asking people to vote delete - he is saying the original consensus was delete. Although the first sentence about Newman could have been worded more diplomatically, perhaps. -- Avi (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mentioning me, expressing an attitude towards me, and emphasising how the AfD was closed, is blatently agitating for a particular outcome.Newman Luke (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree that those are probably not attempts to solicit votes. But they could and should have been worded far more neutrally to avoid canvassing concerns. They are far from optimal, per Spartaz. Tim Song (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Newman, when will you stop personlizing the discussions and focusing on me and deal with the real issues at hand which is your clearly-stated intention to totally obliterate any views you don't like, particularly if you suspect they may be coming from an "Orthodox" perspective as you have made abundantly clear again and again on your talk page and elsewhere, as an example please review User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this? and more. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I don't know how in the world User:Newman Luke can claim there was too much voting without discussion when in fact there was a huge amount of discussion, way more then the average AFD. Shlomke (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex – With Juliancolton's consent, I've gone ahead and done a few things in order to try to cut the Gordian Knot here. It's very important to remember that Wikipedia's biographies of living people policy is non-negotiable and is of the utmost importance on this site. But it's also important to respect consensus on a collaborative project like this. I've gone ahead and done the following: (1) I've restored the article content and moved it to User:Benjiboi/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (apologies to Benjiboi for not asking first, but I figured he wouldn't mind); (2) I deleted the resulting redirects and create-protected the article title for a month (this should allow plenty of time to find sufficient sources for the article); (3) I added the {{userspace draft}} tag to User:Benjiboi/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex to prevent search engines from hitting the content while it's in the process of being sufficiently sourced for inclusion in Wikipedia. I see little need for further discussion here, so I'm marking this discussion resolved. All participants are strongly encouraged to work on a properly sourced, respectful, and respectable article. Happy editing. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overwhelming majority of keep not-votes on AfD. Keep voters gave actual policy reasons, while all delete votes were variants on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Closing admin seems to have acted in terrible faith to ignore the content of discussion and simply delete on his own prejudices. LotLE×talk 03:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin: I have no "prejudice" or even a personal opinion on the topic. As always, I approached the discussion from a neutral standpoint and closed in accordance with my interpretation of the debate. I'd appreciate not having my actions dismissed as being made in "terrible faith", though. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also note that the nominator of this DRV has notified two editors who argued strongly for keeping the page in question. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who likely are just as stunned that the article was deleted and may or may not ever know that a DrV was taking place unless notified. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the two editors I notified (without expressing any opinion directly on their talk pages, but only here), were the two editors most active in editing the underlying article over the last couple weeks (I was probably there in the top 3 too, for recent edits). I presume editors active in a topic have an interest in a DrV pertaining to it. If I missed any other active editors of the List itself, please notify them (I only went from memory, since obviously I cannot see the article history as a non-admin). LotLE×talk 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that this really isn't accurate, and that both Scott Mac (Doc) and I edited the article more substantially over the last two-three weeks than the notified editors did, and that we both argued prominently in favor of deletion -- and that our editing was described in the discussion, often caustically, so that it's hard to see how we wre overlooked, unless memory, as it so often does, tends to favor our own opinions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, surprising result from a healthy discussion that simply pointed out the list needed some regular clean-up including possibly changing the title. I'm stunned this was seen as a delete though closer did explain the rationale from their POV. All the issues raised were addressed so discussion likely should take place on the list's talkpage. Claiming something is hopelessly OR, or anything, seems quite defeatist when obviously these are regular editing issues that we fix every day. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. I don't think even "no consensus" would be the right outcome. The only way the closing admin could get to the result he did was by ignoring the discussion, ignoring the policy and notability arguments, ignoring the consensus, and simply deciding on his own. In fact, both policy and consensus of not-votes clearly point to keep. LotLE×talk 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The closer appears to give a fair summary of the deletion discussion. Whilst there was a numerical majority advocating retention, a number of arguments which gave sufficient grounds for deletion were not refuted. CIreland (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus at a minimum. While I recognize that Juliancolton feels the strength of the arguments was unbalanced towards the 'delete' opinions, I personally don't see it; there were reasonable arguments and notes about sourcing that were presented by the 'keep' opinions that I don't feel were well answered in the end. I'd have to say a no-consensus at the least here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus at a minimum. per Tony fox and Benjiboi. Ikip (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep The overwhelming majority of opinions to keep the article should be respected. Censorship issues, and reasonable opinions mandate the retention of the article...Modernist (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Moved from November 29's log. Tim Song (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep The overwhelming majority of opinions are to keep. Wikipedia is about consensus, and regardless of what the closing admin thinks, the consensus is blatently to keep it. This is the third occasion, in less than a month or so, that I've disputed the way this admin has appeared to somewhat disregard the discussion, and invent some reason to close the AfD in a particular way; if I had less respect for WP:AGF, I'd might have assumed they had a hidden agenda. I'm beginning to wonder if all of this admin's closures should be investigated. Newman Luke (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please understand that I have no "hidden agenda", "personal prejudice" or anything of the sort. I close hundreds of AfDs each month and so many are disputed by various contributors, but if you feel I'm not preforming well as an admin you can always initiate my recall process. Otherwise I'll happily undo my closure if you can find any sort of evidence that I have a personal opinion on this particular topic. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The AFD discussion went off in many directions, quite a few irrelevant, and resolving the issues by a simple !vote count would have been inappropriate. The most important issue in the AFD, not always addressed by contributors to the discussion, was whether the general subject involved could be addressed by the list-formatted article in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. I believe that, weighing the policy arguments involved, the closer's decision was correct, but more importantly fell within the consensus-recognized range of administrator's discretion. In terms of some of the unresolved problems, despite years of editing the article never settled on a coherent distinction between "mainstream" films and others, and did not consistently conform to reliable sources on that distinction -- for example (chosen with mischief aforethought), LotLE, the initiator of this discussion, added an entry for The Raspberry Reich to the article, sourced to an interview with the film's director[6], which was a reliable source regarding the film's sexual content, but ignoring the fact that the director quite plainly said the film was not mainstream, but "the second installment in a trilogy of porn movies." The underlying premises of the list, that the arbitrary, simplistic binary distinctions made (hardcore/not, mainstream/not) are inappropriate for dealing with a complex subject. As is noted in its article here, as well as in this reference [7], the original The Devil in Miss Jones film had much more in common with the "mainstream" films of its time than with the routine pornography of its day, yet it went entirely unmentioned in the article. In summary, the closing admin handled a complex discussion sensibly, sensitively,and reasonably, and certainly within the established bounds of administrative discussion. Rather than haggling over the reasons for keeping a poorly conceived article, Wikipedia wold be much better off if the editors who are so vocal here turned their efforts instead to creating an actual article on the subject (not a list) which isn't hamstrung by insisting on black-and-white criteria requiring subjective calls in an area that is undeniably nuanced and mostly shades of grey. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - to what, I don't know and do not consider necessary to figure out. I can discern no consensus to delete, even after reading the debate multiple times, both before and after the close, and before and after reading the closer's rationale. While I can understand the reasons behind the close, I simply do not find it persuasive to such a level that would support discounting the keep side so much as to say that there is a consensus to delete. The issues listed by the closer - BLP, OR and POV - seems to remediable through methods short of deletion. The keep side argued that the POV issue is likely cured by a rename, and the BLP and OR issues may be addressed through editing and diligent monitoring of the content. I do not see that the delete side has sufficiently rebutted them. The question is close, but I think I can bring myself to say that the closer clearly erred.

    That said, I strongly disagree with the plainly unwarranted and inappropriate assumptions of bad faith in the nomination statement and several comments above. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone, and "listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias" may be speedily closed. I doubt that it would happen here given the good-faith !votes to overturn, but I would request that they be refactored to remove those unsupported assertions, or an uninvolved admin do so. Tim Song (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 November 2009[edit]

28 November 2009[edit]

27 November 2009[edit]

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

This article was deleted with the reason "no sources and no notability". However, the corresponding article on zhwiki provides sources enough. Liangent (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Need to examine the article I missed this AfD, which happened quite awhile ago. I think I worked on this article several years ago and was skeptical if it passed WP:N then. But - I believe it did end up with enough RS to drop my objection even if I thought it was stupid. If the deleted version didn't contain sources then maybe move it to WP:INCUBATE and Liangent can move the translated sources over. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it is possible that sources can be found. there were however none in the original article except the following one in Chinese: A feature about Happy Corner in universities from Ubeat Magazine, CUHK. I note the Chinese WP article is still there. [8]. And this is what Google Translate makes of it with some additional references. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion. There were not enough sources and even the subsequent redirect has been deleted at RFD because of that. The one in the Chinese wiki may or may not be reliable but is only one (the others seem to be external links) in any case. Which would hardly support the many international variants mentioned in the deleted article that - one cite that it has been banned somewhere notwithstanding - mostly reads as a how-to humiliate and hurt people. In brief: If you really want to have this here, better start from scratch with a draft based on sources that addresses the original deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Armando Gutierrez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

this is a credible bio of armando gutierrez an important figure in hispanic politics Mrflpolitico (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'permit restoration, at least in user space for examination There seem to be much better references than in the deleted article, and much less spam. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's try to sort this out: Mrflpolitco had created Armando Gutierrez, Jr. (born September 11, 1981) in South Florida which has been deleted as recreation per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Gutierrez, Jr. and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Gutierrez Jr and that is fine as something like this [9] is not a ref. The nominated article here Armando Gutierrez was a longstanding article about the father (born November 17, 1949 Cuba) and seems to have been mistakenly tagged and deleted as same person. That one we should restore. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore deleted article about father, but then purge it of "references" with misleading labels like "Guiterrez involved in this or that" when the article has a different title and only includes passing mentions of father. The son (or at least, User:Agutierrezjr) seems to have been messing with this and creating an article about himself back in 2005. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and clean up, per OrangeMike.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - The only sources that can be found for this individual list him as someone who is planning to run in a congressional election. This clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. This person also had some involvement in the Elian Gonzalez case, but I think that falls under WP:BLP1E. If the nominator can provide some reliable sources which establish notability, that would help the case for restoration of the article. SnottyWong talk 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Plainly not G4 when one of the original deletion debates refers to a "young Republican". I doubt that anyone would describe someone born in 1949 as "young". The argument above should be made at AfD, not here. It is oft said that DRV is not AfD round 2; it ought not be AfD round 1, either. I also note that the original tagger tagged the article as G4 two weeks after an admin has already declined their first G4 tag, something that is rather inappropriate. Tim Song (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 November 2009[edit]

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

Two decent sources presented in the AfD (the first two), and plenty of evidence of RS usage here. Not an especially well discussed AfD (a tad aggressive, actually) and virtually no discussion of the sources presented. I think a reaonable article,that far exceeds a dicdef can be made of a curious expression. Dweller (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure but support recreation - The article as deleted corresponds to its portrayal by the nominator (dictionary entry) and the delete votes, and the sources given in the AfD were good for a dictionary entry but weak for an encyclopedia article. That being said, no objections to WP:REFUND->expansion into a proper encyclopedic entry. MLauba (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB I'd like to note that the closing admin's decision at the time was entirely reasonable IMHO and this DRV request is not to be interpreted as a criticism of her. I just think the article could be improved and demonstrate notability and "encyclopedic-ness" (sorry I'm tired). --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to bring an AfD from 2008 here, Dweller. If you as a good faith user want to create a fresh, sourced article in that space, then nobody will censure you for doing it, though the new article would naturally be subject to AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation. Agree with S Marshall that DRV is unnecessary. Tim Song (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sphereing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

SphereMania as a trademark holder is being misrepresented by this article 80.247.81.101 (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong venue - the article hasn't been deleted, and DRV isn't here for trademark disputes. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 November 2009[edit]

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

Since the article was deleted, more reliable reviews of the book have been found, making the book meet WP:BK#1. The closing administrator when approached about undeleting the page advised me that he felt it would be safer to seek a more binding decision via DRV. Malkinann (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the deleted version has almost no salvagable content anyway. Why not just make a new version in your user space, then move it to article space once its ready, so its not tainted with Aurura's meat puppetry stuff in its history. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what was in the article originally, but if it was anything like Future Lovers (manga), which seems to have been created in the same way, it may have contained an infobox (which I am weak on) and information about the Japanese publisher (which is difficult to search for). --Malkinann (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation but do not restore. The original article was advertspam created by the publisher to promote the book and the publisher. There is absolutely no point in restoring that "taint" when the article can be recreated from scratch with a clean edit history. —Farix (t | c) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tonal problems with the article can be fixed, as the editing process guides articles to higher levels of quality through time. --Malkinann (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want the original advertspam restored instead of simply recreating the article from scratch? There is nothing to be gained from it nor are there any requirements under GFDL requiring the article history to be restored if its going to be completely recreated. —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what was in the article originally - I did not have Internet access when the matter came up in January. I am guessing that it resembles the deleted version of Future Lovers (manga) in that it will probably have an infobox and information about the Japanese publisher. This makes it easier to work with than a blank article, as I can append a Reception section and rework the tone. If it's sufficiently notable to have a recreated article, why shouldn't the old information be restored so that I can work from it? --Malkinann (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think we should give credit to the publisher's sockpuppets/meetpuppets, especially when there is no need to. There are other resources you can use to look up the Japanese publisher. In fact, I was very easily able to find it within a few seconds just by checking ANN's encyclopedia entry. Now all you have to do is double check the Japanese publisher's website or obtain an ISBN code from a retail site to verify the information. —Farix (t | c) 22:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would much rather use the old version of the article, as I hope to be able to glean information and formatting from it, and it is easier to tweak an existing article than to create an entirely new one. If the subject matter is notable, why does it matter that the original version was made by Aurora? Notability problems have been resolved. Tonal problems related to the article being partially from publishers' copy are easily resolvable. --Malkinann (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I have checked the version that was deleted and I find nothing promotional--not even problems of tone. It was deleted, in my opinion correctly, at AfD, with the arguments being insufficient references to show notability, it was not speedy deleted as promotional-- it did not meet the speedy criteria. The earliest versions, submitted by the COI editor, were also informative not promotional, though they made even less of a showing of notability. I see no reason whatsoever in policy to not restore the article, since we do not delete articles merely because of COI--attempts to do so have not been accepted by the community. Valid reasons not to restore the history if the article can be improved would be copyvio, defamation, BLP violations, or vandalism (I may have missed something, but COI is not one of them). If there is no consensus for that, I will certainly email it. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore No matter who stated the article, it'd have some valid information, facts about it which would be fitting for the article. Dream Focus 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or at the very least userfy. Editor in good standing wishing to write an article. No good reason to deny them resources that help with that (unless folks would like to write the template and restart the article rather than demanding that someone else do it).Hobit (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, mostly per DGG and Hobit. Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as the one who did the pre-check for animanga requested articles, there are enough evidences of for at least recreation. Moral wise, yes what the publisher of that series did was Bad but that doesn't mean all the article content was not good. So restore the article, remove whatever copyvio stuff in it & expand a reception section with the now found third party RS coverage. --KrebMarkt 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to user space, so Malkinann can access the infobox and other basic details, while cleaning up the promo and any copyvio stuff (as I recall, all their plot summaries were copyvio) and do the appropriate expansion. When its ready, then no objections to move it to the article space. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article contains copyvio, it is preferable to delete the affected revisions so that the copyvio is not accessible from the page history, perhaps using a histpurge after a rewrite. If the old article will be used as a reference and redeleted, please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia and that content cannot be simply copied from a page that will be deleted. I volunteer to help. Flatscan (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is likely to be an unambiguous copyvio - it wasn't brought up at the AFD as such and the article was not speedy deleted as a copyvio. I'm more after the infobox and publisher information than the plot summary - I assume they can be separated if need be? Thank you for the offer of help, I really appreciate it. --Malkinann (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the non-infringing content can be kept, but I'll need to ask for confirmation or assistance. I've watchlisted the page, so I'll see if/when it is undeleted. Flatscan (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore – I don't see anything remotely wrong with the currently deleted version which would preclude restoring to mainspace for improvement and sourcing. MuZemike 21:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Black Veil Brides (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

More information present Hello, this would be my first time doing this so I really don't know much, but I would like to have a review on the deletion of the page, Black Veil Brides. I believe when the article was deleted, around September 2009, it was more appropriate as the band wasn't really known then, but I believe now this band is more known, especially after signing with Standby Records, with the news from the website's news section here: Standby Records signs Black Veil Brides, and their numerous YouTube videos, one of which can be seen here: Black Veil Brides "Knives and Pens" music video with over 2 million views at the time this appeal was made. I think this is subject enough to appeal the deletion of this page. cypherninja (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator closed after only one day, based on the weight of older AFD for article years ago. I did discuss it on his talk page. [10] he suggesting a deletion review. Three AFD done in 2006, and one in 2007, should have no "weight" in deciding to ignore the proper process, and speedy close an AFD in November of 2009. Dream Focus 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate the last Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series related Afd was in June 2009 with Abridged_series --KrebMarkt 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which no one knew at the time of the speedy delete, and was not used in deciding the sudden close. Nor is it really relevant. The AFD rules must be followed. Dream Focus 00:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist OR Userfy OR incubate (see below). It would seem that the number of times the article has been recreated shows that at least somebody out there is interested in the subject... even if it was deleted several times several years ago in multiple AFDs. Best option is to let editors have their 7 days to improve and source the article. If they fail, the article can go yet one more time. If they succeed, the project is improved. The good faith speedy close and delete did not allow the guideline sugested time for such possible and hoped for improvements. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, multiple re-creations merely prove that one (1) person is very persistent. If you want to prove its greater than one, you're going to have to use that old-fashioned reliable sources thingie. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, and thank you... but I have seen no evidence offered that it is only 1 person recreating this article since 2006. And how could reliable sources show that it was one editor or dozens interested in creating this article? That would be in the Wikipedia histories... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but you offer no no evidence -- other than a convenient incredulity -- that more that one person has recreated this article. And your missing the point of about reliable sources, and the rather tortuous logic it takes to assume it has anything at all to do with whether its one or several fanboys recreating this seems also convenient, if not well thought out. --Calton | Talk 17:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Salting circumvention should not be encouraged, and there is not even a hint that the concerns raised in the previous AfDs have been addressed in any manner. If, following userfication, the editor has a new draft that addresses the concerns, they are free to bring that draft to DRV for its review. Tim Song (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Tim... but that was then and this was now. Deletion after one day kinda means that it was wished that no one even try during the AFD. Sure, editors might not succeed, but is it per guideline now to not even allow their efforts during the course of an AFD? As for issues, I never even heard of the article before the DRV... but then, the AFD was up and out before I knew it existed. I like rescuing articles... and have had a few successes during AFDs... but for this one... it seems that efforts to improve during the AFD were not even wanted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salting circumvention is salting circumvention. Even admins, who have the technical ability to bypass salting, routinely come before DRV when they want to write an article on a title that is salted. Why should we grant a special exemption in this case? You are of course free to improve it after the AfD with userfication or incubation, but we ought not to encourage people to bypass salting and normal processes with impunity. Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only and repeated voiced concern was the 12 hour and 14 minute close. I did not wish to use this DRV to argue AFDs to which I was not a party. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Lets give the community time to weigh in on this. I have seen countless other cases similar to this one, in which the case is allowed to run the full 7 days. Ikip (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse article has been deleted and recreated numerous times. The community has already weighed in enough, and the article was fully qualified for a speedy deletion and salting. The AfD was not even necessary. Someone being "interested" in a subject is of course a ridiculous reason to overturn or relist. It is not a notable topic by any standard, just some fan video that has been regularly and repeatedly spammed here by its creator and his friends. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, do not call me or my comments ridiculous, as such attacks are never helpful to a polite dicsussion, and I have never resorted to such in discussions of your own comments. There is no debate that the article has been to AFD in the past and that it was discussed on those occasions... However, and with the greatest of respects, the article had not been at AfD nor dicussed in detail for over 2 years. The hasty close of this one did not allow new considerations or new discussion. Yes, it may ultimately be deleted... but it is reasonable to allow the disussion to continue for the guideline suggested time. And please, if editors were not "interested" in writing or improving Wikipedia, there would be no Wikipedia. It is that "interest" that created the project and that "interest" that keeps it alive through the contributions of its thousands of volunteers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call either you nor your comments ridiculous, only the reason. It is a fanmade YouTube video that violates copyrights that does not have notability, never has and likely never will. There are no new considerations to make. The project itself and discussions in the main article talk in the two years since have shown that there still are no other sources and that is it still the same no-name thing it was two years ago. It was not a hasty close, but a proper application of G4 for an article that has been deleted over a dozen times since the video creators and his friends first tried to spam it here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article is about a Youtube hit or is about highly touted blockbuster with a multimillion promotions department... an AFD closure 12 hours and 14 minutes after the AFD was opened does indeed seem a bit "hasty"... and that's why I endorse an overturn and relisting. Fact is that I personally think the article is indeed a waste of paper, and I am not here to re-argue or debate other's points from an AFD I was unaware even existed, as that is not what DRV is about. That sources might exit that could serve to improve the article ([11],[12]) is not germaine to whether or not 12 hours was a tad too soon... as THAT is the question. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collectonian, do you honestly believe each time someone made an article for this, it was just spam by the creator and his friends? I find that unlikely given the fact its been years since someone tried to make an article on this, and how spread out the creations were. When millions of people watch each episode, some of them are surely Wikipedia editors, and will try to make an article for it. It certainly has not "been regularly and repeatedly spammed here by its creator and his friends," but instead by people who believe it notable enough to have an article for, and should've been given time to state their case. Dream Focus 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse I would have to say that this was a combination of WP:CSD#G4 and WP:SNOW. The subject has came to AfD at least 5 times previous this nomination, all resulting in deletion outcomes, and speedy deleted at least 8 other times. Out of all of the discussion at Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! during and since the AfD, only one source has ever been found. However that isn't enough to recreate the article with. I think that more evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources must precede any recreation of the article. In short, a DRV with sources is needed to recreate an article on the subject. —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No... a DRV is not a reargued AFD. It is simply a discussion as to whether or not 12 hours and 14 minutes was a bit hasty to close and delete... no matter the possible outcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would normally say relist, but it might well have been a straight G4. Though consensus can change in 3 years, I can not imagine it will in this case. Closing the debate after 1 day, though, was perhaps rushing things unnecessarily. I don't think very highly of the two keep arguments during that day, but , as often is the case when editors are involved who know our procedures, cutting off the debate very early does not cut off the debate, but merely moves it here. Better to have snowed it a day or two later. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the encyclopedia has nothing to gain by continually rehashing the same debates again and again, particularly in cases such as this where consensus has been firmly established. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects, "firmly established" or not, guideline allows that consensus might have changed and so allows such discussions to take place. But even if eventually found that consensus did not change, a 12 hours and 14 minutes AFD discussion held 29 15 months after the last full discussion in August 2008 is not a long enough time to know for sure. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist It has been three years about a year since the previous debate. It seems advisable to have a new discussion to see if consensus has changed and whether relevant sources have shown up in the last few years. I haven't had time to look for sources in detail but there seems to be enough popularity that the creator has been invited to conventions [13]. That suggests notability. Further discussion should thus occur in a full AfD debate. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a youtube video maker being invited to a video game convention is an indication of them being notable for this work in wikipedia terms. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion and closure of the AfD. From this list I make it eight previous AfD discussions all of which have closed with "delete". It is much less than three three years since the previous debate. The most recent was closed in 2008 August. The article that I deleted made no attempt to show notability. To DGG (see above), I see this as a review not just of my deletion but of the dozen or more deletions of this topic. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if you personally don't like an article, is it alright to just declare it garbage and ignore the AFD process? I've seen many articles start off with a lot of deletes at the start, but others come in, make improvements, find sources, and the article is saved. People should be given a chance to participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:RHaworth: With my having not participated in any earlier discussions, much less this one, I can only opine about the most recent closure... Yours... 12 hours and 14 minutes after the article was listed. I find no flaw in any earlier closures... closures that did allow input over a reasonable length of time. I am concerned though, over the hurried deletion of this one without awaiting or allowing input from more editors. After 5 days perhaps... perhaps even 3... but 12 hours...? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is a joke right, we have a clear consensus on how we feel about this article and one of the keep votes was screw the rules and the other acknowledged that they hadn't found multiple sources. This would be a justifiable g4 so closing early with the weight of argument is not only appropriate but a reasonable application of WP:BURO. Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes... a version was deleted in June with only 1 editor offering an opinion even after 2 relistings in the hopes of additional comments. Sme or different? I do not know... but a very fair consideration of WP:DEL. But I am not re-arguing the AFD here, as I had thought that DRV was to discuss the close, not the article. I had imagined this discussion was to be about a 12 hour discussion and delete in contradiction to the instructions of WP:DEL, and not about AfDs months or years in the past. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to stop DRV looking at the overall situation of an article and this one simply has too much history for the last AFD to be viewed in isolation. Spartaz Humbug! 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you link to a policy or guideline that supports speedying this rather than waiting the full 7 days? Hobit (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The last Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series related Afd is from 8 June 2009 which was 4 months ago and it was speedy deleted. --KrebMarkt 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is about the 12 hour closure and delete of THIS version, not about any from the past, as I have no idea what they looked like and can not and will not presume they were the same or different. A precedent being set here that AFDs with keep opinions need only be open 12 hours before a deletion, and decided based upon past AfDs will be echoing for months... which will make the next few months on Wikipedia quite interesting. (that last set of typo corrections was mine) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The problem isn't just the multiple speedy's and afd's that have previously occurred. It's that the article completely failed to address the concerns raised previously - namely reliability and verifiability through reliable sources. If the article had attempted to fix the issues, then I think there would be a case for reversing the decision and taking it back to AFD. However it didn't make any attempt to fix the issues with the previous articles, so I doubt consensus would have changed - as much as some people to think it would. I'm yet to see a reason why speedy deletion was inappropriate, in an afd or not. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per strength of arguments and as Wikipedia:Editors matter. When an established editor who has demonstrated expertise on the subject (Dream Focus) would like more time to continue working on article, we must be considerate enough to let him do so. Wikipedia loses nothing by allowing that, but by contrast by just deleting, we gain nothing. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse an opinion with expertise. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In these types of discussions concerning these particularly subject, I find Dream Focus the more knowledgeable than those with whom he argues due to how he argues and the sources he discusses as well as his willingness to improve the articles. He does not just express an opinion. Rather he expresses an informed opinion and generally follows up on it with edits to the articles in question. Happy Thanksgiving! --A NobodyMy talk 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to differ there. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's part of DRV's role to see that a full debate takes place when a good faith user requests it, and to provide FairProcess on demand. But I can't imagine for a moment that this would survive AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse immediate snow closing of this DRV. Its been one day. The precedent as now set herein is that any discussion may ignore the suggestions of guideline and be closed after 12 hours. The consensus as created herein is that there is no need to wait the 7 days that guideline suggests an AFD remain open, that there is no need to await input that might address concerns, that editors may use discussions months and years old in reaching decisions to delete, that if early weight-of-numbers favors one side of a discussion over another any discussion may be immediately closed, and that it is time for me to walk away from the horse. I further suggest that the filing editor request userfication of the article in question and that such userfication be granted. Maybe he'll be able to improve the deleted article... maybe not. But at least allowing him that opportunity seems reasonable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps an understanding of the rationale for the speedy-deletion criteria regarding reposts is in order. Hint: it's to avoid time-wasters like redundant AFD discussions. A read of WP:DISRUPT might also be helpful for avoiding ridiculous !votes. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for a total of seven days. Contested debates should never be speedied (most criteria) or SNOWed. To do so is disrespectful to the participants and the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, Relist or at least Merge/protect - At the end of the day ... there is a point here. If there is little sourcing - and there seems to be only so many - then rebuilding the sourced content in the main article until a sub-article is needed and seems obvious to all may make sense. I do think this was, yet another, case of "cruft-crushing" where a subject area is biased for speedy deletion/salting when neither is needed. Fans may keep creating the page but simply creating the redirect and protecting it would achieve a desired result of compelling those interested to keep improving the main article rather than having a group of stubs that separately just aren't as good as one main article. Likewise this media is inherently on the frontier of having to identify reliable sources, some are bound to be acceptable blogs - but which ones. We are doing everyone a disservice to pretend that entertainment news hasn't quickly adapted to being Internet-only, even mainstream print publications are opting to become e-mags and e-newspapers rather than fold completely. If we develop some tools that will help editors interested in these subject search and identify sources we would have less of this ongoing drama where our readers obviously want this information yet we need to uphold our standards. There is room for change here and we need creative solutions not hardline hammers that ignore the writing on the wall. -- Banjeboi 20:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any idea what "main article" you are suggesting this be merged or redirected to. If you mean the main Yu-Gi-Oh! artilce, then I don't think it is appropriate to merge a fan-parody that is basically mocking the actual Yu-Gi-Oh! to that article. Calathan (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good article would certainly discuss notable parodies, being a form of flattery and all. If I could actually see what was deleted there may be a better target article. -- Banjeboi 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your first problem is the adjective "notable": some actual evidence of that would be nice. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Relisting the AFD to get the identical result would be a waste of time. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nomination of DRV: Dream Focus. Support for his position: Michael Q. Schmidt, Ikip, JoshuaZ, A Nobody, Benjiboi. Apart from JoshuaZ, I suppose we can treat this as one opinion instead of five? If the ARS core group feels that a decent article can be made for this, why don't they use the incubator instead of discussing this closure on technical grounds? Show us that an article can be made on this subject which is acceptable for Wikipedia, instead of wasting everybodys time with a DRV and possible reopened AfD. Fram (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've all seen articles start off in worse shape than this, and then turn out to be quite well done after some work. The issue here is whether you can ignore the entire AFD process, and just close and delete things as you see fit. The policy is seven days, not 12 hours. Dream Focus 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...if you ingore all the previous AfD's, yes. There comes a time that enough is enough, and that the burden shifts to those wanting to add or keep the article. Fram (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that this topic probably doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. But to argue that it should be closed quickly and that they should be improving it seems contradictory. The claim, as I understand it, is that this article was started without that previous material. I don't see a reason to not give people a chance to write the article. I'm not !voting (doesn't !!vote=vote?) on this as I'm really conflicted (SNOW was, IMO, pointy here, but not entirely out-of-process). Move to the incubator perhaps? Hobit (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, speaking of assuming bad faith. I don't even know if our opinions on this are the same but this kind of battleground mentality is why AfD, and sadly now DrV is bypassed by folks who don't need excess drama. -- Banjeboi 07:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - perfectly reasonable decision based on prior history. Eusebeus (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome but not speediness — correct outcome, as there is a substantial consensus that the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia; however, it would have caused far less trouble had the discussion remained open for the full time. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on balance; AfDs do sometimes close with a speedy deletion. Michael Q Schmidt is right to say that deletion review is a review of the close rather than the article itself but with an article that has been persistently recreated, the previous versions are relevant. Userfication or incubation can be used to find if there is indeed a viable article here, but it's not promising.   pablohablo. 21:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I absolutely agree that userfication or incubation would be a decent result. I have no idea what this latest deleted version looked like and am unable to comapare it to earler articles by the same name to assess whether it was G4 in content or just in name. And I hate to jump to conclusions that it was without any supportive evidence of that echoing assertion. My only reason for opining the overturn above was the speedy 12 hour deletion. THAT did not serve due process... while this DRV actually has. So put it someplace where it might be worked on, let it be recreated without prejudice if it can meet guidelines, and let's get back to building an an encyclopedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to User:Fram: I might have just as likely !voted delete on this article as any other editor. Yes, I am a member of ARS, but I do not do kneejerk !keeps... and only opine a !keep if I have myself been able to appraise an article for its potential... and indeed, I involve myself heavily in actually improving articles that face deletion. But in this instance, I was never afforded the opportunity due to the 12 hour close and delete. As I have reinterated numerous times above, that was my only concern. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • IIRC there was an open request for sources, and has been for several weeks. I don't think many people will have strong objections to working on it on userspace, but it seems to me that if/when a sensible level of verifiability, and more importantly, notability can be established it should be discussed before moving to mainspace so that there is a agreement that it suits the requests of the majority. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hundreds of thousands of articles don't have any references. You don't get to mass delete them based on that, without a proper AFD first. There is a proper method that administrators are suppose to follow in AFDs, and that was not done here. Two people said Keep, I finding one news source mentioning the series, and indicating it was notable. More time would've possibly produced more results, as has been seen in many other articles rescued. Dream Focus 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could go for incubation or userfication, but on the understanding that a further DRV will be required before the article can be moved into the mainspace. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the policy says. [14]
"Deletion discussion
Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions. This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions.
These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so.
  • The way I read it, if its contested, then it can not be a speedy deletion, nor are you allowed to end an AFD without there being seven days. This is policy, and all policies must be followed. Dream Focus 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural overturn I think Dream Focus is right. Not speedyable so close is on its face wrong. Also I'd like to echo Stifle's thoughts. It would have taken a lot less work overall to wait the full length of time. Please don't speedy AfDs that have any kind of serious opposition (keep or delete). Just makes more work. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and recommend userfication or incubation per Stifle. Current consensus is that the page is currently not suitable for inclusion. Instead of relisting the AFD and going through more back-and-forth drama, have someone actually and build the article with reliable sources and being it back here. MuZemike 21:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — I never saw this article, but procedurally all looks appropriate, as many have said above. Speedying it was fine given the history and wrapping up this disruption in short order would be appropriate, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC) (ARS member in good standing)[reply]
    • You may indeed by an ARS member, I don't know, but your standing as a good member - seems disputed by your personal attacks against other ARS members and the group as a whole. Seems you added that zinger to make a WP:Point which seems wholly battlefield-minded. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Process for the sake of process is pointless. This would never have been kept at AfD. To certain groups of editors a speedy delete is never going to be acceptable, while a speedy keep will be. AniMate 01:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this was the inevitable outcome. If the ARS believes a notable article on this topic can be written, though should write it in user space and bring the well sourced, clearly notable article here for review.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ARS is a Wikiproject and as such there is no official position, at all, on any article. Nor does the project govern the work at WP:Incubation, there seems to be a Wikiproject just for that. -- Banjeboi 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If and when reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in some detail, then a new article can be made. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - One day declarations of a lack of notability are much more damaging to wikipedia than letting the debate run for a week. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:CSRT-Yes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This template was made to handle BLP concerns after discussions in May 2008 about how to handle the 900 Guantanamo detainees, many of whom had POV tags on their biographies because wayward editors would either write about the "terrorists faced a fair trial" or "poor innocents were raped by George Bush" (okay, not quite). So talking with Wikiproject:Templates, Wikiproject:Terrorism and a couple others, it was decided this made a compelling argument for WP:IAR, the official policy of If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

It was proposed for deletion and closed as Keep in June (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_2#Template:CSRT-Yes), then renominated for deletion again in September and closed as "Substitute and Delete". However, the gargantuan task of deciding on proper wording, substituting it into all articles' prose, and somehow keeping it watchlisted to avoid partisan vandalism in the future was never tackled, never even started. So two months later, I spoke to the closing admin and he said "...If you would like to have the decision changed to "keep" since no consensus can be reached, then please feel free to start a thread at WP:DRV. I can see both sides of the argument (for and against deletion), and it won't bother me if my decision is overturned. Thank you for contacting me first, and let me know if this sounds like an acceptable resolution."

I left similar messages for the other admins involved in the template's status, (User_talk:Nihonjoe#Template:CSRT-Yes and User_talk:JPG-GR/Archive_11#Template:CSRT-Yes), but neither of them responded in any fashion, or showed any continued interest.

So on the advice of the closing administrator, I am moving this to DRV and requesting that the decision be changed to "keep" (to which he has no objection) to reflect the fact he (and we) now realise two months later that it is not possible to properly enact his original suggestion of Substitute and Delete, and in keeping with the earlier Keep decisions. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a mess. Endorse closure as reasonable. Perhaps we can declare the close as stale and do an immediate relist at TfD? Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a template with a long history, which has had multiple TfDs, one more is likely to just be a coin-toss on what side it comes down on. I'd rather have this overturned as the original closing admin suggested may be appropriate. I do not know what you consider to be a "mess", but would welcome you to leave your opinions with Wikiproject:Terrorism, or update it yourself if you feel there is a problem with the template. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the lengthy history of the template and its TfDs :) Tim Song (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - perfectly reasonable decision based on the arguments given in the TfD and the past TfD's. The closer did not misinterpreted the arguments given in these debates and there is no procedural error.
The arguments that the nominator now provides are not new and have been extensively discussed in the TfD's. There has been no doubt that this template is problematic, violates rules and policies and as other editors put it " a mess". The only argument presented to tolerate this is: "It would prevent POV disputes and tags". The discussion and the past has shown that this is not the case. There are more tags and disputes than ever. It makes it even worst. Discussed already in the TfD.
The nominator also mention that there had been a broad consensus for these templates in the first place. I can not remember such discussions and doubt this statement. This is also a repetition of the TfD where i have ask him multiply times for diffs and he failed to provide me with diffs that would back up his version. That also has been discussed in the TfD.
There are no new arguments and i thing re listing at TfD would be a waste of time. IQinn (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Michellehazelton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I first enquired with Admin RHaworth if the article 1E could be unprotected so that a new article could be created containing informative / non commercial information about the company 1E. I was not aware that as an employee of the company I was not allowed to create an information page, RHaworth informs me this is a CIO. I was attempting to create a company information page similar to Microsoft and BigFix for example. Please can my user page be undeleted and the 1E article be unprotected so that someone external to the company can create the article? Thank you Michellehazelton (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tidying things up and pointing out where the article was moved to. As i'm sure you have gathered I am new to editing in wikipedia. You say you were nearly inclined to unprotect 1E. Apologies I am a little lost, are you going to unprotect 1E? Thanks from the humble newbie. 82.110.120.98 (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incubate. I don't think the article in its current form is ready for the main namespace yet, but a quick google suggests that the company is potentially notable (although searching is not easy - there are lots of modules, sections, etc labelled "1E" or "1e2"). Some time at the Wikipedia:Article Incubator would be a higher profile location than a new contributor's userspace so as to draw more editors to the subject and thus overcome (or at least diffuse) any COI issues. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will look into your suggestions. 82.110.120.98 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article draft creator doesn't object, I'll go ahead and incubate this. My research indicates the company is definitely notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate and close this DRV. On completion of incubation unsalting should be automatic, without the need for a second DRV, but without prejudice to AFD, of course.Tim Song (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that a second drv should not be required after incubation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 November 2009[edit]

  • List of lists related to William Shakespeare – Closure endorsed. While lists consisting of lists are arguably in line with the general editing guidelines, there is agreement here that such a stand-alone list still can be assessed in as far it helps to organize the material for a given topic. The outcome of the AfD is more of an editorial choice than one pointing to general policy reasons, but the decision to to not have a standalone list that singles out the lists related to Shakespeare is upheld. I also note that most of the entries of the 'List of lists' type are redirects, either to more general lists of topics or to divided lists, or might simply better be renamed. So there is probably no prejudice against a comprehensive topic list. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of lists related to William Shakespeare (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
At issue here are two questions:

1) In what circumstances, and on what grounds, can a local consensus at an AfD overrule a global consensus in the form of a guideline? — Cirt's closure supports the view that the local consensus at the AfD should prevail over the guideline, which was in this case WP:CLN, and I will not deny that this is an arguable case. But I think that if the guideline at issue was WP:N, it would have been enforced.

2) To what extent, if any, were the earlier contributions to this AfD refuted by the later ones? — Cirt's closure supports the view that the earlier contributions were not substantially refuted in later discussion, and I am curious to see whether DRV participants will agree.

I want to say that I usually agree with Cirt's closures, and for such a prolific closer we see relatively little of him here; I raise this DRV in a spirit of respect for his many excellent closes.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure One of the keeps attacked the straw man of notability for lists, which was not actually raised by the deletes. DGG et al argued that such lists serve a useful navigational purpose, while the deletes by and large argued that this sort of thing is better off as a category. S. Marshall pointed out that the two need not conflict with each other, but that isn't how I read the opposes - I think they were expressing an intuitive concern that the list format was inappropriate for something like this, for whatever (unspoken) reason. On logic, I'd give the argument to DGG, but I don't think his argument was such a clear invalidation of the expressed opinions of previous editors that those opinions could be disregarded. If it had come earlier, the discussion might ahve gone differently, but as it is, I think Cirt accurately summarized the impressions of editors in the discussion. RayTalk 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the notability for lists argument is clearly a straw man, since the nominator did state that "Lists on WP are not a notable subject." That said, I think there is one argument for deletion that was not sufficiently rebutted - that the list is unnecessary because of the navigation template which already contains the content. Accordingly, endorse. Tim Song (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure correctly reflected consensus, and consensus was indeed correct. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Local consensus should not override general guidelines without very good reasoning. This is especially the case when it is a sparsely attended AfD such as this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus I think the argument S Marshall made, & which I expanded on a little was correct: this is a navigational device. When we have a number of pages about a suitable related subject, we make a list and a category, and sometimes a navbox. We don;t insist that the entire concept of the list be itself notable, as long as the articles are, and the collocation of them sensible. There is no reason this does not apply in the next level also, when we have a number of related lists, we make a list & category of them also. Ultimately, we end up with [[Portal:Contents}] and the two Lists of topic & Category:Categories. Excellent precedents for this type of listing are located on that page. Obviously, we can decide locally not to make any one particular such list (or category) but there has to be a reason besides LISTCRUFT-- WP:N does not apply to lists of WP pages or we would have to remove every last one of them--I doubt there are any secondary sources for any WP list as being notable. Mainspace is not homogeneous. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I can't see an error with closing admin's interpretation of consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus was to delete. Keep votes stated that lists are not subject to the same criteria that articles are, which is just not true per WP:STAND which states unequivocally that "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies". ThemFromSpace 03:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. First, I think the closing was clearly within the closing admin's discretion. Second, I see no conflict between the AFD outcome and the guideline; the guideline sets out the types of list which are permitted, but does not say every possible example of a permitted type should be created or kept. Third, the list does not appear to be a useful navigational aid; everything it does is done much better by the Shakespeare template. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Phineas Taylor Barnum – Deletion endorsed. Consensus here is wavering a bit, but the general feeling seems to be that, according to the current practices of CFD, this deletion was valid. Obviously as usual discussions of possible changes to those practices would be more effective elsewhere. I've ignored the comment that makes this about the admin rather than the debate and its closure, and am not sure what to do with "endorse but relist," even though I appreciate the sentiment, since without an overturn, there is no category in existence to be relisted. – Chick Bowen 01:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Phineas Taylor Barnum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

One vote was cast to delete in what was a name change proposal. I can see why we don't characterize actors by their producers, if they made 200 movies, they could have 200 categories. But those that worked for Barnum are NOT overcategorized. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm recusing from !voting on CFDs at the moment in an attempt to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse, but without actually !voting, I'm not sure in what sense the outcome reflected the discussion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom in that discussion actually supported deletion in a later comment. There are thus two deletes and one rename. I do not see the close as unreasonable, and so it has to be endorsed. That said, the debate was somewhat inadequate - there was no extensive discussion of the proposal to delete. My understanding is that this is the way with most CFDs. I think relisting is likely unnecessary; but if others find it appropriate I will not oppose. Tim Song (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Too many truly notable figures fit into the category (Tom Thumb, etc.) for it to have been so readily deleted. BTW, "Phineas T. Barnum" is also common -- he is the only "showman" to have his bust on a US coin - and for reasons not associated with the circus at all. Collect (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Tim Song. And per the "they could have 200 categories" argument. Any article that has 200 categories has too many, period. Relist if desired. --Kbdank71 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point swooshed by your head. My statement read: "I can see why we don't characterize actors by their producers, if they made 200 movies, they could have 200 categories. ..." You read it to mean the opposite.
Doesn't change my stance, however. Still endorse per Tim Song, and (whether it applies to this category or not) 200 categories is too many. The fact that I misread you just means that I now agree with that part of your statement. --Kbdank71 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (original nominator). Essentially, it was 2–0 in favour of deletion. Two other users commented but did not opine on deletion vs. retention. The discussion was open for 12 days. {{Barnum}} was created, which I think accomplishes the same thing in a more sensible way, since we don't usually categorize people "by people". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have nav boxes, lists and categories. Having one doesn't negate having the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but users are permitted to choose to keep one type and delete another type. That's what has happened here. Of course there is no automatic rule that "[h]aving one doesn't negate having the others", but that's why there are discussions on these issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Two votes to rename one (or maybe two) to delete just does not equal a consensus of deletion. The closing admin's failure to provide a clear and concise justification for why consensus was blatantly ignored only adds a nail to this coffin. That we have admins who still believe the knowingly false position that the existence of a template is a valid argument for deletion of a category only shows how utterly dysfunctional CfD truly is. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I asked you to explain your "knowingly false" statement, could you do it without further ignoring WP:AGF? And remember: (from WP:CLN) The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. --Kbdank71 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The belief that the existence of a template justifies deletion of a category is knowingly false, particularly from someone like Good Olfactory who is well aware of WP:CLN. The sentence you quote offers diddlysquat in terms of justifying deletion. You studiously ignore its direct statement that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap". Good Olfactory's vote is in blatant violation of this guideline and should be ignored as invalid. Alansohn (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh ... wha ... ? That's certainly an interesting approach. Can we ignore your vote here as a blatant violation of the agf guideline, then? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Huh ... wha ... ? I guess the misrepresentation may not be deliberate, after all, though only if you are unfamiliar with WP:CLN. If you are familiar with that guideline and are unable to find any statement therein that supports deleting a category because a corresponding template exists, I stand behind my original statement. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm flushed with pride that you would imitate me. If you were saying it, would you do it in a funny voice?—I like it when people do that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Round and round and round we go. Alan, I wish I could say that dealing with you was anything but draining, but it's not. So I'll just stand by my original statement and leave it in the capable hands of the DRV closer. --Kbdank71 03:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The same closed CfD shop goes round and round, refusing to clean up the mess it has created. Kris, I wish I could say that dealing with you was anything but draining, but it's rather tiring dealing with the continued disruption to support deletion at all costs, even when it directly harms navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note (original nominator). Alansohn said above that there was "Two votes to rename one (or maybe two) to delete". Just to be clear, I was one of the original votes to rename, after which I said I preferred deletion, so it was more like 1–0 in favour of renaming and 2–0 in favour of deletion, with no one really opposing either. I said if it was kept, I still supported the rename suggestions. (And still do. If the category were restored, it certainly should be at Category:P. T. Barnum to match the main article and the template.) I see the closing admin has "retired" so he's not around to defend himself against attacks of believing "knowingly false statements" and "blatantly ignor[ing] consensus", but I think when the entire discussion is read it's not too difficult to see what the various users' opinions were. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 2-1 in favour - not the most immense participation, but discussion was left open for 12 days and decisions are made by those who turn up. Navbox was created as a substitute for a category which was, against general practice, categorising people-by-people. --Xdamrtalk 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist nom was for a rename, became a deletion discussion. I suspect people with opinions on the deletion may have chosen to not contribute to the rename discussion but would have to a deletion discussion. No harm in relisting given the discussion wasn't overflowing with voices. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but relist. I think Hobit has the nub of the issue; as we've recently discovered, the article alerts bot doesn't notify projects regarding renaming of categories, but does for deletion, so it is clear there are some differences between the two tags. I can't fault the closer, but I think this is another wrinkle we need to iron out at CFD. For the record, I have submitted a feature request regarding this point, Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests#Notification of category renaming tags. Hiding T 14:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Claudia Costa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I voted on this AfD and stated "weak keep" as a joke. This is irresponsible and I assume full responsibility for my bad judgement. The only other vote on there was a "delete". We never established the notability of this article (because it simply is not there). This article should have been deleted. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to Delete Sources here are not reliable, this young lady is simply not notable. I made the mistake of voting weak keep as a joke that was apparently not understood. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Moved to correct location; closing admin notified. Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin. To be perfectly honest, I didn't give the "keep" vote much weight, since it didn't address the main concern. That said, however, after three weeks of being listed there was only one "real" vote, which hardly constitutes consensus. Relisting for a third time, while technically reasonable I suppose, wouldn't have been very practical. I think it would be better to wait a few weeks and re-nominate it with a fresh discussion, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, then. I find no clear error in the close; given Juliancolton's explanation, I do not think the irregularity (one of the nom's own making, I might add, so arguably clean hands apply) materially affected the outcome. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Juliancolton's close. That said, can somebody WP:IAR this and delete it like it was an expired prod? If after multiple relistings nobody genuinely believed the article should've been kept, I think that's sufficient to delete. Per WP:BURO, I don't see a need to go through another listing at AFD, where the backlog and quality of discussion is under enough pressure as it is. RayTalk 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody cared enough to delete it, basically.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse- close was within admin discretion. For future reference- this is why you don't try sarcasm over the internet folks. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - close was appropriate exercise of discretion. I commented early without !voting, as there are some claims to notability made in article. WildHorses hasn't put up that picture he promised yet though.--Milowent (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; closure accurately reflected the apparent consensus, or lack thereof. If you want to put joke !votes on AFDs, either mark them accordingly or make them where they won't have an influence. Liberty to renominate immediately or at editors' discretion. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure per all of the above. For what it's worth, it appears that Costa is, in fact, one of two Playboy Mexico Playmates for November 2009 (see here – NSFW). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 November 2009[edit]

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

The deletion discussion took place in 2007 with the concern that he was a minor league wrestler that didn't pass WP:GNG. It was recreated several times, and I, myself, deleted the page in April 2008. It was later salted by Akradecki. However, it is November 2009 now, and I believe that he now passes WP:ATHLETE. He has made numerous pay-per-view appearances for Ring of Honor (arguably the number one independent professional wrestling promotion) and Dragon Gate USA, as well as several lesser known independent promotions where he also held titles. Within the former promotions, he has had championship matches for the ROH Tag Team Championship and will compete in a tournament at the end of this month to determine the fist holder of the DGUSA Open the Freedom Gate Championship. All of this, I believe, meets the People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport requirement. It could also meet the Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions requirement of WP:ENT, as professional wrestlers are really a combination of the two. I've made a very rough article at User:Nikki311/sandbox, but didn't want to move it to mainspace without permission from the salting admin. I tried to contact Akradecki about unsalting the page, but he/she has not be active for awhile and never replied to my comments. Nikki♥311 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the original deletion as there was a clear consensus to do so at the time. With regards to the new article, how reliable are sources such as www.onlineworldofwrestling.com and the like in terms of WP:BLP? I don't think anyone would object to a new article being created so long as the references adhered to the biography of living persons policy. JBsupreme (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my new version of the article, Online World of Wrestling is only used once, and it is used to source a match result, which is not a WP:BLP violation. Nikki♥311 22:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per S Marshall. An established editor in good standing wishes to work on the article. They ought to be able to work on it in mainspace. Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim Song keeps talking like me. Are you me? ... Unsalt, per me.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, endorse leaving deleted Examining the sources in the userspace draft, I do not see anything but trivial mentions and name drops. In order to be notable, the subject would need to be the subject of (not mentioned in passing by) substantial, reliable, multiple, independent sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt If the new article then gors to AfD, let current editors judge it. Collect (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion, but Unsalt without prejudice to a new afd at editorial discretion. The situation has changed in the past 2 and a half years and an established editor believes that an article is now merited. I see no reason to prevent a new article that can be evaluated at AfD should others dispute the notability. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • psyBNC – Deletion Endorsed. If nom still needs this userfied please drop me a note on my talk page – Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
psyBNC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I see 5 keep requests and 4 delete requests, yet the article was still removed. The delete requests were made by JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and Theserialcomma, plus Miami33139 who raised the AfD who are all clearly involved in a case against tothwolf, which is clearly a COI and does not assume good faith to those impartial to this case. If these were ignored, the article would have been kept.
Further information: User_talk:Hm2k/psyBNC § Deletion_review
Hm2k (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reading the discussion I agree with Sandstein that the strength of the arguments was on the "delete" side. However, I am perplexed by Sandstein's refusal to userfy the article, which strikes me as bizarre. I hope he will explain.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: I didn't participate in the AFD to attack Tothwolf. I have been participating in software AFDs for over a year. Most of my participation is in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe you too. Hence my reply to Hm2k [15] as well as my comments here and elsewhere. While we may not always agree, I don't think you were acting maliciously. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In addition to that, I was not implying Joe Chill had done anything in bad faith, but instead was merely pointing out that he is involved in both the arbcom case and the psyBNC AfD. --Hm2k (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was checking sources and giving the historical background for this software. There was a mass deletion of IRC related articles going on at that time and I remember that the tone was hostile, to a point where it was pointless to discuss and work on issues together. When one article that I worked on was dragged into AfD (possibly as a sort of revenge [16]), I stopped participating. However, you can see an old article version here with 14 references in online and print media. Cheers! -- 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. One of the keep arguments was to WP:IAR, despite the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Citing a doc file isn't really "non-trivial coverage", either, so the closing administrator was well within his/her bounds to find reason to delete. JBsupreme (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is a drama-free zone, people.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Due to your involvement in the case against tothwolf, I don't think your endorsement should be counted. Further more 12 references is not just "a doc file" and IAR does not give anyone permission to be ignorant. --Hm2k (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll call bullshit on that. I am just as entitled to comment as anyone else. I will agree however that IAR does not give permission to be ignorant. Whoever closes this review can make their own decision regarding my statements here and the merits of the tothwolf case. JBsupreme (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD is not a vote. (I am involved in the Arbcom case. I don't see that as important to independently judging this article on its own merits.) Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is a direct correlation between issues with User:tothwolf and Wikipedia:WikiProject_IRC articles being deleted. Articles should be deleted on their own merit, not to get back at another user. Your point of view on this subject is clearly not neutral. --Hm2k (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are accusing the discussion participants of bad faith. This is not a user conduct RfC. Sandstein judged this article on its merits. Miami33139 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I am mealy pointing out the facts. If there has in fact been bad faith, which it does seem to indicate then that is not an accusation. User conduct is not in question here. Sandstein judgement was influenced by the comments left on the AfD, which is one of the topics I am disputing here. --Hm2k (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: only one of the keep votes made any attempt to establish notability, and the closing admin was justified in deciding that the other keep votes could safely be discounted. I don't often agree with closing rationales that say (in a context where "votes" seem equally split) that one side was "stronger" than the other, but in this instance that conclusion seems perfectly reasonable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's likely because notability is clear and obvious. As I keep pointing out, there are over 12 references (see User:Hm2k/psyBNC) and numerous entries on reliable sites for psyBNC such as Dmoz, SourceForge.net, Ohloh and freshports. It also appears in the FreeBSD and Ubuntu operating system distributions. I find it absurd that such obviously notable software is even questioned, which is yet another reason why I put it down to this drama surrounding tothwolf. I also don't see how claims such as "Wow. I see a flood of keeps here, again a sign of systemic bias on Wikipedia for certain internet related things" make a strong case for delete. --Hm2k (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The AfD addressed those sources and found them lacking, which is what Sandstein judged. Miami33139 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was the keep voter in the original debate who went out and did a google search to find some sources to establish notability. I found a number of sources but they were dismissed by the delete voters as being self published or merely reflections of the developers documentation. At the time I was much less experienced in AfD debates than I am now, and I didn't think to check google books for better sources. A quick check of google books shows several published references to this SW including at least two, [17] and [18], which strike me as non trivial. I don't know anything about the dispute between the other parties (I just sometimes look for AfD debates to participate in when I don't have anything better to do), but I don't think that this article was given a fair shake in that I seem to be the only participant in the original AfD debate who made a good faith effort to really search for sources that might establish notability. Given that "psybnc" generates more than 10 hits on google books alone, and more than a million hits in a normal google search, I find that a puzzle. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: the sources do not pass WP:RS enough to prove WP:N. despite claims otherwise, the article was deleted on its lack of merits. furthermore, if notability exists for this software, someone should present some reliable sources that show mainstream, independent, third party coverage. then there's an argument. i wish hm2k, before accusing multiple users of bad faith efforts, would read WP:RS and WP:N to see that article was rightfully deleted. and to rusty cashman: i checked [19] and [20]. these books have 3 sentence mentions of psybnc. this is hardly anything but a trivial mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 November 2009
    • Comment Your wish is my command for I am more than familiar with WP:RS and WP:N which is another reason why I raised this deletion review. The reference in the book Securing IM and P2P applications for the enterprise By Paul L. Piccard, Marcus H. Sachs is from page 379 to 386, possibly more (we can't see them all), that is not 3 sentences, that is more like 10 pages. The term "psyBNC" even appears on 4 of the pages. Are you deliberately being dismissive? --Hm2k (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. The first of the books I mentioned devotes an entire paragraph of 8 sentences to the SW and includes a diagram illustrating how the SW works. However number of sentences (or even pages) is not the issue. The issue is whether the book discusses the topic in any detail. A trivial mention would be something like "one of the IRC bots out there is psyBNC." That is trivial because it gives no real information about the specific topic. However, both the books I listed describe specifically what the SW does, and how it can be used. The second also describes how the SW has been used in criminal activity. In most AfD debates I have participated in either of those sources would be enough to establish the notability of a topic. The original AfD may have been closed in good faith, but the new sources (all published books which gives them more weight) indicate that the subject has notability and that should be enough to overturn the original deletion. Notability is a threshold an article has to meet, but it is not supposed to be an impassable obstacle. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request I invite editors to read the following related AfDs which resulted in keep, which should assist you when making a decision: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PsyBNC, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitchX, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PIRCH. --Hm2k (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a current AfD that may also be of interest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacAmp (2nd nomination). I didn't follow the AfD under review here, but it looks like it was part of the IRC AfD Death March of Sept-Oct. 2009.--Milowent (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote. In order to be kept, an article's subject must be the subject of multiple, independent, and substantial sources. Mentions in passing in such sources do not establish notability, even if there are a lot of them. The closer of an AfD is to evaluate the arguments, not simply count them. In this case, even the "keep" arguments pointing at the "sources" used, which invariably mention PsyBNC only in passing or are simple use documentation rather than sources about it, strengthen the case for deletion. If those are the best sources available, the subject is not appropriate for an article. And a good job to Sandstein on reading the arguments rather than counting them. We could use that with some other types of articles where a flood of "keep" votes (! omitted intentionally) without presentation of a single decent source inevitably result in a "no consensus" outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You raise some good points. However, if you actually look yourself you'll clearly see that there's more than just a mention. Although there admittedly aren't as many reliable sources I would like or expect, there clearly is notability, especially it the realm of IRC, which due to it not being logged is difficult to reference. The outlined security issues alone should give it justification to have a Wikipedia article as there is clearly sufficient coverage, as well as all the entries in operating systems such as freebsd, ubuntu and gentoo. --Hm2k (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I endorse the delete close, for reasons eloquently expressed by Seraphimblade above, I agree with S Marshall that the refusal to userfy was indeed very peculiar. It is always possible that participants in the debate missed some reliable sources on the subject - one cannot prove a negative - so IMO good faith userfication requests by an editor in good standing should be granted as a matter of course. Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has already been userfied here: User:Hm2k/psyBNC. As a matter of course, I believe the article is up to standard and should be restored. --Hm2k (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per seraphimblade's remarks. RayTalk 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but with no prejudice towards the closer as I feel he did his best to close this AfD to reflect the apparent consensus based on the information that he had at the time. In reply to Seraphimblade, neither AfD nor DRV is a vote.
    This book [21] is not a "mention in passing". While there are other sources that in my opinion absolutely should be added to the article for the purposes of verifiability, the notability of this software is not the issue here and the remaining issues can be handled via the normal editing process.
    I do believe Seraphimblade is misunderstanding part of the notability guideline though. The notability guideline does not actually state that multiple sources are required. To quote WP:GNG: ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." The text is quite clear that multiple sources are preferred but it absolutely does not state that multiple sources are required for the purposes of notability (although, of course, I am personally still of the opinion that the more the better). The wording in this section seems to cause confusion where people believe that multiple sources are always required.
    The verifiability policy and the notability guideline are also not a combined policy/guideline. It is perfectly acceptable to establish notability via one means and use other sources for the purposes of verifiability. In the case of software, it is common practice and perfectly acceptable per WP:SELFPUB to use the software's own documentation and/or website for the purposes of verifiability when covering such things as the features and functionality of the software itself.
    All that said, having also personally spent 100s of hours compiling documentation on the behaviours of individuals named above over a span of months, it is pretty clear that there was something more going on here. Even when 3rd party reliable sources were provided or already present in articles, these individuals still wanted those articles deleted at AfD, and in many cases made false statements or claims against either the sources or the person presenting the sources in an attempt to sway the outcome. In addition to some of the other related AfDs linked above, the AfD for Konversation (AfD), which was also initially closed by Sandstein as delete is also very good example of these behaviours.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I'm not sure how you figure. I don't believe I misunderstand notability, it would be very rare, though not impossible, for a single source to establish notability, and that source would have to be of extreme reliability. In this case, though, the book mentions psyBNC several times, but doesn't go into much depth about it. That's pretty much the definition of a trivial mention rather than a substantial source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought during the original AfD potential sources like these: [22], [23], and [24] were too quickly dismissed. As for the books, I think this is an example of a mention in passing: [25] as is this: [26]. On the otherhand this: [27] is very much not (passing mentions don't generally include diagrams) and this one (that I don't think has been mentioned in this discussion yet) is arguable: [28]. I understand that notability is a hurdle that an article has to clear, but it shouldn't be a mountain that an article is required to climb. I don't know whether any part of the original AfD process was done in bad faith, but it sure seems like the article wasn't given any benefit of the doubt, which is not how I think the process should work.Rusty Cashman (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You only have to take a quick glance on Google to find literally hundreds of references on gov psybnc site:gov and edu psybnc site:edu sites, surely it's worth a mention in Wikipedia if Governments and Educational bodies are referring to it and writing about it. --Hm2k (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion, I could also see a no-consensus close, but deletion is quite reasonable. But userfy per Tim Song. Hobit (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you care to check the psyBNC page, you'll see that it's already been userfied here: User:Hm2k/psyBNC. I believe the article is up to standard and should be restored. --Hm2k (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still see only howto documentation and trivial mentions listed as "sources". That is insufficient, we would need reliable sourcing about the software, not simply guides as to how to install and use it. Wikipedia is not a howto guide. As far as I can tell by searching, such sourcing doesn't even exist—the software may be name dropped as useful for a particular purpose, and may be widely used, but I do not see substantial, in depth sourcing about the software and its impact. All I can find is use documentation and mentions of where it may be best used. Use of that sourcing without synthesis would result in a textbook "howto guide" article. It is possible that such documentation might be appropriate for a Wikibook on the use of IRC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all of those sources are trivial. There is enough to establish that this is a common and important tool (academic paper that spends a fair bit of time on it is a really good start) and so should have an article. After that, we can use primary sources. I would want to see what those books have to say though. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the book references are pretty good (but not in that article?) and some of the other ones look okay (academic paper in particular). I'd !vote to keep if those book references were in the article, but I have to endorse the AfD as a reasonable close. I'd suggest adding those sources and moving back into namespace after the DrV is done. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus I do not know whether this software is notable or not. It seems clear though that those who did join in the discussion, both here and at the AfD , do not agree at all--that there is no consensus whatsoever for the applicable guideline. People have said what standards they consider should be applicable, but this is merely what they say--there is no agreement whether the GNG or special guidelines should be relevant, or if any what any special standards should be, or whether IAR applies. (I suggest it might be simplest just to apply IAR, on the basis this can supersede all guidelines. It was for just such situations that IAR is established as a basic policy. ) There is one policy which is relevant: if there is no consensus to delete the item is not deleted. I certainly don;t see any. The closing admin did. However, the closing admin also took the extraordinary step of refusing to userify--which nobody here can justify. He was notified on Nov 23, but has not yet commented. Given that, I am not sure he judged the state of the consensus properly. I do not mean this as a general reflection on his closes, which I consider generally superlative in accuracy and reasoning. very few of which have been overturned. I've learned a lot from them. This time, he wasn't right. It has happened to me as well. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absent any specific guideline, the default is GNG. Sandstein clearly said the evaluation established it did not meet GNG. Miami33139 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin: I note that I was not contacted prior to this DRV, as far as I recall. I found a consensus for delete because most "keep" opinions were poorly reasoned hand-waving ("clearly notable, no reason at all to delete", "Keep per WP:IAR"), and did not address the doubts raised by the "delete" opinions about the sourcing quality. I declined userfication because userfication is not an entitlement, I had doubts that the requesting user would do anything useful with the userspace copy given the "IAR" tone of his request, he could have made a userspace copy for himself at the time of his request, and improvement in user space is not required to prepare the article for inclusion (submitting a set of references to substantial coverage of the subject is enough). But of course any other admin can userfy the article if they believe it worth the effort.  Sandstein  06:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, you WERE contacted before this DRV [29][30]. It seems you found a consensus by counting "delete" opinions, AfD is not a vote. If users requesting keep didn't give enough reason, why not just ask them for further details? Does common sense not apply here? Clearly not for you, hence the denied userification. Saying the user wouldn't do anything useful with it is not assuming good faith is it? Taking a look at the AfD, 3 users requested Userfy or made a copy, myself included. I might add that making a copy does not keep the revision history which is against Wikipedia's copyright license. Suggesting to make a copy is a bad idea. This whole thing stinks and I think it's becoming clear that it was obviously wrongly deleted. --Hm2k (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Alison Rosen – The result was Overturn and relist. The question seems to be in which cases criterion G4 applies. If the new article, while improved, fails to address all the core issues at the previous AfD, can it still be deleted under G4 as "substantially identical"? This is something that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, consensus seems to be in favor of relisting. – decltype (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alison Rosen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject is an accomplished and well-cited journalist and tv personality. The article was completely rewritten since the first deletion to include legitimate references, yet I feel it was deleted because such differences were not noted by the deleting party Karpaydm (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because we are a collaborative encyclopaedia, Wikipedia benefits from providing good faith users with FairProcess on demand. In this case I do not see any reason to deny it, so I will run with restore and relist in order that Karpaydm may see that his rewritten article, which at first glance appeared impressively-sourced, is not deleted without a supporting consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated it for deletion, both times. I used AfD the second time because the second version was indeed rather different from the first, and I was surprised to see it go via G4. Obviously I think it should be deleted (the vast majority of references were to her own writings, not people writing about her) -- and while I'm not keen to see people spend more time on an article I don't think has a future, I'm not averse to having it done via AfD. So: indifferent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks guys for giving the page another chance. Is there something I do now (like re-create the article)? I couldn't find a cached version... when I looked at page history, my original addition was not available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpaydm (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the DRV is over, please. The administrator who closes this may (if there is a consensus to do so) place a copy of the deleted article in your userspace for you to work on.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Invalid G4 deletion, there appears to be no dispute that the most recent version was substantially different from the version previously deleted after AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I have no idea if it will be found notable, but it deserves a new AfD discussion--it is a considerably improved article. There is no reason to return it to user space instead of mainspace, since it should not have been removed. .I see the deleting admin was not asked or notified--so I just now notified him. Perhaps he might have reverted himself had he been asked to. If he does not do that or quickly move it himself to your user space, any admin may , & I will do so during this discussion to facilitate things. . DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist If the cached version is a decent judge then this should have a full discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the deleting admin. The article was originally deleted because it failed WP:BIO. The basic criteria of WP:BIO is that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. As was fairly obvious, the new article did not address that issue. The vast majority of the sources used in it were articles published by the subject. Of the few remaining, most mentioned her only briefly or in passing (e.g this and this), while others were simply database searches (e.g. this and this). In addition, the article content, while somewhat less gushing and more neutral than the deleted version, significantly overlapped with it: for example, the lede paragraphs of both were essentially identical. I do not doubt that, as a freelance writer, the subject has had many articles published in OC Weekly and Time Out New York. However, given that that the "new" article did not meaningfully address the issue raised in the original AfD (WP:BIO), and given its similarity to the originally deleted article, I felt it qualified under WP:CSD G4. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I do not see how G4 would not be applicable here. While the article had different words, the new article did not address the core AfD concern—lack of notability and lack of source material. The number of sources in the deleted article do, at first glance, look impressive, they do not impress so much after looking through them. Most of them are by (and not about) the article's subject. The ones that aren't are simple "about the author" blurbs or name drops—trivial mentions. To address the notability/sourcing concerns, a new article would need to present multiple reliable, independent, substantial sources that are wholly or mainly about (not by!) the subject. That type of material doesn't seem to exist here. G4 requires only that the new article not address the AfD concerns that led to deletion, not that it be word-for-word identical. That's the case here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're reading G4 correctly. Under the speedy policy, G4 isn't grounds for deletion if the new page is "not substantially identical to the deleted version." There's really been no argument that the pages were substantially identical. "Should be deleted for the same reason as the previous article," isn't in the speedy criteria for good reason. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the new article doesn't address the deletion concerns, it's "substantially identical" to the old in that it has the same problems. Otherwise, anyone can game by changing the wording. And an assertion that someone didn't fill out Form 1130-A instead of Form 1310-B is meaningless anyway. If the right result occurred, it's lawyering to fight over exactly how a rule should be interpreted. There aren't enough sources to write an article on this person, so we shouldn't have one. Running it through more processes to figure that out is a waste of time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling when recreating the article was that the original article had the main problems of 1) no real proof she was a journalist/editor/tv journalist since references were to blogs and online videos and 2) there were no cross references to Ms Rosen. I tried to fix this problem by a) showing multiple references showing she was indeed a journalist for many different publications, b) showing articles about her (even if the mention was sometimes short) that in dicated her positions held and awards received at these publications, and c) making as many as 5 different cross references (she is referred to in the pages Maggie Gylenhaal, Kevin Connolly, and Courtney Cummz). She also has articles that she has written referenced on other pages that do not indicate she is the author. I also referenced her IMDB page which, though incomplete, clearly indicates she made TV appearances. I guess my case also would be that we probably all agree that a) a journalist and TV journalist can indeed be notable and b) by nature, a journalist is typically not referred to often in other sources - they are not meant to be featured, but are notable for whom they have featured. For example, Dan Patrick is a major television personality/journalist for ESPN that we are probably all familiar with, however, his reference has fewer secondary sources than Ms Rosen. Ms Rosen regularly appears on multiple national TV shows, mainly on Fox News, which is why I searched for her in the first place. Courtney Friel is a less well known TV personality, and she has her own page, yet she has not one reference. Journalist/author Anna David (journalist) has even fewer items listed on her page. The point is that journalists (both on TV and authors), even some of the most notable, are rarely part of a story and are therefore rarely referred to in secondary sources. Again, I would argue that notability for a journalist is not defined by articles about them, but by the notability of the articles they have written and the subjects they covered. The proposed article on Ms Rosen clearly establishes notability of subject matter. Because journalists are rarely written about, I fear that the deletion of the article is due to lack of familiarity of those voting for deletion and that the Wikipedia community in general could routinely suffer such unfortunate deletions. Karpaydm (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.188.12 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm familiar with the fact that journalists are not often the subject of publications themselves. Neither are many professions. That may mean we don't have as many articles on individuals in that profession as in some others, not that we set different standards. That just means Rosen's articles may be sources for other articles, rather than she being the subject. It does seem her star is rising, so it might be that in the future there will be enough written about her to write a full biography on her. If that happens, we'll write that article after it does. Until then, though, we don't have the sources. I commend your efforts in the undertaking, but in this case, there's simply not enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist The second version was substantially different to the first version, so a G4 deletion was not appropriate. It might be that the article still does not demonstrate her notability, but that should be for AfD to evaluatio as the sources in the second version were more and different to those in the first. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I was torn on this one. I can certainly understand Seraphimblade's arguments, and in fact I agree with him to a large extent, but the issue here is who should determine whether the previous concerns have been addressed? The community through an AfD, or the admin performing the G4 speedy? In cases where there is a substantial amount of new sources, my view is that the question ought to be settled by the community. To do otherwise risks treating nearly identically-situated articles differently and increasing the likelihood of error. The mere fact that an article had once been deleted by AfD on notability grounds ought not to work a permanent "corruption of blood" and cause all subsequent creations on the subject to be eligible for deletion essentially on the determination by a single admin that the subject remains non-notable, despite newly emerged sources that the previous AfD did not, and perhaps could not have, considered. That determination ought to be made by the community, either by a new AfD after recreation, or by a DRV before it. It being apparent that the new version does provide a substantial amount of new sources, the second AfD should have been permitted to run the full 7 days. I do not disagree with the closer's analysis of most of the new sources, but there may well be other members of the community who do. Tim Song (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 November 2009[edit]

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

Vijinfrugal (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently a wikipedia article with the title Urbanfrugalchic.com has been deleted by administrators. The reason they suggested was lack of notability.Actually the article was a description about two noted people Cynthia childs and Khristal Jones who run a corporation called Urbamfrugalchic media. They have a website blog with regular updates on various frugal living styles which is liked by many people.I made several discussions but the administrators denied the restoration of the article.

I request to reconsider the decision and restore the article. The article is only for general publicity of the people behind it and not for any product or blog promotion.

Vijinfrugal (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Malformed DRV fixed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain to us how Urbanfrugalchic.com meets our criteria for notability. You can do this by linking substantial coverage in reliable sources (which does not include blogs, press releases, messageboard posts or any kind of user-submitted content).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note you say here that you are their assistant, as such you should probably read the conflict of interest guidelines. You state that the article is "for general publicity of the people behind it" - wikipedia is not a resource for gaining publicity, it's an encyclopedia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it was perfectly reasonable to speedy-delete that one. And there's no indication the individuals would be notable either... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Spartaz Humbug! 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorese solidly handled.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good speedy. Tim Song (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, standard non-notable website. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I am not sure about A7: it is possible to regard "Launched on 25th May-2009, it has grown tremendously with an average of one hundred people logging on each hour." as an indication of possible importance. But it was also deleted as G11, promotional, and i agree with that. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse perfectly valid speedy deletion, and the author even openly states that the purpose of the article is because they want publicity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Willy Schäfer (actor) – Overturn as there was no need to already close a discussion that is considered here as not manifesting a clear consensus to delete. With the now mentioned sources, consensus would possibly change in any case. – Tikiwont (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Willy Schäfer (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were no !votes either way and per WP:RELIST such a discussion should either be relisted or kept as a no consensus result. When I raised the issue with the closing admin, he indicated that he felt the discussion was enough to form consensus, so we're here. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn- the only rationale to delete was the nominators, and that isn't enough to justify deletion. If the deleting admin felt it should have been deleted, they should have cast a vote. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Hobit. I have no idea whether Schäfer is notable, but at a minimum this one should have been relisted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peculiar. I wonder if my remark was interpreted as a delete !vote.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took it as a weak delete. You correctly noted that the article needed sources to be kept, and that you had found none. Kevin (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall's !vote looked like a polite delete to me, substantially backing up the nominator's clear reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary I used was fairly clear, I think. I meant my remark to indicate that while I had not found reliable sources, it is quite hard to do an exhaustive search. (Searching for "Willy Schäfer" in German is equivalent to searching for "Bill Jones" in English). I'm personally of the opinion that there was insufficient input in that debate for a reliable consensus to be determined as yet.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • meh, I probably would have relisted this but there clearluy isn't enough evidence of sourcing for this to be retained in the longer term. I generally take the view that afds with only the nomination can be treated as prods if there is no opposition so 'endorse close as a reasonable conclusion from the discussion - such as it was,- but also undelete as a contested prod if anyone really cares enough to challenge the deletion on that basis. I treated an AFD with no votes after one (or was it two?) relist(s) as a prod recently and deleted it on that basis. Was that wrong too? Spartaz Humbug! 10:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not !voting as I relisted the debate; but I do note that the close was roughly 3 days after the relist. Tim Song (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. After a relist an early closure is allowed if consensus has formed, but it hasn't. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I see consensus to delete, backed up by clear guidelines. Userfy for any editor in good standing on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there was only one person commenting in the AFD, a person who has stated here that his comment wasn't meant to be taken as a delete, how exactly can there be a consensus? Umbralcorax (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. I see no reason provided to actually keep the article... just a purely procedural arguments that we should relist it to get the supposed quorum of 3 votes. But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... a deletion shouldn't be overturned unless there's an actual reason to keep the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My worry is this results in us deleting articles that meet our guidelines. I spent a few minutes looking and I believe he meets WP:ENT as being in 120+ episodes of Derrick. [31], in addition to a number of other roles. [32]. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand the worry, deleting an article as a lump of text is not the same as deleting the topic or forever banning the topic. As an article apparently it didn't meet the guidelines as it wasn't sourced. As usual if the reasons for deletion can substantially be overcome the article can be recreated at any time by anyone. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your argument would be a reason to delete all unsourced articles here--after all once sourced they can be recreated. I don't think there is consensus for doing so. Nor do I believe we should delete articles in AfD without an actual discussion. We should only delete articles where we have consensus to do so. That's at the heart of AfD. In all cases, this actor meets our guidelines for inclusion per WP:ENT.Hobit (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse echoing the above WP:BURO point. Eusebeus (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn An AfD needs some minimal procedural requirements. One of them is someone commenting on the deletion proposal. The person is an actor in a long running role in 170 of the 281 episodes of what appears to a a very major German serial Derrick; The German WP article for the serial lists several books about it, including: Die Derrick Story. Fotos, Fakten, Fans. Der offizielle Bildband. Burgschmiet, Laura Morretti Nürnberg 1998, ISBN 3-932234-63-4; "Derrick und ich. Meine zwei Leben by Horst Tapper (the actor who plays the protagonist) --the other books listed there and in the enWP are apparently novelizations of the series. The German WP article list 19 actors in the series who have separate articles, of whom this is one--and the deWP is noted for relatively restricted coverage of popular culture--as well as for not bothering with precise sources. By the standards of the deWP, I think they would have simply expecgted someone to check the main article. It is always good to check the article in the other Wikipedia for a subject from that language area, as S Marshall did--but I looked a little more widely once I was there--partly because i recognized that including an article on an actor known mainly for one role (according to the de and en IMdB entries) was quite unusual for them. This is why there needs to be procedural requirements--without enough participation, it's easy to miss things. We seem to have too many AfDs to keep track of; Timn Song properly relisted this once, but it was closed after only 3 days--there is no rule requiring the full 10 days after relisting, but perhaps there should be, or it defeats the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Closer seems to have misinterpreted SMarshall's comments, which leaned toward keep and quite accurately identified the problems in identifying non-English-language sources for a subject with a common name. No explanation was given for cutting the relisting period short, and in light of SMarshall comments the afd should have been left open for the standard 7-day relisting period. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do want to say that my position remains that the article needs sources to be kept. To his credit, DGG mentions a source above, but has not read it (and neither have I). Nobody else has provided one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
two sources. the Nurnburg and the Topper. True, I haven't read either. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No consensus to delete. As for sourcing, I have a source for his DOB and the fact that he played Berger. Derrick is a significant series. Except for Derrick and Klein, I would say that Berger was clearly the most important character. decltype (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No one arguing to keep after a relist. Looks pretty clear to close as delete to me. Wizardman 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this a clear delete, when nobody at the AFD actually argued FOR deletion, aside from the nominator? Umbralcorax (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. No one argued against deletion. Wizardman 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody voted for delete. Meaning no consensus. And the rules still in place still say that no consensus should default to keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Scroogle – Deletion Endorsed. DRVs that end up being used as platforms to attack other editors' motives are generally considered to be past their usefulness and precedent is to close them as soon as this happens so I'm pulling the plug on this a day early. We have already had a good discussion so I do not consider this will distort the outcome. Views on the close are split down the middle but the endorse side has a minimal majority once the nominator's double vote is discarded and we have included a couple of opinions that did not express formal votes but that also tended to endorse the close. Votes on both side expressed policy and non-policy reasons equally so a slight bias towards head-counting is necessary to reflect the overall consensus of this discussion. Since we don't do no-consensus at DRV a clear outcome is required and there was no clear consensus of a reason of why the close was wrong. DRV isn't AFD rd 2 but is supposed to concentrate on the procedural aspect of the close and no clear reason for why this was closed incorrectly emerged, so I feel I should go with the majority here. Hence the endorsement of the close. – Spartaz Humbug! 09:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Scroogle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm having a hard time understanding why this page was deleted. I didn't comment at the AFD myself, if only because when I looked at it, based on policy and knowing that it was thoroughly well-sourced, it was a clear WP:SNOW keep, but apparently the AFD was held open a few extra days just so a thin number of !votes could ve aquired to make it a delete, despite WP:NOT#Democracy. The closing admin admits as much during his explanation to another user for the delete[33]. It's fairly obviously notable; multiple articles show up mentioning the site on Google news in only the last month[34] Kendrick7talk 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to "no consensus" with a hint of "merge and redirect to Criticism of Google. Delete arguments cited notability, which is not a good reason to delete when there is a merge option. The delete arguments only meant that the a stand alone article was not warranted, not that the information didn't belong somewhere. The several keep !votes offer good justification for why the information should be kept somewhere, if not in that article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...with no suggestion of a procedural problem. An editor mgith add the sourced information to Criticism of Google, and if that happens, Scroogle should exist as a redirect as a reasonable search term, and undeleting the history prevents possible violation of WP:Copyrights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, there's no way to see consensus for deletion in that AfD. I don't understand why it was even relisted -- there was a clear consensus for keep. On both counts, closing this one as delete was unjustified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closing admin does explain further how he came to his closure; I find that to be a decent reading of consensus. And please remember to assume good faith; I see no evidence of collaboration between Tim Song and MZMcBride. NW (Talk) 19:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing administrator, as well as Tim Song (mentioned by both the nominator and myself), notified of the DRV. NW (Talk) 19:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Rationale copied below.
Looking at the total vote count, I see an even split (sort of). There are four delete votes (JBsupreme, GlassCobra, Juliancolton, and Brandon) and four keep votes (AslamKarachiwala, Tim Vickers, Finell, and Northwestgnome), however I think it's important to note that one of the keep votes seems to be a single-purpose account (see Special:Contributions/AslamKarachiwala). While we can (and should) assume good faith regarding this account, I think it's fair to give its vote a bit less weight, which puts the argument slightly in favor of deletion. GlassCobra's vote in particular resonated with me when reading through the debate. There seem to be passing references to the product in the media, but very little independent pieces covering it. The notability issues combined with the slightly lean toward delete made me comfortable enough to close the debate as "delete."
  • --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CONS references consensus, which defines the word as "general agreement". How do you get from "the argument [is] slightly in favor of deletion" to "general agreement"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Perfectly satisfactory interpretation of consensus. Process has been followed correctly. GlassCobra 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not commenting on the close, but I certainly did not relist it so that it can get a few more deletes. And I have had, as far as I remember, no interactions with the closing admin before, during, or even after the relist, on or off-wiki. My relist was based on the fact that there was less than three non-SPA !votes on either side, and so I felt that relisting for a somewhat wider discussion may be better. Indeed, in response to an query from another admin on IRC, I stated that I'd be ready to NAC it as keep if it attracted a couple more keeps. I have no opinion on the subject. Tim Song (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus or overturn and relist. Reading the AfD (which for some reason is currently blanked, but could be looked up in the history log), I don't see a consensus for delete. The closing admin said that he saw the overall discussion leaning slightly in favor of deletion. That may be true, but the AfD had just been relisted less than a day (I think about 16 hours) before the close. There was no particular reason to rush with the closing so soon after relisting; in fact I thought that after an AfD is relisted, the customary practice is to wait another seven days before closing it or at least until a clear picture regarding the consensus situation emerges. I cannot see the deleted article now and I did not participate in the AfD itself, but I do find the outcome surprising. GoogleNews[35] shows a fair amount of newscoverage, quite enough, I think, to pass the ordinary WP:N standards. Apart from the refs mentioned above, here is, for example, an article in the Times specifically about scroogle[36]; here is another story specifically about scroogle in WebProNews[37] and here is a couple of paragraphs specifically about scroogle in a book[38].; and so on. Does not look like a particularly marginal notability case to me. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn I don't understand closing an AfD early (yes even after a relist) if consensus isn't solid. I just don't think there is a rush. Also, given the nature of the discussion I think SmokeyJoe got it right--a merge would have been a much better outcome even if closing at that point was necessary. And finally, with the sources provided by Nsk92, I'd say we are at the point that overturning to no consensus is pretty obvious. So lots of reasons to overturn this. NC or a relist are both fine by me. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? The discussion was closed after seven days. What are you talking about "early"? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I read WP:RELIST after being relisted the debate should be left open until there is a clear consensus. "It may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." As the consensus wasn't clear at all (as evidenced by this DrV and the comment that "...which puts the argument slightly in favor of deletion") I don't think it should be been closed until it was clear or until another 7 days had past. All that said, I think merging would have been the right result and that's a much stronger reason, IMO, to overturn here. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see anything out of process (relist doesn't require a full extension). Closer's rationale is sensible & logical. Good call. Eusebeus (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether this would've led to a "delete" outcome if Daniel Brandt wasn't involved.

    The thing is that the "delete" arguments from various users completely failed to take account of this rather pertinent source. Times Online is very clearly and definitely a reliable source, and I must admit that in assessing this debate, I would give a great deal less weight to the delete !votes because of that lapse.

    I'm curious to know whether MZMcBride took account of that in his close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, closer, please don't interpret my remark above as an "overturn". I specifically believe it's for the best that Wikipedia contains nothing at all about Daniel Brandt or any of his enterprises, and I approve of Alison's blanking of the debate. I just think that if we're going to ignore the evidence, we should be more honest about why.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. 3/4 split in !votes (discounting the SPA) is generally "no consensus", not delete, and cutting short the relist period appears to have been inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist In the first part of the discussion, there were only keep !votes; after the relisting, there was mainly deletes. This distribution (or it's inverse) sometimes indicates a unreasonable attack or defense of the article in one or another of the halves. It is a good reason for being careful, and making sure that all editors with a possible interest are represented or at least aware. I do not see that it was listed for attention by any of the WikiProjects. We have no fixed time for a relist, but this has come up in several cases here, and I would suggest we may need a rule that unless the circumstances amount to SNOW or a valid speedy argument is raised, the relist should be for the full additional 7 days. Doing it shorter defeats the purpose of getting additional attention. I agree with S Marshall, btw, about the actual rationale involved, but not necessarily with his conclusions from it. The relisting will be the place to consider this. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should think Wikipedia's spent all the time and effort on Daniel Brandt that we can usefully spend. The whole matter's always been ludicrously expensive, in terms of editor time, and it will certainly stay expensive if allowed to re-ignite; and it's the most horrendous drama magnet. Right now we've managed to achieve a stable state where Wikipedia is officially oblivious to the man, and I think that's for the best.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know about him, & share your opinion, but I think that is totally irrelevant to any factor involving keeping or deleting an article in Mainspace about software he wrote. The principle here is NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
I understand that, but the thing is that Brandt's got a long history of finding and outing people who say things he doesn't like. Which wouldn't bother me (I already edit under my real name and my date of birth and location's evident from my userpage, because I choose to edit in such a way that I don't mind being found)—but there are children and other vulnerable people among our editors who might seriously regret an ill-considered edit to something Brandt's involved in.

Look, my position on whether MZMcBride can be trusted with the "delete" button hasn't changed but I do think he was morally right to rid us of this. And this DRV should probably be blanked as the AFD was.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Looks fine to me procedurally. MBisanz talk 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the closing admin left a good, clear and sensible rationale, IMO. I'm not seeing an issue here whatsoever - Allie ❤ 04:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't really say there is an error in User:MZMcBride's closure, however I would have voted to keep the article if had a chance to !vote, as I was looking to read it in Wikipedia just hours after it was deleted. (An article in a neutral point of view). So if a totally new article appears it may be from me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - AFD was closed correctly closed per procedure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no procedural errors that I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. That's what the discussion indicates and if anything the keep arguments are stronger. There was no consensus to delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plogically stronger though they are, there seems a great deal of emotion on the other side. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No clear error in the close that requires correcting. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not in line with normal closure decisions, the previous nomination, or the notability of the article. --LjL (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (as nominator) Unsurprisingly, it's the usual cabal of a handful of usually sane editors who dislike the creator[39][40] of the software who are !voting, yet again, in an attempt to throw Mr. Brandt upon the dustbin of history. They should be completely ashamed of themselves, obviously, but for those of us here trying to write an encyclopedia, and not to use it to carry out personal vendettas, this is a clear overturn. -- Kendrick7talk 08:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You already effectively voted in the nomination so please can you change this to a comment to avoid confusion. I also suggest you refector that last comment as attacking other editors in that way is rarely productive at DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 09:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I immediately noted that I was the nominator. Like AfD, this isn't a vote, and, believe you me, after many a monthly Brandt-related-AfD, I know whereof I speak, and I stand by my characterization of the dubious motivations of my fellow editors. I'm deeply saddened, of course, by such malfeasance towards the project's ultimate goal, especially by editors I otherwise hold in the highest regards but I'm not here to bite my lip. -- Kendrick7talk 09:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 November 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Number-one singles in Chile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There exists a official chart, just look at the es.wiki Chile Top 20, so there's need to restore this category, also, A Little Less Conversation by Elvis Presley vs. JXL was the first #1 single. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • The chart doesn't seem to be official as far as I can tell from the article you've listed the chart is maintained here on blogspot. The site where the top 20 is apparently further published which lists your first number 1 single here just above the chart states "Airplay Chilean Top 20 compiled by Victor Chile@n (Santiago). In Chile there isn't an official chart by local music industry.". That site in it's "about" area states "...the main aim is to create a service dependent upon the mainstream music channels, to separate the 'noise' of today's music charts from the real, sales-driven, people-created charts...". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (closer). Opinions were unanimous in favour of deletion. As far as I can tell there is no official music singles chart in Chile. It's a blogspot website, for heaven's sake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, all the truth, so don't restore it. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Special school (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin did not address the arguments for deletion. Rovea (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer. The Delete votes were effectively that the article is a duplication of Special education, but that article is not particularly better sourced, and the two are not necessarily the same, as the last four Keep comments noted. The alternative to Keep would have been Merge, which is effectively what the nominator was asking for ("I or someone else will add all of the information on Special school to Special education" - attribution requires that the history be kept in this case). Black Kite 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I would add all the information from Special school to special education. In my note to closing admin, I recommended deletion. I meant "merge" as in adding all the information from Special school to Special education. I didn't mean merge as keeping the article. Rovea (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the inclusionists here need to compromise. The deletionists have compromised so many times by allowing all these school-related articles to exist. This has gone too far. Rovea (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have saved the copy of Special school in my sandbox. That way I can add the information into special education. Rovea (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not an inclusionist. However, I did not feel the nomination reasons (which didn't appear to address WP:DEL#REASON) or Delete reasons were sufficient to delete this article. As an aside, the first sentence of the nomination reads "When I searched for "special school" on Google, it only relates in the US" yet most of the hits on the first page of that search are in the UK, including the UK Government's website. Black Kite 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was being "sarcastic" which I regret I shouldn't have added that in. Clearly other editors did not get my intentions. You still failed to mention the other arguments that I offered. Rovea (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first page was all in the US. I checked it. But I also stated that the content of the article (which means we are disregarding the notability) was not the reason for deletion. Rovea (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding notability? Now you've lost me. If there were other good and policy-based deletion reasons given, then I would have addressed them, but given that your other reasons included "The content of the article is not the reason for deletion but about the "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia." and "A student who is expelled from high school would not be interested in reading about special education" I didn't see any reason to. Black Kite 17:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used the arguments from here: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Rovea (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps next time it would be better to read WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL#REASON. Black Kite 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. However, this was clearly an exceptional case that you failed to address. Rovea (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close was not clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? This was clearly a mistake on the nominator's part. Rovea (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That it was well within the closer's discretion to close the debate as keep - indeed, it might have been an abuse of such discretion had they done otherwise? I see no argument in that discussion that explains why special school should be a redlink. Tim Song (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my intentions above. Rovea (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The issues here clearly involved editorial judgment rather than notability issues or other issues involving the encyclopedic suitability of the content involved, and therefore it was perfectly appropriate, if not mandatory, for the closing admin to base the decision on the expressed consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion is not a vote and is based on logical arguments. Rovea (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't fault Black Kite's close there.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD is not ideally the place for merge discussions, and neither is this. but from the AfD discussion, I do not think there is currently consensus for a merge. Any other close would have been erroneous. But it's better to give reasons in the first place,--conceivably a fuller close might have made this Deletion Review unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was to delete Special school, not to merge to Special education. I don't understand why all of you keep endorsing it. This was an exceptional case, which was not about the content of the article. Like I said before it was about the "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia." This was about inclusionist vs. deletionist. It has nothing to do with the content of the article. I don't know why everyone keeps saying this. Rovea (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (schools). I don't understand why school articles are included when it has never even achieved consensus. Rovea (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Numerically this favoured keep, or no consensus. Arguments wise it certainly was a keep. Quantpole (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People please read Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia especially when it says this: Much discussion concerns not only the content of each article in question, but also "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia." Rovea (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matthew Watson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the administrator closing the debate and deleting the article interpreted the debate incorrectly - "The majority of editors in this discussion favoured keeping this article" but he argued they lacked a compelling rationale, relying mostly on WP:ITSNOTABLE.

I dissagree and believe there was sufficient evidence to indicate the notability of the articles subject: Matthew Watson. The article included links to his large number of publications which are well cited.- his books published by leading academic publishers some of his articles in the leading journals in his area (IPE). Arguments for deletion also included substantial inaccuracies which were not addressed during the closure:

  • does not seem to pass WP:PROF - lack of citations - "Two articles and a book is not notability".
  • "Few Assistant professors are notable"

I think these arguments were wrong.

  • He has two single authored books, jointly edited another (with another forthcoming)(all with leading - not fringe - publishers) and around thirty articles published in peer reviewed academic journals (many in leading in journals) and these have been widely cited.
  • He is a full professor in the UK (which has a different status than in the US) - who had been appointed professor on the basis of there having been deemed to be evidence of "sustained output of high quality, peer-reviewed research publications or other equally recognised forms of research output, and evidence that they have made a significant contribution to the discipline and earned an international reputation.".

Support, even proposal, for deletion might well have been based on inaccurate information (the proposer for deletion thought he was not a professor and argued incorrectly against having Watson's professorship acknowledged) and deletion itself might have been based partly on this.

The deleting administrator kindly restored the page to my user space where it has been worked on and in my view improved User:Msrasnw/Matthew Watson with even more evidence of the notability of the subject being indicated. I would like this version restored to the main space if it is deemed OK. The deleting administrator has been contacted and the issue discussed at length but they still feel that there is insufficient evidence of notability. User talk:Skomorokh#Matthew Watson User talk:Skomorokh#User:Msrasnw/Matthew Watson. Msrasnw (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I can't fault Skomorokh's close. Tim Song (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With articles on academics, if DGG can't find a reason to keep the article, then in my experience, there's none to be found.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of thing I am very worried about. But DCG says "Delete: Two articles and a book is not notability." This is wrong - Watson has Two single authored books published by leading publishers, another jointly edited work and around 30 articles - some in key journals. DCG "Few Assistant professors are notable" This is wrong as he is a full professor If this sort of argument is why the article was deleted then there is a problem with our approach. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not infallible. In an afd discussion, I give my opinion, not my judgment. I hope people look for themselves and use their own judgment rather than rely upon mine--the reason we have debates is to get different views. There is in any case no reason not to write a clearer article that shows the notability better; Msrasnw, you are trying one, and I have given you some advice on my talk p. about it. It looks like I may have been wrong about the rank and publication list--I'm checking for citations & holdings; citations are relevant in the "hard" social sciences like this. I am a little concerned about relying on the authors university p. in this case because it seems promotional more than informative--as does the present state of the article under revision. I'd suggest a close as simply, Permit recreation. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin I stand by the close as an interpretation of the debate, but have no problem with allowing recreation.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have recreated the page as Matthew Watson (Professor of political economy). I hope it is OK now. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Allow recreation - Watson is a full professor at a major university, and Msrasnw's new version is much shorter and less promotional. Until his recent improvement I would have kept the view that recreation was unwise due to the promotional issues and the lack of any external sourcing about the importance of his academic work. What we have now is enough better that normal article improvement should take care of the rest. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close good call, nothing out of process. Eusebeus (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what was out of process was not considering the comments made on Nov.3, which challenged--and challenged correctly--the evidence that I and others had mistakenly relied on earlier in the discussion. The best course at that point would have been to ask the earlier participants if they wanted to have another look. I don;t think any of us who participate in multiple afds can manage to follow up all those we participate in and see such things without being reminded. I am glad I was asked to re-evaluate eventually. I support the the new article, now at Matthew Watson (academic) -- my concerns about the draft version were dealt with in an admirable fashion. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain new article Seems sufficientkly notable, and as a full orifessor the cavils about his title fail. Collect (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone close this? Does not seem that there's anything left for DRV to do here. Tim Song (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Collectors' Choice Music (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion not warranted on a notability question BRG (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page was tagged for speedy deletion and deleted before I even saw the message on my talk page that it wa tagged. Apparently the reason was a supposed non-notability, which would usually allow the courtesy of discussing it. The company has released a lot of albums which have been considered worthy of Wikipedia articles, and a cursory check of :What links here" would show that. So the notability question should not even have been raised. -- BRG (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse A7. I can't fault the tagger or the deleting admin, as "a company primarily in the business of re-issuing albums originally recorded in LP record form as compact discs" is not an indication of importance. Tim Song (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are referred to in the articles of the albums in question. Since most people do not have vinyl playing facilities any more, their CDs are just about the only way anyone can get those albums. And the number of CDs issued by CCM is immense. What would qualify as "important" in your eyes?-- BRG (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you said anything about the "immense" number of CDs issued in the article, it would most likely not be an A7. The problem is that you didn't. Tim Song (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. An article simply stating a company's name and line of business is generally insufficient to indicate significance, at least for routine lines of business. Because this is a speedy, article can be recreated with more detailed/sufficient information if that can be identified Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as deleting admin. While I believe the article unquestionably met the criteria for A7 at the time of its deletion, I believe that it might have a chance at notability on second glance, since the phrase gets a lot of hits in the Google News archive. Speedy deletions are in most cases made without prejudice against the creation of a new article, though, so I don't believe this speedy will affect the creation of a well-referenced article in the future. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse perfectly good speedy A7; I would certainly have done the same. No indication at all why the company is important. If you do have some sources that it is, create a article using them. Also check our FAQ about businesses & organizations DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ seems only to talk about people editing articles about organizations they are connected with; I do not understand why you referred to it; I certainly have no connection to CCM other than having bought several of their products! -- BRG (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe we can close this deletion review now as moot, as the editor who brought this to deletion review has created a new article that satisfies A7's conditions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 November 2009[edit]

  • AXAH – Restored and listed at AfD by the deleting admin. Nothing more for DRV to do here. NAC. – Tim Song (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AXAH (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Inappropriate, out of process deletion by Altenmann. The page was previously redirected as a likely search term. The deletion log claims it was an expired prod but it was not. Seems to be related to these AfD's the deleting admin just initiated: [41] [42] [43] [44]
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prod was removed, so I'm not sure that rationale holds water. However, have you tried asking Altenmann about this? AniMate 23:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Tothwolf had handled it correctly according to WP:BEFORE. The deleting admin seems to have removed a good and useful redirect on the basis of it having being a prodded article. there were two prods on it previous to Tothwolf's redirect: prod1 gave no reason; prod2 said "The article contains only a dictionary definition of a technical term. Details are well-covered at AHAH." a very good reason to change it to a redirect, as was done, rather than delete: the article contained only the text "Asynchronous XHTML and HTTP, or AXAH, is the similar to AHAH. The only difference is specifying the markup as XHTML." and a link to [Examples of AXAH]--clearly not supportable as an article. This sort of thing usually happens as an e.c., but the deleting admin did it 15 hrs after the change to a redirect. I suspect the reason to be that they had opened a window or tab for it earlier, and not finished it until half a day later & forgot to look for changes. An edit would have given an edit conflict message, but apparently a deletion does not. I consider it simply a careless technical error on their part--it could happen to me easily enough also. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was prodded on 14 July 2009, [45] redirected on 21 July 2009, [46], and then deleted 20 November 2009 [47] as an "expired prod". --Tothwolf (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake. I was looking at several similar pages. This one was a redirect to a wrong (IMO) page, so I opened an old version to see the content. Then I proceeded to nomination for deletion of some of them. This one (opened on old version) I mistakenly assumed as "prodded" and deleted myself. I guess there is a bug in the software, since the deletion page automatically substituted the "expired prod" text, so I suspected nothing. - Altenmann >t 01:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Please, someone more experienced, report the wikimedia bug, easily reproducible. - Altenmann >t 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't really a bug. If you restored the old revision, that's exactly what you'd see. Basically the "expired prod" text comes in because it has been more than 7 days since the prodding; AFAIK the template's logic has no way to tell if it was an older revision or not. Tim Song (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMO it really is. If you look ito the history, I did not restore it: I only viewed it in history. - Altenmann >t 05:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From deleting admin: In any case, the redirect target was about a different software which has no slightest mention of AXAH. A single letter in name may be a totally different product, such as Synopsis and Synopsys. This is expecially sensible with abbreviations. If AXAH is notable in itself, such a redirect is misleading and hence harmful, rather than helpful. The deleted page says that it is "similar to AHAH". Well, we have zillions of similar products, which are nevertheless different, and not all of them are notable. For all we know AXAH may be a college dorm knock-off of AHAH, no reason for promotion in wikipedia, unless solid references of notability provided. Then there is no problem with article recreation. - Altenmann >t 00:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. This was just a little mistake? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. If this was deleted as an expired PROD, why isn't it simply restored at a user's request, and whatever other issues are involved addressed in the appropriate places? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't an expired prod, which is why I listed it here. See my reply to DGG above. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it was not the same software, and that a redirect was inappropriate, then the best way to clarify the situation would be to restore the article, and list it at AfD for a proper debate which can be better cone there than here. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Altenmann >t 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was appropriate based on the information I could find. The proper procedure would have been RFD, but that was not done. Now it is listed at AfD like the other 4... --Tothwolf (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"AXAH" is not mentioned nor somehow hinted in the AHAH page. Please never redirect to a page when a reader will not find the term he is looking for. If you have found an information which allows you to believe that you may create redirect, and it is missing in wikipedia, please add it, with the corresponding reference, and only then redirect. - Altenmann >t 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course free to argue for a redirect at AFD. Tim Song (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But first create a basis in wikipedia itself: notability, sources, you know the ropes. - Altenmann >t 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I don't really care anymore as I'm growing tired of people attempting to game the system. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dorian Davis – Unsalted to allow an article that meets inclusion criteria to be created in good faith; without prejudice to a fresh AFD on the new article if there are objections at that point. –xenotalk 14:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dorian Davis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dorian Davis' Wikipedia article was deleted two years ago, and since he has gained more notability and I would like an opportunity to improve the article. I have collected some references. Feel free to review my contributions and user page. Dan LeveilleTALK 02:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsalt per S Marshall. It's been two years, and an editor in good standing wants to work on it. Tim Song (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim Song correctly predicted what I'd say! Unsalt per, er, well, me.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Fort Hood terrorist attack – Deletion endorsed. Because of the extended discussions we have had on this, I ask that the redirect not be recreated even if a new source is found, unless it is brought to DRV and recreation is permitted. – NW (Talk) 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fort Hood terrorist attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inappropriate THIRD Close while discussion was ongoing. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unclose, let the discussion continue, This was an obvious no consensus as noted by User:Protonk. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Saturn has been obsessed with this terrorism label (leading to an ANI complaint[48]), and wants the circular debate to go on forever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, and possibly open a RFC on the broader issue This, and a few previous cases, make it clear there is a fundamental disagreement about whether, and the degree to which WP:NPOV and WP:BLP can meaningfully apply to redirects, or whether redirects should, as navigational aids, be understood not to convey any opinion about the subject. I strongly subscribe to the latter belief, absent obvious mischief, which this is clearly not. The admin's closure rationale makes clear that he was incapable of understanding one side of the argument, and thus he acted, in good faith but inappropriately, to dismiss that side's arguments entirely. We are left with little more than vote-counting, which, I believe, Protonk read appropriately as no consensus. RayTalk 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors commenting here, who are concerned about the overall issue, are invited to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Section_regarding_neutrality_of_redirects for a more general discussion about redirect rules. Our current guideline is that NPOV (and, by extension, such parts of BLP as depend on NPOV) do not apply to redirects. I like that, but it appears a lot of people don't. Those who agree, or disagree, with me, are invited to talk the subject over in generality there. RayTalk 06:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These things have time frames for a reason. If anything, it was overdue. Grsz11 05:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as correct interpretation of discussion, as well as correct action to take to uphold WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. GlassCobra 05:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per GlassCobra. Interestingly, William S. Saturn had no objections to the discussion being closed when it was a result he agreed with, he only called for more discussion when he disagreed with the result. AniMate 05:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because no consensus was the right decision although I favored further discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close Technically the original one by Black Kite was the correct close, being that it was the first. But Crum's close comes to the same decision, so endorse this one for the sake of less fuckassing about. ViridaeTalk 05:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - The "while discussion was ongoing" is particularly bizarre since we're already well well past the standard 7 days afforded XfD discussions. Why should it be allowed to continue, because this outcome isn't to saturn's liking? Tarc (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Black Kite had it right the first time. Not sure why this became an issue; admins should know better than to feed AN/I drama.... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by Black Kite. No offense to Crum, but he shouldn't have had to do it. Grsz11 05:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close POV fork evading consensus at Fort Hood shootings, highly unlikely search term, BLP issues as well, ten days of extended discussion already. PhGustaf (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Greater than 100k hits on Google [49], over 7000 on Gnews [50], is an unlikely search term? It's a redirect, and thus can't be a POV fork either. Would you like to rephrase? RayTalk 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Put the phrase in quotes and the gnews hits go down to 17, mostly opeds and blogs. Such redirects as Barack Osama have been deleted, too. PhGustaf (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In quotes on google fetches 102,000. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect does not mean we are calling it an act of terrorism, or the shooter a terrorist. Otherwise, the title of the article would reference terrorism. Redirects are an aid to navigation; if it is reasonable to suspect that a person would type in X intending to get to an article he does not know we have titled Y, the redirect is valid. In this case, it is absolutely reasonable to suspect that a reader would type Fort Hood terrorist attack and need to be redirected to Fort Hood shooting. Though DRV is not RfD II, Crum's closure was an incorrect interpretation of the debate. It is not a violation of BLP to have this redirect because we are not labeling anyone a terrorist; his reasoning was flawed. BK's close was better, but links in the RfD show that BK was wrong when he said nobody would call this a terrorist attack. The closure should be overturned and the RfD relisted. ÷seresin 06:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison to Barack Osama is not at all valid. People searching for that know well what the correct name is. A perfectly reasonable person could think of this as "Fort Hood terrorist attack." Is also isn't a play on a name in smearing fashion or anything like that. It is a really bad comparison. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure by Crum in the terms laid out by Viridae. Crafty (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete was within the discretion of the closing admin, though obviously it wasn't the conclusion I came to. Protonk (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I just tried to justify 'delete' multiple times and I couldn't" (User:Protonk). --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I have the capacity to distinguish between a close that I would have made and a close I feel is beyond the pale. I would not have made the same close (quite obviously, given that I didn't), but it is within the discretion of an admin to do so. Protonk (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An admin involved (Black Kite) had no business closing the discussion. You did because you were not involved. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Correct decision, AN/I drama-mongering notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 08:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Nominator did not even bother to come up with a valid reason to overturn ("inappropriate"? "discussion was ongoing"?) though a couple of other editors have done so. Seresin provides a valid argument, however I do not agree that the closure (any of the three, including Crum's) "was an incorrect interpretation of the debate." As with many contentious XfDs, there were multiple ways in which this could have been closed. Giving greater weight to the BLP argument (which is absolutely legitimate—a "terrorist" redirect associates the shooting and by extension the accused shooter with terrorism, which was precisely the point of those supporting deletion) when judging consensus was valid, as suggested by the fact that two separate admins came to that conclusion and the third who did not believes per a comment above that it was "within the discretion of an admin to do so." So there's nothing warranting a DRV here and we have already wasted an extraordinary amount of time on a stupid redirect and a lot of ancillary shenanigans. Let's move along. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse I think current policy doesn't support the deletion and I'd have !voted to keep as a reasonable search term, but the close is not an unreasonable interpretation of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In discussion about NPOV and redirects I've become convinced that redirects should be targeted to commonly used terms. Given the massive news coverage that labels this a possible terror attack (including the NYT OpEd piece below) I think that a redirect is appropriate at this time. With no fault attached to the closer (it was a reasonable close, just events have passed it by) I suggest we overturn the closure. Hobit (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Hobit, I endorse the closure as a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. Unlike Hobit, I think we should nevertheless overturn the debate itself because, as Seresin very ably points out, it did not come to the correct conclusion. The debate should properly have highlighted the value of a redirect here, but it failed to do so.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my close and Crum's close. Or am I not allowed to comment because I'm involved? Who knows, when people are allowed to invent their own definition of the word? Black Kite 11:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A reasonable close. Tim Song (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and delete and Salt. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete. Until an investigation establishes that he was acting for political motives, it's a BLP violation to call it a terrorist attack.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Black Kite's original decision was solid and I believe a proper interpretation of the consensus, taking WP:BLP and WP:NPOV into account. This "involved" definition has become ludicrous. BK's closure should never have been reversed and reclosed, but instead taken straight here for review. I hope the admins in this case will learn a lesson to not hastily overturn others' decisions in the heat of the drama. JamieS93 14:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - good close, based on a read through the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- forgive my being naive, but I'm not seeing where BLP comes into play here, can someone explain it? The way I'm looking at it is the word "terrorist" is used solely to describe the attack, and not reflecting on the suspect. And with a well known politician like Joe Lieberman referring to it as a terrorist attack... I'm just not seeing why this is so controversial. I'm not saying that I AGREE that its a terrorist attack, but that I don't get why having a redirect with that word is such a horrible thing that we have to delete what seems (to me at least) a reasonable redirect and even, as at least one person suggested above, salt it. This is not meant to endorse or question the decision, I'm just curious. Thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where one follows from the other. Calling the INCIDENT a terrorist attack is, at least to me, completely seperate from calling the MAN a terrorist. Now if a redirect to the suspect was Fort Hood Terrorist, then I see the BLP issue, but the incident and the suspect are not the same, and I'm just not getting the ire in any event. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Passive language like "a terrorist attack happened" is as diversionary as "the victims were shot with a gun." Guns don't shoot people, and terrorist attacks don't just happen. For there to be a terrorist attack, there must be a terrorist. So who committed the "Fort Hood terrorist attack?" ~YellowFives 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then answer me this- if there were no suspect, would we even be having this discussion? Or would we be so afraid of potential BLP issues for someone who wasn't even identified that we'd STILL be having this discussion anyway? Umbralcorax (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP aspects complicate this decision, for sure. If it was an attack by unkown people, labelling it as terrorism would still be wrong, but it would likely get by the guideline for redirects. In this case though, it's a certain individual who is still alive and is very heavily implicated in the shootings (almost beyond all doubt, though not yet officially confirmed). This redirect makes a transitive association, "terrorist attack" == "a terrorist committed it", and that is the bone of contention. As I said long ago, if the redirect were "Allegations of terrorism in the Fort Hood attack", everything would be fine. Franamax (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an article title. But it's not a commonly-used term. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It's possible that fewer people would be concerned with the BLP implications in that case. Because we have here the human face of the person who is most likely to be harmed by this prejudicial label, it's possible that we are more acutely aware of the problem than we might otherwise be. I would argue that we should be just as aware and cautious for an as-yet-unidentified person, but the answer to your question "would we" is "definitely maybe." ~YellowFives 18:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Valid reading of debate taking into account sensitivity of the subject matter. Quantpole (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but If endorsed on BLP grounds, scrub all mention of Hassan from Fort Hood shooting. It's simply nonsensical to say that calling someone a "suspected murderer" is non-BLP, but calling that same person a "suspected terrorist" in the context of the same event is a BLP violation. This assumes for the sake of argument that redirects "call" anyone anything. As much as Black Kite's close was inappropriate on several levels, at least it articulated a valid reason to delete a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's your logic that's not making sense. "Murderer" is a much more legally clear term than "terrorist." A murderer is someone who commits the act of murder, as Hassan undeniably did. However, because his motives have not yet been discovered, nor has any in-depth psychological examination been administered, "terrorist" is a POV label. Wikipedia is certainly not in the position to be deciding who is a terrorist and who is not. Further, Black Kite's close appears to be viewed as inappropriate largely only by you. Your claim that he is "involved" in this issue simply because you two have had interaction (however negative) before is tenuous at best, assuming bad faith at worst. As I said above, Black Kite's close was the correct judge of consensus of the discussion, as well as the best path to take for this project. I'd also like to note that your unilateral demands to strike all votes that you disagree with and make largescale changes that violate WP:POINT at venues like XFD and DRV are wildly inappropriate and misplaced. GlassCobra 21:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Are redirects required to follow NPOV?
    2. Who is responsible for deciding what is a terrorist attack and what is not? Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The suspect has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, therefor calling him a suspected murderer is legitimate. He has not been charged with being a terrorist, however. DCEdwards1966 22:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "terrorism" a specific crime with which one can be charged, or an attribute of another crime? Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, one can be charged with terrorism and ancillary terrorism crimes, at least in the U.S. It's kind of been in the news of late. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is charged with, among other crimes, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism. See also this category. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So then, does usage in reliable sources mirror the technically accurate description? I would contend that it does not, based on no more than the reliable sources involved in the article targeted by this redirect. If there's a technically correct usage as well as a reliably sourced vernacular usage differs, on what basis does Wikipedia prefer one technical definition (and again, per WP:TERRORIST, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter) over other reliably sourced usages? By taking a single interpretation of the word "terrorist", Wikipedia would be becoming no more than a puppet of the U.S. Federal Government's view of what constitutes terrorism. Per NPOV, preferring that definition of terrorism over any other voids our impartiality. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Personally I think we should avoid usage of the term "terrorist" (including in categories) whenever possible because it is so fraught. The category "American people imprisoned on charges of terrorism" is acceptable because it is a simple statement of fact—those people are imprisoned on charges of terrorism. A general "terrorists" category is more problematic as this debate concluded. So I agree that we should never describe someone as a terrorist just because the State Department or Department of Justice says they are, though of course we can say that a person or group has been accused of or charged with terrorism by various state entities. Similarly it is to at least some degree acceptable to mention accusations of terrorism in the Fort Hood shooting (one must tread very carefully of course), but it is not acceptable to use a category (as some editors have tried to do) or a redirect to classify the event as terrorist. All of this, however, is rather beside the point in the context of a deletion review. Some of your points here are either re-litigating the RfD or taking us off on a more general tangent when the issue at hand is whether the closing admin interpreted the debate incorrectly or not. It seems pretty obvious that there will not be a consensus that the admin was in error, which means we'll stay with the status quo. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the things I've been accused of in connection with this, taking the DRV off track is among the mildest. I'd be happy to continue a philosophical discussion elsewhere. There are several venues where the discussion is continuing; I'd be supportive of any attempt to consolidate them in a format for greater community visibility and input. As you say, the votes to sustain the deletion appear to be winning on numbers. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be realistic about the reason for the redirect and the challenge to it: there is an ongoing debate over whether this is murder not amounting to terrorism, or murder and terrorism, either as defined by US law, or in the common understanding of the word. to some extent this debate has a political polarization, and what some people consider the likely motivation of people of his religion. Using this as a redirect is in the circumstances a politically motivated BLP violation. If he should be charged, the question will remain, but the situation will alter. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 98% of the time I agree with you, DGG, but I can't in this case unless you (and I trust that if anyone on Wikipedia is able to cut this Gordian knot, you could) can explain to me how the redirect was a BLP violation while the content at Fort Hood shooting#Possible motivation is not. Is it not enough that reliable sources have described experts, including a former U.S. Attorney General, calling the attack terrorism? Is not BLP about negative unsourced information? If so... how does a redirect violate BLP? Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that it is being discussed, does not mean it can be assumed. It is,as you say, treated in the article, as it certainly should. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, you view any such redirect as a de facto assertion of the correctness of its title? If that, or something similar to that (and as always, feel free to clarify) is the community's consensus, then WP:R is seriously out of step with what you're advocating. Jclemens (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a proposal at WT:BLP to add something at WP:BLP to say that when we redirect from (disparaging? non-neutral? I don't know) terms to a page with BLP material, we require that the redirect go straight to a section in the article that discusses the widespread use of the disparaging term in reliable sources, in a way that complies with NPOV. As discussed there, the claim that redirects are harmless because the only people who see them are the people who type them in themselves is incorrect; type "latino s" into Wikipedia's search box, and the 4th option will be a redirect. If we restore this redirect, then it may become popular enough to show up in the search box, so that people typing "Fort Hood" would be presented with a non-neutral phrase that would appear to be, and would in fact be, a phrase selected by Wikipedians to refer to this incident. That's okay with me if the redirect goes directly to the section that discusses this POV term in an NPOV way; otherwise not. I'd rather leave it to others to make the case whether Fort Hood shooting#Possible motivation qualifies as such a section. On the general question of "how long should we keep discussing this", I'm in favor of additional discussion until the point where it looks like we're going around in circles. I'd like to hear more discussion at WT:BLP, and my next stop is probably WT:NPOV. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I'm aware I'm supposed to be endorsing or overturning here, but I think the more interesting question is why we have nothing on NPOV or BLP or in the talk archives for the last year that deals with the application to redirects, when so many people are citing NPOV and BLP. Something on a policy page would be helpful, and I'm invoking WP:BURO: my comments aren't automatically invalid, just because I'm saying them at the wrong place at the wrong time :) - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your idea has merit, and if you have a newsletter, I would like to subscribe to it. Seriously though, that would certainly help deal with the BLP concerns discussed both here and in the original RFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. In my subjective opinion, there wasn't enough discussion generated at WT:BLP or WT:REDIR to justify a change to WP:BLP. Hopefully we can generate some discussion at WP:NPOV#Redirects and NPOV. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Heads up: discussion is continuing at WT:NPOV. If there's a change in policy, obviously it could affect the outcomes of future redirects that are determined or claimed to violate NPOV. Please join us. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn This is simply ridiculous. It is an obvious search term. While saying the attack was a terrorist attack is a POV statement, we have common POVs for redirects all the time. Claims of a BLP problem to override the lack of consensus is not persuasive because the majority of people didn't by into that. There's no BLP problem. An attack occurred. We don't know whether the individual in question was motivated to engage in terrorism but the possibility is discussed in the article. Given that discussion not having such a redirect is simply off the wall. Indeed, this deletion seems to be directly pushing a specific POV (one I greatly sympathize with but that's not relevant). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the POV you sympathize with "innocent until proven guilty" by any chance? We have here a circumstance of which the facts are pretty definitely known (bullets were fired, people died, many people saw the alleged shooter and have no doubt in their recollection), and a media storm where opinions are exalted as proof. This calls for caution. Side note: It is an obvious search term - for citizens of the USA? Franamax (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that comment really didn't have much to do with things. The POV in question was that I think that there's a fair bit of evidence this wasn't a terrorist attack. Note however, that Wikipedia is not a court of law. We obviously need to be careful to keep up with verifiability but and act with appropriate restraint but that has zero to do with this redirect. That's an editorial issue for the exact details of the main article on this subject. None of that has anything to do with this redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a guarded yes to the first, and maybe second, question. :) There is certainly a fair bit of evidence, and lots of speculation. You're right though that it has nothing to do with this DRV, rather it's more of a policy question which is already being discussed elsewhere, so I shall drop the topic here. The crux is the search function, which is less than a year old. I believe it has a huge effect on en:wiki's editorial presentation, but that's beyond the scope of this DRV. Franamax (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry and just to answer your other question, yes it is an obvious search term for people in the US. I could easily seem someone typing this in, especially if they aren't familiar with our naming conventions. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I just realized that Fort Hood terror attack is currently a blue link. If this is endorsed we may want to nominate that one as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged it with a G4 speedy, let's see if that gets it done. While not technically a recreation, since it was created during this one's RfD, I've asked for this on WP:BURO and if needed WP:IAR (which I am usually loathe to invoke) grounds to avoid yet another contentious shitstorm. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, it's not technically G4, but the term isn't particularly different than the one under discussion in the RfD, so that's a reasonable IAR. Consequently, I expect that the final fate of the second redirect is also thereby linked to/decided by this same DRV. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Times editorial labels event terrorist attack, more usage of the term. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A swing and a miss, as op-ed pages are not used to establish notability, and this isn't rfD Round Two anyways. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A change in status is a reason to overturn a *fD. Moreover, we don't need notability for a redirect, just evidence that the term is in use. Use in an op-ed in the paper of record is pretty compelling evidence. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. This was a reasonable interpretation of the discussion at RFD, and within the closing admin's discretion. There has been no change in status, the argument in favor of the BLP violation was always based on opinions. Consensus has been to wait for the determination of the FBI or other investigating authorities. ~YellowFives 11:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 November 2009[edit]

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

Please consider restoring this page.

It happened that the only article regarding this particular programming technique has been removed.

This topic is not being covered in related wikipedia pages.

It was useful despite the term wasn't widely known.

We don't have better name anyway and this is alone is not good enough reason for deleting a useful article.

Content of this article hasn't been transferred/migrated to Ajax article as it has been proposed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AJAST_(programming)

Shouldn't we have more opinions for removing a page? I believe this one has been deleted too quick so it might be a good idea to give people enough time to object in order to prevent removing of something useful.

Thanks.

  • Endorse deletion We don;t go by what deserves to be notable, but by what already is notable. It's one of the basic principles of any encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wii-only games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:Xbox 360-only games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:PlayStation 3-only games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The CfD was closed with "no consensus" for a second time. The original attempt to not merge these categoires has failed, ie that they are routinely removed from the parent category in favor of the -only category which one of one core arguments for the first CfD. On addition, while discussing this CfD efforts independent of this CfD were also in heavily support in WT:VG at removing -only games from list pages because of its trivial nature and imo none of those people, for whatever reason, participated in this discussion, but rather instread only those who were on one side, save Miremare who had previously supported their merger. I therefore believe the interests of keeping the seperate -only categorizations goes against the more general consensus of the community as a non-trivial aspect. 陣内Jinnai 22:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there was no consensus there, so why should there be here? You need to redo it after attracting more interested people. Personally, I consider it relevant information for browsing, and would include it in both lists and categories. Notify me (& others) when you try again. If you want to make a general discussion out of it, try an RfC on the general issue. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no consensus of any sort whatsoever. Tim Song (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While I would have agreed with the merge had I been aware of the cfd, I don't see any consensus of the people who did contribute. --Kbdank71 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse from evaluating any CFDs at the moment, since I'm not certain I can be entirely objective about them, but as a non-!voter I do want to applaud the "no consensus" closure after that discussion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; if anything consensus was against the merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus) for merge. Actually, the discussion looks more like a consensus for "don't merge". Why is DRV reviewing a failed merge proposal? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think they have to be on their respective category, example Category:Wii games, etc. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 02:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the problem. More people remove them on a daily basis than can re-add them.陣内Jinnai 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think it's quite difficult to criticise this close. If anything, the "no consensus" result was charitable towards the proposal. A "no consensus" result implies that a future discussion can be appropriate, so DRV is probably the wrong forum. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Wendy Babcock – Deletion overturned. The AfD discussion focused mostly on the assessment of notability and is found here to tend rather towards keep. BLP problems have been raised, but not substantiated enough to make deletion the better choice than simply reassessing a marginal situation in due time, which is still affirmed here by most as the default procedure. – Tikiwont (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wendy Babcock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD was closed as no consensus, defaulting to delete. I don't believe there is consensus for such a close. Closing admin politely directed me here[51]. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have placed a request with the deleting admin to undelete the article while this DRV is active. GlassCobra 20:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I do believe we have consensus to delete for marginally notable individuals so endorse my own close. I have restored for the purposes of the DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Agree fully with the close. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. The AFD ended up with 6 keep !votes of various strength and 3 !delete votes of various strength. Although the nominator claimed BLP concerns, none were identified. The only issue was quality of sourcing. There are no privacy concerns; the subject is a political activist. There was no relisting of the article to develop consensus. If a 2-1 keep !ratio is going to default to delete, the process has become ridiculous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My particular concern isn't the !vote count. !votes not rooted in policy can be ignored (though in this case I don't see justification for that). The issue is that the subject has entire articles about her in significant publications. [52] from the Globe and Mail is probably the most notable. This person is way over any bar set by policy and so there is no reason to delete. Closing as no consensus, default to delete, is also contrary to policy and to the consensus of any discussion about this policy I've seen, including one that is currently active. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I challenge anyone to link any discussion in which it was ever established that "no consensus" can default to delete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'overturn to keep or to no-consensus, with a keep result until consensus is established. No consensus defaults to keep. Attempts to get it otherwise for blp have failed repeatedly, and if the closing admin does not know it, we can instruct them right here. If they want to change the policy on something as basic as that , they can try yet another general discussion when the community has patience for it. Even apart from that, i see a clear consensus to keep in the discussion, with policy based arguments. If the closer thought otherwise, he should have joined the discussion. If one thinks the article deletable, one can try again after a while DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Closing admin erred, as 6-3 comments by thoughtful editors represents a consensus to keep, and, furthermore, even if it was no consensus, no consensus defaults to keep, not delete. I may have been out of it these past few weeks, but I do not believe that fundamental a point of wikipolicy would have changed without my noticing. RayTalk 05:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I'm not seeing an issue with this deletion - Allie ❤ 05:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - This close, on a BLP, was done correctly. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alison and Coffee, would you agree that a major part of DRV's job is to determine whether a close was in accordance with policy?

    The reason I ask is that, after reading Spartaz' post-deletion comments, I think this DRV may be being treated as yet another referendum on whether "no consensus" can default to delete; and I think DRV is a bad place to have that discussion, because I think our role here is to enforce policy rather than establish it. Changing policy is for policy pages and policy talk-pages, village pump proposals, or RFC. DRV should deal with policy as it is.

    Would you agree that a vocal pressure-group has failed to gain consensus for "BLP defaults to delete" in other places, and is now seeking to establish policy at AfD and DRV instead? And if so, how would you answer the criticism that this is a case of asking the other parent?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would agree that a certain part of the DRV process is in determining whether a close was in accordance with policy. Would I agree about your comments re. a 'vocal pressure-group ...'? No, I wouldn't. Also, I'd comment that this is not a forum for making suggestions of there being any sort of "pressure group". Seriously! :) - Allie ❤ 10:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "pressure group", then, please read "a recognisable group of editors who are of one mind on whether BLPs should default to delete and are active on the Wikipedia Review and in the majority of discussions related to whether BLPs should default to delete, in almost any venue."

    You didn't respond to my main point, so am I to take it that you see this as valid?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be going a bit far to assume that Alison not responding in the way you wanted is the same as agreeing with you. Spartaz Humbug! 12:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep – Keeping in mind that AFDs are not votes and notwithstanding the BLP/AFD crapfest going on, I see a rough consensus there to keep the article. MuZemike 15:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Agree with MuZemike. Larger issues aside, looking at the merits of the arguements in the AFD I'm not seeing either a Delete or even a "NC-Delete".--Cube lurker (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the discussion, it boils down to whether the (admittedly independent and reliable) sources amount to significant coverage. AfD is not a vote, but in this case there is no reason to discount any of the !votes. What we are left with, in my view, is in the middle between a clear-cut "keep" and a clear-cut "no consensus". In such circumstances there ought to be no occasion to delete. Overturn deletion. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus). Debates elsewhere have failed to overturn our default that no consensus defaults to keep. The !voters, in principle, and in this AfD, were able to, and did, consider BLP concerns. There was not consensus that BLP concerns warranted deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Wendy Babcock" story appears so notable, with so many sources, that it is silly that wikipedia wouldn't cover it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore -- an astonishing close, clearly wrong in regard to deletion policy. Even if the subject had requested deletion (no evidence of that), I would read that AfD as closer to rough consensus for keep than to no consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the closing admin viewed this close as a "breaching experiment" and accepts that his decision was "not what policy currently says" [53]. As far as I'm concerned this is a clear violation of WP:POINT and we'd be better off if the closing admin reversed his decision immediately. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that term is a little too strong; I'd call it "testing the limits". They've been tested, and the consensus is clear that they remain where they were before. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per the above. Pretty clearly notable, pretty clear consensus for keeping, pretty clear closing against policy.John Z (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep. There is no such thing as "default to delete". What's next, "default to promote" on RfA? No consensus means no action to be taken. I don't know whether the closing admin is disrupting the project to make a point, or just imposing his own opinion and overruling consensus, but it is shameful behaviour either way. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: Within the reasonable interpretation of policy, not just for BLPs but for the adequacy of arguments made on either side of the discussion. It's a discussion, and better arguments supersede poorer ones. Risker (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two quick questions. A) Which policies do you believe allow for a no-consensus close to default to delete? and B) Given that the topic does meet WP:N by a wide margin (entire articles on the subject, one of which is in the 2nd largest newspaper in Canada) how could the delete !votes be considered stronger? Hobit (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I believe this close is within the closing admin's bounds of discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as the close was out of process. There is no policy, nor consensus to change policy, allowing a "default to delete" on any article. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral at the moment. I'm torn. The article clearly falls into the category of "mentioned in news and other sources as a source or solely due to sole salacious personal detail", which I feel makes for uniformally bad articles (the bulk of the biographical details will often be sourced to the subject and the well sourced points in the article will often be records of media appearances). Its the sort of article that our policies should lead us to delete. And if I had made the close I would have been tempted to make a similar close. However, I tend to agree that this is a case of "if mom says no ask dad". BLP hasn't been altered to reflect that no consensus closes default to delete for BLPs, so some editors may make law by convincing admins to act a certain way. Such a strategy is not necessarily nefarious or unwanted. Concerted pressure eventually changes minds for good or ill. But it behooves us to recognize strategies for what they are. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you get a chance to look at [54]? That's an article solely about her in the 2nd largest newspaper in Canada and contains a fair bit of bibliographic material. Hobit (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, endorse no consensus finding. The DrV for Human Disguise earlier this month Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_4 overturned the deletion with comment " 'no consensus - default to delete' - as far as I know unprecedented." If that's true, a no consensus finding should always default to keep.--Milowent (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and restore article. This is an obvious one. No consensus defaults to keep and there is no consensus to the contrary. Not for BLPs, not for any other kind of content. This is perhaps even an instance in which DRV should not have even been bothered with, and any admin should have just reverted the close and restored the article. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this discussion began, there has been another front-page major newspaper article about the woman, with her as subject rather than as source: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/729827--porter-we-can-all-benefit-from-wendy-babcock-s-fight. Certainly there are a lot more trivial articles on Wikipedia that are never contested or deleted. This one should be kep, not deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.57.16.15 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse deletion - A valid close. No valid procedural issues. Endorse no consensus default to delete. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on which policy? I'm unaware of any policy that supports that close. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy is what we do, not what is written. This is a valid close, within admin discretion, and there are no valid procedural issues. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So we can have large discussions with a massive number of voices, but all that can be ignored? What was the purpose of starting that discussion then if you felt it was already a fine thing to do? And aren't you in the least worried that we are deleting an article about a person that the two largest newspapers in Canada have written articles solely about (one apparently recently on the front page of the largest one)? You all are trying very hard to make policy through the back door when you failed at getting through the front. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pet-Tao Pet Foods (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Some of the world's foremost veterinary and animal science experts have helped establish Pet Tao Pet Foods and their products. The Chi Institute and Dr. Huisheng Xie from China have been instrumental in the formation of Pet-Tao Pet Foods, which combines both Western and Eastern veterinary and medical science principles. The company is helping animals live healthier, longer lives. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted multiple times as blatant advertising. I think the author strengthens that argument here; pretty obvious attempt at advertising. See thread on my talk page for more information. Tan | 39 17:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cached page strikes me as pretty blatant advertising, and thus would seem to qualify under speedy deletion. I have no arguments with its deletion. Also, User:Dougmac7 appears, on multiple occasions, to have recreated the article at a different spelling, as evidenced by his talk page (Pettao, Pet-Tao, and Pet-Tao Pet Foods, etc.), thus trying to circumvent the process. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Spam. GlassCobra 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's good news and bad news for you, Dougmac7. The bad news is, when an article is written in the first person plural, including phrases like "Our education, dietary innovation, credibility, and ultimately, the performance of our products, strongly support our mission...", it's very hard to censure an administrator for deleting the material as pure marketing spam. We see a lot of advertising material at DRV, and that was definitely it.

    Wikipedia is not your free webhost. We demand that material is encyclopaedic in nature and has a neutral point of view, and if it doesn't comply we can and will delete it.

    But the good news is, a G11 deletion is not a judgment about whether Pet Tao Pet Foods is allowed to have an article. All it means is that you can't have that article. If you write something that's neutral, non-promotional and sourced to reliable sources, there's no reason not to upload it.

    I would advise you to ask an experienced Wikipedian to help you write it rather than writing it yourself, though. Try asking the people at articles for creation.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an objective response. Amazing. First, I am experienced editor- more than two years on wiki. No one mentioned the article sentence which is not neutral, which I would have immediately taken out, and which should not have been in the original article. SMarshall, that is the only sentence like that; it was an oversight and should not be there. You make it sound like the article had other biased sentences. The only thing I have gotten is hostility, belligerence and lack of response, explanation and communication from the few people who are hostile to me and the article. They are not following wikipedia policy (deletion policy; see below), and who have been hostile to this page. There 67 pet food brands who have pages on wikipedia. Pet-Tao Pet Foods is more notable and noteworthy than many of the brands. Pet-Tao is innovative and actually revolutionary. I have no connection to this company. The company is helping animals live longer, healthier lives. Just like the other 66 pet food brands who have pages on Wikipedia, Pet-Tao deserves to have a page. I have fully followed all policies and the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia policy, mission and purpose. I have repeatedly been attacked, and my work has repeatedly been attacked against Wikipedia policy, which explicitly states there should be 7 days of discussion about article deletion, followed by a ruling about the article based on a consensus. This policy has not been followed, and I request that it is followed in this case. I also request that those who belligerent and hostile tone down their attacks and focus on the issue at hand. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, the only belligerence and hostility I see anywhere is from you. Tan | 39 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of other pet food companies (your competitors) that have articles literally does not matter. At all. And I can't stress that enough. Their articles are not written like blatant, obvious advertisements. The seven-day hold on deletion does not apply to speedy deletion actions performed by an administrator. --King Öomie 19:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to you touting the company's benefits over pet food products- Nobility is not notability. --King Öomie 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Tan, I apologize for any negativity. It was not directed at you. This situation is unfair and unjust. I feel strongly I am in the right. I now realize there are a small group of volunteers who make it their mission to 'win at all costs' rather than deal with the issues at hand. Life is too short to waste it on these people. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may continue to feel that you are right, and everyone else (seven or eight editors, including several admins) is wrong. It is not our responsibility to change your mind; it is our responsibility as admins to ensure Wikipedia policy is upheld. I'm glad you so graciously accept the outcome, and are willing to move on - and not waste your life on us. Tan | 39 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in this discussion, there are two editors against, one for, one who has presented for and against statements (SMarshall), and one administrator involved. Of the two editors against, one almost makes no sense. Some others have come in late to endorse without being a part of the discussion. SMarshall brought up the only legitimate issue, which was agreed with and which can be easily corrected (neutrality). I wish you all the best. Please forgive me for any statements that have come across as negative. To all of you, best wishes and blessings. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your claim "[s]ome others have come in late to endorse without being a part of the discussion," please note that this is the discussion. DRV is the forum where any community members may comment and share opinions on the validity of specific deletions. GlassCobra 20:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're classifying my arguments as "making almost no sense," but what I was trying to get at is that blatant advertising (which I what I deemed the cache version of this article) is not allowable. Blatant advertising is a condition for speedy deletion. Speedily deleted articles do not need to be discussed before being deleted--that is well established. I endorsed the deletion of this article because I thought it met the criteria for speedy deletion (blatant advertising). There could be 1,000 articles about pet food companies, and still it would not make any difference, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are discussing this article, not any others. In short, I based my endorsement of this deletion entirely on policy (as always) rather than gut feelings or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To me, it wasn't just "one sentence" that I considered advertising--much of it was, in my opinion. Hopefully, in writing this response, I am not showing "hostility, belligerence and lack of response, explanation and communication from the few people who are hostile to me and the article" --I always try to assume good faith, I hope other editors do, too. I'm merely trying to do what I think is best for the project, holding policies in consideration and as my foundation. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 20:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I dispute the closing admin's claim of consensus to merge. He himself states that the difference between the support for keep vs. that for merge was marginal. Therefore it is my view that the correct closure would be no consensus. I believe this dispute to be significant because as a result of his actions the article has an afd-merge tag on it stating that the afd said to merge. Yet the lack of consensus requires further discussion - which he himself states; the tag undermines that further discussion by presenting the proposal to merge as a fait-accomplis. I don't have the authority to remove such a tag, and he refuses to do so. He suggests I list the matter here.

Therefore I propose that the so-called result be overturned and changed to no consensus. Newman Luke (talk)

  • Speedy close. No deletion for us to review, and no overturn to delete was requested. In such cases the proper venue is the article's talk page. See WP:ND3. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erb. I would like to see some policy/guideline on exactly what to do with these. The essay Tim cites is not unreasonable, but probably should be hinted at in policy somewhere. So endorse including the part about figuring this out on the talk page of the article. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GMapCatcher (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
OKTECH Profiler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

These were speedy deleted even though it didn't meet any speedy criteria. It was admitted by the deleting admin that he deleted them per his own belief of what should be speedy deleted or not. I would like these to be restored and taken to AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn both and send to AfD. As far as I know, "not yet notable" is not a valid CSD, and we do not have a policy that permits admins to substitute their own judgment for that of the community and delete articles on their own determination as to its merits. Otherwise, we might as well dispense with the set of deletion processes altogether, and the poor non-admins can simply sit down and watch the fireworks as admins delete and undelete about every article that at least 1/1701 of the admin force decides to be unworthy, but another 1/1701 of the admin force finds worthy. No. Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse DS has an idiosyncratic way of using the delete button but I would have deleted OKTECK as a G11 for sure Spartaz Humbug! 02:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am tired of admins leaving lousy, ambiguous deletion summaries, and these are definitely pretty bad. However, looking at the articles themselves I don't see an assertion of notability, even a modest one. Are these products notable, Joe? If anyone can make a case for them, then OK, but I don't see the point of undeleting pretty clear A7 articles solely because of the deletion summary. Chick Bowen 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Software articles don't meet speedy deletion criteria (which I already said). I don't know if they are notable which is why I said restore and take to AFD. The same admin deleted an article of mine with that reason and it was restored, taken to AFD, and the result was keep. Joe Chill (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The second point is irrelevant (we don't judge admins here, just individual deletions--and that's one of the most important principles of this page). The first depends on the content of the articles. It looks to me like these describe ongoing software projects, not completed software. Am I wrong? If so, then yes, undelete. If not, then again, I don't see the point. Chick Bowen 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My searches show that they are completed. [55] and [56]. I wasn't trying to judge the admin. Joe Chill (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree with Chick Bowen about very much of what he's said, here. First, we never have judged admins, so far as I can recall, and it would almost never be appropriate to do so, but I do want to leave open the possibility that DRV could, in the case of very extreme behaviour, on its own motion open a RFC/U, refer a matter to Arbcom, or even petition a steward for summary desysopping. The fact that circumstances have never arisen in which we need to do this does not mean that to do so is beyond DRV's power. (It would be beany to mention specific things that could lead to these outcomes but I can envisage them; while we normally assume our admins have good judgment until proven otherwise, the fact is that there are children and self-confessed drug users among our admin corps and we need to admit the inevitability possibility of a serious lapse at some point in the future.)

    Second, it seems very peculiar that Wikipedia could demand that other things are finished before they are notable. Wikipedia itself is a clear example of an unfinished but notable thing.

    Third, I do not think it appropriate to retcon deletion decisions at DRV by deciding "Oh, well, it must've been a G7 (or 11, or whatever)". Admins are entrusted with the "delete" button on the understanding that they will only use it (a) where there's a clear speedy deletion criterion, (b) where there's an expired prod, or (c) on the basis of community consensus. A corollary is that the admin will be able to explain which deletion ground applied, and why, on request.

    We are a collaborative encyclopaedia that relies on good faith contributors, and in cases like this, where there's a good faith nomination from an established user in good standing, we should provide FairProcess on request.

    I offer no opinion on the merits of the articles in question because I don't need to examine them to see that we need to overturn on principle here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please note that I did not endorse the deletion, and I have no problem with these articles being recreated if someone wants them to be; I simply asked whether anyone knew whether these projects were, in fact, completed and notable. It is true that, in general, I am not in favor of deletions overturned on principle when the content is not wanted, which strikes me as counterproductive. I know that some people disagree with that position. But yes, you and I disagree, quite markedly, about whether consideration of overall admin behavior belongs on this page. It is for considerations of individual articles. This is not the right venue to discuss a particular admin's use of the delete button in general. Obviously, though, conversations about the general purpose of this page belong on the talk page. Chick Bowen 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you're quite right about that conversation belonging on the talk page, I'll reply there.  :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per SMarshall and TSong. "It won't survive AFD" isn't a justification for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I disagree with Chick, and think we very much ought to overturn all speedy deletions which do not meet a speedy criterion, regardless of the ultimate acceptability of the article. Otherwise us admins will never get it right. From what I know of individual admins, I do not know of any correlation --positive or negative--between age or substance use and doing bad deletions. As for judging admins, we don't do that here, but we do find information on how admins do deletions, and if a pattern emerges, anyone can act on it. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - violation of the procedure. - Altenmann >t 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:BURO needs to be taken in context, and weighed against the harm or effect on Wikipedia. There is nothing more alienating to a newbie (or even a veteran editor) than to have an article they created get summarily deleted. The greater the potential danger and harm, the more careful we have to be to show fairness, which in this case is embodied by the care with which we adhere to our rules. Those rules were not followed here - in this case, the articles themselves are not the point. The point is showing fairness to editors and encouraging admins not to exceed the community's mandate on a very important criteria. RayTalk 06:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deadlines are not around, and if there is any chance thgat an AfD would not show delete as proper, the speedy should be overturned. Where in some cases we have seen a new editor ger his userpage deleted and himself blocked all within a grand total of 8 minutes (a current example), it is clear why WP needs to examine the speedy deletion and block policies. Collect (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's letter – Deletion endorsed. The article had hardly any original content apart from the letter, and we tend to err on the side of caution in such cases which is certainly not a sign of lack of due diligence. The current redirect seems to be fine and does not stand in the way of expansion if warranted. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's letter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedily deleted with the reason stated: "This page is a copyright violation--as a letter from him personally, it is not a work of the US government, and it is far too long to be a fair use quotation" the page is not copyright violation: only the complete text of the letter is. Therefore the reason of CSD is invalid. The article, however brief, must be judged by its own merits: the letter gained much publicity and certainly a notable one among other Reagan's correspondence, since it declares a major change in his life. At worst, its content may be merged somewhere. Please see also the discussion about an attempted deletion of the photocopy of the letter in commons for further considerations. - Altenmann >t 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, firstly I can't see how this isn't a copyright violation as it was written in a personal capacity and even extracts should be protected by copyright. Secondly, if this were free, it still belongs at wikisource and thirdly, its down to you to demonstrate that it is free and you haven't actually provided any grounds to accept this - just an assertion. Spartaz Humbug! 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you see the article? I am not talking about the letter itself.- Altenmann >t 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Trying to argue that the deletion rationale is invalid because it only contains the text of the letter is... mind-boggling. Obvious copyvio is obvious. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure about the nom's rationale - is that (1) the text of the letter is not a copyvio or (2) there is non-copyvio content on the page in addition to the letter, such that the page is salvageable, or (3) something else? Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • {(1) Please read it again: "the page is not copyright violation: only the complete text of the letter is." (2) yes, there is content in addition to the letter. (3) I don't care whether it is salvageable or not. My intention was to point out that the speedy deletion was inapplicable. The proper approach was to delete the text of the letter and then proceed thorough AfD. - Altenmann >t 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin: immediately after deleting this, I requested comment from other admins; that discussion (albeit brief) is here. There are two larger questions here: one is whether the letter is copyrighted. Please note that a discussion at Commons is not binding here (and that the one you link is still technically open--the earlier discussions should not have been transcluded into it, and it is basically a separate debate with a majority of people arguing to delete); I don't believe (as others say above) that its not being copyright has ever been established to our standards, and the burden is on proving that something is free, not the other way around. The other question is whether there is sufficient content aside from the letter that it shouldn't have been deleted. I don't see how that makes any sense, since all content other than the letter duplicated material in the Ronald Reagan article. Please note that if anyone would like to write a new article about the letter, rather than simply copying the letter onto Wikipedia, there is nothing to prevent that and a DRV is not necessary to allow it. Chick Bowen 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you say that the other content is already in Reagan's article, a proper solution would be a redirect there. - Altenmann >t 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Copyvio question aside, the correct place for this is Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the place. Did you see the article? - Altenmann >t 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the nom: <Shrug>. Obviously you neither read the deleted page nor rationalle in my nomination. I was not questioning the copyright issue. My point was that instead of deleting the whole article, rather the text of the letter could have been deleted from it. Whatever. My intention was to pay respect to the original author by restoring page history. Since I see lack of due diligence here, I will simply try to write a new article, with reliable secondary sources and stuff, if there is enough things to write about. (google gives almost 2 million hits for reagan+alzheimer's+letter) Have a good day. - Altenmann >t 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S From this it is seen that the letter is indeed copyrighted. The reprinter sought the permission from the Associated Press, so I guess AP is the copyright owner. - Altenmann >t 18:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not quite. I doubt very much RR gave his copyright on the letter to the AP specifically. Claims of publishers to own copyright are often mistaken. Many other responsible sources, such as the Alzheimer's Foundation have published it with their own copyright on the page and without ascribing any permission from anyone, DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close We've got a redirect up that the nominator suggested, and I think we can all agree that the letter, even if its copyright status as a source permitted reprinting doesn't belong in its entirety on Wikipedia, but on Wikisource, as Stifle mentioned. per WP:BURO, I see no reason for this discussino to continue further, does anybody else? RayTalk 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Risker (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 November 2009[edit]

  • Siling labuyo – Moot—There's been no deletion to review, and nobody is arguing for an overturn to delete. Advice for the nominator is in the collapse box. NAC – —S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Please see WP:ND3 for advice on handling this Spartaz Humbug! 02:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Siling labuyo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate page since the interpretation of the closer at AfD was merge but I think it was interpreted incorrectly so in case this is the correct venue I'm posting it here. I tried to ask the closer his/her rationale but my question sat on his/her page for a week with no response and then was automatically archived.

My interpretation of the discussion was that verifiability was the main criterion for consensus. I was the only one in the entire discussion to cite a reliable verifiable source in support of a position, my claim being that siling labuyo is distinct from Thai pepper. Because of this I feel merge was the wrong conclusion and "keep as is" the correct one. However the person who nominated for deletion and made only claims by assertion throughout took the close and decision to merge as leave to merge the contents into a new article Bird's eye chili. I think the resulting article is factually incorrect and the concern seems shared by others. I would reverse the merge or at least restore the siling labuyo article as it was to correct this but it would seem as if I'm going against an admin's decision and proper due process if I did so. I'm seeking permission to restore the article as it was or at least advice on the proper course of action. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Lambanog. The short version is that the proper course of action is to seek consensus to reverse the merge on the article's talk page.

    The (much longer) version is that from a DRV point of view, a "merge" and a "keep" are the same thing. DRV is for reviewing deletion decisions, the test of which is whether the article was actually deleted (in such a way that only an administrator can restore it; if it was merged or turned into a redirect, then any editor can restore it by undoing the relevant revision, so no administrator intervention is necessary and there's no administrative matter to review).

    Basically, because you can restore it yourself, no process beyond the normal Wikipedian ones available to any editor is needed.

    I'm going to close this, but if you'd like more support with this article, please feel free to ask me on my talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer If the separate article is reliably sourced as a separate article then I have no problem with it being restored. I apologise for not responding to the talkpage note - I must've missed it in a busy time. (And yes, this is the wrong venue, but that doesn't really matter). Black Kite 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stoked for the Holidays (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article is about an annual concert held in Sydney NS. When preparing the article, I made sure to peruse other similar articles such as that for Celtic Colours, Evolve Festival, North by Northeast, and more. The article is written to not be spam/advertising and to be informative about the event.

The article was proposed for speedy deletion under the terms that it was spam. I posted a reply on the talk page outlining why I believe this not to be and citing the other entries above. The response I received was:

':Where were the verifiable references from reliable sources? Not everything cool is notable! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)'.[reply]

Under the deletion guidelines, it shows notability as a non-criteria for speedy deletion.

5. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant.

I believe the article should be reinstated. Only hours old, the article had a solid foundation. More sources have been quotes on the talk page for deleting admin, indicating further edits that were intended to be made. I don't believe the regional nature of the article lends itself to a notability deletion, nor does the nature of the article constitute spam or blatant advertising any more than any article on a specific event.

24.138.39.1 (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article did not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant, so it was excluded from the non-criterion. Endorse deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we see these sources, please?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The actual deletion was done as G11, promotional, and do not think the article qualifies, since it is not "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten"; it is partially informative, and could easily be rewritten to be less promotional. The deleting admin, a firm wikifriend of mine nonetheless, tends I think to consider G11 as meaning "has a promotional purpose" -- a much wider criterion that may often be valid at AfD but that is not clear enough to be judged at speedy. Stifle, a concert is not a "real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc." . The organization producing the concert would fit that criterion, but the article is about the event they produce. It is therefore ineligible for A7. In any case, it asserts importance by asserting that there are important artists as performers. However, the sources given for the article are at: [57], and I find them unimpressive--but that's for AfD--articles do not need to have their indications of notability sourced for passing speedy. FWIW, some other articles cited by the ed. seem equally unsupported. the article is currently at the Google cache, and people can see it for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I agree that the sources cited really weren't all that thrilling. I agree with DGG that we could probably overturn the speedy deletion on the basis that there's an arguable case it didn't apply, but even if we did, I wouldn't want to try to argue that this material should be kept at AfD. I'm reserving my opinion at the moment but I'd encourage the nominator to find some extra sources PDQ.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Let it be discussed at AfD in any case, as stated above. Collect (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD per DGG. I don't think concerts fall under A7. Tim Song (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Easy Projects .NET (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although being relisted twice, there has been very little discussion. The article however has three external links that provide significant coverage. The rationales put forwared as delete are in my opinion rather meager: one is more of a tirade against using Wikipedia for advertising purposes rather then judging this articles merits, another calls for speedy deletion. The article was originally proposed for deletion (PROD), but this was challenged by another editor. For convenience, the external links were: Easy Projects .NET: Does It Live Up to Its Name? - WebWorkerDaily, Get Industrial Strength Project Management Online - BNET Business Hacks and Review - A Girl's Guide to Project Management Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Other than those dubious blogs that don't really fit WP:RS, most of the other hits appear to be derivatives of press releases and other spammy things pushed out by the company onto the Internet. Also, WP:VSCA. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that 3 sources that are borderlining on failing RS, but are otherwise fine sources demonstrate notability. Press releases do not, but finding press releases and other spammy stuff doesn't negate notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It shows a pattern of using poor sources failing WP:RS to try to show non-existent notability, in addition to a pattern of WP:SPAM by the company itself. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - This software has been featured in industry publications such as PM Network published by the PMI, twice in 2 separate issues May 2009 and August 2009 respectively. These types of publications are not freely available on the web to the general public, as they are distributed to subscribers and members of the PMI. Googling "Easy Projects .NET PM Network" will produce proof of coverage. This product has also been featured in other print publications including Inc as well as project management related books and whitepapers by industry consultant David Coleman (42 Rules for Successful Collaboration). Because the software does target professionals in the project management field, the coverage by industry experts and publications is thus significant. Other web coverage includes reviews and new announcements by the respectable blogs and websites. The original article editor has made effort to improve the article by consulting with a Wikipedia administrator on the subject (Nihiltres). The article also noted the importance of this software in development of an open source data access framework. Xbammy (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/Xbammy = no contributions whatsoever for over three years, and now this? Possible WP:SPA? Cirt (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't disagree with Cirt on any of the above, in this case let's send it to AfD for a full discussion, so it can be properly and thoroughly discussed, and the nominator can see that FairProcess is being fully followed and the article's had every chance we could reasonably give it. Then it can be properly and finally deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD was relisted twice before it was closed. So that's ~21 days of debate already. WP:RELIST, IIRC, prohibits relisting more than twice. Endorse closure - the third relist tends to indicate that an admin thought there was no consensus, but a delete close is reasonable. Nonetheless, I agree with nom and S Marshall that the debate is rather inadequate, even after three weeks, and for that reason, I would not oppose a relist by DRV. Tim Song (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep on the basis of there being no consensus to delete. If so little consensus that a third relisting is necessary, there should be more than five minutes' given for comments .We've no rule on the length of time, bit this is ridiculously short and amounts to another admin overruling the relisting. I notice in the way of sources it was on the the 5 DrEDobbs finalists for Project Management tools in 2008. as reported by Reuters. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I restored the page. And reverted my close. So it is now back to being relisted. Feel free to engage in a notability debate there, and this DRV can be closed. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2009[edit]

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

I have a perfected article for Cortney Tidwell, however I cannot add because the page is now protected by deleting admin. This admin is out to get me, my most-current article is in wiki format, notable and does not advertise (the reasons why Cortney Tidwell pages were deleted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncerlan (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: malformed DRV fixed. While it's probably not G11, I can't find any indication of importance in the article. Tim Song (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cortney Tidwell is a recording artist with three albums. She is on tour with other famous artist. She has a county singer for Mom. Her whole family is associated with the grand ole opry. Is that the kind of importance your looking for or do you mean something technical? like a link or citation (im bad at those)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncerlan (talk • contribs)
  • Can you please explain:
    1. How Ms. Tidwell meets your choice of criteria at WP:NMG?
    2. Why you chose to repeatedly recreate the page, including recreating at a different title to circumvent page protection, rather than engaging with the administrator who deleted the page or seeking to improve it?
  • Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deleted a further recreation of the article at Cortney tidwell. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above questions were answered at my talk, viz:
    1. Tidwell has coverage from reliable sources. MSNBC and The Guardian [58] [59] She has 2 albums from two known labels. She has been on tours with other famous artists and some of her music is collaborated with members of the famous band Lambchop (band)
    2. Its not against Wikipedia's rules to repeatedly create a page if you make improvements upon it. Wikipedia is never a final copy article.
  • I am prepared to !vote permit recreation on the basis of the above, on condition that there are no further circumventions of process, i.e. you should wait until this discussion is closed by an administrator before attempting to recreate the article at whatever title. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion as deleting admin. Where were those reliable sources before? I've restored Cortney Tidwell and added the sources to the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it this can be closed now?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Rampage Trio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm a bit baffled by the deletion of the Rampage Trio (Band) page, simply because I cannot find an associated reason or administrator. I also do not see, in my Oaken13 section, that I ever created a page (no creation history), yet the Rampage Trio page has existed for quite some time. I also cannot find any evidence in the deletion log. I have searched using multiple case formatting, and just performed a general search and looked through numerous pages, all to no avail. Any ideas? This seems like a larger administrative issue than just a simple deletion. Oaken13 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have corrected the title. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which was deleted in February as a non-notable band. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Tim Song. I have contacted jclemens concerning the matter; I'm waiting for a reply on his talk page. Scarian is no longer a member of Wikipedia, so I imagine his A7 comment no longer counts. I thought we had resolved the non-notable problem because the page was only removed recently. It was not removed back in February, though that is when the complaint was logged by jclemens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.223.109.101 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion A Google News Archive search returns only passing mentions / trivial coverage. There is no indication that the deleted article would pass WP:CSD#A7 or the notability guidelines for bands.

    I recommend, Oaken13 (talk · contribs), to ask for userfication at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion if you can find significant coverage in reliable sources about the band. A well-sourced creation would not require another deletion review since this article has not been deleted through a deletion discussion. If you need any help, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

Please, accept my apology for disturbing you but more than a week ago one of my articles has been deleted by the user called Renata3. Under the deletion it's been stated as "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: total advertising".

By the user Protonk (On "request undelition" page) I have been told that "In order to meet our inclusion criteria, a subject must be covered in significant detail by multiple reliable sources".

Since I wrote this article I wasn't trying to advertise anything. Whole time I was concerned that this article would have to meet the Wikipedia guidance, including the inclusion criteria In this article I have provided a short biography about the radio and tv personality, outlined as Wikipedia:Notability (people). I read the list of what classifies as a people and there I'd found exact criteria that would subscribe to my article as "Creative professionals - journalist, entertainers".

Speaking about a subject who suppose to be covered by multiple reliable sources, there are many independent public media sources that clearly states about the identity and status of the subject from my article. Most of these sources are in native Lithuanian language, whatsoever, most of it can simply be translated into English. Please, find the links bellow.


And there are many other independent sources, entertainment awards that the name of Eimantas Paltarackas appears on it.

Currently, the person that I wrote this article about is working in United Kingdom, into the broadcasting industry. Including British Broadcasting Corporation, well known as a BBC. However, legally I don't have the approval to provide you yet with the information about this work with the BBC as it is the upcoming tv show project. Time by time he does cooperate with various Lithuanian media too.

Again, I honestly do apologise if this article has appeared as a totally advertising. But please, can you look at the details that I have provided and review this article. I only wish that providing the story of someone's life from the Creative professionals sector will be accepted and available to the public.

Thank you so much for taking your time on this matter, deep down I really hope that you can help me. Regards, Sean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Todd Lewis (talk • contribs)

  • Deleting admin notified. Tim Song (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No apology necessary, though next time please try discussing this with the deleting admin first - you can see their name from the deletion log.

      Can an admin restore it temporarily for non-admins to review? Thanks a lot. Tim Song (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tim, thank you so much for your responds. Please, accept my apology as I did used it just to say "sorry, I didn't had any intention to disturb any of your time for such reason".
I only felt disappointed about this deletion as I really had made an effort to write this article. It took me time to prechecked all the details and compare it to the reality, so this article could provide true information to the Wikipedia users.

I still wish to thank you for giving me a chance to stand by my removed article.
Sorry for my mistake as I did not contacted the deletion administrator. Should I still do it or wait for the review?

In regards to your question "Can an admin restore it temporarily for non-admins to review?" I am not sure what the whole procedure will be. I do wish that this article has been undeleted but can it be restored before the review? I really don’t want to cause any troubles while waiting for the reviews, I mean the temporary restore that you'd suggested. What will you say?

Please, I will appreciate any of your help or advice. Thank you again. Regards, Sean. Sean Todd Lewis (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • You can still do it now. My question was directed to any admin who might come and see it, not you. Tim Song (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting admin. I deleted the article not only because I believe it does not meet notablity requirement, but also because it was writen as an advertisement & personal website/essay. I do not have time to investigate. I am traveling and my Internet time is limited to 15 minute count-down in an Internet cafe. I will have Internet access starting Monday. Gotta run, sorry. Renata (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncertain Like Renata, I tend to use both criteria when I think they are both applicable. In this case I am not sure about the A7 --the only thing that might serve as an assertion of notability is " hosting a daily interview and entertainment show on "BRN plus fm" That is plus FM's Baltic radio network.-- which is not a broadcast station but an internet channel, a network that is not listed in WP except in this one article. The plusFM entire network when I checked just now had 119 listeners. It is dubious by my standards whether this is a reasonable assertion of notability. As for advertisement, it is only borderline G11, since some of the article is informative. I usually support listing for an AfD discussion in cases like this, but I would have to say that the chance of having a keep is extremely minimal. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 119 listeners on the whole network? If so, it's a bit of a lost cause, I should think.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If DGG is uncertain about indication of importance, that's good enough for me. From what was described, I don't see how the A7 was in error. No sources presented by nom changes my mind, and no {{tempundelete}} necessary. Endorse. Tim Song (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again and thank you all for taking your time on my issue.

Whatsoever, will you excuse me people but then what exactly is the notability? Well as one of you mentioned the Baltic radio network and numbers (119) why nobody really checked the numbers of the sources that I'd provided above? I believe that these numbers could prove you the notability that we are missing here. Please note that for obvious reasons I did not used the Baltic radio network as an independent source of notability at all.

I am not sure about this but I might guess that the deletion admin Renata3 is Lithuanian, if so then maybe you could tell how big or independent the sources are (provided above).
The subject of this article is the author of many reports and interviews which is available to the public. He has been hosting weekly Tv show “Pramogu rulete” at the local tv station, which by the way has been broadcasted for 4 season in Lithuania, Kaunas (ARTV, Lietuvos Rytas TV) and for a year in Vilnius (11tv). As far as I know the show had a huge audience too. As I have stated early the subject of my article suppose to cover "Creative professionals - journalist, entertainers".

I would think if in my article I'd used part of the ongoing work for the Baltic radio network, and if that's called as an advert then it can be simply removed from the article. It's internet project, so I agree that it's not the best source.

I can swear that I have got no intention to advertise any websites as the deletion admin has stated, I am sorry for this misunderstanding. Again, I apologise but I really believe about the notability of the subject and I don't know how else I can prove you that. Maybe I just expected your advice and help on how I should correctly rewrite this deleted article so it won't sound as an advert.
Please, if I still may ask your comment about the independent sources that actually has enormous numbers of visitors and clearly confirms the real but not imaginary status and notability of the character. Again, thank you all!

PS. Renata3, please, when you free and back from your journey, may I ask you to review this article again. I will really appreciate that. Sean Todd Lewis (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.223.109.101 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 November 2009[edit]

  • Andrew Storms and Tim D. Keanini – overturn and file at AfD. I am normally loathe to see process satisfied for its own sake, and restoring articles that appear likely to be deleted again after an AfD seems to fit just that bill. While there is no strong consensus one way or another in this discussion, there are two facts that lead me to this closure. First, no one is contesting the fact that the G11 deletions were improper. Second, there is a non-negligible opinion expressed here in this discussion by more than one editor that one or more of these articles at least stands a chance of being upheld at a proper deletion discussion. That opinion may not be in the majority but it is sufficient enough to justify the action. – Shereth 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Andrew Storms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Tim D. Keanini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
TK Keanini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

These two pages were deleted last Thursday night in a speedy deletion. I am asking for deletion review for multiple reasons.

First, the reason the admin chose to delete it was because of unambiguous advertising. I'd argue as both these pages were bios that that was definitely not the case. "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." These didn't even have a company or product as the subject but a PERSON. Because both people had worked for the same companies at one point or another does not mean that the pages were in any way promoting any of those companies. They were well written and objective articles which I worked with administrators on to be sure the content was appropriate and did not violate any terms and lived up to notability standards.

Secondly, all this happened after another user attempted to out my username with information that would make it seem as if I have a COI problem in writing these pages. I did what wikipedia said to do and neither confirmed nor denied the information and asked for help. The admin that was supposedly coming to help me in this case decided both pages should merely be deleted. They were deleted in succession so quickly I would argue that with the extent of the information posted on them the admin probably did not have much time to read either and, as further discussion on said admin's talk page shows they did very much believe the information the other user posted.

so, my argument, besides the fact that both pages are well written, informative, improve wikipedia and add useful content is that the admin merely chose a random reason to delete the pages because he believed information that was put up by another user who harassed me and for some reason felt that the pages were then advertising.

I appreciate your time in looking at this. All relevant discussion can be found on my talk page and the talk page for User: Toddst1 and the talk pages of the two deleted articles.

Thanks for your time. Rpelton (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not at all sure I'd agree with the characterisation of those as "objective articles"; they look fairly promotional to me.

    I don't think the deleting admin was wrong, but I do think FairProcess is good practice in a collaborative project that depends on good faith editors, so if Rpelton insists I'd be prepared to run with "overturn and list at AfD" so he gets a chance to present his arguments to a jury of his peers—if it weren't for the fact that I think he'd get slaughtered because the writing's so promotional.

    The tragedy of this is that there really are reliable sources and I think it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic stub about those two people. How about you withdraw this, Rpelton, and I'll personally help you rewrite them in a more neutral way before coming back?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that they look promotional, but are they so blatantly promotional as to fall under G11? Tim Song (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, we could make the case that it wasn't quite a G11 and send it to AfD, but what's the likely result? A snowball deletion and an angry new contributor departing in disgust, I should think. I was hoping for a less negative outcome by getting the rewrite in before that happens.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Later) Okay, disregard all that. User's been blocked for promotional spam, and I presume the blocker must've had a pretty good reason.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and either work on or send to AfD--and I see no reason they would be a snow if sent to AfD, because someone would probably quickly fix them. The only check on admins doing bad deletions and declined to fix them by themselves is to revert them here. Letting them go by here without some indication that they were wrong because the article has other problems is essentially saying: Just speedy regardless of the rules, if you think the article is not adequate at the moment. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as per DGG. The applicable provisions of the speedy policy require that articles be unsalvageable, and the problems with these appear to be solvable, or at least addressable, within the standard editing process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV really is not the proper venue for unblock requests. Tim Song (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help!

Hey everyone, thanks for the comments on the deletion review. S Marshall I'm all up for your help editing these articles and trying to make them the best they can be. That was what I was trying to do all along.

However, the user that speedy deleted my pages-- despite my only starting a deletion review-- has decided to block my username from editing anything which means I had to go through a few hoops to even get this message on here. I'd really appreciate it if someone could lift the block so that I can edit these pages so I can do exactly what I'm here trying to do-- make a good article.

I'm uncertain what this admin has against me or what I have done that would require a block. If I have done something I would really like to understand as I was not trying to promote anything or offend anyone.

I really appreciate your help on this. If only to be able to participate openly in my own deletion review discussion it would be nice to understand what is going on.

(I'd have emailed one of you, but couldn't actually figure out how to do that since I'm still new to all this.)

Thanks rpelton via a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.138.49 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and AfD at editorial discretion. The articles are not so blatantly promotional as to fall under G11. Tim Song (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion User does nothing on WP except promote Ncircle and its employees, and has been properly identified as an Ncircle shill account and blocked from Wikipedia. His/her assertion that she is "not trying to promote anything" is a bald-faced lie. Even if it wasn't obvious who "LPelton" is just from the username (I can't post any more due to "outing" policy), the edit history shows that this user does nothing except promote Ncircle. Every page created by this user has been deleted either by AfD or speedy delete. Sfba (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as I don't see how notability of these individuals has been established in either case. All of these articles are stitched together from various sources which mention them in passing, none of which provide significant coverage by themselves because none of the sources address the subject of the article specifically. As a result, the articles don't contain any commentary, criticism or context about their subject matter that are the badges of notability. Rather, these articles are purely PR pieces, whose intent is to promote the products and services of NCircle. I concur with the rationale for speedy deletion: these are blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Storms. Didn't check the others. Not a lot of biographical information on Storms, but well cited in the news. Certainly not a speedy... Hobit (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further consideration, restore all per Tim Song. I think Storms has a good chance at making it through AfD and I don't see these as being promotional enough to be speedable. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Dont see the point of restoring for restorings sake, not seeing any real evidence of notability. Spartaz Humbug! 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- since suitability is questionable. let's have an AfD and decide properly. It's not G11, and there is some assertion of notability. It is totally wrong to take the approach, if it might fail AfD, let's not restore it. Speedy only works if people follow the guidelines , or there will be no confidence in us admins. the only way to bring that about is for all speedys on inadequate grounds to be reversed here and, if deleteable, get deleted properly. If nothing else, if makes it easy to get rid of reincarnations via G4. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 November 2009[edit]

  • The Storks – Deletion endorsed. This amounts to saying that CSD G5 actually represents a policy, removing the tag is an objection to its application in a particular case, but does not automatically prevent it, that AfD is not the only - and possibly not even the best - venue to discuss the contributions of a banned user, and that we now had a discussion here and elsewehre, with the application of G5 found to be valid. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Storks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedily deleted per {{db-banned}} despite removal of template at least once prior to ultimate insertion leading to speedy deletion. This goes against the policy articulated at Wikipedia:Deletion#Speedy deletion under "Renominations". I am not suggesting the pages be kept in the long term, but that it is totally inappropriate for such pages to be deleted without an AfD discussion or a centralized policy discussion given that there was not unanimity for speedy deletion. Requesting (possibly temporary) restore and list outcome only. Nomination also includes:

FWIW, the banned user is not suspected of introducing incorrect material into article space as far as I'm aware. Bongomatic 17:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my understanding is that the additions by the numerous socks of the banned user are sourced mostly from offline references and are difficult to verify. In general, if these articles are going to be restored, then the banned user needs to be unbanned. Wknight94 talk 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More discussion on this here and here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either User:ItsLassieTime is banned or they are not. If we are going to keep their contributions, unban them and let them run rampant with the 20-30 socks they had that were supporting one another in discussions (ANI and SPI about this editor). And yes the editor IS suspected of introducing incorrect material, at least by some. One or two have been verified. None of the ones deleted were the GA ones, as far as I remember. We cannot just randomly decide to let some banned editors contribute so long as it looks good enough, yet still call them community banned. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for them not to sock, particularly an editor like this one who primarily does it just because he/she enjoys the accolades of DYK and GA, regardless of which account they are on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theses are very reasonable—and maybe correct / compelling / garnering of community consensus—arguments. The place to raise them is in an AfD discussion. Bongomatic 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a speedy deletion criteria which applied very clearly to these - and others for that matter. I should really delete them all but stopped in order for discussion at the MuZemike's page to continue. But now we're here. Wknight94 talk 20:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is—and once one editor has removed the template, as in this case, it becomes inapplicable and AfD is requiredBongomatic 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like WP:PROD to me. Wknight94 talk 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) CSDs are not prods. There are no restrictions on retagging them if the CSD is removed, nor does it becoming inapplicable just because a non-administrator went through and mass removed them versus their being actually declined by a reviewing administrator, particularly when the pages WERE eligible for G5, despite your assertion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion a serial liar, creator of hoaxes and banned user socks, gets caught, and the unverified crap is deleted? Very good. Why are we here? Bali ultimate (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn a speedy is no longer valid after one editor not the contributor removes the template. the pages were possibly eligible for G5, but G5 only says they may be removed, not that they must be removed. One good faith editor objecting is enough to prevent it, as for any speedy. It is not permitted to replace validly removed speedy tags, for the same reason , and the admin who did so was totally out of policy. As Deletion policy says, challenged Speedys are taken to AfD. As for the issue, the contributor is banned, and should not contribute. If what they have done is good nevertheless, it would be foolishly counterproductive to remove it. As for being a deterrent, it doesn't seem to work. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a speedy is no longer valid after one editor not the contributor removes the template" - that is not stated anywhere that I have seen. You and Bongomatic appear to be thinking of WP:PROD. And if you're saying it would be foolishly counterproductive to remove banned users' contributions, then it is foolishly counterproductive to have them banned in the first place. You can campaign for that elsewhere. As long as they are banned, their contributions are reversed. Wknight94 talk 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Wknight94; DGG, you know at this stage that your feelings on several deletion policies are widely divergent from the actual policy, so please be clear when writing what is policy and what is how you think policy should be. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions" A good faith editor removing a tag qualifies in my opinion for such a dispute. As I said elsewhere, perhaps we need to make this more obvious, since some others do not see it as I do. If the feeling is otherwise, we'd need to discuss whether it applies to all speedies, or just this exceptional class. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Typically" would tend to indicate that there are some cases when this does not happen, and this seems to be one of those few. If others do not see it as you do, that may mean that it should be made more obvious, but it also may mean that you may need to revise your view of matters into line with what others feel. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions – if they were created by a person in violation of the ban, then we should not be encouraging that person to come back, evade ban again, and create pages again while still banned – which is the message we would send if we restored the pages. MuZemike 02:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bali ultimate and MuZemike make arguments that merit consideration. However, they are fundamentally arguments for deletion, not for endorsing a speedy deletion over the objection of an editor who is not the page creator. These opinions should be disregarded by the closing admin as unrelated to deletion policy. Bongomatic 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hair splitting aside, WP:DP#Speedy deletion states "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not." In this case it does, whether you removed the tag or not. That is obviously what the endorsers are saying. If hair splitting is your thing, how about the word "typically" in that same line? It does not say "must" - that's WP:PROD. Wknight94 talk 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletions Our all-wise, all-knowing policies are unclear on this issue. G5 and reversion of banned editors' contributions is a "may", not a "must". There seem to me to be genuine gradations between policies of retaining some of a banned editor's contributions and of automatically reverting them all that do not make a mockery out of the punishment of banning. There don't seem to be real suspicions of hoaxing by the banned editor. Immediate deletion of existing articles good enough to avoid the other speedy criteria, by an author whose problems were more behavioral than content-related, seems to be a clear detriment to the encyclopedia. I would like to see a more explicit argument why and how retention will reward negative behavior and cause enough future damage to outweigh the present cost. So I think that the ruling policy here should be WP:AGF - I think that we should assume good faith of Bongomatic's removals, that he is to some degree vouching for these articles, and thereby making a genuine contribution to them, preventing another G5. John Z (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps for the first time in my life, I'm with Bali Ultimate on this one. Where we've got a disruptive user whose contributions are known to be suspect, I think it's irresponsible to let them stand.

    No objection to allowing an editor in good standing to create this content, of course.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G5 is an discretionary CSD. Whilst perhaps it might not have been an abuse of discretion to let the content stand - though, as S Marshall et al. noted, there are verifiability concerns - it is certainly not an abuse of discretion to delete them. As such, endorse, without prejudice to recreation by an editor in good standing. Tim Song (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, since no evidence has been provided that would indicate that this content is problematic. --NE2 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - When a banned user -- particularly a banned user with a history of creating hoaxes and other bad content -- creates new content, that content is subject to deletion unless another user goes to the trouble of validating it. The "burden of proof" (i.e., the responsibility for evaluating and validating the content) in this type of case falls on the user who volunteers to rescue the content, not on the user calling for deletion. The only substantial edits to this article were by the banned user. --Orlady (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People keep saying that this user has a history of creating hoaxes, but not providing any evidence. Can you show me where this was originally determined? --NE2 14:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The user has admitted to sockpuppetry and deception. I don't know of any evidence concerning hoaxes in articles, but I do not think it is very responsible to let a known liar's contributions stand.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know of many cases of content submitted by known liars that stands. (Exercise: am I lying when I say that? ) --NE2 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless any other editor is willing to take responsibility for the content. Users are banned for a reason, and until policy changes, edits of a banned user can be summarily removed. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. per above "As Deletion policy says, challenged Speedys are taken to AfD" that is, if not obviously adverts, hoaxes or spam. Our guidelines need to be equal and consistant regardless of the fact an editor is banned or not. We would not refuse a suspected thief legal defense and due process simply because he/she has stolen before? Shame on endorse voters. Turqoise127 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flawed analogy. This "thief" is not suspected, s/he was convicted and sentenced months ago. Wknight94 talk 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing flawed about it. Do allow me to restate; We would not refuse a previously convicted thief legal defense and due process simply because he/she has stolen before?Turqoise127 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EVERYTHING flawed about a very bad analogy. Not a thief, a trespasser: no "trial" necessary to throw the bum -- and his belongings -- out. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure if it is funny or sad that this comment comes from a disruptive user who has recently been banned from posting to another user's talk pages...Turqoise127 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would strong recommend that you strike this comment. "Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Nominations which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias may be speedily closed." Tim Song (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you mean my comment or the one above mine? If you mean my comment, I simply stated what I encountered on the talk pages of user Calton; there was a warning for disruptive behavior and a ban from posting to another user's pages. Why am I not allowed to state what I saw? I attacked no one, made no accusations and nothing of the sort. User Calton, on the other hand, calls another editor a bum, trespasser, and states they should be thrown out. Why did you not respond to that, editor Tim Song? I will not be striking anything, and you should be a little less selective with your repremands.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is patently inappropriate to bring in issues concerning other editors that are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, even if truthful. It is relevant whether the author of the article is banned. It is totally irrelevant whether a commenter is subject to an editing restriction that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Tim Song (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "sad", to be seeing such evidence of intellectual bankruptcy. Yes, it's tempting, when one doesn't have a leg to stand on, to resort to desperate attacks on the messenger to divert attention from one's shortfalls. But cheer up, I'm sure you'll do better next time! --Calton | Talk 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If a single editor in good standing supports the retention of the articles, then they should not be speediable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that editor should click on those redlinks and get started right away if it's so important. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Banned user? Let'em come through the front door if they want to continue. And if the contributions are so all-fired important, they ought to be easy enough to someone to actual click on those handy redlinks and have at it. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty depressing to see an administrator sarcastically denigrate content in this manner. Not all of these articles are "so all-fired important", but neither is much useful content here. Take a look at Little Claus and Big Claus and you will see a well-researched, encyclopedic article on a topic that meets inclusion guidelines. Bongomatic 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denigrating content in the least: since it's so important to you, starting clicking those red-links and starting adding that valuable content right away! --Calton | Talk 08:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be the argument that deleting this will discourage socking. But that it would most likely to be deleted was known prior to this and it didnt work in this case, nor has it worked in many others. The argument is that this is an exceptional case where the articles are worthwhile. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Bali ultimate and MuZemike. G5 was properly utilized. GlassCobra 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The outcome should always be the same for banned users; their articles get deleted. The mechanism they get deleted is that somebody notices that the article was created by a banned user or one of their socks, and then gets it deleted somehow. An admin could delete them without even applying any tags or allowing any discussion. Presently I have a prod tag waiting on an article by a banned user, because I don't care how fast it gets deleted; I am happy that it eventually will be. As for the "useful content" argument, if a topic is crucially important, it will be recreated quickly. If it is not important, a longer period of time will pass. On a couple of occasions I have recreated articles that were deleted for copyvio or other problems; it's not hard, nor is it a burden on the vast pool of editors looking to increase their article created counts. People need to trust in the process, and and in the work ethic of Wikipedia's ordinary editors. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not the place for "should"s of this nature. Policy does not say that such content must "always" be deleted, so speedy is inappropriate when disputed. There is no policy basis for Abductive's point whatsoever. Bongomatic 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no policy basis, then how can the {{db-banned}} tag exist? A speedy deletion tag can be removed, true, but such removal (seems to me, by consensus and frequent usage) based on a dispute about whether the tag is telling the truth. If this was a {{db-copyvio}} case, the article gets deleted unless somebody says it's not copyvio. I've seen copyvio tags removed based on people making the (false) claim that it is not copyvio, and then seen the article get deleted without a tag even being reapplied. Now that these articles are deleted, it's tough titties. If you think the topics deserve an article, rewrite them or farm out the rewriting. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to distinguish the article from the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, consider that an AfD will result in these articles getting deleted anyway. So all that will accomplish is a delay in rewriting them. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would an AfD result in delete? Judging from the ones not deleted, there would be several snow keeps in there. Without a draconian position on speedying and a wildly optimistic one toward future rewriting, it seems that deletion is causing a delay, not retention. Almost all speedies and G5's serve to eliminate junk. These articles aren't.John Z (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the point of deleting articles of banned users is to take away the only thing they care about. It is impossible to prevent them from returning as socks, right? They (and in particular this user) takes pride in their work being on Wikipedia. So the draconian solution is to take their articles out and shoot them in the back of the head. This policy is designed as a warning to others that if they push the community hard enough, even if they come back as a sock, their legacy is gone. Why else have a speedy deletion criterion for this? Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is valuable and well-reasoned. However, see my next comment, a policy-, not opinion-based, explanation of why your argument needs to be made in a different forum than endorsement of an out-of-policy speedy deletion. Bongomatic 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD may not "would" result in their deletion, per precedent and policy. Hence the deletion on speedy grounds should be overturned and you will have an opportunity to argue that they "should" be deleted in this instance. WP:BAN (at Enforcement by reverting_edits) is explicit that reversion is not automatic or necessary. This is not a case of splitting hairs—the policy goes out of the way to make the distinction. You may disagree that these articles are well-sourced and encyclopedic, or that the creation of well-sourced and encyclopedic articles is (as stated in the policy "obviously helpful", but that disagreement means that AfD is warranted. Bongomatic 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't see the point of having a special speedy deletion category for articles by banned users. If the banned user created hoax or non-notable articles, then they could be speedy deleted as vandalism or A7. But {{db-g5}} must exist to delete good articles. Abductive (reasoning) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your view of the purpose of the speedy deletion process is very different from mine, and in my experience (often on the frustrated side wishing differently) consensus. Speedy deletion is for uncontested deletion of articles that fall in specific categories. Where (a) it is contested whether an article falls into a category or (b) an article in a category's deletion is contested, it doesn't apply. That doesn't mean that the speedy deletion criterion is useless in any way. Bongomatic 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that deletion via the {{db-banned}} tag is fine if nobody contests? That is the most important thing to me. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spend 20 minutes rewriting one of the stubs from scratch. All the remaining articles could take maybe 5 hours. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--as you can see from the DRV request, the problem here is that an editor acting in good faith (me) removed the {{db-banned}} tag prior to its reinsertion and later speedy deletion. I don't contest the category of speedy deletion at all. As per Wikipedia:Deletion#Speedy deletion under "Renominations", the convention that an article goes to AfD after any category of speedy tag (even copyvio, which is obviously more problematic) is removed once. This is not a strict policy (as it is for {{prod}}), but there's no reason not to accede to the requests of editors in good standing to get a community view through an AfD whether an article created by a banned user is an "obviously helpful" edit that should be spared per the explicit possibility mentioned in the policy. Bongomatic 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Well, I would prefer to recreate these articles myself. Going blindly by the sources and then looking at the cached articles in Google, I have ascertained that the banned user created stubs on works by a long-dead author that somehow managed to garner factual accuracy tags. The banned user created stubs that seem to make claims about the works that I could not corroborate online. The online sources analyse the works differently than some of the banned user's stubs. This is worrisome to me, and the solution is to just rewrite the articles. Abductive (reasoning) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From scanning one of the older sock's talk page, the person has a lot of trouble with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, among other things. Wknight94 talk 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given that editors who rewrite the article have read the work of the banned user, and continue to have access to cached material, the banned user must be given some attribution. Overturning the deletion for an editor in good standing to rewrite is the solution that my reading of the GFDL calls for. The misbehaviour of an editor does not relinquish our continuing copyright obligations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please compare the two versions of The Two Baronesses; I created the replacement before looking at the cache. They are as different as they can possibly be. Abductive (reasoning) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability requirements for books are a weak point for me. If anybody feels like merging The Two Baronesses to anywhere, I won't complain. Abductive (reasoning) 07:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no attribution requirement arising from that, only if there is verbatim copying. Samw wat y that many editors here in order to meet WP:V are reading outside works, if that made the works here some sort of derivative (which would for the GFDL or some CC require attribution) then we couldn't license the work here under the GFDL or CC anyway. Relaistically such a chain of having read something now requiring acknowledgement of the original writings, would end up as a close to infinite list --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse CSD G5 states "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." Removing a db tag is not a substantial edit. Triplestop x3 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BS.Player (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Download.com's editors have given the software five stars (see [60]), thus it is notable and should not be deleted. RekishiEJ (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse All policy-compliant AFD reasons were delete. I suggest that RekishiEJ find reliable sources detailing the notability of this product, write an article from scratch in his userspace, then come back to DRV. Hipocrite (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already suggested that to him. Twice. [61] [62]. RekishiEJ (talk · contribs) seems to have ignored that suggestion, and come here, instead. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Download.com is a reliable source, and since the software was once awarded, it is notable. I suggest that once a software was given five stars by a particular noted download website or magazine, or reviewed by at least two independent media, it is notable (the reverse is not true, though, as they are other factors making a software notable).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability guideline covering this is the general notability guideline which says no such thing, if you want to try and propose a new standard then this is not the venue. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reading through the debate, I must begin by endorsing Cirt's closure. The closer's role is to evaluate the debate, and it could not have been closed in any other way. It is possible that the consensus itself was in error and the software is indeed notable, but admins should not need to take any shit from DRV when they have closed a debate in accordance with the consensus.

    On the matter of whether to overturn the consensus itself, I would like to point out that Download.com is one source, and our policies require sources, plural. Five stars is not quite the same as a notable software award.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But given five stars by a particular medium is essentially the same as being awarded. Also it is mentioned non-trivially by others sources [63]. By the way, I think that now English Wikipedia is becoming more and more deletionist, and it can heavily narrow its coverage thus making it less useful to many users.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Softpedia is open for anyone to submit software to. i.e. it is little more than a directory, inclusion there indicates very little. (download.com also is basically for anyone to submit, so mere inclusion there is also meaningless). Five star reviews are given out fairly liberally, they aren't equivelant to a small amount of awards issued on a periodic basis. Five Stars is also a meaningless measure, what criteria were used? what comparison is being made? is it point in time or "forever"? etc. The general notability guideline is the measure. Have multiple indepedant reliable sources written about it in a non-trivial way. i.e. not directory style listings which merely repeat the authors own blurb, or blogs etc. The download.com might pass that bar (I'm not convincded being it's all of three pargraphs) but as above the notability requirement is for multiple independant reliable sources, and the place to argue about notability issues is the AFD, DRV is not AFD round 2. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* I do want to agree with RekishiEJ that the English Wikipedia is becoming more deletionist. It's an old and deep-rooted trend, that. The concept of a cost/benefit analysis in which we try to decide whether an article might be helpful to end-users has largely evaporated in favour of a near-obsessive focus on coverage in reliable sources. That trend's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does bear watching.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree (or disagree for that matter), the number of articles has steadily risen so you'd exprect the number of deletion discussions to rise also. As to if the proportion of delete/keep decisions has changed, I'm not sure there is any reasonable data on that. The aim has never been to merely include articles which are helpful to end-users, stuff like reviews of websites are potentially useful but it's not what wikipedia is about, and the basic standard for inclusion as the general notability guideline has remained the same as has the verifiability not truth requirements. Debate over those who want to label deletionism and inclusionism have been going on for years and I expect continue for years, I would also suspect the average wikipedian would not label themselves as either. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me to disagree that the trend is more deletionist. In most AfD, an editor will come up with two reliable sources, they can be as small as one sentence mentions, and then there is a pile-on trend to keep. The term significant no longer has meaning towards notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami33139 (talk • contribs)
        • Actually, most editors do anything but provide sources, i.e. try to actually explicitly refute the nominator's(s') rationale for deletion. MuZemike 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. However one prefers to put it, a single review does not establish notability. Tim Song (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per S Marshall. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Toasters still get reviews in print consumer magazines and we don't create articles based on that. Miami33139 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Anyone can say that a something is "VERY popular"[citation needed]; anyone can say that something has "xx million users"[citation needed]; anyone can say it's good and place a 5-star rating on it. Notability is asserted via coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic; that is, one should be able to build a reliably-sourced article using said sources and that is neutral and free of original research. None of the rationales (mostly by single-purpose accounts, mind us) for retention address any of that. MuZemike 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, since this software has been given five stars by Download.com, this time we can apply IAR to ignore limitations on WP:N.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, let's change the rule. If a software has been only reviewed by a reputable independent medium or person once, but awarded five stars, editor's choice or equivalents once, then it is notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, DRV is not AfD round 2. GlassCobra 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was entirely correct based on the discussion. The new information provided here is at best grounds for userfying the deleted article so that more sources can be added, which does not require DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Following a discussion on the closer's talk p, I have reverted this premature closure. No evidence of bad faith in bringing it here, so it needs sufficient discussion; 11 hours is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
his closing message was: "Nothing to see here, move along please. Article deleted correctly, no apparent process problem and it's not clear what needs to change. – Guy (Help!) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adamantius (journal) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Page was first deleted by Juliancolton after an expired WP:PROD. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) chose to unilaterally recreate the deleted page. It was nominated for AfD by Crusio, and I closed that as delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal)). Instead of first contacting the deleting admin, or starting the deletion review process, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) again acted unilaterally, to restore the deleted page. I deleted it due to G4. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) has chosen instead of engaging in polite dialogue, or partaking in proper site process, to issue threats [64], so this now comes here. Thank you for your time.Cirt (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep delete. As an editor who voted in the above-mentioned AFD, I voice my opinion that the article has insufficient notability for english wikipedia. As an administrator, I don't understand why an article was undeleted after a closed AFD without a community discussion. Perhaps I'm missing something? Materialscientist (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (to OP) What? This seems a bit of an unusual DRV request. The article is currently deleted, and you seem to be asking for it to stay deleted? Why not just salt it and get it over with? Deletion review is usually undertaken to reverse a current status quo. It is highly unusual to start one with a request to maintain a status quo. --Jayron32 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you think I should salt it, I will. Any objections or reasons why I should not? Cirt (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just salt it. I can detect nothing improper in either the close or the G4. Tim Song (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already salted, by Jayron32 (talk · contribs), and I agree. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please hold this open for a while. This journal is ranked "A" (second highest) in the Excellence in Research for Australia ranking here in Australia. Since the article is now salted, I would like the opportunity to investigate whether an adequately sourced article can be written. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um I did not think that the purpose of DRV was to repeat the AFD process again, but rather to determine if the AFD was closed properly. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but if it turns out that the journal is notable after all, DRV can still unsalt. Tim Song (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject after searching in five different research database archives. I found none. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best left salted for the moment, unless reliable sources are provided. I've found a few sources in Italian, which I am still working through. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete. The article has already been through the process of WP:PROD, and was deleted. It was again deleted after discussion at WP:AFD. The subject fails WP:NOTE, it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Further, it appears from above that users Materialscientist (talk · contribs), Jayron32 (talk · contribs), and Tim Song (talk · contribs) found no fault with the processes involved by which the article was deleted. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse, since I participated in the debate, but I want to say that my position remains as it was in the AfD: if it can be shown that the magazine is peer-reviewed, then I would be in favour of permitting an article, but if not, then I would prefer that it remain deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I took this to AfD after the article was re-created virtually without any change after the expired PROD mentioned above. There were several argumented delete votes and a few comments from editors who abstained from voting. The closing appears to have followed consensus in that debate. It should be noted that Alastair Haines was properly informed of the AfD, but did not participate in the debate. If information would be brought forward that the journal is notable after all (and reliable sources can be found), I have nothing against re-creation, but up till now I have not seen any such evidence. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deletion reviews is a proper place to discuss this: a close must be reasonable, and an incorrect close is not reasonable. Thus any mistake made in the decision can be considered a process mistake, because an admin is supposed to close on the consensus of reasonable opinion. As an analogy, appeal courts usually do review in some manner the facts of the case, and an unreasonable verdict will be overturned--except that in US criminal matters, a verdict finding the defendant not guilty cannot be reversed. But normal civili disputes can be and often are sent back for another hearing. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete (I did not partici[pate in the first AfD) It's a newsletter, not an actual journal . Whether something is technically peer-reviewed is not always the determining factor--any journal can claim to be peer-reviewed while still accepting anything it gets sent, and some very reliable publications are actually simply published on the basis of an editor's sole decision. And a edited professional magazine under strong editorial control of a major professional body can also be notable, as Chemical and Engineering News. But this is simply devoted to publishing whatever he members of its group should send it, as group newsletters commonly do; to quoting in abbreviated form from its home page: (1)information about the projects and programs of the Research Group and about the work in progress of its members (2) it records the members' publications, (3) reports on conferences related in some way to the research field (4)provides an up-to-date list of the members (5) contains lists of the biblical passages mentioned in the newsletter. (It also seems to contain book reviews). This does not make it a peer-reviewed journal, or a well-controlled professional magazine--just a newsletter of a research group. With respect to Excellence in Research for Australia, I've always had my doubts about its methods, which are essentially based in the humanities upon whether a few academics in the field recommend it--that it includes this publication in a high category certainly confirms my doubts on its validity. The proposed WP Journal Notability guideline, as I understood it, is intended to make it clear that publications such as this are below the notability level. (and that even for peer reviewed journals, to make clear that by no means all of them were notable). I've been sometimes called a little too inclusionist on this score, but the reason I did not participate in the AfD, was that I thought this publication so totally non-notable as to be an obvious delete and not worth the argument. this journal is not included in any theological or historical indexing service--and there is no reason why they would, as it includes no research level contributions whatsoever. The sponsor of this article is usually very reliable, but I think this time he's mistaken. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing here suggested the deletion process hasn't been followed properly — keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2009[edit]

13 November 2009[edit]

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

COI Prmwp (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malformed DRV fixed. Can OP expand on his rationale? Tim Song (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other discussion on this can be found here here and here. The author of the article and lister here are apparently the subject of the article. I assume User:Prmwp is also a copy of the article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Overturn speedy, AfD at editorial discretion. COI or autobiography is not a speedy criteria. A university professor is a claim of importance. The article requires some cleanup, but it was not blatantly promotional as to fall under G11. Tim Song (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


BLP.

I created and posted this page containing my own BLP biography. There may or may not be COI, but I believe that article qualifies for inclusion under Wikipedia notability guidelines.

COI.

Virtually all the listings of living people that I have consulted show some degree of participation--inclusion or exclusion of material--by the subject. Wikipedia guidelines say that this is "strongly discouraged", but it is not absolutely prohibited. This is a normative policy statement that seems to be almost totally disregarded in practice. From my personal empirical observation, it is simply not true in reality. For example, a short search among my colleagues showed 4 husband-wife couples and one father-son couplet

Whether such autobiographical participation involves inappropriate COI, is, in my opinion, something that should be subject to critical analysis on an individual basis. There are potential v. actual conflicts of interests; convergent interests as well as conflicting ones.
I think that Wikipedia and its users have a strong interest in detail and interpretation that only subjects or their closest associates can provide. Aside from the interests of contemporary users, there are those of future ones. When the living subjects pass on there will be nobody to supply those details. Such information can easily be deleted, but it can never be restored.
As you can infer from the comments above, it does not seem appropriate to me to infer either COI or notability from the mere fact of authorship. In my view, each of these should be determined on its own merits, and articles should be edited to reduce possible COI.
I am requesting that the biography be considered on its own merits in terms of notability and COI.
Wikipedia, like many professional journals, is based on a volunteer submission model. Further, Wikipedia whole mythos is "open source" in order to maximize the contribution and dissemination of information. That is clearly what my colleagues who are listed have done in their biographies, and I have benefited greatly from their contributions giving an overview of their professional work. I think that those contributions add to Wikipedia's strength. I am following their example and have used their contributions as a model. I wish that there were more contributions from my colleagues, and I wish that they were more extensive. The Wikipedia community,like the scholarly community, is one where people are expected to contribute what they have. That is what I can do, and that is what I have done, summarizing 40 years of professional, peer reviewed, published research from which I hope that others can benefit.
One reviewer said thatguideline does state, "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article....So generally an article should not be deleted because of a COI.

Notability

Notability guidelines for academics state the following. "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria...

1.The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
Also, the criteria say that "An alternative standard, 'the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor' is often cited. This criterion has the advantage of being concise though it is not universally accepted. Determining the notability of an average professor is difficult in itself and usually relies on one of the nine more detailed criteria above. When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average."


1. There was substantial independent Google Scholar coverage under Francis A. Beer and FA Beer.
2. I received not one but two Fulbright Awards as well as others. The Fulbright Award page identifies these awards as "prestigious".
Also, I was a tenured full professor at a Tier 1 research university.
I meet not only one of the qualifying conditions, but three

--Prmwp (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that Professor Beer merits an article under Wikipedia's labyrinthine and sometimes self-contradictory notability criteria. I do not necessarily approve of the current content of the draft article.

    Under our policies, the article must cite reliable sources for each fact that it contends. This is not optional. On Wikipedia, anyone may claim to be anyone. Anyone may claim credentials that we cannot examine, and long experience of how children, teenagers and even otherwise responsible adults sometimes choose to behave in an anonymous medium has taught us to be wary and mistrustful. In our efforts to correct misinformation, we have been obliged to formulate a policy on the burden of proof.

    Therefore, I would say that this article may be moved to the mainspace, but not until the various claims without evidence are either cited to reliable sources or else cut from the draft. I do not think it ready yet.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Most participants in this deletion review will be well aware of the matter of Essjay, but I think it wise to link it here in case anyone is not. It provides important context. It has, unfortunately, happened several times that Wikipedians have claimed academic qualifications or social status (as ministers of religion, etc.) that they do not actually possess. In keeping with our desire to be a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and in keeping with our policy to assume good faith, the only answer we have found to these problems is to require that everyone, even an acknowledged expert, must cite their sources when writing material—and that unsourced material may be removed on sight if there is doubt.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S. Marshall. I thought that I had sourced everything. Could you please give me an example? Would a footnote be sufficient? Thanks. --Prmwp (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A footnote is certainly sufficient, but what is necessary is that citations are more specific. So, for example, where one cites a book, the book should be specified by its title, author, publisher, date of publication and ISBN number (either in the citation, or if the book is cited many times in the same article, in a separate bibliography), and the citation should be made to the specific page on which the cited fact is listed. The purpose of this is is to enable editors to more easily check the content. Likewise, where one cites a web page, the link should be to the specific page, and the citation should mention the date on which the information was retrieved, since websites do change. Each fact that may be challenged should have an individual citation.

    But I do want to emphasize that, even though I am quibbling about details of content in the draft, my position remains that Professor Beer should have his own article on Wikipedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (later) If you wish, I will go through the article adding tags to those claims where I think citations should be provided? I would not normally do this to material in someone else's userspace, but you may feel this will ease the process.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on a revised version located at user:prmwp. In response to comments before the page was deleted from the main space, I had been making some of the revisions that you suggested. I'm sure there should be more. I'd be grateful for your help and suggestions there, should you find time. Thanks very much.--Prmwp (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy This is not at all speedy material. COI etc are not reasons for deletion. There is no absolute prohibition on autobiography or writing with a COI. Newbies shouldn't be bitten. Professor Beer is mistaken about what can ever be included in an article; everything must be ultimately sourceable outside wikipedia, but there has never been a requirement for immediate citation for everything, even in BLPs.John Z (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure about why its being claimed that COI was the reason given for deletion - the rationale was criteria A7. The article was created by its subject and is pretty much his resume (complete with the author quoting himself) though. This editor has also been trying to insert references to his own books in the NATO article (the books aren't used as sources for anything in the article; he just wants them there). There's probably sufficient claim of notability to reinstate the article (though this doesn't require a DRV process and the article will probably end up at AfD pretty quickly given that the draft article on the editor's page still has no references to independent and in-depth coverage of him in reliable sources), but this is bad faith editing from someone who is using Wikipedia to lift their own profile. Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About COI being given as the deletion reason, look at the links given at the top by 82.7.40.7 and the deletion edit summary. I think good faith should be assumed of a new editor.John Z (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is hardly my resume, which is much more extensive on the one hand,and, on the other hand, does not include much of the material on the Wikipedia page. The resume can be found at my website.
I thought that my own work on NATO might contribute to the NATO page "early period" section.
The page was blocked on the basis of prior vandalism, so the submission went through an editor.
The editor of the page asked my identity when I requested permission to add the material. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't this considered outing and prohibited?
After I provided my identity, he said that he preferred me to write a paragraph with a footnote to my work. I did so.
He then said that my paragraph wasn't what they were looking for and inserted the original references that I had suggested instead. I wanted to provide additional references of other people's (e.g. Kissinger, Osgood) work but was told that they were not desired.
I thought that this was all rather strange since Wikipedia is supposed to be open-source, and I'm new to the process.
I think that the NATO page could be vastly improved. To me, it looked a lot like NATO public relations material, but I don't feel terribly encouraged to try. Perhaps, inaccurately, I feel that I probably know more about NATO's early period than the people involved with the page, who probably weren't even around then. The research for one of the books was conducted on-site at NATO Paris headquarters (which sadly no longer exist) at the Place Dauphine from 1965-1967 and included personal interviews with 221 notable political and military people. Silly me, I thought that I might have something useful to contribute.
Beyond that, I think that there are significant gaps in the whole Military History project, for example, statistics of war. There is what seems to me a very narrow concept of Military History. The whole enterprise could probably benefit from more input from high level historiographers with a critical and multidimensional sensibility.
I think that the imputation of " bad faith editing from someone who is using Wikipedia to lift their own profile" goes counter to Wikipedia's stated policy of professionalism, collegiality, and civility. Indeed, if I remember correctly, there is a specific injunction against imputations of bad faith. I regret to say that such comments have been a continuing part of my introduction to Wikipedia. Further, such comments have been shielded in the cloak of anonymity, while my own identity has been totally transparent.
As far as profile lifting, my profile is already well lifted by my professional position, my awards, and on such independent sources as Google, Google Scholar, Amazon, etc.

--Prmwp (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Overturn whatever might be the notability, and the interpretation of WP:PROF, this clearly and unmistakably asserted notability in the most positive possible manner. Optionally list at AfD, though I think it will stand up there very easily--the multiple publications by major publishers and his having been selected for relevant chapters of major encyclopedia articles. How any admin could have thought this an A7 escapes me entirely DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, possibly list at AfD instead. I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:PROF or that I would vote keep in an AfD, but this is definitely not an A7 candidate. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started this thread by respectfully suggesting that WP:PROF requires that only one of the core academic notability criteria be met and that I meet two of these, as well as one alternate criterion. Though I am not an expert on the rules, it seems to me that the listing would meet three independent criteria when only one was required. So even if there were an interpretive problem with one, the other two would still apply. Isn't that a considerable reservoir of redundancy? --Prmwp (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that you would probably be best off avoiding directly editing the article on yourself per WP:AUTOBIO and also avoiding taking a partisan role in debates on it such as this one — it's more likely to provoke other editors into thinking there's a problem with the article than it is to convince. As for arguing whether the article passes WP:PROF, that's for a full deletion debate; all we need to decide here is whether the admin who speedily deleted your article was correct in doing so under WP:CSD#A7 (articles which don't even provide any reason to suspect that the subject is notable). But since you asked: I'm not convinced the Fulbright is enough. The prominent mention of listing in Who's Who acts as a red flag to me, the sort of thing people list when they don't have anything real to pump up their articles with. And far too little of the article relies on published third-party sources: for a biography of a living person, anything not sourceable in this way should be omitted. But the long list of monographs (for many which it is not hard to turn up multiple published reviews) is impressive even if one ignores the two edited volumes, possibly enough for WP:PROF#1. And as you say it only takes one criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • David--Thanks for the advice. I'm new to this process, so obviously I don't know the protocol. The page was basically modeled on existing pages of my colleagues. I didn't realize that Who's Who wasn't considered significant. In addition to the Who's Who listings, there are listings in several other bio-directories. And there have been multiple reviews of the books in professional journals. And there have been about 75 articles. I didn't list any of these materials because I didn't want to clutter it up. But I do take your point.--Prmwp (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy per DGG & David Eppstein. As as for the assertion above that "Under our policies, the article must cite reliable sources for each fact that it contends" I believe that the requirement for such sourcing applies only to potentially contentious statements, and I didn't see any claims there that seemed to meet that requirement. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and let it take its chances at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
that is, if anyone actually takes it there. I think it will so obviously be kept that this would be a little redundant, but David E & I are used to having to defend even such clear instances. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I was the original person to delete this article. I see from the discussion here that I did so in error. Might I request that this DRV be closed, on the basis of my willingness to be reverted? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can always undelete the article and close the DRV yourself, I believe. Tim Song (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do I just undelete the article and just declare this discussion unneeded? Is that the correct procedure to follow? Once I figure out what exactly I need to do I'll do it, but would appreciate some procedural guidance. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Giveit.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This file was deleted in November 2007, out-of-process with no deletion discussion. It's needed now for criticism of the 2009 fundraising campaign (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia Forever, discussion on the Village Pump, and more). *** Crotalus *** 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you contacted the deleting admin? If not, is there a reason why? Tim Song (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given his deletion summary, I don't think it would do any good. *** Crotalus *** 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This image has no place on wikipedia and I can't see that the opposition to the stupid banner this time round needs any help. Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Image has no place on this site, although it is not significantly better than "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". Stifle (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • EmoTrance – Nominator requested to relist this with a userspace draft for reconsideration – Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
EmoTrance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the 19th November 2008, I missed a deletion discussion on my EmoTrance article hence it was deleted. Please could I have this reviewed, since the technique is starting to gain support in schools [65] here in the UK. Thanks, Alex Charles Kent (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation. The AFD's main concern was lack of independent sourcing, but now there's evidence of a source in the Times Educational Supplement. Just doing a very basic check I see two other recent sources. It seems reasonable to say the AFD would have gone differently had these sources been around. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD had a clear consensus back then. However, if there are new sources provided, I see no problem in recreation or writing the article from beginning. --Tone 17:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's what I meant to say. Nothing was wrong with the AFD or the closure... it's just new evidence has apparently emerged. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, as it could not have been closed any other way. Permit recreation as is the default, provided that the recreated version contains reliable sources on the subject, without prejudice to another AfD at editorial discretion. OP should be free to recreate the article, subject to the normal processes. If they want the deleted revisions, an admin can userfy it. This is without prejudice to a G4 speedy if the recreated article fails to adequately address the concerns raised at AfD. Without a sourced userspace draft, we should not pre-empt a possible speedy. Tim Song (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Before expressing my opinion I want to see a user space draft. Ruslik_Zero 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well anyone can recreate the page whenever they feel like it... they don't really need our approval. Although it would be best to include the sources so it can't be speedy deleted. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation If the THE article is included as a reference, and the article written is a less promotional and POV manner, it might even pass afd. I would like to see a draft, because if you write this like you wrote the first article, I't will need to be much modified. Fair close, on the basis of the status of the article at the time-- it fact, had I seen it, I would have deleted it as G11, wholly promotional DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userspace draft first Miami33139 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Resubmitted For Examination Hi everyone, thanks for giving my article another go. Have resubmitted [1]. Alongside the Times Education Supplement article, I have removed a couple of sections and also updated the book list to show the broad range of authors covering the method. I welcome comments. Thanks Alex Charles Kent (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the suggestion was to re-create the article in userspace, not mainspace. Rehevkor ✉ 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and re-delete/move article to userspace. As it stands, the article still fails WP:N and the editor writing this article is missing several points. (Among these: what "emotrance" is notable for in the THES article is the fact that it has been described as "psychobabble" by two senior academics; if Wikipedia is to have an article about it, this is one of the things the article would say.) The gun has been jumped, and any recreation should await DRV closure and then inspection of userspace draft if that's how it is closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article resubmitted for examination I thought I had referenced THE, but turns out I had referenced TES. Have resubmitted including the THE 'Psychobabble' article as requested. Alex Charles Kent (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, re-delete article created out of process. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Page moved to user space. Triplestop x3 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Imonggo POS Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the 4th of October I deleted the article under speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G11 (advertising) following the recommendation to do so in the AfD. On the 10th of November I deleted it again when it was recreated (it appeared on my watchlist) as both a recreation (WP:CSD#G4) and as still meeting WP:CSD#G11 criteria. Johnwiki2008 (talk · contribs) asked me on my talk page to investigate this. I explained my reasoning and that I didn't have time to investigate further just then, suggesting they take it here if he wanted to take it further. They replied on my talk page telling me that it was unnacceptable for me to delete without taking the time to review it (missing the point of my message) and telling me he had set up and "investigation log" at User:Johnwiki2008#"Imonggo deletions" Investigation Log. I still haven't got time to investigate it further at the moment (it will probably be tomorrow at the earliest before I do) so I'm bringing it here on their behalf. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • List at AfD so that we can get rid of it once and for all. G4 should not apply when an AfD is closed 3.5 hours after it started in reliance upon a CSD; G11 is a harder question, but I would tend to think that (1) the article was not so blatantly promotional as to justify a speedy and (2) the best method to get rid of this content, if it is undeserving of a place here, is by AfD. Tim Song (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist' at AfD and let the community decide in the proper place for it. Thryduulf, this was not so clear a speedy that you should have closed on that basis. Looking at the article, it was certainly spammy, but the spam was removable, and then the question would have been notability, which is for AfD. The inapplicability that you did recognize, of one of the reasons for speedy should have caused you to look more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion was valid, it's an advertorial written by a WP:SPA. We do tend rather to bend over backwards to help these people spin out the process on Wikipedia, but it is remarkable how often these massively significant things remain stubbornly undocumented on Wikipedia until the company comes along with an article based on its own press releases. Is that what happened here? Hard to be certain but it sure looks like it to me. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete I can't see the deleted article but I'm giving Thryduulf some credit here that he has been around the block and knows spam and recreated material when he sees it. Wikipedia has a spam problem. Our prolonged discussions, processes, and procedures are designed to protect content made by our good faith userbase. SPA accounts and PR firms abuse our naivety. Repeatedly dealing with this is overwhelming our limited attention span to separate good content from bad. If the SPA account wants the article, let them provide it to an established user who can decide to insert it and defend it. Miami33139 (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion to Thryduulf: Your WP:CSD#G4 deletion is an obvious mistake on the 10th of November. 90% of the new page and the old page are different. You claim you don't have time to review the case, while in fact, it would take you only one minute to open the two pages and verify that they are significantly different. Instead of immediately rectify the obvious mistake you made, you would rather spend so much time to post in the discussion. You are not a normal user, but an experienced Wikipedia administrator who represents Wikipeida's image in front of all users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwiki2008 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in your userspace is still spam and it is the only thing you have ever worked on. Thryduulf is not your whipping boy and has given your article more time than it is worth already. Attacking him is not going to help your credibility. Miami33139 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – while not technically G4, would have met G11 in my opinion, judging from looking at the last deleted version. The user is welcome to continue to work on making a non-advertorial, neutral version of the page in userspace, but what was recreated was unacceptable. MuZemike 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The last deletion was still an advertisement although I probably would have AFD'd it instead of speedied if it was the first time I saw it. Although Johnwiki2008 has been kind of a dick about this, which makes it hard to assume good faith and act objectively. PirateArgh!!1! 10:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin. I have now had time to look again at both revisions that were current at the time I deleted them. Had the first deletion not been a speedy but the result of a full AfD, then I would have no qualms about standing by my G4 deletion second time - while the layout was different almost all the actual content was a minor rewording of the previous version with some reorganisation and omissions. As it was the first deletion was a speedy and as it wasn't a verbatim copy then I should not have deleted it under G4 and so I withdraw that. However, I fully stand by both deletions under criteria G11, and so the outcome would be the same. I have not looked to see whether the subject would pass the notability guidelines or not so I have no objection to a non-spammy article being created, but the version in Johnwiki2008's userspace does not fulfil that criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Thryduulf for agreeing that your CSD#G4 deletion is a mistake on the 10th of November (Highlighted in your comment above "I should not have deleted it under G4 and so I withdraw that"). The CSD#G4 deletion is the key to the case. The CSD#G4 mistake clearly indicates that the deleted page was not carefully reviewed before deleting. Careful review is a very basic Wikipedia rule that any administrator should not break. Please restore the page ASAP and I hope I can receive a Sorry from you. It's ok if you have any other notability questions to the page, but you have to follow the right procedure to list at AfD as Tim Song and DGG mentioned above, so that we can have a fair discussion in details. The Deletion Review is a wrong place where you post, because it is designed for our normal users' challengings rather than you administrators'(like you who even do not want to take ONLY 1 MINUTE to help check if CSD#G4 is a mistake). Please see the Principal Purpose of Deletion Review. Also take a look at the vote from your supporter like Miami33139, he even did not see the deleted page, but he has already voted "Endorse speedy delete" to you. This is not a President Election! The article is an embodiment of my several days hardwork, administrators can not use its power to carelessly delete it first, then vote it based on friends' help without a fair detailed discussion. I am going to check with all the voters (involved in the case) one by one later and submit a detail investigation report to Wikipedia management so that a solution could be developed to filter out those unqualified administrators.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwiki2008 (talk • contribs)
    • Please do not edit other users comments. I have removed the bolding you added to mine, because it unnecessarily highlights something that was not intended to be taken in isolation from the whole comment. I did review the articles carefully and my comment does not say otherwise. What my comment is saying is that as the first deletion was a speedy and not following a full AfD then despite it containing substantially identical content, and had it also not also been speedy deletable as spam, then I should have taken it to AfD. However as it was also spam I should have deleted it under WP:CSD#G11 with a mention that it was also a borderline G4 rather than WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G11 equally (emphasised so you don't take the wrong message from this long comment). Also, please do not make personal attacks against other users or otherwise characterise other users comments as you have done at least twice in the above comment. Deletion review is the correct venue for discussion of speedy deletions and the outcome of non-speedy deletion discussions (XfD and WP:PROD), whoever raises it. Additionally you will note that I suggested you bring it here yourself, and only after you didn't did I initiate the discussion. I'm not certain who you mean by "Wikipedia management", but if you do submit an "investigation report" (whatever you mean by that) then please do let those you consider "unqualified" know. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per JzG and MuZemike. The G4/G11 call is a little hazy, but no point in undeleting this if it clearly wouldn't survive an AfD. GlassCobra 19:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more information and the current status, please click here

    • The further investigation has been closed. --- JohnWiҚi2008 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Yeah, err, thanks Johnwiki2008, but we'll do any "investigating" that needs doing round here.

    It's quite hard to look past the nominator's Johnwiki2008's conduct at this DRV and examine the issues on their merits, but when I do, I find myself agreeing with DGG and Tim Song. Administrators are entrusted with the "delete" button on the very clear understanding that they will only use it in certain strictly-defined circumstances. Those circumstances do not include assessing an article's notability. An admin can decide that an article doesn't assert notability, but any credible claim of notability is sufficient to exempt material from speedy deletion. Whether something is actually notable is for AfD to decide.

    I would respond to JzG and MuZemike's comments by pointing out the common meme that "DRV is not AfD round 2". DRV isn't AfD round 1 either.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not entirely sure if you are referring to me or Johnwiki2008 as the nominator, but if it is me then I'd like to say that while the notability of the subject was the reason for the AfD nomination, it was not a factor in either of the speedy deletions. The first deletion was done under criteria WP:CSD#G11 "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". Pages that meet this criterion can be about either notable or non-notable subjects, it doesn't matter. The second deletion was a combination of the same criterion and WP:CSD#G4 which is for recreations of material that were previously deleted, regardless of why they were deleted. I have said upthread that I have no opinion on whether the subject is notable or not, my opinion is solely that all versions of the article I've seen are spam. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I'd incorrectly thought that Johnwiki2008 was the nominator. Fixed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apology accepted, as I brought my own action here for review on Johnwiki2008's behalf it isn't immediately clear which of us is "the nominator". Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Yaakov Teitel – Overturn deletion. There is agreement here, that there was no consensus at the AfD and that it should not have resulted in deletion. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yaakov Teitel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At my talk page (User_talk:Kevin#WP:Articles_for_deletion.2FYaakov_Teitel), an editor has disagreed with my closing of this AfD, and i have been unsuccessful in my attempt to explain it to his/her satisfaction. while I obviously stand behind my close, the editors concern is legitimate and warrants further examination. Kevin (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its two editors that have complained. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion-closure review I understand. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What to do now? Repeat the discussion again? I'd like to (& win), but who wants to? -DePiep (talk)
  • Overturn to non-consensus. The closer didn't like some arguments, so he rejected them. That's not his job. They were properly based on policy--the key dispute was over the interpretation of One Event. The community decides how to interpret that, and there was no clearly articulated refutation to the fact that the large number of crimes represented multiple events. If the closer has a preference for one interpretation over another, he should join the debate and say so, not judge it. The only time the closer judges is to reject arguments with no basis in policy--not balancing which policy applies, nor judging the interpretation. We're just questioned on policy fundamentals; if we had to know authoritatively what was the correct interpretation, nobody would pass RfA. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn No overriding policy reason for deletion. There was a legitimate disagreement in policy here and there wasn't a consensus that there was a problem. Indeed, it seems that if anything the consensus favored this not being a BLP1E situation. There is independent of this issue the fact that Teitel has now been formally charged[66]. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse looks like a decent close to me, the problem with BLP1E is that we tend to get into situations where one side argues it applies and another just states that it doesn't. In this case the closer has to review which side has the best policy based argument and it is completely reasonable in BLP cases for them to make their own assessment of which sides interpretation of BLP is correct. BLP gives wide lattitude to admins to use their best judgement so I'm not seeing any red flags on the close. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- there was no consensus for deletion and there was no consensus that there was a problem with BLP1E. How then do we get from no consensus to deletion? The community has not adopted a practice of no-consensus defaults to delete. When there is no consensus in a discussion, it would always be possible to find some means of perceiving that one argument is "stronger" -- but "stronger" is not consensus. And that is the policy problem here: there is no consensus, and yet it was closed with deletion. An additional point: Teitel has now been charged with an impressive array of crimes, stretching over many years: [67]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non consensus there were equal and opposite arguments and votes on both sides. The closing admin picked which ones he preferred and cast his own vote as he preferred. Given the lack of consensus, this should be overturned as a no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus for there was none. I love WP:BLP1E myself, and I personally think that BLP1E may well apply at this juncture (recognizing, of course, that there are cogent arguments that it does not), but I don't see a consensus in the discussion that this falls under BLP1E. With all due respect to Spartaz, BLP ought not to be magic letters that admins may invoke at will to justify disregarding arguments with which they disagree (the issue here is clearly not clear-cut), particularly when there is virtually no harm to the subject in keeping the article, as is the case here. I'd agree that, when there is a significant possibility that the subject would be harmed, we give somewhat more leeway to the closer; but this is not such a case. Tim Song (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Appropriate close; the deletes addressed the points appropriately while the keeps tended to pick and choose the arguments, ignoring quite a few sticking points mentioned. Consensus was there to make it both a WP:BLP and a WP:NOT issue. I'd also like to note for those arguing overturn that DRV is not "round two" for the AfD- it's not time to bring up new argument points that you should have brought up during the original debate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, if it is a ONEEVENT as the closer states, which one event would that be? -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The confession/accusation is the one event; at the time of the discussion there were no reliable sources presented which directly and uncontroversially connected Teitel to the crimes to which he allegedly confessed. If a madman confessed to a string of unsolved murders, and his claims were being investigated by the police (as they would have a civic responsibility to do), would this person satisfy WP:BLP1E? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several matters to consider here. First, BLP1E, which is rapidly becoming Wikipedia's default deletion criterion for BLPs because if you stretch the definition of "one event" far enough, you can trace every single notable person's notability to one event. I mean, a victory on election night is one event. Publishing "The Origin of Species" is one event. Being the first European to set foot in America is one event. Solving Fermat's Last Theorem is one event. Shooting John Lennon is one event. I could go on and on. My point is that BLP1E needs to be tempered with sanity: when the one event is the kind of event that generates serious coverage in reliable sources, BLP1E has to yield. And NOTNEWS likewise needs to be tempered with sanity. Always, the first coverage of a major incident comes from news sources, but that doesn't mean every article on everything that's newly-happened ought to be deleted because news sources are the only coverage.

    The "sanity" that's supposed to temper these criteria should come from consensus, and in this case, there was insufficient consensus to delete the article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to non-consensus per DGG, S Marshall, etc. Applicability of BLP1E was a stretch, whether it counsels deletion in this case if taken to be applicable is not clear. So no decisive reason to discount !votes, which is what is necessary to avoid a no consensus close. A "stronger case here is to delete" is not enough; there needs to be consensus to delete.John Z (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus – it doesn't look like there was one established in my view of the AFD. MuZemike 00:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Although I tend to agree with the closer that the arguments for delete seem stronger than the keeps, there are enough votes and arguments on both sides to constitute a no consensus. What seems to be unclear here, do we need a short workshop on no consensus? And we've been through the discussion of BLP default to delete, it has not happened and will not happen. Please desist from attempts of precedents and deleting no consensus BLP's in any which way you can possibly concieve because it is currently against guidelines!Turqoise127 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus per DGG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, as there wasn't any. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (by WP:DRV default resulting in a keep). 1st: per DGG and Nomoskedasticity above, who wrote to the point about the process here. 2nd: If it could be a ONEEVENT, as the closer writes, then which single event would that be, out of a list? The AfD-discussion does not mention a specific single one. 3rd: The closer argues along the line (my words here): "one 'week keep' was expressing doubts, so I weigh it as a keep'", which is distorting that editors own statement. 4th: I do agree with the closer, when --implicitly-- concluding that arguments referring to NOT#NEWS and N/CA policies were not decisive, i.e. were resulting in a keep by themselve. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- I am frankly flummoxed by the claims, from the closer, and others, that multiple press reports on multiple occasions of multiple arrests and multiple convictions are a single event. When defending their decision on their talk page the closing administrator makes a key admission I wish more of those who make BLP1e challenges would recognize -- whether something is merely a single event is a subjective decision. It is, in fact a highly subjective decision -- and our policies don't define what a "single event" is. This closure is a good example of the need to deprecate the BLP1e portion of BLP. Some time ago I read an argument that the article on former UK PM Tony Blair was a BLP1e, and should be deleted with the sole noteable content merged into the George W. Bush article. The wiseguy asserted that no-one would ever have heard of Blair if it weren't for his support for the George W. Bush war policy. When the wikipedia was first started a wise choice was made when the policy on verifiability was drafted. It says our goal is verifiability, not truth, because what is "true" is the subject of endless acrimony -- whereas whether an assertion is verifiable is subject to much less acrimony. It is too bad that those who drafted the BLP1e section of BLP had not been similarly wise. The closing administrator has been asked to clarify which of the events associated with Yaakov Teitel was the "single event". In the hundreds of times I have seen those favoring delete call on the authority of BLP1e to argue for deletion I have never seen a meaningful, substantive answer to this question. Either the question is totally ignored, or the deletion proponent's response is a variation of "it is obviously a single event". Geo Swan (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 November 2009[edit]

  • V.V.L.N.Sastry – Deletion endorsed. As always, a draft may be created in userspace and then brought to DRV to determine whether restoration is permissible or not. – NW (Talk) 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
V.V.L.N.Sastry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Fred, the admin deleted by asking me to go through the deletion review for recreating this article. I think Fred and Spaceman Spiff are justified in their act of asking me to go thru the deletiion reveiw. I am trying to create an article for the first time on Wikipedia, which I love as an encyclopedia which provides info about many reknwon persons across the world. I tried to build an article about V.V.L.N.Sastry, a well known Financial Analyst, Economist and also An Acadamecian. But I came to know that the article earlier went trhough AFD, But I would like to request the administrators to restore the previous version, which I could go thru the Google Search and I am willing to add more credible resources to that to establish credibility. As Fred pointed out for showcasing the reviews of magzines, I am willing to provide the resources from magzines which donot have any websites, but I can upload those PDF's by scanning the relevant portions and very well establish the notability of V.V.L.N.Sastry. Hence request you to restore the article.Venkateshinida (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Close: Close in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/V.V.L.N.Sastry was completely fine. Against my better judgment, perhaps the article could be userified to Venkateshinida, because I suppose its possible more sources exist and a sustainable article could be created, but this article also had a crazy personal campaign around it defending the subject, e.g., "For god's sake, please do not delete this article", "Two great magzines from India covering this youngster cannot be ignored. Keep the article."--Milowent (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close I participated in the earlier AfD and suggested changing the tag from A7 to G4 on the article created today, and also suggested that the editor bring it up here instead of repeatedly recreating. I know that I went through a lot of links and struggled to search for anything to show notability, but got nothing. At present if an article were to be created, it can be nothing more than a quote farm. I have no objections to userfying either version, but I honestly do not see a benefit. -SpacemanSpiff 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from speedy-deleting admin. While the petition has been filed about V.V.L.N.Sastry, about which I am independent and endorse the close of that AfD, the trigger event was the creation of V.v.l.n.sastry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) and my deletion of that article under speedy deletion criterion G4, as a result of the aforementioned AfD. I have no objection to a draft being created in userspace; however, the draft that Venkateshinida created today is inferior to the version that went through AfD and does not belong in mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both the afd and the G4 of the recreated articl at a different title I undeleted the original article at REFUND as, i think, a contested prod but listed it at AFD as the sourcing simply wasn't there. An insane campaign by spas then flooded the discussion but failed to provide realistic policy based arguments to keep this. The deletion side was overwhelmingly of the established editors in the discussion making policy based arguments so I endorse this close as a good example of weighing arguments rather then counting noses. I suppose we should get out our tin hats and flack jackets in anticipation of another campaign. Spartaz Humbug! 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well, endorse AFD close, SPA's non-policy based !votes were appropriately discounted. I can't endorse a G4 when I can't see the newer version of the article, though, so I abstain on that one. The version in google cache just has a {{delrev}} on it and nothing else. However, if OP wants to persuade us that recreation should be permitted, a sourced userspace draft is the best way to go. I'm seeing nothing in the talk page discussion that addresses the concerns raised in the AFD, so I strongly suspect that the G4 is probably correct. Tim Song (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletes I did not comment at the AfD, but it seems clear to me that there was insufficient notability shown. The recreated article showed no signs of fixing that. It was incomplete though, so it remains possible that an article could be written in user space., at least sometime a little further on in his career. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for permission to create a sourced userspace draft

I fully agree with all the editors of wikipedia for their great contributions in adhering to the standards in makinig wikipedia a reliable source of information for people across the world. But my humble request to the respected editors of wikipedia is that, across the globe, unlike in developed countries, everything is not available to establish notability of a person through web based sources. In a country like India for commercial reasons, noted magzines donot maintain websites as it may hurt their commercial sales. But those magzines covered as independent third parties, which can establish the notability of V.V.L.N.Sastry. I am sure that, given the chance, I can establish his notability. Yesterday, while i was trying to recreate the page which was incomplete, in talk page, I could see the comments of Fred and Spaceman Spiff and I felt that it is better to approach through Deletion Review as advised by Spaceman Spiff and Fred. I turly believe What they said is correct and right way to go about the recreation of the article. At the same time I request the editors to give me some space and time to recreate this article. To prove notability, I could scan the coverages and can upload the same or send the same to the editors, so that they can judge the quality of the article and take an informed decision at the best.Venkateshinida (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You don't need our permission to create a userspace draft. Once you are done, take it back here by filing a new DRV. Tim Song (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sniff Petrol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears that the admins who deleted this article didn't realise what Sniff Petrol was all about. It's written by some of the most prominent motoring journalists in the UK, many of whom are closely linked to the hugely popular Top Gear BBC program, and is one of the most popular satirical motoring sites on the web. JN5556649 (talk)

  • Endorse AfD closed correctly, any other decision would have been unacceptable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That AfD was unanimous. In what sense did Kevin fail to follow the rules?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, endorse - I can see nothing out of process here. Tim Song (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, it's my first go at this process so I'm feeling my way a bit. From a UK perspective the decision seems a little odd, given all the places that "sniff" references have popped up (several episodes of Top Gear and on the BBC F1 coverage as well). It's a very well regarded and well read blog.Davepoth (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm in the UK and I haven't come across it. Admittedly, I don't watch Top Gear. But where are the reliable sources that discuss Sniff Petrol?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm UK based, do watch top gear and a little F1, haven't come across this. That's not to say it hasn't been mentioned, but I guess if you don't know about it and it's a passing mention or "in joke" sort of reference then it'd be easily missed. The requirement really is have other reliable sources written about it in a non-trivial way. i.e. not just reference to, but something actually about it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AfD discussion was not as full as it might be, even after the relisting, but looking at the article, I do not see evidence of notability for this online magazine/blog. Given that every comment at the AfD was delete, I do not see how else it could have been closed. If there ever are 3rd party substantial sources, perhaps an article could be written. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per DGG. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure very clear. GlassCobra 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Hard to fault a closure when every !vote was in the same direction and all of them gave policy-based reasons. If the subject really is notable then just create a new version with appropriate sourcing. --RL0919 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 November 2009[edit]

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

Jane Burgermeister videos and articles are currently a lot (approx millions of times, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU viewed 227853 times, which is one out of many). She seems to have a lot of influence of public health, with her positions on H1N1 vaccination. Neutral Wiki information is required to establish the facts about her. Pc4235 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. SPA !votes appropriately discounted per policy. Notability concerns were not rebutted. I can't find error in the close at all. If nominator wants the article restored, they need to provide some reliable sources providing significant coverage of this person. We do not "establish" facts about somebody - we report the facts already established by reliable sources, and as far as I can see the consensus of the debate is that the article is unsourceable because its subject is not notable. Tim Song (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I'm not really sure how DRV works but I find 47 news articles (4 pages worth) in Google News. Here are a few (some are foreign language but I believe this is acceptable): [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many of those are reliable and non-trivial? I see that a number of them only mentions this person once. Tim Song (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, not sure. I spose the English ones can't be used to establish notability. I wish I understood more languages. This person HAS been talked about a lot lately, not sure why I can't find more on her. I offered to help the OP improve the article so I'll look around for others. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about these? www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html [unreliable fringe source?], [76] ,[77]. Also, why was the American Chronicle (used in the Spanish Wiki version of the article) determined to be non-reliable? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you read the American Chronicle article, I think you'd be able to tell why. I wonder how much editorial control there is for the new sources you cited - probably not much. And stuff like [78] with the call to action at the end does not sound reliable to me. Tim Song (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The OP appears to be a new editor so we should be patient with them while they learn the ropes. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she seems to have managed quite successfully to post a deletion review request, so it seems reasonable to assume that he/she also read at least one of the three instructions that users should discuss issues with the deleting admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try to WP:AGF here. As you noted, it's not mandatory to discuss with the closing admin, so rather than getting bogged down in semantics, let's please just discuss the DRV on its own merits. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am a new editor and I'm learning Wiki rules - patience is greatly appreciated... I did my homeworks: a 1.5 hour search to find a reliable source. I could not find any. I admit I had a presumption that the article was deleted prematurly, but considering that no valid references have been found, the decision to delete the article makes sense. However, I still think that a wiki article is required to establish some facts concerning Jane Burgermeister. Her videos are viral and viewed millions of time - that can be verified. I may prefer a new article concerning uniquely her viral videos, as a noticeable phenomenon, or the controversy she brings concerning H1N1 vaccination. pc4235 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only problem with that is that if no reliable sources can currently be found, she still wouldn't satisfy the notability policy. She may, in time, become notable, so no reason you can't keep the article in your userspace, clean it up and once those reliable refs that are directly about her become available, recreate it. An article about her viral videos or the specific H1N1 controversy as it relates to her may be possible, but again, look around for those all-important sources. Not sure if anyone pointed you in this direction but WP:RS will help you determine what is and what is not an acceptable source. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete I do not really see a a discussion with the closing admin would have prevented the Del Rev.--he gave his arguments for the closing very well at the AfD, and could only have repeated them., as we are doing here: insufficient evidence of notability based on the sources available, and invalid arguments by SPAs. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I'm sorry I reopened a debate on deletion review concerning Jane Burgermeister article. I had a good humility lesson today, thanks...! After some more research, I consider instead writing an article on Swine Flu Conspiracy Theories [79] which seems to be an emerging tendency. Thanks! pc4235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 November 2009[edit]

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

Please consider the Shop.Com entry for undeletion. A dialogue was started with administrator Cirt and concerns were addressed. Multiple references from legitimate third-party news sources were also added to support the notability of Shop.Com. Per the administrator’s request, a draft article was moved to userspace; available at the user page of Bpops721. Bpops721 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: malformed DRV fixed. Userspace draft seems to be at User talk:Bpops721#SHOP.COM. Tim Song (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically there's probably been sufficient effort to overcome the concerns that lead to speedy deletion, but it's worth considering that if we undeleted that article now, it would not be likely to survive AfD. I should think it would be wiser to develop the article by further citations to reliable sources before moving to the mainspace.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? This one was AFD'd. Tim Song (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops! I was looking at SHOP.COM, which has been speedied several times but never AfD'd. My point stands, though.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • not yet As S Marshall says, there still is not enough. Some of the articles refer to a $25 million capitalization, which is , frankly, insignificant; the Time story seems to have a one sentence mention. The only indication of possible significance is the hiring of a major ex-Disney exec for CEO, so I am willing to think that it might someday become important. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, keep deleted per S Marshall and DGG. The notability concerns raise in AfD have not been adequately addressed by this draft. Tim Song (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, the initial VC funding of $25M for Shop.Com was by any account significant, and the market cap higher. Others in the category received far less in initial financing. Further, Shop.Com has attracted several industry veterans to manage the business, including its CEO, as noted. We will continue to modify the entry and cite reliable sources so, at minimum, a basic entry can be restored to the mainspace. Please note if there are specific concerns that should be addressed. Bpops721 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted FWIW, US$25M is significant VC funding. So what. That doesn't mean you need to be in an encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Endorse deletion per DGG and Tim Song. GlassCobra 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cross-namespace redirects – Deletion overturned. – –Juliancolton | Talk 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Redirects involved
Unusual Articles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Citation templates (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Citation template (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Citing Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) -- Restored; I was unaware of the previous MFD when I was deleting it. --Cyde Weys 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Research on Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
About Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ANE Resources (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ANE Topics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ANE portal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ANE resources (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ANE topics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Bypass your cache (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Basic topics list (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Australian Current Events (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Astronomy portal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Featured pictures (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Featured picture (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Be bold in editing articles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Basic topics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Assumed bad faith (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Asteroid pronunciation key (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Astrology portal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Recently, Cyde deleted a number of cross-namespace redirects, citing Wikipedia:CSD#R2. But these redirects are OK per CDS R2: Redirects from the article namespace, to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. I believe that the redirects should be undeleted.

Note also that at least the titular deleted redirect has 5000 visits per month. Nikola (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that the page listed at the top of this DRV was just recreated:
(cur) (prev) 17:18, 10 November 2009 Triesault (talk | contribs) (40 bytes) (←Redirected page to Wikipedia:Unusual articles)
-- Soap Talk/Contributions 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects sums up the issue pretty well. It's likely that everything said here will just end up being a rehash of the arguments presented there. My personal take on the issue is that cross-namespace redirects should not exist as they create a confusion between encyclopedic content and non-encyclopedic content. It's pretty clear: namespace 0 is the encyclopedia, and everything else is meta to that encyclopedia. Namespaces exist to preserve this distinction, and blurring it by redirecting willy-nilly across the boundary is counter-productive. --Cyde Weys 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...Those discussions are from 2006. The RfD for Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, which closed as keep, was in 2008. Not to mention that CSD R2 explicitly excludes these redirects and hence there is no valid speedy deletion criterion at all. Overturn deletions. RfD at editorial discretion. Tim Song (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We ran into this problem the last time. RFDing hundreds of nonsense redirects like ANE Resources — which points to a subpage of a highly inactive portal — overwhelms the process and is a waste of the time of everyone involved. I'll grant you that Unusual articles is a different situation, but overturning the deletion of the ANE stuff et al would be a triumph of process over common sense. --Cyde Weys 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then the solution would be to bundle those five and perhaps a couple more together in one nom. I doubt that RFD would be overwhelmed because of that. Tim Song (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bundling only goes so far. There would still be over a hundred separate bundles to push through RFD. (You can't bundle together unrelated redirects.) --Cyde Weys 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe an RFC, then? Like what was done with the {{future}} templates? I feel uncomfortable using a three-year-old discussion to justify deletions that are outside policy. Tim Song (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • For what it's worth, I tried to get Nikola to post this to WP:VPP, but he insisted on posting it here. I agree that a more general discussion on the issue is merited (independent of the specific redirects mentioned in this DRV). The existence of certain high-profile cross-namespace redirects that may be too externally referenced to be deleted has unfortunately ushered in a whole new generation of cross-namespace redirects created by people who seem to think that such things are normal and acceptable. At the very least, I'd push for a moratorium on all new cross-namespace redirects in article-space, and deletion of the vast majority of the ones presently in existence that don't have any significant incoming traffic from off-site. --Cyde Weys 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking the two justifications presented for these deletions are a speedy criterion that explicitly doesn't apply, and an essay?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I go to edit, which I usually do with the help of info from Citation templates, and I can't find it (that's the link that's returned when you Google Citation templates). Looks like you missed killing Citation Templates though. That redirects to Wikipedia:Citation templates. I think people would be more upset with not finding this info than finding it via the wrong namespace. Please restore the redirects.--Larrybob (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like Google has already updated? I wouldn't use Google as an argument for not deleting a redirect, as Google is constantly re-indexing. Now you may possibly have a valid argument with some prominent links from off-site that aren't constantly being robotically crawled and update — but not with search engines. --Cyde Weys 20:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you follow the first Google link returned there? It goes to the page saying it's deleted.--Larrybob (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I personally think that speedy deleting anything that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria presents Wikipedia in a bad light, and is generally worse than allowing something that should be deleted to exist. Speedy deleting something that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria makes it seem like Wikipedia administrators either don't know Wikipedia's policies or are free to ignore the policies and delete anything they want. If cross-namespace redirects like these are a problem in general, then a discussion can be started wherever it is appropriate to have one, but I think deleting these before such a discussion has taken place was a mistake. Calathan (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Bad policy to allow these. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Whether or not you agree with any underlying policy does not matter. What matters in DRV is whether deletion process was properly followed.  Sandstein  23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is the proper end result for the project regardless of the forum. not a bureaucracy, la di da and etc. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The proper end result will depend on whether the deletion process was properly followed. People will behave differently after a fait accompli, and you know that. Nikola (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Invalid speedy deletion, CSD R2 does not apply to these redirects.  Sandstein  23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn totally out of process. Wikipedia does not have sufficiently firm precedents that we can justify a speedy by saying "other articles like this were deleted". We might or might not want to keep them, but it needs to be discussed. We admins do not have the right to simply delete everything we think ought not to be here--that's a misinterpretation of our role so drastic that anyone who ran for admin and said this would never be confirmed, or even come near it. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you might be slightly over-reacting here. Take a step back, look at WP:BOLD, and ask yourself if such strong rhetoric is really justified. All we're dealing with is a handful of deleted non-encyclopedic redirects. No wheel-warring, no nasty words thrown about, nothing. Calm down! --Cyde Weys 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You surely picked a bad time to do it - DRV seems to have an influx of out-of-process deletions lately. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my comment was based upon not this but the totality of such deletions. My comments are I think correct as an expression of the feeling of the community, at least as expressed here. What you could have done to avoid such comments is to have reverted these yourself. I apologize though for any over-personal implications. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with optional list at RFD. Many (if not most) of these are inappropriate, but no speedy deletion criterion applied. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Misreading of the speedy deletion criterion, and as Tim Song noted, some of these were already discussed and closed as keep. Some of the redirects should be kept for historical reasons (i.e. the page they redirected to was formerly under that name), and very few of them could be confused with articles. I also disagree with SchmuckyTheCat that out-of-process speedy deletions without discussion are OK if you agree with the result, because there is a reasonable chance, as here, that someone else does disagree with the deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as out-of-process, if Cyde wants the R2 criteria expanded then there is a venue for that. –xenotalk 16:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn R2 has been specifically been worded to exclude such redirects exactly because there was never consensus to speedy delete such redirects. Regards SoWhy 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted these redirects serve no purpose but to clog up the article space. There could be very well an encyclopedic article written on the topic of "Unusual Articles" or "Basic Topics" or whatever. Maybe there is a band named "Assumed bad faith". We already have WP: for shortcuts. If Wikipedia:Unusual Articles is too long, you can use WP:Unusual Articles or WP:UA. There is no conceivable reason for these redirects to exist.  Grue  17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not sure if my previous comment counted as a vote, just want to make sure. Here's Google results of pages that link to the now-gone Citation templates: Google search results--Larrybob (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Due to the nature of speedy deletions it is best that they are carried out closer to the letter of the policy than any implied spirit. That being said, perhaps the wording of R2 needs to be looked at if editors feel that it should be broadened. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per TimSong. I agree with Cyde's considered views on XNRs, but this is not the way to delete them. And having a discussion about their value at DRV will create confusion about what to do with a no consensus result. We should reverse the out of process deletions and then we can have a centralized discussion someplace.--chaser (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 November 2009[edit]

  • Sleep to Live Institute – Decision endorsed. The decision was within administrator discretion and a second relist is highly discouraged. The page creator is encouraged to continue to work on the article in userspace and obtain views from experienced editors on what constitute reliable sources in this case. – Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sleep to Live Institute (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Undeletion request per the recommendation of Xymmax, the administrator that deleted the page originally, as the process has been met with little consensus or discussion fleshing out the issues fully. For ease of reference, I'll provide a synopsis of the process to date:

  • Created the article with a basic intro, company information and history pertinent to a Bedding & Sleep Research Facility.
  • RT noted it was well written but had the air of advertising.
  • Per RT's suggestions I removed trademarks (that I included previously expecting they were more appropriate for documentation).
  • I requested specifics and quoted some notability requirements I felt were presented and did not receive any rebuttal. Still, I opted to add some innovations important to the industry along with articles supporting awards given those innovations and doubled secondary sources to alleviate notability concerns. Additionally, I added multiple international interviews on both radio and television that featured the head of the Sleep to Live Institute to further establish the notability of the Institute given international media presence.
  • Due to lack of consensus the article was relisted.
  • UltraMagnus mentioned that only 1 of the news articles was, in their opinion, reliable.
  • I offered some explanation to why the sources were indeed reliable, many of them specific to the relevant industry and again received no further discussion.
  • Xymmax deleted the article (and will be commenting on rationale so I'll not speak for them). At my request, Xymmax Userfied the article and suggested I present a few of the sources for review with the reliable sources editors, with the indication that if they found the industry publications and international media reliable, the article could be undeleted. I intentionally focused on the international media with a couple industry publications listed (as Xymmax suggested only listing a few); however, there were numerous industry publications with some discussion about the Sleep to Live Institute (the full reference list is on the article).
  • Simonm223 found that the sources were reliable in establishing notability of the company but suggested changes to the article itself to improve the neutral point of view. DGG didn't feel the information industry publications had adequate focus to be significant; but, did not have input on the international media adding to that. When prompted to get an opinion on how the international media added to the notability, they also failed to enter any further discussion.
  • At this point, there has still been minimal consensus reached and I have added one additional reference found in another industry publication. I approached Xymmax again and they have suggested this post here to get a "binding opinion".

Please excuse any errors in my posting :) and thank you for your time. Cronides2 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a crime to be more familiar with promotional writing than with writing for an encyclopaedia, but I'm afraid I don't see that material as ready for the mainspace quite yet.

    The draft emphasizes the project's aspirations rather than its achievements. If I were you, I'd cut every single mention of what Kingsdown, Inc., hope to do in favour of a more detailed listing of the things they have actually accomplished. Each item listed should be accompanied by discussion of the achievement's impact and significance, supported by a reference to a reliable source.

    This piece mentions the company's CEO by name and describes his vision for the future. That's one of the red flags for an article sourced to corporate press releases; encyclopaedia readers don't care who the CEO is or what their vision is. They care about what the organisation has actually done.

    An encyclopaedic piece about this institute would start something like this: "The Sleep to Live Institute is an American commercial laboratory focusing on sleep research. It is based in Joplin, Missouri, and was founded in 2007.(Reference to reliable source). It has a research budget of (however much) and (however many) academic staff.(Reference to reliable source). Its main achievements include (this, that and the other)(source)..."—and so on.

    Hope this helps—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Relist. No opinion on the individual notability of the article or the lack thereof. The simple fact is that, other than the nominator, only one editor voted to delete and only the creator argued keep. Both delete votes were horribly short and not well explained. I believe it is still the case that delete opinions must show directly why an article should be deleted, and not the other way around. Relist this and get more arguments and opinions, otherwise closing admin exercised too much self authority without community. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist if you like, but in its present form I doubt it will pass AfD. I consider every one of the references to be based on PR. I see no indication that the entire project is based on anything other than to sell their mattresses. The article says "Kingsdown’s CEO, Eric Hinshaw moved to change the corporate identity from strictly bed manufacturing to one of also promoting the relationship of sleep and overall health and wellness." but I see no evidence of that. Rather the most extensive souce [80] cited in the article says that the machines are used to design a custom mattress from that particular manufacturer. The cited "award" is from a chain of mattress stores that sells their mattresses.[81]. I see no evidence of any actual research articles. The non-US cites are longer, but no better, than the US ones. But the place to decide this is AfD. What I would try instead, though, is to write an article about Kingsdown where this could have a paragraph. They may be notable as a leading specialist manufacturer., if there are reliable product reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The debate is sufficiently lengthy that I cannot call it an abuse of discretion to not relist it, bearing in mind that a second relist is normally disfavored per WP:RELIST. There are actually two delete !votes, not counting the nominator. Despite the claim that there are plenty of reliable sources, none has been presented in the AfD or indeed in this DRV. The problem with requiring delete !voters to prove non-notability is that one cannot prove a negative. Thus, once a good-faith search has been conducted, the burden is on the keep !voters to find sources to prove that the subject is notable. Close was in line with the consensus. Keep deleted per DGG and S Marshall. until and unless a better userspace draft is presented. Tim Song (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; only a single user supported keeping and there was no other possible way the discussion could have been reasonably closed. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's comments I closed this as delete based on my reading of consensus in the discussion. The delete !votes were rather spare in their comments, but I thought they were adequate to identify the defect in the article. I did not view consensus that emerged as being sufficiently in question as to justify a second relisting - the article had been up for deletion for two weeks all ready. I offer this remarks by way of explanation, otherwise, as I committed to the nominator (whom I applaud for the manner in which he/she has conducted him/herself) I am neutral. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Panckridge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was deleted as A7 - temporary undeletion requested. I am wanting to see if I can resurrect the article. I don't know anything about the condition of the article; if the undeleting administrator thinks it is a hopeless case, do not bother. — This, that, and the other [talk] 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have restored per the request. It is a pretty bare stub that certainly would need to be sourced and expanded if kept. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [82] seems to be the last good revision. Claims to have been published by HarperCollins and have written 20 books seem to be indications of significance. Tim Song (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7. AfD at editorial discretion. Per my previous comment and S Marshall. Tim Song (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should just start again, if I were you. There's not enough in the deleted version to worry about ressurecting it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn incorrect A7, in contradiction to the policy. Asserting authorship of 15 novels is an indication of notability. Whether he is actually notable will depend on their reception & the reviews, and must be tested at AfD if the article isn't revised to prove it to the extent that everyone is satisfied. We should always revert speedys like this, because otherwise admins who delete recklessly will never learn. This particular admin is inactive, but we should revert as an example so others come to understand. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Improper application of A7. Notability was indicated. There are plenty of articles which are clear A7's and give no indication of why anyone might care about the subject. This was not one of them, and should be overturned. Such clear errors should be automatically restored.John Z (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, seems potentially notable, AfD could challenge if This, that's resurrection attempt is not fruitful.--Milowent (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alvin Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please Consider "Alvin Fields" for Un-Deletion Thanks for the information Robert. Rhasheene (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malformed DRV fixed. Draft article moved to userspace; available at User:Rhasheene/Alvin Fields. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the AfD close as a reasonable one, and keep deleted since the draft did nothing to address the concerns raised in AfD. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this is still in need of better sourcing for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 November 2009[edit]

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

First realize we are talking about an article about a pornographic film actress, I grant that is a low priority in the overall scheme of things. Many people will not put their reputations forward to back this subject matter. Don't let the general subject cloud the discussion. And don't start using the name of Wikipedia for your censorship campaign.

The original article was posted by someone else, years ago. It was as well researched as an article in this subject as can probably exist. There was a round of editing that added referenced articles two years ago. It has been largely in this state, unbothered, since. It is one of better articles in its niche List of Asian pornographic actors, it is now one of the few missing articles in that niche. The actress retired four years ago, so it is unlikely the subject will advance. Considering the number of Wikipedia articles that will never advance, that's not a valid excuse for deletion.

The accusation of the person making the deletion originally was that the article failed to meet the WP:PROD for WP:PORNBIO but failed to observe that she has won awards and was a featured covergirl in magazines in that niche, has been nominated for a major award in the list, and has appeared in mainstream media (the movie 8mm (film) and a Notorious BIG music video). Close enough on two a certainty on a third point and clearly a trend showing notoriety. Also noted is her significant role working with quite notable Max Hardcore as one of his under-aged looking adult performers on multiple occasions. And while this is not deemed a suitable argument in these circles, its superior credentials compared to many on the above mentioned list. I also added the points that she is listed in all three top listing services in the genre IMDB, IAFD and AFDB, with 152 films to her credit in a 9 year career. None of these points were apparently brought to the attention of the administrator who blindly deleted it in a horde of other deletions he regularly makes. I am witholding a much longer rant itemizing the unfairness of this deletion process. I was sure this deletion was done in error. Apparently not.

I created a new user name in order to post in this stigma-laden genre. I found the original article archived on sites that mirror wikipedia content, added to it and reposted it. That article came under attack for copyright violations (even though it was copied from the original wikipedia article. It got a speedy deletion without any consideration. I doubt anybody even looked at the discussion page. And the original discussion was so effectively deleted that I can find no record of any serious discussion before it was deleted. --OsamaPJ (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it does look like the deletion as a copyvio maybe incorrect at the source history seems to suggest it was indeed copied from here (The is no User:RussBot on that wiki and the links in the edit summary are to a WP: page). However restoring the content by cut and paste from that wiki wasn't the correct course of action. WP:PROD can be undone by contesting the deletion and should be automatically restored. That's not to say a deletion discussion can't then take place and the content be deleted. If the article is as per the other wiki I can't see it surviving, since it is pretty much unreferenced. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 November 2009[edit]

  • The 404 Podcast – Keep deleted and protected until userspace draft shows a realistic potential to address the concerns that led to deletion at AfD. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The 404 Podcast (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Can we open this page up for submission again? I've created a legitimate article and would like to post it on the wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maynard_321/The_404_Podcast --Maynard 321 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unprotect. This is a wiki, and a user wishes to place a good faith article in that space; we should not stand in their way. I have not considered whether the userspace draft would survive AfD, nor do I think it necessary to consider that at this stage.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually agree with S Marshall, but this userspace version clearly fails to address the notability concerns raised at AfD. Therefore, keep deleted and salted as there is no point moving this to mainspace and then immediately speedying it as a G4. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Tim Song, the user space article as present doesn't seem to list any third party reliable sources (let alone those providing non-trivial coverage), restoring at present to be followed by either a G4 or AFD seems pointless (and perhaps counterproductive). Part of the value (in my view) of DRV is pointing out the gaps which need to be addressed, issues of good faith etc. are often secondary to that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted. Per Tim Song and consensus rational stated in the Xfd. And the fact its clear copyright infringement.
The 404 podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 404 Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 404
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_404_podcast
User:Maynard 321/The 404 Podcast
User:BlueCottonCandy/The 404 podcast
Maynard 321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
BlueCottonCandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Serial offender repeatedly Creating/Reposting of copyright violations[83]. content that would fail G4 or AFD. --Hu12 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the material is licensed under the CC-BY-SA. MuZemike 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, checked and you are correct, I'll strike it out. --Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect. The podcast is much more notable than other wiki pages out there. The podcast is even mentioned on the following: Molly Wood, Clayton Morris, Natali Del Conte, Veronica Belmont, Alison Rosen, and CNET TV. And as of now, the show has done a total of 462 episodes. In regards to my previous copyright infringement. I had posted a Google Knol article which was licensed under creative commons, but the wiki copyright bot picked it up as "copyright material", so it got deleted and re-creation protected. Back then I was new to Wikipedia system, and didn't know how all this worked. I'm still learning the ways of the wiki, and would greatly appreciate it if you folks could reconsider.--Maynard 321 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) — Maynard 321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted for now. Having read through the AFD, the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention (which were mostly based on the other stuff exists premise more than anything else), and the closing administrator made an acceptable read of the consensus. As I noted above, the material doesn't violate copyright as it licensed under the CC-BY-SA. However, the notability issues must be addressed before bringing back into the mainspace. DRV is not AFD round 2. Also, Wikipedia is not Knol. Nobody owns articles here, like they do over there. MuZemike 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted per the above, viz N issues. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salted per above. I'd welcome the article back to DRV if and when the article shows that the subject meets the notability guidelines. ThemFromSpace 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ray Joseph Cormier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article had sources that are solely about the subject in Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times and the Halifax Daily News. The primary argument for deletion was that even though the letter of WP:N was met, he isn't "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". As those newspapers did find him to meet that critera I don't believe it is our role to dispute their evaluation. Other !votes to delete were IARs arguments or were delete per arguments citing an IAR !vote. I'd be fine with deleting via IAR were the !vote clearly in favor of deletion. However, the count was 6 to keep and 7 to delete (including the nom who went with "Totally NN individual" as the entire deletion rationale) and the keep !votes made it clear that they believed the sourcing was sufficient. I believe this should have been a no consensus close. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, with some misgivings. To the extent that this was no consensus, I would be very concerned about closing as delete, in light of other recent discussions. But the subject of the article engaged in blatant canvassing, and only three of the keep votes came from people who weren't canvassed (and one of those was "weak keep"). I was surprised not to see this as part of the rationale. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I agree with Kevin that this was a difficult close. Kevin's job as closer was to evaluate the debate rather than the article, and as closer, by convention he has wide latitude to disregard canvassed !votes. He seems to have used this latitude here, and I can't see that there was a clear error involved.

    I might have closed that as "no consensus", simply because it was a third AfD after several previous "no consensus" closes and people should not be permitted to keep on AfDing the same material until there comes a time when the "keep" !voters fail to show up; but equally I would tend to think Kevin was within his discretion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll point out that the closer got the result by while specifically disregarding the canvasing (see his talk page, my recollection is that the closer doesn't have an issue with canvassing). Further, I believe those notices might be friendly notices (they want to pretty much everyone who worked on the article other than the AfD nom I believe). In any case, the closer disregarded the canvasing... Hobit (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. I was less concerned with how editors got there than what they said. And I know you (and possibly others) would have made it there anyway. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closed well within reasonable discretion given the assorted AfD opinions. RMHED (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think this was in the range of latitude of this administrator to make the call. I too am surprised the canvassing wasn't considered but that too is within their discretion. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Looked like the closing admin made an appropriate assessment of the arguments. I don't think the recent BLP-related controversial AFDs had anything to do with this one, nor was this one determined in the same fashion. MuZemike 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - nothing out of process here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Definitely a close call and not probably not how I would have closed it, but within administrative discretion. ThemFromSpace 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • ConceptDraw articles – Decision Endorsed. The result was no consensus defaulting to "decision endorsed". Although there were more supporters of endorsement than overturning, the balance of arguments was roughly equal as most of the endorsement arguments were actually misplaced arguments to delete and many focused on character of the editors who created/edited the articles not on the content, let alone the application of policy by the closing admin which is the only item at issue. The arguments to overturn were somewhat stronger, focusing on the position that the deleting admin may have over-read GS11; however, they were not strong enough by themselves to establish a consensus. The great volume of repetitive argument by the deleting admin was particularly unhelpful and was substantially disregarded; although clarification of why the deleting admin interpreted policy the way he or she did is useful, it is not generally necessary for the closing admin to !vote to endorse his or her own decision. The pages have been userfied by another admin as a matter of standard practice by request. Userfication was to an independent (of COI in the underlying articles) editor and this DRV is without prejudice to the creation of a spam-free version therefrom; particularly since initial deletion was under a speedy deletion criterion. If anything results, merger into one article is anticipated. – Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ConceptDraw Office (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ConceptDraw MINDMAP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
ConceptDraw PRO (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

These pages were deleted by Hu12 (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD G11, after CSOWind (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for spamming. The articles, however, do not appear to be blatantly promotional, but generally descriptive of the softwares. Especially given the no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw Project, I believe that there is a substantial chance that the articles will be kept at AfD. DRVs brought by CSOWind evading their yesterday were speedy closed by JzG (talk · contribs) despite DGG's and my !votes to overturn. After discussing this with JzG I was minded to let things stay as they are for a while, but apparently those deletions are now used to justify deleting an article that has already survived an AfD. Therefore, as I consider the deletions here to be improper under G11, I ask that they be overturned and send to AfD. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No compelling reason to undelete these particular articles. Furthermore, the project was kept as "no consensus", making it unlikely they are sufficiently notable to have articles on their individual products. Furthermore, it is clear that these articles were created for promotion. Triplestop x3 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the main "project" is ConceptDraw Office; ConceptDraw Project is a software in that "project". Promotional purposes aka WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way, it is clear they don't merit 4 separate articles. Triplestop x3 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then they can be merged. Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note: I'm withdrawing my vote after reviewing the articles themselves. I still don't see why we should have any obligation whatsoever to keep these spam articles. Triplestop x3 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ConceptDraw PROJECT, was a recreation of a page that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. To ignore that fact intentionaly(in nom above), yet base a multi-article DRV on a "no consensus " XfD is not very compelling rational to undelete. Additionaly, the term "Promotional purposes" does not imply "aka WP:COI", nor is "COI" a reason to keep, particularly when the deletion rational wasn't COI.--Hu12 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article was userfied and subsequently restored to mainspace after improvements by MuZemike (talk · contribs), who closed the first AfD. There is nothing improper here, especially when a later, well-attended AfD revealed no consensus to delete. The fact is that the text of the articles, though created for promotional purposes, are not blatantly promotional to be speediable. Tim Song (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Either way, this DRV is WP:NOTINHERITED, or should it be based on some other article's "no consensus" Sockpuppeted XfD. It would be a bit misguided to do so, as it suggests that Wikipedia has some inherent obligation to host innapropriate spam articles, which of course, we all know, wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sockpuppeted? Please list an example of votestacking during that AfD. I just reread it, and found none. WP:INHERITED is good and all, I cite it myself; but an AfD on the Mindmap software was closed as keep over notability issues - not the most stellar of debates, I'd admit, but that's indication of its notability nonetheless. And a software suite containing multiple pieces of notable software is likely notable. We certainly do not have an obligation to host spam - but IIRC, except for WP:CSD G5, dealing with banned editors, we do not delete an article because of the identity of its creator, but let the article stand or fall on its own content. My position is that speedy deleting apparently neutrally-written and verifiable articles on notable subjects simply because their authors wrote them to promote the products is against WP:CSD, which is policy, and our ultimate goal here, which is to build an encyclopedia. Tim Song (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all and merge I've !voted on some of these before and I believe there is plenty of notability for an article. I don't think we need 4, or 8 or whatever, but 1 should do. If after that someone wants to send them to AfD I've no objection, but it will clearly meet WP:N in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion.These are non-consumer software packages aimed at a very small technical market with "limited interest and circulation". Even if merged theres only trivial and paid product reviews, which won't be enough to establish notability. Obvious self-promotional creations and all are Spam.--Hu12 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion at this time. These articles are admitted by the creator and his numerous "friends" to be the work of people in the company. The intersection of genuinely notable things, and things which are not documented on Wikipedia until their company comes along to create them, is as close to the null set as you can get. Also I am strongly opposed to rewarding spammers, especially block-evading sockpuppeting spammers. At the very least this should be left until someone provably not connected with the company can come along with a new article that is not the work of people with a conflict of interest. Did I mention that I despise spammers? Guy (Help!) 09:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you admins start to follow the bloody procedure now, please and thank you?

    The "delete" button is there for you to use when there's (a) a valid speedy criterion, (b) an expired prod, or (c) a rough consensus to delete at AfD. It is not for use just because you feel like it, and the sheer number of recent DRVs involving cases where admins are deleting material on their own authority "because it's obvious it should be deleted", is beginning to worry me.

    Send it to AfD where we can have a proper discussion lasting the proper amount of time so this material can be deleted properly, thoroughly, and finally. Out-of-process deletions cause unnecessary drama and they end up taking more of your time than in-process ones.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a truly disturbing case involving 15 WP:SPA accounts, actively 'gamed the system' through the use of Meatpuppetry and Sockpuppetry, for the sole and primary purpose if using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "ConceptDraw" software related products.
log
  • 05:16, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 07:48, 23 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created page
  • 13:56, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 10:08, 11 September 2009 . . NaumenkoSvetlana ←Created page
log
  • 08:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: "Computer Systems Odessa" Using Wikipedia for advertising purposes see spam case)
  • 08:40, 23 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created page
  • 13:53, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of :http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mmforproject/main.php)
  • 12:45, 3 September 2008 . . Gi-ant ← Created page
  • 00:26, 12 June 2008 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)
  • 15:19, 22 February 2007 . . Jusperstb ←Created page
  • 20:53, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
  • 11:00, 25 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←moved
  • 07:54, 25 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←Created page
log
  • 12:01, 8 August 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (R1 applies - content was: 'db-redirnone #REDIRECT ConceptDraw MINDMAP')
  • 11:00, 25 May 2006 CSOWind ←moved
  • 08:36, 24 May 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (content was: 'db-copyvio|url=http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mindmap/overview.php')
  • 07:36, 24 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←Created page
log
  • 05:19, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PRO" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: spam)
  • 11:37, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov ←Created page
log
  • 05:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
  • 11:38, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov ←Redirected
  • 09:38, 15 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created
  • 18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
  • 14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')
  • 17:11, 26 April 2006 . . Csodessa ←created
log
  • 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw V" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
log
  • 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 7" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
  • 08:31, 30 May 2007 . . Master-zzz41 ←Redirected
log
  • 10:28, 10 July 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 8" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)
  • 10:27, 10 July 2009 . . Kozovaya ←created
As documented, Multiple instances of sneaky recreation attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies and procedures, Use of tricks in creating NN Spam articles, creating a titles as a redirects, Creating a seemingly legitimate articles then changing them around in order to avoid and curcumvent legitimate deletions. Allowing confirmed sock/meat puppets to activly evading blocks, create DRV's, and to promote their own agenda is "Gaming the system" and an abuse of process, which is disruptive. These are nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. We do not reward astroturfing spammers. Miami33139 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of those matters makes it so urgent to delete the article that it's necessary to disregard due process?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions – If someone wants to recreate the articles in a neutral, non-advertorial way, then please go ahead and do so. Otherwise, I have to agree with Miami here in that overturning them would encourage such spamming in the future. MuZemike 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, merge, and watch. Alternatively, someone else remake & take responsibility for them, DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No undeletion without a userspace version by someone not connected to the company. This company and its main product line probably do pass our notability threshold (barely, although as pointed out elsewhere by several people including me, the question of whether a few product reviews consitutes significant independent coverage is debatable). As DGG hints above and says outright in the November 6 debate below, one article on the whole line would make a lot more sense. But I do believe we have to err on the side of being draconian when someone is gaming the system to advance their own interests--we simply cannot allow CSOWind's tactics here to stand. If someone else wants to take this thing over, genuinely and neutrally, fine. But as they stand, these articles violate our policies because they constitute astroturfing, regardless of the notability of the products. Chick Bowen 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'd be willing to merge the articles if they are undeleted and survive an AfD, and take out any residual hints of adverty-ness, but forgive me if I'm unwilling to start working from scratch when there's a neutrally-written version to start with; and when they may turn out to be non-notable in the community's view. I'm unwilling to devote my time to something when it may well be an exercise in futility. Tim Song (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks. I've userfied these to User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw PRO, User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw MINDMAP, User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw Office. As you say, you should retrict your efforts to what you feel willing to do, keeping in mind that there has never really been a hearty endorsement of all this. On the other hand, I think a single article would be more likely to stand than the individual ones. Chick Bowen 18:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, this is not endorsed nor is there any appearence of consensus for userfication at this point. Particularly when stated explicitly "I'm unwilling to devote my time to something when it may well be an exercise in futility.". The move reasoning of "userfy per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 7" is contradictory. I would advise reverting the move untill consensus for such action is determind.--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I don't get this, Hu12. We normally userfy on request. You're certainly right that there's no consensus that this should exist in article space. But it would be unprecedented not to allow someone to work on a draft in userspace. If Tim doesn't want to work on it, that's his business, and if this DRV endorses it's deletion, that's their business. Chick Bowen 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm willing to help Tim with this. It would be all the easier, Hu,if you joined in also, It can hardly take much more work for all of us together to do an article than to engage in all the parallel arguments. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Chick, I just don't see a request, I see a comment. I'll assume the request was elswere. DGG, I do hope to work with you or Tim on something wothwhile, sadly meatpuppeting for astroturfing spammers isn't one of those times. Some things just don't belong in an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Chick Bowen - thanks. DGG - it would be an honor. Hu12 - I'd appreciate it if you at least refrain from referring to me as a meatpuppet. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - unacceptable spamming and astroturfing. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion spamming should not be tolerated here. ThemFromSpace 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 November 2009[edit]

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

No consensus, closed as keep. A few days ago on DRV several of this companies products were all deleted as it was shown that the pages were made in an orchestrated campaign to spam Wikipedia. While they were at DRV, this was at AfD. In the interests of WP:RBI, I think as a unique case this AfD closure should have been no consensus, delete. (I have not notified the closing admin, but I will. I find no fault with their rationale.) Useful discussion to read User_talk:JzG#ConceptDraw_DRVs. - Miami33139 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both DGG and I opined in those DRVs that the G11s were improper before they were speedy closed. If you insist on using those speedy closes as precedent here I'll have no other choice but to bring a new DRV for those. Endorse. Tim Song (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such close, and there never should be, as "no consensus, delete". All such closes are not merely out of policy, but completely opposed to policy. Had such as close been made, that is what should have been appealed here. If you wanted a second AfD you should have asked for one, & if consensus remained the same as for the previous ones for the same reason, you might be able to get it that way--it would have been less complicated than trying it like this. My own view is that the close on this one is the correct close, and there is no good reason to delete the article no matter who made it. I am quite bothered by the early DRV close on the others, but I on my talk p. advised against pursuing it further on the grounds it would likely not be successful. My advice may have been wrong. FWIW, Tim and I make most of our joint appearances at AfD or DRV on opposite sides. The discussion of JzG's page shows the inadvisability of judging articles according to who wrote them. That and the present discussions shows the utter inadvisability of closing a contentious DRV or AfD early, or of assuming from the first few responses that no other response is possible. The simplest course, in any event, is for someone other than the sockmaster to make an article good enough to stand--a course JzG would apparently not object to (indeed, how could he possibly?) I'd adopt it myself except it's not really my subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (unfortunately) Policy dictates COI is not a reason to delete. Triplestop x3 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG and Tim Song (and even a bit of Triplestop!). Hobit (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, per. G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. AlsoSpam case --Hu12 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was userfied then restored to mainspace by MuZemike. Maybe I'm missing something but I believe it's not a G4 because of that. Hobit (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was not aware of the previous versions which were deleted, but after looking at those revisions I don't think WP:CSD#G4 really applies. The deleted revisions do not only describe the software, but also extolled the product's virtues, such as how easy it is to manage resources is with the software. That content was probably the type of content targeted by WP:CSD#G11. The current revision lacks the reviews which were brought up on the AFD, but the descriptive text is fairly neutrally worded. There was not a blatant violation of core policy which mandated deletion in this case. Regarding the closure, I saw several established and regular good faith contributors supporting retention, for instance Davewild, Eastmain, and DGG all made reasonable policy based arguments. JzG, and Chick Bowen among others made a reasonable case for deletion, so there wasn't much of a consensus. The deletion policy says that a rough consensus is needed for deletion, and I couldn't really see that here. If the current article were pure spam, I think the consensus would have been to delete. Do I agree that reviews are sufficient to establish notability for software products? I am actually somewhat undecided on the issue, and it depends a bit on the type of product. Many common products receive reviews or are covered in product comparison tests in consumer magazines, and not all those products are really all that interesting from an encyclopedic point of view. I think all Norwegian brands of orange juice have been reviewed, but I wouldn't support articles on all orange juice products for that reason. On the other hand, reviews of computer games and video games (which have an artistic element in addition to a mere functional one) are sources considered highly relevant in those articles, and do contribute to the notability of those subjects. In the end, I don't think the closer should be giving his/her own opinion much weight in determining the outcome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a truly disturbing case involving 15 WP:SPA accounts, actively 'gamed the system' through the use of Meatpuppetry and Sockpuppetry, for the sole and primary purpose if using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "ConceptDraw" software related products.
ConceptDraw PROJECT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
log
  • 05:54, 14 October 2009 CSOWind (33 bytes) (←Redirected page to ConceptDraw Project)
  • 19:31, 5 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT) (view/restore)
  • 14:40, 16 September 2009 protected ConceptDraw PROJECT [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Repeatedly recreated) (hist | change)
  • 14:40, 16 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 14:30, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 11:52, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
ConceptDraw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
log
  • 05:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
  • 11:38, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov (29 bytes) (←Redirected page
  • 09:38, 15 September 2009 . . CSOWind (2,679 bytes) (←Created page
  • 18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
  • 14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')
  • 17:11, 26 April 2006 . . Csodessa (←created page
ConceptDraw Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Current
log
  • 09:19, 16 September 2009 CSOWind (2,124 bytes) (←created page
  • 05:18, 6 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
  • 11:51, 30 September 2009 . . CSOWind (33 bytes) (←Redirected page
  • 12:21, 11 September 2009 NaumenkoSvetlana (151 bytes) (←created page
  • 11:40, 11 September 2009 NaumenkoSvetlana (1,170 bytes) (←created page
  • 06:51, 13 June 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (CSD A7/G11; content was: '{{Infobox Software|name = ConceptDraw Project|caption
  • 07:45, 23 May 2007 . Master-zzz41 (1,511 bytes) (←created page
  • 18:33, 31 March 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (blatant advert)
  • 10:14, 23 February 2007 . Jusperstb (←created page
  • 20:29, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
As documented, Multiple instances of sneaky recreation attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies and procedures, Use of tricks in creating NN Spam articles, creating a titles as a redirects, Creating a seemingly legitimate articles then changing them around in order to avoid and curcumvent legitimate deletions. Allowing confirmed sock/meat puppets to activly evading blocks, create DRV's, and to promote their own agenda is "Gaming the system" and an abuse of process, which is disruptive. These are nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concerns about the behavior; the solution is to let a single legitimate article be written and to watch it. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin of the 1st AFD – I felt that my interpretation of the consensus in the AFD was correct at the time. However, I did help out in userfying the page as well as helping the now-indef-blocked user in sourcing and establishment of notability. Having looked at the 2nd AFD and the article's improvement since the 1st AFD (i.e. removal of spam and other issues that distance the article from when it was before I deleted it the first time), I'm leaning towards endorse close on the 2nd AFD, especially given that other users beside those helped out in making it into what I think is an acceptable article. MuZemike 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Cnit.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This picture was deleted and transferred on Commons because it met the license requirements. However, the subject is a copyrighted building (the Center of New Industries and Technologies) in La Défense, near Paris. French law doesn't recognize freedom of panorama, so this picture cannot stay on Commons. As I believe the English-speaking Wikipedia accepts pictures like this one, I ask for its undeletion here, so that I can delete it on Commons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close/Just move it here I'm not a master of our image policy, but given that this wasn't deleted for policy violation problems, I don't think you need to come here first. Just move it and let someone nominate it for deletion if they have a problem with it. If I'm missing some policy issue please let me know. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jastrow has commented on this on my talk page and explained that it would be easier to undelete it than transfer it back plus it would keep the history intact. I've no objections to doing whatever is easiest here, but offer no opinion about what that is. I've seen enough of these cases that we should probably have a policy for them. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've put it up for deletion on Commons. Fails commons:COM:FOP#France. We can move it back later but we need to mark it as not transferable to Commons. - Alison ❤ 08:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Im stupid, I didn't understand what this was about. So the image cant survice on Commons and the file name given doesn't link to any history here so what file is it you want undeleted here? Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the summary on Commons, it was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia by Grippenn, with an edit summary identical to File:Cnit.JPG. This has not been deleted; it is the same image? Of the user's other uploads, only one is missing – File:Touradria.jpg was deleted after it was moved to Commons, but according to the summary that was a picture of Tour Adria. snigbrook (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the same picture as File:Cnit.JPG all right, so this request is now pointless. I didn't realize when I saw it on Center of New Industries and Technologies that it was not the one from Commons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dub Police (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Dub police (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Why was it deleted there on Dub Police the new page was nothing like the old page?(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbriandubsteper (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the second delete was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub Police which was unanimous in asking for delete. The original delete was a speedy delete A7, Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc. Dub police was deleted with the G4, the only real difference was the introduction was slightly bigger and a slimmed down reference section (myspace only). None of the issues were addressed that the debate brought up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – I don't think I'm seeing anything out of process here. It was speedy deleted the first time and then recreated, which it was deleted again as a result of the deletion discussion. We can always provide you a copy of the deleted page for you to work on and improve, if you wish, so that the issues that led to its deletion are addressed. MuZemike 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, endorse. Original AfD was closed properly; new article did nothing to address the notability concerns. Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, process has been properly followed and the closure looks to be in order. GlassCobra 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band) – Overturn to delete. After carefully analyzing this case and setting aside slippery slope arguments on both sides, many of those favoring an overturn to deletion outcome in this DRV focused on the WP:NOT#WEBHOST !votes in the MfD discussion. Inspecting the MfD itself, these WP:NOT#WEBHOST comments are, indeed, the sole prima face appeals to policy on either side. Although many of WP:NOT's tenets (including WEBHOST) are notoriously difficult to pin down, they remain unanswered in this particular case. In addition to holding the policy-based arguments, the preponderance of !votes in the MfD were also balanced towards those seeking deletion. Although the numbers in the DRV itself were more numerically split, the citation of policy-based arguments in the MfD by DRV participants were weighted more heavily in my close. The question then becomes: Were there any unilluminated facts or new arguments that would likely be a relevant points of contention in a relisting? No, and if anything a new WP:UP#COPIES argument strengthens the case already made for deletion. The G7 deletion is rendered moot, although it does not on its face seem to be consistent with the letter of speedy deletion policy. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closing admin erred in closing the discussion as "moot" (keep) on the grounds that the pages were user-blanked prior to the end of the MfD. Rough consensus of the discussion was to delete all nominated pages. The policy basis of the delete arguments was that articles in userspace with no reasonable chance in mainspace in the foreseeable future constituted a violation of WP:UP#COPIES, "User space should not [...] indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST. Discussed with admin at [84] [85] Gigs (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not quite sure why the cited policies still apply after the pages are blanked. Tim Song (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One concern is that anyone could then avoid consensus to delete by temporarily blanking. Gigs (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MfD tags were blanked before the close time, so technically it never had a normal completion. It's rather concerning that we saying that people can avoid any consequences to leaving deletable material on Wikipedia so long as they quickly hide it for 5 minutes before a discussion period is over. Those kinds of absurd technicalities are what kill the reputation of the community and make patrol/oversight look laughable at best. It's still technically "on" Wikipedia; they can still give links to the old versions to friends or spam them out elsewhere. If it has a permalink to anywhere on Wikipedia, that means we're hosting it. We are not a web host. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IFF the pages are re-established, you might have an issue. Precedent is that blanking makes deletion moot. Collect (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by closing admin - I'm not particularly stuck on the close but I stand by it. In the past we have (usually at the suggestion of User:SmokeyJoe) blanked user pages as an alternative to deletion at MfD. In this case there was no discussion of that option, but by the time the discussion closed the pages had all been blanked by the user and no one had commented on this (except User:Graeme_Bartlett, who only discussed the blanking of two of the pages and had supported keeping the remainder which had not yet been blanked at the time of his comment). The lack of discussion of the status quo was particularly significant in my decision.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A permissible exercise of discretion. In the event that the pages are restored, they can be easily MfD'd again, and then it would be extremely unlikely that a blanking will still lead to the page being kept. Tim Song (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should think that if the pages were restored, we would then have a matter to consider (and I would certainly view that as an end-run around the XFD, and I would take a very dim view of it). However, at the moment the pages have not been restored and it does not seem necessary to devote any time to considering a purely theoretical case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the blanked page history could be viewed as an "indefinite permanent archive of content intended to be part of the encyclopedia". I admit that while violating the letter of that prohibition, it might not violate the spirit of it if the pages stay blank. I do think it's a worthy discussion to have in any case, which is why I brought this here. Like Doug, I don't have strong feelings on this, but as well I do stand by my concern. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Delete: Unless this gets stopped, we're leaving open an infinite process of article limbo status. The guidelines about self-blanking are pretty clear about their being only for articles where the author is the sole conributor. Once the MfD tag was put on, it's technically a disruptive/vandalism blank. Since the MfD tags were removed before discussion closed, it's subverting the deletion process and we're not the types to let that stand. There's only one reason we might let an XfD tag be removed from multiple pages was if it was self-blanked and it would get a CSD tag after that. Even if the end result pages are blank in userspace, you can't add up two wrongs that would have gotten an article deleted in either case (the MfD, or the CSD) and somehow magically have that synth together into a way to indefinitely protect yourself from having known deletable content in your userspace removed. Completely unacceptable. If it's up for XfD or CSD it's still "up for deletion", and all categories are theoretically equal reason for delete; or rather, letting this go is de jure approval of users publishing copyrighted material, uncited BLP content, and anything else that was to be deleted to live on forever in depths of edit histories. Details of it being userspace be damned, if we caught it while it was suitable deletion, that puts it in our jurisdiction wherever it runs until it reached a normal discussion conclusion. Articles shouldn't be able to escape judgment because they don't feel like showing up to sentencing. ...If people want to make a case that we should support articles running south of the border like this and growing a beard to avoid the cops until the heat dies down, go ahead and spill it out for me, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete - we've got a major problem with WP:UP#COPIES around here, and gimmicks like this just facilitate such gaming of the system. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Datheisen. Yeah, it was blanked, but still… Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty much as above. Blatant myspacery, keeping it sets a bad precedent. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment by closing admin I'm sorry but I am much more bothered by the four !votes above than by the nom (which doesn't bother me at all); especially by !vote by admin Orangemike - DRV is the place to discuss whether to overturn or endorse my decision based on whether I properly read consensus and policy, including the option to relist. DRV has never been a place to !vote on the merits of the underlying pages.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A valid closing reason is "Moot"? I'm still not entirely sure why the MfD was closed despite the tags having been deleted off the pages in question, and that by itself is possible grounds to overturn. That is unacceptable in any case, ever. It seems to be a rather concerning lack of understanding of the specific situation. When we say 'delete' it's saying that we don't acknowledge the discussion close since it was done without regard for procedure and it's in line with Wikipedia style of such discussion pages. How do you overturn "Moot"? That's why it's awkward to say. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and delete the pages. The consensus of the discussion was clear, and users should not be able to end run around the system simply by blanking the pages per Datheisen. I think it's reasonable to assume that my colleagues above voting "Delete" also believe the decision ought to be overturned. GlassCobra 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse- close was entirely within policy and closer discretion, no reversible error that I can see. If it comes back, take it to MFD again, but unless someone has a crystal ball, there's no way anyone here can know for certain that will happen. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse these hysteric silly slippery slope arguments hold no weight. I am concerned about the whole WP:BITE aspect of this AFD. This was user space after all. Ikip (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the close can stand, but the pages should all then have been deleted by speedy delete, they still can be. If not for this review I would do so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Comment by closing admin - Ironically this DRV would now appear to be moot as another admin has deleted the pages (incorrectly citing Speedy G7 which doesn't apply to userpace).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This raises the mildly amusing possibility that someone will ask for a DRV of Spartaz' G7. I rather hope not, but if they did, I suppose I'd reluctantly have to !vote "overturn" as an out-of-process speedy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is this warning in WP:USER: "Blanking of user subpages is interpreted by some as a deletion request." While it might technically be outside of the normal bounds of G7, it's not an unreasonable action. It could have waited until this DRV finished, though. Gigs (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the deleting admin meant U1 as opposed to G7. We can split hairs all day, but theoretically, anything in the "G" criteria is supposed to apply to any namespace. Then again, we also have inconsistencies with G12 (copyvio) and F9 (file copyvio), and perhaps this should be something sorted out at WT:CSD so as to avoid further ambiguities. I think the deleting admin was right and in good faith in deleting the page; it's not like he gave a blatantly wrong reason to delete the page a 2nd time. MuZemike 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. It's not G7 because G7 explicitly excludes userspace blanking from the category of "blanking=request to delete". And I'd argue that it is not U1 either, for U1 requires a request from the user - and I would tend to think that this means an explicit request, or the G7 exclusion would be superfluous. Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Janet Allison – No consensus to overturn, particularly due to the sensitive WP:BLP nature of the article. That said, the later track of the discussion has focused largely on a new article focused on the case and not the person. There is no policy to prohibit creation of a carefully constructed draft on this topic (which may, of course, also be subject to normal AfD procedures at editorial discretion). – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Janet Allison (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


5 November 2009[edit]

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

The article on Michael Ruppert was deleted this past March. Now a documentary about him, Collapse has been released which has a Wikipedia page. Ruppert and the film are getting significant media coverage. It would be strange to argue that a biopic documentary is notable while the subject is not.

I personally came to Wikipedia after reading a news article and watching the trailer in order to find out more about this man.

I left a message on MBisanz's talk page, and he referred me here. Pisomojado (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that there's an 82-minute interview with him showing in New York theatres, and apparently audiences are paying to watch it, one can't help thinking Michael Ruppert is now considerably over the bar for notability.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RestoreNow likely notable. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Events have overtaken us. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, restore. Hopefully MBisanz will short circuit this AfD, although I imagine he's busy at present. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • TOTSO – Deletion endorsed. Article content has been userfied. – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TOTSO (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like a Deletion Review for the article entitled TOTSO. The basis for my request is that :

  • The review conducted by user:Juliancolton (who is no longer active in Wikipedia) was erroneous to the extent once all such material was removed, nothing would be left.
  • Five articles in Wikipedia reference the article (this was noted by user:ThaddeusB).

Principal findings of the review The principal findings of the review were:

  • The word TOTSO was coined by Chris Marshall.
  • This word has not been peer reviewed
  • Alternative descriptions exist for road junctions.

My own research My research started at the website of "SABRE (The Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts)".. The society is a web-based debating forum that has 1514 members. A search of the website revealed that the word TOTSO is mentioned 1664 times on its discussion forums. The society’s FAQ page is located in Chris Marshall’s own website and is maintained by him (Follow the Road FAQ link on the SABRE page). I therefore deduce that one cannot say for sure that Chris Marshall coined the word TOTSO, only that he catalogued it. Moreover, the fact that SABRE has endorsed Marshall’s website as its FAQ is an implicit peer review for whoever coined it. It should be noted that Marshall’s website is references 160 times within Wikipedia on other topics related to British roads. One must therefore discount the first two findings.

If one looks up TOTSO in the "CBRD Dictionary". (Marshall’s website) one will see – A situation where a continuous route number departs from the mainline of the road ahead. Totso is an acronym for 'Turn Off To Stay On', since this is what you have to do at one. For example ... . The through road at the junction does not retain one number. This demonstrates that a TOTSO is a feature of route numbering, not of civil engineering construction. The deletion review article failed to pick this up. As a result, one should discount the third finding of the review.

Conclusions Given that the review failed to assess the article properly, the speedy deletion was improperly carried out. While there are comments about a TOTSO being a neologism, the fact that it was used five times elsewhere in Wikipedia suggests that this particular view should be open to debate. I therefore ask that the article be reinstated, and its continued presence in Wikipedia be properly debated. Martinvl (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The deletion was carried out properly, and the conclusion of a debate with a strong consensus for deletion. Kevin (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly sure Juliancolton is back after a brief break.

    This was not a speedy, but deleted after a full AfD. The debate was closed 90 minutes early, but it was not prejudicial, as it could not have been closed any other way.

    Even on the merits of the article, nominator has not provided any reason to doubt that the consensus was incorrect. A search of an online forum is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination - it is, if anything, doubly unreliable. Nominator has yet to rebut the principal points of the deletion discussion, that the term is a nonnotable neologism coined by original research. So that would be a double endorse, both the close and the consensus. Tim Song (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator:

I gave two reasons for reinstatement:

  • The restoration of five red links. To my way of thinking, performing an activity without tidying up is wrong, whether it be in Wikipedia, projects at work or any other activity. Would those who advocate the deletion of this article please suggest how to tidy up those articles that are affected (ie how to deal with the red links)?
  • In my nomination, I only dwelt on the reason of poor procedure. I did not argue for its retention - I planned to do that later. There is one simple argument for its retention - the Department for Transport has yet to publish a term that describes a TOTSO. At such time as they do so, then by all means replace the article entitled TOTSO with the new term, both as an article and in other articles in Wikipedia where it occurs. I have suggested using the Department for Transport as a reliable point of reference since as all the articles concerned refer to British roads.

This is an argument for common sense over strict legality. Which do you want?Martinvl (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no poor procedure. The deletion process was properly followed. The answer to five redlinks is that we should remove them from the articles, not the other way around. The fact that DOT DfT did not recognize this term is evidence that it is not notable and therefore does not warrant inclusion, not the other way around. I can make up 200 terms that no authority has recognized. Am I entitled to create 200 articles? Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Tim, everyone's entitled to create 200 articles. If you did it on 200 terms no authority has recognized, then you might cause a little bit of drama, though.  :)

    I think the nominator here is under a misapprehension about what Wikipedia is.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fine, "200 articles on them". My guess is that I'll probably get blocked for disruptive editing :)Tim Song (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator (again)

user:Tim Song wrote “The fact that DOT did not recognize this term is evidence that it is not notable”. Tim, you are dealing with the British Government. (BTW it is DfT, not DOT). Until 1984 the British Government refused to acknowledge the existence of MI5 or MI6 even though they were the paymasters and every taxi driver in London knew where their headquarters were. They only acknowledged MI5's and MI6's existence when they passed legislation to prevent a repeat of the Spycatcher affair. IMHO, one of the reasons that the DfT have not published an official term for what "UK road geeks" call a TOTSO is to divert attention away from their policy of "building motorways by stealth" – a highly controversial topic within the United Kingdom (see NIMBY – does that have a place Wikipedia?).

S Marshall suggested that I was not familiar with the object of Wikipedia. My response is that I am working on a number of British road articles and I was planning to use the term in a few places. I was also planning to expand the TOTSO article to show why TOTSOs come into being (route renumbering being one such cause) using Junction 18 of the M60 as a case study (complete with diagram showing a “Before” and “After” situation). Such an article would have the same relevance as NIMBY. Martinvl (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand that, and I recognise your good faith desire to write about this subject. The reason I suggested unfamiliarity is that you posted an entire section about your own research concerning TOTSO. Wikipedia is, by definition, not a place for your own research.

    TOTSO would merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia if the concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and if the article was not basically a definition of TOTSO combined with examples of how it has been used (see WP:NOTDIC).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My research has one purpose and one purpose only – to cross-check Julian’s findings. Entering “Chris Marshall TOTSO” into Google and exploring the first site that comes up is hardly “research”, especially when the next step is to follow the link “Where do I start?” Maybe I should have rephrased my statement as “When I was cross-checking Julian’s findings …”.

The expansion of the term was part of my plan, together with identifying which user communities used it and which, (such as DfT) did not see the need for it. Martinvl (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and strongly recommend speedy closure due to wall-of-text argumentation. It's a neologism with no obvious currency (I had to Google it, I have never even heard it, and I am in Britain). Yes, we know people love to promote their favourite neologisms (anyone here remember the Exicornt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fight?) but policy has been followed here and most of the rationale above is simply misplaced. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clearly process has been followed correctly here, and well done to Tim Song for removing the backlinks. GlassCobra 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The analysis written by Uncle G (talk · contribs) (which I think the nom has mistakenly attributed to Juliancolton (talk · contribs) the highly active AfD closer) was, as usual, spot on. I simply don't see the recognition in reliable sources to merit an article at this time. Proper process was followed, and nothing has changed since July. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – proper determination by deleting admin; couldn't have been closed in any other way, nor did anyone else present any other argument at the time (or now for that matter) for retention. MuZemike 06:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator - I do not have access to the original article since I had nothing to do with it. Is anybody able to tell me under which categories the original article was indexed? Martinvl (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Speedy deleted in July 2009 despite the article having been around for over two years, 19 mainspace incoming links, and I would have thought that stating that it was one of the companies that became Macmillan Publishing was sufficient notability. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. this is one of the articles I wrote. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can an admin restore the article for DRV purposes so that we may see for ourselves.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The entire content (quoted below) is sufficient to indicate the significance of the subject. decltype (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collier Books was a publisher established by the Collier family. It later become part of Crowell Collier, and merged with Macmillan Publishing to become Macmillan, Inc.. Author: User:John Vandenberg
  • Hmm. Were there no sources at all? If there were none, then I think I would understand the speedy deletion, if not agree with it.

    The no-drama solution seems to be permit creation of a sourced version.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes (No?), there were no sources. decltype (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While it does not shock me, a speedy deletion after 13 minutes is inappropriate. A prod would have been the appropriate course of action. A note on my user talk would have spurred me into action. This page was approaching 300 views per month before it was nixed (which is exactly the same as Crowell Collier and Peter Fenelon Collier combined), and had 81 views last month when it was deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with recreation of article if A) sources are provided and B) substance can be asserted. As is, it does not assert any significance. Small non-notable publishers are routinely gobbled up by larger ones. Go out find some sources, show that this was more than a mom-n-pop operation and recreate. No need for a DRV, otherwise this should simply be deleted or a redirect.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Balloonman; sorry I didnt ask you directly to begin with - your user page says you have retired so I came here. fwiw, 14,000 Google book hits. 11,000 Google scholar hits. >1000 Google News hits. e.g. dedicated article from St. Petersburg Times - 2 Feb 1963.
    The article was a stub, and it was quite clear about why it is notable. If you don't believe the assertion of notability, it should be sent to AFD. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • NP, I have more or less retired, but I do keep an eye out here and there... I don't see a claim to notability/significance in the article itself. Small publishers are routinely gobbled up by larger ones who are in turn gobbled up by still larger ones. The fact that this was swallowed by somebody who eventually was swallowed by McMillian does not make a claim to significance especially when there are no sources. But I have zero problem with recreating it. CSD is there to quickly delete the fluff, but is also easy to recreate. Recreate the article. Give it a source or two and ideally give it more meat, then this DRV is completely moot. DRV's for CSD's are only necessary if you merely want to create the exact same article as is... which I would recommend against. A7 CSD's are also one of the easier to fix as all you have to do is provide a few sources or make the claim to significance stronger. The time we've wasted on this DRV would have better been spent just recreating the article and fortifying it against future CSD's.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I went ahead and restored it, just add a source or two. No big deal.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allerseelen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

restore as contested prod. --Ktotam (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

<Not G11> This article was deleted earlier but then improved and returned to mainspace by closing admin. I thought that it means that now the article meets all Wiki requirements. It wasn't changed from that time, but now it was deleted again by Hu12, also he blocked my account (because of COI which I didn't try to hide - just look at my nickname!) and all accounts of my colleagues as sock puppets (VPN Internet and single IP for 50 workers). Two days ago the ConceptDraw PROJECT article again (third time) was remained in the mainspace because of its notability and neutrality but today it gets speedy and again from Hu12. So I think that now it's a persecution. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Block nominator for block evasion. This one is a bit more interesting because, unlike the other two, this one was actually kept at AfD last year before it was speedied - twice. Regardless, the deleted version is not unambiguously promotional, despite the clear COI, so overturn and send to AfD. Tim Song (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11 Spam Article. Block nominator for block evasion. NN Article was created by an WP:SPA Sockpuppet account with no other edits other than related to Computer Systems Odessa. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia by Computer Systems Odessa.
delete log
  • 13:53, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of :http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mmforproject/main.php)
  • 00:26, 12 June 2008 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) (view/restore)
  • 20:53, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
delete log
  • 12:01, 8 August 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (R1 applies - content was: 'db-redirnone #REDIRECT ConceptDraw MINDMAP')
  • 11:00, 25 May 2006 CSOWind (talk | contribs | block) moved ConceptDraw MindMap to ConceptDraw MINDMAP ‎ (It's a correct name for this software)
  • 08:36, 24 May 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (content was: 'db-copyvio|url=http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mindmap/overview.php')
Multiple recreations by gamming both the system and deletion process, in order to avoid scrutiny. Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article--Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, your argument for deleting is that current version of the article doesn't meet the requirements of Wiki or the article just has a bad history and was created by author with COI and SPA account? This concerns other ConceptDraw articles too. CSOWind 212.178.30.243 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest merge of all the related software into one article, either ConceptDraw Office or Computer Systems Odessa. I think this product is probably notable , and the article is descriptive not promotional, but it would be better to have one good article--which ones got deleted here seem to have been a combination of chance and manipulation. I think to avoid any possibility of overinvolvement, Hu12 at this point should recuse himself from further admin action on all related articles and users. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ConceptDraw PRO (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

<Not G11> The article was in the mainspace quite a long time. It was written in neutral tone without any estimations or epithets and had lots of reliable references from different sources (magazines and blogs). Deleted during campaign against Computer Systems Odessa from Hu12. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Block nominator for block evasion, and meanwhile overturn speedy and send to AfD. Not every article created by a COI author is G11. The cached version does not look unambiguously promotional to me. Tim Song (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11 Spam Article. Block nominator for block evasion. NN Article was created by an WP:SPA Sockpuppet account with no other edits other than related to Computer Systems Odessa. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia by Computer Systems Odessa.
delete log
  • 05:19, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PRO" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: spam)
delete log
  • 18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
  • 14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')
delete log
  • 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 7" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
delete log
  • 10:28, 10 July 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 8" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)
Multiple recreations by gamming both the system and deletion process, in order to avoid scrutiny. Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article. --Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine articles as above--and Hu12 should guard against the possibility over becoming overinvolved. There are 1000 other admins who dislike spam every bit as much as he does. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ConceptDraw Office (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

<Not G11> The article was in the mainspace quite a long time. It was written in neutral tone without any estimations or epithets and had lots of reliable references from different sources (magazines and blogs). Deleted during campaign against Computer Systems Odessa from Hu12. CSOWind 195.138.71.154 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Block nominator for block evasion, and meanwhile overturn speedy and send to AfD. Not every article created by a COI author is G11. The cached version does not look unambiguously promotional to me. Tim Song (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11 Spam Article. Block nominator for block evasion. NN Article was created by an WP:SPA Sockpuppet account with no other edits other than related to Computer Systems Odessa. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia by Computer Systems Odessa.
delete log
  • 05:16, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 13:56, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
Sockpuppet gamming both the system and deletion process, in order to avoid scrutiny. Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, send to AfD if desired, and merge the other articles into here. Not overly promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Murder of Somer Thompson – Views are evenly split with good arguments about process and doing no harm on both sides. In such a finely based discussion the closing admin has more discretion then normal so I'm going to close this as Endorse athough I accept that overturn and list would an equally valid conclusion. I think good arguments have been put forward that this is unlikely to survive and AFD and do no harm suggests that we can avoid process for process sake if there is a risk of the family of the subject becoming aware that we are navel gazing with process over whether or not to have an article – Spartaz Humbug! 09:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Murder of Somer Thompson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page about a recent murder of a young girl. Several editors contributed to the article, and I do not think it should be deleted without discussion. In fact, I do not see any alternatives to an AfD for this article, as PROD was contested (twice), and CSD specifically prohibits deletion under WP:NOT. I appealed to the deleting admin here (their reply here). decltype (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and send to AfD. Deletion was plainly out of process. Tim Song (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, that looks pretty clear cut. I can see no flaw at all in what Decltype says. Overturn and list at AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now yes, technically this doesn't quite meet the CSD. However, (as I recall) the article breaches WP:NOTNEWS and involves a very recent murder. It seems both unnecessary and cruel to debate this right now. IAR deletions should rarely be used, but in this instance the admin did good. This article does not belong on wikipedia, but if people must have a debate about it, let's have it a little further away from the sad events. Undeleting merely on procedural grounds and forcing an unnecessary debate would be poor form.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we would be able to have a dignified discussion about the subject's eligibility for inclusion that would not cause unnecessary harm or distress. Especially if there is unanimous consent to delete. decltype (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main point of DRV is to ascertain whether the deletion process was correctly followed, and if it was not, to impose some kind of remedy. I do not see how we can endorse this. But I do recognise Scott MacDonald's concern. AfD discussions are, all too often, neither dignified nor orderly, and I would certainly not want to make Somer Thompson's family miserable over some user-submitted content on an encyclopaedia.

    I think an AfD could take place concerning a fully-protected, courtesy-blanked version of the article, with the history visible underneath. I also think uninvolved admins should be enjoined to observe the AfD closely and see that it is conducted sensitively.

    In any case, the deletion followed by this DRV has ensured a seven-day delay that will at least give a little distance.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a body of opinion that this article should be kept, then by all means let's have a debate and keep it as dignified as possible. But if, as I suspect, the result is obvious, then overturning on procedural ground and risking the debate would be pedantic and pathetic. Does anyone here actually think this article ought to be retained, and can they make a reasonable case? If they do and can, then by all means undelete and list. If not, then let's move on and be sensible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's pedantic and pathetic to believe that a debate should happen in cases where someone wishes to delete and no CSD criterion applies.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now. Scott's arguments are persuasive. There appears to be nothing unique about this tragedy beyond its general newsworthiness. Powers T 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and send to afd- deleting without discussion in when the article did not meet any speedy criteria (at least none that I've seen mentioned) should not be allowed. The article will likely not survive an AFD, but the community needs to make the decision in a case like this, not one person. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You agree this should be deleted, but want to force a deletion discussion when not one person is currently arguing the article should be retained, knowing that will both waste wikipedian time, and add an unneccessary and possibly distressing debate to a sensitive subject? You know, sometimes I despair that a community that is supposed to be noble and full of common sense so often descends into rule-mongering and pathetic inflexibility.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it will pass afd. But whether or not it does is not relevant. The decision in cases like this should not be made unilaterally. If the consensus of an AFD is delete, then it should be deleted. But "It would have been deleted anyway" should not be a reason, unless the admin has a crystal ball and can tell for absolute certainty what the outcome would have been. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore. Preemptive speedy deletion under NOTNEWS is clearly out of policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you are right. But no one is arguing that policy does allow deletion. The is an WP:IAR deletion. The question is it is justifiable. If you think there's a case for keeping the article, then let's relist and discuss that. Do you think there's a case for keeping? Otherwise, why restore poor content?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article was deprodded twice, and in the absence of contrary evidence, I'll presume that at least one editor believes in good faith that there's a reasonable case for keeping the article. How strong that case is can and should be discussed at AFD. I do not see a reasonable case for IAR deletion; this isn't by any means the first time an issue of this sort has come up, and the outcome is not unequivocably clear-cut. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That may indeed be sensible grounds to go to AfD, much better than process wonking. But I do still think it is clear-cut and unnecessary personally.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re WP:NOTNEWS, I'm relatively new so perhaps not familiar with how it's applied in practice, but reading WP:NOTNEWS it seems to me to be saying that something that's in the news shouldn't automatically have an article, but it's not saying that it definitely shouldn't? Wouldn’t most notable events have been in the news at the time they happened? (I won't mind being corrected if I've misunderstood.) Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point for me is that an event doesn't get an article simply because it has news coverage. It needs more than that. News stories are not excluded, it is just that being a news story and having news sources doesn't automatically qualify. News stories may get a lot of press for a day or two and then be forgotten. To be encyclopedic something needs to have some deeper significance. It needs to be the type of case people will comment on or refer back to after the news cycle is over. Does it have some larger legal social or cultural consequence? If it being discussed beyond the time itself. The problem is that for recent events it is largely too soon to tell, it is usually easier 12 months or more later. WP:RECENTISM is also worth considering.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD. WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria. Period. AFD may delete it in a WP:SNOW but we won't know until we see it. WP:NOT is very subjective and CSD is very specific blatant cases. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD and advise the admin involved about the inadvisability of substituting himself for the community. Given the two deprods mentioned, this was an clearly wrong way to do this. Scott, your view of the articles may seem clear to you, but it is not quite so clear to others. And even if it were, we have no good way of preventing future incorrect deletions except to consistently overturn them. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see deleted edits and had no knowledge of the prods. I've said all along that if anyone wants to make a substantive argument to keep it, then there ought to be an AfD. That's fine. However, if the article has no defended it would be disruptive to restore bad content and force a needless debate just to make some point about admins and rules. This is not a good way of "preventing future incorrect deletions" (whatever that might mean) as a) it patently does not work and b) replacing bad content is detrimental to the encyclopedia and should not be done is some warped attempt to "punish" the deletor for not following the letter of the rules. If an admin is acting in a way you don't like, then dispute resolution is the way to go, not damaging the encyclopedia for punishment. Has it occurred to you that many deleting admins simply move on and ignore such nonsense, rather than feeling chastised.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Out of process deletion. It may very well be a valid topic for an article. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion though technically deleted out of process, this was clearly a news story and not an encyclopedia article. So all in all a good use of IAR by the admin. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I have seen several similar articles deleted at AfD, so I think this was an appropriate use of IAR by the deleting admin. I don't think that restoring is an appropriate method of chastising an admin for deleting out of process. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Out of process deletion. Needs to go through AfD where it can be discussed by the community. Speedy deletion criteria are narrow for a reason. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD where it will be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS and absence of any secondary sources. Or just slap the deleting admin for an out of process deletion. There was no need to rush the deletion of this article, and wherever possible the community needs to be keep involved in content decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BURO — no one seems to have come up with any reasons why the article should actually be kept, so putting it through the process just for the sake of dotting the I's and crossing the T's would be a waste of time. Also, a case could be made that this deletion falls under WP:A7 as an article that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." *** Crotalus *** 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really want admins just deleting articles because they think it shouldn't be kept? Further, the sources are more than enough to ward it from A7. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because the admin did wrong is no reason to go through needless bureaucracy just to confirm that the end result was correct. Powers T 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that would lead to admins speeding all sorts of things they shouldn't. Perhaps my normally rosy view of human nature is failing me, but I find that if you let people get away with something they are not supposed to do, they tend to keep doing it. That would create more work in the long run... Hobit (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I highly doubt it. This is a bit of a special case as it involves a sensitive news event. I think admonishment ought to be more than sufficient to deter any future maleficence. Powers T 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Due process is sometimes inconvenient, but it's important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but sometimes it's also pointless, as in this case. What due process we have must be in the service of improving the encyclopedia. Relisting this will just waste everyone's time. Powers T 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skipping a trial just because you "know" the defendant is guilty wouldn't fly in the legal system, and I see no reason why it should fly here either. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because we're not a bureaucracy, and articles do not have human rights. The subject of this article, however, did, as does her family, and there is is thus compelling reason not to undelete this article just so we can talk about whether it should be deleted. (Besides, we do sometimes skip trials. Prosecutors often offer plea deals to a defendant to avoid the spectacle of a trial, or to avoid forcing victims to testify. If we must analogize to the legal system, I think that's a much fairer comparison.) Powers T 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not being an admin, I can't view the article, so I have no idea whether the article would or would not pass an afd. I'd rather see the community as a whole make that decision, a jury trial, in this case, than one admin make an arbitrary decision, which in this case is more like sending someone to jail with no trial, no time in front of a judge, nothing. I assume good faith in the deleting admin. However, as the saying goes "Trust in God, but cut the cards." Umbralcorax (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cache version is still available for me. It see it as a clear fail at AfD, but with nothing there to warrant an IAR or BLP speedy deletion. It is just a collection of online news information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It is pointless to send it to AfD just for bureaucracy then there are no good reason's for article's actual existence.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion - Those of you asking for overturn on procedural grounds seem to be missing the point of Scott's argument, or perhaps you think process wonkery is more important than doing the right thing by the family of a victim. Deleting this article was the right thing to do. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - This is the very reason we have IAR. Why send a useless article to AFD just to get the same result in return? We don't need added bureaucracy when it was a reasonable use of IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment IAR requires the action to be such as the community will clearly support, and this does not have the necessary degree of support. I suggest we might do well to further limit it to it's original intent, when there is something not covered by the rules. The purpose of the rules is to to overcomplicate things, but to prevent idiosyncratic action by individuals. With 1000 active admins, each of them going their own way will produce an inconsistent chaos--if we are to produce an actual encyclopedia, instead of randomly selected fragments, which need to agree on what we do. We have a way to find out if an article is supportable, and we should use it. A practice that we delete any BLP to which one admin objects, is about the worst way or doing things possible. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you say that deletion doesn't have the necessary degree of support? Not one person has stepped forward to say that this article should be kept. That tells me the end result is overwhelmingly accepted; it's merely the process that was incorrect. The admin should be admonished, but why overturn a clearly correct result just for the sake of going through a pointless and potentially upsetting process? Powers T 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist - We'll just have to agree to disagree. I do think that the article should be properly deleted, but we gain nothing from avoiding proper procedures. Nothing about the article required emergency action, and by deleting it out of process, without even being able to articulate a reason that such action was needed, guarantees far more attention than the AfD would have done. The problem with endorsing this is that the suitability of articles of this ilk is being debated widely on BLP grounds right now. By not following process, we invite observations like the one above. I would much rather have the debate out in the open. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep the article deleted, move on. GlassCobra 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I share the concerns over an article being deleted at the will of one admin bypassing all policies. However we are where we are, restoring the article doesn't turn the clock back and I suggest that using IAR now to prevent an AFD discussion about a sensitive subject, the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion, would be appropriate. There isn't even any substantial content in the article worth salvaging, if in future it does become appropriate to have an article about this a new one can be created. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per WP:BURO. Obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS, so sending this to AfD is just procedural onanism. Eusebeus (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist WP:NOTNEWS has not fared well of late at AfD, and even though I'd go with deleting it I'm not at all sure the community would agree. RayTalk 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, no barrier to future recreation if circumstances warrant Some articles about disappeared or murdered children like Bobby Franks surpass WP:NOTNEWS by becoming the subject of books, plays, or films or by demonstrating historic importance through societal changes, or even new laws such as the Lindbergh Law, Megan's law or the Amber alert. I would have argued for deletion in AFD, since this one, so far, is a tragic news story and does not show such encyclopedic notability. I do not see such cases as speedyable. I see no prospect at this time for a Keep outcome from an AFD, so it would seem pointless to send this one there, and would create needless drama. After 12 or 24 hours a snowball close as delete would have been the likely outcome. But sometimes child disappearances or murders get kept if the international news coverage is massive, like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so I tend to question the right of 1000 admins to delete any such articles they don't like and arbitrarily delete them, substituting their judgment for that of the community. Edison (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The "do no harm" spirit of BLP and BLP1E apply here, though, sadly, the policy titles themselves don't. This pushes speedy deletion to, and even past, its tightly constrained bounds, but per WP:SNOW that's not enough for an automatic overturn from me given the subject matter. I fully support trouting the admin but I don't see the need to discuss the article for a further seven days when the proper result is as clear as it is here. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 November 2009[edit]

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

Disambiguation page unfairly deleted by DurovaJake Wartenberg for being an attack page. The page consisted entirely of this: Ted87 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas "Tommy" Riccardi is the name of two mobsters. It is unknown if they are related.
  • Thomas Ricciardi, a Colombo family associate who killed mobster Frank Bompensiero for membership in the Los Angeles crime family
  • Thomas Ricciardi, a New Jersey mobster who was a member of the Lucchese family before becoming an F.B.I. informant

How this constitutes an attack page I will ever know. Nothing was in the page that can not be found here: [86] [87]

  • It was not deleted by Duvora as far as I can see. Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Negative unsourced BLP. Crime family membership is a negative claim. Tim Song (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remain convinced that the original deletion should be endorsed. No objection to recreation with DGG's sources. Tim Song (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He deleted the page, less then 10 minutes after I created it. Can't I make 2 edits before a page is considered for deletion? --Ted87 (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using the {{undercontruction}} template next time. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or even adding sources to it as soon as you create it. But if neither has a page then we dont need to disambiguate this anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, doesn't the standard say that redlinks stay if real articles link to the article redlinks get to stay? Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that now. The page has been protected from being recreated. --Ted87 (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deleting negative unsourced biographical material is entirely appropriate. Kevin (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation if sources are available--and they certainly are NY Times . LA Times , etc etc in google News Archive, where there are over 100 RSs Took me 30 seconds. Why have none of the people above actually looked? Wikipedia, the place where people pretend to require sources, but never look for them. But Ted, the primary responsibility was yours'. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have unsalted the page. It might be wise for Ted to create this in userspace first. — Jake Wartenberg 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- Close to a dozen articles refer to a "Thomas Ricciardi". I disambiguated those who referred to a Los Angeles individual, and those who referred to a New Jersey individual. I too am amazed that DGG was the first person to look to see if there were sources. Geo Swan (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Geo Swan (though I am less amazed).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and deletion per the fact that at this time both mentions on the dab are redlinks. No prejudice against creating an article which doesn't violate any of our BLP policies, and is supportable via notability with reliable sources especially if it's presented in a WP:NPOV fashion. — Ched :  ?  19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, but not salting, as the characterization of the page as an unsourced negative BLP was appropriate. It would have been far better to create sourced articles with hatnotes, even if the initial versions were little better than stubs, then expanded them as time permitted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation after redlinked articles exist The delete was proper. However, if proper articles exist, then the disambiguation page would be appropriate. RayTalk 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Carol Heifetz Neiman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I marked on the article as I was posting it that I had only begun, and by the time I was finished making dinner for my son a bot had identified it as being someone who was insufficiently significant, and the editor had come through and deleted it (about two hours). The editor is no longer on site.

When I talked to him at the time, he said that the person didn't even have a web page. The artist died in 1990, so clearly that was a strange criterion for judging social importance.

The significance is that the artist was feminist artist of the 1970's, who died at the age of 53 as the president-elect of the National Women's Caucus for Art [88]. She was profiled in "Exposures: Women and their Art" [89] She also had shows and awards, etc. Kitode (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Kitode. According to the logs, this article was deleted under rule A7 more than two years ago. If you have reliable sources, you can simply create it anew and nobody will mind. You don't need to file a deletion review (although you can if you want to).

    Because there are many people who patrol new pages and they use automated tools to speed things up, it sometimes happens that a good-faith article is speedily deleted. This seems to have happened here. I'm sorry it's happened to you, and if you like, I'll make suggestions about how to avoid it in future on your talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per S Marshall. There really isn't much point in reviewing a 2-year-old A7. Just recreate it. If you need the original text, you probably will get better response time at WP:REFUND. Tim Song (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the article. I would have declined the speedy deletion at the time as there is an assertion of notability. Kevin (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Doug Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe User:NuclearWarfare prematurely deleted this established article, which had been posted for nearly a year, without establishing clear consensus. I and other users had repeatedly added legitimate sources, Field's published books, etc. to show notability, yet most of these were deleted by other users for no clear reason. Then someone nominated the article for deletion with only 5 or 6 people voting (4-2 or something), and because most of sources were deleted by then, User:NuclearWarfare decided to delete the article within a week, even though only 6 people had voted. A simple Google search of Fields yields dozens of sources, clearly confirming his notability as one of the world's premier youth ministry experts, authors (he has over 50 published books), and consultants. I did discuss the situation with User:NuclearWarfare prior to appealing his decision here. Flavius Constantine (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please could an admin restore the history of the article so that we may verify Flavius' words.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per my rational here. I will, again, suggest the article be userfied and sources be added before the article is reinstated into mainspace. The deletion has a clear consensus for Delete, hence my endorse. However, it is debatable whether an article should exist; this is not the correct forum for such a discussion sans a draft. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator's allegations mean we need to look further than just at the AfD, NocturneNoir. Effectively, the case being presented is that reliable sources were provided, but were removed prior to the AfD. If true, this would indeed fall within DRV's purview, because it would suggest that the consensus was unsafe, having been grounded on a poor version of the article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I participated in the Afd, so while my view is that the article should not have been deleted, this is not additional input beyond that of the original Afd. In the interest of full disclosure, I have corresponded with Falvius on talk pages, but I had not interacted prior to seeing the AfD. (I also !voted on another article created by Flavius, but that occurred later.) I asked him to notify me if he filed for wp:DR, so his note to me should not be viewed as canvassing.
I've read the Notability rules, and understand this is a close call. The Google search material is surprisingly light for someone whose claim to notability seems so solid.
In the case of close calls, I think it is useful to think about the thought process behind having any limitations. Despite the fact that space is not a real constraint, we've (sensibly) decided not to be an indiscriminate collection of everything. You may be Suzie's bff, but that doesn't warrant an article. If you and your buddies jam in the garage, and actually had a paying gig once—not enough. In order not to be arbitrary, we insist that articles cover notable subjects. In the case of people, I interpret that to mean, not god enough if the people that might want to look you up are your friends, family or colleagues. However, if there's a decent chance people outside that list are likely to turn to an encyclopedia to find out information about you, then perhaps you belong.
I think someone who has been one of the major pastors at one of the largest churches in the US qualifies. Someone who has 50 published books is not fringe.--SPhilbrickT 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Nuclear Warfare for restoring the article temporarily.

    A key factor in my assessment of this is that we're dealing with a biography of a living person. The mood on Wikipedia is swinging against those at the moment. I think the swing is going too far, but I also need to recognise that there really is a widespread feeling that articles about living people need to have absolutely impeccable sources if they're to be kept.

    I can see that EEMIV removed a number of references from the article during the AfD,and so did Orlady. I think they gave clear reasons for removing those references, and if they had been left in, I just don't think those references would have been enough to swing the debate in favour of "keep".

    In this instance, I'm going to endorse NuclearWarfare's closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The arguments revolved around whether Fields passed WP:BIO, and NW appears to have correctly ignored the numbers and based the decision on the strength of the arguments. Kevin (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reccomend Incubation at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Doug Fields without prejudice toward article's return to mainspace if the article is improved enough to address the concerns of the AfD. If not, it will go. If improved, the project will benefit. Its a win-win. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a participant in the AfD, I think NuclearWarfare made a valid decision, although it might have nice to have had more participants in the discussion. FWIW, my "delete" statement in the AfD was not based on WP:BIO, but rather on not meeting the General Notability Guideline. Considering the number of copies that his books apparently have sold, I have a hunch that he probably would pass WP:BIO -- if only he passed the GNG. I spent a fair amount of time searching for third-party WP:RS coverage that could be considered substantial, and I found none. The only content about him that I found in third-party RS sources was the brief item saying that he had left the Saddleback Church. Multiple publications of a press release saying that a person left his job aren't enough to make that person notable.
    Also, FWIW, I did not delete any references from the article. My only edit to the article was to delete details about his kids, which I did on WP:BLP grounds. --Orlady (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Orlady: you're quite right. I was mistaken.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Orlady, a person has to pass either BIO or GNG, not both. Tbat's why we have the specialised guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not either-or. Passing the GNG is necessary (for one thing, when there are no sources independent of the person who is the subject of the article, there is no basis for assessing WP:BIO), but not sufficient to qualify a topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not publish articles about people merely because they pass the GNG. I have been the subject of multiple published articles written by third parties, but I am not notable according to WP:BIO. The same is true many high school and university athletes who have been profiled in local news media, but do not pass WP:ATHLETE. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes it certain is either-or, except to the degree limited by WP:NOT, WP:BLP and other policies. We do not require an athlete , for example, to both have competed in the Olympics and meet the GNG, as long as we can verify that he competed. At the moment we exclude local athletes by a special interpretation of WP:LOCAL requiring more than local sources for notability. This is an inconsistent special policy that I think justified, but we will sooner or later have to do something better than the practice of inconsistently piling on special rules to correct inadequate generalities. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment2 if recreating the article, it will need to be rewritten from scratch--the deleted articles is a very close paraphrase of the subjects website--so close that it's close to a G12 speedy for copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was correct. When notability is in question, with limited exceptions, sourcing is key. Neither the sources removed from the article nor those not removed demonstrate notability. Arguments for deletion was not sufficiently rebutted. Therefore, closure was in line with consensus. No objections to recreation if it can be demonstrated that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. Tim Song (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This file was a screenshot from a 60 minutes broadcast. During that 60 minutes segment CBS broadcast clips from several videotapes. One videotape was taken by GIs who had destroyed and captured a compound used by militants. Another videotape, the one this image was taken from, was found in the rubble of the destroyed compound. The clips from this tape showed the construction and placement of IEDs. At the time I uploaded this image I did not realize that the CBS logo was itself copyright, and should be blacked out from otherwise free images we upload. At the time I uploaded the image I did not realize that Afghanistan had no domestic copyright law, and was not a signatory to any international copyright law. If I had known that I would have uploaded this image directly to the commons. This image was speedy deleted by an administrator who did not take any steps to inform anyone that the image had been deleted. When asking about this image I suggested to the deleting administrator that the logo itself was an insufficient reason to delete the image, when blacking out the CBS logo from this otherwise PD image was so trivial. The deleting administrator has made several inconsistent claims about their deletion. They have claimed it made invalid use of Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions. They have also claimed it made invalid use of Commons:Template:Archive-Mujahideen. I requested the deleting administrator tell me what text I had supplied for the image when I first uploaded it. You can see our discussion here. What I would like would be for the image, and its revision history, to be restored long enough to review whether it really should be copied to the commons under Template:PD-Afghanistan. Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • An admin may be prepared to email it to you. Where there's a copyright concern, an image would not normally be restored to Wikipedia, for reasons that I think you'll understand.

    Is it strictly necessary to hold a full deletion review discussion here? You don't seem to be asking for one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It will be more useful at Commons in any case. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too believe it would be more useful at the Commons. I believe it is eligible for inclusion at the Commons. We know the image's provenance. If the image can be moved to the commons without going through a full deletion review here, I have no problem with that. If, however, the fact that it was deleted here, and the deletion review was not completed, is going to pose a problem for the image's inclusion on the commons I would prefer that full deletion review to happen.
    Brief review of the provenance. The OC-1 CITF witness report says an incriminating videotape was found on 2002-07-28 in the ruins of a compound in Gardez, Afghanistan, destroyed by American aerial bombardment on 2002-07-27. The OC-1 CITF witness report says that American forces who were on site who reviewed the videotape confirmed that landmarks visible on the tape confirmed it was shot in the local vicinity of the destroyed compound. Five or so years later the CBS show 60 minutes did a segment on the firefight, and that segment included clips from two videotapes -- one made by the GIs, for their after-action report, and the other identified in the 60 minutes segment as the one captured in the ruins of the building. The DoD had released these tapes to the media. I interpret this release to the media by the DoD as the tapes' first publication. This image was a screen-capture from the tape unearthed in the ruined compound. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If no admin comes back to indicate that either (a) they have sent a copy of the image to Geo Swan or (b) they have judged it inappropriate to do so, then please would the closer relist.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have sent the text associated with the image to Geo Swan. The image itself is a scrawny little thing 194 pixels wide so I am unconvinced it is very useful. The 60 minutes logo would be too simple for copyright. Can geo swan take uuencoded files? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • template:$ – Relist at RfD because of irregularities noting that there is also a new alternative – Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
template:$ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Head count rather than an examination of the arguments. This diff also seems to have messed up the primary keep argument, which meant the closing admin might have missed it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist, solely on the ground that the result of the debate is unsafe when, in the middle of the debate, both the nomination statement and the principal keep argument were changed dramatically without either user's consent, such that a significant part of the nomination is removed and replaced by the keep argument. Tim Song (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure Killiondude will be along shortly, and perhaps at that time he will be able to tell us whether or not he considered the entire argument as presented by thumperward. If he can confirm this, then I think we have an endorse, since there was consensus to delete. I do recognise the logic behind assuming that "$" should default to the US currency on the English Wikipedia, but it appears to run contrary to WP:CSB, and if I were a Canadian, Australian, New Zealander or whatever, I should think I would find such a default a little irritating.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is that the change made the nomination statement artificially weak - indeed, it appears to be supporting keeping rather than deleting. It is impossible to tell if other people would have commented but for the change, which is the basis of my !vote. But I fully agree that if we have to judge the debate as it stands, the close should be endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh. Yes, I do see that. It's a fair point. I would still tend to think Drilnoth's argument ought to have been strong enough to carry the day, but there's a definite procedural irregularity to consider. I'd still like to hear from Killiondude before I commit myself to any words in bold face.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware at the time of closing that others' comments had been modified, no. I was slightly confused by the nominator's rationale, but I didn't consider the fact that it might have accidentally been altered. I'm not too entirely familiar with the DRV process, but I wouldn't mind if you guys wanted to relist the debate. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, then, is pretty much the only outcome available to us. Thanks Killiondude.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist; the rationale alteration is pretty disconcerting and by itself a good enough reason to relist. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm surprised {{dollarsign}} wasn't mentioned. It does what both templates would do. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Like Tim song, I think I would !vote to delete, because of the use of "$" in many non-US english speaking countries, all of which are part of our primary constituency. But the discussion needs to be done over--it's simple enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Song.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Game Show Congress (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Testing Recall About Strange Happenings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Improper speedy delete. This and another page, Testing Recall About Strange Happenings, were zapped today through improper A7ing. A7 is to be used for "an organization... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Game Show Congress is the industry/fan trade show, and A7'ing it is like A7'ing E3 or Comic-Con or SIGGRAPH. TRASH is one of the four major national quiz bowl organizations, along with CBCI, NAQT, and ACF (see, for example, Chapter 3 of Ken Jennings's book Brainiac). As best I can tell, User:TenPoundHammer decided to wipe both of these notable organizations from the encyclopedia today, and was aided by administrator User:Jéské Couriano. In the case of the latter article, TenPoundHammer posted the speedy nom notification to my talk page on the latter article at 15:21, and I promptly placed a {{hangon}} tag sometime before the article was deleted at by Jéské Couriano at 16:00. In the case of the Game Show Congress article, TenPoundHammer nominated the article for deletion at 16:02, Jéské Couriano deleted it at 16:03, and by 16:06 TenPoundHammer removed the deletion notification from the article's creator's talk page. [90] Speedy deletions are supposed to be speedy, but this is a subversion of the process, especially when both articles clearly indicated the importance of their subjects. Even if either article had sourcing problems, poor sourcing does not make for a prima facie case of A7 deletion (see above). I made attempts to resolve the issue with the administrator Jéské Couriano, but was unsuccessful. I contend that the subjects are notable, but that is not the instant issue here. The issue is whether the articles were properly deleted by A7 and whether they deserve to be discussed in an AfD. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • User conduct issues are outside DRV's jurisdiction. While I understand nom's understandable frustration, I respectfully suggest that the nomination be refactored to remove the statements not directly related to the actual merits of the deletions at issue. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone.

    On the merits, overturn both speedies, and send to AfD. Each article contains a plausible indication of significance, sufficient to pass A7, crappy sourcing notwithstanding. Testing Recall About Strange Happenings is, according to the article, national in scope and also includes multiple regional tournaments. Game Show Congress is attended by multiple notable people each year. These assertions cannot and do not establish notability, of course, but they are sufficient to clear the low hurdle of A7. Further debates of sourcing issues should occur at AfD. Tim Song (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Taking your suggestion on refactoring into account (thanks), I have reworded one portion of the above; the rest remains to indicate that the DRV request is proper insofar as it follows the prerequisite step ("Before listing a review request: discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first"). Robert K S (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. I asked other administrators, both of whom agreed that these met A7 at the time, but given some flak I have taken at another message board, I will be willing to ask for the A7 to be overturned. I still don't think either one would survive here, but you never know. On the other hand, I don't think that using instant messaging to ask for an admin to delete something is any more out of line than, say, asking the same thing of an admin via IRC (which happens literally all the time). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Asking for deletions on IRC or instant messaging are equally out of line except in clear G10 cases or BLP vios. Spartaz Humbug! 10:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, Spartaz, hold your horses. There's no reason at all why a user should not communicate with an administrator off-Wiki, nor make requests of that administrator off-wiki; and even if we did have a rule that said that, it would be totally unenforceable. I do not think there is any respect in which Ten Pound Hammer is at fault. The administrator who replies to the request is supposed to consider it carefully and follow due process, and I think we should await Jeske's explanation of his actions before deciding to overturn. There may be some factor of which we were not aware.

    However, if Jeske chooses not to appear here, my default position in the absence of an explanation is overturn per Tim Song.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • (later) The answer having arrived, I see that a "hangon" tag was placed on TRASH but Jeske did not see it. This seems sufficient to say there is some doubt over the speedy, so my position must be overturn and list at AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure TPH meant no harm and I know that they have the best interests of the project at heart and I generally agree with their view of deletion but this really is a red line for me. If this was a request for someone to support a discussion it would be canvassing. It it were a request for a block it would be against the express findings of the arbitration committee that requesting blocks off wiki is unacceptable. Frankly CSD is supposed to have a safety valve of an independant admin checking the requests but if you request an admin of your own choice to review it then you are introducing a degree of predetermination that bypasses the only check that there is on CSD. This isnt meant as criticism of either party as I have great respect for either but I genuinely feel for the reasons I gave that soliciting speedy deletion off-wiki is unacceptable except for G10 or BLP cases. Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can understand that position, and I have some sympathy with it, but I wonder to what extent there's any point in making a rule that we really couldn't enforce. I also wonder whether establishing such a rule would be within DRV's scope.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • DRV clearly isn't the place to establish any rule, its a place for appeal nor a policy forum but enforceable or not its still the right way to approach these things in my opinion but I'm definitely not having a go at either the tagger or the deleting admin over this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another contributor asserts: There's no reason at all why a user should not communicate with an administrator off-Wiki, nor make requests of that administrator off-wiki; and even if we did have a rule that said that, it would be totally unenforceable. I couldn't disagree more strongly. While there are exceptional circumstances when someone should make a request off-wiki, in general complying with off-wiki requests seriously erode the principle that administrators exercise the authority entrusted in them in an open, transparent, responsible manner. My advice to administrators who receive off-wiki requests is that if the request does not contain a credible explanation as to why the request is delivered off-wiki, the administrator tell the requester how to make the request through our ordinary channels. When the requester thinks an article is a candidate for speedy deletion the administrator should direct them to WP:CSD, and suggest the requestor apply an appropriate tag. Some inexperienced contributors email administrators with requests. Telling them of the proper channels helps them become better, more experienced contributors. And if the requester follows WP:CSD then it will be their responsibility to leave the heads-up on the article creators talk page. Some experienced contributors make their requests off-wiki because they are gaming our system, and wish to avoid establishing an audit trail of activities that would otherwise show a pattern of vandalism, harrassment or POV-pushing. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to failure to follow established procedure, and improper use of the WP:CSD#A7 clause. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at the deleted TRASH article after seeing a thread on TPH's talk page; my view was that the A7 was in fact reasonable; no sources, no claims of notability other than taking place in a few different places around the country, and the article suggests they use an old Extreme Championship Wrestling title belt as their trophy. It all added up to a big "wtf?" from my point of view, and to me the tagging was appropriate. I quite honestly have no problem with the process that was followed afterwards; it's not like TPH pinged Jeske off-Wiki and said "hey, delete this, willya?" without tagging it - he just sped up the process by pointing it out to someone he was in contact with. Stuff can linger at CSD sometimes - I've had it happen many times. Had I come across it tagged as an A7, I likely would have deleted it as well. So, endorse its deletion. As for Game Show Congress, TPH asked me to review the article and determine whether his request on that was appropriate; I looked it over and felt that it had some indications of notability that should probably be discussed at AFD, but with a lack of sources I don't think it will go very far. Overturn and list at AFD on that one. Again, I feel that as TPH tagged the articles appropriately as he felt it, his discussions with Jeske could be considered similar to someone posting to the Admin Noticeboard saying that CSD is backlogged - it puts the information into an admin's hands, and it's then up to the admin to decide whether the deletion is appropriate or not. I don't see an actual failure to follow procedure here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Game Show Congress, no opinion on the other. The fact that the Game Show Congress is attended by major industry figures (Bob Barker, Betty White, Dick Clark) pushes it well out of speedy range. No strong opinion on TRASH, though I'd likely vote to delete if I saw it at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted both of them after assessing them myself and felt that neither passed muster as far as notability went. In the case of TRASH nom yelled at me for ignoring a hangon tag which I never saw because I was at the deletion page when he posted it (TenPoundHammer reverted it) and he never used the talk page to give the hangon rationale; just stated that the article couldn't be deleted via A7. As far as Game Show Congress, the only sources I saw were primary ones on that page, nothing really there establishing notability. I specifically have told TenPoundHammer never to bring me stuff he wants deleted unless he has a legitimate rationale (legit CSD tag or an AfD ending "delete"), and I'm not averse to telling him to take a deletion attempt elsewhere. No comment on the articles. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated several times before (and not acknowledged by the deleting parties), notability and verifiability are not part of the A7 threshold. Speedy should be for spam and articles created by teenagers for their personal amusement and vanity BLPs with no credible claim of significance or importance. Speedy ought to be like the rollback of deletions--it shouldn't be used unless it's prima facie clear to anyone why the deletions ought to have been made. Also, I don't see what the need for being quite so speedy is unless the articles are clearly detracting from the encyclopedia. Only in cases of emergencies should we really be seeing speedies that have a 4-minute turnover. That's not due process. Robert K S (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both. If anyone objects to the speedy delete, you should send it to an AFD. Dream Focus 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So when some putzfuture contributor slaps a 'hangon' onto his article about his buddy who's "so awsum lol" and who's the school champion at "doin gurlz" I should refuse the speedy and go to AFD? One word: No. The "hangon" tag is there as an indicator that someone has a reasoning for the speedy to be halted; it's not a get-out-of-deletion-free card, and never has been. If I see a hangon on an article that doesn't meet guidelines, I delete anyhow. These deletions were within policy, AFAIK. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning of "hangon" is clear: "please hang on for more to be posted to the talk page". The encyclopedia is based on consensus and it is possible that an administrator may miss the significance of a subject. Robert K S (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of Game Show Congress. I am able to see the article as it has been userfied and so can also see that the 2-year-old article does indeed have assertions of notability. So, with respects to TPH, I do not feel A7 applied in this instance, as CSD:A7 specifically "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." I am unable to see the TRASH article, so am currently unable to opine as to whether or not that one qualified as A7 or not. Anyone care to return it temporarily? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhh... Overturn TRASH as well, as it also makes assertions of notability and CSD:A7 does not apply to it either. While I'm happy to see that User:Jéské Couriano deleted in good faith, and while both might yet be sent to AfD for sources, the tags were in fact incorrect. And also accepting the good faith of TPH in his tagging, again... the A7 tags were not applicable. The articles should have been sent to AfD if not thought notable. And thanks very much for restoring it so I could look. NOTE: I left a note on User:Robert K S's talk page indicating that The GSC article can and should be sourced to prevent a deletion if AfD is sought. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As someone who has attended TRASHionals competitions, I can say that they do have a national scope. The three I participated in had over 60 teams from across the country. Admittedly, the number of people interested is relatively small, even among the quiz bowl community, the nature of the topics covered (music, movies, sports, popular literature, video games) makes it appealing to many. The article clearly needs improvement, but being poorly written and sourced doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. It is, after all, still operating, unlike CBI. As noted above, Ken Jennings mentions it in his book about competitive trivia. And I know that someone at the 2002 competition in Ann Arbor was filming a documentary about it (though, I don't know what became of that).--Jdhutch (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upcoming TRASH Regional Tournaments, and similarly-formatted, unaffiliated tournaments can be found here[91].Jdhutch (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, per Swan Song (sorry about that guys--had to do it).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't you do better? That's not even funny. Tim Song (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't. That's the reasons for the apology. Which I repeat.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletions of both articles. I see at least three procedural problems that occurred in regard to these deletions. First, editors should normally not make off-wiki requests, on IM, IRC, or anywhere else, to administrators to perform a speedy deletion; rather, the editor who places a speedy delete tag on an article should wait for any admin to review the speedy deletion and make the decision to speedily delete or not. These articles did not involve threats of violence, libel, or any other type of content which had to be rushed off of Wikipedia. If I had been the reviewing admin, I might well have removed the speedy tags with an edit summary of "Article asserts notability; if deletion is still desired, use WP:AFD instead." Maybe we can't stop editors from making off-wiki requests for deletions, but we can still discourage them. Second, the editor who places a speedy deletion tag on an article should not remove any "hangon" tag that is placed there, as happened with the TRASH article. Rather, the editor who placed the speedy tag should allow the reviewing admin to consider whatever the reasons for the hangon were. Those reasons may be good or bad, but that is for the reviewing admin to decide. (Note, however, that I agree with Tony Fox that the reviewing admin can speedily delete an article if they believe there is insufficient justification for the hangon.) Third, I don't understand why the editor who requested speedy deletion would notify the article creator on their talk page, but then remove the notification four minutes later. What was the chance the article creator would have had time to see the message during that four-minute period? If the notice had been kept, at least the article creator might eventually have seen the notice and found out that Game Show Congress had been deleted through the speedy deletion process. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn both per procedural snafus.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow -- how did I do that? At least I voted the same way! Thanks Tim. Sorry all.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jealousy Curve – Does indeed seem to have been correctly deleted as a copyvio but as this was a speedy, there is no reason why you cannot simply create a new article from scratch but please read WP:MUSIC first to be sure the subject will meet our inclusion criteria – Spartaz Humbug! 10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jealousy Curve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The band meets the criteria for notability. 1. The band had been covered in numerous print and online media including newspapers and magazines. 4. The band received notable coverage as part of the 2005 Rise of the Fall/Zippo Hot Tour with The All-American Rejects, The Academy Is..., and Rooney. 9. The band won the 2005 Zippo Hot Tour music competition as well as the 2007 Rockline Great American Band Song Contest. 10. The band had its single "Don't Lie Down" included on the HBO TV series Dane Cook's Tourgasm. The song was also included on the CD soundtrack. The band also had the songs "The World is You" and "Appreciated" including in the 2004 film Cruel Intentions 3. 71.185.242.95 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It was deleted in July 2008. Was there something recent which brought this up again? Enigmamsg 04:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That aside, if you want to persuade us that the article should be undeleted or recreated, you need to provide some reliable sources substantiating your assertions, or, even better, a sourced draft. Tim Song (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (as most recent deleter). The article I deleted was a cut and paste copyvio. Prior to that it was deleted at AFD as it failed WP:MUSIC, the rationale given above does not suggest that anything has changed since the date of the AFD and so I would need a lot of convincing - i.e. a properly cited draft which addressed all concerns - to change my mind. Nancy talk 07:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 November 2009[edit]

  • Nemu64 – deletion endorsed, could have been closed no other way and the article is still lacking reliable sourcing and none has been provided – Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nemu64 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were far too few editor involved in the afd. Emulator notability can be confusing at times due to the lack of "reliable" sources. However, sources such as emulation zone, emulatorpro, and VG Network are reliable in this area. This was not taken into consideration. Also the creator of the page was not informed of this AfD which means I was not able to defend my article. Overturn and relist this subject AfD need to have direct input from people who are members of the video game project. Finally this emulator was among the first emulators and is apart of N64 emulation history. This emulator is no less notable than Mupen64, Project 64, and Ultrahle. Please relist Valoem talk 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The debate was closed 171 hours and 24 minutes after it was listed. Nothing suggests that the deletion process was not properly followed. On the merits, the debate could not have been closed any other way. While it might be optimal to notify the creator, it is not required, and a failure to notify does not invalidate the AfD. As to notability, is there a WP:EMULATOR? I don't think so. WP:GNG is the relevant guideline here, and nothing suggests that it was not properly applied. Tim Song (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response You are correct however I was not informed of the AfD and was therefore unable to successfully defend my article which was written over 2 years ago. If we could restore the article I can assure you that in the scope of emulation, this emulator is notable. Did you view the other emulation articles? This emulator is no less notable than those. There were serveral citations on the page prior to deletion. The sources for the article can be found on emulation zone and other emulation pages independent to the creators of this software. To find sources from NYTimes, CNN, etc., for such an esoteric genre is hardly expected. Valoem talk 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – correct read of consensus by closing admin. Also, it was listed at WP:VG/D. Also, what "different set of notability criteria", because I haven't heard of it. MuZemike 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please show me where is was posted in WP:VG/D? Also no emulator pass the official criteria for WP:N. They pass through sub sources specific to their genre i.e. Emulation zone. Therefore all emulator articles should be deleted according to GNG despite the fact that the sources are reliable albeit trivial. We would be removing massive information what is wikipedia for if not for information? Valoem talk 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close but userfy and allow for improvement. User:TTN redirected a ton of these articles while using an edit summary implying he was "merging" but he didn't actually merge anything. When many of the articles were unredirected by various editors (a reasonable course of action as far as I'm concerned) he would nominate them for deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juliancolton did read the consensus correctly as far as I can tell, but the discussion itself certainly left a lot to be desired. The nomination was about "assertion of notability". "Assertion of notability" is a CSD criterion and not a reason to delete at AfD. Two of the three !votes should be disregarded because they referred to CSD criteria and do not seem to have made any attempt at all to evaluate the sources. This leaves the third !vote, which appears to have been entirely valid within Wikipedia's criteria, and no doubt was the sole basis of Juliancolton's close.

    It would be possible to argue that this article should have been relisted on the basis of only having one valid opinion, but I think Juliancolton was within his discretion here and it would not be appropriate for us to overturn him.

    I endorse this decision, but I also want to say specifically that I do not object to Tothwolf's suggestion that the article should be userfied for improvement.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article I wrote was wikified and cited by several sources. It was as well written as any other emulation article. However it is hard for me to defend my position without my article restored. Does anyone not see the flaw in DRV? Valoem talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you need to see the article, an admin will temporarily restore it for you for the duration of the DRV; you need only ask. (Exception: Certain kinds of copyvio, or material that could cause harm to living persons, would not typically be restored, but that doesn't apply here.)

      For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby request temporary restoration of the article for DRV purposes so that Valoem can defend his position.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is not your article. Once you hit that "save page" button, it becomes the community's article. MuZemike 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did ask [95], but it was ignored. Valoem talk 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a note to say that though the article is now a bluelink, the history remains invisible.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • ... and the history is still invisible, which means Valoem's complaint is starting to look rather justified.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lindy Scott (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Subject is notable per [97] and [98] Subject is a defeated candidate for a congressional primary and I would like to recover the deleted content before re-creating article. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you just need the original text, you'll probably get better response time at WP:REFUND. Tim Song (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Not a candidate for speedy A7 . A claim that someone is a professor at a college is a claim of possible importance; whether it will hold by WP:PROF will depend upon the publication record--and whether the candidacy will hold on WP:BIO depends upon the sources found. But either of these is enough to make it an invalid speedy. Perhaps the deleting admin would have restored it had you asked, because they seem to have been going under the assumption that a defeated candidate is never notable, or else that sources for notability have to be present, whereas there just has to be an indication of it. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I'm unclear as to whether this would survive AfD, but I do see an assertion of notability such that I would have declined the speedy deletion. Kevin (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Banhammer – Since deletion is not requested the nominator will get more traction from following the advice at WP:ND3. As there is no deletion to review DRV has no locus here – Spartaz Humbug! 10:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Banhammer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

please undelete ban_hammer. new information has come to light. banhammer is a physical object, not simply a neologism. photograph uploaded on wikimedia, linked and displayed on main article, recently hit boingboing, referenced in the article.

  • It hasn't been deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: I found the consensus abundantly clear after the relisting, and so closed it per WP:RELIST, which explicitly states that the discussion "may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days". Tim Song (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As noted, nothing has been deleted, so there's nothing here to review. However, I wish to note separately that the "new information" cited by IP 76.124.67.155 is also not any reason to review the closure - it is just a novelty item for sale somewhere, not an assertion of separate notability. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • World Club Challenge winners templates – Restore and list at TFD. An important point transpires from this discussion, though: There is kind of regular practice of marking orphaned or unused templates with {{deprecated}} which results in them usually being deleted after 14 days with no objection (citing CSD G6). This is somewhat documented in Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates but that page does not describe itself as a deletion process. This practice does not seem to be widely known and may need further evaluation, discussion or clarification. Finally, if there is a problem with the filing account that should rather be raised elsewhere. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Melbourne Storm - 2000 World Club Challenge winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Template:St Helens - 2001 World Club Challenge winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Template:Sydney Roosters - 2003 World Club Challenge Winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Template:Leeds Rhinos - 2005 World Club Challenge Winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Template:St Helens - 2007 World Club Challenge winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Template:Leeds Rhinos - 2008 World Club Challenge Winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Templates detailing the team that won the World Club challenge.Lando09 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Links fixed. Deleting admin notified. Tim Song (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the rationale for bringing this to DRV? Spartaz Humbug! 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That they were deleted and as the biggest club trophy available in World Club rugby league that it deserves to return, I'm frankly a little shocked that someone would delete it.Lando09 (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need something a little more explicit then "I don't like it" for the deletion to be overturned. Is there a reason why the deletion was out of process? Was there a discussion somewhere you can point us too? Maybe you were courteous enough to discuss the deletion with the admin that did it to find out the reasons for the action? Spartaz Humbug! 14:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hum. Nihonjoe deleted those under G6 ("Uncontroversial deletions"), and the act of raising this DRV is in itself sufficient to show that the deletion was controversial. Therefore, the speedy deletion cannot stand. QED.

    There may be a discussion to be had about whether these templates are appropriate, so we should also specify that this is a procedural overturn and there is no prejudice against a subsequent TfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn That these were deleted speedy is just plain wrong, and unless we overturn such deletions we have no hope of getting admins to do things right. I see the admin has been just now asked, and he does need time to respond, because I would expect he would realise that himself: G6 is not intended for this sort of use. It is limited to uncontroversial maintenance, and he might possibly have thought it uncontroversial, but I do not see how he could have thought it maintenance. We admins do--all of us-- make errors, but we're usually glad to fix them. . DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at TFD – Let's build a consensus as to whether to keep or delete these templates. MuZemike 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of the templates were listed as deprecated by User:Skier Dude after being blanked by User:Jeff79 with the comment "deleting redundant template". Based on that, it appeared that they had been combined into another template or the information was merged, so the G6 deletion was general housekeeping. I suggest contacting them and finding out why they tagged them. Please keep in mind that these were deleted well over a month ago, so my memory beyond what I put here is pretty foggy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puzzled. I'm having trouble reading the history here. TFD templates seem to have been added on April 30, but they were never actually listed at TFD--is that right? In regard to DGG's comment, I think he fails to assume good faith here--assuming that a template that had been blanked for months without anyone noticing was genuinely deprecated seems reasonable. If there is a problem, though, it may be with {{deprecated}}--I'm not sure this template, as currently worded, actually matches policy. Chick Bowen 03:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified my comment--it may be a mistake, but its not a wholly unreasonable one. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I marked them as deprecated in a semi-regular 'sweep'/survey of User:RussBot/Orphaned templates/001. It appeared at that time that they had been unused for about 3 months, so they were marked as {{deprecated}} on 9/11 and deleted 16 days later as they still weren't being used - no other reason/motivation - just regular cleanup stuff. Skier Dude (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I deleted these. Sorry for not following the procedure. But as I expected, and as mentioned above, no one took any notice because they shouldn't exist. The only person who cares is chronic sockpuppeteer/canvasser User:Londo06 as he's the one who created them. Now he's back as Lando, hence this discussion.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it you blanked them rather than deleting them? Nevertheless, in view of what you say, I can see no other course for DRV but to confirm that the circumstances surrounding the deletion were irregular, which in turn means the deletion was unsafe and should be listed at TfD. I move for speedy closure on this basis.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Jeff79 blanked them; he did not delete them (though he may not understand the proper procedure for deletion, or how to delete something and how it differs from blanking). I'm fine if someone wants to speedy close this, undelete them, and then list them at TfD. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are. My understanding of the deletion process wasn't as good then as it is now.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and send to TfD per the deleting admin's consent. Tim Song (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lee Sanderson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Former professional rugby player.Lando09 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jaicko – Permit recreation from the userspace draft that asserts sufficient importance and address remaining doubts at AFD at editor's discretion. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jaicko (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I edited the article to include more prominent information related to the artist, and deleted information that was not referenced on other Wikipedia articles (i.e. "non-notable" producers, and songwriters). Also removed the list of influences as it is debatable if this is relevant to an article about a developing artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewsilb (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: userspace draft seems to be at User:Andrewsilb/sandbox. Tim Song (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion at least until proper references are provided. I said I would abstain from commenting but attempting DRV at this stage is an insult. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hi, not sure which information you think needs further references. All the information in the article can be found at the source link provided in the article. 09:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewsilb (talk • contribs)
  • What RHaworth means is that Wikipedia asks for articles to have reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Tim Song has, arguably, provided them, but it would be more orderly for such a discussion to take place at AfD than here.

    An article that includes Tim Song's sources would probably not be speediable.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore There is in any case a claim of importance, as having been nominated for awards, so, while it may not not have met WP:N, it did not meet speedy A7. RHaworth, in the state it was in I would either have looked for references, asked for references, or sent to AfD, but not speedy deleted. It never qualified for that. Passing CSD A7 does not require actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thank you DGG for clarifying this. In any case, I have updated the sandbox article for Jaicko, which is located at User:Andrewsilb/sandbox. I have referenced two reliable resources, and added his controlled web sites to a different section, to distinguish between reliable third-party resources and his self-controlled online properties. Would like to see if this now meets Wikipedia standards. Andrewsilb (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation. I have no idea whether the deleted version is A7. Doesn't matter here. This version is not speediable. Further sourcing concerns should be discussed at AfD. Tim Song (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation per Tim Song. I'd bet it will be deleted at AfD (and the creator needs to be aware of that), but it certainly isn't speedable at this point. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Quiet Internet Pager (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was restored and userfied following a request at WP:REFUND, the author wishes it returned to the article namespace, and the deleting administrator requests community review. Please judge the userspace draft at User:Elk Salmon/Quiet Internet Pager.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article was deleted by just 4 votes. 3 never heard of it and 1 was "smooth" reason. It's was proposed as ostensibly non-notable software. But the program de facto holds over 70% of IM market in CIS[99]. It's just market-specific and not known outside of the market. There might be no any more public polls on IMs, but Alexa rank makes it enough clear. Program's official site is 25th in Russia with the worldwide rank of 549. Far ahead, as example, of Trillian (26,464), Miranda IM (20,718) or Pidgin (13,976). We have an article about market-specific Baidu, about market-specific Yandex. We have articles on Trillian, Miranda or Pidgin. But CIS is all up to ICQ, MSN is not present on CIS market at all, Same as like Google is not popular in Russia, Yandex is. Or Firefox and IE are not popular in Russia, Opera is. That's a very specific IT market. And QIP program has very large share worldwide, but just almost no share in west states due to MSN. I find the notability as very high. Elk Salmon (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why there are users that don't understand that we don't need to have previously heard of it. That is what the guidelines are for. Joe Chill (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current article is enough to satisfy WP:N. You might want to use Google Translate on the non-English sources. Joe Chill (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks pretty marginal to me, and it needs a detailed discussion of the sources. But the proper place for such a discussion is not DRV; the basic purpose of this page is for challenging deletion decisions. Sources should discussed in detail at XFD, not here. I shall say permit re-creation with no prejudice against an AfD if notability is in question.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. What is the proper community forum for judging userfied versions of deleted articles? They're not wanted at WP:REFUND or WP:RM either.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that's a bloody good point. If there's no proper forum, and discussion is needed, then per IAR, any forum will do. Striking my remark and reconsidering.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Softpedia and Lenta sources (references number 3 and 4) look good to me. The others, not so much. At the moment I'm tending towards "permit re-creation", but I also feel the article should be trimmed down to those things that can unequivocally be sourced to Softpedia, Lenta or any other reliable source that can be unearthed. In taking this view I had a certain amount of regard for countering systemic bias.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration Yes, you could restore it without asking us, see if it was speedy deleted as G4, and then appealed it here, which is the correct formal procedure, but you might as well get the decision now. We are NOT A BUREAUCRACY ` DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration I had planned to improve this article myself as I've already done with a number of these that were part of a mass-AfD campaign but if someone else beat me to it, so much the better. This article was part of a mass-AfD that was actually directed at me personally in revenge for tagging prodded articles for the WP:COMP workflow and for sourcing a number of other articles and having them kept at AfD. The irony with this specific article is that it was only loosely related to articles that I had been working on and was merely listed in the same navigational template. The details can be found on a subpage of AN/I here. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can still improve it. I'm not a proffy of large texts myself. Mind there are also BayanICQ and Ya.Online messengers have no articles at all. First one is among most popular S60 non-MSN IM clients, seconds is Yandex analog of Google Talk. Elk Salmon (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I probably will work on the article at some point. I have a lot of ongoing projects at present and the individual who nominated these for deletion is still initiating more AfDs to "get at me", albeit at a much slower pace. Their most recent AfD nom that they directed at me can be expanded and sourced easily but I have no intentions of participating in that AfD or improving the article while it is at AfD as it will only lead to them canvassing for meatpuppets like last time. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tothwolf, we're here to decide about this particular article. DRV basically makes rulings on whether a particular deletion discussion was closed appropriately. By convention, it's not absolutely restricted to such things, and there have been times when DRV has decided to go beyond those bounds, but it's certainly true that DRV is about content and not conduct. In other words, we can help reverse a particular decision if appropriate, but we cannot help you with any issues with a particular editor. Sorry.

You'll see people opine from time to time that "DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone". What this means is that conduct disputes are best not raised here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a newbie either and I know how both AfD and DRV work. The original AfD itself wasn't done in good faith and I have absolutely no issue at all with someone picking up the pieces from that AfD and fixing that needs to be fixed with the article in question. I won't however remain silent about the larger issue and allow it to slip through the cracks as absolutely nothing has been done to address the AfD nom's behaviour (which is ongoing) and with what originally happened with those mass-AfDs. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have insufficient familiarity with software sourcing norms to comment on the article, but I agree with the filing here. A successful DRV would inoculate the article against a G4 speedy. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger sources first, please Lenta and Yandex would suffice our "multiple" and "reliable" requirement, but the mentions there are very small. Miami33139 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikistalker be gone! --Tothwolf (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks to me you won't accept any sources at all. Yandex finds over 10 million pages by QIP request with over 680000 monthly requests[100] comparing to just 77000 monthly requests on Miranda[101], Lenta with a refer to TNS says RBC services has got 14,4 million of unique monthly users, with QIP most popular among them. Just third to Yandex and Mail.ru services. Alexa says qip.ru has got 545 rank worldwide and 24 in Russia. And KanICQ has a massive public poll with over 60000 users voted from Russia, over 70% of them voted for QIP. If this is not strong for you than i guess you won't accept any sources at all. Same goes to S60 phone clients. Agile has got 2900 requests, Nimbuzz 2800 and BayanICQ+БаянICQ has got 5600 close to fring's 8400. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:POPULARITY. Numbers and statistical data are great things to have in an article, but they do not establish notability. Notability is the criteria under which the article was deleted and significant sources should be found before it is recreated. Yandex and Lenta are good sources, but they do not provide significant coverage. I have changed my mind in AfD discussions multiple times when new sources have arisen. This isn't one of them. Miami33139 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter what sort of information you present, User:Miami33139 will argue against product reviews and even books that cover the subject no matter what [102] [103] [104] Miami33139 does not like software articles at all (especially articles about multimedia software) and they seem to rather enjoy targeting them for deletion. I found the exchange in the ConceptDraw Project AfD enlightening with regards to Miami33139's tactics.
        The BitchX, PIRCH, and WeeChat AfDs which were part of the mass-AfD campaign Miami33139 and JBsupreme initiated to "target" me are also worth reading. The WeeChat article actually had plenty of references already present in the article when Miami33139 nominated it for AfD while making claims such as "contains only self-published sources".
        And hey, when all else fails (i.e. "no consensus to delete"), [105] Miami33139 will simply gut the article. [106]
        WP:DUCK
        --Tothwolf (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This applies to statements with no backup statistics. With QIP and further BayanICQ statistics of actual popularity is provided. Moreover, a bunch of statistics provided above does not show only popularity, but also significantly large coverage on the web. The last is the indicator for WP:N. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration - Article is not too promotional, is reasonably balanced, and includes sourced criticism of their inadequate Unicode support! I would still be good if the article creator would provide English translations of all the references. A quick look shows 1.2 million Google hits, though this is not decisive until someone studies the hits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation. If there are still sourcing concerns, AfD is the proper venue. This is not a G4. Tim Song (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 November 2009[edit]

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

International rugby player.Lando09 (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: why is this at DRV? As far as I can see there is nothing in the deletion log. Tim Song (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close. There is no deletion log at Paddy Coupar or Paddy coupar. Either (most likely) the article never existed in the first place, or (rather unlikely) it was oversighted. Either way, there is nothing for DRV to do here. Nominator is free to create a new article if they so desire. This isn't requested articles. Tim Song (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James Nixon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

International rugby player.Lando09 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Lando09 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: why is this at DRV? As far as I can see there is nothing in the deletion log. Tim Song (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close. There is no deletion log at James Nixon or James nixon. Either (most likely) the article never existed in the first place, or (rather unlikely) it was oversighted. Either way, there is nothing for DRV to do here. Nominator is free to create a new article if they so desire. This isn't requested articles. Tim Song (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kangaroo attacks in Australia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

More sources were added to the article after most votes were made, there was not one unreliable source in the article when it was deleted. One keep vote was changed to delete even though it mentioned the attacks in general have been covered in sources. James4750 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Correct reading of consensus in the AfD; DRV is not AFD round 2. Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because that was indeed a correct reading of the consensus, I would like to endorse Backslash Forwardslash's closure. However, the discussion itself bears more investigation; it's possible that the consensus was in error here. When I see an article with clear and relevant sources from the BBC, CNN, etc., I would tend to look rather hard at a "merge" outcome in preference to deletion, and there was indeed significant but minority support for that view.

    In this case there's nothing to be gained by a relist, but I would also ask for the article to be userfied to me. I would like to consider trimming and merging some of the content to Animal attacks in Australia#Kangaroos.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Where would the history reside? Under a redirect at the original location, or elsewhere? Either way should be fine, as long as it can be located by someone looking for it. Chick Bowen 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't mind, although it seems simplest for it to stay under a redirect at the original location.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support S Marshall's view for how to proceed with this material. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure reflected the clear consensus of this AfD. While I have no problem with userfication, the article was nothing but a collection of random media reports about individual events in which kangaroos injured people which wouldn't be suitable for inclusion in the main article. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to gain broader consensus. Bwrs (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like this article has already been merged (along with all the other individual articles) by User:KAPITALIST88. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks like a low-drama solution. Let's see if anyone objects, but in the meantime, an administrator should take steps to restore the history, since we are at present in violation of our content copyright policies.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  History restored. NW (Talk) 03:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Richard Tylman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In my opinion, this article should be deleted based upon its merits. I believe that the close was flawed because many of the keep votes did not comment on its merits but were rather distracted by the EEML case. I don't see the point of waiting until after the EEML case closes; it's not like the problems caused by it are magically going to disappear. Again, this is based on the merits of the page, which should be distracted by the EEML case. Furtheremore, many of the keep votes were not very credible (ie politically motivated, canvassed off-wiki, or whatever the real reason is; per Jehochman). The consensus among the valid votes seems to be that while sources exist, they are insufficient to establish notability. Note: The page was created by the subject. Triplestop x3 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest withdrawing this request as an inefficient use of cycles. Wikipedia will not fall apart if this article survives a bit longer. The closing admin suggested relisting the article for deletion after the EEML case closes. That seems like a good idea. Jehochman Talk 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close, maybe revise closure to trainwreck. This AfD is a mess. Close was entirely within admin discretion. Tim Song (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia will not fall apart if this article is removed, either. In controversial issues, like moves or deletions, it seems some admins just state "no consensus" (another disappointing example) and keep things as they are. This way, it only needs a few to filibuster any challenge, making it very easy to protect the status quo once an article has been created. As we all know, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Admins are expected to judge the merits of opinions, not count their number. Nor should they expect that a consensus is reached. Tylman's vanity article was created by himself (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Richard_Tylman), and protected by sockpuppeteering (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent) and EEML friends with the same nationality and/or agenda, as I had pointed out on talk (but stroke out later after a request). While the EEML members had a chance to "vote" now, it would be questionable to relist when they are blocked. The article needs be deleted based on the lack of its merits, not due to forced absence of its fans. -- Matthead  Discuß   05:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as-is pending closure of the EEML ArbCom case. The sky will not fall in in the meantime. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I thought we defaulted to delete on articles of living persons of questionable notability, or was that just for articles where prominent wikipedians dislike the subject and think the subject wants the article kept? Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You thought wrongly, Hipocrite. That's a view espoused by a minority. It's a very loud minority with a lot to say for itself, but a minority is what it is. BLP policy is about removing unsourced defamatory or negative material concerning living people, not about empowering wholesale deletion of articles without a supporting consensus. The default position on articles, which this was, is "keep".

    On the rest of it, I would say that it is not for DRV to make decisions that might seem to undermine or usurp Arbcom's role, and we're best off leaving as it is for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Stifle and S Marshall. There is no rush here and there is no policy or consensus to delete questionably notable articles. Disclaimer: I !voted to keep (for now) in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the closer's view, that the time for a renomination is after the EE case closes. And I'd suggest not immediately after---there should be some interval to let people consider the situation. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Trainwreck or no trainwreck, it was easily possible to separate those !votes in the AfD that were transparently motivated by the political factions (on both sides), and count the independent votes only. On that basis, I read a clear consensus for delete (14 delete votes, 6 keeps, including those who recommended only a procedural "keep and relist later"). Trainwreck AfDs are best avoided by ignoring the trainwreckers, not by letting them have their way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would withdraw this on the basis that waiting till the end of the EEML case would let people focus more on the merits of this page. Triplestop x3 21:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a perfectly reasonable close to a very messy and petulant AfD. RMHED (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Reasonable close. No compelling reason to overturn. If there's an issue wait a bit and file another AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - per Fut.Perf (and with a nod towards Hipocrite) - Alison ❤ 03:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone becomes a fan and wishes to get information on this poet there will be none available on wikipedia because someone feels he is of "questionable notability". How do you define "notability". Notability can not be defined. Does the article tell facts or does it lie? If it is all lies it is useless and should be deleted. If it has facts and is poorly written it should be rewritten eventually by someone with writing skills. You guys take this site way too seriously since it's widely considered by professionals to be a joke and is not a viable method of citation for any professional seeking to quote or use a source. For example most papers using this site as a reference get an F. This site is maybe meant as something else but what it IS is a site which provides cursory or in-depth information about all things. It is an information database not an encyclopedia despite what some may think. I apologize for the bluntness but maybe it's time you guys focused a little more on acutal matters of importance. Sitting here disussing whether this (and hundreds of other) articles should be kept is ridiculous ESPECIALLY since the arguments for deletion or preservation are 90% based on arbitrary, impossible to define criteria. Make it legible and make sure it's fact (something wikipedia fails at often) this should be your goal. Facts are misrepresented while you guys argue about the importance of this Richard Tylman...come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.119.75 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have a number of really good Polish editors here in en: Wikipedia who contribute immensely to our coverage of Poland with its geography, politics, history, culture and the arts. Without editors like them this portal would have never taken of, the way it did, with articles from all nations. But, the number of Polish contributors is not infinite, and some of the most active ones got entangled in an ongoing EEML ArbCom case. They’re being told that their opinions in this regard don’t matter and should be discarded by the admins en masse. They’re being warned not to vote, and stay out of it because of conflict of interest resulting from knowing the subject (i.e. me). In practicality they’re all being silenced to a point you will not find any of them here, although their political adversaries remain as vocal as ever. Think, collateral damage, User:138.89.119.75 from VA. A few years ago Africa didn’t have an article either. --Poeticbent talk 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So tell me, Poeticbent, are you asserting that there is no bias, no political motivation behind these votes at all? Triplestop x3 21:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please specify, Triplestop, what you meant by "these votes", in terms of their "political motivation"? – Did you mean votes that have already been cast per above, or the ones that don’t exist? I’m asserting that our senior editors, be it ethnically Polish, Jewish, Estonian, or American, have their own brains and shouldn’t be treated like sheep, which happens to be the case. That’s why, anybody who intends to vote delete at the next AfD should avoid interaction with me due to your likely potential for COI. And, don’t read my poetry, because it might mess with your head. --Poeticbent talk 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear that what I meant is, Are you saying that it is a coincidence that all of your fellow EEML members came to support your article? Triplestop x3 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of my fellow EEML members came to support my article. Actually, only five of them voted at AfD, out of the total number of 17 (see: User:Piotrus/ArbCom for the specifics). One EEML member and a senior editor Sander Säde, voiced his concerns at ArbCom mirroring the attitude of others: "decided not to comment on it, as I have no patience to deal with the bad-faith garbage this would have generated."[107] However, not a single one of my fellow EEML members participated in this review so far. --Poeticbent talk 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let the arb-com people have their say, then perhaps we can have an AFD with less drama and more constructive dialogue. As it was, there was no way anyone was going to come up with any kind of consensus from that discussion, for keep or delete. And has been said before, it won't be the end of the world if this article remains until the time we can have a better discussion on it. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 November 2009[edit]

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmoTrance
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November&oldid=420278347"