Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January

< December 2009	Deletion review archives	February 2010 >

31 January 2010[edit]

Steve McKeown – Original deletion endorsed. If there is any new evidence, a user draft would help. – Tikiwont (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The correct AFD is here Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Apparently he was not notable by the review team, but has released two published books available through many large retailers here in the UK> Chliodior11 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC) -->[reply]

Endorse, there is no way this debate could have been closed in any otherway. You were welcome to prepare a draft article in your userspace and submit it for review here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion, consensus was quite clear. Note to Chliodior11, you may want to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) to get a feel for what makes a subject 'notable' as the word is used on Wikipedia. You will have to find coverage of the author to have the article accepted. As sugested above you can work on it at User:Chliodior11/Steve McKeown, when you think it's ready you can present it here. J04n(talk page) 20:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - deletion was the only possible debate outcome. See the above notes on creating a userspace draft - Peripitus (Talk) 05:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse With a 9-to-1 !vote in favour of deletion, the keep side would need some amazingly strong reasoning. Instead, the keep vote was hand-waiving with little substance. This couldn't have gone any other way. Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 02:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

One Shot (JLS song) – Restored. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_25. – Adambro (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to request for the lift on the ban on creating the page for the song "One Shot" by JLS, not to vandalize but to add information about it.

Note: There is a discussion on this deleted article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 25. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sacred microdistillery – deletion endorsed, the nominator is encouraged to continue developing a userspace draft. – Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

previous 2 deletions about 6 months ago were on grounds of NOTABILITY, and there is a substantial new body of national media and press coverage since, which should pass the NOTABILITY hurdle by now. See the sandboxed wikipedia article on "Sacred microdistillery" for links, as well as the press page on the www.sacredspiritscompany.com website. The most recent deletion yesterday, was a speedy delete on the grounds that I have not yet asked for a deletion review, which seems a bit difficult to navigate for a first timer. I am asking that the page be reviewed for reinstatement on the grounds that NOTABILITY is now established. Please help if you have time. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the least of the worries here. Almost certain conflict of interest, as easily shown in the edit history... Doc9871 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worthwhile to consider that Wikipedia uses nofollow, so Google hits will not be affected by links on this site. Properly cited (with unbiased sources), the article should be able to stay. Otherwise, notability arguments aren't going to help your case, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Associated discussions etc. Originally created as Sacred Gin - 1st AFD 2nd AFD subsequently created as Sacred gin and Sacred Spirits Company --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers Doc9871. Are you suggesting rewriting with citations in sandbox mode, and then flagging for deletion review? Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good plan. J04n(talk page) 16:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; continue developing in user space. On review of the text against the prior version, there are two new sources: an online Financial News profile of the founder of the distillery (not the distillery itself) and the distillery's listing at localfoodadvisor.com. However, the text is, if anything, worse than the version that existed at the time of the AfD. Accordingly, I agree with the deletion under criterion G4. I'd suggest that Beefeaterdrinker work on the article (currently at User:Beefeaterdrinker/Sandbox), focusing on making sure the text is neutral and adding more independent sources about the distillery. Then he can ask the text to be reviewed again. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deleted the article most recently, so you can assume that I endorse my own action. I merely wish to quote the nominator from the second AfD process, who said "When he has written an article that clearly establishes the product's notability, he can seek a consensus for recreation at DRV per the usual procedure. (And let's try to avoid here the festival of sockpuppetry that the previous AfD became.)". I respected that comment which is why I deleted the article on the basis of it being a repost. I agree with User:C.Fred's comments above; he has expressed it more clearly than could I. (By the way, I note that I still haven't been officially informed about the existence of this process, despite its initiator having been told by two different admins in clear unambiguous language that it was required.) Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; continue developing in user space per C.Fred. Sacred Microdistillery has not garnered enough coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability (companies). The sources in the article either quote exclusively from the founder with little background information or are passing mentions. When Sacred Microdistillery receives the necessary coverage in reliable sources, I encourage the nominator to add the sources to the userspace draft and then bring it back to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cunard (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ipod Touch 1st Generation.JPG – No action necessary. A new FFD may be opened at any time so long as the nominator makes clear how the circumstances differ from the previous, which, if it is true that there are other extant similar images not previously discussed, would appear to be the case. – Chick Bowen 05:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tbsdy has misinterpreted the strength of argument in this FfD (or, more accurately, he completely ignored it and strictly counted votes). Only a single use of the icons is necessary to understand them; the two generations are not so substantially different that one must see both sets of icons to understand them. As such, all images which have the icons violate NFCC.3a and .8 save for one. On the face of it, the blatant vote-counting and complete disregard of our NFCC justify overturning to the original closure. However, the previously undiscussed existence of two other images—namely this and this one—is material to the existence of these two images. The first one necessitates deletion and replacement of both of these images rather than only one, and the second one necessitates deletion and replacement of all three. So I recommend vacation of this FfD result and allowance of immediate relisting so that a decision can be reached which considers all relevant images and receives proper closure. ÷seresin 06:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't count votes. There is an equal split between those who wish to keep and those who wish to delete. When this occurs, I think that it would be accurate to say that there is no consensus to either delete or keep, and therefore by default we keep.

I don't mind having my decision reviewed or even overturned, this is perfectly reasonable. My only comment on this DRV is that the nominator seems to me a bit too close to the debate, which is evident in his slightly rude assertion that the basis of my closure was "blatant vote-counting". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to grind the point, but did you read your first paragraph? You clearly illustrate even here that you only looked at the numbers when you made your decision. How can your comments possibly suggest otherwise? ÷seresin 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at the numbers, but that was such a minor part of my decision that it almost didn't influence me. When I made my decision, I looked at the arguments from both sides - and both those who wanted to keep and those who wanted to delete had equally compelling arguments. Therefore, my decision was "no consensus", which caused the article to be kept. That is the convention on FFD - if you can't get consensus then the image is kept until another FFD nomination where consensus can be reached. If you can influence other editors as to your point of view on this, then you will probably have your way. Personally, I thought that the compromise was a good idea, however as the closer I'm not meant to be imposing my own ideas on the discussion but instead I am meant to be determining what the general consensus is of the deletion discussion. That said, there are a limited number of occassions where the issue is important enough where I might, as a closer, find that a debate would have consensus for a keep or delete if I add my own viewpoint, but those occassions are very, very rare. I believe that I've done this twice so far, had I done it on this debate then I'm sure that I would have made someone unhappy. C'est le vie! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm entirely mistaken, since Tbsdy closed that as no consensus, you can, in light of new images, just open up a new FfD about it. Taking no consensus closures to DRV, except in cases where they are blatantly wrong, usually will just end in us telling you to start another XfD. I suggest you go ahead and do this, Seresin, and save us all a week. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. It has been my experience, though, that quick relistings without a DRV tend to become immediately derailed because of the recent debate. I did not want to have to bother with that, so I came here first so I had a DRV to point to. So I would like to wait until I have a close here. ÷seresin 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm no administrator, but I feel that this DRV is unjustified. This is the second case that Seresin has commented on recently from Tbsdy, and (coincidentally?) both are cases that Tbsdy overturned on Seresin. WP is not about editors trumping each other: it's about what is fit to be included. Tbsdy recently forced me to find the source of an image that Seresin wanted to delete outright, without any advice whatsoever. Of course, no advice is required from Seresin (or any admin) concerning the deletion of non-free images, and I understand that. There are a trillion inappropriate images on WP that need instant deletion - but this was never one of them. I laud Tbsdy for his participation in my case, and my "real-life" endeavors will hopefully see the absolutely irreplaceable image I uploaded stay on WP. Then, #3a & #8 be damned, because it will be free... Doc9871 (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per the nominator's request. The existence of additional images (one is currently at FfD but the other one is deleted) may have an impact on the discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 January 2010[edit]

International Free and Open Source Software Law Review – Restored directly to mainspace. – Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there, I note that you deleted the article 'International Free and Open Source Software Law Review' in November, and would like to request that it be reinstated. The reason given was lack of notability, and the fact that it had only published one issue. The publication had, and has increasingly, a large degree of respect and support from around the Free Software community in academia and industry, and further has just published its second issue (Volume 1, Issue 2). It is listed by major academic libraries around the world (it is indexed by OCLC) and deposits DOI numbers with CrossRef. It also has significant endorsements from major industry players, including sponsorship from Mozilla, NLnet and the Open Invention Network. The second issue features personal endorsement quotes from Bill Patry of Google and Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center. I would be grateful if you would consider reversing the decision in light of the significant continuing support and notability the publication has achieved in the last six months. BigRedBall (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow restoration. The journal appears to have come to fruition, as was foreshadowed in the AfD. The journal has a reasonable enough degree of coverage (and seems to attract quality contributors) to warrant restoration. There might be a question whether it meets WP:JOURNAL, but that is only an essay, and a review of the contents of the journal indicate that it is of an academic standard that would warrant inclusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and re-create it. You don't need permission from DRV to re-create an article if the subject has become notable; the title is not salted. Userfy upon request. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore directly in mainspace, on the basis of the article in Computerworld [1] DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore directly to the mainspace per DGG's source. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Exebit – Deletion endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The primary cause for deletion was being not listed by Google. However, after growing discussions as the festival draws closer, the Exebit website is getting several hits and is the top ranked article on google when you search for "exebit". Hence, I request you to reconsider the deletion. Exebit (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure The consensus was small but clear: the festival lacks notability. There are hits for it, but nothing approaching a reliable source. Perhaps the debate should have been relisted, but I think it would not have changed the result; as it was, the consensus was unanimous. The review appears to have been brought in good faith by a user who neither understands the notability criteria, nor the username policy.--otherl left 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The delete !votes and nomination state that there are no sources independent of the subject, this has not been refuted at the AfD or here. The delete closure was correct and no evidence has been presented to relist the article. J04n(talk page) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: an entirely proper close. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure There was a unanimous consensus to delete, and it was based on a lack of evidence of notability – a strong reason for deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. IS THIS REAL LIFE? JBsupreme (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steen Christensen – Speedy closed as moot, since the article has been restored with sources added. I look forward to further discussion in the DRVRVRV for this close. – RL0919 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm taking the rather rare, but not unheard of, step of asking for a review of a DrV closing. User:NuclearWarfare endorsed a speedy deletion at DrV (link above) just recently. The !vote count was 6-8 (depending on how you count it) in favor of restoration with none opposed that I could see. The feeling was this belonged at AfD, not as a speedy. NW chose to endorse the deletion and discussions about the topic were fruitless.[2] I do fully understand NW's position on the matter, and personally would have !voted to userfy/incubate in the DrV. But given that the speedy was clearly overturned by the DrV, I don't see how this close can stand.Hobit (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and the closure of the previous DRV: I have read the contents of the now-deleted article. Every sentence in it is contentious and/or negative unsourced information. Regardless of the notability or the sourceability of the article, this deletion is clearly covered under policy, and only a properly sourced article can replace it. Further, I believe this DRV should be closed procedurally immediately as there is no new information being presented, and it is nothing more than an example of someone being dissatisfied with the result. DRVs can overturn a deletion decision when policy violations occur, but there was no policy violation in the initial deletion, nor in the refusal to overturn the initial deletion decision. Risker (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A DrV doesn't require new information to exist. And the question isn't one of "policy violation" at DrV. The question is if the close was done properly. Given that the close was against unanimous consensus, I think that's at the very least a fair concern... Hobit (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A DRV questions the *original* closure, which was done entirely within policy, and thus the DRV's close was entirely within policy. Consensus does not trump policy, particularly not WMF policy. And, for the record, I am looking at DRVs right now because of the recent discussions related to BLPs. This is the only one that appears relevant to my interests today. I'll move over to AfD if I have time. Risker (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Endorse, the closing admin recognized the consensus and is willing to restore the article as soon as someone is willing to source it, which was a common sentiment of those who participated in the first DRV ("provided that the sources are added soon thereafter", "provided the sources are added promptly", "Overturn speedy deletion and add sources"). J04n(talk page) 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a lengthy comment arguing that the close should be revised to provide for direct restoration to mainspace (conditioned on prompt sourcing), attempted to post it, and then the server went down....
On reconsideration, I think this is another one of those hypertechnical disputes over a technicality. The article is restored either to mainspace or to userspace. Either way, it has to be sourced either before it enters mainspace, or soon afterwards. So basically we are spending seven days debating, not whether the article should be restored (it should be), nor where it would ultimately end up (mainspace), nor the condition for a permanent location in mainspace (being sourced), but where it should be during the few hours between it is restored and it is sourced. What a productive use of time. IMO the original close should simply read "JIP (talk · contribs) is allowed to undelete the article provided that he sources it immediately thereafter", which should avoid the problem of a restored negative unsourced BLP hanging around in mainspace. Regardless, here's hoping that someone would source the article in the coming few days and moot this DRV.
That said, I disagree with Risker that the DRV is procedurally improper. The allegation that the closer closed a DRV contrary to consensus is clearly within DRV's jurisdiction. Tim Song (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV close, insisting on sources before restoration is not particularly onerous. I generally agree with Tim Song's analysis of the situation. I think temporary userfication with a NOINDEX is easy enough. Hypothetically, if the article were restored to article space and stayed unsourced for more than a few hours (coordination issues, distractions), I wouldn't be surprised if it were userfied or even G10'd again. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close DRV as moot, JIP added the Finnish sources to the restored article. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Requiring sources is not unreasonable. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think DRV can review DRVs, but without waiving that objection, endorse closure as per MBisanz. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not endorse the sentence "Deletion endorsed". The discussion did not endorse deletion of the article. However, Endorse the second sentence as a reasonable reading of the discussion, except that "immediately" is too short. Of course, for this article to be left in mainspace, there must be at least one editor willing to step forward, to work on named problems, sourcing, and to possibly defend it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have undeleted the article, and added all the sources and external links found on the original Finnish article to it. If it's still not satisfactory, it can undergo proposal for deletion or nomination for deletion. JIP | Talk 15:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this DRV as moot per Flatscan. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 January 2010[edit]

The word alive – deletion and salting endorsed but with no objection to userfication on request. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC) – Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

decltype (talk · contribs) deleted the page The word alive under G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive) without discussing on the xfd. I believe thet they are notable enough, the lead singer of the band Tyler "Telle" Smith, already has an individual page, and so does Craig Mabbitt, who started the band. Also one of their songs made an appearance in the Tap Tap Revenge game, which seems notable enough, besides the fact that they are also signed to Fearless Records. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for Mcrfobrockr, and let's see what he can make of it before moving it to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but at the moment the mainspace is blocked due to the recreation of the page. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse salting. If you think this band is now notable, write a draft with sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion under criterion G4. The article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive due to an apparent lack of proof of the subject's notability. The recently-recreated version did not address that problem: the only sources used in the article were a MySpace blog posting, an iTunes preview page, and an iLike blog posting. These sources, unfortunately, fail to meet the standard of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works whose source is independent from the subject.
Although, admittedly, the article does seem to meet two of the alternate criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music)—"is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" (Tyler "Telle" Smith and former member Craig Mabbitt) and "has performed music for a work of media that is notable" (Tap Tap Revenge 3)—I do not think that this can compensate (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence) for a total absence of reliable sources about the subject. If such sources exist, they have yet to come to light, and I have no objection to userfying (if Mcrfobrockr wants that) to allow time to search for sources.
I also endorse the decision to create-protect, for the time being, The Word Alive and The word alive. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

DeskAway – deletion endorsed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) – Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spartaz (talk · contribs) deleted the page DeskAway citing the reason as:‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: extra source looks like a regurgitated press release, Notability concerns not yet met. please submit draft to DRV if you wish to restore this to mains)

Why should there be notability concerns when we had given links of leading Indian newspapers, TV channel interviews, leading global blogs that have reviewed the software. I looked at the wiki pages of other similar software as this one, you can see them here: list of project management software. I could not find any 'more' credible sources for those softwares either. I think the page needs to be undeleted and please review whether the sources cited are really lacking in notability! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoldee (talk • contribs) 08:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot see the second version, so unable to comment on the appropriateness of the second deletion but the request to submit a userfied draft to DRV is appropriate after looking at the concerns raised at the first AfD, thus I endorse that decision. The deleted material should be returned to the editor's userspace if the editor wishes to present it here. J04n(talk page) 10:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the deleted material I endorse the second deletion as well. Essentially the article is unchanged since the AfD with the only new reference, being a fluff piece about the creator of the subject as opposed to the subject itself. J04n(talk page) 04:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted material is now back at User:Smoldee/DeskAway. This DRV would be better placed to look at whether the article as it now stands has addressed the concerned expressed at the AFD. I personally have no strong opinion in this except that there should be a proper discussion before any restoration. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion upon examination of the deleted material. The few sources provided do not in my view confer notability under WP:WEB, one of the reasons for deletion at AfD. Also, the second article seemed vaguely promotional, as did the first (another reason for deletion at AfD). Because the issues leading to deletion at AfD were not resolved, WP:CSD#G4 was applicable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse continued deletion. Nothing sufficient to overturn the deletion consensus has been presented. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 January 2010[edit]

Human Instrumentality Project – history re-added, redirect kept, full move and edit-protected (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cirt (talk · contribs) closed the AfD as a "redirect", but chose to delete it entirely and then redirect it. This was unnecessary because the content was not libelous or harmful in any way. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection says nothing about deleting; Wikipedia:Deletion process#Process specifically says what to do when closing a "redirect" and that does not include any deletion. Deletion & redirection are mutually exclusive closes. Policy aside, when I was an admin, it never occurred to me that a 'redirect' might involve a 'delete', nor have I been involved with very many articles whose AfD closed as 'redirect' but got implemented as 'delete & redirect'.

I am requesting that the article history be undeleted. (Note: I am not asking for the article to be restored; let the redirect remain at Human Instrumentality Project, but restore the history.)

I did attempt to work with Cirt but he brushed me off, told me to take it to DRV, and stop talking to him.

DRV is supposed to be about procedural issues - like I believe the above is - but I know content matters to some editors, so I will quickly address it. The charges of being unsourced are clearly false: a work of fiction is its own source, and the article had a third-party reference as well. The accusations of being unnotability I also believe to be false; Neon Genesis Evangelion is, besides being a multi-decade multi-billion-dollar franchise, the subject of endless discussion - academic & otherwise - and I provided Cirt with several possible sources on just HIP alone (I know my own personal collection of papers & books contains many more). --Gwern (contribs) 22:31 28 January 2010 (GMT)

Endorse. The consensus here was to redirect. But the consensus was based only on the view that the article's title was a viable search term. There was a clear consensus that the content of the page itself was not appropriate for encyclopedic material. No-one voted for a keep or merge (two outcomes that reflect a consensus to retain the content); only one person suggested a merge. Accordingly, the consensus to redirect was also, at the same time, a consensus to delete the content of the page. The action of deleting then redirecting was entirely appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mkativerata (talk · contribs), very well-said and I agree with this analysis. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, Cirt adjudged the consensus was 'redirect'. I assume that he stands by that choice. He did not choose 'delete and if anyone - like me - feels like it, they can make a redirect because it's a good search term'; this judgement is no part of AfD's purpose nor does it appear anywhere in the deletion guidelines I cited. The actual pages say nothing about mix-and-match, consensuses are not like Communion wafers, mystically 2 things at once: if you close as 'redirect', you redirect; if you close as 'delete', you delete. There are only 2 things that make up a 'redirect' close: the page history remains, and the article text is replaced by a #REDIRECT; get rid of either one, and it's not a 'redirect' close! It makes as much sense as an admin turning in a 'delete' consensus but deciding to merge the content somewhere else.

The forms have not been followed. I ask that they be followed. --Gwern (contribs) 02:20 29 January 2010 (GMT)

Delete and redirect is an occasional AfD result, often used to prevent easy reverting to the full article. It has fewer considerations than merge and delete (see WP:Merge and delete). Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do you know that nothing was merged into the glossary, making the delete illegal? As well, I fail to see what is so pernicious about the article history that it must be destroyed. (I hoped I addressed the issue of its notability in my statement. That I was burnt-out and not up to defending it during its AfD does not prove that it is unnotable. AfDs for specialist areas tend to be a crapshoot based on whether any quasi-experts are around and willing to put in effort. I have more than once swung AfDs from delete to keep after research.) --Gwern (contribs) 14:50 30 January 2010 (GMT)

I hadn't checked, but looking at the last 500 edits now, there are no edits labeled "merged", and none of the edits to the Human Instrumentality Project section are accompanied by a significant size increase. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I see no compelling reason to delete the page history, I think the decision in this respect should be left to the sound discretion of the closing admin, and I'm not convinced that the discretion has been abused here. However, it may be appropriate to provide a copy of the original content upon request, and, if some portion of the content is deemed suitable for merging after sourcing, to undelete the history for attribution purposes. At this posture, though, I think the question is quite academic. Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history but keep Human Instrumentality Project as a redirect - there were small bits on the page that could have been merged into the relevant section on the Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary, it just isn't worth its own page. I would have suggested to very selectively merge the article rather than redirect if I had known that the history of the article was going to be deleted. --Malkinann (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question by the end of the AfD was the material in the article largely sourced, either to the primary sources or third party sources? I'd agree with this deletion if there was nothing even vaguely recoverable (as many of the early deletion !votes stated) but disagree if it had improved by the time it got deleted (even if still not meeting our notability guidelines). I know Gwern's thoughts, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others who have access to the material as it was at the time of deletion. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking at it, most of it is appropriately sourced to the primary work itself. There are a few statements of opinion that were not sourced, e.g. "This could be another reason the term "instrumentality" is used". A number of "cite" tags were added, but they were added unnecessarily, to purely descriptive material. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore history but keep as a redirect As the article is removed either way, I see no need to delete the material. If there was nothing of potential value (or BLP related things) sure, but here I don't see any reason for a "delete and redirect" and doing so is against the notion of WP:PRESERVE. As Tim says, I don't think admin discretion was abused at all. I just think there was no policy-based need or reason for the action, and decent reason not to delete first. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – only InsaneZeroG, DGG, and Doc Quintana mentioned the possibility of merging, and no one specified what content might be appropriate to merge. Considerations before restoring article history —clarified Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC): whether reversion to the full article is likely (page protection may address this) and if the deleted content is actually useful to Gwern or other editors. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to restore anytime soon without a great deal of work on the article, and as HIP is one of the most important single events in the NGE storyline and likely to constitute the major difference in the new Rebuild movies, HIP's deleted content is useful to not just me, but every future NGE editor or reader. --Gwern (contribs) 14:50 30 January 2010 (GMT)

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

Abdul Majid Khan – we appear to be done here – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator User:JodyB deleted this article on June 16, 2009. The deletion log entry says both WP:CSD#G6 -- and that the article was deleted following an AFD. However the "what links here" button doesn't show any AFDs. JodyB hasn't contriibuted to the wikipedia since June 2009. There is a captive, named Abdul Majid Khan, in the Bagram Theater Internment Facility the DoD asserts was a "Taliban financier" and "IED facilitator". I would like to request userification of the article's full history, and talk page, if any, to User:Geo Swan/compare/Abdul Majid Khan. If anyone can figure out where the AFD that JodyB mentioned is, I'd appreciate them sharing that. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABDUL MAJEED KHAN TORU. The article was renamed during the AFD discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the AFD appears to confirm it's the correct one. I'm not an admin so I can't see that it was moved, but Android is. Chutznik (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{afd}} is about a man who died prior to 2009, while the guy who was held in Bagram on 2009-09-22 is clearly still alive -- so they are two separate individuals with identical names. I have moved the article I prepared to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would still appreciate a chance to review the deleted article, and would still appreciate someone userifying it for me. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your above comment, I'm interpreting this as a switch to just wanting to see the deleted contents, not the entire article history. Thus, I have placed these contents on your talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, this action, providing the content without the author list, sets things up for a violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights. If Geo Swan goes on to recreate content, the attribution history of that content won't be available. Please, out of respect for best practice in copyright compliance, if you are going to undelete, undelete the history as well, or at least paste the history of authors on the talk page. If we don't respect our own copyright, how can we complain when others don't? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how as Geo wrote the version currently at the page title before even starting this DRV, I don't believe that is a concern at the moment. When it does become an issue we will make sure the necessary history is in place. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 January 2010[edit]

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake – Closure endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was properly tagged, since the other nomination on the 14th was not tagged, and should be left to run its course, since it was properly formulated, unlike the unproperly formulated request on the 14th, which left editors unknowing that anything was happening. The category had a CFD banner attached for this nomination Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). As this is a current news event, people would have seen it when going through the category. Notice was also given at Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake about happenings with the category, dealing with this request. This should be reopened and let run, since the other nomination was not publicized. 76.66.200.154 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This category was never tagged Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), as such, many editors concerned with the category never got wind of it, as evidenced by the fact that longtime contributor user:TexasAndroid didn't know about it, even though he was actively discussing the use of the category (see Category talk:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake). As this is a current news event, people would have noticed and participated if it had been properly formulated, unless Deletion Debates are a walled garden that only deletion patrollers should know about. This should be reopened and relisted, since people were not informed of its existence. 76.66.200.154 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from CfD closer. The instructions on the DRV page says "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look." That did not happen in this case.
When I closed the second CFD, I was unaware that the first one had not been properly tagged. However, even if I had been aware of that, I don't think it would have made much difference to the close, because there was little point in re-running the previous discussion. The closer of the previous CFD had recommended revisiting the subject later, when the subject has settled down a bit more. As I noted in the closure, there is nothing to prevent the creation of a more focused category for victims of the earthquake.
Looking at it now, renaming "people associated with" to "victims of" should not be left to a bot, because people in the "associated with" category may not actually be victims. So whatever happens, some manual recategorisation will be needed ... and that makes this DRV rather pointless, because whatever is decided here the outcome will still be somebody manually checking the category and recategorising as appropriate. Why run a DRV process when no CFD or DRV decision is needed to create a Category:Victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why run a DRV? I believe that, from 76...'s perspective, getting rid of the "People associated" category is as important, or more important, as creating a "Victims of" category. For me, I'm kinda at a "Shrug. Whatever" phase over the "People associated" category. It's served it's purpose, but 76... has persuaded me that it has major problems/flaws for which I cannot provide solutions. So while I'm not eager to see it go away, I find myself unable to strongly defend it.
On a related note, since people keep mentioning that there's nothing preventing the creation of a separate Victim category, and doing such was in my original long-range plans when I created the "People" category, I've declared my intention to go ahead and do such within the next 24 hours. For now it'll be a sub-cat of the People category. If the People category is eventually deleted, the Victims category can move up. One way or another, getting the Victims out of the People category will make the eventual fate of the People category a little less clouded by the presence of the Victims in it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now completed the split/move. All entries for people killed in the quake or from injuries received in it, have been moved down to the new category. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for not noticing that the category wasn't tagged when I closed the first CFD. The best result might be to treat the whole thing as a nullity so that anyone can start over with another one at any time. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nullifying both is now fine by me. Now that the victims of the quake have been recategorised, any new discussion can focus on the non-victims left in the the "People associated with" category, and my concerns above about bot recategorisation don't apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse BrownHairedGirl's decision to procedurally close the second CfD based on the information she had at the time was the correct one. If the new listing was because the category wasn't tagged the first time around, the nominator should have made that explicit. Obviously the next CfD should occur while the category is tagged; these two can both be nullified, as agreed above, and the issue can be revisited if anyone's interested. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist CfD is indeed a walled garden, and a big part of the CfD game appears to be ensuring that no one outside the cloistered discussion group should be able to participate. That the initial CfD was never properly tagged on the category in question raises a fundamental issue of the legitimacy of the propriety of the original close and makes the second close moot. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by accidental oversight. The second CfD did not mention the tagging issue, so BrownHairedGirl had no reason to suspect that there could be any issue with the first CfD. Also, the claim of conspiracy ("walled garden", "CfD game") aside, the claim that BrownHairedGirl's actions involve an effort to prevent anyone from participating in CfD seems to be contradicted by the extant evidence (e.g., notifying WikiProjects here, here, and here—a step that is not only not required, but downright uncommon). I realize that you and she have butted heads numerous times in the past at CfD, but I would urge you (and the same applies to everyone, of course) to avoid automatically assuming the worst about her at every opportunity. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse agreement that both should just be treated as a nullity now that the category has been divided. This seems like a spent issue; I don't think a DRV was necessary to resolve things. The category could be renominated at any time, of course. Users need to assume good faith and not suggest that administrators who close CFD discussions are attempting to prevent other users from participating. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - From the point of view of adherence to procedure, the correct way to have dealt with an out-of-process "no consensus" close ("out-of-process" because the category was not tagged) would have been to contact the editor who closed the discussion; then, in the unlikely event that the closer was unwilling to relist the discussion, the next step would have been Wikipedia:Deletion review. From a non-procedural point of view, Category:Victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake has been created and there seems to be consensus (at least, there is agreement from both closers) that a follow-up discussion of the associated with category can be initiated at any time. 76... raises a valid point, but the issue is basically moot now. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barack Sotero – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barack Obama's stepfather has the surname of "Soetero", so this is not a nonsense redirect, nor is it an implausible typo. It odes not qualify under CSD-R3. 76.66.200.154 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Obama did not take the name Sotero, so there's no reasonable explanation for someone searching for him by that name. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, right. Endorse, good speedy. If someone somehow learned the name of Obama's stepfather, they would have known Obama's name already. Tim Song (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there is no resonable scenerio that anyone looking for Barack Obama would type Barack Sotero. J04n(talk page) 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Proper application of WP:CSD#G3. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#R3. This fits the definition of "implausible misnomer" to a T. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I was actually about to argue that this was a reasonable search term and point out that it had a lot of google hits but when I googled it I found that it has 532 which is not nearly enough for that sort of argument to hold water. Unlikely search term. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is neither G3 nor R3. The above editors have taken far too narrow a view of "implausible", there's no particular harm (e.g., POV) to having such a redirect, and redirects are cheap. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a POV though. The Sotero name is used generally when websites are trying to be nasty, similar to ones with feel a need to emphasize his middle name. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - that's just not his name. Chutznik (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 January 2010[edit]

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible – overturn – keep closing admin has copped to an error and been smacked with a trout, rather large snowball means we're done here – Beeblebrox (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion was closed as "keep" by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) without a rationale [3], then closed as "delete" by Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with a rationale [4]. Subsequently, a budding edit war developed and I then protected the AFD [5]. DRV is probably the best place to sort the mess out. Disclosure: I voted "delete" in the AFD. Ucucha 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that there has not been any reasoning given as to why it should be kept by Jayjg. This is actually a controversial deletion discussion, and when I was about to close I got an edit conflict. In other words, had I clicked on the submit button not a minute earlier I would have been the closing admin who made the decision. Now I would not have overturned Jayjg's keep decision had their been a detailed explanation of why it was closed as keep. However, there was none, though Jay did say that he had good reasons for his decision and he can explain them to me. However, my point is that he should have explained them on the AFD page. :The article is currently deleted, as I overturned the deletion discussion with my own detailed reasoning. My deletion reasoning was:

The result was delete. I have overturned Jayjg's previous keep closure, as he hasn't provided any detailed explanation of why he chose that way.

The delete vs. keep camp is pretty cleanly split based on notability Those who say delete have stated that the website has not been noted in scholarly articles or in the popular press. However, those who are arguing to keep have said that there are two references that refer to this website - one is the Rough Guide to the Internet, and the other is Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible, both of which have not been demonstrated to be notable or verifiable sources of information.

This is a controversial close, I know, especially as I have overridden an administrator who I personally have a great deal of respect for, and I know many others do as well. However, I cannot see any reason why the article should be kept. Please take to DRV if more notable references are found or a different reason for undeletion is provided.

I have reported my decision on WP:AN/I, but this is why I overturned the decision. I welcome debate around my action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no comment about the validity of either close. (I have not read the discussion.) I reverted Tbsdy's close on the basis that he cannot unilaterally overrule another administrator's close. When an editor disagrees with an AfD close, s/he should ask the closing admin to provide a rationale for the close, not override it. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. If the closer does not have a valid closure reason I don't see anything wrong with changing the deletion reason. After all, the other editor was reverted on a mere technicality. I've seen deletions validly closed before 7 days, yet someone else overrode this decision. Not that I'm trying to by POINTy here, I did this solely because this was a contraversial deletion discussion and it needed more than just a keep or delete comment. I took about 15 minutes to give my detailed reasoning, I could have just typed in delete and Jay's decision would not have counted. Now I'm not saying that Jay did this in bad faith at all, I am merely pointing out that if you want to close something like this AFD you need to explain why. It's all about accountability and transparency. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~If you disagree with an AfD close, you should take it to DRV. Reverting the closing admin is wheel-warring.~~ Cunard (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps you should reread that article. I did no wheel warring whatsoever. I never once used my admin tools to unblock another admin's decision, and when the AFD was protected then I did not edit it again. I also note that not only an admin can close an AFD. I suggest you be careful in your comments about my actions as an administrator, as they mischaracterize my actions and are being made in bad faith. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The situation looked like a wheel war to me, but after looking at the situation again, you likely did not notice Jayjg's revert before you deleted the article. Here's a timeline of the actions on the AfD:
        03:23 – closed by Jayjg as "keep".
        03:26 – Jayjg's close is reverted by yourself.
        03:32 – your reversion is reverted by Jayjg
        03:33 – you delete the article (This is what I considered wheel-warring.)
        03:34 – you reverted Jayjg's reversion.
        03:36 – I reverted back to Jayjg's close.
        03:38 – the page is protected by Uchacha. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x 2)overturn delete, with no prejudice against a new afd listing. Once it was originally closed by an admin, disagreement with the original close probably should have been brought here, not overturned unilaterally. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first close was a "keep" before it was unilaterally overturned to delete. Cunard (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "no consensus" Seems to me that with a call that Tbsdy acknowledges to be as close as this, "no consensus" is the obvious outcome. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as Keep. If someone, admin or otherwise, has a problem with a close, the proper procedure is to take it to DRV. To overturn the close is highly improper. Crum375 (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely it's also improper to close a controverisal debate without the closer giving a reason? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The default/implicit reason is that there were not enough delete comments to sway the closer to delete. And if you want more, the proper place to ask for it is on the closer's talk page, or on DRV. Crum375 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have now restored the article, I will be taking the article back to AFD so that it can be closed properly next time. One should not have to ask the closer why they have made there decision, it should be clear in the closing comments. Jay's closure was not clear. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is exactly why we have DRV and talk pages. Crum375 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

overturn second close to keep Frankly, I have very mixed views on this. First, I'm familiar with the work in question and Tbsdy did make a reasonable argument for his close which I would have found to be acceptable enough if it were the only close. However, Jay had already closed before that event. Overriding a pre-existing close is not intrinsically bad. However, it needs very good reasons, a specific very important policy basis to overturn or a clear misinterpretation of consensus on the part of the first closer. Neither of those have occurred. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be happy to take to a third AFD. There is as of yet no reasoning behind the keep decision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I too would have welcomed more comment in the close, I can see nothing improper in the "keep" close by Jayjg. This article should be restored and this DRV should be discussing Jayjg's actions, not those of Tbsdy, who just have brought the closure here and not reverted it. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's improper to close a discussion like this one without an explanation that details the reasoning behind the closure. I also note I did not take this to DRV, and also that I have reversed my deletion of the article. I will soon be taking this back to AFD, this time hopefully the closing admin will give a proper explanation of why they are keeping/deleting. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original Keep. With over 2:1 keeps to deletes, and reasonable opinions on them, there's no way that I can see this AfD coming out as a "delete". Granted, the sources on the article are a bit thin, but that's why we have an AfD, is to get community opinions on whether or not they are sufficient. I would also like to say that I am very disappointed in Tbsdy's actions here. It's one thing to have a good faith disagreement with another admin on how they handled something, but it's another to unilaterally overule them. Admins should not be unilaterally reversing other admins' decisions, period. That Tbsdy is further saying that he wants to submit this article for another AfD in a few days, tells me that Tbsdy is too close to this situation. Tbsdy, this was a bad call on your part, please stand down. --Elonka 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way am I too close to this situation? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should have recused from closing this because you wrote at User talk:Jayjg, "It is actually pretty controversial amongst skeptics and non-skeptics. As an evangelical Christian myself I have often been to this website, which I find faintly ridiculous." Cunard (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In no way did my personal belief system in any way influence my decision to keep or delete. If anything, I prefer anti-evangelical articles to be kept - I always find that when they are presented neutrally the thing they are attacking doesn't look so bad. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (e/c) Tbsdy, it's understandable that it was frustrating for you to be ready to close the AfD as "delete", and see someone else had closed it as "keep" before you could hit "Save page". But that does not excuse you overturning their close. What you should have done, was to list the article here at DRV and question their close. Instead, that you just went in and changed the AfD and deleted the article, was unwise. It's extremely bad form for one admin to overrule another admin in that way. Further, look at how you are reacting on this DRV, responding to nearly every single comment. That's a classic example of someone who's too invested in a situation. My recommendation is to take a break. You're a good admin, but just made a bad call in this situation. Go work on something else for awhile, then come back and try to take everyone's comments onboard, as constructive criticism. And then we can all get back to the rest of the project, rather than worrying about just this one article. :) --Elonka 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've put my apologies below. Jay has offered to give detailed reasoning. If he doesn't provide it, I'll relist this on AFD. I'll be happy one way or another with the decision so long as reasoning is provided. Also... I have responded to everyone, not because I'm personally invested in this article, but because I like responding to the comments of others. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm out of turn here, but I don't think that is the reality of the situation. But if others don't have that impression, I'm willing to live with it :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DRV was the proper place for Tbsdy lives to go if the close was questioned, after contacting Jayjg and not receiving an answer which satisfied. Overturning the close was improper. "Surely it's also improper to close a controverisal debate without the closer giving a reason" may be theoretically valid, and become a rule in the future, but closing controversial debates without explicit reasoning happens very frequently and is not prohibited and so is not improper at present. As long as there is some possible reasoning - there clearly is - just take the reasoning of some of the keeps - and a keepish consensus/majority, there is little ground for procedural Deletion Review. So the keep should stand, with the normal respect given for quick renomination to "keeps" rather than "no consensuses".John Z (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original keep There is no requirement that the closing admin provide any rationale for his decision; there is also no evidence that Tbsdy made any attempt to contact the closing admin on his talk page to discuss the matter civilly, except as an after-the-fact "Oh, BTW, I reversed your decision". I can see nothing wrong with the original closure as such, while I appreciate that different admins may make different conclusions, I can't see where there is a clear delete consensus at that page, so I don't see where Jayjg's close was controversial. I also don't see where Tbdsy did anything that is of normal recourse for disagreements. No attempt was made to discuss with Jayjg before undoing, and no attempt was made to bring this here to DRV before undoing. --Jayron32 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Troutslap Jayjg several times for not writing a rationale. Get someone else that thinks keep is the right outcome to write a rationale if Jayjg won't, and then endorse the keep. It's wonkery to overturn a keep just for not having a reason, if that's the only reason. If there are procedural errors, or other reasons for the overturn, let's hear them. TBSDY is right, a closing admin SHOULD give a reason. But the right approach is to go ask for one. And if none is forthcoming, take it to DRV, not unilaterally overturn. Finally, as I said at AN/I, if you want to do a close and it will take a while, throw up a "I'm closing this, wil have an outcome soon" note on it and color it archive color so people know. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

It appears that from folks comments that I was out of line here. For this I apologise and in future I will take to DRV. I would like to clarify that I reversed Jay's decision and then informed him, I in no way hid what I did or went behind Jay's back when I made my decision. However, I disagree with Jayron - a closing admin really should give a reasoning. Those who were expressing the keep opinion were saying that the article had sources, but others were quite reasonably saying that the sources were not notable in their own right. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Sources don't need to be notable. They need to be reliable. And it doesn't seem like a very strong argument was made against the sources in that regard. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - By closing it as "keep", the closing admin performed an administrative action. You reverting the close - no matter for what reason - constitutes reverting another admin's actions and thus is wheel-warring. I agree that when closing complicated discussions, the closer should provide a detailed rationale but they don't have to. Next time, remember that talking to people who made an edit you disagree with is always preferable. Regards So Why 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the closing admin. Well, I've closed hundreds of AfDs in the past few months, and I must say that I never expected that this would be the most controversial one. To be honest, I'd never heard of the website before I looked at the AfD. I was just quietly going along, closing the overdue deletion discussions in the Old AfD list, and had closed this one as "keep", when I was shocked to discover that even as I was tagging the article's Talk: page with the oldafdfull "keep", notice, Tbsdy had "re-closed" the AfD as a "delete", stating that he was doing so because I had provided no reasoning for my decision. While there is no requirement to list a reason when closing an AfD, I've always been happy to provide one when asked, and this article is no exception. Both sides generally made arguments they felt were policy-based, and on the raw count the !votes were 10 delete, 16 keep, and 1 "keep and merge". Summarizing them, the "deletes" felt that the sources were not nearly in-depth or detailed enough regarding the site to establish notability, while the "keeps" felt that mentions in reliable sources (perhaps combined with a large number of ghits) were sufficient to establish notability. The sourcing looked a little thin to me as well, but this is obviously, at least to some extent, a matter of opinion, and people of good will can disagree on these matters. Those arguing to keep were generally well-established editors, many with tens of thousands of edits (or in one case over 120,000 edits) to their credit - not WP:SPA accounts with little familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, and interest in only one article. I felt that I had to respect the consensus of that preponderance of editors, and their considered judgment in the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please paste that into the AfD itself, if you haven't already, you can pretty much go with most of it verbatim, it does a fine job of explanation, IMHO. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AfD is currently protected, so I'll have to wait until it is unprotected. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unprotected. Ucucha 13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, to provide a chance for better sourcing (if any). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original Keep close a delete close would have been inappropriate. A "no consensus" close would be fine... except that the keep !voters had a clear majority and reasonable arguments. Furthermore, when those with a specific POV argue that content should be deleted from Wikipedia, that is itself reason for greater scrutiny, and I see nothing about this AfD that could justify closing to the minority's position. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly a regular closer of AfDs, but on the odd occaision that I come across a long one like this, the first thing I do is add the {{closing}} tag, so the edit conflicts that started this all off are avoided. Can I recommend that admins use this more often? Ged UK 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/keep. Could not have reasonably been closed any other way. As many people have noted, the proper way to contest a disputed AFD closure is to discuss with the closer then come here, not to overwrite the closure with your own preference. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original keep. One might argue, if a bit strained, that this was a No Consensus, but claiming it as a Delete is simply not justifiable, based on the discussion. I also think notability is well-established in this case - it's a web phenomenon, and looking through the first 20 or so Google hits, it obviously is notable, even if coverage in reliable sources is somewhat sparse. Tbsdy, you messed up thrice - in your evaluation of the discussion, in your decision to unilaterally overturn without discussing this with Jayjg, and then in hastily deleting the article when it was clear that this would be controversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, close as no consensus. I hate "the truth is somewhere in the middle" arguments, but it's abundantly clear that there was no consensus to keep or delete the article. As with all "no consensus" closes, the article should be kept by default. --Ashenai (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a no consensus close. I don't like that outcome, and I think those voting keep have a curious sense of what significant coverage constitutes, but I cannot see a consensus either way here. Quantpole (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a bloody mess. I would like to endorse everything Stifle said above, and tangentially add that I have personally searched for "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" on Wikipedia in the past. I would've been surprised if this encyclopaedia had lacked an article about it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "keep" close Trout slap for Jayjg for not providing a rationale, major trout slap for Tbsdy for reverting another admin's administrative actions without talking to them first. Then, as for assessing the discussion itself, consensus is clearly in favor of keeping (also per above) with a number of delete !votes based on the pre-sourced version of the article and the rest either disagreeing with whether the amount of sourcing is enough and the others criticizing neutrality concerns, which should be addressed through editing. A "no consensus" closure would be understandable as well, although I think the arguments in favor of keeping are stronger. But a "delete" closure cannot be derived from this discussion. Regards So Why 17:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse keep as there were sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. It would have been much better to have explained the close, and this should be required, and this dispute is another example of why. It's not all that helpful to close a disputed AfD without giving reasons. But until we have such as rule, such a close is not invalid, and there is no basis for reverting for that reason. Nor is there basis for reverting an admin close if the close is merely wrong, because Deletion Review is the place to discuss that. Sometimes such an admin close can be reverted properly, if done much too early or if done in a way that is demonstrably absurd, but anyone doing it would normally be expected to discuss it first with the closer. I have very rarely seen an admin revert another's close without discussing. It's not wheel-warring, but it is not usually done except in the clearest of circumstances. (A non-admin close can & usually should be reverted if it is not within the limits set for such closes. )There's no point in changing to non-consensus, though that would in my opinion also have been an acceptable close, because it can simply be nominated again in 6 months or so. ` DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original "keep" close. Not much to say beyond what is written above. The arguments in the discussion weighed towards a keep, or possibly a no consensus default to keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep as a reasonable close. I'd have closed it as no consensus and think that's pretty clearly the right outcome as A) the sourcing isn't clearly over the bar and B) there was no consensus about the sourcing. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep and original closure - adequate sources to show notability.—Sandahl (♀) 20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 January 2010[edit]

The_Nikolai_Organisation – allow recreation - AFD at editorial discretion – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nixxxi (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have since rewritten this page in a manner that I feel complies with the feedback left by RHaworth at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nixxxi/sandbox and explained in the discussion page that the reason that it goes to a splash screen is that it is involved with a vodka brand and therefore they must verify that users are over 18 years of age. I feel that this article is now neutral and I have removed the Protocol 55 content, as well as the letter to the editor. Nixxxi (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11 and oppose re-creation. While G11 no longer applies, as the new draft is not promotional, I don't think the article meets the general notability guideline, and it would probably be deleted at AfD. The sources in the article aren't all reliable, and most that are mention the ad campaign only tangentially. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As there has never been an AfD on this (at least as far as I can see) and doesn't meet any criteria for a speedy (as far as I can see) shouldn't this _go_ to AfD? Hobit (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose. This will almost certainly be deleted at AfD, and (because Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy) I figured I'd tell the nominator that here rather than allowing them to work hard on something that will likely be deleted rather soon. However, I didn't realize that the title was salted and I do not think a technical restriction on creation is justified. I hope that clarifies my position. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have added the response within New Zealand to show "Notability" 2. Many of the articles are from major New Zealand Newspapers. I have removed the one Wikianswers article and left in the links to New Zealand 3. I could not quote the Nikolai website as the source for 2000+ agents, as your team seems unable to get through the age/location verification screen. Nixxxi (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed with User:RHaworth and I feel I have implemented what they stated was necessary. I have also now taken on feedback from A Stop at Willoughby and I welcome any other feedback. This is my first attempt at an article and I am trying really hard to comply here.Nixxxi (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Indecisive~~ and want to hear others' opinions as to the validity of opposing recreation of an article that was CSD'd and apparently no longer is a candidate for CSD with the rationale that it wouldn't pass AfD. I agree with everything that A Stop at Willoughby said above plus I have a problem with the author of the article apparently also writing the 'letter to the editor' that is cited in the article but I'm just not sure if that is enough to prohibit recreation. J04n(talk page) 04:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alow to recreate. Although I have doubts as to the notability of the subject, notability was not why it was speedied. The author has provided enough sources that notability can at least be argued. I reached out to the author advising that the article would not likely survive even if it is allowed to be recreated, but she is persisting. I believe recreation should be allowed and then if it is sent to Afd notability discussed there. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to the editor was removed several days ago. I feel that this is a Notable topic and that is why I have gone to the effort to include this on Wikipedia when I could have given up the first time. I feel that I have jumped through every hoop and done my best to meet the requirements. I may be a noob, but I am trying here and with a little encouragement, I can become an active and productive member of your site.Nixxxi (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and do not re-create. Although I applaud good-faith attempts to improve an article, I just don't think the subject is worthy: a fake "agency" that employs a character used to advertise a brand of vodka in one country? That just isn't article material. I don't even think it warrants a mention in the vodka company's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have since named and described the references.Nixxxi (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation ~~In fact this didn't need to come to DrV as far as I can tell.~~ (strike, is protected). It no longer meets any speedy criteria. It may or may not make it at AfD, but it certainly deserves a shot at it. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears that G11 no longer applies, permit recreation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD. The place to discuss notability is AfD, not DRV. Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

War of Legends – Restored on the basis of new sourcing. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was originally deleted in December due to lack of notability and verifiable sources. In January the game was launched, and as such a large quantity of verifiable sources have been created (Financial Times, USA Today, and a number of gaming press sources to name but a few) which contained notability of the product (first publishing deal for a major games company, moving into micro-transactions). The January article then got deleted, most likely cause people thought it was a repeat of the December one. Please could someone return the January version (ie the one that had all of the verifiable sources and notability in it) or at least let me recreate it without deleting it on the basis of the December decision to delete. The status of sources / notability / verifiability *has* changed. Cheers Wolhound (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Indecisive~~ Can an admin confirm that the re-created version did, in fact, contain references to reliable sources as claimed? If the deleting administrator could comment here, that would also be appreciated. Thanks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There were two references in the re-created article, this and this. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is confusing me as I thought I added in more than that, could there be two versions of the article? Either way here are more references that can be added into the article:

http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/241/jagex-talks-war-of-legends http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/jagex-brings-new-browser-game-to-europe-664904 http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/29698/Jagex-enters-publishing-with-call-for-new-product http://www.incgamers.com/News/20574/jagex-wants-to-be-a-developers-publisher http://games.venturebeat.com/2010/01/19/jagex-brings-asian-game-to-western-gamers/ http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/106/1061822p1.html http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/interviews/7047-Crush-Your-Enemies-Even-When-Theyre-Not-Online-in-War-of-Legends http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/29698/Jagex-enters-publishing-with-call-for-new-product http://www.gamersdailynews.com/story-15775-Jagex-Releases-War-of-Legends.html http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=478988 http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26791/RuneScape_House_Jagex_Enters_ThirdParty_Publishing.php http://www.guiaglobal.com.br/noticia-jogos_online_primeiras_imagens_de_war_of_legends_online-3895 http://www.gry-online.pl/S013.asp?ID=49988 http://www.gamesnation.it/news/4567/aperto-il-sito-ufficiale-di-war-of-legends-nuova-produzione-di-jagex.html

Basically I'm not saying that the original was perfect but that a new version falls with the realms of Wikipedia and that it should be given the chance to be developed rather than getting removed for the prelaunch version. Ta Wolhound (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

allow re-creation, as there seem to be enough refernces. That the game is released would often change the circumstances sufficiently top justify this. A new AfD would be optional. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 due to the lack of sources in the actual deleted article (thanks, Jayjg, for the info) but permit re-creation given the sources provided above. Depending on how the new article turns out, this might end up at AfD; however, I don't think a version with all these sources added would be eligible for speedy deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation per A Stop at Willoughby. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation. I see enough sources after the game's launch that a properly recreated version would not be speediable. Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a week of review and noone is objecting to letting the new version be made/not auto deleted/Endorse but allow recreation, what's the next step of getting this approved and letting the new article live?Wolhound (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to straight-out restoring the last version and allowing it to be built by the abovementioned sources. –MuZemike 06:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be ideal outcome as otherwise I'll have to try and recreate from memory.Wolhound (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the deleted article to mainspace so that Wolhound will not need to start from scratch. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tracy Goode – After some thought and seeing the votes below, I've decided to Withdraw this request. I'm going to keep the text in my userpage and userfy it, in the hopes that more sourcing becomes available sometime in the future. Thank you. – American Eagle (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you'll look in the AfD, many SPAs !voted on the discussion. The closing administrator said, "none of the newbies have come up with sources or a compelling policy based reason to keep this". That is correct; none of the newbies did, but I did. I added multiple sources to the article during the AfD. The closing admin also said, "the delete side was established editors with sound policy based arguments". If you look through the actually number of !votes (not counting SPAs), there are 4 votes for delete and 4 keep. Is this enough consensus to delete, especially considering one of the deletes was made before the improvements? I doubt it. The person is notable per both WP:GNG and WP:ENT. American Eagle (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gee, thanks for discussing this with me first and giving me a chance to fix this myself if it was a mistake. :rolleyes: Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I have that off my chest I have looked at the sources in the article at the time of deletion

CBN.com No article at that link and no result for a search on Tracey Goode on the side.
Church production references the film and Tracey Goode is mentioned once as part of the staff of the film - associate media director as it happens
DVD Town Fleeting mention as a cast member in a film review
WALB.com Fleeting mention as provided a quotation about the film
Some random masters thesis Tracy Goode is not mentioned here.
Ealb again Being quoted in the context of a discussion of a film
Baptist press Being quoted again in the context of an article about a film
St Petersburg Times This one actually says something about Goode, i.e. that he is bringing comic relief to an emotional film.

So what we actually have here with the sources is precisely zero significant independent coverage of Tracy Goode, that meets WP:RS. What we have are a lot of tangential mentions in the context of other subjects. Nothing about them at all except that they bring comic relief to an emotional film and that does not equal a blp. Sorry but the deletion arguments were clearly the policy based arguments in this discussion and I therefore Endorse own deletion. I'm willing to userfy this if you want to work on it in userspace but we simply cannot host this in mainspace until the subject becomes notable or proper sourcing becomes available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch... I didn't read the section under "Steps to list a new deletion review" that mentioned discussing first with the closing admin. I figured this was just the place to discuss it, and you simply notify the admin with the template. I entirely admit my fault on that. This discussion should remain open, though. You've given your comment (saying it wasn't a mistake, which was expected), so let's treat it as if I did notify you, and now I'm taking it to DRV. ;) Thanks for posting the sources. Could you also copy/paste the content into User:American Eagle/Tracy Goode for me to look over? I'll do a full reply, source-by-source, tomorrow, but I must be going to bed now. Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. No harm done. I have userfied the article at the above address as I have been told off previously for doing cut and paste userfications for attribution purposes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse correct decision , with the keep SPAs properly discounted, along with absurd claims of anti-christian bias. Being a bit actor in three films is not notability regardless of genre. Unless there is considerable new material to be added, there is not sufficient notability, not even enough to justify continuing it in user space after this discussion. The best of the references listed above says about him only "Chris Willis and Tracy Goode play the assistant coaches, bringing some comic relief to the emotional film" , which I do not consider substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, as nominator, I !vote the decision be Oveturned, for the following reasons. Here is my breakdown of the article. I removed the first sources because it was unneeded, and somehow doesn't exist anymore.

Just mentioned as a media director
Goode is discussed both as an actor and as a character
Mentioned a Cameraman and quoted
This is perhaps the best source. You have to search the PDF. Page 67 has an entire paragraph on Goode. He's mentioned elsewhere as well. This is a scholarly article by Liberty University.
Goode's roles are again discussed and he's quoted twice.
Goode is quoted three times.
This has been discussed. Goode and another actor are stated as bring comic relief to the film.

All those sources just mention his acting career (note: this clearly passes the WP:GNG). Also look at his resume. He has been a principle or supporting actor in at least 10 theatre performances (including A Christmas Carol, My Fair Lady and Scrooge). He's been a stadium announcer, a play-by-play broadcaster for ESPN Radio (among other broadcasts), and has produced/directed more than a dozen TV shows/direct-to-video films. All these things clearly pass #1 of WP:ENT: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. I have proved all four of these. American Eagle (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The consensus established that the coverage was incidental at best: see in particular the rationale for Glenfarclas' vote that went unchallenged. An appropriate close. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is DRV simply to decide if the close was appropriate? (For example, does it not matter if the film is notable, as long as consensus was to delete it?) Should I have taken it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion? I don't really care about the close; I'm trying to, basically, reopen the AfD and prove the actor is notable. Is this the wrong place? American Eagle (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the appropriate place to have an AfD-deleted article restored. I suggest working on a draft in your userspace to enable people here to determine whether it warrants restoration. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again at User:American Eagle/Tracy Goode. If that does not establish notability, I don't know what will. American Eagle (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure While I appreciate the effort American Eagle has put into finding sources for this article, I don't think the article met our notability standards at the time of deletion, so earlier votes to delete should not be discounted on that basis. Those arguing for deletion made a strong case that significant coverage of the subject could not be found, and the assessment of the sources during this DRV does not convince me otherwise. Most keep voters merely asserted notability without evidence or made other invalid arguments. There were exceptions, like American Eagle, obviously – but I don't think he has shown that WP:ENT criterion #1 was met. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable close in light of the SPAs and likely offsite canvassing. Also, I know that I'm not too off the mark when DGG agrees with me that an article needs to be deleted... Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse looks like the close was reasonable and correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

One Shot (JLS song) – Overturn. Page restored. Now meets WP:NSONGS as #6 in UK singles chart. – Adambro (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was told to bring this hear by an admin because they won't help. The page was deleted a while ago which was fine because it has no noteable and hasn'[t charted. But now it has somebody re-created the page. I began to edit that page and spend alot of time bringing it up to par. An admin has deleted it because it was deleted before, without checking if the circumstances have changed. I request it be restored and all my edits restored too if that's possible. The song is Top 10 in the UK and Top 20 in Ireland and confirmed for Release officially in Feb. Extremely noteable. Jayy008 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how this is in the top 10 if it's not set to be released until February? I don't understand? --Stormie (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the third single which means you can buy it off the album individually from iTunes. When a song charts it meets noteabilty guildlines, so none of the reasons for deletion stand. Jayy008 (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn most recent speedy deletion as it does appear to have charted, although the reference given for it reaching the UK top 10 actually shows it to have reached only number 32 after 5 weeks in the charts. However this is still within the top 40 (which is what is most commonly meant by "in the charts" in the UK). This means there is additional information to the version that was deleted at the original AfD, at least the first of the speedy deletions was valid though. AfD at editorial discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there is now additional sourced information that did not exist at time of previous AfD. J04n(talk page) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The archive will not be updated until late Monday. However the unstable source from the Official Charts Company changes early Monday and the chart show reveals it late Sunday which was postion #10. But yes I agree even if it reaches low top 40 it meets noteable guidlines. Can one of you restore the page please? I'm not an admin so I can't do it. Is it possible to restore it with my edits intact? Jayy008 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is possible to restore your edits, but it would be premature to restore the article at this point as the deletion review is still ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayy008 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy deletion. The consensus to delete at AfD was based on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS, primarily. Because the song has charted, and because the single's imminent release is verifiable, the reasons for deletion no longer apply. As such, G4 is not applicable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this link and go down to 10. Proof - anyway, I am going to make this again. I am experienced in wikis and I can complete the Infobox single and write atleast a paragraph more after the introduction. Releases Feb 22. -- Ninjinian 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, with the option to send to another full AfD if desired. There appear to be sources here with which to have a good discussion; speedy is no longer applicable. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per above. I can't see the previously deleted version so I won't comment on the speedy. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 January 2010[edit]

23 January 2010[edit]

22 January 2010[edit]

21 January 2010[edit]

Mazes and Minotaurs – Deletion Endorsed. This is turning into an unproductive monologue rather then a discussion and the outcome is clear. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

this article was deleted based on an incorrect interpretation of the "consensus" by the editor, who has refused to change his "verdict". He states that the arguments for deletion are strongly based on policies, whereas only a few words followed by coded-referral to same policies, spanning multiples pages which ironically also contain when they are not applied, were given as "arguments", most notably ;) about a notability issue. The "Save" side responded to that and other issues with numbers, arguments and references, which seemed to have been dismissed as simply irrelevant when they weren't. A number of posters, me included, also suggested that a Merge/Transfer be a lesser evil, seeing that a number of other articles on the same subject matter, indie rpg or retro-clone rpgs, are already on wikipedia and constitutes again a valid subject for inclusion. The editor has thus wrongly concluded that the consensus was for deletion and should have at least moved to have the article Merged/Transferred instead of deleted. --Gebeji 142.213.176.140 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure This is an encyclopedia; subjects for articles must be notable, which generally means that significant coverage of them exists in reliable sources. This AfD debate centered on whether a website consisting of user-submitted content could be considered a reliable source establishing the subject's notability. The votes to delete were rooted in policy, which says such a website cannot be considered a reliable source. The votes to keep essentially supported ignoring that because coverage in what policy considers reliable sources did not exist. Of course, if such coverage does not exist, then the article does not meet the standards for notability. Those seeking deletion therefore had much stronger arguments, and the closing admin correctly gave them more weight. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a mischaracterization of the debate. First of all there were many more sources cited than just the one in contention. Second if you read the policy, the discounting of "self-published sources," which is, I suppose, what you are referring to, is mainly on sources that are not Independant, which is not the case for RPG.net. I'm not sure that characterization of RPG.net is accurate given what it is; that is, a collection of reviews of RPGs. In any case, as I've pointed out before, that's not the only source cited. After all, in general if something is only discussed on one source, reliable or not, that's usually not enough for notability. And, again, RPG.net is considered a reliable source in all the other articles on Wikipedia for the genre of Indie RPGs. But back to the subject, as noted before, the appropriate standard for notability here, based on policy, is WP:WEB (which, besides being noted on the policy for notability of books, is also mentioned as justification for the WikiProject RPGs notes on Notability. The keep side cited numerous sources, including .edu sites, to establish notability in a genre where most of the articles I found only had RPG.net and theRPGsite as sites establishing notability. None of these sources, and none of the references to policy by the keep side, have been refuted in the Afd or elsewhere. If you are going to argue that the delete was based on policy, you should explain why you think that rather than just pointing to policy. Even discounting RPG.net, what is your basis for discounting the other sources mentioned? Rifter0x0000 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There could have been no other outcome of this debate than a close as "delete". The keep !votes were either not based on guidelines, or were refuted (particularly in respect of the reliability of sources). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no refutation of my arguments, which included sources and explained the guidelines on which they were based. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The arguments for keep were based on the rationale that web-based user submitted reviews were sufficient to establish notability, which they are not. Delete was the correct decision. J04n(talk page) 21:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, read my arguments in the Afd and here. I cited a lot more than just the one source. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion After discounting the non-policy votes that were advanced by the single-purpose accounts, there is a clear consensus among the established editors that this topic does not pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The constant claim that the only arguments for keep came from single purpose accounts is inflammatory. At least several of the accounts used, including this one, are not new editors and definitely not single purpose accounts. I'd also invite you to read the policy again regarding such accounts, as well as editors who come to discussions for a "cause." You might notice that, despite assertions here to the contrary, even if such accusations are true (they aren't here), the arguments are not supposed to be discounted on their face, although they might be met with more scrutiny, but rather should be evaluated just as anyone else's are, on the basis of their arguments. The arguments for keeping the article cited policy and explained why the relevant policy applies. I can't say the same for the delete side, and in any case the policy arguments and citations (other than one citation) were never met with rebuttal. So is there a point besides repeating arguments which have already been shown to be false (claims of SPAs, one source, and no policy cited)? Rifter0x0000 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (delete). Email delete content to anyone interested, and refer to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Web sources of this type can in exceptional cases be reliable, but there was no adequate attempt to establish them as being reliable. Reasonable discussion, and the closer did right to disregard the arguments which do not make sense in the context of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we did provide some arguments, based on the Wikipedia article on RPG.net and thus the sources it points to, on why the site might be used to establish notability, being an authoritative source in its genre. We also pointed to Wikipedia policy regarding this, as well as the fact that it's being used to establish notability in other articles in this genre. We also submitted many other sources for review, none of which have been addressed. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no reasonable chance this could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I find Juliancolton's closes highly accurate, and I understand why he closed this debate in this way.
There is, however, a real discussion to be had over whether the debate itself was defective. Quite arguably, an rpg.net review is a reliable source. (Disclosure: I'm a registered member of that site and have, in the past, used it quite heavily.) I think that issue is not clear at all, and (just from memory) I suspect there may have been AfDs in the past wherein rpg.net was treated as reliable. Personally, I think rpg.net reviews do seem to be independent and tolerably trustworthy.
I think there's a little more to this than the very clear-cut aspects that are obvious to anyone at first glance, and maybe it's worth asking the Wikiproject on RPGs for a view?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I'd like to point out again that despite the rampant misunderstanding (or misrepresentation?) RPG.net was not the only source pointed at for notability. The delete side did attack it as a source, but did not give any arguments for any of the other numerous sources cited and linked to in the arguments to keep, not a single one. For some reason the discussion is being characterized as being solely over whether RPG.net is a reliable source. That is not true. Actually there was some discussion of RPG.net as a reliable source, because the delete side objected to it, but replies with Wikipedia policies and other sources were (and remain) unanswered. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can write a review for RPG.net, so they're no more reliable than IMDB in that sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be so, but Wikipedia does use IMDB as a source both for information and notability. Check out some of the articles on movies and actors. In any case, I hate to sound repeititious, but RPG.net is not our only source here. It was one of many. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMDB is not a source of reliable information. If it's used in articles, it should be removed as a source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It appears that the reliability of IMDB has been discussed extensively. I cannot find any indication of a consensus, contrary to the above. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's been long standing consensus that sites without editorial oversite (ie. Wikis, IMDB, personal blogs, etc.) are not considered reliable sources. The link you gave shows that there has been no consensus to change that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are doing it again, speaking with acronyms and citing policies as Truth that cannot be denied, yet you seemingly do not apply them equally and/or fairly because a lot of other pages on similar subjects are listed on your site and they are not up for deletion as evidenced by some comments made even here about valid sources (and please dont tell me i'm not allowed to invoke other pages, i've seen the note, as well as the assume good faith bit). From an outside view like mine, it looks like everything is written in favor of the editors and that you are not even trying to save anything that doesn't fit into a neat prepackaged form : doesn't meet established parameters, delete, doesn't meet established parameters, delete... its like trying to have a discussion with a computer.

Anyway, not that it will change anything since the decision is already made, but since you're so kind to put policies and guidelines as Truths, i have been told that arguments based on obscurity and personal dislike are not valid (WP:Obscure, WP:idontlikeit ?), yet seemed to be the basis for some of the first deletion posts, and that one of the poster actually put the article back on deletion after it has passed deletion review, which is not allowed (WP:Disruption ?). Furthermore, note that against the endorse arguments stated above, even if some of the arguments for saving the article weren't policy/guidelines based (not everybody in the world speaks WP), the notability/reliability of sources were indeed refuted (you just don't agree with them), the notability issue wasn't just limited to rpg.net (i have stated that a number of web sites, around 4 000, list the game in a google search) and that an alternative was given to keep the article (Merge/Transfer) but wasn't even considered (deletion was of course the only reasonable outcome).

As a last observation, if you want to keep the elite only status you apparently want for WP, please verify beforehand that an article meet your WP:severe and WP:unclear guidelines by having it submitted to a review board of editors, instead of allowing anybody to write anything and then come out of the blue, sometimes years after its written, telling them they do not meet your criterias, but can't tell them what to do to meet them (but feel free to browse through tens of pages of policies to try to find out why we did). That will save you and us a lot of grief (remember WP:dramafreezone ;) --Gebeji 74.58.215.192 (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent: I'm not a single-purpose account, nor a WikiLawyer. I strongly disagree with the claims that a consensus existed or that no other outcome was reasonable. In media in which electronic journals are the primary or sole publications -- and this happens to be the case for indie gaming -- authoritative Web sources can be significant. Worse, the level of discourse here and in the closing statement treats those who advocated Keep or Merge outcomes as dishonest or idiotic; this tends toward invicility. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, claiming that the argument was that these people are "dishonest or idiotic" is itself highly uncivil. DreamGuy (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that coming from the one who started it all... we already know where you stand, and by looking at your own talk page with the big warning about harassment on top, you certainly seems to know how to make friends, and those two bits taken from that page speaks for themselves : «Get the required number of reliable sources to demonstrate notability and you'll be fine. If you can't then I guess it isn't notable for the non-cognoscenti on Wikipedia.»« I've blocked you for 1 week following continued disruptive editing against consensus. » WP:evidence ? ;) --Gebeji 74.58.215.192 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the proof is in the pudding. Both on the Afd and here the claims of WP:SPA and WP:MEAT have been made as reasons to ignore the arguments to keep, in place of rebuttal. That's not very civil, and neither is claiming otherwise when called on it. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. About as straightforward as it gets. Tim Song (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dissent First of all, the argument did not center on "one website" being a reliable source. The Keep arguments referenced a number of different websites. Second of all, the claim that the keep arguments came from single purpose accounts is both inflammatory and untrue, besides being inconsistent with WP:FAITH. Third, neither the decision to close based on consensus to delete nor the initial call to delete were based in policy, as the first gave no reasons at all and the second gave a reason that was untrue (that M&M was only discussed on one site). If numerous sites can be cited, the claim that only one site exists cannot continue to be upheld ignoring the evidence. Fourth, the arguments to keep indeed were both rooted in and quoted policy, for instance pointing out that WP:OBSCURE is not a reason for deletion (the source of several delete arguments), that because the content referenced is an ebook WP:WEB applies, such that coverage on websites counts toward notability. The web coverage (again, as shown in referenced links in the keep arguments), was not limited to user-submitted forum posts or blogs, but included articles on .edu sites and sites for RPG conventions.
- As to the review sites which were argued as not being suitable to prove notability, they are considered suitable for that purpose for numerous other articles on Wikipedia in the genre within which this falls; WP:OTHERSTUFF, while clearly stating that the existence of other articles is not in itself an argument to keep, specifically states that articles on the same subject are. In this case the subject is indie RPGs, and there are numerous examples, besides the fact that the sources used for establishing notability for this article are themselves not only considered notable for the purposes of including articles about them in Wikipedia, and that they are considered authoritative in the area of indie RPGs and were used to establish notability of other indie RPGs which lacked the extensive coverage on additional websites that M&M has (again, referenced in the keep comments). There is also a claim on the delete side of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, which is repeated here. If the sources are supposed to be unencyclopedic there is a burden to explain why.
- If I am not mistaken in my reading of the logs, this article was already put up for deletion, deleted, and then revived due to deletion review before being proposed for deletion again right after it was revived; this would beg the question of why an article which was brought back by deletion review could reasonably be immediately proposed for deletion.
- Now back to the most contentious of the sites used as evidence of notability, RPG.net. The site is, as described in its article (and quoted in the keep discussions), "the second largest roleplaying forum, after Wizards of the Coast." There are user-submitted reviews on there, but the reviews for M&M on the site were not done by people who were associated with M&M (which would be the only legitimate reason to discount them as sources). The purpose of RPG.net is to provide reviews of RPGs, which are necessarily user-submitted, and the site is considered authoritative in the area of indie RPGs. The site not having its own in-house reviewers for games should not, IMHO, be used against the reliability and verifiability of the reviews; this is the mechanic the site uses to get reviews of otherwise obscure games, and is the same method used for Wikipedia.
- The fact the very terse arguments for deletion of this article are demonstrably false (demonstrated in the arguments to keep, with sources and references to policy and web articles), as well as the arguments here, which repeat the arguments for deletion with no reference to the previous rebuttals and, again, very terse and vague arguments with no reference or sources, again demonstrably false (with references to this fact) would seem, in my opinion, not only to point to the weakness of the arguments to delete and uphold deletion but to effectively so refute them as to render them null and void. If the deleters wish to continue to support their assertion in the face of rebuttal and evidence, they should be required to respond to said rebuttals and provide their own evidence. Failure to do so would seem to concede the battle. Continuing to repeat previous arguments which do not explain themselves (simply saying things like that the article is not notable or encyclopedia without expounding as to why or explaining objections in any detail) doesn't seem to me to be a valid method for debate. Requiring standards of notability which do not follow the relevant Wikipedia policy, as cited, besides requiring at the very least some explanation for such deviation, would at the very least not in itself be following policy.
- One side note: I do not think it was right that arguments to keep were edited afterwards by editors supporting deletion. In at least one case, the invalid, incorrect assertion that headcount was relevant and thus the editing justified in order to prevent double voting was cited as justification for the edits. The fact this assertion was made points to a misunderstanding of policy (beside the other misunderstandings of policy enumerated here and on the Afd page), and the fact the Afd close does not cite reasons but simply claims consensus makes me worry that the page was wrongly interpreted via headcount instead of on the merits of the arguments provided (especially since, as noted before, the arguments to keep were not rebutted by those proposing deletion). This may not be the case, but I would like at least to see some explanation why it is not.
- Ultimately some explanation of why this article's subject does not conform to the requirements of WP:WEB is deserved, and if it cannot be successfully made, the deletion should be overturned again. I would look forward to at least seeing some arguments to delete that attempt rebuttal of the arguments to keep, if they can indeed be made in the face of the evidence for the arguments to keep. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just so it is not missed; we did not repeat the arguments to keep here in the name of not simply repeating previous arguments, but they should be consulted for reference here. I would also call upon whoever reviews this deletion review to remember than neither Afd nor Delrev are votes; Wikipedia policy requires that the merits of the arguments be weighed. Arguments like "it's straighforward", It's not notable, it's not encyclopedic, and arguments which link to policy without expounding on any argument or explaining the conclusion are specifically listed as not valid arguments according to wikipedia policy and common sense. If the sources are questionable there should be an explanation as to why an editor thinks this is true, and they should address all the sources and arguments rather than just relying on attacking one. In my opinion the editors arguing for deletion have not addressed the arguments given by the other side, and have not given any evidence for their assertions or explanations for their views. The keep side has refuted every argument given by the deletes, with reference to sources both in references and in wikipedia policy. For the delete side to simply continue to repeat their assertions with no explanation, especially when their claims have been demonstrated as false (e.g. "it's only on one website"), does not seem to be productive, and if this is all they can muster for argument any reasonable person should conclude that they have lost. I would again point out that for this genre of article the most contentious source quoted, and the only one those arguing for delete have referenced at all, is considered valid both as a source and for the purposes of establishing notability for a number of other wikipedia articles in this genre (Indie RPGs). I must also point out that a number of other sources were referenced by the arguments to keep, none of which were referred to or refuted by those arguing to delete. Therefore, again, the argument that "debeate centered on whether one website was notable" is demonstrably false. Other sources and references to Wikipedia policy were made, and the delete votes had no answer at all for these arguments. Even here, they have not referenced them, but repeated past arguments which have been shown to be invalid. I hope that whoever reviews this keeps these facts in mind. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Upon suggestion of others I have brought this discussion to the attention of WikiProject Role-playing games. I would also call attention to that wikiproject's page discussing what makes an RPG notable. The sources that were presented for notability of this article were both independant and verifiable. No argument has even been attempted as to how Wikipedia policy impeaches the credibility of the sources in question. This is telling in my opinion. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WikiProjects are not entitled to set lower notability guidelines for articles within their purview (or any articles at all, for that matter). Stifle (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you read the notability guidelines they list? They don't set a lower bar for notability; they just have some further information on establishing it. I only referred to them because they reiterate wikipedia policies for notability I have already linked (which have remained unanswered). Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Standard AFD procedure is that the "votes" of new and unregistered users, or users who have been specifically canvassed for their point of view, are given less weight. This was followed correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you getting this from? As I have pointed out many times, according to Wikipedia policy Afds are not votes. I have linked that policy every time. Please review the policy again. The outcome of Afd is decided by the arguments presented, not headcount. So posts with no argument at all, whether they come from new or established users, have zero weight. There is no policy in Wikipedia to ignore the arguments of new users (and in any event the arguments for keep, despite unfair accusations, did not come from new users or single purpose accounts (hint: I am far from a new user, and certainly not an SPA). If arguments for keep were discounted altogether because of this, not only is it an unjustified reason, not grounded in Wikipedia policy, but unfair on its face. The fact that the delete side repeatedly claims that this is a vote, and gives posts with no argument other than a vote for deletion, points to a misunderstanding of policy. The decision to keep or delete an article is supposed to be grounded in policy. The only reference to discounting new users in an Afd discussion is when they have no arguments (in which case any user is discounted) or when they make arguments in bad faith. They are not supposed to be discounted out of hand because "they are new to Wikipedia." All that aside, do you even have a response to my arguments? Have you noticed the links to appropriate policy in them? Have you read those policies? Does the delete side have any arguments that are grounded in policy, and are not these simply inflammatory arguments involving SPAs and such which are not valid arguments for Afds or DelRevs? If you look at my posts, I pointed out that the notability guideline for this sort of article is WP:WEB. I have shown numerous sources, all linked in my arguments, for consideration on that score. I have seen no rebuttal to any of my arguments here or in the Afd. If the decision to delete is to be sustained, there should at least be some argument for the deletion besides what has been so far demonstrated to be false. The fact that our arguments have been misrepresented by the other side makes me think they haven't been read, much less processed. I would invite you to do both, because I would like at least to see some rebuttal of our arguments rather than a simple wave of the hand. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stifle has it right, Rifter. The arguments of new or canvassed users are routinely dismissed. The term "!vote" comes from the realization that this is not a vote (the ! is a computer programming symbol for "not"). That said, you might want to tone down your own rhetoric. Long, repetitive statements like this one tend to come off as a rant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a new or canvassed user, and I think it wise to pay due regard to all sound opinions, whether new or hypothetically canvassed. This page is patently unimportant, but procedurally deserves due process and the opinions of its advocated deserve due regard. My own interest originally lay not so much in the page, but in the seeming disregard for arguments that struck me, at least, as not unreasonable. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what ! means, and stifle did not use it. I linked to the relevant policies on new and canvassed users. Both explicitly say that they are not to be dismissed out of hand, although you might certainly be circumspect in looking at them. Even the policy you linked to first of all warns against claiming SPA reflexively and does not say that even they are to be ignored out of hand. It may be a practice of many Wikipedians to do it, but that's not grounded in policy. There's a difference between giving something less weight and not even bothering to read or respond to them. In any case, I and at least several of the users who have been on the keep side are emphatically not new or single-purpose. And I'm sorry that my arguments seem repetitive and long, but they are repeated because they are ignored (claims of WP:MEAT, WP:NEWBIES, and "only one source" despite refutation with evidence) and they are long because I am trying to point to all the evidence that I can. Policy is being ignored here, and so is evidence. It was claimed that only one site reviewed M&M, so we produced a number of them. We also included sites like rice.edu. Only one site RPG.net has been attacked by the delete side. Is anyone going to speak to the other sites mentioned or are we stuck repeating the argument that there is only one website used as a source (untrue, even in the original article which linked to several sources, besides the Afd that went into more detail) and that website is suspect, therefore delete? Because if you will look at the discussion, even just under my edits, I cite a lot of sources (including rice.edu and similar), refuting the claim (repeated here) that there was only one site under consideration. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a summary of the arguments for deleting as I understand them are:
- "The arguments to keep only come from single-purpose accounts, so we should ignore them altogether." This is untrue, as it can be shown that the accounts used are not single-purpose, and the repeated assertion of this is not in line with WP:CIVIL. Even if it was true, SPA's arguments might have less weight initially, but their arguments aren't supposed to be completely ignored out of hand. If they make a good argument based in policy those arguments should be considered.
- "The keep arguments ask for a special exception from WP:N." Also false. We're only asking that the appropriate notability standard be applied, and that is WP:WEB.
- "The keep arguments cite only one website, which is not a valid source." Also untrue. We have cited numerous websites in the Afd as well as in the original article; it would be nice at least to hear why none of them is acceptable. In any case, even if RPG.net was considered acceptable, one source probably isn't enough to establish notability, and we never suggested it was. I only ask that before we decide to delete these other sources be acknowledged and addressed. The initial delete nomination came with this false claim of "only one website," the delete arguments in the Afd repeated that, and it's being asserted again here in DelRev. We've given links to other sources, so the only conclusion we can draw is that those editors arguing to delete have chosen not to read them. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steen Christensen – Deletion endorsed. However, consensus in the discussion is that the article may be restored if someone is willing to source it immediately. Please contact myself or another sysop if you wish to have the article undeleted temporarily. – NW (Talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted in August 2009 as an attack page. However, the subject of the article, an escaped Danish criminal who shot two police officers in Helsinki, caused wide press coverage in Finland. The article is a direct translation of the original Finnish article, which also includes sources. I think the user who deleted the article had not even heard of the incident but simply saw that the article said that the subject was a bad person, and immediately thought that meant the article had been written as a personal attack. JIP | Talk 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to G10, "Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met," so if a sourced article can indeed be created, it should be.--Milowent (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was an unsourced biography of a living person that described someone as a bank robber and rapist. If you wish, I shall be happy to userfy the article for you, provided that you add sources fairly quickly. NW (Talk) 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and add sources. Because this article was a BLP about a criminal, I suppose G10 may have applied fairly (hard to say since I can't see it). However, G10 should generally be applied only when the sole purpose of the page is to disparage. If it was unclear whether the article was disparaging its subject or not, WP:PROD or WP:AfD may have been better options. If and when this article is restored, however, please do source it rigorously to comply with WP:BLP policy and because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (temporarily) and list at AfD where the question of whether the content constitutes "attack" can be debated. I cannot see a cashe version. It does not sound like the content was so offensive as to prevent temporary restoration (whether in mainspace, or userspace as per NW). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Just needs sources. Optionally list at AfD, but I think the sources will clearly show notability. This was one of the absurd deletions based on merely BLP unsourced without trying to source. The deleting admin would have made it much quicker for everyone to get to a decent article to have done some slight amount of work himself rather than proceed quickly and blindly. Of course, the dozen or so people who worked on the article up to now, would have made it even easier if they had added some sources themselves. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore topic seems reasonable, and I'm perfectly willing to take JIP at his word that the sources in the Finnish version are good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I think the original G10 deletion was valid, as the article was negative in tone (it accused the subject of several horrendous crimes) and it lacked sources. However if the Finnish sources do support the content of the article then I see no problem with restoring it provided the sources are added promptly. Hut 8.5 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore provided that the sources are added soon thereafter. Tim Song (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 January 2010[edit]

Famat – we cannot simply remove the copyvio. It is in the article history and cannot be restored. Please rewrite from scratch – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wrote the article FAMAT (Florida Association of Mu Alpha Theta) about a non-profit organization that hosts High School and Middle School Mathematics Competitions in Florida. It organizes over 20 competitions a year, including an extremely large state convention in April. Around 30 schools and over 1000 students participate in each competition. The records of such competitions are found on FAMAT Website (It lists only the competition from 2010, use the drop-down menu to view more). I can also show notability by supplying a few links of websites that cite their participation in FAMAT.

There are many more schools who participate in FAMAT.

I am not promoting my own organization, I am merely a student participant who feels that this organization is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article.

I thank everyone very much for taking time to write opinions on this matter. Dragoneye776 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Automatic restore~~ as this is a contested prod. Cunard (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per {{db-copyvio}}. The article to which I was referring was FAMAT. Because the review has been changed to discuss Famat, I endorse the deletion as I can find no policy-based reason to undelete a copyright violation. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the statement below confirming that the article is NOT a copyright violation. Dragoneye776 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as deleting admin -- this is merely a state affiliate of Mu Alpha Theta, and all of the cited sources merely show its existence, not its notability per WP:N. As far as the automatic restore, note that the original prod deletion was of a different article, two years before the recreation of the article in question. Famat (as opposed to the above-cited article) was speedily deleted per category A7. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that an organization who organizes over 20 competitions a year (the records are in the link I provided initially) each of which attract about 1000 students from 30 schools across Florida (can be see in clicking the results) as well a large state convention, is considered "not notable". Dragoneye776 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to the issue that this is only a state chapter: The National Federation of State High School Association is a national organization of several smaller state chapter. One of them is the Florida High School Athletic Association. Just like there exists a Wikipedia article for National Mu Alpha Theta, there should also exist an article for a chapter as large as the one in Florida, FAMAT is Florida Association of Mu Alpha Theta. The Florida Chapter has its own unique history, its unique testing standards, competition format, schedules, grading system, executive board, student delegate board, and acts independently of National Mu Alpha Theta is many other respects. Thus, it is notable and important enough to deserve its own article. Dragoneye776 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion of copyvio article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This was speedily deleted as a copyvio; according to DRV rules above, "under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations...be restored." For what it's worth, the organization probably doesn't meet WP:ORG. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not violate any copyright agreements. The contested information was cited from FAMATCGRAPH located on the official FAMAT website which is not copyright. Just because another webpage uses that public information does not mean that the information is now copyright. Dragoneye776 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you show where it says that that PDF or other content of the webpage is public domain? I cannot find any copyright statement. Current copyright law states that everything written is copyrighted unless there is an explicit statement otherwise, see the Copyright article and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I was not aware that all information is copyrighted unless otherwise noted. In that case, only one section of the FAMAT article contains copyright material. Can that section be removed and the rest of the article be restored? I have already shown that the organization is notable. Dragoneye776 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse even if the copyvio were somehow cleared up, this would not pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown that this organization is notable. Look on the website that I have provided to confirm. To reiterate, it is an organization who organizes over 20 competitions a year (the records are in the link I provided initially) each of which attract about 1000 students from 30 schools across Florida. Why do you think that it is not notable? Dragoneye776 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as copyvio. The vast majority of the text was taken from a source which is not licenced appropriately for use on Wikipedia, and this content was present from the first revision of the article. I note, though, that the URL given in the speedy deletion tag on the article points to a Wikipedia mirror. Hut 8.5 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed that we can simply remove the one excerpt that is a copyright violation. I believe that the rest of the article should be restored. All but one of the above votes cited 'copyvio', if the copyright violation is removed then there is no reason to delete it.Dragoneye776 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

ServerPronto – Endorse – GlassCobra 19:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consensus on delete not reached. Further discussion is warranted. 207.244.164.53 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the nominator. I will only note that admins are allowed to give less weight to single-purpose accounts (although I wish they would bother explaining themselves! Sigh). One keep !voter had only worked on the deleted article, and the other had not made an edit since December 2008. Fences&Windows 13:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article with the intention of being solely informative and objective. I believe it was unfairly characterized as advertising. I believe the deletion was possibly unwarranted, and premature (pending further input in discussion). I would propose reinstating, and allowing further editing of the article to come in closer compliance with Wikipedia standards. --Prieur3 (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)— Prieur3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Endorse - The AfD was open a full 7 days, and attracted at least 5 participants. Proper close. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The six contributions (including the nomination) were sufficient for the admin to see a consensus. That consensus was clear: of the two keep !votes, one was not based on policy at all - the objectivity of the article is not relevant, only the notability of the subject is; the other merely asserted notability in a subjective way without any reference to policy. The delete votes, or at least three of them, were soundly based on policy and made convincing arguments that there was not significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of the subject. There was therefore a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse neither keep vote appears rooted in policy, and both were from probable SPAs. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clearly endorsed by what happened at the discussion. Miami33139 (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct reading of consensus. The delete recommendations were all based in policy reasons why the article did not meet the standards of notability or verifiability required, neither keep !vote offered a policy based reason, nor refuted the lack of independent sources. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Those arguing for deletion made a strong argument – that the article failed to meet notability standards. Those arguing against deletion did not refute those arguments, nor did they offer policy-based arguments to keep. One "keep" voter argued that the article was objective; however, that issue was not raised by those seeking deletion. The other "keep" voter made a WP:LOCALFAME-type argument, which is an argument to avoid that was likely discarded by the closing admin. Consensus was reached. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nothing wrong with the AFD or its closure as far as I can tell, and nominator doesn't really give a rationale to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obama administration health care proposal – endorsed – Shereth 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reasons in chronological order:

Prior to the AfD, a series of deletions reduced the article to a straw man.

Then, the AfD began with an incorrect statement that the President had no plan and, therefore, there was no basis for an article. In reality, "The President Plan" is listed on the White House website[6] and reported by major news media.[7]

I was traveling at the time, and so my reply was delayed. By the time I could restore the content and add sources, some 'votes' had already been cast for deletion. (Stated reasons included that the article presented counter-arguments from secondary sources responding to The White House arguments in favor of the plan; the counter-arguments were published in reliable sources but some editors said they were "debunking the White House" and made the article seem biased.)

User:Jayjg then deleted more than 20 nominated articles including this one. I requested a second look, and User:Jayjg replied as follows: "I can only interpret the consensus of the AfD discussion, and the consensus was clearly to delete. If you want to contest this deletion, please feel free to do so at WP:DRV."

Since then, President Obama went to Massachusetts to help the Senate campaign of Attorney General Coakley, who had promised to vote for his plan. She lost by seven points, to a Republican who promised to provide the 41st vote against the President's plan; it's the first time Massachusetts has elected a Republican senator since 1972.[8] Nationally, the Congressional bills that reflect The President's Plan are trailing by 17 points,[9] i.e. 10 points more than the margin that defeated Coakley.

WP currently has no article on The President's Plan; the AfD was based on the misstatement that he has no plan. It is covered briefly in the more extensive article on the Health care reform debate in the United States, but that article is so long WP is automatically suggesting it should be broken into smaller articles. The article on The President's plan linked to 22 sources, including 19 secondary sources, and would contain more if it were there to add to. In my opinion, anyone who thought the article biased against the plan could simply have added more arguments in its favor, e.g. from The White House website. The fact that Americans, by a 17-point margin, think the arguments against the plan stronger than the arguments in favor, is not really the fault of the article. Deleting the article simply creates a gap in WP.TVC 15 (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Looking at the AfD, the closing admin made the correct decision, the delete arguments were all based on policy that where never adequately refuted. The notability was never an issue, the facts that the information was covered elsewhere and that this article violated WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV were the issues. If TVC 15 wants the article userfied to address the WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV issues I would see no reason to object. J04n(talk page) 04:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article or add most of the content, but seeing it userfied to address perceived issues would be better than losing it entirely. A list of specific examples of WP:SYNTH would help in that regard. As for WP:NPOV, the issue with covering a debate is that the arguments on one side may simply be stronger than the arguments on the other. A fair trial does not always result in a hung jury.TVC 15 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: DrV request has little to do with whether close was proper, which it appears to have been, i.e., a proper reading of consensus not in conflict with wikipedia policies. I have no clue what Martha Choke-ley has to do with this.--Milowent (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, let's at least agree what WP:DRV says: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." So, this does appear to be the right forum. Wikipedia policies were indeed cited in the discussion, but that does not mean they were applied correctly. A purpose of WP, I think, is so that people who "have no clue" about a topic can get one, or preferably more than one. Attorney General Coakley, who had campaigned successfully for statewide office and should have been able to do so again, lost largely because she underestimated the deep unpopularity of The President's Plan; she actually polled much better than his plan does, even though she promised to vote for it, while her opponent (who signs autographs as "41") promised to provide the 41st vote against it.TVC 15 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure After a lengthy debate, the consensus was clearly to delete. Only one participant voted to keep, and while his arguments should not be disregarded entirely, the consensus in the debate was clearly against them. Voters in the AfD instead generally felt that the article was a WP:CFORK, WP:NPOV violation, or WP:SYNTHESIS. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was not really as "lengthy" as it might appear, because the first half was about a straw man and the debate on the repaired article was only allowed two days. When people are returning from (or catching up from) holiday travel, and do not have much time to devote to hobbies like WP, two days is not "lengthy." Given the excessive size (according to WP's KB count) of the main article, the WP:CFORK point could best have been addressed by transferring content from the main article to the now-deleted article, instead of leaving the main article too long and no article on the clearly notable President's Plan. There were no specific examples of WP:SYNTHESIS cited; to the contrary, the first half of the debate labored under the misimpression that the President had no Plan and therefore the whole article must be synthesis. The WP:NPOV arguments consisted mainly of wanting the debate to come out differently; if proponents had better arguments available, they could simply have added them, instead of deleting. A better result might be userfication, as was suggested above, so that there is an opportunity to identify and address specific issues (see WP:HEY).TVC 15 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the changes were so drastic that they may have persuaded the original voters to vote for keeping the article, you probably should have alerted them to the changes on their talk pages and asked them to reconsider their votes. That said, those who did participate in the AfD during the last two days still supported deleting the article as a WP:SYNTHESIS and POV fork. My impression is that the final version of the article was, in the minds of the voters, a synthesis of the president's plan and arguments refuting various aspects of the plan. The NPOV arguments therefore did hold water, and the consensus was against you. I've no problem with userfying and then returning to the mainspace so long as the issues raised in the debate are resolved. If you continue to assert that there were no issues, even in the face of consensus that there were, then that's probably futile. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in trying to replicate the Heymann standard. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion about talk pages - in retrospect, I should also have alerted the people who had edited the article previously. Also, I accept your point about futility; it isn't enough that I personally thought the article should (and did) present both sides of the debate, it needs WP:CONSENSUS, although that is difficult when some editors insist on deleting arguments that they disagree with. Any article on a debate must include both sides, in this case the President's Plan and arguments for and against it; WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR might apply to original arguments not presented by either side, but not to direct quotes from reliable sources (WP:RS). That distinction did appear lost on the voters for deletion, but if the article is userfied, I will invite them to point out specific examples of perceived WP:SYNTHESIS in case phrasing needs to be narrowed to match sourcing or more sources need to be found. (In the healthcare reform debate article, one editor decided to 'balance' a negative statement about the current bills with some verbiage about Obama passing a stimulus package, even though it had nothing to do with the healthcare debate; some people do seem to see every policy debate involving the President as a forum to attack or defend him personally, rather than a substantive debate about a specific policy.)TVC 15 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - "I disagree with the closing" is not a valid DRV filing reason. Closing admin appear to have made no errors in judgment or violated any policy in closing. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is obviously notable, and WP now has no article on it. Since consensus appears to be towards endorsing closure, I suggest userfication and including restoring the revision history so that contributors to the article and its talk page can be invited to participate. As I recall, the nominator for deletion had never provided any discussion on the article's talk page.TVC 15 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

endorse and incubate' the arguments for deletion were all that this article had a POV problem. The debate made it plain that the parent article was too large and so a NPOV version is reasonable. Also the previous version may have had less of a POV issue. Let the user try to fix it outside of mainspace (rather than restarting such a huge task from the ground up) and let others keep an eye on it. Once it's in good shape, all reasons for deletion expressed in the AfD will have been solved. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The primary argument was not that the article had POV problems (which it did, it read like some "refuting Obama" blog) but that it was a content fork of an article that already exists. If that article grows too large (it is still within reasonable limits), then summary style would be to bud off a section from that article into a new article. Summary style is not an excuse to keep an article that should otherwise be deleted. Userification would just create the same problem all over again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looneymonkey's "refuting Obama" comment above is an example of a basic flaw in Loonymonkey's analysis: refusal to distinguish between (a) the President personally, and (b) the President's Plan. Public approval of the President's handling of healthcare has dropped from 57% to 36% [10] because people disagree with the Plan and the arguments for it. (Loonymonkey also denied that the President had a Plan, but that's a different problem.) Meanwhile, the President's overall job approval is around 50%. Either 40 million people were brainwashed by a biased Wikipedia article, or they see something Loonymonkey refuses to see. Perhaps the best way to address Loonymonkey's comment above is to put the text and sources of the deleted article into the debate article, notifying the editors of the deleted article where to find it. Either way, writing about a debate requires including arguments from opposing sides - if one side is actually more convincing than the other, that doesn't imply biased POV in the article.TVC 15 (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reality may vary one way or the other, but my reading of the AfD is that the POV issues were the largest (NPOV content fork) and that the parent could stand to be split was also largely undisputed as far as I can tell. I think it would be ideal if the main article had a short paragraph or two on the subject and that an article with this title be linked to. Can we really get there? Not sure. That's way I've suggested this happen outside of mainspace. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed, perhaps, but only because there was just one person was raising those objections repeatedly and not every one of their posts could be answered before the AfD was closed. If the other article is too large, it should be budded off to a daughter article, but that's no reason for another article to exist as a fork (and a highly POV one at that). As for the subject, one of the big problems with this deleted article is that it wasn't really about anything. When it was pointed out that there wasn't actually any "plan" described in the article, the same editor cut and pasted a series of general FAQ bullet points from the Whitehouse website and then "refuted" each one with various anti-Obama quotes. Not exactly the basis for a proper Wikipedia article. Obviously, Obama's position on this needs to be described on Wikipedia along with notable criticism, and it is, in several places. But as for a single "plan," that's a moving target as the political winds shift. If the article were about a specific speech or position paper outlaying a plan, that would be one thing. But it wasn't. It was just a collection of quotations, and was entirely redundant to better text in the other article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, "The President's Plan" is listed on the White House website[11] and reported by major news media.[12]. Also, the article's revision history would show that the article was created with arguments from the White House website, the counter-arguments were added later, and the actions attributed above to me were mostly by other editors. (I did, however, restore their work after Loonymonkey's deletions turned the article into a straw man.) It is unfortunate that the deletion of the article's history would become an opportunity for a deleter to revise that history, and I hope that anyone with access to it will take a moment to check on that.TVC 15 (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a problem with inclubation. Does anyone doubt the subject meets our inclusion guidelines? Does anyone seriously argue that the parent page isn't too large? Does anyone argue that a previous version of the article was fairly POV free (though sourced to primary sources)? It's fixable. Let's just not let it come back into mainspace without a DrV. Hobit (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I ever saw a version that could be called POV free (or even that conformed to the most minimal of Wikipedia guidelines). As for this repeated accusation that the article was "turned into a strawman," I and other editors removed some terrible, terrible soapboxing and tendentious editing. Anyone with access to the history should take a look and make their judgements as to whether they feel the prior versions were appropriate. The article was bad when it was deleted and even worse in earlier versions, not that it matters because it wasn't the content but the fact that it was a content fork that got it deleted. None of this really matter here, though. This isn't a do-over of the AfD. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 January 2010[edit]

Nagaruban Arumugam – Speedy deletion is Overturned. AfD as editorial discretion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A doctor whose service earned mentions in the Australian Parliament, editorial in a leading state newspaper and various news media deserves a properly referenced page in wiki. Wiki should not be merely for 'sensational' celibrities. True servants of the people should also be given a fair share. It is within the spirit of Wiki. 6billionth sapien (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD. Mentioned in the Australian parliament; this is a claim of how he might be important and is worth discussing. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete passed an AFD and therefore can't be speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Starblind "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagaruban Arumugam was a speedy keep in November. Of note though it was to be merged with Medical resident work hours which never happened, so I believe a second Afd is appropriate. J04n(talk page) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overtern to merge. This was speedily deleted for being "spam" without mentioning a criteria but the one that applies to spammy pages is WP:CSD#G11, "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". However there was nothing promotional about the article at the time of deletion, so this criterion did not apply. Alternatively, the deleting admin could have been characterising it (with a poor choice of words) as a biographical article that does not assert the importance of its subject (WP:CSD#A7), however a sourced statement that his death was discussed in the Australian parliament is a clear assertion of notability, making it ineligible under this criteria. Furthermore the article had been speedily kept (in favour of a merge) at a prior AfD and so would not have been eligible for speedy deletion, even if it did meet the requirements of a specific criteria (which it did not). As the consensus at the AfD was to merge, and there has not been any significant additional claims made to notability since then, my suggestion is that this deletion be overturned and the merge be expedited. I would not object to it being sent to AfD a second time though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Article makes credible claim of notability and was closed as keep at previous AfD, making it ineligible for speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD per Stifle and Alansohn, ineligible for speedy deletion. GlassCobra 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as none of the speedy deletion criteria applied and the article had only very recently passed (albeit a weak discussion that seems to have resulted in a merge solution) an AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Should not have been speedy deleted due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagaruban Arumugam. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, AfD at editorial discretion. As Thryduulf writes, the cached version seems to pass both G11 and A7. The AfD was correctly closed speedy keep (Criterion 1) without a decision on a merger. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, I did not close the AfD as a merge. I thought my close was fairly clear that merger should be discussed on the talk page, oh well. Also, I disagree that surviving an AfD closed under WP:SK #1 or #2 prevents a future speedy in all cases. In this case, though, given the AfD and the state of the article, I agree that it is not speediable. Overturn, AfD at editorial discretion. Tim Song (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn articles that pass AfD can't be speedily deleted except newly discovered copyright violations. Though the AfD was closed as Speedy Keep, there were plenty of people there who thought the article should be kept. Hut 8.5 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the original proposer at AfD. I've looked really hard at merging, but given the "grueling" hours that Nagaruban Arumugam was working before his car crash was 50/week, and that the mention in the Australian Parliament was a one-liner in a multi-column question by a backbencher trying to make a point about health funding in his electorate (no parliamentary condolence motion, no further mention since), this is totally a WP:1E and not worthy even of mention in Medical resident work hours. There has been no coronial attribution of crash, particularly to exhaustion which would justify mention in Medical resident work hours. In short, not notable due to WP:1E and as best I can tell not worthy of even a mention in an encyclopedia. Josh Parris 20:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow overturn, because I think the consensus is now clear; a normal AfD is of course permissible (and notability arguments properly belong there, not here).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 January 2010[edit]

3D Pose Estimation – Automatic restore of contested prod. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately I cannot discuss the reason for deletion with the original admin, Maxim, as they are on wiki-break. However, the reason for deletion is weak, "Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Seems to be an essay based on a couple of papers by a single author, describing a single technique.. using TW", while yes it does seem an essay describing a single technique, it must be noted that this technique, and in fact the entire "thing" described is a crucial part (and not well understood) region of computer vision.

While essay-ish in nature, this deleted article does well in describing 3D Pose Estimation and how it is handled. Any University level student wishing to know more about 3D Homographies and 3D Pose Estimation would find this article a handy, short, yet powerful description; it rightly highlights some of the short falls of available techniques.

The article shouldn't stand alone as 3D Pose Estimation, but should be merged with Pose Estimation (Computer Vision) under the relevant heading. I am not sure why this was not done originally. I will conceed the article does need a bit of a clean-up.

The deleted article can be found at: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=3D_Pose_Estimation_(deleted_17_Jun_2008_at_02:04) Ratzian (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed DRV fixed. Automatic restore as a contested prod. Tim Song (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Richard Tylman – no consensus to overturn the closure of the debate. This debate certainly cannot be read as an endorsement of the closure, either, for that was a minority opinion in this discussion. A purely "by-the-numbers" reading would seem to indicate a plurality are in favor of overturning to a "delete" decision but insufficient to convince me that any consensus exists here. The issue is compounded by the fact that some of what has gone on here has been a de-evolution from a debate on the merits of the closure to a debate on the merits of the article itself, a-la "AfD round two", which DRV is not. I find it dissatisfying that a review of a "no consensus" closure winds up being closed as "no consensus" itself as it feels like we're merely spinning our wheels in the mud rather than making any progress, but I fear there is no other logical conclusion based in consensus. As always, a "no consensus" closure may result in a re-nomination and I would encourage that possibility, but given the lack of any forward momentum that this debate has at this moment I am reluctant to re-list the existing discussion; I would rather not see the current tug-of-war merely continue. A fresh start may be more beneficial. – Shereth 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a fairly nasty AfD with some sort of WP:EEML-related pre-history and it was closed as no consensus by Lankiveil. My impression, however, is that, once the EEML-related acrimony is peeled away, there was in fact a consensus to delete. The closing admin has been approached twice about re-evaluating the close (there are two threads at his talk page, related to this AfD; the first, rather brief, thread by me and another, extensive, thread, by the nominator, User:Triplestop). The closing admin has indicated there, first briefly[13] and then in more detail[14], that he is not going to change the close. The closing admin said that "In this case, given the fact that a significant minority of editors participating in the discussion argued that the article's subject was notable, I determined when closing the discussion that there was currently no consensus among editors that the subject of the article fails WP:N." In determining consensus it is necessary to look at a combination of factors: raw numbers, expressed strength of the !votes and the strength of the arguments. In this case there were 20 delete !votes (21 counting the nominator) and 10 keep !votes (11 counting the subject of the article, User:Poeticbent, who did note !vote but commented extensively in favor of keeping the article). Of the delete !votes none were expressed as "weak deletes" and there was one "strong delete". Among the keeps, there were several expressed as fairly weak ("weak", "weakish", "seems borderline notable"), namely those by User:Kotniski, User:OlEnglish, User:Alex Bakharev; the "keep" !vote of User:Abd was at least in part procedurally based. The "keep" of User:Collect was based largely on the argument that there is an article about the subject in Polish Wikipedia; a rather weak argument as was pointed out by several AfD participants. There were a few brief perfunctorily expressed !votes on both sides but IMO the delete side was, on the whole, better argued and more policy rooted. The basic delete argument was that there was insufficient amount of specific coverage to justify notability. Given that this is a WP:AUTO case (the article was created and extensively edited by User:Poeticbent), the notability bar should be a little higher rather than lower here. With all due respect to the closing admin, I request overturn and delete. Nsk92 (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the article was created and edited by the subject does not mean that the bar for its inclusion needs to be set any higher than if it wasn't, there were multiple editors that voted to keep and saw no reason to delete the article and the result was clearly no consensus to delete. Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. I was surprised to learn that the Afd was closed as no consensus, just because a minority of editors had tried to assert the subject's notability without being able to substantiate that claim. Also, it seems the closing admin did not address the grave conflict of interest concerns with this subject/editor. -- Matthead Discuß 12:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sustain No reasonable person can fail to see the lack of consensus in the AfD. And DRV is not the place to attack any edoitor for having a "weak argument" -- I would ask that such material above as appears to directly attack me be struck forthwith. "Weak" and the like are not relevant to weighing !votes -- the issue is that arguments were presented on both sides, with neither side getting a consensus. Lastly, DRV is a place to assert that the closer erred. The nom here appears to argue that the AfD erred. By the way, those who shout "EEML" as a reason for deletion appear to have a pretty weak argument themselves <g>. I did not find it anywhere on the reasons for deletion lists. And if the nom wishes the article deleted from the Polish WP, there is a valid process there for him to pursue which should be followed. Collect (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. Admins weigh the strength of arguments when determining the outcome. "Weak" is a valid descriptor of arguments that do not support policy. And the fact that an article exists on a foreign language Wikipedia is rather weak. Those Wikis do not always adhere to the same policies we do, and the article could simply exist because no one has bothered to delete it yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reread the above. The editor said some people described their own !vote as "weak" which does not mean that they felt any argument was weak, but, far more usually, that they felt there are arguments on both sides of the issue. Nor does "weak" have anything whatsoever to do with "policy" or non-policy based arguemnts. I would note, moreover, that the Polish Wiki does have a deletion procedure. If the people on that Wiki see fit to delete the article as being "non-notable" that would have some weight. Absent such an act, I tend to believe that we should respect opinions of other Wikis, just as we expect them to respect us. This discussion, which ought to be a review of the closing of the AfD, has turned into an ersatz new AfD, which is, imn my opinion, not a wise use of DRV. Collect (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia can not ever be invoked as a reliable source to pass WP:V. Triplestop x3 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you will note I made no such use of WP. What you apparently object to, and which is not WP:CIRCULAR, is the reasoning that the primary place where a BLP is located (in this case, in the Polish WP) is the place where deletion should first occur on the basis that the subject of the BLP is, oddly enough, Polish. This is unrelated to WP:V entirely. If you feel strongly enogh that the person should have his BLP deleted, it is reasonable that you do so first on the Polish WP where an orderly process exists. Collect (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - No, you misread. The OP does discuss people who use "Weak Keep" and such, but he also discusses arguments who are weak (ie. strength). I was clarifying your misread of that point. Regardless, that's not an "attack" to point out that an argument is weak. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to assess the closure of an AfD on this wiki. Your argument is irrelevant. Triplestop x3 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. or alternatively relist to generate a more thourough discussion by uninvolved editors. Only one keep! actually addressed the notability and presented third-party sources (though in my opinion not sufficient as one source is an interview with the subject himself, and the other is an interview in which the subject is mentioned in one sentence - not enough to create an article that satisfies WP:V), whereas most deletes! discussed the lack of sources and the deficiencies of the sources presented. I also note that there are some apparent BLP problems as the subject of the article himself complained several times about alleged BLP attacks. Pantherskin (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. After carefully reading over the whole AfD, it seems that WP:ANYBIO is not met. The Glos article is the only source that appears to meet WP:V. Multiple independent sources would need to be provided to establish notability, particularly because no one succesfully argued that the Glos article meets WP:RS. J04n(talk page) 13:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. I find it a little troubling that a point-of-view is put forward that in order for there to be consensus, all !votes must be delete. There was a clear minority keep !votes: a handful of keeps do not mean no consensus automatically. If that were the case, we may as well stop AfDs altogether, as one keep would cancel any deletes. Other factors are obviously at play here and I feel the delete !votes, clearly in the majority, were also, and most importantly, stronger in their arguments for deletion. There was a clear consensus here for delete and the proper closing should have been as delete. I find the arguments for keep to be mostly vague and I don't see sufficient evidence of notability per WP:BIO. freshacconci talktalk 15:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer, I think this is a mischaracterisation. A lone dissenter wouldn't break consensus, but in this case a third of editors commenting disagreed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse If this had been closed delete I don't think I'd call for an overturn, at the same time I don't think it's clear enough to overturn the NC. IMHO it's right on the edge between NC and delete, but NC seems to be within admin discression.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete The keep votes that stated the subject is notable were either mere opinion or assertion, not substantiated by fact. The one keep vote that was actually well reasoned was refuted extensively. Per WP:Rough consensus, the result should have been delete. Both strength of arguments and head count clearly favor delete. I note that the closing admin claimed to have weighted arguments, yet justified the no consensus close based upon there being "multiple votes for Keep". Triplestop x3 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete While it is true there were a significant minority of users looking to keep the article, all but one of those attempted to advance a reason based in policy and evidence to justify their opinion. Every single one of the points made by this solitary keep commenter were soundly refuted by those looking to delete. So discounting the WP:ILIKEIT-style comments, the many and extensive ad hominem comments and other non-policy based recommendations, there was a clear consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. As per comments of J04n, this article lacks any sources which meet WP:RS or WP:V. Without such sources, WP:BIO requirements can not be satisfied. WP:ILIKEIT should not be the basis of whether or not an article is kept or deleted but the vast majority of the minority of votes for keep were based on very very little more than WP:ILIKEIT.Varsovian (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. The solitary "Keep" comment which attempted a rationale worthy of consideration relied on an interview in the Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki (a weekly neighborhood magazine). That doesn't cut the mustard. Nor does an award given to an advertising team by Graphex either. Several others who would like to see this article remain in the Encyclopedia stated that keeping the article does no harm to the project. I have to disagree. If anyone wishes to write a vanity article about themselves, that doesn't pass the requirements needed to not be deleted, it ultimately brings ridicule to the project. If that isn't harmful, I don't know what is. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete closure was not within reasonable bounds of admin discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There were no procedural problems with the way the AfD was closed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be some kind of campaign, all the people that voted to delete are here again pressing for deletion, this is simply not correct, if any weight is to be given to this desire to delete then the article should be relisted correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as no-consensus. Many fewer people watch DRV, appeals of no-consensus or keep are problematic unless there is some blatant error, not merely a difference in opinion. This is a the third deletion discussion in a short time for this article. Bad idea, not to be encouraged. If it were up to me, I'd prohibit DRV of no-consensus or keep decisions. That is, if you disagree with a Keep, renominate when a decent time has elapsed. I've seen far more heat than light in the use of DRV as if it were an AfD renomination; we are above seeing some of the same irrelevant arguments asserted. There *are* relevant arguments, but they were given in the AfD, and the issue is balance. What is proper for review here is the process, and there was no abuse of process. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By your logic, any admin would be able to prevent an article from being deleted forever by closing it as no consensus for any reason they want again and again. Triplestop x3 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That certainly is not my logic. An admin who closed as "no consensus" repeatedly in order to "prevent an article from being deleted forever" would probably see DRV based on an involved close, and might even, possibly, see more fuss than that. I've never seen repeated closing by the same editor, except for speedy close of fast-renominations. If you suspect a biased close, that's a reason for a deletion review. Rather, DRV without abuse, of a keep or no consensus decision, defeats the purpose of avoiding fast renomination, for it effectively is a renomination, a kind of forum-shopping. DRV was designed for review of deletions, primarily. Fast renomination is discouraged because it does not allow the normal editorial process to clean up the article, which would include removal of poorly-sourced text, through editorial consensus, a process that can take time. In other words, ordinarily editorial process will address the sourcing issues in detail, one source at a time. That can't be done here. If all that is left, after this, is a stub without sourced evidence of notability, that's it, the next renom will remove the article. Note to Keep editors: make sure that the article is adequately and justifiably sourced, and Delete editors, keep the Keep editors honest. Be nice. Don't edit war. Seek consensus and use dispute resolution where it's difficult. --Abd (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are IMO incorrect on the issue of the design of DRV. I was one of those who helped draft the proposal that converted the old Votes for Undeletion (which was strictly designed to consider undoing allegedly improper deletions) to Deletion Review. One of the main design goals in that change was to treat reviews of Deletion discussions symetrically: to reveiw allegedly improper Keeps in jsut the same way as allegedly improper Deletes. In neither case should the reveiw be a simple re-run of the deletion discussion. I have not read the AfD at issue here, and have no specific opnion on whether it was properly closed or not, but iMO arguiing that non-policy-based views were accorded equal weight with policy-based views is a legitimate point to raise here, anc could be a reson to overturn a keep outcome. DES ^(talk) 15:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete on the basis that all but a few of the keepers were members or associates of the mailing-list, including User:Abd (who befriended them as a fellow ArbCom malcontent, and gained access to the list). The contributions of Abd, Loosmark, Biophys and so on, makes the division look deeper than it is. I assume if Lankiveil had realised that he would have deleted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is Deacon is trying to imply above but for the record I am not a member of the EEML and I never was. I do remember that during the EEML case Deacon was an opponent of the EEML and in fact he was so aggressive that the clerk Manning had to ban him from all ArbCom pages for a week or two, I don't recall. In view of that and his above attempt to paint my contributions in a bad light, I am not sure if his vote should even be counted here. Dr. Loosmark 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I joined the EEML list before there was an ArbComm decision, and I didn't base my !vote here on that, the only relevance is that I probably wouldn't have become aware of the article if not for the EEML interest, and that was during the previous AfD, where I couldn't comment because I was blocked even if I had wanted to. If my arguments aren't sound, disregard them, these comments on EEML are irrelevant and simply add to the mess the closing admin must read. --Abd (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, yeah yeah, heard it before. I'm the opponent of the EEML in that I was the admin who figured you guys out, and you hated me. That's supposed to be a bad thing, how? You were very lucky not to have joined the EEML list before it got busted, but that's all I'd say. @ Adb, the association of yourself, as well as Loosmark and others, with the list is very relevant. Because you guys uniformly voted and are still voting to keep the real-life vanity article of a member, it shows that the community is not as divided on the matter as the pure numbers indicate. Neither you nor Loosmark nor the others (who I won't name to avoid conflict) voted on the AfD because of your interest in deletions or notability policy, let's be honest. Everyone of course finds an excuse to vote keep, but the matter should be decided on policies and deletion criteria, not out of group bonding or sticking up for one's friend. All EEML members and their friends, as well as their [actual] "opponents", should observe a personal CoI and stay away from these votes. At the moment you're only highlighting one of Wikipedia's worst flaws: the ease with which its procedures can be turned against it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, I did realise that there was some EEML chicanery going on in the discussion, but from my point of view it was coming in from both sides (both associates of the mailing list, and those eager to settle scores now that many of the principal actors have been banished). My approach was to weigh the arguments themselves, not the people who made them. Even so, I cannot see any consensus that the notability standard was not reached, despite certain editors repeated claims to the contrary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'll note that many people also cited the fact that it was an autobiography or that the subject of the article is one of its principal editors, as reasons to delete. While obviously problematic, this is not an out-and-out reason to delete an article, and can be dealt with in other ways.

Lankiviel, do you personally believe the notability standards were "reached" in this article? If so, where or how. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Lankiveil" :-). And my opinion as to whether the article meets notability guidelines is not really relevant when I'm attempting to read consensus at a contested AFD discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Somehow I just know the article would have been deleted ages ago if it weren't for all the cabalism in this area. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the typo, Lankiveil. I'm sorry to hear your response. It is a simple cop-out to say there is no consensus and ignore the basis of the argument put forth concerning Wikipedia policy. Stating that your opinion concerning whether the article meets notability guidelines is not really relevant is truly amazing. Incidentally, Poeticbent personally asked that the Afd's time frame be extended. Since you do not care to explain why or how the article reached notability status, could you share your views on how you perceive consensus should be reached in such matters. Non-consensus seems to be an easy way out. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's a cop-out, the role of the closer of the AFD is to determine whether a consensus exists, not to project their own opinions of the article into the close. If I had felt strongly either way I would have !voted, rather than closing the discussion. Not allowing your own opinions to sway you is an established principle and as far as I'm aware standard operating procedure for those involved in XFD. For what it's worth, I do agree that there are some issues with the article (the COI issues are worth a look), but they don't need deletion to be sorted out. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You weighed the arguments? Didn't you say on your talk page that no consensus is "multiple votes for Keep"? Triplestop x3 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:What is consensus?, which is generally how I determine consensus. I agree in principle with you that in a 20-10 split as we have here, if the 66% side is making good arguments, and the 33% side is dominated by poor arguments and sockpuppetry, that we could say that there is a consensus. If I believed that to be the case here, I'd have closed as Delete. However, I think the difference here is that we disagree on the relative strengths of the arguments here - I found many of the Delete arguments to be poor, and some of the Keep arguments to be stronger and more convincing than you did. In particular, I found Abd's argument insightful, and had to take into account those that argued that the subject was notable due to the coverage (Biophys, Loosmark, etc). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You found the keep side's unsubstantiated claims that the coverage is signficant more convincing than the extensive discussion on why specific sources are not ample? Why didn't you just say that? Triplestop x3 18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. According the closer substantial leeway in light of EEML, I cannot say that the close was clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the history. EEML influenced both keep and delete votes. That in no way affects the validity of uninvolved editors who made strong arguments that the article is not notable. Triplestop x3 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the subject of this article, but also; a prolific content creator with considerable seniority. Please be advised that a number of editors who cast their !votes in this discussion have serious COIs stemming from their joint participation in the EEML case. User:Triplestop was banned from all Arbcom pages related to the EEML case for one week, as a result of a number of unacceptable and inflammatory statements. Others, have been listed in Evidence, or warned against their aggressive language. The EEML lobbyists who tendentiously voted "delete" in the last AfD, including those who came here to continue their WP:GAME, include: Triplestop (talk · contribs), Pantherskin (talk · contribs) Wikipedia: hounding me since last November,[15] Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), Matthead (talk · contribs), Novickas (talk · contribs),[16] and finally, user Anti-Nationalist (talk · contribs) a.k.a. PasswordUsername (talk · contribs) prominently featured in EEML Evidence, and user Varsovian (talk · contribs) now lobbying at EEML Amendment,[17] with the account created four months ago to argue over a single article. Most of them participate in the never-ending POV wars over the articles I helped to create, and thus came here again in order to seek revenge, any way they can. They perceive this DELREV as an extension of previous arbitration cases concerning Eastern Europe, which go way back, beyond the original Piotrus 2.
The many angry voices in this tread belong to my long-term opponents: like the nationalists who don’t read refs, because they already know the right answers; flame warriors, goading their adversaries into blind rage; and, egomaniacs who wrote about me to Encyclopedia Dramatica (you know who you are). Some of the comments here come from age-old enemies of the contributors with whom I used to work, and therefore, don’t merit a personal reply. But, some of them do. For example, the nominator obviously has no clue about the depth of the Eastern European conflict in Wikipedia. Most notably though, he designed a template for his own deletion review the way another EE editor devised a barnstar for Tylman’s AfD. Please remember: four years in the life of Wikipedia is an exceptionally long time. This article was created in April 2006. I did not touch it in two years. Meanwhile, many experienced editors (including at least five admins) contributed to it since then, in a very productive way. The article is balanced, stable, and full of references. So the ultimate question is: "How would this project benefit from having it deleted?"
Note: this WP:GAME against our behavioral guidelines just escalated beyond the realm of the English language. Inside the Polish Wikipedia, a single purpose account called pl:Wikipedysta:Zawodnikslupsk (meaning: a player Slupsk, clearly one of us) without a single contribution to pl:wiki, just sent the Ryszard (Richard) Tylman article to AfD (1/21/2010), with an interwiki link to this DELREV. The immediate response was: "get yourself a pair of Wiki glasses." Meanwhile, there are also signs of puppetry in the following brief exchange there.[18]-- Poeticbent talk 17:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an "EEML lobbyist" thank you very much, and I didn't vote on your article. I am however disappointed to see this nonsense is being carried on beyond the case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a helpful comment, Poeticbent. You insist on attacking other editors, but you are silent about the warning you received on the arbcom case for your unacceptable attacks. You are silent about your history of repeated sockpuppetry and canvassing. You are also silent about you misleading other editors about the sources in the Richard Tylman article. You are also quick to label anyone commenting here with overturn as an "EEML lobbyist", but at the same time you are silent about those involved in the EEML case who comment here with Endorse. Pantherskin (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Full of references" - note that most references lead back to the personal webpage of the subject of the article; that the subject of the article has repeatedly mislead other editors about sources; that he has used sources that did not support the claims in the article or even worse did not even mention the name Richard Tylman. (See [19] and [20]; and see [21] and [22] for two different, uninvolved editor not being able to verify the sources provided by Poeticbent.) Pantherskin (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: For anyone believing the attacks by Poeticbent, please check out the article talk page history, the first AfD, and the discussion on the corresponding Polish wikipedia article - Poeticbent has consistently attacked and accussed anyone who dared to question the validity of the article or parts of it. This despite the fact that completely different editors were involved there, editors such as User:Victoriagirl who was not even involved in the Easter European content area. I am not sure whether Poeticbent truly believes that there is a pattern of harrassment or whether this is a tactic to drive away editors - but the end result is the same. Pantherskin (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The fact that this is a COI vanity article is not a reason for deletion, the same way the peripheral involvement from that EEML mess is not a reason to retain the article. Triplestop x3 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Triplestop. The vanity argument was raised again and again at the AfD, and now here, which is unfortunate. Same with the EEML arguments from both sides. The only issue for deletion, outside of real BLP problems, is notability, because every other issue can be handled, as a default, by stubbing to the minimum that can be established from reliable sources, an ordinary editorial process. Those editorial decisions, item by item, source by source, should not be made at AfD, but in ordinary editorial process, and it can take time, this is no place to do it. I'll address this above. --Abd (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my argument is that, based on the AfD, all claims that the person is notable are unsubstantiated and thus the result should have been delete. Triplestop x3 04:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Poeticbent, you keep letting us know that you are "the subject of this article". That you are, and you are also the creator of this article. Have you ever read WP:AUTO, because it would have been helpful. This is the third time that you have implied that my motives concerning this case are the result of the EEML case, or some other desire for revenge. I've interacted with you on many occasions and I want to assure you that if you were notable I would have voted keep. Where I have agreed with you or disagreed with you did not influence me. You write an article about yourself, tell us that you are "a prolific content creator", a "notable Wikipedian", and "have considerable seniority". Perhaps you might want to add that you think you are notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. I look forward to the day when I will read about you in another encyclopedia (one that you cannot edit yourself). When you establish some notability it might possibly happen. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as no-consensus. The no consensus closure was a correct one simply because there was no consensus. Really it's time to move on. Dr. Loosmark 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. I was pretty surprised by the decision to close it as no consensus. 20 delete to 10 votes seems pretty obvious to me. But even if you don't count any votes on both sides that are remotely related to the EEML case or topic area, the result paints a clear picture. Abductive, Jwy, Nsk92, Quantpole, Karanacs & Starblind voted for delete. OlEnglish & Collect for keep. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, I note that in the seven or so hours after this DRV was created, there was a flood of "Overturn" arguments, all largely from those that participated in the AFD. After that time, there has been a much slower rate of replies coming at about 50/50, more or less in line with the usual DRV traffic. My question is, was this discussion advertised at another venue, because there is something of an appearance that one side of the debate seems to have been very well informed about what was going on, whereas the other was not. I cannot see any talk page notifications (well, except on my talk), to indicate that this might have happened. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Anyone who had either the article or the AfD on his his or her watchlist would have seen the DRV notice. That is how I was alerted. And for the record, I find your characterization of a flood of overturn arguments, largely from those who participated in the Afd a bit misleading, to say the least. Pantherskin (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading to say the least given that there were as many "endorse" arguments by those who participated in the Afd as there were "overturn" arguments in the first few hours. If you have the impression that there was a flood of "overturn" arguments it is because there were several uninvolved editors asking for an "overturn". (In the first five hours three overturn by involved editors, two endorse by involved editors; in the first twelve hours six overturn by involved editors, four endorse by involved editors. As much a sign for a coordination by the "other" side as it is a sign for coordination by the other side.) Could I ask you to refactor your statement to reflect this simple fact? Thanks. Pantherskin (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the first hours (between 12:41 and 19:06), the !votes were running 9-2 in favour of endorse. Then there was an hour or so of quiet, before Malik Shabazz moved to endorse at 20:57. After that time, it's running 5-3 in favour of endorsement. I accept your assertion that you found out about it from your watchlist, but it does seem a little odd. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Could you explain why it is odd that I put the AfD on my watchlist? I see this as an important test case for WP which will set a precedent: if it is possible for somebody who very clearly fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO guidelines to write an article about himself/herself and to use sources which fail to satisfy WP:RS or WP:V and for that article to not be deleted simply because some friends of the subject use WP:ILIKEIT justification to stop consensus being established, WP has very serious problems. Do we really want WP to become the number one home for vanity articles on the web?Varsovian (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably, you are upset that there are many arguing to overturn you. However, please do not make insinuated attacks on those who disagree with you. Given the history behind WP:EEML I would be more concerned about the other side canvassing and whatnot. But that does not change anything.

Back on topic: how the participants in this found the debate does not change the unsubstantiated nature behind all but one of the keep arguments. Triplestop x3 18:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – I share the view of Lankiveil above that the 'delete' side of the debate is suspiciously well-organised (not all, but at least 6). This article would be kept without demur in ordinary circumstances. Occuli (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If you would also discount those involved on the other side of the EEML arbcom case the outcome would have been even clearer for delete. The only difference is that only those who voted delete were named by Poeticbent, whereas those involved in the arbcom case and voting Keep are not known to the outside observer. Pantherskin (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete: granted, I was on the opposite side of Poeticbent (Richard Tylman) on the WP:EEML Arbitration case. But this is not about sides – it is about notability, meeting standards for biographical articles on Wikipedia, and the sources that are required in order for an individual biography to do so. Let's take at them:

We can rule out notability for Tylman as a painter. True, he was selected to represent his hometown in 1981 at a competition of promising young Polish artists. But there is nothing to tell us that Tylman was recognized as the best artist of those selected for being represented at the exhibition. Nor did he win any award. Outside the brief news notice for the exhibition as a whole (and the existence of its catalogue), there is no evidence of any individual notability.
We can easily see the absence of notability for Tylman as an airbrush illustrator: the "sources" for his works are the commercial works that have appeared in magazines. This does not meet notability, since airbrush illustrators who work on ads in magazines are not therefore inherently Wikipedia-notable. A team of illustrators that he was part of did win a Graphex Award in Canada (1991), but this is not evidence of individual notability, since Tylman himself was not named as an individual artist. The source for this is Tylman's own site.
As regards Tylman's crative endeavors as a poet, it's already been explained in the AFD nominations that these works of poetry are entirely self-published. Significantly, there are no critical reviews or commentary, so notability as an author/poet is non-existent. Tylman's Grand Owl award – the only individual prize mentioned for any endeavor at all – is a student-level prize given by Jagellonian University.
As was already explained previously in the nominations, the Anglophone Tylman poetry collections published by "Aspidistra Press" are in fact works produced by a vanity press (Tylman is the only published author for Aspidistra).
The Polish-language poetry also appears to be as non-notable: the only interesting thing from Koty marcowe was the poem "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina" (An Attempt at Blowing Up the Statue of Lenin), which was included amidst the photographs in photo anthology Nowa Huta: Okruchy zycia I Meandry Historii by photographer Jerzy Aleksander Karnasiewicz. The work is published by a non-commerical printer – the little "Wydawnictwo Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce" ("The Association of Slovaks in Poland"). There are no critical reviews.
Tylman's article gives us two interviews connected to "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina". The first is an interview with Jerzy Karnasiewicz (not Richard Tylman) in a local Nowa Huta] supplement to the Krakow-based Gazeta Krakowska (there, Karnasiewicz simply mention's Tylman's identity as the author of the poem in the book).
The other is an interview with Richard Tylman in Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki by Małgorzata Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz. Given that Małgorzata's last name is Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz and the author of the photo anthology in which Tylman's poem is to be found is Jerzy Karnasiewicz, this seem to have a deep WP:COI... Even if we are to assume no COI, though, Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki, where Tylman's interview appears, is just a small local publication in Nowa Huta (its English-language Wikipedia article was made by Richard Tylman (Poeticbent) after the second time that Richard Tylman was nominated for deletion; its Polish-language Wiki article was created by Tylman's WP:EEML buddy Piotrus. ([23] [24])

Well, then – my rationale – and so far so good. What, then, do the Wikipedia biographical guidelines tell us?

For WP:ANYBIO (or Any biography):
1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
No notability per WP:ANYBIO, it seems to me. The only individual award won by Tylman was the Grand Owl, a student-level award from Jagellonian University.
For WP:ARTIST/WP:AUTHOR (or any "creative professional"):
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics - not applicable to Tylman
There is no evidence (or even suggestion) to be found that Tylman either
1) is an "important figure" or is widely cited by his peers;

2) is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique;
3) has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or review;
or
4) has created work that (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or is to be found in many significant libraries.

Accordingly, I do not see the basis for anything other than a deletion. Tylman is simply non-notable. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent argument and dissection of the issue, the problem is that the place for this was at AFD, not here at DRV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the compliment on my dissection, but the arguments on which it's based were all made (perhaps in less dissecting ways) at the AFD by other nominators. Most were given multiple times – and not once refuted by the opposing side !voting to keep this bio. Which arguments did you find convincing, Lankiveil? You've mentioned Abd's comment from the AFD at one point above, but Abd's !vote was just

"Keep. Who originally created an article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and any !vote based on that argument should be deprecated. I further become suspicious when a nominator or single editor argues tendentiously against every keep vote, but that, too, is irrelevant as to keep/delete. Where there is reasonable doubt, as there is in this case, the default is properly Keep, because having a non-notable article, provided the information in it is adequately supported by reliable source (which information can be very brief, the article can be a stub), does no harm, whereas deleting it makes article growth much more difficult and wastes or even insults the work of all those who contributed. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 10 January."

If you do believe that I've spelled everything out persuasively (ie, you do not think that there exists appropriate sourcing to substantiate the contention that Richard Tylman really is notable), supporting a deletion now at DRV would be a good way to resolve the conundrum at this point in the process. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Anti-N. No one has been able to refute that all but one keep argument were unsubstantiated, and even that argument was extensively refuted. Triplestop x3 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see several questions before us. First, to what extent may arguments be disregarded on the basis of the identity of the poster, rather than the merit of the argument? Second, if there are some that may be disregarded, can we also say that there are any that must be disregarded?
I think EEML members still have a voice on Wikipedia, though their credibility has been somewhat damaged. And I do not think the closer is obliged to disregard what they say in closing an AfD; I think this is a matter for the closer's discretion.
I will not censure Lankiveil for allowing some of their arguments to stand, and accordingly I think I have to endorse this close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EEML has no relevance to the quality and validity of arguments. The concern is that all but one of the keep arguments made unsubstantiated claims, while the delete side discussed extensively why the sources are not enough. Triplestop x3 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you think that replying to every single endorse will win the dispute or impress the closing admin?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. - there were almost no external sources about Richard Tylman, definitely no significant coverage and nothing that could be used to write an article that is independent of the subject (as the only article was an interview). This was pointed out by several voters, who tried and failed to find independent coverage. Some searched library holdings, some tried to evaluate the notability of the awards given to the individual. I do not see anything similar from those who voted delete, just assertions of notability without any accompanying evidence or explanations. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Loosmak for the closing admin: The Deletion review is meant to be to review if technically speaking the result of the AfD was correct. Instead it seems to me that this thread was simply hijacked by the users who want to delete the article to continously repeat their arguments. This is a very dangerous precedent, if allowed from now on users who are not happy with an AfD will just use the "Deletion review" as another AfD. Especially interesting is the behavior of User:Triplestop who made a grand total of 15 posts in this thread in less than a day. This clearly demonstrate that this Deletion review has turned into a battlefied. My proposal is to close the review as fast as possible because it completely doesn't serve its purpose anymore. Dr. Loosmark 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above is blatantly misleading. In no way has anyone argued that Tylman is not notable as a justification for overturning the result. The point is that all but one of the keep arguments were unsubstantiated. Please actually read peoples' comments. Triplestop x3 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do read peoples' comments (although I admit that in your case that gets a bit difficult, it's quite enough to read one's opinion 2 or 3 times, reading same stuff 10 or 15 is IMO a bit over the top). As for the arguments there are currectly 2 views: one is that mr.Tylman is notable enough and the other is that he isn't. Both positions are valid, however where opinions are split the closing admins have no other option but to close an AfD as no consensus. Dr. Loosmark 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and when those arguing one way side provide no evidence then it is obvious that the rough consensus goes the other way. I don't like saying the same thing 10 or 15 times either, but it appears that you still haven't read my argument. Triplestop x3 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your logic is that you are not in charge to decide who presented evidence, which side's evidence is valid or better etc etc etc. That's the job of the closing admin. Btw congratulations on the Barnstar awarded to you by Skapperod. Dr. Loosmark 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who can read can easily see who had the better evidence. That is all I am going to say. Triplestop x3 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) By now one can see that this has nothing to do with the evidence or arguments. It's obviously easier to sweep this one (a vanity article) under the carpet. The closing administrator will not provide any proof of notability, nor explanation for the vague concept of "consensus" (again using the cop-out stating non-consensus was the basis for his decision). Despite the fact that only one "keep" vote made an attempt to rationalize their vote, and even now no one else has been able to do so, that is because there is no notability of the subject. If those in favor of keeping this article will do so, I will review my own activity concerning this article, and act accordingly. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm not sure that "I'll hold my breath if I don't get what I want" is a valid DRV arguement."~~ Just because you've turned this single article into a proxy for some larger cause doesn't mean uninvolved AFD closers need to. Struck portion mooted by refactoring--Cube lurker (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cube, I'm not holding my breath. I'd take your comment to heart much more if you could tell me how the subject of the article meets the notability standards. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out that part after your rewording. I'm not sure it does meet notability. If it were back at AFD I don't think I'd rush to get in my keep !vote. On the other hand I don't think that a no consensus close is so unreasonable as to shake Wikipedia to it's core. It seems to me that some of you have transfered some larger battle into this article. I think some perspective has been lost and is reflected in this bloated DRV discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again Cube, or anyone else, this matter is not shaking Wikipedia to its core. What larger battle? Why is it so hard to comprehend that earlier and continued interaction by the parties involved with the creator of this vanity article brought it to their attention. Why is it so hard to believe that despite this interaction, the involved parties could not possibly analyze the Afd in an objective manner? I've already stated that if Richard Tylman was notable I'd vote "keep". He simply isn't. What is particularly disappointing is the attempt to portray this as "payback" or something of the sort. In the first Afd [25], the solid argument was made by objective editors why this article should be deleted. The author/subject and friends jumped in and brought it to "no consensus". The second Afd [26], was halted because of the EEML ArbCom. The third Afd [27] was brought to a halt, with a controversial "no consensus' call, despite overwhelming evidence that the article did not satisfy Wikipedia standards of notability. One "keep" vote at least made an attempt to rationalize that basis. None of the others "keeps" did so. As for "... If it were back at AFD I don't think I'd rush to get in my keep !vote.", I don't blame you.

Endorse (no consensus). Relist, due to substantial new interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus). Counting votes is particularly dangerous here because WP:EEML involved organized campaigns of AfD votes (no bang here). Clerely there was split opinion in the AfD whether the sourcing was adequate or not. Users like User:Malik Shabazz, User:Off2riorob, and User:OlEnglish, who were not involved in the EEML battle one way or the other expressed their opinion that the sourcing was marginal, but !voted keep nonetheless. Others, equally not involved in EEML, like User:JzG, User:Starblind and User:Abductive voted delete based on the same sources. I suggest a new AfD with anyone involved in the EEML case staying away from it. Pcap ping 07:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good proposal. Relisting without allowing anyone involved with the EEML case or having significantly interacted with Poeticbent would be a good idea given the circumstances. Note though that your list of uninvolved editors who voted keep is a quite a bit shorter actually - that is the problem with Poeticbents comments who poisned the well by pointing out only those who voted keep. Pantherskin (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a relisting in theory, but how should we ensure that the new discussion is not equally "contaminated"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relist which is the best way to handle possibly contaminated discussions. If it's going to be deleted, better at AfD than here. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above and in my original comment this is a good and pragmatic proposal. Question: Would it be possible to name an admin who would ensure that only those comment who were not involved in the EEML case (i.e. did not comment there in whatever form) or did interact with Poeticbent in the past? Pantherskin (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that idea. This would be giving in to the Abd-cycle: Do something disruptive, someone comments, declare them involved, and on that basis declare their arguments biased/void and prohibit them from taking action [28]. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be the most pragmatic solution. Ideally the AfD should have been evaluated on the basis of the strengths of the arguments, but unfortunately this has not happened. Yes, Poeticbents disruption was obvious and the attacks on other editors were severe. I intend to file a request for an arbcom enforcement or amendment once this mess is over. But the Afd is probably not the best place to deal with it. As I said, relist and make sure that an admin enforces a no-partipiation rule for anyone ever having commented at the EEML arbcom case or having interacted with Poeticbent in the past. That is obviously a pragmatic as any votes during the Afd discussion should have been evaluated based on the merits of the argument, and not based on who voted. Pantherskin (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To closing admin. Weight of arguments is not the same as frequency or length of them posted on the DRV. Nor does saying another person's argument is "wrong" actually help matters. What it boils down to is -- did the closing admin err in saying "no consensus"? Those who wish deletion, if this is upheld, should wait a reasonable period before going once more to AfD, lest this become a perennial fixture there (rather like the Robert of Holy Island case.) Collect (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There very much was consensus between the editors who made any attempt to address the issues (some 20 to 1). The voices which did not agree with the consensus made no attempt to address the issues (i.e. the problems that the article has with multiple WP policies) and instead voted to keep based purely on WP:ILIKEIT. The issue is whether editors who make no effort at all to discuss the issues which have been raised should be allowed to prevent consensus from being reached.Varsovian (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Varsovian is one of the editors who voted for deletion. His "20 to 1" comment above is comical but seems that now everything goes here so... Dr. Loosmark 12:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record: Loosmark is one of the editors who voted 'keep' and also made no attempt at all to address the the problems that the article has with multiple WP policies. His vote was based purely on his "opinion that the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article", he had no comment whatsoever on the problems that the article has with WP:RS or WP:V or WP:ANYBIOor WP:ARTIST or WP:N. While his opinion is valid, WP does not rely on the opinions of editors: it relies on reliable verifiable secondary sources state. WP:ILIKEIT is no more sufficient to justify a vote to keep than WP:IDONTLIKEIT is to justify a vote to delete. That equal weight it given to a vote based on the opinion of the editor and to one based on what reliable verifiable secondary sources state and multiple WP policies shows what is wrong with the current deletion process.Varsovian (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the "Deletion review" is the appropriate place for user:Varsovian to discuss my voting in detail because if we all start to do that with each other this thread will go on forever. For the record I have better things to do than to throw around and discuss all those countless soapboxes (and lets be frank many of those are contradictory with each other). Dr. Loosmark 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If deletion review is not the appropriate place to discuss your vote, why did you discuss mine? Varsovian (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not discussed your vote other than noting that you voted to delete. Dr. Loosmark 13:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, support relisting This could have been closed as "delete," given the strength of the arguments for deletion. There were some valid votes on both sides, but it's difficult to ascertain the complete effect of the canvassing. There may have been canvassing on the "keep" side, but it sounds like there might have been canvassing on the "delete" side as well. All things considered, at this point it's probably best to proceed with caution by endorsing the "no consensus" close, relisting, and ensuring that the subsequent AfD is not contaminated by canvassing, either by the EEML or by the other side. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AFD. In the interests of good faith, not excluding any editors with established, non-topic-banned accounts. If this is done, I'd suggest the relisting open with a statement urging participants to focus on notability policies rather than past conflicts. I'd also like to request, given its multiple troublesome AFDs, that the next closer post several paragraphs analyzing the strength of the arguments, the number of votes in either direction, and how he or she evaluated these two factors. Novickas (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the nominator. It is a pity that much of the discussion thus far centered on the EEML matters. I think it would have been better to disregard EEML connections and related acrimony altogether and view the case purely on policy grounds. (In this regard I agree with Collect: any EEML connections should not be viewed as a reason to delete the article; however, neither should they be viewed as a reason to keep it). When I was casting my !vote in the AfD itself, I tried to filter out the EEML-related part of the discussion altogether in deciding how to !vote. I brought the case to the DRV because I thought (and still do) that there was a solid consensus for delete in the AfD. In terms of canvassing suspicions, I would rather AGF everybody. I think there are perfectly benign and plausible explanations for why various groups of users participated in the AfD and are participating in this DRV. Several users, on both keep and delete sides, participated in the previous AfD for the article. I would assume that they naturally had the article watchlisted, so that when it was nominated for an AfD, they participated. Also, the AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland, so some users with interest in EE topics probably would have seen it there. Similarly, after the DRV case was filed, a DRV notice was placed at the article itself and at the last AfD page. Naturally, many of the participants from the last AfD came here and expressed their opinions. I think these explanations are rather more plausible than various suspicions of behind-the-scenes canvassing. I am not opposed to relisting the AfD, to the extent that it may generate additional participation and perhaps a clearer picture of consensus. I do not believe, however, that it is procedurally possible to prevent any of the editors who have participated in the previous AfDs from participating again. None of them are, as far as I know, under any kind of topic bans or other editing restrictions in relation to EE subjects. So some kind of a limited type of a topic ban (or bans) would be needed and I doubt that there is a practicable chance of getting a consensus for that. Let me repeat again that, EEML-related exchanges aside, I believe there was a solid consensus for delete in the AfD. There were 20 deletes and 10 keeps, a rather significant advantage in raw numbers. Several of the keeps were expressed (by the users casting those keep !votes) as as weak or borderline. Some other arguments, like that of Collect regarding the existence of an article about the subject on Polish Wikipedia were properly rebutted by other AfD participants (including by one of the keep !voters, Abd). There is no policy basis for deferring to another wiki in deciding wether to keep or delete an article. En-wiki is a separate entity with its own set of inclusion criteria. In relation to something that Collect said: I am not at all interested in deleting the article from Polish Wikipedia; however I do believe that it should be deleted from English Wikipedia. Another consideration: the most substantive, IMO, keep argument, actually addressing the sources, was offered very early on in the AfD, by Malik Shabazz. Obviously, the subsequent AfD !voters have seen this argument and still, by a 2:1 margin they were not persuaded by it. (If a substantively new keep argument was offered late in the discussion, or if the article would have been substantially improved, the initial delete !votes might have been given less weight.) Finally, this is a WP:AUTO case and WP:AUTO strongly discourages autobiographies on Wikipedia. In marginal cases WP:AUTO considerations should strongly weigh the final decision towards delete, and I feel that the closing admin should have given more weight to this policy point. So I still feel that there was a solid consensus for delete in the AfD. However, I agree that relisting might be beneficial in terms of attracting wider participation. Nsk92 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside -- several AfDs were in the past decided with the argument concerning foreign language wikis being held valid. I do not post them here, but only wished to make the record clear about that position. Collect (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its now one year and ten months since this articles first AFD and this expanded discussion is now the appeal of the third AFD, it is obvious that there is no clear consensus, which defaults to Keep. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious after the third Afd that there was always a clear consensus to delete as no one, not even the subject of the article was able to present any significant coverage that is necessary to establish notability. It is also obvious that Poeticbents tactic of attacking and smearing editors who vote delete is quite successful, and that once again there is a strong suspicion of ongoing canvassing given several keep votes of involved editors right after Poeticbents first comment. Pantherskin (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are clearly two opposed sides, nationalistic I think, I haven't looked into it, I hate all that, one side wants to get rid of it the other side wants to keep it, no consensus, its a harmless article, take it off your watchlist and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound as if you are uninvolved. Harmless not so given that the subject of the article repeatedly complained about BLP attacks. What is your interest in keeping this article? And why oh why is no one able to present any significant coverage, and why oh why are those who point out the lack independent third-party sources attacked by the subject of the article? Pantherskin (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am totally uninvolved in the nationalistic issues, I came to know of this article through my work mediating about a content issue at the BLP noticeboard, The subject of the biography may well have brought up BLP issues, that is his right and no reflection as regards his position, from his comments here and elsewhere he clearly supports keeping the article, as do I. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "nationalistic issues", it's about notability. It appears that this Afd will probably be re-listed. It would behoove those who want to retain this article to simply present their arguments as to how this vanity article meets the notability requirements. Not how keeping it is "harmless", not how the EEML case somehow absolves the need for the article to meet the notability requirements, not by sweeping it under the rug with suggestions to "take it off your watchlist and move on". Perhaps if a cogent argument explaining this article's notability (which so far has not happened) is presented the next time around, some of the editors wanting to delete the article might even be persuaded to change their opinions. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete. Firstly, as nationalist issues have been brought up here, I'll put my cards on the table in regard to any potential interest. I am British, but have spent between 15% and 20% of the last 32 years in Poland, am married to a Pole and own property in Poland. I am fluent in Polish and have some knowledge of the Polish media. Having got that off my chest I must say that the Afd discussion of this article didn't come up with any more in the way of reliable sources than a very local (i.e. not covering a whole city) article in a glossy magazine of the type that you'll find as part of the free advertising on the coffee table in any hotel room. The existence of such a source is in no way a strong enough argument for keeping as to override the valid arguments provided for deletion. If those editors caught up in the EEML fiasco want to rebuild their reputations here then I would suggest that the worst way to go about doing so is to try to defend the existence of such an obvious vanity article. Surely your effort would be better spent on the important work of being vigilant about possible POV-pushing by those whose viewpoint you distrust? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only that almost all the editors who voted for keep were not part of EEML. Dr. Loosmark 23:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? Is this incorrect [29]? I believe that it was at the 2nd Adf that the proceeding was halted due to the EEML case and most of its participants voting keep. That list is incomplete. Loosmark, just present some evidence that the subject is notable enough to be included in the Encyclopedia. That would be greatly appreciated by all. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Dan, I meant this last AfD which is the subject of this Deletion review. (Of course you are free to open deletion review on those previous AfDs). Dr. Loosmark 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any comment to make about the actual subject of the debate here? Can you explain why your vote to keep, which made no comment whatsoever on the problems that the article has with WP:RS or WP:V or WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST or WP:N or WP:AUTO or WP:COI, should be given equal weight to a vote which did address those problems and concluded that there are no WP:RS which meet WP:V and either prove WP:N or satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST? The consensus among the editors who addressed the issues was very much to delete but the AfD was closed as “no consensus” due to certain editors posting their opinions. I wonder why you have so much to say here but so little to say about the evidence.Varsovian (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete. The last AfD closure as NC was rather surprising move, knowing that there were no signs of subject's notability, required by core WP policies, as well as WP:BIO. M.K. (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

ioquake3 – Redirect endorsed. – — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This entry was deleted for being non-notable when it is the defacto standard in Quake 3 engine technology on which many projects both commercial and noncommercial free software games are based on it. I created ioquake3 in 2005 and it has continued since then with the help of many contributors. To say that it is irrelevant does the project and those that use it a severe disservice and I think contributes to the overall discouragement of smaller open source and free software projects, as if they and the contributions made to them are without merit. id software created the original code base and released it onto the internet. To say that projects based on the original source release are not notable is like saying that it wouldn't be notable if Ray Bradbury had released a book under a creative commons license solely to the net and someone took that and made an entirely new and popular work of fiction based on it. I have already attempted to contact and discuss this matter with the admin who deleted it. This is the third time that the ioquake3 page has been deleted, every time it seems as if the administrators of wikipedia either do not understand or do not care about open-source software. I find it somewhat discouraging that a mostly internet-published encyclopedia cannot find notable an internet published open source project.

Even on the assumption that we can review a merge/redirect close, endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. The closer appropriately discounted canvassed !votes and !votes not based in policy. Nom's rationale has absolutely nothing to do with either WP:N or the closer's assessment of consensus, or indeed any policy or guideline that I'm aware of. Tim Song (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was redirected, not deleted; WP:ND3 would suggest that the next step is a talk page discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The 'keep' votes (with the exception of User:MuZemike who admitted the sources 'barely meet notability') did not provide any policy-based arguments or reliable sources to support their votes. J04n(talk page) 16:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, consensus against a standalone article after appropriately discounting most of the keeps. Appropriate coverage at the target article is an editorial decision. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, obvious consensus for merger from the established editors. Arguably this could have been tagged as merge rather than redirect, but the distinction is purely philosophical given that the page history was not deleted. Pcap ping 08:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Most of the "keep" votes were asserting notability without backing it up with any evidence and were no doubt ignored by the closing admin; however, there was no consensus for deletion. Based on the flimsiness of the sourcing, a merge/redirect result is a reasonable outcome. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 January 2010[edit]

Chris Whitcroft – BLP1E is not a speedy criteria. Restored and renominated to resume the AFD discussion – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have speedy deleted this article under the WP:BLPDEL because of WP:BLP1E. The article is mainly about the subject's automotive accident, and is poorly sourced. The creator of the article disputes this deletion and its rationale. w^L^{<speak·check>} 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse. Page is pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E but I don't read WP:BLPDEL to call for speedy deletion in cases such as this where all the controversial info has a reasonably reliable source. A local newspaper story is not enough for WP:N, but, IMHO, is enough to exceed the speedy bar. On the other hand, this is a quite clear case unless further and better sources are forthcoming. Keeping in mind the spirit of BLP and its admonition for speedy resolution, I do not favour restoration and a new AfD but would prefer that this remain deleted unless a consensus for keeping is formed at this DRV. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn as out of process. Speedy under BLP only applies when the article contains solely unsourced negative material, or meets CSD G10, pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. Otherwise it goes to prod or afd. I do not consider the article qualifies for speedy under those grounds. I am not sure it will hold be accepted at AfD, but that is another matter, I do not endorse attempts to extend the reach of admin discretion in speedy beyond the existing rules, though of course we can change them; I doubt there would be consensus to add BLP 1E as a reason for speedy, but go ahead and ask on the talk page there if you think we really need it. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Like DGG, I don’t see WP:BLP1E as a ground for speedy deletion. DGG has explained why WP:BLPDEL does not call for speedy deletion here. I can’t read it into A7 either as A7 requires a credible claim for notability. A person who is notable for one event is still notable. WP:BLP1E is not an exception to notability; it is an exception to including an article on a person in Wikipedia. And nor should WP:BLP1E be a ground for speedy deletion. Its application is rarely clear cut, by itself it doesn't involve issues that could harm the subject of the article (thus not requiring speedy resolution), and so should only be done through consensus (ie inferred consensus by prod or actual consensus by AfD). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Not a BLP violation from what I can see, and not an A7 candidate either (although I don't think that's been raised as an issue). Stifle (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. WP:BLP1E was the reason given in the AfD for speedy deletion, but this is not (an in my opinion should never be) a speedy deletion criterion. WP:CSD#G10 was the reason given in the deletion log, but G10 requires that the page disparage the subject and serve no other purpose, however the article was written in neutral language and did not threaten or otherwise disparage the subject. There was also a credible claim to notability (that was acknowledged by the AfD closer by virtue of the WP:BLP1E tag as others have said), so A7 would not have been an appropriate deletion either. Where it is suspected that someone is notable only for one event, then this should be investigated at AfD as they might also be notable for another event, and even if they aren't merge and/or redirect outcomes to similar discussions are common. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG and others--Cube lurker (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion G10 was not applicable in this case. Alansohn (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Annika Väisänen – Closure endorsed. NAC. – Tim Song (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Deleted for the reason that all voters did not know how to use the wiki codes? ?!

That is not a reason good enough since the votes were 4keep vs 4 delete.
Despite a large number of arguments put forth by both sides for 7 days, it's quite clear that no consensus was going to be reached there.
Therefore, the result was no consensus. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep".

Comment:The person who proposed the article for deletion went to delete it herself as G6 although that was not the reason she nominated it. I guess she could not come up with a REAL reason to delete as the voting was so clearly towards keeping.

Comment:The article used several realiable references:

Heikkinen, Mikko-Pekka (19 May 2000). "Suomalainen roomalainen". Helsingin Sanomat (Newspaper). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Merilä, Kai (25 May 2000). "Lainasin vartaloni filmitähdelle". 7 Päivää (Magazine). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Väisänen, Annika (3 Jan 2009). "Näkymiä Colosseumin aitiosta". Helsingin Sanomat (Newspaper). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Lotila, Sami (1 January 2010). "Pidä Perttu enää en häntä kaipaa". Hymy (Magazine). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

2 other magazine articles about her (articles are not online): ↑ Maija Tiensuu: Ihanasti Boheemi. Deko magazine, 1.4.2008, s. 52-57. Yhtyneet kuvalehdet Oy. ↑ Annika Väisänen: Maailma kotona. Trendi magazine, 1.2.2008, s. 98-101. Forma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linnea78 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 2 more articles where Vaisanen has been quoted (the other is a jazz album, which she reviewed and the second is an art exhibition).: http://www.cymbidium.fi/index.php?page=Helsinki_Cooler_vol_3 http://www.totuusvaitehtava.fi/omaelamankerrat-ja-kulkurunot Linnea78 (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure First of all, the nominator has not been entirely truthful above. The AfD nominator did not delete the article; the article was nominated for deletion by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) and deleted by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who closed the AfD. Moreover, the debate was not really split as Linnea78 said above. Rather, the only participants who supported keeping the article were Linnea78, an IP that appears to be Linnea78 while logged out, and another account (Apollo789 (talk · contribs)) that appears to be Linnea78's sockpuppet). To top it all off, Linnea78 appears to be the subject of this article in real life – a sure conflict of interest. Secondly, there was a clear consensus in the AfD to delete the article as failing WP:BIO. One editor voted to userfy, but that idea did not garner any support. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The votes were 4 delete, 4 keep and one neutral userfy which would go for the keep direction..

I am using a public computer, I have no say over what other people might vote on it.

'Comment as for previous user about the article as failing WP:BIO... If you would READ the article, you would see that it is not the case! Notability: For: WP:CREATIVE

Creative professionals... She has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, as a Director and organiser. It was covered by BBC News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.145.198.14 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There was a keep vote from 213.143.167.10 also, which you did not even notice aparently?.
Comment:ALSO, Musamies' delete vote should not even count, as it did not make a case at all! --Linnea78 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A very low quality AfD discussion, but one in which it was more than open to the closing admin to read a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"""Overturn and restore"""" The article clearly passes WP:WEB which was the reason for the nominating it in the first place by FisherQuuen because "she did not understand Finnish!? Funnily enough at the end of the discussion FisherQueen, however invented another mickey mouse reason for deletion. She tried G6 because she did not come up with anything else?

Comment This is what the next deletor said:( Jayjg) The arguments made to delete were based on policy/guideline. The arguments made to keep were mostly not. Consensus is measured based on the statements of those who make policy/guideline-based arguments. It is not a raw vote. Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment:This is not right, because some users, are not aware of these policies and codes you are supposed to add to your comment. --Linnea78 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Reasonable conclusion: the references presented did not amount to notability, (at lerast going by the Google Translate versions). Such was the consensus, and it was correct. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Note. I have, literally, no idea what Annika is talking about in her certainty that I have deleted this article under G6. I didn't delete it at all, and no one mentions G6 in the deletion discussion- I don't see how the 'routine housekeeping' speedy deletion criteria would even be relevant- and it doesn't appear on the deletion record of Annika Väisänen, either. She might be confusing this article with Annika Suvi Johanna Vaisanen, created by another apparent sockpuppet, which was deleted under G4, recreation of a page deleted through AfD, but I didn't delete that one, either. I hope no one minds, but given that this user is using multiple accounts inappropriately and trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, I've taken the liberty of blocking her and both of the sockpuppets I know about. Of course that shouldn't prejudice this discussion, and if anyone thinks this article really should be restored and improved, I think that's great- I'm a fan of finding a way to save a marginal article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log does show a G6 deletion by you, however it's in relation to the moving of the page, so it looks like you deleted a redirect or some such with the end result being the content being under this title. i.e. it looks like the editor is confused in their understanding of the deletion log. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes! Thanks; I had forgotten that part- that's how I noticed the article in the first place, when she was creating another copy elsewhere to avoid the 'harassment' of other users editing her work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It appears to have been deleted according to proper consensus. And in an event where DGG supports deletion of an article, it sends a strong signal that the deletion was correct. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone uses me as the outer edge of acceptability--there are a few fields where I might be near that, but equally some where I am more deletionist than the average, as with many local organizations and most non-fiction books. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who voted userfy because I was ready to volunteer to cleanup "self-promotion" mentioned above. Article was clearly borderline case where some people got distracted from main purpose of Wikipedia, which is writing articles, not users fighting with each other. Finnish is one of my primary languages so I could have easily verified what the "online" references did actually tell about Annika Väisänen. Monni (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per DGG and Stifle. Proper AfD closure. GlassCobra 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as consensus of policy-based comments during AfD. User who filed this DRV to overturn the delete had previously waged a campaign to have article deleted (to the level of repeatedly blanking it often enough that I blocked her for that).[30] DMacks (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be interested to hear, which one of Vaisanen's references user Monni thinks was not about her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rita75 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some of the so-called references were articles written by Väisänen, not articles written by others about her. Articles written by herself contribute nothing to notability of her, but articles written by others about her do. Monni (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 January 2010[edit]

HOCR (software) – Deletion endorsed, page salted. Please submit a draft to DRV if proper sources emerge but please don't bother unless the sources are both substantional and clearly notable – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted for no reliable sources, the page was re writen with 14 new independent sources: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] Kzamir (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the admin who most recently deleted the article. While Kzamir had added many footnotes since the AfD, many of them were not WP:RS and none of them was a third-party article about the software. (A few articles mentioned that X gave a grant to promote development of the software.) The last version of the article was not identical to the version deleted at AfD, but it was substantially the same and I felt the notability problem had not been addressed, which is why I deleted it under WP:CSD#G4. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the 14 sources:
1. http://directory.fsf.org/project/hocr/ - a directory entry fails WP:GNG as a trivial mention
2. http://hocr.berlios.de/ - Appears to be a project home page - is not independant
3. http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/karmic/hocr - list of packages in a linux distribution again a directory entry
4. http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/hocr - list of packages in a linux distribution again a directory entry
5. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=4375 - list of packages in a linux distribution again a directory entry
6. http://code.google.com/p/qhocr/ - a project using the library, says nothing significant about the library again a trivial mention
7. http://appsv.ocrgrid.org/hocr/ - an online servie usign the library, again says nothing significant about it, so again is a trivial mention
8. http://hspell.ivrix.org.il/ - The target of the link doesn't seem to mention hocr at all.
9. http://www.isoc.org.il/open/grants_2005.html - Provides no significant coverage (doesn't appear to mention the software by name)
10. http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3208550,00.html - as previous source
11. http://wiki.hamakor.org.il/index.php/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8 - Appears to be a wiki, passing mentions, seems to indicate the author has received same awards but not the software itself.
12. http://osdc.org.il/2006/talk_76.html - Trivial mention.
13. http://august.penguin.org.il/node/17 - can't evalute
14. http://hocr.berlios.de/code/man-hocr.html - Is the same as the second source

--82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted It was deleted for lack of sourcing, which means the existing content fails WP:V. If the OP believes sources exist they can re-write the article. Miami33139 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the original author of the article. The article was re-written with sources. Malik Shabazz re-quick-deleted it because he believe the new article is also not notable. The question is, what are the rules for notability of an article about software and free-software. If the rules for software are the same as the rules for a famous person, then this article is not notable, because their are no news article in big newspapers about it. On the other hand, If the rules of notability for software are about being famous withing a big users group or a uniqueness in features, then this article has references to prove notability. Kzamir (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#Primary_criteria Nutshell: Significant coverage in reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is about software and not about companies_and_corporations. In rule A7 for speedy deletion of articles there is a distinction between organizations and software, This distinction apply here too. Also even in the criteria for companies there is a note "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability". If this is true for companies it can also apply for free-software. Kzamir (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The community never agreed secondary criteria for software, as such the general notability guidline applies. Again it requires significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. As I brokedown above most of the links are trivial in nature or not independant. Essentially if it is notable then the world would have noticed it to such a degree that reliable third party sources would of course have wanted to write about it in some level of detail. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:Software_notability : "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: ... It has won a recognized award that is reported in multiple general interest sources;..." [45] [46] "... technical significance by multiple reliable sources,..." [47] [48] [49] Kzamir (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That'll be the one which has the big red X at the top with the text "This is a failed guideline. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable amount of time.". As I said the community never agreed secondary criteria for software. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The other view Wikipedia:Notability_(software) is more lenient "...It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software,..." , consensus must bee somewhere between those two views. Kzamir (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The over view with the big red cross at the top saying "This is not a wikipedia policy and should not be used as a basis for article inclusion" that's pretty unambiguous --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Even if we apply it, the first two links still don't mention the software and it doesn't mean award in the sense of financial grant anyway. And the last three are software packages which use the library, they aren't reliable sources making claims about the technical significant of the software. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Notability (software) is the closest (imho) to current consensus on software notability. The reason WP:Software notability failed was not due to leniency, but rather due to it being too strict. I have solicited opinions from both supporters and opponents of Wp:Software notability and the language of WP:Notability (software) is at least amiable to both sides. The section quoted in this context is merely a "common sense" clause that states that all cases should be taken in consideration of its circumstances, such as "example, example, example". Notability should still be considered in context, and any and all discussions should rely primarily on approved guidelines and policies until WP:Notability (software) is promoted to or declined as a policy. That being said, there are many essays on wikipedia such as WP:CREEP, WP:DUCK, etc. that aren't policy, but do hold their impact (however lightly) on discussions. Remember, rules are principles. Editors should avoid relying on perceived laws, instead commenting on the merits of the page itself in context of it's circumstances. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note At the begining of this discussion Miami33139 suggested that if the OP believes sources exist they can re-write the article. The re-write with the sources was speedy deleted by Malik Shabazz using WP:CSD#G4 . Since the re-write was very different from the original version deleted by User:NJA after this WP:Articles for deletion/HOCR (software) discussion . I will re-post the version with the sources as suggested by Miami33139. The notability issue may be unclear, but it is not a reason for speedy delete ( WP:Speedy_Delete#Articles ) and not a reason for WP:CSD#G4. Kzamir (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, redelete, and salt. None of the references provided are nontrivial except for the software's homepage - several don't even even mention HOCR! - and software's author has now reposted it a third time in barely a week since its afd. —Korath (Talk) 13:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Korath: The article re-posted is not the one deleted by User:NJA after the deletion discussion. I asked for comments about re-posting the revised version (the one with the sources), see above. I re-posted it after I got no comments about my note. The case of the references being trivia is a case for discussion, see User:Noian comment above. Also notice that Miami33139 suggested re-posting the article if the OP believes sources exist. The original article that was deleted after WP:Articles for deletion/HOCR (software) did not have this sources. Kzamir (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battrick – recreation permitted, restored for convienience of nom – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted for no reliable sources, there are now 3 sources available that I can find: [50], [51], [52]. <Karlww_{(contribs|talk)} 04:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore passes WP:WEB which was the reason for the deletion in the first place. Also easily passed 1st nomination. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 11:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite based on sources Wikipedia is a source based project. There is no need to undelete a low quality page when you can re-write a source based article. Miami33139 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite from sources enough sources to justify inclusion. ~A H 1^(TCU) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore the new sources appear to address the earlier issues Dave of Darwin (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Why force the nom to reinvent the wheel? Tim Song (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arukuaraundo – Restored by consent of the deleting admin. Listing at AFD is at editors' discretion. – Stifle (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted without any AfD nomination or vote under A7, when, as a musical recording, it does not need to satisfy this requirement. Even if it were required to do so, it was a hugely popular song in Japan, and someone could easily have done so given proper notice. Disregard for Wikipedia policy. tylermenezes (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore, reluctantly because this should have been taken to the talk page of the closing admin, User:Alexf, before coming here. A7 was an erroneous ground for deletion - A7 does not apply to musical recordings. A9 does, but as the artist is the subject of an article on wikipedia, A9 was failed as well.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The OP is correct. I failed to notice at the time, tired as I was, that this was not an A7 case. I was just informed of this DRV. Would have been much easier to just point the error to me in my Talk page instead, and I would have restored it had I known about the mistake. I will not contest any restoration on this issue. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic Restore as contested WP:CSD#A7. List at AfD if required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the policy that says a contested A7 is an automatic restore? Stifle (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 January 2010[edit]

skillstrain – Speedy deletion overturned. Listed at AfD. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure how to find xfd page so just included the discussion link above. On what basis is the article believed to be from an author with an agenda? Everything in the article was thoroughly sourced. The reason most of the edits by the author were to that page was due to repeated undoing of vandalism by user Tesug. Invest-agator (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore, regrettably because this should have been posted on the deleting admin's talk page before coming here. This was speedily deleted under A7 (db-corp). In my view, the content of the article and the number of sources cited - some of them from national news outlets - constitute a credible claim for notability. Questions of coat-racking and actual notability are matters for AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD if so desired. As noted above, WP:CSD#A7 explicitly excludes "any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance." The "Controversies" section in the article gave the subject a "credible claim of significance or importance," so speedy deletion was inappropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist for AfD Speedy deletion seemed to be improper and further discussion is required. ~A H 1^(TCU) 04:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 January 2010[edit]

OptiPNG – There is no consensus to overturn this AfD. However, there is considerable feeling that a merge would be appropriate, which I will editorially suggest. – Chick Bowen 00:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as "no consensus" by nose counting. Pcap ping 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong. I explained my rationale very clearly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I might have read this as a consensus to delete, given the weakness of the keep votes and strength of the keep votes, but I also think it was within the admin's discretion to read it as no consensus. I don't think the closure was an "incorrect interpretation" of the debate - there was more than one interpretation open to the closing admin and "no consensus" was one of them. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Can anyone point to a "keep" argument in that discussion that wasn't "exceedingly weak and relied on unverified claims" to use Julian's exact wording? Pcap ping 22:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused... are you arguing that it should have been deleted? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and delete - Juliancolton, you did not clearly explain your rationale for your 'no consensus' close. which were the 'keep' votes that you weighed heavy enough for there to be "no consensus"? which keep votes were backed by policy? as far as i can tell, not a single keep vote was policy based. however, the delete votes point out that there is not a single third party, reliable source that has been presented. not one. how can there be no consensus when not a single "keep" vote had valid reasoning behind it? the "delete"s, on the other hand, argued that notability has not been attained. this should have been closed as delete. the consensus, which should be based on wikipedia's policy, and not a headcount, said delete. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete I'm not seeing any policy based keep votes and the delete votes were all solidly policy based. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~Weak endorse. I can't bring myself to say that JC's close was clearly erroneous. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: I would have closed it as delete, and I came very close to a !vote to overturn here. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete unless the nominator can explain how they came to a no consensus decision. The keep !votes (or really, votes) did nothing to support their position in a manner founded by policy. JBsupreme (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain. Many of the keep votes were weak and not well-considered, which is why I didn't close it as keep. But there was by no means consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold and Merge and Redirect to Portable Network Graphics, imho. That was suggested by a couple of people in the AfD discussion, seems reasonable, and is an editorial decision that doesn't need a DRV. If anyone wants to bring it back to a standalone article, they should come up with the significant coverage in reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i support this, and would do it myself if i knew how. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Closed within administrative discretion; while keep rationales were thinly phrased, it's quite appropriate in a context like this for the closer to infer that the keep !voters argued by implication that such widely used software has been covered sufficiently by reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURDEN. All those arguments amounted to were that the software has been used on a few hundred images on commons. Pcap ping 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I see no delete consensus from that afd. Redirects or merges can be handled at the article and don't need an AFD/DRV ruling. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse God bless an admin who looks at a lack of consensus and calls it as he sees it. Given how close many votes are -- both in number and strength of arguments -- there are way too few "no consensus" closes than should be expected. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The only "policy" based argument doesn't call for deletion where a merge is sensible. WP:N is only about whether the subject should be a stand-alone article. There is no problem with WP:RS, there is no doubt of the reliability of the source, WP:RS does not exclude non-independent sources. Merge and redirect as per Pcap 07:48, 29 December 2009 in the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect, merging at editorial discretion – considering the weakness of the keeps, I see consensus against a standalone article, but not quite enough for deletion. I understand that no consensus and redirect are the same with respect to deletion, but I believe in recognizing the distinction. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The keep votes may not be the most well written, but AfD is not a debate competition. There is reasonable indication of coverage in reliable sources, at least enough for "no consensus" and allowing the article a chance to be expanded. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also find that several of the delete votes are not very convincing, commenting on those who voted keep rather than the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. I have the utmost respect for Juliancolton, but the keep !votes were based on bare assertions that there is lots of coverage, that the program is apparently widely used, and that people need a reliable source. The burden of proof is on users seeking that the article be kept to produce proper sources. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure WP:BURDEN should be applied to notability in this way. Just asserting that something is not notable is no more convincing than asserting that it is. In my opinion, the votes of those who have searched for sources weight the most. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure I don't believe any sort of consensus was reached at this AfD. On the one hand, yes, the arguments to delete were stronger, and we all know that AfD is not a vote. The relevant guideline is WP:PNSD, which is actually murkier than one might expect on the subject: "Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process." This suggests that while the strength of arguments presented is the top priority, the closing admin should not override the majority unless the minority's reasoning is especially strong. WP:CONS is a relevant policy, and it states: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. ...Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. ...In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes." This suggests that while the strength of the arguments should be the top priority in determining consensus, consensus cannot be truly reached if a majority strongly rejects a minority's arguments. Now, there were ten participants in this AfD. Four editors voted to keep, with rather flimsy reasoning. Three voted to delete, with stronger reasoning. One voted to merge, one voted to redirect, and one merely offered a comment but leaned towards keeping. Only four of ten participants in the debate felt that the information in the article should not be preserved on Wikipedia somewhere. While they may have had the stronger arguments, their arguments were strongly rejected by a number of editors, indicating that consensus was not reached. Juliancolton's close as "no consensus," therefore, was accurate. Pcap, I suggest starting a proposed merger discussion on the talk page; I think it's likely that it would develop a consensus to merge. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per A Stop at Willoughby. Separately worth noting that this book provides trivial coverage as does this book. The second specifically calls it "notable". Not hugely strong, but there you are... Hobit (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the first afd is always a nose count.--Otterathome (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete WP:BURDEN isn't reached - wasn't even attempted. There could be 100 keep votes saying they like it and I'd say the same thing. Miami33139 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The number of other language projects on this software may serve as an indicator of "popularity", or no-nonsense notability, and the Italian, German and Russian Wikipedias carry the article. I found it mentioned in an English book, a Polish book, and two blogs with editorial oversight (=RS) - added to article. It is subjective exactly how many lines count as "significant", or how many "non-significant" independent mentions sum up to significant, but a delete is completely out of line, merger and redirect to WP:PRESERVE content could be disccussed [and redirects close as keep (with history preserved, for later improvement)]. No consensus was a correct closure. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, within admin discretion. GlassCobra 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ASaW pretty much said it all for me. The deletion votes certainly had the advantage of better rationale and reason behind them, but they definitely didn't achieve a consensus for it, if only because none of the keep !voters ever responded. That being said, neither side presented extremely compelling arguments, and given the initial relisting and numbers involved I'd say a no consensus closure was definitely in order. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barnegat Fund Management – Endorsed. – Chick Bowen 00:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are oodles of news stories about these guys now. Lighten up Francis! 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse. There was a very clear consensus here. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the AfD consensus was quite clear, I'd like to see those "oodles" of news stories first. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and ye shall receive
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240504574586180545236304.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/small_fund_big_Mx0CteaUi94eN4doGCQr9H
http://www.hedgetracker.com/article/Bob-Treues-Barnegat-Fund-up-132
http://www.finalternatives.com/node/10106
http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-treue-hedge-fund-2010-1
http://www.fins.com/Finance/Articles/SB126261817505914945/N-J-Hedge-Fund-Is-2009-Top-Performer
http://www.hedgefund.net/publicnews/default.aspx?story=10757
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100108005054&newsLang=en
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703535104574646710848896566.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funders-brush-off-carried-tax-2010-1

Lighten up Francis! 13:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)

Comment. Here is an article from the New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/small_fund_big_Mx0CteaUi94eN4doGCQr9H It didn't show up when I did a Google News archives search, but did when I searched on Google itself. Perhaps the company is notable after all. I didn't participate in the initial discussion. – Eastmain (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus could hardly have been clearer here. I have no objection to a new article being created with appropriate reliable and verifiable sources, probably best done in userspace. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: DRV is supposed to consider newly found sources, even if the close was completely correct interpretation of consensus. If this doesn't get overturned: Create a stub with enough sources to show notability, then ask an admin to restore the deleted revisions so you can use the text. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not reasonably have been closed any other way. As ever, deletion isn't permanent. The article can be userfied for you to improve it. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure There was a clear consensus to delete. That said, the sources look good and you should feel free to re-create the article while citing them. As such, the closing admin here should restore it to the DRV nom's userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bunch of Tools The reason that wikipedia is struggling in so many ways beyond its financial woes is because the authorities that be are more power hungry and controlling than the government of communist China, and its rules and procedures are more vague and complex that the US Tax Code! Feel free to take your biased vengeance out on me and delete my account if you feel that I'm being abusive, for that will only solidify my stance.Lighten up Francis! 15:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)
Endorse per clear consensus, and the nominator's decision to attack/insult the community is doing it no favours either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100119005106&newsLang=en
Power Hungry & oh so sensitive please review [53] and then punish me for doing no wrong. Lighten up Francis! 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)

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

Obsession (band) – Article restored – There seems to be consensus here that the topic has a new claim to notability that has not previously been considered, and as such the article is not deletable under WP:G4. While we could relist at AfD, doing so immediately would seem to be pointless bureaucracy. I will restore the deleted revisions and allow the interested editors to work on the article, without prejudice against any future AfD should someone still not be satisfied with the notability claims. Skomorokh 05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(reason given - Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) Obsession is a band spawning the career of Michael Vescera, premier metal vocalist. (Also in the band Yngwie Malmsteen and Loudness) The band provided soundtrack music for the movies "Sleep Away Camp" as well as "Texas chainsaw Massacre 3". The band is also on the Metal Blade 15th anniversary CD. They have been around since 1982 and are very notable in the metal community. Per any of the deletion discussion, when the page was reposted all comments regarding the deletion were concidered and edits were made. Any references in the discussion regarding "advertisement" were removed from the article. Any references saying that there could be copyright violations are wrong.(I own/write/and operate the websites with the copyright in question. theobsession.net) It was deleted by Wizardman Obsession is listed on BILLBOARD - http://www.billboard.com/search/?keyword=obsession+carnival#/search/obsession%20carnival%20of%20lies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbruno2 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the page to be allowed and recreated. If there are any concerns or issues with the page, let me know and I will make the edit. It makes no sense to delete it.

Endorse AfD close. Is there anything the AfD participants missed that would make this band pass WP:BAND? Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But also restore and relist to consider the WP:BAND #5 question, per J04n. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: According to this they meet criterion 5 of WP:BAND having released two albums on Enigma Records. J04n(talk page) 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least restore history and merge/redirect to Michael Vescera, as long as he personally is deemed sufficiently notable for an article, this content should have been merged there rather than deleted, it was referenced and worthwhile for the article on Vescera. --Stormie (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jbruno wants the G4 speedy deletion overturned, not the original AfD. Is the current version substantially identical to what was deleted at AfD? If not, let him keep working on it, and AfD again if necessary. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 and list at AfD. The consensus for deletion at the AfD was based on the fact that adequate sourcing could not be found. The external links provided in the new article may resolve that issue; as such, the original reason for deletion may no longer exist and G4 is not an appropriate criterion for speedy deletion. An attempt to reach a consensus on the newly provided sources at AfD would be the best solution at this point. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closures but now restore per J04n. Appears to now meet our inclusion guidelines (though I'm not the best with the arcana of WP:BAND). Hobit (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore / undelete. Pretty clearly passes both the letter and spirit of WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no opinion on notability of bands (not my thing), but I've userfied the version created by the DRV submitter, here: User:Jbruno2/Obsession (band). Rd232 ^talk 17:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been recreated before this DRV was closed, somewhat out of process. This means that there are now two versions, including the userfied one; however, since they are written by the same author, this is not a big deal. Like several people commenting here, I've never been clear on the distinctions of WP:BAND, but it seems like the best outcome here is a new AfD. For now I will leave the recreated article where it is. Chick Bowen 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD to determine whether or not this band passes WP:BAND. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Very Potter Musical – Deletion endorsed. – –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This got deleted for notability, which seemed funny to me since the REPOSTED version of the first video has over one million views, and has a large sub-fanbase among Harry fans (one video shows them attending a midnight release of Half Blood Prince in costume and they are recognized instantly).

I looked around trying to find out why there weren't more sources talking about them, and one possible reason is after they received a lot of attention, they decided to take down the videos and retitle them to avoid legal troubles. So the play that we now know as "A Very Potter Musical" and had difficulty finding credible information about was originally titled "Harry Potter the Musical." It is under that title I was able to find more notable sources, such as:

Mentioned on Entertainment Weekly: http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/06/23/harry-potter-musical/ Mentioned again in a year end article, citing it as one of the top viral videos of 2009: http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/29/best-viral-videos-of-2009/

I feel this in conjunction with the originally cited NPR article (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/8/0/1530366/Arts..and..Culture/A.Very.Potter.Musical) as well as being mentioned by many bloggers, we should at least reconsider deletion.

With the sizeable fanbase I think this show deserves its own page with a list of cast and crew. I can't see what was on the original page, so I'm not sure what other info was found.

I apologize in advance if I haven't started this deletion review properly. It's my first time trying it. Razordu30 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. AfD consensus is clear. Nom's lengthy discourse does not contain any suggestion that the subject meets WP:N. The links cited seems to be blog posts. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But according to the article on what is considered Reliable sources, blog posts by interactive columns (as in the the Entertainment Weekly link) are acceptable as long as the writers are professional and the article is subject to the provider's full editorial control. I feel that because the "blog" post is one run by Entertainment Weekly, a well-established periodical with a focus on entertainment news, this would satisfy the requirement.

I'm probably just not understanding the requirements properly, but it would seem to me that NPR and Entertainment Weekly constitute Reliable Secondary Sources, Independent of the subject (neither NPR nor Entertainment Weekly had anything to do with the show), and that the show has gotten considerable coverage. Razordu30 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are reliable sources, they are not significant coverage. One consists of exactly three lines. The other mentions the subject once. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, nothing has been pointed out to show that the deletion process was not followed properly. Recommend userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse very clear AFD, no evidence that procedure wasn't followed properly. We understand that Razordu30 disagrees with the result, but that's not what DRV is for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure There was a strong consensus to delete at the AfD, and there's no good reason to restore the article provided above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (unfortunately); nothing suggests that there has been a significant change in the situation so that the article now has sufficient detailed, reliable, secondary sources to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, clear closure. No objection to a userspace draft if the creator desires. GlassCobra 17:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there was a clear consensus at the AfD to delete the article so any other closure would have been improper. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accio Endorse. The closing admin interpreted the consensus of the masses correctly. Its possible that a better sourced article would have survived AfD (and might if recreated), but that apparently didn't happen. EW naming it one of the top 10 viral videos on 2009 suggests it should be mentioned somewhere in the project, though.--Milowent (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erfan – Recreation permitted. – –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erfan is a notable Iranian rapper, based on the history of the page, there have been many attempts to create a page, I recreated with references and cleaned up article. RHaworth was the last deleter, he suggested I create the article in User:Fishoil3/sandbox and post for deletion review. Fishoil3 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the systemic bias that consorship in Iran will introduce to providing sources I would accept the primary sources (i.e the radio interviews) as evidence of notability and allow recreation from this draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly endorse re-instatement. Come clean Fishoil3 and declare your relationship to Erfan. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick look, the sources look fine and secondary (interviews are just fine in general as secondary sources). allow restoration Hobit (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation per Spartaz. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation The sourcing in the userspace draft looks good; a re-creation of the article in this state would not be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simple Instant Messenger – No consensus to overturn the decision. – –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing reason is not a legitimate deletion reason. Spartaz argues that article must be deleted despite strong consensus for Keep, because the current citations were inadequate. AfD should be decided on the merits of the "best possible article", not simply on fixable flaws in an existing version. LotLE×talk 06:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a number of (non-Russian) sources after the AfD had closed. See my post here. I suggest this be userified to Lulu for further editing. I was going to request userification to myself at some point, but I'm rather busy at the moment. By the way, some admin should move Serverless Instant Messenger to Lulu's user space as well because it's a WP:CFORK and needs to be merged with the (to be un-)deleted article. Pcap ping 07:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent my words What I actually said was
keep arguments are mostly by assertion and the argument that the article is lacking adequate sourcing hasn't been refuted.
. Absent some fresh sourcing I see no reason to ignore the rough consensus of the AFD. Is there a reason the nom did not do me the courtesy of raising this on my talk page before raising this DRV or was it just bad manners? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I wrote just above, I did find some sources after the AfD had closed. Honestly, I though the two Russian round-up reviews—one in Computerra and the other in ixbt.com were enough—, so I did not look for more until after the AfD closed. Others "asserted" (as you put it) the same point. FYI: the additional sources from my post to Honeyman linked above: I also found it covered in another on Tom's Hardware, and it has an editorial review on Softonic, which seems genuine (in that they didn't like it). Also found a long review in German here (same publisher as Linux Magazine). Pcap ping 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FISH to the nom for not bringing this to the admin first. Overturn to merge based on the fact that there are sources and a merge is a darn reasonable outcome, suggested by many in the AfD. Topic may not be acceptable for a stand alone article (I disagree, but that's not a crazy reading of the discussion) but that doesn't prevent a merge where there is a reasonable target. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to what? Serverless Instant Messenger is probably {{db-afd}}. Actually, I just tagged it as such. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can someone explain how G6 applied there? Deleting a proposed merge target as an uncontroversial delete seems odd. I'm assuming I missed something. Anyone?Hobit (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hobit, if you look at the top of the AfD (below the header but above the nom), it looks like that article was bundled into the AfD because it was about the same product. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. Well after many of the !votes had happened it seems. I don't buy that one, but... Hobit (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I added it to the AfD because it had been prodded (by Miami3xxxx, if I recall correctly). It was another article for the same product. What would you have done given that there was an ongoing AfD? Pcap ping 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd prefer to let the AfD finish and then send the other to AfD also. I personally dislike folks adding things to AfDs once significant discussion has already occurred. I find it confuses people (or at least me). Hobit (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. In my view, there are only two keep votes (Alison22 and Pcap) that don't amount to either a mere assertion of notability, or an argument that is not based on accepted guidelines. Alison 22's argument was refuted - the sources cited did not amount to significant coverage. On the other hand, there were four firm delete votes, all of which properly applied guidelines, and none of which were specifically refuted. The closing admin therefore made the right call: the raw vote count was a misleading indication of consensus. A proper reading of the arguments shows the consensus went the other way. This is subject to a discussion of the new sources, which may suggest notability (I'm not qualified enough in this area to judge myself). As for merge, a deletion outcome does not prevent the later appropriate inclusion of similar material in another article, does it?--Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fairly low signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion, I'll go with endorsing Spartaz's close. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, well within administrator discretion. JBsupreme (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep Heaven help us if any admin can disregard consensus so clearly in the direction of Keep and just toss an article away, or vice versa. All editors participating are aware of policy and an overwhelming majority voted to Keep based on their understanding thereof. We need to get admins out of the business of abusing administrative authority to impose their own view on the subject via supervote. The AfD was presumably at "no consensus" when it was relisted the first time and then relisted a second time a week later, and consensus only became clearer for retention after the second relisting. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, discounting unsupported assertions and novel arguments is permitted; basically per Mkativerata. No objection to working on sourcing in user space per Pcap. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse appears to have been a reasonable close and well within admin discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and merge with Serverless Instant Messenger — Neustradamus (✉) 15:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The arguments to keep were unusually weak in this case. One "keep" vote must be discarded as by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Two "keep" votes offer no real rationale whatsoever, and must be discarded. Two other "keep" votes are based on WP:ITSNOTABLE, an argument to avoid. Votes to merge are moot given the deletion of the article to which this one was supposed to be merged. As such, only Pcap and Honeyman offered valid arguments to keep, and those were rejected by a majority of the participants in the discussion (whose votes were not discarded per the above). The arguments to delete were strong, as mentioned above. Unlike the OptiPNG AfD being discussed above, the invalid nature of most of the "keep" votes here renders the closing admin's decision to delete a good one. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will point out that there appear to be sources found (above). Not sure if that will change your mind, the the assertions of notability now have evidence behind them. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I saw that. It doesn't really change my mind that this was a good AfD close, but it does mean that I wouldn't object to the creation of a new article based on those sources (assuming someone can read Russian). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that how you suck up to the power base here? LOL. Pcap ping 10:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Power base"? Look, I don't know a whole lot about this whole software fight involving you, Tothwolf, Miami33139, Theserialcomma, JBSupreme, etc., and the very last thing I want is to get sucked into it. All I'm saying is that this was a good AfD close – nothing more, nothing less. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You win "best wikilawyer of 2010 award". You just argued in the OptiPNG DRV on this page that votes ultimately should be counted. And here you said the exact opposite. Pcap ping 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, remember no personal attacks. Second, ASaW's argument in that thread appears to be the same, weighing the strength of arguments to determine consensus. Finally, what "power base" are you referring to? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This is worthy of reading, even though it may seem at a glance TL;DR.)
I wish people would actually read the case before assuming that the ArbCom case was about me or just some software-related AfDs. Yes, the name could have been chosen better (case name discussion), and the way the case is named has resulted all sorts of problems due to an assumption from a handful of people that the case was about my behaviour when they looked only at the case name and ignored the evidence itself. (Links related to the case name can be found here.)
The short version is that the case was filed by Jehochman on my behalf [54] (RFAR link) due to Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme targeting me for harassment. The case also involves a hell of a lot more than just software-related AfDs, although Miami33139 in particular tried very hard to make it look like that's what the case was about after trying unsuccessfully to convince ArbCom to not accept the case (which is the same type of thing that he did during the AN/I about the same harassment issues). Prior to September 2009 though, Miami33139 simply did not participate in software and computing-related deletion discussions (with the exception of those related to multimedia software, with nearly all of those being AfD discussions Miami33139 himself created). In September 2009 he tried to superficially involve himself in deletion discussions related to software and computing topics as well as WP:COMP in order to try to hide the fact that he was following me around and going through my past contribs to prod or create deletion discussions for things I edited (not only articles, but also redirects, templates, categories, etc). Unfortunately for Miami33139 and the other two editors, their edit histories (including deleted contribs) make the patterns completely transparent. None of those three editors create, update, or improve articles, redirects, templates, categories, etc in these topic area though.
--Tothwolf (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Excellent application of WP:NOTAVOTE. Triplestop x3 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, weakly. I understand that a number of the AfD participants considered the Russian sources insufficient, and that Spartaz read the consensus that way. Although I found additional non-Russian sources after the AfD had closed, DRV isn't supposed to be a continuation of the AfD, but an analysis of how the closing admin examined the consensus at the time of closure, and I can't really find fault with Spartaz's decision there. The AfD discussion was also quite confusing because there were two articles about the same product, and the merge discussion was taking place in between the lines. (Actually, even Spartaz missed that, because he only deleted one of the articles.) Even though the other editors did not clearly endorse the sources presented, I would like to point out however that only User:JBsupreme and User:Benlisquare voted delete after the Russian sources were presented. Like Miami3xxxx, the nominator, these editors are known for their position to delete most software from Wikipedia (See the Tothwolf ArbCom for Miami & JB, and this AfD for Benlisquare's stance. We don't know if User:Joe Chill re-examined his vote after the sources were presented. Pcap ping 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did check back. There was only two sources, which isn't multiple. Joe Chill (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A question: I've always treated the word "multiple" to mean one or more. Is that not the normal definition people use? Then again I also use "a couple" to sometimes mean "a few" which confuses my students from time to time... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus. If the community thinks the sources are sufficient, no admin has the right to over-rule them. Whether the community actually thought that way is unclear, so either relist or close as non-consensus and discuss again in a month. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Consensus accurately read by ignoring "Keep" votes like "this is open source software" as unrelated to policies. Spamming that message to all FOSS deletion discussions was a disruptive influence. Miami33139 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus was formed at AFD that the article should be deleted. 16x9 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 January 2010[edit]

Lustra (band) – unsalted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This title is protected. The band had a hit on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2006, peaking at #75. ([55]) Requesting Unsalt as the group meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Chubbles (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with unsalting, in addition to charting they also have a decent bios in Allmusic and Sputnik and appeared in the film EuroTrip. They were also in the news here. J04n(talk page) 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn salting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn salting. The subject appears to meet WP:MUSIC and I doubt continued creation-protection is helpful; I trust that the copyvios being placed at this title three years ago will not return. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt, a workable article appears to be possible now- and I wonder if WP:RFPP would have been faster and easier than DRV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Klaus Thymann – endorsed. Any attempts at a rewrite should be done in userspace and only with the inclusion of multiple independent and reliable sources as per policy. – Shereth 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a photographer who is known and there is no reason why he should not have a page. I see the previous deletions were because it was thought to be spam, but the references I will put will be to his own website, so that would not be spam. Please help me out here. I'm a big fan of Klaus Thymann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographynyc (talk • contribs)

Moved from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – I agree with the reasons for the past deletions. I'm afraid, after briefly searching, that even if a new version is created that is neutral and not advertorial, I don't think it passes for notability (which I think was also why it was deleted a couple times per WP:CSD#A7. –MuZemike 17:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a DRV matter. Just write an article with independently (third party) sourced claims of notability; the subject's own website probably won't do, although, for example, the official sites for the awards he's allegedly won probably would. Speedy deletion is not a bar to creation of a legit article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion at this point there appears to be no reason that a speedy deletion is not appropriate. The article should probably be next recreated in user space, allowing a determination if there is enough there to justify a move to mainspace based on the presence of reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11. The article's most recent incarnation read like an advertisement and contained "weasel words" and "peacock words." If notability in reliable sources can be shown, a new article about this individual may be acceptable. But the speedy deletion should not be overturned. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a determined promotion effort going on here - this article has been created five times, by authors such as Klaus Thymann (talk · contribs), Afgmanagement (talk · contribs) and Afgintern (talk · contribs). AFG Management of NYC is the agency that represents Thymann. The last one was deleted only a week ago; the author Afgintern was rather disingenuous about his connection: "I don't know or even work for this person, I am just trying to create pages for photographers". I think this new "big fan of Klaus Thymann" Photographynyc (talk · contribs) is the agency PR department trying again; they have not yet got the message that WP is not a free promotion service. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I have found for notability are project-pressure.org, hybrids-project.com. I also want to talk about his solo gallery shows and awards won. I didn't see any of the other pages created, but if you give me a chance, you will see that it's encyclopedic and not advertising. If you don't like it, you can delete it again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographynyc (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found alot more sources, so please give me a chance to create this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographynyc (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion A review of the Google cache shows that this was correctly deleted as {{db-g11}}. The creator, if s/he wishes to recreate the article, should bring this article back to deletion review only after starting a userspace draft that includes plenty of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 January 2010[edit]

Pamela Taylor – Deletion endorsed. There is no consensus below for history restoration so I won't undertake it, but it should certainly be understood that she is subject to undeletion should circumstances change (i.e. if she wins the election). – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Major party candidate in a current Canadian by-election. Came second when she ran in the same riding in the 2007 provincial election. At the very least the article should have been merged with Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election Fred the happy man (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2010 (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) 18:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just made a request to the deleting editor. However, this is relatively urgent since the by-election campaign has begun with the vote occurring on February 4, 2009 and having a major candidate's bio deleted when the other major candidates have bios up may make Wikipedia appear unfair. Fred the happy man (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Perhaps a bold call by the closing admin; but in my view, the right call: the outcome reflected a proper reading of the deletion discussion. There were 4 delete votes (counting the nom), 3 of which contained reasoning. Each of those 3 delete votes were well-reasoned and based on a correct reading of guidelines. Critically, none of the 3 delete votes were refuted. On the keep side, all the arguments were refuted, in my view convincingly, by other editors on the grounds of misreading or misapplying guidelines. Therefore, none of the 4 keep votes stood at the end of the day. Reading a consensus to delete was therefore the appropriate outcome. The overall discussion was detailed, so I don't think a 3rd re-listing was necessary or appropriate.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The head-count may have been split down the middle, but those supporting deletion seem to have won the debate. The "keep" votes made some reasonable arguments, but these were all refuted by the "delete" voters. The "delete" voters also showed that the subject of the article failed WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN and were not refuted in this respect. The closing admin made the correct decision, in my opinion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. As was noted more than once in the discussion, WP:POLITICIAN clearly points out that an unelected political candidate is not entitled to an article just for being a candidate — and nobody has demonstrated that she's notable for other things. Wikipedia is not, and never has been, bound by any sort of requirement to give "equal time" to all candidates in every election contest; we're an encyclopedia, not the media or a free webhosting provider for political campaigns. What we are required to do is to demonstrate the notability of article subjects through the use of reliable sources — and like it or not, that usually means that the only people in an election campaign who get to have independent articles are the incumbent, the winner, or people who were already notable enough that they'd qualify for a keepable article even if they hadn't run in the election. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:POLITICIAN and by the fact that none of the references brought up were enough to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Predictably, given the by-election campaign, major newspapers are now publishing articles with non-incidental coverage of Taylor eg "Send message in by-election, Tory candidate urges", Toronto Star. Fred the happy man (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article is a news brief, not a substantive profile of Taylor which could actually be used as a source for any actual content in a Wikipedia article. As such, it does not constitute "non-incidental" coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partially reverse Redirecting to a section was appropriate, but there was no reason to delete the prior content. There is generally no reason to do this for a redirect unless the content in some way represents an abuse of Wikipedia such as a copyvio . No justification for doing so appears to have been given. Personally, I think we would do much better to acknowledge all major party candidates in major elections in the US/UK/Canadian systems as notable - there will always be newspaper coverage if one looks hard enough, though I am talking in general, and have not checked for this case in particular. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing an individual candidate's subsection on a merged list to be as long and as detailed as if it were an independent article defeats the entire purpose of giving unelected candidates merged biopages instead of independent articles in the first place. No justification is necessary beyond the fact that keeping information about non-notable candidates brief and succinct, rather than letting them expand into campaign brochures, was the whole point of merging them into omnibus lists in the first place. If we allowed every single piece of poorly-sourced campaign-brochure fluff that was in the original article to stay in the merged list permanently, then why bother merging it at all? Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another new story featuring Taylor. Deletion was premature. Fred the happy man (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truncating the merged article does not seem particularly necessary, certainly not to the degree to which you've done it. Fred the happy man (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2010 (UT0C)

Keeping the article at its original length despite the fact that it's been merged into an omnibus list with space limitations, and despite the fact that most of the article was boilerplate campaign-brochure résumé, does not seem particularly necessary, certainly not to the degree that you've chosen to make that your central issue. If you want the full original article restored to its original title, vote that way. But it's full original article at original title or this, not "full original article as subsection in merged list". Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, that's still a blurb about the byelection, which contains no meaningful or substantial information about her. Please make at least a cursory attempt to understand what the phrase "substantial coverage" means; it is not sufficient to provide links which merely mention her once in passing. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The primary argument for keeping appears to be that she passes some class of criteria belonging to a WikiProject, but they don't get to set lower notability standards for articles in their purview. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this by-election is getting as much coverage as the keep proponents say it is, why do we not merge to an article about the by-election? Why merge to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election? DigitalC (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, when a candidate who isn't actually notable enough for direct inclusion is being merged into an omnibus list, they should generally be merged into a list for the first election they ran in (or at least the first one that has such a list to merge them into). While an article about the by-election wouldn't necessarily be an unreasonable thing, it wouldn't be the primary target for a redirect because by definition, it's secondary to the fact that she was previously a candidate in the 2007 general election. And the by-election isn't actually getting an unusually large amount of press for this sort of thing, either — merely the normal level of generic "hey, there's a by-election" coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense to me, Thanks Bearcat. DigitalC (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

RBF Morph – Endorse closure, article will be userfied for the creator. – GlassCobra 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The article has been deleted during holidays... There are users of the software available to improve it. MEB71 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— MEB71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no legitimate reason for challenging the close having been provided. The close seems to be an accurate assessment of the comments in the discussion. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no evidence was presented during the AfD or in this DRV that demonstrates this topic meets the notability standards. No prejudice against a new, sourced article that does meet the WP:GNG criteria, but I'd advise creating it as a userspace draft or in the Wikipedia:Article Incubator first though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closure respected consensus and policy. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, I am very sorry about the RBF Morph page deletion. I am using the technology since 2 years ago and I'm still astonished by the results that can be obtained out of it. I strongly believe that this is one of most important technology innovation done in the CSE in the last years and I have very good credentials to say this. Moreover this is one of the most effective example of technology transfer from academia to industry and should be actually indicated as "a model to be followed". I strongly hope the page can be re-considered for publication. Frasiers (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Frasiers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is required is not testimony from people who have "very good credentials" for saying something is good or useful, as it doesn't matter whether the subject is good, bad or indifferent, useful or useless. What is required is reliable sources to show that the subject of the article is notable and that all the information in the article can be verified. If you read the general notability guide it should help you get a better understanding of what is required (and if it doesn't, then please comment on the talk page so that it can be improved). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you mean that wikipedia is interesting only for people that create contents and partecipate to this discussion? RBF has received a great attention by the main actors of CAE word (partners, competitors, industrial users, researchers at the top level worldwide). My personal opinion is that the result of this discussions (and of other ones similar to this one) is that potential contributors (starting from myself, I'm a contributor and reviewer of several peer reviewed scientific journals; I have a long experience in writing scientific articles) are scared by wikipedia rules and give up; I have discussed about this yesterday with a colleague, one of the most expert in the world for his field (international awards, plenty of articles and books published), disappointed after that his improvement of an article has been deleted.MEB71 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia as long as they do so according to the rules of Wikipedia. Just like when contributing to peer reviewed journals you have to follow the rules of that journal. And just as all the journals have rules about what subjects they include and don't include, so does Wikipedia. On Wikipedia these rules are based on the principles of notability and verifiability. Even though Wikipedia's scope is far wider than the average journal, just as they do not publish material that does not follow their rules, Wikipedia does not publish material that does not follow it's rules. Journals primary purpose is to publish peer-reviewed original research, which is very different to Wikipedia's purpose of creating a tertiary-source encyclopaedia. This means a journal works on the principal that "I have these credentials and say it is correct, these other people with their credentials agree with me", Wikipedia is different, we don't care about the credentials of the people submitting the material what we require is that everything we include is backed up by reliable sources, including journals, that proves it is verifiable, meaning we do not accept original research. If any of Wikipedia's rules are confusing, please comment on the talk page of the advice page in question or discuss it in central location (e.g. the village pump) so that we can improve the explanation of our rules. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are article about similar software on Wikipedia. RBF Morph is a CAE software and of course it is relevant only for a small community of researchers and engineers. As a partner product of ANSYS,_Inc. it has a page on ANSYS portal, one of the most important company of this sector (http://www.ansys.com/corporate/partners/company/rbf-morph.asp). It has been awarded for the Most Advanced Approach using integrated and combined simulation methods at the European Automotive Simulation Conference (EASC) on July 2009. It was born for a F1 one top team (the name is confidential) because at that time nothing was available on the market for their CFD application (among the most challenging in this field). It is the first software that makes this excellent technology available outside research institutes. I'm a little surprised to hear that notability criteria are not met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MEB71 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure A good call by the closing administrator. Although only the nominator and one other voter explicitly supported deletion, a commenter noted that he was leaning towards voting to delete based on a lack of independent sources to establish notability. The "keep" voters failed to refute these arguments that the article did not pass our notability guidelines. The first "keep" vote was based on WP:IKNOWIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:VALINFO, all arguments to avoid. The second "keep" voter did not really talk about this subject's notability, instead pointing out that the article had the potential for future cleanup. As such, the closing admin correctly found that the "keep" votes were not rooted in policy and that the "delete" votes were. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, I am surprised about the deletion of RBF Morf page. RBF Morph is an emerging tool in CAE academic and industrial community and deserves to be cited in Wikipedia. On my opinion, there is no reason to prevent publishing such a page. No objective reasons as wrong contents or similar have been addressed for deletion. I am convinced that the page has to be included in wikipedia and I am sure that users from all over the world can contribute to the topic, posting examples of applications and case studies. PPDESIGN (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — PPDESIGN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to read WP:V and WP:N. We don't use "examples of applications and case studies" as citations, we need reliable, independent sources about the program itself. Nothing "deserves" an article in Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Wikipedia veterans, as already done, you will put many tags for users that express their opinion but are external to the community! Consider that I'm asking the contribution of the major experts in CAE and Computer Science. A very good opportunity to enlarge Wikipedia community... If you have followed the complete history of this article you should know that I started the article in the user space declaring that I'm the author of the software and with a feedback request: I haven't received any technical reply about radial basis, so it seems that experts in RBF are missing in the community... this is a pity beacuse RBF are one of the most promising meshless tecnique available today and RBF Morph is a demonstration that the theory can be transferred to practical applications.MEB71 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With my relist entry I mainly meant that the topic is very notable and satisfies all the notability guidelines. I'm a user of the technology (independent source) that, in opposition to all the negative voters, knows very well the topic. In addition I'm working in this field for more that 10 years (reliable source) and I can simply testify that the article is notable as is meant to make available information on an innovative technology and provides a very good verifiable coverage on the topic. I believe the intent of the author is not self-publicity, as there are better means for that, but is simply making the technology known. I would be very demoralized if Wikipedia will reject it. Frasiers (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- " I believe the intent of the author […] is simply making the technology known." This is then a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote anything, whether that is self-promotion or promotion by others. Subjects must be notable before they get coverage on Wikipedia not the other way around. I recommend you read WP:NOTPROMOTION and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I did not !vote in the AfD, but I had "canvassed" a number of wikiprojects (1, 2, 3). Apparently nobody was able to find anything that passes WP:N. The DRV nominator does not provide a compelling argument. Pcap ping 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move in User Space Hello everybody. Considering the debate I ask to restore the article in my user space. This fist step as a contributor has been useful for me to understand a part of the mechanism. Unfortunately industrial users protect their information and so it will not so easy to have published contributions to earn notability. However there are reserach institutes interested in the method and in its implementation: it will take some time to see their results published. Neverthless my idea is to contribute to wikipedia. Mesh smoothing and morphing is a crucial topic for CAE and deserve more space in Wikipedia. I have found only contributions related to computer graphic but for calculation mesh the task is different and delicate.

A good start could be an article with a structure that looks like:

Calculation Grid Smoothing and Morphing

Introduction to topic: comparison between CAE and computer graphics approach. Comparison between mesh and meshless methods.

Mesh methods

Pseudosolid
Spring model
Laplacian smoothing

Meshless methods

Bernstein polynomial
Radial Basis Functions

This topic is relevant and I have a good knowledge of the state of the art. However before starting a new article I prefer to hear your opinion to avoid further frustrations. I understand that this is not the right place for this proposal. Thank you for your attention. MEB71 (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Works by Richard Wagner – There is no consensus to overturn this CfD because there is no consensus as to what that would mean (which is why there are several "partial overturn, partial endorse" comments in the discussion). Normally overturning the close of a deletion discussion means restoring the previous status quo, but in this case the categories were in flux during the CfD. (After all, ordinarily at CfD no consensus defaults to no renaming, but in this case, overturning to no consensus would mean, bizarrely, enforcing the very rename that the nominator was unable to gather consensus for.) In reading comments on what to do about this, I see two strains (ignoring the ad hominem sniping): one is that unneeded bureaucratic process should be avoided, and the other is that consensus for the current status quo has never been determined. The two are essentially compatible: the categories created during the CfD were created out of process, so it hardly makes sense to restore them out of fidelity to process. On the other hand, there is still considerable doubt about how best to organize Wagner's non-musical work, as well as about the parent category. So I will leave the status quo for now, but I suggest (sorry) a new CfD that will use the present situation as a starting point. That CfD can be started by those editors who are unhappy with the status quo, who will better express their desired result than I can (but it will presumably consider all of the following: Cat:Essays by RW, Cat:Books by RW, Cat:Prose works by RW, Cat:Autobiographical works by RW, and Cat: Works by RW, meaning it will have to come to a consensus about everything that is or has been in any of those categories). And this time, please, no creating additional categories during the CfD—discussing the need for such categories is what the CfD is for. – Chick Bowen 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

These two categories are presented together because of the unusual circumstances involved. A discussion on renaming Category:Essays by Richard Wagner took place (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_24#Category:Essays_by_Richard_Wagner).

The proposal was to change the category to Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner. The rationale, which was presented only in brief in the original, as I did not anticipate that it would be controversial, was that Wagner wrote a great deal of prose apart from his essays - including journalism, autobiographical works, etc. etc., which do not come into the category of essays, and on many of which I intend to write WP articles (and for all I know others may wish to do so as well). These writings have a significance, not only for Wagner’s music, but also for theatre practice, theory of drama, politics, German nationalism and many other topics. Wagner’s status is therefore unusual, in that he is the only composer whose writings extend significantly beyond the sphere of his own music, or indeed beyond the topic of music itself.

In the course of the discussion of this renaming, one editor created a category Category:Books by Richard Wagner. This was in fact inappropriate, as Wagner’s prose writings were generally much shorter than a book. In fact the only two of his writings which might qualify as books are his autobiographical Mein Leben and his extended essay , Oper und Drama. In response to this (and whilst the discussion was continuing) I created the categories Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner, so that Wagner’s writings could be categorized appropriately. Some comments in the following discussion were perhaps notable for their facetiousness and their absence of research. I instance for example - ‘Upmerge Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner to Category:Works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographies. I dunno whether Wagner is planning to write any more autobiographical material, but since he has long since departed this life, we mortals are unlikely to hear about anything he does write.’ In fact Wagner wrote numerous other autobiographical pieces, each of which reflects substantially different aspects of his beliefs and character. On two substantial examples of these (A Communication to My Friends and An Autobiographical Sketch) I intend to write WP articles.

Much to my surprise, although the discussion was supposed to be about Category:Essays by Richard Wagner, User:Jafeluv, on closing the discussion, took the opportunity to delete Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner.

When I raised this with User:Jafeluv he kindly and promptly provided the following response:

Hi Smerus, I understand that you weren't expecting that other categories than the one nominated could be deleted based on the discussion. Below is my reasoning for the close, and what to do if you disagree with it.
According to our deletion policy, pages can be deleted after a deletion discussion if a consensus for deletion exists in the discussion. After reading the discussion, I came to the conclusion that there was a consensus that Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner] and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner] should not exist (by contrast, nobody seemed to object the creation of Category:Books by Richard Wagner]). The rationale was that prose works are not categorized in "Prose works by X" categories, even for people who are notable for their prose work. The same thing applies to "Autobiographical works by X", which was also described as "Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth small and unlikely to expand". While precedent is not binding, it's generally a good idea to follow existing structures when creating new categories. The categories were not tagged for deletion and therefore not part of the nomination; however, I felt that since they were created after the start of the discussion (and in part as a response to it), and since part of the discussion was on whether the newly created categories were appropriate, I felt that it would be better to add them to the closure rather than renominate those in a separate discussion.
I hope that helps explain my reasoning when closing the debate. If you still feel that the categories were improperly deleted, you can list them at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where it can be discussed whether the categories should be undeleted or relisted for proper discussion at CfD. Regards, [http:/wiki/User:Jafeluv Jafeluv] ([http:/wiki/User_talk:Jafeluv#top talk]) 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I bring to readers’ attention the following issues:

1) The deletions of Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner were not under formal discussion and that they should not have been deleted without formal nomination and discussion.

2) The comment by User:Jafeluv that ‘ "Autobiographical works by X", which was […] described as "small and unlikely to expand" ‘ was in fact inappropriate in this case and should have been at least opened for discussion

3) It was inappropriate in the circumstances to conclude that ‘there was a consensus that Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner should not exist’

4) Noone objected to Category:Books by Richard Wagner because that category was not under discussion. However, I for one would certainly have objected to it had there been a discussion of it.

5) User:Jafeluv has correctly commented ‘While precedent is not binding, it's generally a good idea to follow existing structures when creating new categories.’ Wagner made a career of breaking the rules and as a consequence he perhaps does not fit easily into WP’s category system. My case would be, if it were allowed for discussion, that precedents are not binding in this case.

I therefore request that the deleted categories Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner be restored and/or reopened for discussion, together with a CfD discussion for Category:Books by Richard Wagner Smerus (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn decision with regard to the above two categories but endorse' decision with regards to the essays category. I have no issue with the decision with regards to the actual suject of the original CfD. I was neutral on that subject and did not comment even though I was aware of the discusion. If I had been aware that the other items may ahve been deleted, I would have wanted the opporunity to express my views. They were deleted without being obviously up for debate and should be properly listed if they are under threat. SO this is a list rather than a relist recommendation.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This is blatant wikilawyering. There was a clear consensus in the discussion that creating a Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner was inappropriate, but Smerus nonetheless chose to create the category in the course of the discussion contrary to the consensus, and is now complaining that his attempt to subvert consensus was reverted. The closing admin acted quite properly to implement the consensus of the discussion, and Smerus's argument is basically that his newly-created category should not have been deleted because there wasn't a formal proposal to delete it; however there was a formal proposal to create it, which failed.
On the substance of the issue, Smerus believes that Wagner's works require non-standard categories, and argued that case. The consensus of the discussion clearly rejected that view, and upheld the principle of consistency in category structures to fcailitate navigation between categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for the first time, I modestly request, (but not with much optimism), this editor not to assume bad faith. I realise that those that disagree with User:BrownHairedGirl leave themselves vulnerable to bad-mouthing, but if her arguments cannot be made except on an ad hominem basis, that might in itself give some clue to their weakness. Calling someone a lawyer, of any type, is pretty low.

If anyone looks at the original discussion they will see that I at no point argued the case that Wagner's works required non-standard categories - although I might have done had the issue been raised. Moreover it is not a Wikicrime as far as I know to introduce a non-standard category -if that were the case a goodly proportion of existing categories would be doomed for instant destruction. Precedent, as User:Jafluv has pinted out, is not binding.

But if we are these days to judge by what editors have not said, can I asssume from the above that User:BrownHairedGirl no longer has any objection to Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner, which she previously disparaged without doing her research? That might almost be one up to me.....--Smerus (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, I am not required to AGF in the face of evidence to the contrary. The circumstances here are simple: you proposed renaming Category-A to Category-B, did not get consensus for that, and then pre-empted the discussion by creating Category-B anyway ... and now you argue that due process was breached by deleting your out-of-process creation. That's straightforward wikilawyering.
And no, you did not specifically "argue the case that Wagner's works required non-standard categories" -- you argued for the creation of a category which, by consenus of others at CFD, was found to be non-standard and there was a consenus that it should not be created. What do you hope to achieve by these misleading wordplays? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Endorse. Under the particular circumstances here, and in light of the clear consensus in the discussion, I think the closer appropriately implemented that consensus. We are not a bureaucracy, and it is totally pointless to engage in further process wonkery. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As to nom's other points, this is not CfD round two. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question is it possible to get a two to three line summary of what the issue is? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try since I've nothing better to do: nom wants to rename Category:Essays by Richard Wagner to Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner (or something similar). Filed a CfD, and while the CfD is ongoing, created the latter category as well as Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner. Jafeluv, the closer, found no consensus to rename, and deleted nom's two categories created mid-CfD, even though they were not nominated in the CfD or elsewhere. Nom then filed this DRV. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I endorse this as a good summary of what happened (and I do so because I have even less better things to do). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This summary omits the creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner by BrownHairedGirl on 1 January in the middle of the Cfd. --Klein zach 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which I specifically noted at CFD was done "since it doesn't seem to prejudice the outcome of this discussion". Neither you nor Smerus has identified any way in which it did prejudice the outcome, even though Smerus's response was to assume bad faith and assert that it had " upped the ante".
        This whole drama is really just a long exercise in Smerus and Kleinzach assuming bad faith. It even continued after the CFD closed, when Kleinzach contacted the close not to ask for an explanation or clarification but to asume that that the close had been "nobbled" and ask "Can you please tell me whether you were contacted by any of the editors involved in this Cfd before you closed it?". ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for further discussion. Consensus wasn't clear enough. The close looks too creative, and is not a result discussed by many participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. To do otherwise would be to inappropriately impose bureaucracy where none is needed. A user presumably saw that no consensus was developing for their preferred rename yet went ahead and created the category anyway in the middle of the CFD. It was appropriately deleted. Both categories were not standardly-named categories within the established schemes and were appropriately deleted, with Category:Works by Richard Wagner serving as the appropriate category within the scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree that to relist would be inappropriate. A continuation of the CfD can focus the discussion on what should be done, and why, and on understanding each others various perspectives, as opposed to this discussion which focuses on bureaucracy of how and when things were done. To relist is not necessarily to judge that the close was wrong, it can be to acknowledge that the discussion was not complete because there is more that someone wants to say. These CfD discussions are not just about getting the right decision, they are also about education. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Overly bureaucratic, in my opinion. It's really just a difference in semantics at the end of the day. Either way, there can be a new discussion. I bet I can guess what the result will be, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In terms of what the final decision is, I won't disagree. In terms of participant satisfaction that they are important to the process, and a perception that discussions can when forcibly shut down once the administrators are decided, there might be a world of difference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Participant satisfaction"? "Forcibly shut down"? Geez, it sounds like the discussion was an illicit sex orgy or something. If there's one truism about Wikipedia processes, it's that not everyone is going to be "satisfied". That doesn't automatically mean we use redundant bureaucracy or procedures to satisfy the squawkers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Replied at User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Participant_satisfaction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn in part, specifically the decision to delete the two categories nominated here. I don't think there was sufficient discussion in the CfD to conclude that consensus was against their existence, particularly because they were never formally nominated. As such, I recommend restoring them and immediately listing them at CfD, with the possibility of closing early if a consensus for deletion develops quickly. However, I also endorse in part, as the closing admin correctly read the consensus in the discussion to keep (and not rename) the essays category. No action should be taken on the books category, at least not as a consequence of this DRV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Smerus. On 24 December, I read the new article on Mein Leben and wrote " . . . I wonder if it should go in Category:Essays by Richard Wagner, perhaps renamed as 'Books and essays by . . .' or Writings by . . ' or whatever." (see Wagner Project here). This occasioned the Cfd which at the time seemed minor and uncontroversial.

Unfortunately BrownHairedGirl (who has a considerable history of conflict with opera editors, see Opera Archives 19 to 26) created Category:Works by Richard Wagner in the middle of the Cfd (1 January). I objected (and another user expressed reservations) to putting a composer into a literary category under Category:Works by author ("for all types of written works, sorted by author and genre" per the category page).

When Jafeluv closed the Cfd he wrote "The creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner was justified as part of an established categorization scheme under Category:Works by artist." There was no consensus for this and obviously it went beyond the terms of the Cfd itself. Moreover Jafeluv was mistaken, because Wagner had not been put in the mainly visual artists Category:Works by artist, but in the literary one. It's clear to me that Jafeluv didn't understand these categories (or indeed the larger problems that exist with them). --Klein zach 00:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered how long it would take for Kleinzach to appear here and make a complaint along these lines.

When I created the category, Kleinzach complained about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard_Wagner, on the grounds that I should have asked the project first. I asked Kleinzach three times (1, 2, 3) whether he had a substantive objection to the category, and although Kleinzach responded to several posts in that thread during that period, I got no answer .... though I did get doses of personal abuse from him and Smerus.

So, having refused repeated requests to clarify at the time whether he had any any substantive objection to the category, Kleinzach has waited until DRV to state a substantive objection ... and for good measure has added a further dose of complaint about a previous unpleasant encounter with him a few years ago.

I don't know why Kleinzach behaves like this, but when someone repeatedly ignores requests to clarify your concerns, it is bizarrely dysfunctional behaviour to then lodge a complaint about the person who has repeatedly tried to engage him dialogue, and to cite that as grounds for overturning a decision. If you refuse to discuss your concerns, don't be surprised if they are not resolved the way you would like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factually untrue. I expressed my views on 5 January, during the Cfd: " Category:Works by author . . . is not for music. Wagner was a composer. He primarily wrote music etc. . . ." --Klein zach 01:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factually correct: check the diffs which I posted above.

I missed your reply at CFD, but was watching Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard_Wagner, where you were asked three times if you had a substantive objection, and made no reply apart from personal abuse. The point still stands that I tried in good faith to understand your concerns, but you preferred to attack me than to try to solve whatever problem you had (and you could hardly have missed my questions, but you replied directly to two of them without answering the crucial question).

Having looked at the CFD discussion where you belatedly expressed your substantive concern, the solution is (as Good Olfactory pointed out) to simply place Category:Works by Richard Wagner in Category:Works by artist as well Category:Works by author ... but if you prefer, please feel free to open a CFD on Category:Works by Richard Wagner.

On the substantive point, Wagner did not only compose music, he composed other things as well, and a container category to group the lot facilitates navigation for those browsing the Category:Creative works. But if you think that's a terrible thing, open a CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinzach's point is essentially a "two wrongs make a right" argument. The fact that a different category was created mid-CFD does not justify the creation of the other two categories. The real difference between the categories is that the "Works by ..." category was identically worded to hundreds of other categories for individuals. The others ("prose works by..." and "autobiographical works by...") were unique and there was a developing consensus in the very discussion against creating such categories. To argue we now need to go back and have a separate discussion for the other two is wikilawyering, especially because it would be highly likely to result in exactly the same situation as presently exists. I would add that Category:Works by Richard Wagner can be nominated at any time for renaming—why is this obvious route being ignored? For the simple reason that there would be no consensus at CFD to rename it to a non-standard form category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good Ol’factory: You closed eight of the Cfds of 24 December, see here. (BrownHairedGirl closed four.) Do you also want to control this one?~~ --Klein zach 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Strikeout as unhelpful to discussion here. --Klein zach 05:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inappropriate swipe. Closers don't "control" discussions, nor do any of the participants. Address the issues, not the users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinzach, if you have any complaint about them CFD closures, discuss them with the closing admin, and take them to DRV if the discussion has not resolved your concerns. But unless you do have a complaint, then sniping about "control" seems pointless. What do you want? That people with whom you disagree should not post at DRV???? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinzach's complaint has some resonance, and should be taken seriously, even if we agree that it is based from an inexperienced perspective and not from THE TRUTH. Kleinzach has more to say, so let's just relist and leet him say it. Also, it is not helpful to snipe about sniping, if you'll excuse the unhelpful snipe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A DRV's probably not required to do that. Category:Works by Richard Wagner could be nominated for discussion. I'll refrain from sniping about your sniping of the sniping. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the the record, I have no no objection to a CFD being opened on Category:Works by Richard Wagner. I wouldn't have created it if I thought that it would be in any way controversial, but since Kleinzach seems to have belatedly decided that he may after all have a substantive objection to it, we might as well have a proper discussion on it.
And I won't snipe about Good Olfactory's decision to refraining from sniping about your sniping of the sniping ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Belatedly?" Once again! Please (see above) "Factually untrue. . . . etc." I did express my view perfectly clearly during the Cfd. --Klein zach 04:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the diffs, Kleinzach: I repeatedly asked you for an explanation, and gave up when you didn't reply. You had plenty of time to respond to my questions with personal abuse, but didn't answer the question. This is not the way to solve disagreements or misunderstandings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also advise some here to read the advice at WP:War_and_Peace. Verbose requests and rationale tend to get people on the wrong foot. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my question to Good Olfactory (above). I agree it doesn't help advance this discussion which should focus on the deletion review itself. My comments on that obviously stand. If I decide to comment on the Cfd process in general, I'll do that elsewhere. --Klein zach 05:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I am surprised the closer says that a page can be deleted following a consensus in a discussion relating to a different page. Is there a diff? Does this apply to categories? Diff? (I don't see consensus anyway but this is a lesser matter). I see poor behaviour in the discussion with closely related categories being created on the hoof and, so far as I can see, a strident critic of this being one of those creating such a category. I think there would be benefit from a calmer and more focussed discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The actions by the closing administrator were entirely out of process and appear to be an imposition of personal bias rather than a dispassionate reading of community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn very odd all around, but I don't see how the discussion reached (or even discussed) the outcome implemented by the closer. Hash it out the RW project page. Hobit (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure - various 'odd-ball' categories have been deleted, and various standard categories have been retained, and this is to be applauded. Occuli (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. on the very simple basis that the arguments there and here show there was no consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC) CfD.[reply]
Endorse per Occuli. There was no consensus to create Prose works of. --Kbdank71 14:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per DGG, I cannot see that there was any consensus to keep or delete any of the categories. I will say that the extended comments on personalities in this DRV have been very unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Neither arguments nor general opinions seemed to favor either way strongly. A new CfD may be helpful but that's a separate issue. Relisting seems like a good idea but it isn't necessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Timotheus Canens and Good Olfactory. Encouraging process wonkery in cases like these will set a poor precedent. GlassCobra 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Game Show Congress – Deletion Endorsed, DRV is not a venue to attack other users and I will continue to close reviews if this happens. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Okay, this deletion did not go over well in two different game show forums. See here and here as but two examples. Both of these forums mostly comprise people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and therefore unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Juliancolton's close, with "more-or-less discount posts from new users" in it, seemed to rub these users the wrong way in particular. I think he could've phrased it a little more tactfully, but oh well.

A user from the ipbhost forum even suggested this link, which like many other mentions of Game Show Congress online, only says that a certain host was there and precious little else. There does seem to be a significant mention in Bob Harris' Prisoner of Trebekistan book, and then there's this source which may be useful. I had a very hard time finding anything else that a.) was not a press release, and b.) gave more information than just "Personality x (or show x) won the y award at this year's Game Show Congress."

Almost everyone on these forums is practically coming towards me with pitchforks and torches about this being deleted. The fact that I asked a friend to A7 it the first time around, and that said A7 was later overturned right here, didn't help. But are those sources and Harris' book enough? Is there anything else out there that I've overlooked? Does this warrant an article after all? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to take this opportunity to state that it was largely due to the conduct of TenPoundHammer and Juliancolton that resulted in this article being deleted in the first place. TenPoundHammer put the AFD up because of perceptions of his being mistreated by members of said forums that he cited (WP:DICK). Juliancolton's decision was based on nothing more than his disregard for all of the valid points in the discussion, which created a false consensus (none had been reached prior to his decision). I support the restoration of the page and would suggest that both users' admin privileges be reviewed (as, at least in TenPoundHammer's case, there have been several incidents from before). I would also like to remind everyone that most non-admins would've been chastised for the egregious disregard for good faith that both admins have exhibited here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer did not, and still does not, have administrative powers. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

endorse, admin was entitled to disregard votes that resulted from canvassing. I would only recommend that Julian offer a link that substantiates that canvassing took place (not that I doubt it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Nomo, the relevant link (that spurred Julian's close) is thus, and the AfD that showed up in was one running concurrent to Game Show Congress's. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as the administrator who CSD'd Game Show Congress originally. I'd sooner not poke the bear any more as far as this is concerned, since (α) I don't work in TV articles much - my areas are primarily video game- and RPG-related, and (β) I've seen some of the discussions the forumites have had with TenPoundHammer, and to be frank most of the guys there either don't know how some of the more important parts of WP function or seem to be too busy building Millwall bricks to use against him. Robert K S is about the only one I know who's tried to be any degree of reasonable with regards to this, and for that I both commend him and apologize to him for prior instances. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse JC's close. Fairly straightforward and well within the closer's discretion. You just can't get undeletion by personal attacks and canvassing. I have no opinion yet on TPH's sources, not having studied them, and I'll return to the question of recreation later. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern isn't so much the attacks but rather the fact that they may be onto something with the sources. They seem to have this false impression that I got a couple buddies together and said, "hey, let's delete this article" and no matter what I say they just don't believe that I wasn't gaming the AFD -- they seem to look at me as some sort of power hungry deletionist, and my past trolling in game show communities certainly hasn't helped my reputation any. Those sources may be useful, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more good source to check out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources look good. Permit recreation, then. Timotheus Canens (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys keep saying it was canvassing? That's just an excuse for irresponsible conduct by an admin. I'm sorry. You have absolutely no proof that the voters who voted did so by being persuaded to. At all. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the evidence's totality, it is reasonable to assume that GSC's AfD was getting some of the !votes canvassed (whether wittingly or not) for TRASH. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a influx of SPAs, it is reasonable to assume canvassing. This is not a court. And I'd go as far as saying that that AfD could not have been closed any other way. Timotheus Canens (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...except closure for failure to find consensus, which is EXACTLY what should've happened here. The votes were 4 in favor of and 4 against deletion. And I find that statement "this is not a court" to be just a little misguided here, considering how much effort that is put in here to find proof of things. The fact is that Juliancolton had absolutely no reason to declare consensus as he did, and he did not use good judgment in calling for the deletion of the page. I believe he let his biases be his guide and that, therefore, constituted irresponsible judgment on his behalf and should be the reason why the deletion was unnecessary. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, not votes. It doesn't matter how many votes side A or side B has had; it's the compellingness of their arguments that matter. And most AfD closers will disregard the opinions from newer accounts, especially if they appear to have been canvassed. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to propose that this decision has cost the Wiki quite a bit of money in donations, as the actions of Juliancolton were not in the best interests of the Wiki (especially considering that other pages exist on flimsier logic). --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on a draft here. I think this looks much better. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue has always been that I personally know how important and relevant the GSC is to the industry, but the old article was deleted by people who didn't have that knowledge, apparently because the old article didn't cite enough relevant sources. Now that a better-sourced article has been offered by the individual who suggested deletion in the first place, recreation seems a natural choice. --Matt Ottinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattOttinger (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure This AfD was within the closing administrator's discretion, as Tim noted above, and the arguments for deletion were stronger. It was also reasonable for the closing admin to disregard votes that appeared to be the result of off-wiki canvassing. That said, by all means move TenPoundHammer's draft to the mainspace. It's a very good start to a new article on the subject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow TPH's version into mainspace. I, as an inclusionist, think the sourcing is pretty weak even now. I really wonder why the GSC, which seems to have big names, doesn't seem to get much coverage. But the coverage is strong enough now, if just barely. No real opinion on the original AfD. Hobit (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 January 2010[edit]

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything – MfD decision endorsed – NW (Talk) 15:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I tried discussing it with the closing administrator here [[56]]. The procedures for deleting a page were not followed by the nominator who failed to attempt any sort of discussion with myself prior to the nomination. I also informed the closing administrator that I challenge the validity of various unreferenced articles which were used to support the deletion of the page I was working on (Please see [[57]] for the details on this). Additionally, during the deletion discussion, personal attacks toward me were abundantly provided by people voting for deletion (specifically I recall the word "miscreant" being used by SteveBaker to describe me). I really do not think the consensus was clear. I think there were some very convincing arguments for keeping it, and I don't know how well those were considered before the administrator closed the debate early. I therefore request a review. Neptunerover (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a proper interpretation of the consensus in the discussion. It might have been preferable for an admin who has not previously commented in the discussion to close it, just to minimize drama, but I think the consensus is quite clear, and it is to delete. Timotheus Canens (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Looking at the MFD, the arguments for delete were stronger and more policy based than the keep arguments. Did not see the page in question so I can not comment on whether or not the page 'crossed the line' as to what would be acceptable, which I believe should be fairly liberal on a user-subpage. That said I believe the closing admin made the appropriate decision based on the arguments provided. J04n(talk page) 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus is clear, myspacery / soapboxing is not what user space is for. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I believe the closing admin only commented in the discussion after I requested a summary dismissal, and so I don't think that was inappropriate. The discussion attempt with the closing admin I refer to was contained in the large central paragraph below that part in the "deletion process question" section on Rjanag's talk page. I'm sorry I didn't separate it, but I felt it was sort of a continuation of the section I had already started there.
Also, I wanted to get rid of the red link on my user page, so I started the page again with the 'this page is deleted thing' at the top, which, now that I think about it, was probably wrong since the new page is quite unrelated to Wikipedia. What can I say, I'm new here. --Neptunerover (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, accurate reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offer to email the deleted contents to User:Neptunerover. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already did that (on his talk page), he declined because he thinks users are going to send him hate mail or something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I gave him some advice on this on his talk page, and then noticed that he already has email enabled. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion There was clear consensus in the MfD that this user-subpage does not belong on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn and Relist~~ (please ignore this if I'm not allowed to vote here) I think the name-calling should invalidate the decision. My reactions on the deletion discussion page were largely a response to being taunted and I think the results of the vote are therefore questionable at most. When I am taunted, I taunt back, which generally people don't like, but it doesn't change the fact of my being taunted initially and unfairly. "Miscreant" is a hate-type word that should not be allowed in Wikipedia civil discussions. I think the results of an uncivil discussion should be viewed with extreme suspicion. Simply saying that the consensus was clear is not seeing the whole picture of what happened, beginning with Fences&Windows 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach to proposing a deletion, which put me on guard right from the start. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck through the !vote. Neptunerover, as the nominator, it's assumed that you want the decision overturned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself to be a nominator here, since that's for deletion, right? I nominated nothing here. Why does my vote get struck out? If the nominator isn't supposed to vote, then why did Treasury Tag get to vote? --Neptunerover (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Nevermind about that, I'm on the wrong page here. I was confused. Sorry. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't we commonly have noms including !votes later? Heck, we often have admins endorsing their own close in DrV. Not a big deal, but I don't think striking that was needed. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear consensus, no reason given to overturn, and the bottom line is extremely clear: userspace is not free web hosting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, perfectly reasonable close following consensus. Viridae ^Talk 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse due to the clear and overwhelming consensus to delete the page. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My !vote at MfD was the only strong keep, but it was mostly ignored. Although Wikipedia should not be used as web hosting, the page was a self-evident argument which should be allowed on Wikipedia in userspace. We also have plenty of articles on subjects that do not have many reliable sources, but survive as articles because the points they make are self-evident. User also claims to have published a book. Or just have an administrator take the contents of the page and privately email it to the user, if nessecary. There appears to be a bias against new ideas on Wikipedia, unless they are well-published and peer reviewed by independant sources. This slows down progress, and what often happens is that the users who are labeled as "cranks" get kicked out of Wikipedia, or they become rude and simply leave afterwards. Some people even call Wikipedia a crank. Wikipedia, by the way, is one of the most difficult communities on the Internet to understand for newcomers. ~AH1^(TCU) 04:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How arrogant do you have to be to think that your vote was "ignored" just because it didn't sway everyone? I really don't go around ignoring votes. I did read your vote, and did not find it convincing. Shocked? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "there appears to be a bias against new ideas on Wikipedia": well, yeah, there is. Have you read WP:No original research? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal? I've realized what the problem was and how I was misusing the userspace allotted me here, and so I vote to withdraw this from review here since I agree with the deletion now. Sorry, but I had to find the rule on my own.--Neptunerover (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 January 2010[edit]

Stumpwm – Deletion endorsed. It's clear from consensus here that the close was perfectly within the closing admin's discretion. – (X! · talk) · @117 · 01:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stumpwm is one of the most successful tiling window managers. The page was viewed by nearly 100 people a day according to stats.grok.se. I don't see any problem with reliability/accuracy of the sources. AndreasBWagner (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this was a low volume discussion, the outcome was clear because the sourcing wasn't up to snuff and the keep side used arguments to avoid like "Its useful" rather then producing sources to show notability. The discussion had been relisted once, fair enough, but there had been no further input and the weight of the arguments had been pretty clear so I didn't see that a further relist would achieve anything. I can't really see what a deletion review is supposed to achieve as I'll happily undelete it on the spot if some decent sources can be found, and if they can't well, I can't see that we should go round restoring inadequately sourced articles. Endorse own deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A paragraph about Stumpwm was printed in LinuxJournal on August 2008 (bottom of page) Here is the table of contents of this issue The article is linked as "New Projects". In addition it also has mention in the book Browsers: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. AndreasBWagner (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A very brief mention and a passing mention in the context of something else does not constitute non-trivial coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - [58] This being given as an example of sourcing for a potential article is pitiful and depressing. Miami33139 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is a really unworthy comment Miami33139. The nom is clearly a new user who understandably, given how complicated our guidelines are, asked for a review and tried to help their argument as suggested by finding sources. Our task is to explain and educate them in the hope that they will learn about sourcing and inclusion criteria so they can go on to create content that will stick. Snarky, critical patronising comments don't help the user learn and frankly reflect very poorly on your approach to other editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That book is sourced from Wikipedia's entry on Shawn Betts ([WP] means that), which has been deleted in the mean time. There's a reason why Icon is excluded as a publisher by the {{find}} template. The Linux Journal news blurb is just mentioning stumpwm together with other new packages, e.g. joyevmouse just above it. By the way, neither of these sources (book or LJ entry) was even mentioned at AfD. Pcap ping 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I relisted the discussion, but no editor commented in the week post-relist. A second relist is disfavored, and I don't think it would have accomplished much either. As to the close itself, I think Spartaz's assessment of the arguments is accurate. Though I find somewhat disconcerting that two editors can make a "consensus" when there are two editors who disagree, that's the definition we use, for better or worse. But then, about no term on WP retains its ordinary meaning (think notability). If nom can provide some sources the AfD participants overlooked, by all means bring them here. Otherwise, I endorse the close. Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it has already been recreated as a redirect to Tiling window manager probably makes this DRV a mute point but I'll throw my two cents in anyway. The keep !votes nor the DRV initiator addressed the rationale of the the AfD, a lack of significant coverage. A second relisting may have drew in more interest but with >2 weeks already at AfD and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software probably not. So, with the response that were given, I believe the closer took a reasonable and appropriate action, Endorse. J04n(talk page) 05:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nominator gives no reason to overturn the AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Any article deleted because of a lack of sources can simply be re-written with sources. To write new source-based material (all material in Wikipedia should be source based) doesn't require the deleted text. Miami33139 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Request does not address reasons for deletion. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closer shcould have !voted, not super!voted, even if right, because we make decisions by consensus, not fiat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused here SmokeyJoe. What makes you think I substituted my opinion for the consensus of the discussion? I weighed the arguments against policy, poor sourcing is a powerful policy based argument and the two keep votes were not policy based at all. That's not superimposing my opinion on anything. I'd appreciate some clarification of your vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz. You didn't substitute for a consensus, but you did get ahead of the other participants.

There are two purposes for discussions. One, #1, is that by discussing among several, a more accurate result is likely to happen. The other, #2, is that through the process of discussion, the participants become educated on the issues and the mechanism of decision making. This second reason is very important in this self-managed project.

In the AfD, the few particpants do not obviously come to a consensus. The "keep" !voters do not seem to have been persuaded. The nominator (Pcap) dominated rebuttals, and this can be intimidating more than persuasive.

The close may have been accurate and persuasive to most, but it would have been just as persuasive if presented as an ordinary !vote. Ideally, one or both of the keepers would have acknowledged the point, or almost as good, yet another junior wikipedian may have opined agreement. At a minimum, it would have been nice to see Spartaz's reasoning acknowledged as consensus by ensuing silence. Unfortunately to those not persuaded, the close reads as a decision imposed by a senior member of the community. It was an accurate and expert close according to discussion purpose #1, but a less-than-ideal close according to discussion purpose #2.

I don't mean harsh criticism. In cases like this, admins are tasked to resort to a rough consensus just to keep the process working, and the discussion had gone stale while begging for more participation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""keep" !voters do not seem to have been persuaded." Since when is that a standard at AfD? Look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeLight Software. "The nominator (Pcap) dominated rebuttals, and this can be intimidating more than persuasive." Somebody else already called me a bully, and I proudly display that on my user page. Thanks for the endorsement. Pcap ping 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A reasonable close - the 'vote' was 2-2 but the 2 keep arguments were not based on policy, were refuted, our were outweighed by stronger delete arguments that were soundly based on policy. A conclusion of a consensus to delete was therefore appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (I'm not going to !vote here because I'm the AfD nominator.) The redirect has been changed to ratpoison because stumptwm is a reimplementation of that software, apparently with nearly identical features. Additional details can be added there for now, and if secondary coverage becomes significant over time, a separate article could obviously be written again. Pcap ping 00:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 January 2010[edit]

Wikipedia Watch – Overturn and restore. There was some minority support for listing at RFD and some or protecting the redirect, but neither reached what I could call a consensus, and the latter is probably outside DRV's remit anyway. I suspect anyone supporting either course of action will list it or request protection as appropriate. – Stifle (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Wikipedia Watch article was deleted at AfD so I created a history-less redirect to the article that mentions the website, in this case Criticism of Wikipedia, just I would do with any other redirect. It was speedied as a recreation of deleted content, but the AfD had deleted an article and not a redirect. Nobody said anything about not allowing any redirect. I proposed the deleting admin that he restored and sent it to WP:RFD but he prefers DRV so here we are.

Note that the Google Watch DRV closed with a history-less redirect to Criticism of Google. Both websites are similar in content and were created by the same publisher, so I thought that the same solution would be appropriate. A newly-created redirect would help the readers find the subject when they search for it, and it wouldn't have any BLP issues because it wouldn't have the previous versions in its history.

So, please overturn since the proper thing was sending it to Redirects for Discussion.

P.D.: I contacted the deleting admin at User_talk:Alison#Wikipedia_Watch.

Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG not again...okay, overturn G4 as plainly invalid. The redirect is not "substantially identical" to the deleted article by any definition. The AfD most certainly did not delete a redirect. Nor was the word "redirect" even mentioned in this discussion, so we cannot say that that possibility was rejected or even considered at the AfD. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore redirect, of course. The AfD regarded the article, to delete a redirect as G4 is disingenous. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remand to RfD now. We all know an RfD is inevitable over this. Why bother having this here 5-days? Just start the RfD now. The redirect doesn't even have to exist to do so. Chick Bowen 00:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't know that it is inevitable. Quite the contrary: if consensus at this DRV allows the redirect to be restored, a RfD would be redundant and kind of forum shopping. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy overturn as speedy criteria is just 100% incorrect. List at RfD if you really really want to, but the redirect is correct per policy. And, given the admin that made the speedy has an admitted conflict of interest here, this is a pretty big problem IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, given the admin that made the speedy has an admitted conflict of interest here, this is a pretty big problem IMO That way overstates the comment on the admin's talk page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at the admin's page. I was looking at the AfD where the admin was the nom and said "Disclosure: I've "featured" on this website more than once myself. I do not like it, I do not agree with it's rationale and I have seen it cause RL issues for a number of people. Having said that, it needs to go.)". I'd call that a pretty serious case of COI when it comes to using the admin tools. I've no problems with the nom in the AfD (COI disclosed, tools not used), but this involved unilateral use of the tools. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

overturn speedy, redirect seems a good choice - --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and let anyone who wants send to RfD. G4 doesn't allow a deletion of anything that appears at the same title- the content must be substantially identical. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion as a blatantly incorrect application of G4. WP:CSD#G4 explicitly excludes "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." A redirect is obviously not substantially identical to the article that was deleted at AfD. If Alison wanted this deleted, she should have nominated it at RfD – and I have no qualms about anyone doing so now. But this deletion is not acceptable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, plainly fails to meet G4 criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as a blatant misapplication of CSD#G4. Nsk92 (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Why do we need a redirect for this again? Did anyone try talking to the admin first? JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the second question, yes, the nominator first approached the deleting admin, see User talk:Alison#Wikipedia Watch. The first question is not really relevant as CSD#G4 was clearly inapplicable here and the deletion was done out of process. Once a redirect is restored, it can be RfD-ed, and the question of "Why do we need a redirect for this again?" would be relevant there. Nsk92 (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think Alison overstepped here in her quest to delete anything related to Brandt, and this was clearly not a valid G4 case, as others have said above. However, I think the redirect should be deleted since there is almost nothing about Wikipedia Watch in Criticism of Wikipedia. The only reasonable redirect target would be Daniel Brandt, but that article was deleted long ago. If this deletion is overturned then, it should be listed at RfD and deleted there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should add that I don't believe Alison was intentionally deleting outside of process. --Apoc2400 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a supporter of the "get Brandt off Wikipedia" campaign I can't see any particular problem with this redirect and I don't see the grounds (in policy or ethically) for deletion. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that Wikipedia should remain as oblivious to Brandt as possible. Given that we're heading for a snow overturn here and it seems inevitable that a redirect will be created, I recommend that the redirect should be fully protected.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and censure the deleting admin. This is the clearest cut case of an inappropriate application of WP:CSD#G4 I've seen in my 5 years at Wikipedia. While I'm in favour of the redirect, I wouldn't object to an RfD if someone thinks it necessary and for that reason I wouldn't support protecting it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - If a non-notable person requests a scrubbing from the Wikipedia, then it should be honored, also applicable to side tangents such as redirects that the person is associated with that are themselves non-notable. It's time for people to stop holding grudges. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and instruct Alison (talk · contribs) to stop "courtesy deleting" anything everything related to that man. Alison is not uninvolved, and is now looking like his patsy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per User:Apoc2400 above, I too think I should add that I don't believe Alison was intentionally deleting outside of process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any statement that this is a "courtesy" deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore, an obvious misuse of G4. Is anyone going to try to make the argument that it was in accordance with G4? Rather conspicuous by its absence at this point... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The Criticism of Wikipedia article contains little or no content related to Wikipedia Watch, and for good reason. Therefore, as per standard practice, a redirect is not appropriate. That the rationale for deleting the page is technically incorrect shouldn't be a reason to restore it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "standard practice" is to have a redirect for reasonable search terms. The search box is primarily intended for the readership. For a reader searching for "wikipedia watch", the best we have in mainspace is Criticism of Wikipedia, where there is a brief mention of, and citation of, "wikipedia watch". In the absence of the redirect, the reader is shown various non-mainspace pages.
- "standard practice" is also to not delete without a formal discussion or according to a specific criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and I wouldn't object to it being provisionally restored and subsequently relisted at RfD, but either way, I feel it shouldn't exist. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- Deletion was clearly out of process. There may be other reasons to delete this redirect (and I'm not going to get involved there), but a speedy deletion on the basis of G4 is undefensible. I'd say more, but I'm severely not interested in getting more involved in whatever drama is going on here. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per WP:BRANDT (now deleted, per itself), which says that anything having to do with said subject should be deleted so that the whole project doesn't implode from the time spent on such dramas. If the redirect is recreated, we will only waste huge amounts of time on nominations to delete the redirect. The redirect deletion was already debated and approved previously, I believe.--Milowent (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I don't see how G4 is appropriate here. Besides, a valid target exists: Criticism of Wikipedia cites Wikipedia Watch as of 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC) (of course that article see tons of edit warring, so I'd expect the mention to go up in smoke anytime). Pcap ping 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the amount of bad faith accusations and finger-pointing going on here is quite astounding, really. Given that a chunk of content from the original Wikipedia Watch article was shuffled into Criticism of Wikipedia, creating a redirect of a previously deleted article in this instance was ostensibly a re-create, in my perception at least. It's that simple. Overall, the project simply doesn't benefit from having the thing there, given the demonstrated lack of notability of the site in the first place. And yes, though this looks a lot like an overturn right now, the next stage will be RfD where we can all indulge, yet again, in what someone described as time-wasting "process wankery". As to SmokeyJoe's comment, please point out where I have ever "courtesy deleted" anything for Mr. Brandt - Alison ^❤ 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain where you are seeing bad faith accusations? Hobit (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have courtesy blanked deletion discussions related to him or his creations (eg), and this "courtesy deletion" (my words) of this redirect seems to be an extension of the same. I also seem to remember you asking that we stop needlessly using real people's names in these discussions. I presume that you were doing this as a courtesy to the person. I think that if these things are a good idea, someone else, uninvolved, should do them. I don't know the full picture, but I see an involved admin performing an out-of-process deletion, and I don't like it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blanking is one thing, deletion is another. Nor was this a 'Courtesy Delete'. Guess this also neatly answers Hobit's question above! :) Nor, BTW, do I see where I'm 'involved' here, given that DB was complicit in tipping off a rather well-known stalker as to my whereabouts, with rather nasty consequences. Long story. I have no particular liking for this person nor his behaviour but nonetheless we, as a project, are obliged to treat people with respect and a certain human decency. Something which has been sorely lacking in this entire case for years now. It needs to end and the project as a whole needs to move on. Just my $0.02 - Alison ^❤ 06:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - When you made the original nom, you spelled out your COI in a good and appropriate way. That you have such a COI should be an indicator that you shouldn't use the tools relative to that topic unless there is an emergency of some sort. Hobit (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm really surprised by your comment. You told me you avoid editing anything related to Apple due to WP:COI, but you see no problem editing article-space material about a guy that you say aided and abetted a criminal act against you? Even more so when you use admin tools on that article-space content without discussion? Pcap ping 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Criticism of Wikipedia had exactly a one sentence mention of Wikipedia Watch before the AfD, and has exactly the same sentence now. The mention may be WP:UNDUE, but I don't see how the redirect recreated anything. Pcap ping 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly worth a redirect, eh? - Alison ^❤ 06:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Full length article in Ynet about Daniel Brandt and Wikipedia Watch, so big YMMV. Probably other secondary sources exist; mention in The Age: [59]. Pcap ping 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alison, I'm sorry to say that, but your defense is nonsensical. You are basically arguing for keeping the redirect! : Given that a chunk of content from the original Wikipedia Watch article was shuffled into Criticism of Wikipedia, creating a redirect of a previously deleted article in this instance was ostensibly a re-create, in my perception at least. It's that simple. - If a chunk has been merged, and if "Wikipedia Watch" is a reasonable search term (which no one objects) therefore you have described a textbook case of a useful WP redirect resulting from a merge. Now you can choose between me assuming good faith (and being genuinely bewildered as how can a long-time and skilled admin cannot understand the difference between article recreation and a completely reasonable redirect) and not assuming good faith (thus maintaining esteem of your intelligence/admin skills but acknowledging your COI with Brandt-related stuff). Take it with a smile =) but that is. --Cyclopia^talk 12:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that Alison is getting confused with the other AfD, the Google Watch one. A big chuck of content was merged from Google Watch into Criticism of Google, but no content was merged when Wikipedia Watch was redirected into Criticism of Wikipedia. That sentence had been there without changes for months, maybe years. I could look up the exact date. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        By the way: If some admin is kindly willing to send me a copy of the deleted article, I would be happy to merge some more information (if there's any worthwile, which I don't know) in the Criticism of Wikipedia. This is not to be pointy, or because I have some odd Brandt fetish: it's simply because I find surprising that only so little content about Wikipedia Watch is in the main article. It could well be that there is already all what is needed to be, but I'd like to give it a second check. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request permanent protection of the redirect if it is to be reinstated. We all know why. JBsupreme (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As these things go, a redir is the first step to article re-creation :/ - Alison ^❤ 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside from my wanting to scream "citation needed" at the two preceding statements, if an article is recreated about Wikipedia Watch, at whatever title, that is substantially identical to the one that was deleted then it can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. If an article is created about Wikipedia Watch that is not substantially identical to the version that was deleted, then that can be nominated for deletion at editorial discretion and consensus about its future determined at the time (remember it is possible that it might become notable in future, even if it isn't now). In other words, we should treat it exactly like we treat every other article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as an inappropriate and out-of-process speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the page didn't meet G4 or any other CSD criterion. G4 only applies to pages that are "sufficiently identical" to the originally deleted version, and a redirect is completely different to an encyclopedia article. Take it to RfD if you must. Hut 8.5 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a highly appropriate application of WP:CSD#G4 and WP:IAR and then salt the deleted page so the redirect can't be recreated. There is a great deal of misinformation and propaganda surrounding this, which is too bad, but not surprising given the circumstances. Deletion saves drama. Perhaps remanding to WP:RFAR would be required here, not sure. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I disagree with you about the need for a redirect, I can see how a case can be made for this to be a good application of WP:IAR, the same cannot be said for this being an appropriate application of WP:CSD#G4 which explicitly states "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". A redirect is not, and can never be, substantially identical to an article that contains more than a single internal link (however good, bad or indifferent that article is). If this were a good example of a WP:CSD#G4 then we might as well reword the criteria to allow any page to be speedily deleted on the grounds that it is "substantially identical" (read "might in future be edited to contain something that might contain the same words") to something that was previously deleted oir which they just don't like. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion To save everyone the trouble of having to delete this through RfD. I don't see how this is a likely search term unless you're a Wikipedian who was foolish enough to once familiarize yourself with this problem. And yes, I know DRV isn't RfD, yada yada yada, but I really don't care. Enough is enough and this just allows Brandt to draw attention to himself. Delete and deny him the recognition. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States 1963-2008 annual.pdf – Overturned as the file is clearly not a copyright violation. Editors have discretion to list at FFD if they feel the file is somehow redundant or unencyclopedic. – Stifle (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The pdf is a pdf version of another file I uploaded: File:Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States 1963-2008 annual.png. The pdf is a graph of information provided by the United States Census Bureau and is hence in the public domain, and hence does not constitute a "blatant copyright violation" as Fastily has said. I do not understand why it was speedied. Smallman12q (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason I upload both a pdf and a png of the graph is because you can scale the pdf and you can't scale the png. Unfortunately, I currently don't know how to convert a pdf to svg without data loss.Smallman12q (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is just a mixup--have you asked the admin about it? I looked at the deleted image description page and it clearly has both a source and authorship info. The only thing I can think of is that you used the self-release PD tag but had the author as the census bureau; I gather that both this and the png you link to are your own work (in Excel, as you said on both pages) based on the Census Bureau's stats. You should indicate that clearly on each page. However, that's a tiny problem and certainly wouldn't make this eligible for speedy deletion. Chick Bowen 20:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[ec]It appears as if it was deleted because it lacked documentation about being in the PD. Or at least that's how I read the edit summary. Did you approach the deleting admin and ask for a restoration based on a promise to add the appropriate information? I assume that would solve the problem and not require DrV. (looks like Chuck beat me...) Hobit (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did User_talk:Fastily/Archive_2#Deletion_of_File:Median_and_Average_Sales_Prices_of_New_Homes_Sold_in_United_States_1963-2008_annual.pdf. I was going to edit it later, but it was deleted. Fastily didn't even leave me a note saying he'd deleted the file=(. Very unbecoming behavior if you ask me.Smallman12q (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. In that case, we should overturn and allow you to correct the source info. Chick Bowen 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn indeed. Don't see a reason to speedy this. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Sorry I missed the link the first time. I'm not seeing a reason this needed to be speedied. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional endorse, but not as an F9- as an F10 or F1. The copyright may not be a true issue, but demonstrating why we need a .png and a .pdf of the same image could be. Why did we need two copies of it? Endorse until more information is provided as to why this file was necessary. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment F1 didn't apply because the files were not of the same type. F10 may have applied, if the file wasn't used in any articles and had no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Was it used in any articles? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan on putting it in several housing related articles in the future.Smallman12q (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. If there's a foreseeable encyclopedic use, I don't think this meets F10 either. This is a solid overturn situation. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy deletion as an incorrect application of F9. WP:CSD#F9 states that that criterion covers "images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license." It doesn't look like this file met F9 at all, as the information was in the public domain but the graph was the user's own work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 January 2010[edit]

Slut – Endorse keep. The general agreement is that the discussion was closed prematurely, but per WP:SNOW it's not worth the time to relist it. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm objecting to the early close by a non-admin User:ktr101 giving no apparent reason for not letting the debate run its seven days. It has been noted by others besides myself, that the article slut could possibly be made to be encyclopedic, but it in its current form it is not. The problem is that the current page is solely an etymology in the style of the OED which fails WP:NOT. KelleyCook (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. I closed it because there seemed to be sufficient support. I'm also willing to help make it better if others want to do so as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an overwhelming vote of keep, along with two redirect votes. The proportion of keep to deletes was enough for me to determine that it was probably going to be kept. Also, there wasn't that much of a lively debate, as it wasn't edited in the 16 hours prior to me closing it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way Kelley, non-admins are allowed to close AFDs if it looks like the discussion will continue to be in the "keep" camp. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep no realistic chance that letting the debate run longer would have resulted in a "delete" consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have closed the debate this early, but endorse as inevitable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Editor who brought this to review states that "the article slut could possibly be made to be encyclopedic, but it in its current form it is not." That acknowledges that the outcome was correct, so there's no reason given for reopening except, pehaps, a desire to see more WP:SNOW accumulate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, relist and let it run for the full 7 days, after which it should be closed by an experienced admin. I doubt that this is ever going to be an article suitable for an encyclopedia. Early closure by non-admins is not appropriate for non-clear cut discussions where the closer believes "it was probably going to be kept" - "definitely" would be a better scenario than "probably". Several editors wanted a redirect, which means that the article would not be kept but would be replaced with a redirect to a more appropriate target. This was hardly an 'overwhelming' vote to keep, with only 5 Keep !votes to the nominator's delete, one other delete/redirect, and 3 for redirect, after the AFD had run for little more than 2 days. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it would definitely happen because I didn't want to appear cocky if I said that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are sometimes cases where a keep outcome is obviously going to be the result, e.g. when more than 10 non-SPA editors have contributed to the discussion and all have !voted to keep with arguments that demonstrate an understanding of policy. This is the type of case where an early snow closure is appropriate. You wouldn't have appeared cocky in such a case - it needs to be that clear cut to close a discussion after such a short time.--Michig (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A reasonable snow result, given the complete lack of consensus for deletion. AFD is purely to decide deletion and so other editing decisions such as rewriting or redirection are not relevant. If anyone wants to work further upon the article then they are still free to obtain consensus and action accordingly at the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your view that "AFD is purely to decide deletion", can I refer you to Wikipedia:Afd#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed, specifically "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and a disinterested (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion." There are thus 5 possible outcomes of an AFD discussion (6 if we include 'No consensus') - discussions should not be closed early unless one of those 5 outcomes is obviously going to be the result. That certainly wasn't the case here.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it might have been better if the full seven days had been allowed but see little point in reopening the discussion now. I disagree about the purpose of AFD. The purpose of AFD is to empower an admin to use his delete button or to deny the use of this option. Other options are a matter of ordinary editing which anyone may perform. An AFD may give some helpful guidance as a side-effect of the discussion but this is not its primary purpose. We do not require AFDs to have general editorial discussions about the development of articles as this is what talk pages are for. In far too many cases, we see drive-by editors ignoring article talk pages and going straight to AFD. This is improper behaviour contary to our deletion policy and so should not be encouraged. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree AFD is used far too often, but our deletion policy and stated AFD outcomes are what they are, and both AFD and DRV should be based on them. Our individual views on what AFD should be are not the issue here. As a side issue, looking at the AFD talk page, it looks like AFD is going to become much wider in scope than articles put forward for deletion, so it will soon not even be limited to discussing articles that an editor feels should be deleted. I find it a little bemusing that so many editors have come here claiming a clear consensus for keeping the article, with only 5 out of 10 contributors in favour of keeping it, and some of their arguments including the fact that there are plenty of references, a suggested ignorance regarding Wiktionary's existence, and the word being used in the title of several books, none of which seem to me like arguments that should be given much weight. I guess clear consensus ain't what it used to be.--Michig (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The only delete !vote was stricken. There is no reason that the redirect option can not still be explored and discussed on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 18:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My stricken delete !vote should be interpreted as "Delete the article and replace with a redirect". It wasn't a vote to keep the article.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but there is no reason why it still can't be redirected, that discussion should be on the article's talk page rather than AfD. If no one is saying delete there is no reason to continue discussion. I do agree though that it was closed earlier than ideal. I watch listed it planning to look it over in detail and by the time I did it was already closed. J04n(talk page) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I closed it a bit earlier than you wanted. Since it wasn't edited in over 12 hours, I didn't see much use in it being kept up longer since the discussion appeared dead by Wiki standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist per Michig. And additionally because this closure did not meet WP:Speedy keep (among other things, the nominator advanced an argument to delete), and it was therefore not appropriate for an early non-admin closure. Per WP:Non-admin closure (admittedly an essay not a guideline), a non-admin should close only after a full listing period, or if the speedy keep criteria apply. Per the essay, which I think should be applied in this case, non-admins should not apply WP:SNOW: see WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep as it was unlikely that any delete buttons were going to be pushed. However, IMHO this wasn't a good candidate for a WP:SNOW close because of the redirect arguments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep' but in general it is better to keep open for the full time even if totally obvious unless the nom (or article creator) withdraws or it clearly is not in good faith. Frankly, it might have appeared that deleting something so obvious expansible as this could have been a little pointy, so I can understand the snow closure. But I myself would not have done that with a nom from an established editor. Letting it go the remaining days would have prevented us wasting the time & effort here. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep but a minnow to the closer: there was no need to close this early. Please don't do it again... Hobit (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome as re-listing this would be process for the sake of process, but the closure here was a mistake. A few hours one way or another on seven days is one thing, but this AfD was closed a full four days early as a NAC, and was not a speedy keep scenario. Whatever time was meant to be saved by this action; countless multiples will be wasted in this avoidable DRV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – there would have been no possible other way for for AFD to close the way it was going. I probably would have IAR'd also. –MuZemike 04:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:SNOW, and WP:IAR. There was clear consensus that the article should be kept, and there wasn't a snowball's chance that that was going to change. Continuing to keep the AFD open would have only served to beat the dead horse for a bit longer. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep for the simple reason that the nomination is against deletion policy. This sentence of the DRV nom: It has been noted by others besides myself, that the article slut could possibly be made to be encyclopedic, but it in its current form it is not. The problem is that the current page is solely an etymology in the style of the OED which fails WP:NOT. shows that the nom believes that problems with the article are only of the kind that can be solved by editing and expansion. The article therefore ought to be kept by default, per WP:ATD. That said, I agree that closing before the full 7 days is not the best thing to do, usually, but it was pretty much a WP:SNOW case. I endorse the minnow :) per Hobit. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure because this was a legitimate scenario for application of WP:SNOW. That said, I do not endorse Ktr101's decision to close this so early himself. WP:NAC may only be an essay, but it is a generally accepted one – that is, people don't look kindly upon non-admins pulling the plug on these types of XfDs so early. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just so any other person commenting knows, I regret closing it early. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tempest, meet teapot. :-) It was a small thing (and some have argued reasonable) but not so obvious as to be a good NAC. We all learn by making mistakes, and this was a darn little one. So no worries. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep The close was not necessary to be this early, but there appears to be a legitimate application of WP:SNOW. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse only procedural purists would want to run this another time - and only the most naive among them would truly expect a different result, so rather than re-run it for procedure's sake, let's build the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow endorse. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chinese_immigration_to_Sydney,_Australia – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arguments made for deletion in the original deletion discussion clearly don't apply to this significantly different article (which uses some material from the original, but a small percentage, and has already had useful content development work in userspace). I assert that this isn't really recreation of deleted material therefore, but more importantly, it's just a good fit for mainspace in it's current state. I'm uncertain if anyone is disputing that, mind, so maybe this is just a 'best to follow the correct procedure' sort of thing? I'm enjoying working on this article, and look forward to whipping it into better shape in mainspace :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion There's no claim being made that the original AfD was invalid or that the close was incorrect, and it concluded only 11 days ago. The substantial concerns haven't been addressed; chopping more than 3/4 of the article has turned it from an OR POV essay into one that doesn't actually say much of anything and is still relatively unsourced. No additional sources have been consulted or looked at since the AfD. The user would be advised to take on board the concerns raised (i.e. read the books, see what they contain and properly cite them) and act on them substantially, then bring it back to DRV once this process is complete. Orderinchaos 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's important, I'm happy to assert that the original AfD doesn't apply to this article as is (in fact, I think I already have? Maybe review my post above, and see if you agree?) - further; I believe the article to be;
1. On a notable subject
2. Reliably sourced
3. underway in whipping up into shape by a good looking, well mannered, exemplary wikipedian
I believe the original deletion arguments were;
1. that the article was unsourced
2. that the article was a copyright violation in some way
3. that the sources for the article were not reliable
is it possible to indicate which of the above you agree / disagree with? Privatemusings (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merely restating your point however many times does not make it more valid - I disagreed with it then, and now. I am struggling to identify what you mean by "whipping up into shape" - your only changes have been removal of 3/4 of the content, two failed attempts to re-add the original disputed lead, and some spelling and grammar corrections. Five hook references go to a book without page numbers - I'm unsure if you've actually read the book in question, or any of the others provided to you on the talk page by Bejnar. The biggest actual content change (beyond the aforesaid removal) was my minor rewrite of the lead. If I saw some serious progress on these and an attempt to develop an encyclopaedic view of the subject rather than merely parroting a racy essay from another site, I might be more minded to support recreation, but I'm seeing a very blase attitude of creation without responsibility - something I note that SatuSuro brought up on your talk page today. Orderinchaos 08:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which no.s do you disagree with? Privatemusings (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be clearly obvious from the above that I have given a rationale for disagreeing with 2 and 3. As for 1, a good friend of mine who's far more au fait with cultural topics than I am has highlighted a clear issue in the scope: "Sydney is not a country, it was part of the colony of New South Wales and later Australia. So one can't "immigrate to Sydney". The figures being used are port arrivals; as is the case with any port, it may serve a very large territory, so do we actually know every last person who arrived in Sydney stayed in New South Wales? The topic has holes all over it. I was going to help but I honestly can't find anything in <removed - specialist> Library which would actually help - that in itself suggests it might not be such a good topic to write about as the less sources there are, the more you have to rely on individual sources, and the more trouble you're going to get into if one of them has a problem." I can't see a single point I disagree with there, and I have his permission, so have posted verbatim. Orderinchaos 20:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It was a rubbish article 11 days ago, and despite the changes, it's still an unsalvageable mess. Rebecca (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
execpt it's really not, is it? It's a notable subject, reliably sourced, and in my view an interesting read. If you disagree with the later, that's cool, but if you disagree with the either of the first two, could you explain why? (also, do you still feel that the article is a copyright violation? - this was your rationale for deletion originally, no?) Privatemusings (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca's actual rationale at the AfD was "The article is bollocks. Started as a POV copyvio, not salvageable." Orderinchaos 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, as I mentioned, if Rebecca still considers it a copyvio? (it never was really, was it?) Privatemusings (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted No point undeleting with a minimalist stub like that, which has an obvious undue on the early settlers, and only embarrasses the DoS and any attempt for a joint venture. There are other more placid, less flamboyant and uncontested articles that PM could use, like the one about Boy Charlton's pool. The nature of this topic will only bring fights and maybe irritate the folks DoS that their stuff is being cut up so much, although as the stance of the essay seemed quite non-mainstream, it was inevitable YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - one of our users is getting an article on Glebe Island into shape - it was looking good last time I saw the draft. Orderinchaos 08:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can this draft be seen ? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Spartaz' very reasonable close, and I would like to draw attention to his exact words: "I am specifically closing with the note that recreation of a NPOV verified replacement is specifically permitted." I think, Privatemusings, that you can go ahead and write a proper article without coming to DRV, and I think it would be simplest for all concerned if this were withdrawn or speedily closed as a drama-reduction measure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse exactly as S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well I'm happy to start the article anew, and discuss the incorporating of the dictionary of sydney stuff nice and slowly on the talk page - I don't mind whether or not this review stays open, or gets closed, or whatever folk think best..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure The arguments to keep at this AfD were fundamentally based on WP:SOFIXIT – the idea that the problems with the article could be addressed through regular editing. While that is true, those advocating deletion had the stronger arguments by far – that the article violated WP:NOR and WP:V, and that salvaging it would be unusually difficult. As such, the closing admin made the right call, particularly by allowing re-creation of a version that did not violate the aforementioned policies. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

SMPlayer – Restored per new information. – Chick Bowen 03:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I found [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], and [66] which is enough to make this pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore The sources found by Joe Chill establish that SMPlayer passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original close. Not a DRV matter, editor should simply write a sourced nonstub and add a note regarding differences from the deleted form to the talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and Restore now meets WP:N, no reason not to provide the old version as a starting point. Hobit (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but restore it to give Joe Chill a base to build the article off of, and add these sources in. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why I brought it to DRV. Restoring the old version will make it easier for there to be a referenced article. Joe Chill (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - article can meet WP:GNG, no reasons to keep it deleted, no matter the AfD. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Hobit. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article and let Joe Chill expand and source it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore/Overturn, or at least send Joe Chill a copy of the deleted article to work on. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, why make Joe Chill start from scratch if the framework of the article already exists? He is an editor in good standing with a strong history of understanding notability guidelines in regards to articles of this nature. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not really a DRV matter as Bradjamesbrown said. When I find significant sources after some AfD closed, I ask for the article to be userified to me, edit it accordingly, and then move it back to article space—this preserves full edit history. Of course, if anyone thinks the material is still unsuitably sourced, they can request CSD#G4. Overall this requires less manpower than having a bunch of people !vote restore here. Pcap ping 07:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 January 2010[edit]

UPWA Pro Wrestling – Endorsed. – Chick Bowen 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am a fan of UPWA along with many of my friends and family. I feel the page should be unlocked and re-instated. It is VERY notable in Wilmington and all of North Carolina. There are many pages on Wikipedia that I dont find notable but don't feel it is my place to say. We live in a free country so if nothing offensive was said, I dont understand why the page is not allowed to remain.

Endorse AFD was unanimous and properly closed. I'll assume the moninator is sincere in their confusion as to why this was deleted and suggest that they check out WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ORG, and WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as unanimous delete consensus. To the nominator, the test of notability is not subjective (ie what you or I think is notable - everyone's views will differ); it is objective (normally whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources).--Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Unanimous decision based on properly completed AfD. --Smashville^talk 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can verify it if we had known it to be an issue. We do not live on Wikipedia and when we got it reinstated once we found it was deleted. Then as we were verifying once again, it was deleted for no reason. We have been bringing it up to what was once stated but there are plenty of pages on here that are not notable and we are fans of said organization. You are not allowed to create a page for the sport we love? We can also prove plenty of coverage in various types of media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Why not reopen it for discussion and allow me and my friends to speak our peace on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has already taken place. Also, you appear to be advocating meatpuppetry. --Smashville^talk 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward endorse. If you want to recreate it, show us a sourced draft. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have links to articles printed in the newspaper on the promotion. I also have links to various press clippings about the promotion. When a discussion happens very quickly, is that really a discussion? I would love to show a sourced draft but I am unable to recreate the page due to admin locks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life (talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion took 7 days. It was followed to the letter of the process. --Smashville^talk 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not recreate the page during this discussion. --Smashville^talk 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most people here, I have something called a real life. I dont live on wikipedia so I dont see how that can be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life (talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse That closure was strictly by the book. Please, please read the policy on reliable sourcing, as neither the original article nor this review have produced any sources- reliable or not. Also, discussions on Wikipedia are not a vote, so having a bunch of your friends come and speak your peace would matter little without sound reasons based in policy to keep the article. A userspace draft is the best way forward in this situation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated the article is notable as it has been featured on local television and newspaper reports. I guess that isnt notable for the nerd herd. As long as its some stupid ass babylon 5 site or some bullshit its ok but something peopkle actually like, then its not allowed. Obviously it is a vote if six people who have nothing better to do decide what happens with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, no evidence of notability. Note that User:Superfan4life has been blocked for repeatedly recreating the article, as has the sockpuppet account User:DaSuperstar. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lauren Bernat – Endorsed. The redirect should be considered separately; it can be listed at WP:RFD by any concerned editor who wishes to do so. – Chick Bowen 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

While there is somewhat an issue with the "famous for one thing", I think that she this one thing has become significant enough to be more than JUST one thing - it has led to many offshoot videos, including two made by models for Zoo Today and Playboy, led to her getting a job as an Electronic Arts spokesperson for a competing product, which tells us that EA thinks that she is famous enough to have her be a face for it, even including her in a fitness challenge along with famous fitness celebrity Jillian Michaels, an event hosted by Oprah Winfrey's personal trainer. In Wii Fit Girl [gotta view history], the article I created, it shows that not only does the notability of her li'l YouTube video branch out from just being a popular YouTube video, but the video in and of itself is very notable. It's been covered worldwide, and it's not like the coverage was all around the posting of the video, it's been steadily flowing since then [even getting listed as one of the most memorable video game moments of the decade by GamesRadar]. I propose that it satisfies all guideline problems found with the original article, and if not given an article, much content that is clearly significant will be reduced to a single sentence that does not even remotely cover enough of the content. I guess redirecting wouldn't be so bad if the list it redirects to doesn't allow for proper expansion, because as it stands, it treats all redirected subjects as equal in notability by setting it up like this. But that's neither here nor there. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a case like this that was unanimous to delete it is usual to provide a draft to consider. Absent that I can hardly fault the closing admin for going with the flow. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, nomination gives no rationale for concluding that the AfD was closed incorrectly given the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was a clear and unanimous consensus to delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, would it be possible for it to be temporary undeleted to have a second AfD? THat is, I'm arguing that if the article were in its current state, the verdict would, at the very least, be anything but clear or unanimous. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, AFD was unanimous, and as several commenters pointed out this is basically the classic example of WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, AfD was clear. If you want to recreate it, produce a draft showing how BLP1E no longer applies (or never applied) and come back here. Essentially per Spartaz. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a recreation review, not an appeal of the AfD. New Age Retro Hippie provided a draft: [67]. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm normally a big fan of bringing new drafts to DRV, but in this case the main problem is nothing a draft can fix: the topic is the BLP1Eest BLP1E that ever BLP1Eed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I have to agree. I'm not seeing the second event here. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No way is that going to pass muster. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming this one carries on in the current direction -- what to do about the redirect? I'm not familiar with policy on redirects, but I don't see the case for one here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huge endorse. That said, as long as she's in the list, there is no good reason not to have the redirect. Hobit (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list doesn't allow for enough room to explain why it took off, or what it led to. If I trimmed it down and added extra content like reception, it would be reverted as undue weight, since everything else is a single sentence of content. It'd be another story if the redirect target allowed for any expansion whatsoever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand. That said, our policies are that such an article shouldn't exist (per AfD, BLP1E). The list entry is reasonable in my opinion (though there is a style guideline opposes disagrees about black links in BLP lists). But no matter what, if the topic is in the list, we should have the redirect. As to the issue you raise, the best you can probably do is get stuff into the list article via references. 4-5 references in this case is probably okay in the list. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's worth noting that the list mostly works the other way around: it has links to articles, not redirects pointing to the list. The list contains entries deemed worthy of an article. The redirect is harmless enough, but perhaps it raises the question of whether she should be included in the list. (yes, it could be discussed there...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I followed that. This list does have a lot of blue links, but "Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity." If the person is on the list, WP:REDIRECT would indicate that we should have a redirect to the list. Hobit (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        FYI, I'm not intending for the whole "list problem" to try and keep the article under those circumstances, just saying that it'd be more acceptable if the list were set up to allow mention of why it became popular and what it has resulted in. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The presence or absence of a redirect depends on the content at List of Internet phenomena which is best discussed at its talk page not at this DRV. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 January 2010[edit]

Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance – Overturned and listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance. – Chick Bowen 06:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been speedy deleted but it was completely new, with new secondary and primary sources, and a new title. Everything was different. It has been improved on the french Wikipedia, and kept, and this is the translation. I am not sure it has been read. I haven't been notified. And the admin Jayig (talk ) doesn't answer to my questions. Thank you Raymondnivet (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For information :

Hello and Happy new Year Hell in a Bucket,...

... Eva Rhodes & Ophélie Bretnacher have been kept after 17 days of discussion I am very happy with the way the French Wikipedians have improved the page

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Rhodes

Congratulations Raymond, the article looks real good. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that the article has survived a deletion review on the French Wikipedia I don't think there should be aq problem adding it here. I can't speak french or I would offer my services. You might try rewriting the article in English and asking a editor to make sure that the spelling and context should be in English but I think it has a doubled chance of surviving here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg, You deleted the page too fast. I didn't have the time to answer. it was the translation of the new french page, which has been kept, after the discussion. Maybe you will have the time too read this new page, which is an important european problem http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher It has been improved by the french wikipedians. Maybe it can alsobe improved by english wikipedians.:-Raymondnivet (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. The author consulted me here and I told him if he wanted it back he would have to go to DRV. Instead, it has come back as Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance, essentially the same but avoiding BIO1E by retitling. I think, despite the attempt to show political significance, it still fails WP:N/CA, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:109PAPERS... Question: do you consider this is a repost per WP:CSD#G4, or does the retitling save it so that it needs another AfD? JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've deleted it again, since it was just a re-creation of the original article. If he wants to have the article on en-wiki, he'll have to take it to WP:DRV. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg and Happy new Year, You delated a new page on Ophélie Bretnacher. It was completely different, improved by the french wikipedians, and kept after the discussion. Not the same text, primary and secondary sources... You didn't read it ?...-Raymondnivet (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a recreation. Everything inside is different. The french Wikipedians changed the sources, The National Assembly for exemple in references, added secondary sources, . Nobody can read and understand french here ? Nobody has looked at the references ? It's terrible. --Raymondnivet (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Maybe, that (in english) can help : http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23663033-miliband-failed-to-help-hunt-for-model-feared-murdered-abroad.do --Raymondnivet (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg has delated 2 pages with speedy deletion january 5 th and 1 page january 6 th. I ca'nt find the new Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance !!! So it's there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymondnivet/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher_disappearance --Raymondnivet (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isupport a recreation. If nec. I will help, but this article ahas survived a french deletion discussion. I Strongly suggest you ifind a editor here that speaks french. I argued for deletion on the first, definitly not baised. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. Without gauging the article's merits myself, it looks like a new AfD discussion would be a good idea, especially if the content is substantially different as it claimed (can an admin confirm that?). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and AfD at editorial discretion. A substantial portion of the original AfD concerns WP:BIO1E, which no longer applies. I do not think it is clear-cut enough for a speedy. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD; sufficiently different to previous version. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article has been retitled so that WP:BIO1E is no longer an issue, and it has been rewritten, but it is basically the same, and the considerations of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL at the original AfD still apply: this is a tragic case but not encyclopedically notable, and adding additional references does not help that. French Wikipedia has its own standards, and inclusion there is not a strong argument for retention here. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not NEWS, it's an encyclopedic case. It is a criminal and diplomatic case, which has now lasted 1 year and 1 month. And the Eva Rhodes case has lasted 7 years. It's not MEMORIAL, it only have the name of the student, and it affects the judicial creation of the new EU. --Raymondnivet (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The plac eto discuss the merits will be AfD, but I will just say that I give considerable weight to the judgment of the frWP, which in general is much less inclusive on the coverage of sensational or tabloid - style topics than we are. Their decision is at any case a reason to relist, DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that decisions on the French Wikipedia are in any way relevant to us. Certainly, a decision to "keep" or "delete" on fr.wiki does not have precedential force here; it can, at most, be indicative. What matters here is not the text of the French article, nor fr.wiki's view on whether it should be kept, but the basic question of whether there are sufficient sources to meet en.wiki's minimum standards for an article.
Despite JohnCD's view as expressed above, and with all due respect for JohnCD's editorial judgment, I think the number and quality of reliable sources is of absolutely central importance to our decision. The idea that additional references "does not help" to establish notability does not withstand scrutiny at all.
Examining the sources, then, I see that even non-French speakers will be able to read the quality British newspapers such as the London Evening Standard and the Guardian, which are linked from the French article. I submit that these sources are highly reliable and establish that under en.wiki's rules, we should have an article with this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point, expressed in more detail in the essays WP:109PAPERS and WP:Bombardment, is that a sensational event like a crime may get a lot of press coverage without being encyclopedically notable, and that when that is the case simply adding more and more references does not help. We are evidently going to get to discuss this again in a new AfD. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:109PAPERS and WP:Bombardment. All the sources are different and have an utility. They never say the same thing. They all bring something different again in this complex criminal, diplomatic and also historic case. I am not defending my work, but the french wikipedian communauty's work. They added the sources, especially summary and secondary sources. --Raymondnivet (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the essays that you cite, JohnCD, and I am disregarding them with all due forethought.

The general notability guideline has all sorts of problems, but it does have one clear redeeming benefit: if we apply the GNG consistently, then any editor may judge for themselves whether or not the GNG is passed and therefore whether or not an article is permitted. If we do not apply it consistently, then content contributors risk seeing their hard work deleted at random based on whether it's mainly inclusionists or mainly deletionists who happen to show up at the AfD. In other words, strict adherence to the GNG is what enables editors to write good faith content without going through a committee process first. I think that until we have a decent, objective alternative to the GNG, any essay that seeks to undermine it is not just wrong, but actually damaging to the project.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will fall back from essays to WP:NOTNEWS, part of the policy WP:NOT, which is what they are expanding on: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Indeed WP:N itself says in the GNG paragraph:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. (my emphasis)

So I don't think those essays are seeking to undermine the GNG: they are seeking to clarify one of the WP:NOT exceptions envisaged in that paragraph of it. If we rely solely on number of reliable sources, we might as well merge Wikipedia with Wikinews: every murder, every celebrity affair or squabble, every footballer's girl-friend's new hair-do, every well-organised PR stunt will qualify if someone is willing to dig around for enough sources.

JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, there are also secondary sources, summarizing the case in its extension in time. This is not an incident, it is a logical succession of events, constructing a case.--Raymondnivet (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? "For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not" I don't understand what you mean JohnCD. Can you explain that, with an exemple, in this article ??? --Raymondnivet (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shall get to discuss this all again at a new AfD, let's wait till then. JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points you raise, JohnCD, have merit and would be worth discussion at an AfD. My position is that an AfD is what's needed, though. We're considering a speedy deletion, and WP:NOT is not a speedy criterion, so I'm afraid I don't see it as relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a speedy deletion WP:CSD#G4, repost of material deleted at AfD, and the point at issue here was whether the rewrite had addressed the issues from the first AfD, where WP:NOT was relevant and was cited. But we are clearly going to re-hash it all over again at another AfD, so let's not continue the discussion here. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. The speedy deletion was sufficiently different to the original that WP:CSD#G4 was not applicable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was originally deleted primarily because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL; that is, the topic itself was not considered notable. These are not issues that can be easily addressed by an article name change, rewordings, or different sources. Also, AfD decisions at the French Wikipedia are not relevant here. I have no opinion on whether or not the article in its current form should exist, but I was quite certain that it should go through DRV before any restoration, particularly so soon after the original AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Liberalhtv.jpg – Speedy deletion overturned and file listed at FfD, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 13#File:Liberalhtv.jpg – BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Entirely reasonable fair use, on the article How-to-vote card, to show what one of the beasts actually looks like. Transformative use, and no possibility of commercial damage to the Australian Liberal party. So satisfies NFCC#2 and NFCC#8: showing this would indeed enhance reader understanding. It would also add to understanding at Australian_electoral_system#The_House_of_Representatives, which discusses how the parties use these how-to-vote cards to achieve a very low rate of ballot papers being ruled inadmissible by being wrongly filled in.

Despite my putting this arguments in a speedy-disputed tag, User:Fastily went ahead and speedily deleted it without any acknowledgement to me or thought to list it at FFD, and when asked to reconsider on his talk page did not respond beyond a cursory "Somehow, I get the feeling that Wikipedia doesn't have a license for this kind of media". Jheald (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy and immediately send to FfD for a proper debate on the issue. It's unclear whether this is an acceptable image but it's a sufficiently unusual case that it should be properly debated; I can see both sides of the argument here - it is superficially replaceable (with text) but that point can only be compelling proven by thrashing out, if possible, some adequate words. CIreland (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I originally tagged this image as possibly violating fair use policy and the image was correctly deleted at that stage. However, it would be helpful to list at FFD to obtain a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Vague feelings are not a proper basis for speedy deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, send to FFD. I don't see this image as meeting the requirements of F7; even though there appears to be a reasonable case against the fair use claim, the rationales for use aren't "clearly invalid" (especially since mutiple claims for multiple articles are involved). The NFCC issues are substantial enough to cal for community discussion/resolution rather than by the speedy deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD. Speedy deletion is reserved for only the most obvious cases; if there is dispute now about whether this should've been F7'd or not, then I think it's fairly certain that a discussion should have occurred prior to deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Strong fair use claim, should never have been speedied. Rebecca (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at FfD. Not speediable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This shouldn't have been speedy deleted. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ducktastic.jpg – Overturned. Any editor who wishes may list it at WP:FFP. – Chick Bowen 06:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

image was inappropriately deleted. this was/is the POSTER for that appeared all over GB, and everywhere else the show was performed, and its inclusion in the article on Ducktastic is permitted under wp fair use guidelines. depiction of the individuals is only incidental and not relevant. comments in the original FfD all incorrectly reference 'articles on other performers' (user:ESkog), 'that it is replaceable', that it is 'decorative' (user:Peripitus), and 'inappropriate' without addressing the fact that posters, window cards, etc. are permitted in the same manner that the posters File:Edward & Mrs. Simpson.jpg, File:TheMcMartinTrial.jpg, and the thousands of others are used in their accompanying article. emerson7 12:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per nom -- poster for a show, used in the infobox about the show. Original deletion discussion related to use in the article The Right Size on the performers (which would indeed have been replaceable). But the proposed use now, on Ducktastic, is not about the performers, it is about the specific show. That said, the article is very short; the case for the image would be a lot stronger if the present stub was a lot more substantial. Jheald (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, but not quite per nom. The original deletion, when the nonfree image was used as a general illustration in a BLP, was correct. However, the image was reuploaded for use in a different article with a clearly legitimate claim for NFCC use. Therefore, G4 deletion was inappropriate, since "the reason for the deletion no longer applies." Since the image is being used primarily for identification of a notable subject (Olivier award nominee), I don't see any other NFCC issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: actually, the image was originally deleted from a section where it was being used as illustration to describe the show. it was never intended for use as identification of its stars, The Right Size. --emerson7 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever might have been intended, it was the primary/sole illustration in a BLP without any significant text relating to the particular show, and therefore would still fail NFCC requirements. Just as a screenshot of an actor's TV role would fail NFCC in a bio article when the role was only included in a list of credits without any substantive discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i wholly disagree with your assessment and your interpretation of 'significant' and substantive discussion, as the show is about two dudes and a duck--a parody of sigfried and roy. not a helluva lot else to be said there. at any rate, the point is moot since it is not the topic of this review --emerson7 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is used to identify the show Ducktastic, then it may be OK to have it back, but if it shows up on Hamish McColl or Sean Foley or the theatre company The Right Size it played in, then the problem is back again. The article should talk about what is in that poster. However I am doubtful that the poster achieves what s described in the fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD. As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote above, the reason for deletion at the original FfD no longer applies in the same way. As such, it is wholly proper to have a new discussion. Speedy deletion is reserved for the most obvious cases, and this file is not in that category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and FfD at editorial discretion. Not a G4. The rationale in the old FfD does not apply here. If the file is used in another article inappropriately, the solution is to remove the image from that article, not to delete the image. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 January 2010[edit]

Expressor – This is getting a little disruptive and we certainly are not going to give the nominator relief here. Deletion endorsed and if the nominator hasn't read WP:COI already then they should – Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP/ADD ARTICLE: ShawnRog This debate seems to happen way too often around the lsiting of software and technology companies. I am a member of the press and cover the Business Intelligence and data warehousing space. Expressor is a well known solution provider in this industry and warrants a balanced and detailed listing in Wikipedia. Expressor's notoriety is supported by substantial trade press coverage, analyst coverage and recognition. It would be a noticeable omission for editors here at Wikipedia to not include companies such as Expressor in the database. —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC).

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the Expressor article and that this article be temporarily restored for all to examine during this review.

I have attempted to engage the editors who initiated and supported the Expressor AfD nomination, but none have responded. I have also attempted to communicate with the administrator who deleted the Expressor page – User:Secret -- before requesting this deletion review, but Secret also never responded. I am requesting undeletion of the Expressor page because I believe it was nominated for deletion based on a misinterpretation of the notability guidelines, supported by conflicting interpretations of what constitutes notability for software companies and mis-statements of fact.

As I noted in a comment posted in the AfD discussion for expressor competitor Talend: “Like Talend, expressor is a new entrant with substantial VC backing in the established market for data integration and ETL products -- a fact both companies can and have proven with numerous, industry-specific references. An editor here noted that Talend has only received coverage in IT-related publications -- but those are exactly the kind of objective, secondary sources of information that not only confer notability within this IT market segment, but they are also the kind of secondary research buyers seek when evaluating a solution. (And since it competes in the same market, it is not surprising that expressor cited many of the same sources, such as Gartner, in its entry.) By deleting entries for companies such as Talend and expressor (not to mention other similar entries for Pentaho, Apatar and Jitterbit) for non-notability, you are ensuring that Wikipedia readers can only find information here on the largest vendors and products, and therefore get a skewed and inaccurate picture of objective reality.” Sccasey (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/incubate ~~userfy~~ -- the AfD discussion produced a weak result at best, and a search here suggests it is very likely that an article can be justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a Copy located here User:Sccasey/expressor_software_entry_draft.--Hu12 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a pretty crappy draft, and if that's where we're headed then I agree that there is no need for an article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sccasey has a probable conflict of interest regarding this topic. However, the topic itself appears to meet the general notability criterion ([82][83]) and the version of the article produced by Sccasey seemed to establish the notability of the topic. So, incubate (in this case, I think incubating is a better option than userfying because it will allow other editors to participate in the improvement) until a policy-compliant version of the article is produced. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted. User:Sccasey is a Consultant for expressor software. See Spam Case. Nothing more than a Advertisement masquerading as an article for non-notable software(WP:CORP). References found are to splogs, press releases, self-submitted reviews and to partners that do not confer notability and do not count as reliable sources. Nothing in this suggests that this site or service has any sort of historical or technical significance of the kind needed to support an encyclopedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily restore article deleted on 12/10 by Secret. The article referenced by Hu12 above was an early draft that was subsequently edited based on feedback from other editors. This discussion should be based on the most recent article version that was deleted on 12/10 by Secret -- which is why I made that request when initiating this review. Sccasey (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)— Sccasey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'd be very careful, you attempted to the same thing at Afd under the anon IP 24.147.28.111 (talk · contribs)^[84]. You are the requestor of this DRV, and have a Clear conflict of interest and are a paid consultant editing on behalf of your client, expressor software.

Canvassing other DRV's for Expressor, "keep Talend and expressor"
Canvassing participants of another AFD unrelated to Expressor, where you liked the outcome Twice
"'Admin'" shopping for undeletion after the AFD
Continued spamming despite warnings Under IP 24.2.206.247 (talk · contribs)[85][86]

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote expressor software.--Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. This is yet another business providing back-office software of some sort. Investment research sites and trade magazines (Bloor Research, "Enterprise Systems", "IT Business Edge") are never enough to confer notability on a business of this sort, which the general public has very little occasion to deal with; they don't have any real audience outside the trade. When WP:CORP says that "media of limited interest and circulation" don't confer notability, this is what it's talking about. That's the sort of reference offered by the current userfied version, which also has the sort of profound POV issue you expect from conflict of interest, and remains obvious advertising, as well as being full of vague and uninformative strings of glittering generalities (a suite of team-oriented, role-based tools that support the project development and management lifecycle). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin do a temp undelete so that non-admins can evaluate the article? Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a userfied version at User:Sccasey/expressor software entry draft that anyone can read. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that substantially similar to the deleted version? Also, the AfD noted that the article was "hijacked" by Sccasey. What about the version prior to the "hijacking"? Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted version consists of this one paragraph and a link to expressor software;

"expressor software is a data integration suite that enables collaborative, role-based team development, business rule reuse and end-to-end project lifecycle management. expressor was founded in 2003 by experienced data integration and data warehousing practitioners and executives. The company is headquartered in Burlington, MA and is funded by Commonwealth Capital Ventures, Globespan Capital Partners and Sigma Partners."

Nothing in this suggests that this meets WP:CORP or this would survive at another AFD.--Hu12 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've seen enough. Though the AfD was weak, endorse close as reasonable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily restore article edited on 12/1 by Sccasey. Apologies. I had overlooked the fact that Orange Mike had deleted the latest version of the article I had edited on 12/1 based on feedback from other editors. Secret then deleted that article, I believe. Can an admin please temporarily restore the 12/1 article -- which I sincerely attempted to draft from an objective point of view, so that all here can review on its merits? Btw, the draft on my talk page is very different -- from the article edited on 12/1. I would also like to apologize for posting edits without logging in first -- I was not trying to hide my identity, but simply forgot to log in.

To take a step back, the criticisms of the expressor article fall into two broad categories: 1. It was created by single-purpose account editor with a conflict of interest. 2. The company is non-notable.

To address the first: I have not attempted to hide my relationship with the company. I disclosed it. I did not engage in sock puppetry. It’s clear my first attempts to edit the expressor article fell short in several important respects, so based on feedback from editors, I carefully reviewed the conflict of interest, single purpose account and notability guidelines – as well as the articles on the company’s competitors in ETL and data integration, including Informatica, Talend, Pentaho, and IBM InfoSphere DataStage, and attempted to create an article that was similarly objective, non-promotional and cited third-party references from similar reliable sources.

Re the second: Notability for a business-to-business software company is conferred by the independent news outlets, analysts and experts that potential customers pay for their objective research, analysis and opinions of the relative merits of competing solutions and companies. To address one argument made here, cynics can question their objectivity, but if news and research organizations such as Gartner, 451 Group, Computerworld, Bloor Research and ITtoolbox (all of which were cited as references in the expressor article) were only “self-publishing” houses for vendors or “splogs” – and not delivering valuable information for prospective buyers, they would not be in business today and would have withered away decades ago, since many have been in business that long – unfamiliar as they may be to some Wikipedia editors.

To address the other argument re notability, if the only measure of notability for companies suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia is how much the “the general public” has “occasion to deal with” them – then none of the companies listed above are notable, even though they are in total selling more than a billion dollars a year in products and services to other companies who need to solve the same problems expressor solves. That “general public” measure would necessarily mean the deletion for non-notability of all the articles for companies and products but those that are sold and heavily marketed to consumers, such as the Chia Pet or Dungeons & Dragons. And if applied broadly, would render non-notable whole swaths of arcana such as the history of ancient Persian royalty. Sccasey (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sccasey (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second !vote [87][88], Not including the implicit !vote that comes with requesting this DRV[89]. Repeatedly begging for undeletion, and vote stacking multiple times, isn't apropriate when all the information needed for the comunity to make a decision is already availiable. "Media of limited interest and circulation" doesnt confer notability. Nothing in deleted text (provided above), or your Userfied copy suggests that this meets WP:CORP or this would survive at another AFD. You have a blatent conflict of interest and are a paid consultant editing on behalf of your client, expressor software. --Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sccasey (talk · contribs) has !voted twice[90][91], and is the DRV requestor[92]. --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, standard puff piece, WP:COI appears to be in play here. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 January 2010[edit]

List of unusual personal names – Deletion endorsed, this is not AFD round 2. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

During the deletion debate, just about all the deletion rationales were in the form of "delete, violates NPOV" or "delete, subjective". The former is a WP:VAGUEWAVE, as no specific reasoning for how the article violated WP:NPOV was offered, and the latter actively disregards the WP:ASF section of NPOV, which states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion."

The opening paragraph of the article is what makes the list compliant with this principle: "The following list... is of people who have received media attention because of their name." This simple criterion, and adherence to it, is what makes the list non-subjective. It contains opinions (drawn from reliable sources), and declares at the top that that is the intended entirety of its content. "Unusual names" is a subject that many professional writers have touched upon, often at length (which is what justifies our having an article on the subject, if anyone wants to raise the WP:N angle), so if Wikipedia is to have an article about the subject, the only neutral way to approach it is to simply collate what various writers have said about the subject. Colonel Warden pointed this out in the course of the debate: [93].

Perhaps it could have been made clearer that the list is "not subjective" as a result of following that rule -- through a rename or further tweaking of the opening paragraph -- but the article still shouldn't have been deleted on the basis of delete !voters failing to properly assess the policy-compliant nature of its content.

A number of editors attempted to communicate these problems to the closing admin, who has reaffirmed his closure without addressing any of our specific policy concerns. Post-closure, he cited "BLP issues", although that issue was similarly unjustified during the debate: BLP was invoked in the form of WP:VAGUEWAVEs, or under the rubric of "do no harm", which is distinctly not what WP:BLP states or embodies.

To the extent that there may have been valid BLP concerns, they could have been addressed by editing, not deleting the article. In fact, such work was actively underway at the time of the nomination: all unsourced entries (or those attributed to unreliable sources) were being re-cited or removed. Had "the protection of minors" been found to have valid basis in policy, that too could be addressed by simply removing them from the list.

I also note that there was irregularity during the AfD in the form of sockpuppetry, as described here. However, this element is far less important, in my view, than the broad absence of any rationale based in actual policy that would have justified the article's deletion.--Father Goose (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note as closer Please see my talk page User talk:Chillum#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination) where I have responded to the issues raised by 4 people who have sought to keep this article. I am not sure how you can say I have not addressed your policy concerns Father Goose as I have explained the policy basis of both the delete and keep opinions and show that I have taken the instance sock puppetry into account. I feel there was a clear majority of people presenting a valid policy based reason for deletion. While both sides have valid policy based arguments it is not the job as my the closer to decide which opinion is correct, but simply to judge which policy based arguments represent a clear majority. The sock puppetry was a minor influence and only echoed the already prevalent opinion.

This is one of those AfDs I expected to go to DRV regardless of how I closed it, however I believe my closing was the only sincere closing I could have done that takes into account both policy and the desire of the community. I feel to have closed it any other was would be disregarding consensus. The arguments Father Goose brings up in this DRV were all given consideration and were all responded to at the AfD by the other participants. These arguments failed to convince people of their merits at the AfD and I as the closer should not veto the fact that these arguments were not convincing to the community even if I happen to agree with them. I see no policy or procedural basis for reversing this closing. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse sound close that reflected both the numerical weight of argument and policy.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reading the discussion, I'm not seeing anything clearly erroneous in the close. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion. Minimal encyclopedic value, nontrivial potential to expose mostly private people to ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I'm highly inclusionist and a proud, if new, member of the Article Rescue Squadron who came to the article hoping to help rescue it. But it's a hopeless subject IMHO. Also the point H.W. makes above is another valid reason for delete. A courageous but correct close. NBeale (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Closer's rationale is well explained and well within policy. WP:DRV is not AFD round 2, and there seems to be no problems with the way the closer chose to interpret the general scope of the discussion. --Jayron32 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request. I'd like to request undeletion of the article for the duration of the DRV so that commentators can fully evaluate the situation.--Father Goose (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally decline from restoring this content due to the BLP issues raised at the AfD, however will e-mail the content to anyone who requests it. I don't object to another admin coming to a different conclusion than me though. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I would be willing to remove all unsourced entries and those regarding minors for the purpose of demonstrating that various BLP concerns are addressable through editing, not deleting the article. If, however, there is a consensus that repeating the mere fact that a professional writer considers a name to be unusual (of a well-known, or even dead person) is a violation of BLP, then indeed this article cannot hope to exist on Wikipedia.
  I don't think one can claim that a consensus for such a broad position was formed during the course of the AfD. I would be content to have the article relisted at AfD to test the consensus for that specific point, as that seems to be the sole basis on which any actual policy-based objections are being raised.--Father Goose (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with just viewing the Google-cached version linked in the DRV heading? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Ignorance.

How and where does one find "the Google-cached version"? What is "the DRV heading"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's that little blue button at the top of this page that says cache. You manipulate your mouse with your hand until the cursor hovers over the little blue button that says cache. Once you're confident that the cursor is in the correct place, lightly apply pressure to the mouse button with one of your fingers.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we the smart-arse! Don't you think you could have been ruder? It seems you weren't trying hard enough.

And what's this crap about "curing ignorance (the chip on his shoulder i can't help))"? Get a grip sunshine! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cached version should be sufficient for anyone seeking to review the content of the article. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they know what it is, where it is, and how to retrieve it. I've been an internet user for 20 years, a WWW user for over 15 years, and a WP user for approaching 5 years, but I don't know where to access what you're talking about. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who had actually been around that long would know what the word "cache" meant and how to easily figure out how it applied to what was being discussed here. You're only digging yourself deeper here. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't sufficient because it's uneditable. That makes it impossible to demonstrate that the BLP concerns, such as they are, are addressable through editing the article. The "subjectivity problem", however, cannot be addressed by editing the article, as it is a case of people simply not paying attention to this policy.--Father Goose (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deal is, there is no need to restore this, because this is no longer a debate over whether or not the article itself is to be deleted. That's what AFD is for. This is a discussion over whether or not the admin that closed the AFD interpreted the discussion itself in a way that was reasonable and within the scope of his role as a closing admin. DRV is specifically not about the content of the articles in question. Its only about if the closing admin judged consensus. If the closing admin was basing his decision on the content of the article, and was ignoring the points made during the discussion, you may have a case to restore here. However, the admin clearly based his entire decision on the arguements made in the AFD. I don't see where the actual content of the article is relevent any more. --Jayron32 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A DRV is indeed about how the closing admin evaluated the arguments presented during an AfD. The evaluation should be take into account what actual specific policies are being violated, and should take into account whether such violations can be addressed through editing, not deletion. If those points are not adequately addressed during either the debate or the closure, then the appropriateness of the closure is thrown in doubt.
It's not enough to say "well, this group felt that way and that group felt this way, and more felt this way than that, so they win". There always has to be a sound rationale for deleting an article -- because otherwise, it's "just a vote". Headcounts aren't enough. Unspecific claims of policy violations aren't enough. And actual policy-based problems that can be addressed through editing also should not result in the deletion of an article.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind you trying to refute my points, but at least refute my points, and don't invent points I did not state and then refute those. I never once said that I believed the admin did a mere vote count, nor did I once imply that if he had, that would have been OK. What I said was that it was clear that he based his decision on the strength of the arguement, and that DRV is not about whether or not the article should be deleted. That is what AFD is for. DRV is to decide if the closing admin acted appropriately. --Jayron32 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - essentially only one reason given, which was subjective, when it is clear that subsegments of the page are not so. Again, there are books on this sort of material in bookstores (has anyone had a baby and gone looking for baby names can attest). Reason two, i.e. "not encyclopedic" is not a reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was disagreement as to if the content was subjective, but the significant majority of people felt it was subjective. It is not really the place of the closer that make their own decision on if it was subjective or not, but to follow what the consensus on the matter is. If I had decided myself that is was not subjective despite the consensus that it was then I would be replacing the community opinion with my own. Just as the closer should not impose their own opinion on the AfD, DRV should be about the closure and not a re-examination of the opinions presented(ie a second AfD). "Not encyclopedic" seems to me to be a very good reason for not including something in an encyclopedia. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, those two words have not been seen to be an adequate rationale unto themselves: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. I'm sure you know that, so your engaging the same behavior does not help to increase confidence in your closure.--Father Goose (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The subject is clearly notable, and the majority of the list is (or was getting) cited. Individual problems can be cleared up. Not having Nardwuar the Human Serviette and Screaming Lord Sutch and Ima Hogg in a list, would be an obvious encyclopedic omission. It highlights the diversity of imaginative parents, or individual choices. There is no necessity to equate 'unusual' with 'ridicule', that's a subjective evaluation. Otherwise, per Casliber. Reclose as "no consensus", with specific problems highlighted for addressing by editors. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted what's unusual is in the eye of the beholder and the closer got it right. I always thought it weird that there was a guy named Ham in the Old Testament when Jewish people aren't supposed to eat ham - does that make his name unusual? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus at the debate. The nominator of this DRV is excessively dismissive of the arguments to delete by chalking them up to little more than WP:VAGUEWAVE; when a clear-cut argument is made that the inclusion criteria for a list is simply too subjective the judgement thereof may be subjective itself, but that does not invalidate the fact that a strong majority of participants agreed with that judgement. In the spirit of full disclosure, I argued for the deletion of this article in the AfD. Shereth 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is stated in complete ignorance of what the inclusion criterion of the list was: not "whatever Wikipedians think is unusual", but "whatever professional writers have commented on as being unusual". That not-so-small difference is the difference between original research and encyclopedia writing, and is what makes the inclusion criteria not subjective at all. The individual statements by the aforementioned professional writers are subjective, certainly, but an article that catalogs such opinions is not: reread WP:ASF to understand how an article of this type can be entirely factual and populated according to objective criteria. So you are again making vague assertions that policy is somehow being violated. Please offer me an argument that is actually drawn from any policy we have anywhere on the site. Point my attention to any part of policy that is actually in line your assertions. Please. Any part of policy. Be concrete. Otherwise you're continuing to make an open-ended assertion that cannot be refuted: "too subjective". It's that kind of behavior that makes AfD devolve from a supposed discussion of deletion rationales into an entirely, yes, subjective vote.--Father Goose (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, I am quite aware of what the inclusion criteria on this list was, your assertion notwithstanding. I also enjoy how you insist that it was based upon "professional" writers. Here's the thing of it: even if we conveniently ignore the fact that the bulk of the entries were "sourced" by autobiographies, blogs, personal websites and opinion writers, you still run in to the issue that the criteria is, in essense, "Names that someone considers unusual". Who that someone is, is ultimately subjective. I'm not going to rehash the debate with you, but will stand by my original statement: the closer made an accurate reading of consensus. Shereth 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was in the process of removing entries sourced from blogs, personal websites, and gossip websites. The "professional writers" I speak of were those writing for the BBC, CBS, Time, Guinness Book of World Records, the Guardian, the Independent, and so on. The opinions of such authors are very much valid material for Wikipedia. The other sources are not. I don't defend the use of non-reliable sources, and would continue to remove entries based on them, had the article not disappeared in a flurry of snap judgments.--Father Goose (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct closure both by headcount and argument strength, indeed no possible way this could have been closed as anything else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By headcount, one would have to close as "no consensus". I invite you, or anyone else, to actually explain what parts of policy the article actually violates. No vaguewaves. No subjective pronouncements on "argument strength". Point to any actual words in any actual policy to underscore the claim that the arguments were policy based.--Father Goose (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a link to my talk page where I have gone into detail about the relevant policy. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, you are the only person so far to actually be specific about what portions of policy you felt were involved. But you only did so for the BLP issue, not the "subjectivity" one, and I'm not convinced that there was consensus during the deletion debate over how much the BLP issues came into play, or whether they could be addressed by trimming or otherwise editing the list.--Father Goose (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll readily grant that the article, falling at least in part under the auspices of BLP, has to be sourced impeccably: every entry about a living person has to be cited to a reliable source. I'm prepared to ensure that it complies with that. As for whether we should even be allowed to mention that the BBC or some similarly reputable media source has commented on the "unusualness" of someone's name, I have serious doubts about whether that should automatically be considered "harmful", or that such information can be considered private, having been disseminated by said media source. A very great number of the entries are famous for more than just their names, or are deceased, or are individuals who deliberately chose attention-getting names. I would be willing to discuss whether any individuals under the age of 18 should be reflexively omitted from the list.--Father Goose (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close, allow Father Goose to recreate And now the TL;DR part. I've gone back and forth on this. I think the closer's rational is well stated, though I do think that at some point sending things to AfD over and over again is a good reason to oppose deletion. While consensus can change, we also shouldn't be nominating things for deletion until they gets deleted. I think that second notion is important enough those !votes shouldn't have been entirely discounted (though I agree they aren't strong). In addition, as it is possible to source the fact that reliable sources find a given name to be "unusual," I think the"subjective" arguments should be significantly discounted as being factually incorrect. The BLP arguments are strong enough I think we should prune all unsourced information. I trust Father Goose to do so. So while I'd have closed this as "no consensus", and believe it should have been closed that way, the closer's view of things isn't unreasonable and is within discretion. All that said, (and realizing this isn't AFD2) my reading of the debate doesn't turn up a single valid reason not to let Father Goose recreate this. Hobit (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn sufficient arguments were given for why there are sources and what the sources were. those who continued to vote for deletion were engaging in IDINDTHEARTHAT, which is a polite way of saying that they had made up their minds from the start, either on the basis of inspection of the article, or merely the inspection of the title, and did not pay any regard to arguments. A close based on uninformed bare opinion is an incorrect close. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: the arguments for deletion are much more persuasive, for example, Maunus'. Speaking about the article itself, we'll either have an V, NPOV, or NOR problem. The verifiability problem is that just calling a name unusual doesn't make it. We have an NPOV problem if we make this list useful by giving one definition of "unusual" above all others. And we have a NOR problem if we define for ourselves a name to be unusual by using the criteria given with an NPOV-problmeatic definition. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The nominator here is overly dismissive of valid arguments; WP:VAGUEWAVE is being cited incorrectly here. The argument that a list's criteria for inclusion are inherently subjective is not a vague one, as Shereth wrote above. The subjectivity argument comes straight from WP:SAL, which states: "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources." Reliable sources, of course, must not be one writer's opinion that a name is unusual; there must be proof that a name is broadly considered unusual, or WP:NPOV is violated. In addition, there was the WP:BLP issue raised in the debate. All things considered, this was a sound close and I see no reason to overturn it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and award barnstar to closer for a courageous and correct closure. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shudder - Wiki-bullies give me the runs. Why does it have to be that "he who shouts loudest for longest" is the "winner"? Why does there have to be "a winner"? Why is it that a single editor trying to present a reasoned POV supported by a logical arguement gets shouted down by a pack of wolves, rather than people reading and considering the points he has raised, and addressing them? There's supposed to be a policy of WP:AGF. People are supposed to be polite and considerate. I'm unimpressed, and somewhat fed up. I would engage in this debate, but I just can't be bothered putting up with the crap. I hope you're all ashamed with yourselves. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There was a debate and it reached a result, I don't see any "winners", or "bullies". Who is being shouted down, who is being a wolf? Who is assuming bad faith? Why on Earth should be be ashamed of ourselves? While your comment is rich in judgment it fails to explain itself in the slightest. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what "gets you through the night", go for it.

I think what I've said is pretty obvious. If you don't already understand it, then me explaining it to you is almost certainly not going to help, because you almost certainly don't want to consider that POV.

Quite simply, I don't care. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, just don't expect to be very convincing if you are not going to explain yourself. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

However, as I've said, I think what I've said is pretty obvious. I'm rather surprised that it isn't obvious to someone of what appears to be your level of intellingence.

Well, if it isn't obvious to you, never mind. The world won't end; after all, it's only wikipedia ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion, "delete" was the most appropriate outcome, considering that such an article is never going to have objective inclusion criteria.
But. Closers are supposed to assess the debate, not the article. The process is not "everyone has a discussion and then some admin comes along and does whatever they personally think is right". The process is "everyone has a debate and then some admin comes along and decides what was the rough consensus". And from the debate before us, no matter which way you slice it, there was insufficient consensus to delete that article.
In my opinion, that debate was one in which the weaker arguments gained the majority support. In that sense, I find the debate itself defective. I would prefer to relist this matter in the hope that we can have a further debate in which the strongest arguments carry the day.
I expect someone will ask, if I feel like that, why don't I just endorse the close? And my answer is, because that's not FairProcess. It is not enough that we reach the correct conclusion in these things. Importantly, we must also show that we reach the correct conclusion in a fair and transparent way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as a correct interpretation of the discussion. There were good arguments on the "keep" side, but the "delete" side also had good arguments and were the clear majority even without discounting those who argued "keep" based on the repeated AFDing of the article. If Father Goose wants to create a userspace draft that addresses the BLP concerns, I think that would be fine, and if there is a version that achieves that then recreation should be permitted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid closure within policy. JBsupreme (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as "I didn't like the outcome" is not a valid reason to initiate a DRV. There were no administrative missteps or wrongdoings that need correcting here. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation with stricter adherrence to WP:PSTS. Sufficient sources exist for such a topic. however, a name is unusual only if a reputable secondary source says so. I get no sense of actual WP:BLP issues serious enough to prevent undeletion of the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No actual policy based reason exists for deletion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. The most accurate reading of consensus would be "keep" based on strength and honesty of arguments, although I could understand a "no consensus" as a fair middle ground. But more improtantly, User:WossOccurring has just been blocked after a checkuser confirmed he is a sock of someone who has had multiple other accounts blocked this holiday season. Part of his disruption in addition to sockpuppetry include frivolous renominations of articles for deletion, dishonesty, etc. I am bringing it to your attention as he was the first account to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination) after the nomination and looking through the discussion he is indeed unfortunately cited subsequetntly by such editors as User:Ks0stm with a "per WossOccurring". I am therefore deeply concerned that this account which is one of several we have been playing whack a mole with the past week or so belonging to the same person has unduly influenced that discussion given when he commented and that at least one editor does indeed cite him as part of the stance to delete. As the discussion was far from unanimous and close enough to a no consensus, I urge you to reconsider and reclose as "no consensus" per WP:DENY as we absolutely should not allow a discussion to have been influenced by a ban evading sock with a history of bad faith editing. If the account commented last and had no real influence on the discussion that would be one thing, but by commenting first after the nom and being cited by at least one editor, it clearly did influence the discussion and that is something we absolutely cannot allow to stand. By the way, other blocked socks of this user according to checkuser include User:VaginicaSeaman. Yes, seriously. This is absolutely not the kind of person we want influencing the outcomes of discussions. Really, we have been dealing with this guy's vote-stacking all month. See for example User_talk:Spartaz#Vote_stacking. Even before the sockpuppetry was initially discovered, he was discussed on ANI for both on and eve off wiki canvassing in AfDs he commented in. As soon as one account is blocked, more just keep popping up or we find some new webforum or talk pages on which one of his socks canvassed. And somehow he is getting around the auto-blocks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things. I am wondering if you read the link I put at the top of this DRV to my talk page. There I explain that I have indeed taken the sock puppetry into account. I also explain the policy basis of both the keep and delete arguments as I see them which I think refutes the idea that "No actual policy based reason exists for deletion". I really don't think the sock puppet had a significant effect and I do not think that the delete opinions were lacking a basis in policy. Both our criteria for lists and dealing with biographies of living people require a stricter standard of reliable sources which were really not of high quality, this is a policy based justification by my reading. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any policy based reason for deletion that stood up to the refutations of those who argued to keep. I disagree that the sock account did not have adequate influence on the discussion so as to taint it. I whole-heartedly agree that any unusual names that are not backed by reliable sources or that are libelous should be aggresively removed, but that is not a basis to scrap the list in its entirety. I am not convinced per WP:PRESERVE that this article is so unsalvageable that we have to stop working on it right now on a site with no deadline. I am not persuaded that something with a clear inclusion criteria (only names, only unusual names, only names deemed unsual in reliable sources) is somehow indiscriminate or unmaintainable. Therefore, when looking closely at the nature of the comments, it seems more and more a case of some just not liking list articles, regardless of sourcing and so on. All of the reasons presented for deletion are refutable:

"Subjective" (this word or some synonym is more or less repeated by a tremendous number of the delete votes) - not really subjective if called "unsual" in a reliable source
"cruft" - a nonsense term not backed in policy
"coverage is not notable" - what is and is not notable is subjective; objectively we can say the subject of unusual names is verifiable; my father got a page a day calendar for Christmas even that brings up unusual names of celebrity children, i.e. it is a verifiable subject of interest dealt with in list-esque manners
a WP:PERNOM that cites the blocked sockpuppet account
"BLP problems" - again, easily addressed by removing specific entries that seem libelous or are not backed by reliable sources
one of the bolded deletes does suggest a merge per WP:PRESERVE, which incidentally is the ONLY blue-linked policy linked to by anyone with a bolded delete up to that point in the discussion!
"trivia" - trivia is encyclopedic, at least according to numerous published books
"incomplete" - do we not finish a house because only the foundations have been lain?
"inclusion is based on opinion" - again, no, it is based on reliable sources that declare the names specifically "unusual"
"keeping the list up to date would be impossible" - we have millions of editors and obviously ones interested in updating this article; are articles are constantly updated and changed
"Who judges 'unusual' from usual?" - multiple reliable sources

We have vague allusions to BLP, which can be addressed through normal editing, but the only actually blue linked policy I noticed in any of the delete comments was to WP:PRESERVE in a statement offering the possible of merging as an alternative. Now let's say the main potentially valid concern is about BLPs, then we could still rework the article to be about non-specific people. See for example the section "Interesting and Unsual Names" in a published book. Or we make it about the subject of "unusual names" and retitle/merge to Unusual names using such analysis as found here. The bottom line is that authors discuss the subject of "unusual names" and because they do so in multiple published texts, there is some manner of reworking the subject that can indeed be maybe less list based and more prose based. No one can honestly deny that the subject of "unusual personal names" is not addressed in reliable sources. No one can honestly deny that such editors as myself are willing to look for and discuss these sources. Put simply, please keep in mind that deletion is a last resort when NO possible solution exists, and I am convinced that other possibilities still indeed exist for encyclopedic coverage of this topic and certainly that we have editors interested in and willing to continue working toward these alternative solutions. Per Wikipedia:Editors matter, I would hope that we would allow these editors to in good faith exhaust all of these other possibilities WP:BEFORE calling it quits on something. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, said Deor, vaguely waving his hand. Deor (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I honestly don't think most people who said delete bothered to read the article at all. I've noticed at times there are some people who just go from one AFD to another, quite rapidly laying out their opinion, without bothering to actually read the article and give any real consideration towards it. The beginning of the article clearly gives specific criteria for what should be within it.

"The following list of unusual personal names is of people who have received media attention because of their name, or are otherwise widely recognized as having names that are unusual. This list includes both names given at birth, and people who have legally changed their names."

And I see 102 references in the article. So the argument for deletion seems rather invalid. Therefore, it should be overturned. Dream Focus 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I had just read an article on unusual names and when I went to look in Wikipedia was surprised the article wasn't there. see here and here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 20:31, January 8, 2010
Endorse the correct evaluation of consensus. Most if not all of the delete opinions referenced the article's subjectivity and this point was never refuted. This is because no matter how many sources may back up the claims of the article, other sources may say just the opposite about whether a name is "unusual" or not. Even when properly cited, the article would be nothing more than a glaring example of systemic bias. When the criteria is expanded to consist of any name that has ever been deemed unusual, the list becomes endless and indiscriminate. Them From Space 06:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ASF, then comment here in a way that demonstrates that you understand the difference between "factual statements of what a source's opinions are" and subjective material. If two sources contradict each other on what is "unusual", we can note the contradiction, or just remove the entry. But I have yet to come across a single rebuttal of the type you anticipate in any reliable source. Your other points do not address any point raised in the original AFD; I would refute them with little trouble if this were -- as so many are accusing me of thinking -- "AFD 2".--Father Goose (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The closer made it clear in his statement that there were two schools of thought which were both supported by policy - one that the matter was inherently NPOV and the other that it was verifiable by reference to reliable sources and so any NPOV issues might be resolved. The closer then chose between these two arguments. This is not acceptable because this is not consensus - it is an explicit failure to find compromise and so just overrule one side. This is not consistent with WP:DGFA which makes it clear that in cases of doubt - which must surely include such splits - then articles should not be deleted. Retention of the articles pending further refinement and improvement is thus the appropriate way to follow our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation/userfying/incubation, possibly with a title more precise like List of personal names considered unusual. I personally think that the AfD should have closed as no consensus; however inherent subjectivity concerns are to be addressed. The article was however shown to be robustly sourced at least for some of the entries. I'd suggest to userfy/incubate, carefully check it is in good shape and robustly sourced, and then have it back. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - I have read through the debate, and I would agree that there was a general consensus for deletion. I'd also like to point out that the main purpose of DR is not for holding a second AfD and reasserting your keep opinion(s) - the deletion debate has already happened; instead, it is for asserting that the closing administrator misread the existing consensus. I do not think this is the case. Ale_Jrb ^talk 23:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't see anything obviously wrong about this close. It seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion that took place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nimi Visuals – G11 deletion overturned, to be referred to AfD for a full discussion – Shereth 16:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiwieciekto (talk • contribs)

I presume that you are disagreeing with the speedy deletion? However, looking at the article I would have to agree with the deleting admin that it met the criteria of WP:CSD#G11 as being unambiguous promotion, so I endorse the deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think that this is not G11. It may be true that the article contains some spammy content, but it seems descriptive to me most of the time. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per my comment above. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article as it was read like a pamphlet, it was clearly promotional. Any article we do have on the subject would be better written from start than adapted from the promotional prose that was the prior content of this article. Even though now reason to dispute this deletion has been presented, I affirm it is a valid CSD G11 deletion. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that some of the prior content is informative and can be used as a starting point for a proper article I cannot bring myself to say the deleting admin made a mistake as the tone of the article is that of someone attempting to show how great their product is. I do not object to the undeletion of the article for the purposes of creating a derivative work that is encyclopedic in style but it should not be undeleted and left in its current condition. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly to say I don't see why information like features list is different from those in Beryl (window manager) or Compiz - I would understand removing paragraphs or something. Reporting(seen that while using Wikipedia) that this section requires rewrite - but deletion without restore option is kind of uncommon solution for me. Especially as person(from administrator questions page it was something like this) from what I recall also wasn't sure whether there was this G11. I would at last like to know if/how I can rewrite this article not to be deleted again. Is there possibility to protect article for deletion if it will be accepted by administrators?

Oh and thanks Metropolitan90 for helping me navigate here - Wiki system is really too complex for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiwieciekto (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Had I seen it, I would have made a rather drastic cut, and it would not then have looked so promotional--I would have called it sufficiently descriptive and declined G11. G11 is not to be used as an excuse for A7 when it's a class of article not covered by A7, and that may possible been part of the thinking here. The admin deleted the article without previous tagging. This is permitted but discouraged--one of the reasons it is discouraged is that it leads reasonable people to question the decision, and this is an example. At the very least, if a one-handed deletion is challenged, the admin should revert, and send to AfD; or any other admin could simply do that for them. I admit I sometimes do one-handed deletions myself, but if reasonably challenged, I would undelete and send to AfD--I prefer community decisions to my own if there is any doubt. In practice, since the article is unsourced and there is sure to be questioned notability, it would probably be wisest to rewrite it first, and then resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not so promotional as to be a speedy in my opinion. Also per DGG. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD, mainly per DGG. I believe this was a misapplication of G11; a case could be made that this article was WP:ARTSPAM at AfD, but was it "unambiguous advertising"? Looking at the cached version of the page, I think it wasn't unambiguous. Like DGG, I'm uncomfortable with an overly liberal application of G11 to software articles just because attempts to add software to A7 have failed to gain traction at WT:CSD. (For the record, I supported adding it.) This may well be deleted at AfD, but it's definitely not the obvious type of case for which speedy deletion is reserved. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy and list at AFD. I agree with DGG's assessment that this could have been made non-promotional through simple cutting, so the CSD criterion of needing to be "fundamentally rewritten" to avoid promotion does not apply. It may not be notable enough to survive AFD, but speedy deletion was not the right choice in this case. --RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, at least temporarily. I cannot even see what we're commenting on. JBsupreme (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see the last Google cache of the non-deleted article by clicking the "cache" link near the top of this section. Admins can see the final version that was deleted, although I don't think there is any significant difference in this case. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is no substantial difference I would have to agree with the deletion (for different reasons) but would prefer it being deleted by way of consensus rather than unilaterally. I'm not a process wonk but I think the best way to handle this one is to overturn the deletion and give the community the opportunity to provide feedback (and possible improvement) and see what happens. JBsupreme (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Excessively-detailed description of product features does not qualify as "blatant" or "unambiguous" advertising when the text itself is not promotional. I don't see anything wrong with a sysop applying speedy deletion without previous tagging—the practice is neither prohibited nor discouraged, to my knowledge—but none of the speedy deletion criteria seem to apply in this case. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is mistakes like this which show why it ought to be prohibited, or at least very strongly discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise the value of tagging a page for deletion for review by a second sysop in cases where some subjective evaluation is required or there is any doubt, and I have done so myself on multiple occasions, but the practice is unnecessary, in my opinion, for most of the speedy deletion criteria. With the exceptions of G11, A7, A10, and F7 (and possibly also G10 and A9), the speedy criteria are essentially unambiguous. Was your comment perhaps aimed at those few speedy criteria specifically? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin: The sole programmer and promoter of a piece of freeware creates an article about it with no explanation of notability. Wake up! This is spam. G11 is not an assumption of malice, I think the author is an articulate and intelligent designer who has acted in good faith. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that Wikipedia policies don't reward those qualities with a right to a vanity article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument of the "overturn" comments is that the article should be processed through AFD rather than speedy, not that there is "a right to a vanity article." --RL0919 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article satisfied the G11 CSD criterion to a T. Not only that, but do any of the commenting editors think that it would have survived an AfD? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've already said that I endorse the deletion, but there are some here who believe this can somehow be salvaged. It won't hurt anybody to undelete it for a week and give them a crack at it while it is discussed on the AFD channel. If nothing is changed for the better then no, of course it will not survive. JBsupreme (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If anyone wants to work on it, I'll gladly undelete the article and move it to their respective userspace. However, unless the resulting draft addresses the numerous policy violations inherent in the content of the article, I will likely nominate it for deletion. I understand that a hostile approach to promotional content may engender skepticism of administrative actions and sympathy for the promoter, so please don't take anything I say as a backwards encouragement to turn this into some sort of cause. In the event that this company/software gathers enough coverage to satisfy notability guidelines, I will hold no prejudice towards the creation of an article. At this time, after some research, I think that it is clear that the basis for having an article on neutral grounds is inadequate. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not blatant spam. G11s, like many CSDs, should be sent to XfD automatically on a good faith protest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 January 2010[edit]

MacFamilyTree – Unsalted. Draft clearly does not meet speedy deletion criteria. A bit early I know, but consensus seems clear enough and WP:NOT#Bureaucracy. – henrik</fonHCVHCVHBVCHVCHCGVHVCHVCHCt>•talk 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page is blocked from creation, the issue at the time was with notability and it was speedily deleted and subsequently creation blocked. I believe it should pass notability requirements now (over a year and a half after the block), there are plenty of sources including two articles on MacWorld's website. I have an article (admittedly a bit short at the moment, but well sourced and still work in progress) at User:EdoDodo/MacFamilyTree that would be quite ready to move there if the page was unblocked. You can find plenty of sources that prove reliability in my draft (there are also some more sources about old versions that I did not include, as they may be misleading for a reader). Could you please review the decision to block article creation for that page? Thank you. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt and restore – I think the userfied version looks pretty good. –MuZemike 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would edit to correct these, but some take issue with that when it's going through drv, the first two sources are irrelevant they are sections of the corresponding website where the developer puts the information, i.e. they may as well be references to the publishers website directly. Of the remaining 8 references, two are dupes of other references (albeit one references a specific section) this should be fixed. No opinion on the other sources or restoration. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, some references were mentioned several times for different purposes, and others were mirrors of the publisher's website, but there's still 6 unique articles about, which, in my opinion, is enough to establish notability. As I mentioned there are also sources about older versions which I did not mention as they may be misleading for users looking for information on the current version. If I add in a section about the older versions of it I may very well cite those sources as well. - EdoDodo ^talk 18:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment was really about cleaning it up a little, as I say some take exception to others diving in and doing so whilst DRV is on going, if it had been a mainspace article I'd just have fixed them, again I have no opinion regarding the restoration or otherwise of this. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, well hopefully it will make it to the article namespace soon and then you are very welcome to make any edits you wish. - EdoDodo ^talk 19:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I fixed up the dupes, but left the first two refs alone for now. You also need to look into your image, you've selected a fair use template, but not put a detailed fair use rationale (and shouldn't be in the userspace version we don't allow fair use there), however you've said you've got written permission from the image. What permission is that? If it's a free license then the fair use issue goes out the window, if it's a permission to only use it on wikipedia then it's pretty worthless and the fair use way is the way to go. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, as for the image I emailed the developers about it, and they said that I could upload any image of the software to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure exactly what license they are under. Anyway regardless of the license as software screenshots they should qualify for fair use in an article about the software. Yes, I know that they can't be used in the user namespace, but the article was ready to move to the article namespace, didn't know that the article was creation blocked. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Frankly, it reads like the blurb on the back of a software box, just a short couple of sentences outlining the features and that's it. There's no claim of notability (sales? awards? important firsts? industry milestones? impact on the software market and/or geneology community? etc.). The bottom line is there just doesn't seem to be anything to be said about this product within the context of an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is just a draft of it, nowhere near a complete article. So far the article only covers the part that is in my opinion most important, what the software does. A full article would also include critical reception and other information to make it more complete. Although it hasn't won awards or been a milestone in any way, according software notability guidelines if it "has been the subject of significant product reviews circulated in general interest sources", it passes notability requirements. I think that the reviews on MacApper, MacWorld's website, and macnn, all fairly well known mac blogs, make it pass this requirement. - EdoDodo ^talk 18:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unsalt and restore userspace article is a bit too promotional, but that can be fixed. Meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn salting The userspace draft looks like a decent stub that would be ineligible for speedy deletion in the mainspace. Re-creation ought to be permitted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt and move the userspace draft to the mainspace (do not restore the deleted page history). No version of the article was deleted by a deletion discussion, so the main factor in deciding whether to unprotect the page should be whether any of the speedy deletion criteria apply to the userspace draft. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1 – Deletion endorsed. Of course, this title can be used for a true talk page archive, which appears to be the current use. – Chick Bowen 02:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was told by the person who nominated the page for deletion (User:Equazcion) that if I removed certain text from the archive that it would not need to be deleted. I complied and the page was deleted without regard. I have also tried to ask the admin who performed the deletion (User:Killiondude) why it was done and was told that it was done due to consensus and if I didn't like it to come here. SkagitRiverQueen 05:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator. The problem with the page was that it violated WP:UP#What may I not have on my user page?, item #10. I told Skag that she could fix the page and likely save it. I also left a note, as what turned out to be the final comment in the MfD, that Skag claimed to be in the process of fixing the page. I kept tabs on the page afterward, but in the end didn't feel comfortable making any determination on whether it was sufficiently fixed. I don't know if Killiondude noticed the comment, or made an attempt to check the page to see if the issues were taken care of (from his simple closing remark and response to Skag, it looks as though he didn't).

The issues with the page could be divided in two: content and organization. The content included exchanges not from her talk page, but from other pages; it consisted of warnings and comments made regarding User:JoyDiamond. After Skag's attempted fix, I noticed much of this was gone. It was difficult to determine if what remained actually came from her talk page. Nevertheless, the second issue, organization, was still present at the time of deletion. The sections were named "JoyDiamond 1", "JoyDiamond 2", etc, which is still skirting the bounds of "listing of perceived flaws" (from WP:UP). I would say the page can be restored so long as Skag is bound to reorganize it, renaming headers and so forth, so that it no longer carries this issue. A straight copy of the past discussions from her talk page history, including the original section headers, and minus any comments added after archiving was done, would be best. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:21, 3 Jan 2010 (UTC)
- I did notice the last comment, and I compared (before deleting) the version of the page before the MFD was initiated and the last version of the page. While SkagitRiverQueen did make modifications, it was not a straight archive from her talk page. Because of that and that there were no further comments from the participants in the MFD, I decided that there was consensus to delete it. I have no personal stake in this situation, emotionally or otherwise. I was just trying to carry out what I believed the consensus to be on the MFD. Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah okay, sorry for my erroneous assumption. I didn't mean to suggest you had any personal stake though; I just thought you might've overlooked the comment. I didn't make any extensive examination of the page prior to deletion myself, so if you did then I'm fine deferring to your judgment. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:44, 3 Jan 2010 (UTC)
  - Well...I beg to differ. Everything left in the archive was (as far as I remembered it) from my talk page and nothing (again, to the best of my recollection) was from anywhere else. If the page is restored, I will have no problem re-categorizing/renaming the sections. I do want to point out, however, this is the first time anyone bothered to point out to me they felt the categorization/section naming was a specific problem which also needed to be rectified. What I see being claimed now is that I did what I was told would save the page from deletion, but the rules were changed (without informing me as such) and I was still out of compliance so the page should have been deleted. Not very fair. --SkagitRiverQueen 07:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature of this DrV, can we get a history-only undeletion? At issue at this point is if the modified page violates policy at the time it was deleted. Given the various claims above, that can't be judged without seeing the page. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This is a complex MfD that I specifically chose to avoid due to the ad hominem attacks and allegations of sockpuppetry that were flying around. Setting all that aside, I think the first question is whether Killiondude interpreted the consensus in the debate correctly. Reading through the debate (some of which is on the talk page), my impression is that the consensus was to delete. Most of those favoring deletion cited WP:UP#NOT #10; however, one editor, Collect, argued that the "evidence" element of the page could reasonably be used in a forthcoming WP:DR process. Collect contended that all such "evidence pages" should be allowed for six months, as a rule of thumb; the nominated page was two months old, and was not going to be used in DR for at least two months, if ever. While Collect's arguments was not unreasonable, I do not feel he backed it up with sufficient precedent to show that this page should in fact be kept. The voters at the MfD rejected his argument altogether. The second question, of course, is whether SkagitRiverQueen changed the page enough to nullify all the reasons for deletion presented in the discussion. Killiondude compared the two versions and said that the problems were unresolved. (Skag may of course re-create this as a straight talk-page archive, presumably from the page history of his user talk page.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm not seeing anything clearly erroneous in the close. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
restore so it can be fixed some more per the closing admin Killiondude. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The consensus in the debate was to delete. I fully agree with the in-depth rationale provided by A Stop at Willoughby. The closing admin exercised discretion when he analyzed the situation and determined that insufficient changes had been made to the talk page archive. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canberra Kangaroos – Speedily closed. Block evasion by blocked user James4750 (talk · contribs · block log). If you wish to challenge the deletion, get unblocked first. NAC. – Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no discussion to delete this article. There was a discussion to delete Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009 but that is one incident and not the same thing. This is the broader topic of kangaroos in Canberra which includes car accidents and four controversial culls which were all widely covered by the media, and were not in the article that was deleted. All of this link with 40+ references is material which was not in the article deleted. Also, an indefinite block is a bit of an overreaction for creating an article about kangaroos in a city when the local government says: "Canberra is unique in comparision to other Australian capital cities with large populations of free-ranging kangaroos in the urban areas."[94] James4750drv (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kangaroo attacks in Australia – Speedily closed. Block evasion by blocked user James4750 (talk · contribs · block log). If you wish to challenge the decision, get unblocked first. NAC. – Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

When the article was nominated for deletion it had a 6k file size.[95] It was increased in size during the discussion and was 19k when deleted on Nov 15.[96] It was then recreated with many more details including new paragraphs and images, including a paragraph on the attack on Nov 23 which had not happened when the article was deleted and was 30k. (now at my userpage.) It was approved as a did you know article by Gatoclass, and then nominated again by Ucucha as a did you know article, before being deleted under G4. G4 uses the word 'unimproved' but the article was greatly improved. The votes from the last discussions are out of date and are based on much smaller versions of the article. There are a large number of references which justify the article existing, note especially this Kangaroo Management Plan section 4.5.1: "Kangaroo attacks on people are reported in the media on a regular basis throughout Australia... Kangaroo attacks are the most commonly reported 'negative wildlife encounter' by tourists to Australia." James4750drv (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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