Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July

31 July 2010

Gang Stalking – Closer's choice? (Not really) We have very few opinions here, which doesn't make for a great DRV debate; but it still has to be closed somehow. Here's what I'm going to do- I'm going to redirect Gang stalking and Gang Stalking to Cause stalking and protect them. This is somewhat complicated by Cause stalking also being at AFD, so if that is deleted, these redirects will be as well, but that is borrowing trouble from tomorrow. Ongoing AFD's are fully outside DRV jurisdiction, so the AFD is largely ignored for the purposes of this close. For Gang Stalking itself, if content is wanted at this title in the future, please bring a userspace draft back to a new DRV for a new debate and a new decision. – Courcelles 08:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gang Stalking (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I'd like to redirect Gang Stalking to Cause stalking, which was just created. One of the sources for the article mentions that Cause Stalking is sometimes called Gang Stalking. Note that two previous deletions are from editors who are now gone, Tom harrison (left in a huff) and Altenmann (banned). Jeremystalked T C 03:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC) It is difficult to find any WP:RS to back up the assertions that this is an objective phenomenon, rather than a belief system. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause stalking, for verifiability problems relating to this article, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause stalking for past history. If the author wishes to create an article about people's belief that they are being stalked by shadowy conspiracies, it should be created at gang stalking: see the discussion at Talk:gang stalking for suitable verifiable mainstream references to the existence of belief in this phenomenon. -- The Anome (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Talk:Gang stalking no longer visible but in principle I support keeping "gang stalking" as a belief system.--Penbat (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Support creation of protected redirects of Gang stalking/Gang Stalking to Cause stalking per reasonable nom and assuming the accuracy of the first sentence of Cause stalking, that the terms are recorded as being used synonymously. Protected redirects are less of a problem than salted pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC) FYI that part of the first sentence was referenced to a single source which has been removed due to the source not being reliable, so asssumign the accuracy maybe a stretch --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I find it peculiar that the Anome uses the term phenomenon, modern usage defined as an extraordinary occurance, when in the real cases where it does happen this is simply no different from Scapegoating a well known societal practice since biblical times. Neither do sociologists dispute the problem of Workplace bullying or mobbing and it is disingenuous to assume something well known to occur in the social setting of the workplace would also not be likely to be happening in the social setting of the neighborhood or community. When the whistle blows and people punch the clock, the propensity for ugliness in humanity does not shut down. If any controversy should exist it may be for several reasons, one of which is the use of new terminology to describe what the wiki articles above confirm has been around for many years. Secondly, and this addresses his comments about it being a belief, not real, the internet has made it possible for those with genuine mental issues to network. Many with persecutory delusional syndrome lead normal lives yet cannot get validation of their beliefs through family and friends but see the accounts of these cases online, adopt them as their own and even create a culture of codependence on others on the internet. However this is a separate issue and should not diminish the existence of what appears to be a societal issue of a cyclical nature inherent to many societies in history. I tend to be rather long winded in my comments, I apologize for that, and will summarize the point that several wiki pages exist with a near identical "phenomenon" that aren't seeing doubt injected, if the concern is that it's a mental illness perhaps individuals who believe a well known real problem is solely a delusion should focus their editing attention toward the appropriate pages of the mental illness catagories. Batvette (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Just to be clear, perhaps I should have said "alleged phenomenon" -- I hope it's clear that I do not believe there is any evidence that meets WP:RS/WP:V that this alleged phenomenon actually exists in the real world. -- The Anome (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Start over From the AfD discussion, there seemed to be no agreement on the scope of the article; whether it should be about real cases, or fringe. As I see it, they;re both valid subjects. If anyone does a decent article, then we can put one into mainspace. Considering some of the discussion, I think they ought to show it here first; it will decrease subsequent difficulties. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 July 2010

I-DEAS – Relisted at AFD by consent of closing admin. – Courcelles (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I-DEAS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) AfD raised by a single-purpose account. I addressed the issues raised in the AfD, but there were no additional comments for three days. Spartaz (who is on holiday) closed this as delete. I contacted him to let him know I had tried to address the concerns in the article. He archived my comment noting that I had added multiple references and that there were more books that could be added without responding to it. Additional comments have since been added to his talk page at: User_talk:Spartaz#Deletion_of_NX_Ideas_article. Relist at AFD. I'll assume good faith on the part of the single-purpose account & there were additional calls for deletion. However, there was no discussion after my cleanup, so there is no consensus that the cleaned-up article should have been deleted. Karnesky (talk) Relist at AFD. The nom user:Tootitnbootit appeared from nowhere, listed a dozen or so very closely related articles for afd and then disappeared completely 2 days later. This was obviously not a new user so one wonders who it was. There nearly 500 hits on google books for I-deas; difficult to believe that none of these can be valid sources. I would be inclined to relist all Tootitnbootit's afds which resulted in delete (eg NX Nastran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluent, Inc. where the 2 editors requesting deletion have under 100 edits between them). Occuli (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure but relist at AfD The closing admin correctly evaluated the consensus at the AfD; however, the AfD discussion was a defective debate because the revisions to the article made by Karnesky were not evaluated. As such, I recommend a relist to evaluate whether or not those changes establish notability. I'm inclined to believe that I-DEAS is notable per this Google Books search which includes sources such as this, this, and this. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Relist. The early delete !votes are weakened due to them preceding Karnesky's edits, and as no one seems to have considered these edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Close and relist Deleting admin just passing through with apologies for not responding to the talkpage comment. I meant to research the proffered sources and it dropped through the cracks. I agree that further discussion is merited and would be grateful if the next passing admin could close this and relist. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 23:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 July 2010

James Baar – Relisted for discussion at AFD. – -- Cirt (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James Baar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) RELIABLE SOURCES for consideration: Providence Journal [1]. Certainly someone reliably characterized as a "Golden-age power player" deserves inclusion. NASA: See the notes under "Stages to Saturn" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/sp4206.htm [2]. NASA references his book "Polaris" variously. See notes Chapter 1 #s 11, 13 and Chapter 9 #52. I've read the inclusion critera WP:N etc. and can't find any mention of being called a "Golden-age power player" in the heading of an article you are joint author of as being one of the inclusion criteria, perhaps you can point it out to me? What I can find is reference to non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. References to his book clearly are about him, so there may be an argument (assuming the references are non-trivial and there are other sources) that the book is notable, but it doesn't help with him. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Let me try to understand and rectify. - The book review in the Providence Journal (certainly a reliable source) calls him a "Golden-age power player." As to notability, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." The very nature of the Providence Journal article is that Mr. Baar is notable and that his commentary about the Golden Age of Advertising important. - Respectfully, I'm not following how someone could create an important work referenced variously in NASA's own autobiographical history, and the author then not considered credible or important. - Note: In the deleted biography, there was also reference to a "Memo from the Publisher: James Baar, our editor of military affairs...", Missiles and Rockets Magazine, Washinton, DC, August 1961. Bdconnolly (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC) The WP:GNG is that the person has recevieve non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. That isn't met by this. Regarding "I'm not following... then not considered credible or important.", well the point of the guides is that we don't decide that, the world at large does, if the world at large is interested, has taken note, then they will surely write about them? So asking me how the person so referenced hasn't been taken note of by the rest of the world such that they'd write about them is not a question for me to answer, perhaps the rest of the world don't consider that to be as important and signficant as you do? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC) ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN SUPPORT OF NOTABILITY - In 1980 his book "The Great Free Enterprise Gambit" was reviewed by The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, UPI, Forbes, Seattle Times Magazine, and Kirkus Reviews. (Specific dates and page references are not readily available but can be gotten via the library is that would help.) - Baar is featured in Who's Who in Finance and Industry, Who's Who in the East, AND Who's Who in Public Relations. - Contrary to an earlier debate re: O'Dwyer's Directories, these lists are vetted by O'Dwyer news staffers. Baar is referenced variously among the top PR agency executives there. - Baar's professional memberships have required specific professional qualifications. His memberships have included the White House Correspondents Association, National Press Club (Washington), Association of US Aerospace Industry Representatives-Europe (Paris), Overseas Press Club, National Investor Relations Institute (president, Philadelphia Chapter). - Note: Reader's Digest. 40th anniversary issue, Feb. 1962, "Big Search for a Defense against Missiles" by James Baar and William E. Howard, p. 127 - Note: New York Herald Tribune, April 18, 1965, p. 23, reports that a copy of "Polaris!" was sent to President Johnson by the head of US Civil Service as part of the recommendation to appoint Vice Adm William F. Raborn, former head of the Polaris development program, Director of the CIA. 207.181.208.142 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC) temporarily undeleted for discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Relist this did not get adequate discussion; If AfDs do not get adequate attention, the process is broken. I note that while some of his books are self-published, some of them are by very respectable publishers. I'm not quite sure what I will say at the AfD. I need to find and read the book reviews. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Relist per DGG and as the original nom. Most of the references mentioned above were unavailable at the time the article was listed, and I'm not sure the creator was aware of where to find the discussion when it was open (or that such a discussion even existed, for that matter). I got contacted about this only after the discussion was closed as delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC) More likely he was offline during the time the AFD was open. Otherwise he would have noticed the BIG HONKING BOX on the article with a pointer to the discussion.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure as correct, but now relist to consider the additional sources previously unavailable. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Heath Brandon – Endorsed – lifebaka++ 02:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Heath Brandon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I'm not 100% sure what I'm doing but I'm an indie actor/musician in NYC and my page was deleted. I would love to get it back up and running. I was going to add to my page that I am now a working actor as well as musician, and I think between the two I should be considered legitimate to have my page undeleted (currently, i am the voice of 3 nationally running commercials: amex, honey nut cheerios). Please advise! It's been a slow year musically, but I have some major updates to my page if you allow it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathbrandon (talk • contribs) Endorse The deletion debate was only a couple weeks ago and there's nothing here that would overturn it. You should probably also take a look at WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The AfD could have been closed no other way, consensus was clearly to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Nothing is presented here (eg new sources) that changes the very clear consensus to delete at the recent AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Media panic – No consensus close endorsed. – Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Media panic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The deabte was closed as no consensus. It still could have been relisted on more time to try and it more consensus Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- Close was easily within admin discretion. And if you're that keen that it should be deleted, renomination in a month or so is certainly an option. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse I'd push for merge on the talk page though. The AfD seemed to indicate real support for that option. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed as delete and relisting is no substitute for "no consensus". I agree with Hobit that this article should be discussed in the context of merging rather than deletion so opening a merge discussion would be a good idea.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse own closure; WP:RELIST explicitly precludes relisting where more than one or two people have contributed to the discussion, as well as strongly discouraging more than one relisting. We owe our articles on AFD a speedy trial; continuous relisting until one side is "ahead" in the debate renders AFD equal to a lottery where the winner is whichever side posts the most comments in a particular week. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per WP:RELIST. 2 weeks is long enough for most AFDs. A second relist should only be done if there is a good reason and I don't see one here. Also agree with Stifle about WP:KEEPRELISTINGTILITGETSDELETED (or KEPT). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse pretty unlikely that relisting this would have changed the result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Well within admin discretion. Five !votes on an AfD is not an abnormally small number and given that it had already been relisted once another relist seems inappropriate. Additionally it would seem that the emerging consensus was for the article to be merged, and as deleting the article was the one closure I don't think could have been made, there was little to be gained by keeping the AfD open as a merge discussion should be on the article's talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Stifle. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Dpmuk. —mono 05:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 July 2010

Glenwood Systems LLC – Userfy to User:Kbattick/Glenwood Systems. No prejudice against future nomination at MfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Glenwood Systems LLC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I would like to request a temporary review of the Glenwood Systems LLC article (it was retitled to Glenwood Systems by another user before it was speedily deleted by an admin). I ask that the article be restored to my userspace so that I may access the text. Thank you.orangemike (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 and orangemike (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbattick (talk • contribs) NOTE The actual nom is Kbattick, I'm guessing he's having problems with signatures. Orangemike is the deleting admin. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of occupations – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of occupations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closing administrator said nothing more than "The result was delete." Not only did he not explain the reason, but he did not take into account that not only were there several keeps, but some people, including myself, had other alternative ideas for this article. These included splitting it into separate lists on occupations within a particular category, or merging some occupations from this list into other articles. What should be done is as follows: The page should be restored for now, with the result being changed to merge or split, thereby making its information accessible to everyone. The template {{Afd-merge to}} or something similar should be placed on top. From there, individuals can work on moving the information to other pages or splitting into other more discriminate lists where appropriate. Hellno2 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse the AFD wasn't especially close or contentious, so the closing statement seems to have been appropriate--there's no requirement for an AFD closer to write a paragraph of explanation for a straightforward close such as this. If you want the closer to explain their rationale to you, the best thing to do would be to simply ask them, but again I'm not seeing any ambiguity in the debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- as Andrew Lenahan says, this was a case of clear consensus to delete. Reyk YO! 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 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) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I'd have happily added some rationale if I had been asked, but this one felt pretty cut and dry, so I didn't feel the need to give an explanation when closing it. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion by default due to nominator abandoning his appeal by failing to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Stifle, this is not a policy-based reason. We're judging the AfD and the article, not the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Hellno2 has asked us to review the discussion, so it is reasonable to expect him to cooperate and pursue his nomination if he wishes us to consider his request. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC) This is not an adversary proceeding or a dispute between individuals--it's an attempt to find the correct solution for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse as a proper close. As above, if you want reasoning for the close, just ask the closing admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn The policy-based arguments were debated at length but without agreement. There was therefore no consensus. The closer seems to have treated the matter as a vote. Note that this deletion was such a travesty that I expect to be restarting something similar using public domain sources such as this. The main effect of deletion in such cases of great notability is to denigrate and deny the contributions of the project's early editors. This list was, iirc, sponsored by Wikipedia:WikiProject Index. It seems remarkable that this project did not seem to comment in the discussion, giving their views on how we should index our numerous articles about occupations. The voting was therefore dominated by knee-jerk editors like SnottyWong, Reyk and ThemFromSpace, who regularly vote to delete anything and everything. It seems a good example of how AFD has become quite broken because editors with a particular interest in the topic are noticeably absent. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Careful, Colonel. If you start with the ad hominem attacks, you invite comments about editors who exclusively vote to keep anything and everything. Reyk YO! 05:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I think everyone here is familiar with the inclusionist/deletionist paradigm so it hardly needs explanation. Do we not agree that AFD deserves better than block-voting of this sort? Myself, I usually try to make some effort to engage with the topic, citing policy and sources as seems appropriate. I usually do this in order to save some worthy topic, as in this case, because less worthy topics don't warrant such effort. But I am not shy about deleting articles when it seems appropriate as in this recent case. I don't have the impression that you ever work the other side of the street at AFD but please feel free to correct me. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC) If you were to create a list based on the United States Bureau Of Labor Statistics, that would not be the list that was deleted. It would incorporate by reference the standards set forth by the U.S. agency, and I would be shocked (shocked, I tell you!) if that source contains entries such as party leader and Queen mother, as the standardless deleted list did. Also, regarding your observation that it was "remarkable" that Wikipedia:WikiProject Index "did not seem to comment in the discussion", I would take their silence as consent to the proposed deletion; what prevented you from alerting the project members to the discussion underway? bd2412 T 13:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I was going to suggest that somewhere in the 2,431 revisions of the article there's bound to be one that doesn't include those two, that could simply be reverted to; based upon the hypothesis that the article organically grew from nothing, as articles do, and simply gained some daft additions along the way. Then I looked at the early revisions of the article and the 2001 edit that introduced all this to Wikipedia in the first place, to see whether it was a safe bet, and found that there wasn't such a revision. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I only vote to delete pages that don't belong on here. One of my main focuses is trimming indiscriminate lists, so you will see me at debates such as this pretty often. ThemFromSpace 10:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse, well within admin discretion. Consensus does not require unanimity. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure was backed up by both policy and consensus. ThemFromSpace 10:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Consensus was rather clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Restore or recreate A truly unaccountable deletion. As far as I can tell, it was deleted contrary to policy on the basis that a small percentage of the entries were unjustifiable. The topic is notable, sources are available--they were listed in general and they can be added to each entry though it would take some work. Given the available sources, the list would not then be indiscriminate. The simplest thing to do might be to userify and improve and restore; a list without the spurious entries would not be subject to G4, as it would meet the AfD objections. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Firstly, DRV is not AfD round 2. We are not here to discuss whether or not you think people should have voted delete, but (given that they mostly did) whether the closing admin correctly gauged the consensus of the discussion- which he clearly did. Secondly, you have badly misread the discussion. The silliness of a few of the individual entries was just one of many different objections to this article, including that it's too broad and unmaintainable to be useful, that it's an indiscriminate collection of information and that it's poorly defined. Reyk YO! 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Comment I agree about that this is a notable topic that should somehow be improved. Even though the majority here say "endorse," just like AFD is not a majority vote, DRV is not either. We should start over from somewhere. And we should all have access to the final version of this page prior to its deletion. I am not interested in working on the recreation myself. The only way I knew about this AFD is that I added one occupation to the page one time. Therefore, I would not like to have it in my userspace, as I would probably do no further work on it. But I do support something like this being around. Perhaps there is a place it can be where everyone can have access to it equally and readily, whether that by mainspace or somewhere else. The closer here should not just make a straight close as "endorse" and that be final just because so many people said endorse. We should find some middle ground. That's what should have been done with the AFD. Hellno2 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse I'd prefer this exist but discussion was in favor of deletion and I found the keep arguments only slightly stronger at best. NC might have been reasonable, but delete is certainly a reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gay Nigger Association of America – Clearly not enough. Create a draft first and run it by an uninvolved experienced contributor before bringing it back to DRV – NW (Talk) 01:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) New sources have came up in Talk:GNAA, which may (finally) be within the threshold for inclusion under the general notability guideline. This should at least be given a new look considering the length of time since the afd was closed. riffic (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion given the history of this article, which is currently indefinitely protected from re-creation, let's see an impeccably-well-sourced userspace draft first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC) if an admin is willing to userfy, I could add these new sources to the last revision. riffic (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC) It was deleted back in 2006, and the issues with the article weren't anything that could be fixed by slapping an extra couple of sources at the bottom--if anything, our standards of notability and verifiability have tightened considerably since 2006, and you face a very uphill battle in trying to prove that this comes anywhere close to our guidelines for organisations now. If you must try, you'd be far better off starting fresh (and rememberng to attribute every single statement in the new article to a reliable source) than to dust off a 5-year-old reject, add a couple things, and call it a day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I'd like to at least see the deleted version so I can have something to work with; do you have comments regarding the sources presented? riffic (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC) okay nvm I just found it on web.archive.org, and agree that it is wholly unusable in its last edited form. Watch this space, I'll work on a (very lightweight) draft soon. riffic (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC) What exactly are the sources presented? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC) on talk:GNAA riffic (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC) The first appears to be a passing mention. I can't see the second one, but based on the number of pages I'd say it's reasonable to assume it's another passing mention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Can you state specifically which sources you are referring to? riffic (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC) They were added by an IP today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I'd want to see a userspace draft. I think the first source is more than "in passing", but not significant coverage. If you have 3-4 sources like that and 1 really good one I'd say WP:N would likely be met. But given the history and topic a userspace draft is certainly needed. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, I'd politely request this review stay open until a draft can be started and looked over in good faith. As well, please state the specific sources you are referring to, thanks. riffic (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC) A first attempt at compiling a draft is here, and to anyone who claims the sources used are only passing mentions or not significant coverage, let me remind you "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Good job trying to attribute everything, but this pretty much underscores why they don't pass out organisation guidelines: they haven't really done anything. Let's look at what the article actually says: (1) They're named after a movie (2) they posted an offensively-named article on Wikipedia and (3,4) two relatively unknown people may or may not be members. That didn't cut it in 2006 and it certainly doesn't now. There's next to nothing known about them because there's really nothing to know, as they haven't done anything in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted per Starblind's excellent summary. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Comment: Because the AfD for GNAA is protected, would an admin add the following to the AfD page: <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2006 November 28}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2007 February 6}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2007 February 18}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2010 July 27}}</noinclude> Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Simple enough, done, and thanks for making it so easy on me. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC) You just need one pair of noinclude's instead of 4, you know...:) T. Canens (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC) keep deleted darn good try, but I don't think this meets WP:N. Is there someplace it could be added? Is there a list of well-known trolls or something? Goatsex? Hobit (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted: doesn't meet N yet, but is on its way to being, I think. What would clinch notability is if we could verify that the iPad leaker did it because he was a GNAA member (i.e., for the lulz). Sceptre (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Anti-Hungarian sentiment – Speedy close, no action to review. Article may be listed at AfD at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anti-Hungarian sentiment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This page should have been deleted, however it is not deleted, plz check. maxval (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC) It seems that the page was deleted by AFD (in 2007) but it was later recreated (in 2009). Recreating a page that is substantially identical to a page that was deleted by AFD leaves the new page liable for speedy deletion (G4). But we would need an administrator (who can see the deleted page) to confirm whether the current page is substantially the same as the deleted page. If it isn't substantially the same - and this is probably the safest course anyway given that the AfD was about 3 years ago - you can always request deletion again at WP:AFD.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC) It's not substantially the same so is not subject to redeletion. This request is also misplaced; DRV is for appeals against deletion or deletion discussions, not requests to delete an article. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 July 2010

Desiree Jennings controversy – No consensus. As the request here is focused on approval of a userspace draft which differs substantively from the deleted revisions (with the addition of the sources cited in the discussion), and not the restoration of those deleted revisions, there is no consensus for an injunction against recreation from said userspace draft. Nor is there an injunctive page protection which prevents this action. That said, the discussion seems to tacitly disapprove of the draft in question, so recreation would be a bad idea, which would likely result in a return to AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Desiree Jennings controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I do not dispute the original close decisinon, but "significant new information has come to light since [the] deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." In February, Inside Edition aired a follow-up to their first segment, which had brought the Jennings case to national attention in the first place. Of course, Inside Edition is still just tabloid TV. But it does underline the fact that this was not a "flash-in-the-pan." In April, PBS Frontline aired Vaccine War, a documentary about anti-vaccination controversies. The Jennings viral video was discussed for about two minutes therein; Paul Offit is interviewed, describing the significant impact of the original viral YouTube clips on the young people he works to educate. The narration remarks, "this clip of Redskins cheerleader Desiree Jennings went viral ... her story has been viewed and shared almost 2½ million times." The clip is then contextualized in a broader discussion of the impact of new media on the spread of conspiracy theories and popular myths. (Here is the segment on Youtube; the relevant portion is from about 0:58 to 3:10.) Note that PBS Frontline isn't just another TV show; individual episodes of TV shows are typically not reviewed in multiple national newspapers. On Friday, 20/20 aired a segment about the controversy. One of the main objections to the original article was that the story broke on Inside Edition, a skeezy tabloid TV show. Frankly, I don't see 20/20 as any better, but WP:EVENT#Depth_of_coverage would suggest that it is. (60 Minutes and CNN Presents are given as examples of desirable sources of in-depth coverage, and 20/20 is clearly in the same class.) I contend that taken together, this subsequent media coverage invalidates the WP:EVENT arguments which were crucial to the deletion. Going down the line, Desiree Jennings controversy now satisfies all of the criteria listed -- WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:EVENT#Depth of coverage, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. Perhaps the other rationales given in the delete discussion are still valid. If so, I suggest the article be relisted to find out how things now stand. Frankly, I think these rationales were never valid or coherent to begin with, and relied on unambiguously false claims such as "this article is sourced mostly to blogs" and the argumentative tactic of simply throwing WP:POLICY shortcuts out without explaining their relevance. If it were up to me, I would simply undelete. 76.66.98.247 (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (This is User:EvanHarper but my login info is stuck on a broken PC just now.) Note that there is a version in userspace: User:Fxmastermind/jennings. I wonder whether a very brief account of this case might fit within Vaccine controversy or some other article? Fences&Windows 20:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Comment There is no new information, just additional publicity. The current userspace article is almost useless. Drastic overweight in general; more specifically, use of unacceptable sources for a BLP, excessively long quotation from a single POV fringe source; judgmental characterization of sources; tabloid-style rather than encyclopedic writing. I would strongly support a brief article on this, but only if an acceptable article were written. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC) What DGG said. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - Seems to have ongoing coverage. Never heard of the distinction between information and publicity, but I don't think it's codified in our rules. It will attract another AfD if it's remade, so make it good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Comment The information vs. publicity is better expressed as reliably sourced vs. blog/YouTube sourced. Since deletion, there is some new information (e.g. new footage), but the story is mostly unchanged. The 20/20 piece makes the controversy notable, even if it is mostly a rehash; the controversy wasn't notable until the mainstream media noted it as a controversy. There is sufficient reliable secondary material to rewrite the article properly.Novangelis (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC) comment If this is returned, isnt it BP1E and in need of a different name? Active Banana (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC) restore I don't see a reason to disallow its recreation given that it wouldn't be speedable anyways as adding those is a serious shot at improving BLP1E issues (ongoing coverage etc.) Hobit (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC) keep deleted for now until a usable version is written that deals with the controversy, not the exceedingly trivial notability of the person--unfortunately, I cannot think of a more appropriate title. It would be possible meanwhile for a paragraph in the vaccine controversies article, as Fences and Windows suggested. If it is restored or rewritten, the first step will be to delete the text of the interview; a link is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 July 2010

Institute of HeartMath – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Institute of HeartMath (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I think the subject matter is notable. I edited out all advertising-sounding, self-promotional language. Would like to know what needs to be done to improve article Dcsm23 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Remove the link from the heading - users draft is as User:Dcsm23 --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted The objection at the AfD was not "promotional" but rather "Consensus is that the sources provided are tangential. ". This remains the case. The details were discussed at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC) endorse own deletion any AFD where DGG asserts deletion is going to have had very careful evaluation of the sources and there was a clear consensus that the sources proffered with tangential - which means it doesn't pass our inclusion criteria - which require detailed and specific independent sources. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I've never been able to convince my friend Spartaz that I as likely to be wrong when I argue for deleting an article as when I argue for keeping one DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC) There's no way that these 4 references: www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-03-07-stress-test_x.htm www.pbs.org/bodyandsoul/203/heartmath.htm www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12816624 Beech, D., Childre, D., & Martin, H. (1999). The HeartMath Solution: The Institute of HeartMath's Revolutionary Program for Engaging the Power of the Heart's Intelligence. New York: HarperCollins. Pg. ix, 283. Are tangential. Each treats in some detail on HeartMath. I disagree with the claim of tangentiality. I specifically found additional links that weren't tangential. These links were not included in the first two drafts, if you compare them. Dcsm23 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse this is an "AFD, round 2" nomination if I've ever seen one. Please see the bolded text at the top of this very page that says "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse I'm willing to treat this as round two if it clearly looks like a wrong decision by either the community or the closer has been made in round one. But in this case I've re-examined the sources, and they do not support the article. True, emotional state affects physiology, just as physiological state affects emotions, and performance reflect both physical and emotional condition, but there is no real evidence this organization or its technique is considered to have any significance in dealing with any of this. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC) You've already had your !vote above. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC) oops; my apologies DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 July 2010

Process Environment Block – Contested prod restored and listed at AfD. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Process Environment Block (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Article was proposed for deletion by User:Ironholds, who claimed it's about a Win32 data structure that is no more notable than any other Win32 data structure. I then deleted the article once the proposal for deletion period had expired. The author later contacted me to ask for it to be undeleted. I personally think User:Ironholds is right, that the data structure is hardly specially notable, but the author has a steadfast opinion that the data structure deserves its own article, so I am making a deletion review. My vote is weak keep deleted. JIP | Talk 09:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Comment as a contested WP:PROD the default action should be to restore on request. If it didn't meet any speedy criteria and the PROD is contested (even retrospectively) the correct venue is AFD. I can sympathise that there are probably many such articles which don't and are unlikely to meet the required standard in which case individually determining that is probably not the way to go and nor is just ignoring our general process on a broad scale. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC) List at AFD Per 82, Prod requires undeletion and listing if challenged. Spartaz Humbug! 09:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Undeleted and listed at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process Environment Block. JIP | Talk 10:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 July 2010

Observium – Overturn. May be listed at AfD at editorial discretion. – T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Observium (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The deleter failed to notice that the article wasn't a new article, but merely an existing article which had already been through the deletion/notability process which had been rename Adamathefrog (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn – Doesn't look like the article falls under WP:CSD#G11. –MuZemike 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn Per MuZemike, there's nothing particularly promotional about the version that was deleted. It could reasonably be taken to AfD on sourcing/notability grounds, but nothing in that article merited speedy G11. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) It was taken to AFD. You can see the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Observer (Software). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Well, then it could reasonably be taken to AfD again, couldn't it? Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Speedy restore deleter hadn't noticed that an AfD, under a different name, had kept this and so not eligible for speedy. Not an unreasonable error, but should be restored at this time. Hobit (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I've contacted the closing admin, which the nom seems to have neglected to do. Hobit (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) My bad, missed the notice he'd given. Hobit (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn. In my opinion it's not spammy enough for G11. Also as it survived an AfD it probably wasn't a speedy candidate per WP:CSD - "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." I suspect the deleting admin may not have noticed that it has survived an AfD and they have not been active since they were informed it had so they may yet reverse their decision. Finally the deleting admin has stated on their talk page that "After two years you had still not managed to add any evidence of notability so it got deleted." Given that lack of notability is not a reason to speedy delete software (as it's excluded from A7) I find this statement odd and it gives the impression that this article was deleted for an invalid reason even if it isn't actually the case. Taken together it's best if this article is restored and taken to AfD if desired. Dpmuk (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, he was aware and refused to restore it after Adamathefrog pointed it out to him (see deleting admin's talk page). I'm finding a number of G11 speedies by this admin that look questionable but I can't see the deleted articles to be certain. Hobit (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC) RFA is thataway Hobit and its high time you got yourself some tools. Spartaz Humbug! 09:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The admin involved was made aware of a previous request for deletion due to notability and so I gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed they didn't know it had previously survived an AfD. Speedy deleting an article that has previously been denied as a speedy is in a different league to deleting one that had survived an AfD, even if both are against guidelines. The admin had not been active since before the link to the AfD was posted until about midday today. Dpmuk (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn & list at AFD This was never a G11, COI isn't a speedy rationale but this hasbeen unsourced long enough that further discussion is necessary. Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) /Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn. Not exclusively promotional, if promotional at all. Strange call. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse my deleteion. Apologies, deletion was for lack of "credible assertion of importance" rather than evidence of notability. And after two years it still lacked that credible assertion. Where was I advised that the article had survived a previous AfD? If Adamathefrog had told me that I might have acted differently. Instead he chose to descend into personal abuse. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC) From that same section on your talk page "Hi, The Observium article was not a new article, it was a move of the existing ObserverNMS article, which had existed since 2008 (and had been kept despite an early request to delete it do to its notability). Please undelete the article. I suggest that in future you check to make sure that "new" articles aren't merely moved articles and be less heavy handed in deletion." I agree his response to you was an attack, but he was also right. A)You should have checked the history and B) this had made it though AfD and so isn't eligible for speedy deletion. He didn't use standard Wikipedia jargon explaining the situation, but I think his point was clear enough. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps that argument will be valid the day they start teaching the general populace Wikipedia administravia classes in school, until then, the vast majority of people probably will not understand jargon and procedures, though I expect that is a subject which is well understood. RHaworth seems to be quite rude to everyone from what I've seen, and that prompted the tone of my response to him. Even if true, it turns out on Wikipedia (and usually in life) you are better off being polite in the face of rudeness. In fact I think you get bonus points in the great Wikipedia karma train for being polite in the face of unreasonable behavior. Stern can be okay, but rude almost never. :-)Hobit (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC) The wording you quote there seems like it's based on the A7 criteria but as I'm sure you're aware A7 only applies to articles on certain topics and software is not one of these topics. "Web content" is but I believe it's generally held that when a program is downloadable and runnable on a computer this is not web content but rather software and so ineligible for A7. Overturn Even if the requester hurt the deleters feelings it doesn't change the fact that this article is not eligible for speedy deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn & list at AFD Based on what has come to light above about the previous status of the article, it isn't eligible for speedy G11, but it certainly warrants more discussion at AfD for non-notability. That much is obvious. Lahnfeear (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Epic browser – Restore Epic (web browser) with consent of deleting admin. No prejudice against relisting at AfD, or restoring the redirect "Epic browser". – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Epic browser (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closing admin failed to recognize that the browser is notable as being the first web browser from India designed specifically for Indian taste. In addition, Epic did receive sufficient news coverage from reliable sources for its release...the can be found at: http://www.epicbrowser.com/media1.html Smallman12q (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Is there any reason you did not discuss the closure with NativeForeigner prior to filing this DRV? NW (Talk) 12:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) No...should I have?Smallman12q (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, and that list has actually expanded quite a lot from when I deleted it, 12 hours ago. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 16:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC) A lot of people don't notice they are supposed to contact the closing admin. They miss the box that starts with "If your request is completely non-controversial..." because that conditional doesn't apply to them they don't read further. I've changed some stuff to make it more clear. Probably should just move stuff instead... Hobit (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I've further clarified the box and have started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:DRV_contacting_closing_admin_first.Smallman12q (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse I have been glad the closer actually paid attention in this discussion. I believe URL showing press mentions has been growing in response to this deletion by Wikipedia. Authors of the article were from that company using Wikipedia for promotion. This should stay deleted until someone without conflict of interest makes a fresh recreation without the deleted material. Miami33139 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I have look at the media URL from Epic and am not impressed that any of these sources are not just more download links and press release repeats. Miami33139 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Almost all are Press releases and blogs, but the first two from the The Times of India and PCworld would appear to be RSes. Hobit (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn though the close wasn't unreasonable there are now two very good sources (first two in link provided above) and a number of poorer sources things might well be reliable. !vote in the discussion was clearly toward keep and now we meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I felt this article is notable in more than one way As the first web browser customised specifically for Indian users (features like Indan languages can be typed in any of the fields of a web page) and the media publicity achieved through which; It contains many hiped features, like incorporated anti-virus, and the debates related to them whether they are worth to use or not there are reviews either promoting the browsers or pointing out faults. to get some information in NPOV, i (hopefully like many) searched Epic Browser in the wikipedia :( hari 11:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbkrishnan (talk • contribs) Four paragraphs in a localized edition of PC World, which are still just restatements of the talking points in the press release, do not mean the product would meet the notability guidelines. Miami33139 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not against overturning it, to be honest, as the list of sources continues to grow. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Please note the link is at Epic (web browser).Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC) the press release seems to have been regurgitated in a number of reliable sources, but they all seem to be simply regurgitations of the press release at this time. Active Banana (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC) The Times of India and PCworld, two significant publications, took a press release and used it as part of an article. Both have by-lines of their own writers. Hardly a regurgitation and in any case, the point is that reliable sources covered the material themselves, which is the core of WP:N. If they based it mostly on a press release an interview, or anything else isn't overly relevant to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC) It's quite relevant. If we allowed press releases to satisfy WP:N, we'd have a ton of pages on products that are totally non-notable, but which media outlets regurgitated because they get paid to. If ToI and PCWorld India write an independent review on the browser, rather than just "hey, it exists based on this press release," then it would satisfy WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Sure, a cut-and-paste from a PR release would be useless. PCworld clearly used it and liked it (and said so) and is a real review. The Times of India is less clear. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Franz Vohwinkel – Deletion overturned to no consensus. No prejudice against relisting at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Franz Vohwinkel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The discussion was 4 to 2 to keep including the nominator. As the closer mentioned one of the keep !votes was very weak, two claimed that while there was only one independent RS that could be found the massive scope of his work makes him notable, and one claimed that sources likely exist (assumedly due to that massive scope). WP:N is a guideline. As we all know we often delete articles that meet WP:N because the discussion shows that the subject "just isn't notable". This one provides significant evidence (read the discussion) that he is notable. In addition there are plenty of RSes beyond the one solid RS, from which to write a quality article. They just aren't independent (such as his own bio) or in depth (such as the databases which list all of his works). In summary, we have one source for WP:N, plenty of material to write an article with, and a strong indication that the person has a body of work that is notable. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Comment. If, as the closer correctly states, the Delete arguments are "...all soundly grounded in policy and guideline" (and the Keep arguments are not), but the guy is actually famous, should the AfD have been closed as Delete? I wouldn't have done it, but he did, and that's within his discretion as a closer. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- if you take away the personal attacks, the mistaken assertion that AfD is a vote, and the forlorn hope that (despite all evidence to the contrary) there's sources out there somewhere, there's nothing left on the keep side. Correct close. Reyk YO! 05:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse as per Reyk. Vague assertions that there are sources out there don't cut it. The burden of proof to verify and provide citations is on users seeking to include or retain material. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) We often delete articles that do meet WP:N because the subject "hasn't done anything notable". WP:N is a guideline and that cuts both ways. Could you give an example of an article where WP:N isn't met but yet you would say it should be kept anyways? If not, are you claiming WP:N is a lower bound? I'm honestly trying to understand how someone with the credits this guy has (more than 300 major projects to his name) isn't worthy of inclusion if _anyone_ not meeting WP:N will ever be. As Alzarian16 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz indicated there are plenty (and I do mean lots) of RSes that briefly mention him (things like "art is great as you'd expect from Franz Vohwinkel"). Hobit (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Not that I disagree with what you've said there, but my comment didn't mention sources... Alzarian16 (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Opps. Fixed, thanks. 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn, probably to no consensus, possibly to relisting. The closing rationale is good up to a point, but I have to disagree with its conclusions. One strongish keep, three weakish keeps and two fairly strong deletes doesn't seem to me like a consensus to delete. The AfD was relisted a week ago, and the only comment since then was a keep. If a delete close wasn't appropriate then, it's even less appropriate now. I'm all for administrative discretion but this one seems to take it a little too far. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn as per Alzarian16. Commercial artists are notable principally for creating notable work, and there seems little doubt that the subject's work has received significant reliable coverage, as was established in the AFD. I don't see an "I can't find sources" claim as a soundly grounded in policy !vote; when there are as many potentially usable sources as turn up i a basic Gsearch, [3] [4] [5] [6] examples, the advocates for deletion need to do something more than strongly state their position; they need to credibly explain their basis for holding that position. Saying "I can't find sources" isn't really much more strongly grounded in policy than "Look at all the Google hits I found" is. Also, the closer inappropriately characterized a comment on the nominator's pattern of nominations as "ad hominem," which it wasn't, and shouldn't have discounted it on that basis alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Firstly, DRV is not AfD Round 2. Secondly, it is wrong to say "I can't find sources" is ungrounded in policy because that is the very essence of our verifiability policy. Thirdly, the supposed sources you mention are mostly fansites: I was unconvinced of their reliability then the AfD was open and remain so now. Fourthly, on what grounds do you claim the "ad-hominem" vote should be counted? Reyk YO! 00:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn relist+1 keep != delete. On a more detailed note, are the notability guidelines being applied appropriately to commercially successful artists? I strongly suspect not. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn as "no consensus" at the very least. I know that my comment in the AFD wasn't a particularly strong one, but I did make it before Hobit found more sources. BOZ (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Solid close, grounded in a very reasonable application of policy. Eusebeus (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep, which was the consensus. The keeps arguments were that for this particular article, the sources were sufficient to meet the intent of the guideline. As guidelines are flexible, if the clear majority of the people present think that an exception should be made, it is made. The judgment about when to interpret a rule flexibly or even to use IAR is that of the community, not the admin. If the admin wanted to argue that the aticle did not reasonably meet the guideines, he should have contributed to the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn per consensus at AfD. And, although this isn't AfD2, there's quite a bit about him in the German media.[7][An award http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Vohwinkel] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. Just a little too far outside a reasonable reading of consensus, in my view. NW obviously didn't think there was consensus when he or she relisted on 1 July, and just one keep !vote later it was closed as delete. AfDs are allowed to set guidelines to one side, for good reason, when considering the inclusion of an article: Hobit certainly gave good reason, and DGG obviously concurred with it. I don't think these !votes ought to be lightly dismissed (unlike the other keep !votes). --Mkativerata (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus but permit relisting. Although I understand the closer's rationale, I cannot agree with it. I agree with them discounting the "ad hominem" !vote as no argument was given to support it given that the nominators actions do not seem disruptive. I also think it's reasonable to give less weight to "I am confident that more sources" as they don't actually list any examples and this isn't a topic where internet sources should be hard to come by (due to the age of the topic). However I think that both the other keep !votes were grounded in policy and guidelines, both WP:IAR and the message at the top of every guideline (which WP:N is), specifically "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", suggest there will be cases where strict application of guidelines does not make sense. We have to allow consensus to change and new consensus to develop and in the case of deletions the best place for this is often at AfDs - if a "common sense exception" is cropping up often enough then the guideline probably needs changing. One !keep vote clearly appealed to this sort of argument and although the other could have been clearer it's obvious to me that they were as well. With two !keep votes and two !delete votes both giving reasoned arguments I think this should have been closed as no consensus, or possibly re-listed. I know a second re-list is rare but I would like to see more discussion of the keep arguments presented here, given that they are arguing for an exception, so think this may have been one of those cases where it made sense to do so. With that in mind I would specifically allow a speedy relisting, with appropriate opening rationale, so this side of the argument could be discussed further. Dpmuk (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep as there was no consensus for deletion. Keep votes addressed the issue of notability and assert that it was met, and there appears to be no reason to disregard this consensus. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Comment. As Franz has illustrated at least three of my games, it would wrong for me to comment on the keep-or-don't merits of the article, or the close itself. But I think I can comment neutrally on the notability issue. In the game hobby, Franz has major notability. He is one of the most sought-after artists in the German-style board game industry, having illustrated over 300 board games, including Puerto Rico, The Settlers of Catan, and most of the other major games in the genre.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn I have to agree with Alzarian16's analysis of the debate. The consensus, based on weighting the arguments presented in the AFD, was not "delete". I'd even go as far as to agree with DGG that it was keep, based on very good reasons presented at the AFD and here that Vohwinkel is probably notable enough to warrant an article here but I won't disagree with a overturn and relist close. It's quite clear from the discussion here that further discussion to decide this article's faith would be beneficial. Regards SoWhy 19:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 July 2010

Jeff Halevy – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeff Halevy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Wikipedia is a communuity; with community standards. Browsing Wikipedia for bios will yield certain bios that have very little reference information, lack of any real reason for notability, and yet the articles remain. Jeff Halevy didn't fall into any of these criteria. In fact there were no issues other than frequent vandalism for quite some time. For one reason or another this entry, which I created, came under attack. The entry meets the WP:BIO guidelines 100% and further, it ABSOLUTELY FALLS WITHIN COMMUNITY STANDARDS. I don't understand why this entry was sent to AfD, especially when it had ample sources -- and no, Halevy is not a barely mentioned expert in them -- he is in fact either the key expert/focus (eg NASCAR and Self), the creator (Exercise for Men), the focal point (British Virgin Island News), etc -- just to name a few. Why was this deleted by Courcelles? Chad hermanson (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC) The short answer to this question is because of this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse and may I say I resent my time wasted on looking into this. First of all, The AfD discussion was turned into a complete shambles by a bunch of single-purpose new anons. Tip: if you want the Wikipedia community to view your appeal with respect, don't do that. Second of all, the guy is not notable, OK? It's an encyclopedia. We have articles about Einstein and Raphael. Sure we have less notable people than that, but there's a limit. Third of all (and what matters), the close was completely in process and correct. The Delete arguments were cogent, the Keep arguments were not. Herostratus (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC) What exactly was "cogent" about the delete arguments, which were limited to fails WP:BIO and lack of notability? And more specifically there were some very sound keep arguments, complete with refs - what exactly wasn't cogent about those? Chad hermanson (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) It's usual to give administrators enough time to reply to your request to reconsider before listing here. It is also usual to give little or no weight in AFDs to new or unregistered editors, as the AFD process solicits the opinion of the community rather than of groups of people who may have been canvassed for their opinions. The closing administrator has properly considered all these factors, so I endorse the decision. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Looking at my contributions, I see I made zero edits between the post on my talk page and the filing of this DRV, a period of seven hours. I don't normally like to comment in DRV's over my decisions, but given the timeline, I will here. One, the request of this DRV is other stuff exists. Great argument for sending other articles to AFD, not a great argument for keeping this article. The single user that argued to keep the article besides SPA's and the article's creator even admitted the subject was "Borderline notable", which other users disagreed with, and showed that there is not the significant coverage required. All in all, since this has come here, I endorse my own close. Courcelles (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The policy-based argument was almost all on one side here. Correct close. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Celebrityworkout.com? Do I need to elbaorate? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) OverturnCan someone state the exact policy in violation here and how the supporting refs (eg Self, Better, CBS News, etc) don't legitimize this entry? Please be specific, as I have read WP:BIO and terms for notability over and over and still don't understand why this entry was deleted. Chad hermanson (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I've struck your bolded sentiment, as nominator your opinion is already noted, you don't show that more than once. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I was as specific as could be in the AFD discussion. I told you that sources about the person were required, not sources that didn't provide a single biographical fact. I told you that if you didn't produce such sources, you wouldn't make a case for keeping the article. You continued to cite articles that contained zero information about the subject at hand, and that provided zero support for the content you were adding, and — Lo! — you failed to make a case for keeping the article. This really isn't hard to understand; and you cannot now claim that you weren't told what would happen and how to prevent it, because you were, quite clearly, several times over. (And that's not counting the fact that you've been pointed to the verifiability policy every single time that you've edited a page.) I even directly asked you to supply what was required. You totally ignored the request, and instead went off on a completely irrelevant tangent about gymnasia. You have no-one but yourself to blame, here. You had a lot more prodding in the right direction than most people get in AFD discussions, and you failed utterly to do what you were told you needed to do. You're not even doing it now. (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, Uncle G, so may I humbly ask what specifically you would like me to provide? I provided links to one of Halevy's international speaking appearances, a six-page spread in SELF dedicated to his work with one of his celebrity clients, a link to a nationally syndicated piece that aired on CBS, NBC and ABC regarding his NASCAR athelete trainig (Better), many other articles where he was quoted as the only expert, an article Halevy wrote himself (Exercise for Men, an international publication), his being featured on an expert panel for the New York Daily News, being nominated as one of 'America's Ultimate Experts' by Woman's World (highest readership amongst women), and other articles where he was either a contributing editor or the expert opinion of the piece. I'm not comparing Halevy to Einstein as falsely represented above, but he is certainly notable in his field - evidenced by his spokesperson gig for Energy Kitchen (backed by vitaminwater founder Mike Repole). Can you please help me rewrite the entry so it is acceptable by community standards? Thank you. Chad hermanson (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Uncle G's post which you response is for says "I told you that sources about the person were required", i.e. the person is the subject of the source. I'm not sure how that can be much clearer, what you go on to list here are a series of things which aren't "about the person" let alone meet the general notability guideline standards of independance etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Um, yeah, 82.7.40.7...that doesn't help at all considering that the NASCAR, Woman's World, Self, British Virgin Island News and Exercise for Men refs are about Halevy; same with this piece: http://www.vitaljuice.com/entry_detail/everywhere/10534/This_personal_trainer_wants_to_answer_your_every_fitness_question_.htm. And most experts on a subject are less often written about than their opinion covered; think Stephen Hawking versus Snooki. Uncle G can you please help me out here? Chad hermanson (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately to satisfy WP notability you do need articles about the person; that is usually a good marker of their notability. There is a very big difference between sources featuring the subject (which is what you had) and sources about the subject (with tell us something about them, their biography, etc) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC) It doesn't help if you just stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear you", which is exactly what you are doing. Multiple people have looked to the sources and said they aren't about the subject, yet you apparently steadfastly refuse to listen. http://www.vitaljuice.com/entry_detail/everywhere/10534/This_personal_trainer_wants_to_answer_your_every_fitness_question_.htm is not about Halevy, he isn't the subject of the article. It tells me not one piece of information about him other than being a personal trainer, it's about the fitterwith website and even the coverage on that is trivial and wouldn't satisfy the WP:GNG. As for your statement about experts being written about less than their opinion covered - the essence of notability standard is if the world at large interested in something (i.e. they've taken note) then they'll write about the thing they are interested in. In the case of Stephen Hawking people are sufficiently interested in the man as well as his area of specialism, they've written directly, and in detail, about him as well as his opinions on stuff, it's the former which makes him notable. There will also be other physicists quoted, opinions requested etc. who don't have articles because as an individual they aren't notable. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC) "Feature" vs. "about"? That's not true. Where in WP:BIO and notability criteria does it say that? Please quote the actual section. Further NASCAR/Better, Woman's World, Vital Juice, British Virgin Island News are all about Halevy.Chad hermanson (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria - if he or she ...has been the subject... WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail --82.7.40.7 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Again, not helpful, 82.7.40.7. Read what you're citing from. #1: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards...(WP:Creative) Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." #2: Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability;". These have all been met, particularly with the above mentioned resources. And, Tmorton166, though the Vital Juice piece is about fitterwith.com, Halevy founded and is the CEO of that entity. Ronz, who in fact is the one who AfD'd this, and I are rerwriting this entry anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.206.186 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Again only unhelpful because you just read what you want to read, rather than listening to the multiple experienced editors. And your perpetual misreading and twisting of the guides is little more than sophistry. I'll give up here since it's quite clear the only answers you are interested in are the ones you want to hear, rather than reality. It's been through AFD and the consensus of established editors was it didn't meet the standard. Here that has been endorsed by a range more experienced editors. If you want to convince yourself that they are all wrong whilst you are of course right, then more fool you. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 July 2010

Pharmacological dissidence – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pharmacological dissidence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) New information available on google search, proof of general soundness of the idea of the article. It was deleted as "soapbox ranting" among other calificatives. It was actually an academic term coined in Spain at least since Historia de las Drogas of Antonio Escohotado (an enormous and serious work) was published! Drcaldev (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse original close. Consensus was clearly to delete the article. And oppose re-creation because the new sources you describe amount to a single passing mention in one book. Reyk YO! 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) temporarily undeleted for discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Changing !vote to Very strongly endorse upon examination of the original article. Reyk YO! 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse close, which was obviously with consensus. Oppose recreation as the sources just don't add up to a notable topic as far as I can tell. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse close as accurate reflection of policy-based consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) EndorseCorrect close and no justification to re-create at this point. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mikie Da Poet – Speedily closed, disruptive renomination. See yesterday's log – T. Canens (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mikie Da Poet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) A previous administrator made the claim that Mikie Da Poet was not credited at all on the official site for Exploitation of Hip Hop (http://www.businessasusualhiphop.com/home.html) But in fact, if you click on the official trailer on the official home page, Mikie Da Poet's song is playing throughout the entire video. To add, at the end of that video, he is credited as a composer with the featured song. Date- March 4, 2004, Fox News anchor David Navarro reported that Mikie Da Poet is a "hot new star". They went on to a graphic during his live performance that stated that Mikie Da Poet was "the new Eminem in the eyes of music critics and fans everywhere." Note - He was performing alongside notable platinum selling artist Do Or Die. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6fID8VcHGs) Date- January 10, 2010, EIN PressWire World News came out with an article/press release plugging a new song featuring Ghostface Killah (formerly of the Wu-Tang Clan) featuring artist Blaq Fuego. The following quote was taken from the second paragraph - "The Ugandan born lyricist moved to Chicago reaching international levels to further his career in music and has since then been featured on exclusive projects with Chicago's Hip-Hop icons, like Mikie Da Poet". (http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/77967-international-superstar-blaq-fuego-has-collaborated-with-ghostface-killah-on-iron-man-2-project) Mr. Pirruccello is the one who executed the licensing agreement between Mikie Da Poet's "Exploitation" song and 20/20 Multimedia. Their company is producing the Exploitation of Hip Hop film/documentary. A list of notable people, along with Mikie, including contact information for his office are located on the following link. (http://musiclaw.bz/Frame-687733-page1namepage687733.html?refresh=1214121829116) To conclude, going back a decade, when Mikie's name was spelled "Mickie", he was featured on the highly touted album "Monsters Of The Midway". This album featured artists including Twista and Bone Thugs-N-Harmony, where they are known for their hit song "Midwest Invasion". Specifically, Mikie was featured on CD #2, track 13, titled "Life In The Cold". (http://snypamuzicc.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html) Final thought - To say that Mikie Da Poet is not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page is just not true. It is supported by the facts stated above with links and sources. 98.212.29.179 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 July 2010

possibilianism – Article restored – NW (Talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
possibilianism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This overturn request stems from over a year of new data. The article "possibilianism" was originally posted when the term became widely discussed on NPR, New York Times, and other independent, reliable sources. On 21 Feb 2009 the page was nominated for deletion and was merged with Sum (novel), which is a book whose author had first introduced the term. However, in the intervening 12 months, possibilianism has become a term with over 10,000 google hits, and it is the subject of dozens of newspaper and magazine articles (New York Times, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Guardian, Nature, Salt Lake Tribune, etc -- see original ref list). Possibilianism solidly meets the criteria for inclusion based on verifiable and objective evidence of notability. It has received significant national and international coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Some are referenced below. Because Wikipedia's policy of inclusion rests on notability and verifiability, and because the article is fully referenced from independent and credible sources, we respectfully request an overturning of the previous deletion. Selected References (all of which were included on the original page) NPR Talk of the Nation: Interview with David Eagleman, Feb 17, 2009. Envisioning the Afterlife, interview with David Eagleman on NPR's On Point, Feb 27, 2009. Stray questions for David Eagleman, New York Times Paper Cuts, July 10, 2009. Writing about what comes next. Houston Chronicle. Feb 16, 2009. Houston author stunned by buzz over 'possibilian' theory, Dallas Morning News, June 16, 2009. Neuroscientist Imagines 40 Different Versions of the Afterlife, KPBS interview with David Eagleman, Mar 16, 2009. The Soul Seeker: A neuroscientist's search for the human essence, Texas Observer cover story, June 3, 2010. For 'Possibilians,' afterlife is one big ... well ... possibility. Salt Lake Tribune, Jul 9, 2009. Keeping an open mind about death. Miami Herald, July 7, 2009 So crazy it might be true. Building Design magazine. Sept 25, 2009. Fiction beyond the grave. Nature. April 30, 2009. "I'm a possibilian", Rick Kleffel's The Agony Column, Mar 13, 2009. Are you surrounded with authentic communities?, The Huffington Post, March 1, 2009. Choose your afterlife, MSNBC.com, Sept 10, 2009. Choose (after)life. The List Magazine, Issue 643, 4 November 2009. You could be a Possibilian..., The Daily Monitor, Uganda. 217.41.228.33 (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC) For the convenience of readers, can you please provide direct links to some of those articles? Stifle (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I would consider this for restoration. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Restore. That's pretty convincing.—S Marshall T/C 10:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Restore. Original result was correct at the time, but the sources given here are easily enough to justify recreation. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Restore the sources provided above demonstrate that there has been independent coverage of the subject, more than enough to justify an article. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC) speedy restore Obvious case at this point. Just !voting in case someone is waiting on more more voice to speedy this. No reason to wait.Hobit (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mikie Da Poet – Speedily endorsed. See previous discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 24, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 7, etc. – T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mikie Da Poet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Previous reviews stated that this artist was not notable. Here is the link to his iMDB page - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2559613/ He is listed with the soundtrack credit, composter credit, and part of the cast for a new documentary/film coming out starring the likes of Kanye West and Mekhi Phifer, titled Business As Usual: Exploitation of Hip Hop. Bigticket88 (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Speedy close as the regular regurgiation of this at DRV by SPAs. IMDB is not a reliable source anyone can sign up and add info to it. The apparent official site for the film [8] doesn't make any mention, not even as a composter (sic) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Speedy close per above with consideration for listing at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse, speedy close as above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 July 2010

Stephano Barberis – Restore based on userspace draft. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stephano Barberis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) New evidence Deletion review discussion questioned Barberis's notability. Recently, Barberis was incorporated into the University of Toronto Press's Canadian Who's Who of 2010. According to the CWW wikipedia page, "CWW is a comprehensive source of biographical information on leading and influential Canadians and is used by researchers, the media and other interested parties to obtain background information on such individuals." Canadian Who's Who This information was not available at the time of the deletion discussion and can be added to the page. Kanis103 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn That was a fairly broken discussion. One person claimed the awards listed were for a call center (they aren't), two people discussed some fairly good sources (one quite good [9], one with two paragraphs or so on the subject [10]). FisherQueen indicated that one more source would likely move them from delete to keep and the second source was supplied. Both !votes after the sources were supplied were keeps (though one was a bit cutting both seemed to think the sources were enough). I think it's a keep. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC) temporarily undelted for discussions DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Closing admin: I accorded no weight to the self-confessed "pointy keep", thank you very much. Not to mention that comparing directors and porn actors, whose notability is evaluated under a different guideline, is like comparing apples with oranges. MQS's keep was based on meeting ANYBIO (presumably based on the awards), but he supplied no evidence that the awards are notable and thus failed to overcome FisherQueen's argument that "those awards weren't reported on by any independent sources". T. Canens (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Side note: no one bothered to notify me about this discussion; I would have missed it had I not seen DGG restoring the article on my watchlist. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I apologize if I didn't format this discussion appropriately; however, I did contact you earlier. If you look in your July archives, I asked for a reconsideration of the deletion due to the new information received regarding the Canadian Who's Who Reference text. I feel that it would be considered a reliable independent source regarding Barberis's notability. When a response was not received, I put forth the appeal here.Kanis103 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Apologies about not responding to that; I must have missed it. But when you initiate a DRV here, you need to notify me by placing {{subst:DRVNote}} on my talk page so that I know that a DRV has been initiated. Anyway, no harm done. And the answer to your question is: it depends on the depth of coverage: a simple mention would not count, but if it's multiple paragraphs written by someone unrelated to Barberis, it probably would. Without seeing the text, it is impossible to tell. T. Canens (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the information. Having never done this before, I wasn't sure if I was doing this correctly or not. RE: Canadian Who's Who. According to the text, the University of Toronto Press contacts individuals who they've deemed appropriate for inclusion. They provide individuals with a questionnaire and then they compile the biographies based upon the information. In the foreward of the text it states, "Biographies are chosen on merit alone. Those listed are selected because of the positions they hold in Canadian society, or because of the contribution they have made to life in Canada." (Elizabeth Lumely, Feb 2010) This foreward and the biography itself can be scanned to be included as an independent source. Kanis103 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC) The pointy keep did however claim there were enough sources, which by the letter of WP:N there were. MQS make a similar comment. Yes they could have explained themselves _much_ better, but I'd claim their vague wave toward a guideline was enough when the article did meet the letter of that guideline. "Meets WP:N" or "doesn't meet WP:N" are air and common !votes when the letter of the guideline is or isn't met. ANYBIO is the same. Hobit (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC) No objections to restoring MQS' draft from me. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse as within discretion. MQS's keep !vote asserts ANYBIO without anything else - this must be read in light of the more thorough consideration of the awards by FisherQueen and Stifle above him. On objective strength of argument, the closing admin was entitled to close this as delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Restore MQS' userspace draft. The article has sufficiently improved that the AfD should not bind its retention. I don't know whether the article fully establishes notability; the point is that should be judged at AfD (if anyone wants to take the restored article there) not here). --Mkativerata (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion as proper reading of the debate and within admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I continue to endorse the deletion, but would support restoring MQS's userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) A defective debate that wrongly focused on the current state of the article rather than its potential. With the honourable exception of Kanis103, I find it hard to believe that many of those comments were based on a diligent search for sources. The close was in accordance with consensus but the consensus was not in accordance with policy. Relist for a proper discussion by editors inclined to search for sources and evaluate whether an article could exist with this title—not whether this article can exist with this title.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Comment Given we are discussing what people meant by their !votes, I've contacted all AfD participants who haven't already commented here. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Restore article without prejudice based upon newer evidences above, unavailable at the time of close. I imply no disrespect to closer, as his decision was per consensus... but as User:S Marshall clarifies above, the consensus itself was flawed, being based upon current state and not upon potential for improvement. To explain my own !vote... it was based upon the numerous assertions of notability that allowed me a per-guideline presumption that sources existed and upon the article tone and style being addressable as a surmountable issue. So let's give the closer a thank you, and let's get back to work on making the article suitably encyclopdic for the project, and not argue about how bad it originally was. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC) And by the way... the "BCCMA" awards in the article come from the British Columbia Country Music Association... and yes... they appear notable,[11] and the awards citable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC) OverturnI do not see a consensus to delete. In particular the delete argument "Delete unless cleaned up" was dead contrary to policy. Even more, the very nomination was not sure of notability, and was also basically s nomination for clean-up. (Everyone who said it needs cleanup were of course correct--it certainly does). Fisher Queen asked for a better source, and one was found. That leaves no valid delete arguments. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Comment I've already !voted, but I think User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Stephano Barberis gets us to WP:HEY in a DrV. Nice job MQS. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Restore article - as per Schmidt and DGG, and without any disrespect for the original closing admin.--Kudpung (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Virtualology – Relisted, back at AFD. – -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Virtualology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Deleted with a single vote, that is a consensus of one. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Two votes...you didn't count the nominator Purplebackpack89 06:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The nom, an indexer, a !voter and the closer unanimously failed to object to deletion. What more can we do? Do you, Richard, have a reason for keeping the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse last I looked there was no quorum. Ideally each afd would have between 20-30 well argued policy based votes for the closing admin to weigh but since this one only had 2 - both of which has a strong grounding in policy - the decision was pretty straightforward and the close was correct. If you want this back some evidence of notability would be much more persuasive then counting votes. Spartaz Humbug! 07:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Merge or relist to get a better consensus and a more reasonable outcome. If the website isn't independently notable it should simply be merged into the main article on its founder. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse as this is about as invalid of a DRV rationale as one can possibly imagine. I would also note the bad faith shown to the closing admin, with the posting of a one-liner questioning of the close, followed by the notification that it was heading to DRV TWO MINUTES LATER. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Relist There was one vote of "delete" that pointed out that maybe we shall see this article one day, indicating that the voter thought it MIGHT be notable. This is about as far from a consensus as we can get... It is the accepted norm that such articles are relisted for more discussion. DubZog (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Relist- A nomination and one delete vote do not, at least in my opinion, a consensus make. If its deleted after more discussion, thats fine, but in a non-speedy situation, we should err on the side of caution, and relist for greater discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Relist- per Umbralcorax and DubZog. Let's have another look at it. IQinn (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- As Spartaz says, there is indeed no quorum. I looked at the nomination and the sole !vote, and found that they were well thought out and grounded in policy. Reyk YO! 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Can Mr. Norton explain why he failed to make meaningful engagement with the closer of the discussion before listing here? As a frequent DRV nominator, he is well aware of the process. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC) In this case, discussing it with Cirt would have been a damn good idea. He closes a lot of AFDs as "delete" with one !vote but restores and relists most of them on a talk page request. Too late for that now as it looks as if this DR will be endorsed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Stifle and Tarc's questions on the rationale/timing, and Spartaz' rationale on closing. It had more review opportunities than a PROD. If you want it in mainspace, create a userspace draft and ask the closing admin to review the new article. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Can someone do a temp. undelete so we can all see the article. What little discussion there was discussed the sources as they existed, it's hard to see how valid those comments are. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, didn't look at the cached version. Endorse reasonable close, but userfy upon request. Seems like it might well be notable. Relisting would have been a reasonable (and IMO preferred) solution, but this was within discretion. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per consensus at AfD. The only quorum required is a public listing of seven days - if people choose not to object to deleting the article, and there are only 2 (well-argued) cases for deletion, that is enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Relist it is ridiculous to close after so little discussion. With so many AfDs , not everything gets considered the firs time round; 1/4 or so of the article are relisted, and I can so no reason why the debate on this one we should not consider it further. I urge the closing admin to simply relist of his own accord. As the cache is not stable, I have undeleted the article for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse: As Kativerata noted, there were two people who expressed opinion on this, the voter (who apparantly improperly closed it as well), and the nominator. Even if the AFD is lacking in numbers, it does have a strong argument for deletion. Purplebackpack89 05:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Comment: The user who started this DRV is the same person who originally created the article. By the way, since the article history has been restored, can the talk page be restored also? Purplebackpack89 06:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)  Done, for what it's worth. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Purple, how come you didn't tell RAN when you AfD'd the article? Reyk YO! 13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Comment. For those with some extra time, this loooong AN thread from 2007 may be if interest. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I recall doing a good deal of work helping to remove the spamming from this site on Wikipedia, but their misbehaviour is no reason not to have an article on it. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not saying that we shouldn't have an article because of it but still thought it might be of interest. Part of the original deletion rationale was WP:COI so it does help to know why that tag was on the article in the first place. For what its worth, the article predates the spam issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse due to the nominator's failure to respond to reasonable questions or pursue his appeal. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 July 2010

Lindsey Cardinale – Relisted, back at AFD. – -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lindsey Cardinale (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This AfD was closed as "The result was delete. Feel free to redirect the page later, as an editor-decision." I think there was no obvious consensus based on the arguments provided and when I asked for an elaboration on how the admin found this consensus I was given no elaboration. Based on the arguments provided I feel the article should have been closed as no consensus, but it is hard to figure out why it was deleted when not given an explanation. Aspects (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- I probably would have leaned towards keeping the article, but this close was, in my opinion, within the admin's discretion. When you see a late run of !votes all going the same way, it counts for a lot towards establishing and gauging consensus because these people have seen all the previous arguments, weighed them, and decided that one was stronger. I also think it's unfair to criticize the closing administrator for not giving you as detailed an explanation as you wanted because your question was faulty. You claimed that the last few !votes hadn't mentioned the WP:GNG. They had, and Cirt told you so. I'm not sure what more needs to be said about that. Reyk YO! 04:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Comment: I just realized I messed up that sentence because I originally meant to say none of the delete arguments addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1 and then I decided to added the part about the delete arguments saying it did not pass WP:GNG enough though there were multiple reliable sources and I did not remove the "none of" from the first part of the sentence when I added it to the second part. Aspects (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC) OK. Thanks for the clarification; it certainly lessens the confusion. Still, I am sticking with the first half of my endorse because I still feel this was an acceptable close. Reyk YO! 04:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Request: can someone do a temp. undelete for purposes of this discussion? There was a claim of improvement and sources but no details in the discussion. Hobit (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks Uncle G. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to NC or relist deletion was within admin discretion given the !vote count, but seeing as how this clearly meets the letter of WP:N and even the spirit and there is a good argument for WP:MUSICBIO this is clearly a keep and the admin should have taken note of that and weighed the arguments appropriately. There is one local press article where with an article solely on her on the front page, two others solely on her in the NY Post and NY Dispatch plus other limited coverage all in the article. There is no way three articles on her don't meet WP:N. That no one other than Erik made that argument doesn't negate it and the admin should have noticed that. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC) It was me who added the sources to the article, and my read on this is similar to Hobit's. One of the difficulties is that the two discussants who responded that the article did not meet the GNG, 137.122.49.102 and Shadowjams, did not say why they believed the sources I added were insufficient. I was not sure how to respond to them in the discussion, and I'm not sure how the closing admin would know how to weigh their !votes. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Note: The page has been relisted. It is now back at AFD, for further discussion, there. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 July 2010

Barbara Auer – Recreated with a more clear assertion of notability, shouldn't have problems with A7 now. – Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Barbara Auer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) User:Alexf speedy deleted this stub of the German actress Barbara Auer within a few hours of its creation, citing A7. This was despite the stub stating she was an actress that appeared in multiple notable films. Alexf was notified but so far no response. AfD would've been the proper procedure if an editor didn't feel this topic was notable, although even then I think it would've been too quick to start deletion proceedings. --Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Comment The cache suggests the article said : "Barbara Auer is a German actress. She has appeared in multiple television shows and films including Meine Tochter gehört mir, Impossibly Yours and Waiting for Angelina.". Since the notable films are all red links, I'm not too suprised the admin couldn't see and substantive claim of importance. This seems one where discussion with the admin should be the best course of action, I can't see it as a reasonable expectation for a response within 4 hours before escalating. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Two of the three "red inks" are award winning German films.[12][13] and the third was directed by notable director Hans-Christoph Blumenberg. And I now see from the first link that Auer is a BEST ACTRESS WINNER for the German Film Awards!. This is a first that I've seen such a winner of such a prestigious award get deleted, no less speedy deleted. This just wasn't a case for such quick speedy deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC) And the article didn't say any of that stuff. Feel free to recreate with an indication of importance which has substance (as it appears you can) and there will be no issue. There is little of no point in going through a 7 day process to restore what was there. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Done. Feel free to close this.--Oakshade (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Recreate with proper sources.[14] No question that she is notable (see her German wiki page). But do we really need to undelete an unsourced one sentence half-stub? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I am the admin that deleted the article. I was out all this Saturday, so I did not respond quickly enough for this gentleman. I see the article has been recreated. BTW, the above description explains the reasoning behind the deletion pretty well. No sources or citations, red links as movies she acted on. It is the job of the poster to ascertain notability, or at least place a {{hangon}} tag on the article . Neither was done. -- Alexf(talk) 01:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC) When an article is deleted almost immediately after a speedy tag was placed, it's impossible to know the need for a {{hangon}} tag. I was given zero notification of a speedy deletion tag. The reason given for speedy deletion was "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", not "No sources or citations."[15] No sources or citations is reason for article improvement, not deletion, especially speedy deletion. The "red links" charge is a classic case of systemic bias. The "red link" films are all notable films in Germany. Just because a non-German English speaking editor didn't recognize them, it was wrong to assume they were not notable.--Oakshade (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC) restore not that it matters much given the short stub. It did assert notability, just not in a way the admin noticed. In any case, I think a good faith request for an undeletion of an A7 speedy should be granted. Hobit (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Restore Strong indications of notability and disputed speedy deletion. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Restore, mootly; deleting admin based decision on "notability," which by policy is too high a bar to set for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Faceboy – Any editor is free to re-nominate this article at AfD for a fresh discussion of its current state – Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Faceboy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The Faceboy article has deteriorated since it was last nominated for deletion. Lots of dead links or links that lead nowhere but the homepages of the referenced periodicals. Faceboy himself in one of articles basically says he's notable for being non-notable. He fails the googleability test badly. Faceboy basically runs an open mike he pays for (word is he's independently wealthy) there's little secondary sources on him. He's an obscure figure outside the Lower East Side art scene becoming more obscure by the minute. Moreover what is in the article is a complete mess of original research and anecdotes. You'd think if he were notable then someone out there would've fixed it up a bit in three years. Perhaps the Faceboy article can be merged into Art Stars the most notable Art Star Margaret Trigg is in there, she doesn't have her own wikipedia article, and she starred on an ABC series. Wlmg (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Wrong venue simply renominate it for deletion or propose a merge on the articles talk pages, DRV isn't going to overturn a deletion debate from 3 years ago. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 July 2010

Mohsen Emadi – Overturn to relist. Consensus here is that further discussion is required to reach a clear consensus. – SoWhy 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mohsen Emadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There is no clear reason for deleting the page while two users were opposing deletion and also there were 35 reliable reference for this subject. I invite Wikipedia editors to have a look on this page and give a reasonable statement for deletion or undelete the page.--Transcelan (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Relist There was one comment that made a pretty good case for deletion and two (or likely one) person arguing to keep. With no !votes to delete and no pressing BLP need to delete, a relist probably was the best bet. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Well, IMO the nom itself counts for 1 delete vote. After that, there's a Wall o' Text from the suspected socks to wade through, so no other opinion at this time. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Well written nomination not refuted in the debate. User:Farhikht's reads as supportive of the nomination. All other comments read as the author and socks. Advise User:Transcelan to gain some experience contributing to wikipedia on other subjects, and that if he establishes himself as a an experienced editor in good standing, the community will give him more trust. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Relist. Not enough participation to judge a consensus here. If there was a serious BLP issue to consider I would think differently, but I can't see one. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Would relist here. Technically, the close is defendable but a more proper debate about the sources should really occur. NW (Talk) 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Comment From the start point of afd I tried to find some more references about the subject, the creator of the article also tried the same, I think the references must be traced out by an editor to decide about them.I am searching on internet to find more proper references, I think Persian references are useless because there are many of them, but I try to find just Euro-American references in this case.--Transcelan (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with NW, that more discussion would be good, but it was open long enough and AfD is overloaded already overloaded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Note, there is no quorum at AFD and the keep side have produced no sources. What is a relist going to achieve. Source it and it can be undeleted immediately. What's the point of the process wanking? Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC) the fact is that the article has 15 more sources from the beginning of AFD, I invite the editors to check them, also a simple Google search would be useful in Persian or English. . I think they are enough, but I am still searching for more sources.--Transcelan (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Relist If anything, reading through the AfD discussion the consensus seems to be in favour of the "keep" argument... DubZog (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC) temporarily restored for the purpose of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Comment According to BLP, an article must be NPOV, V and NOR. It seems the first author of the article used Adamar Literary Journal, published in September 2002 as the start point. This text also appears in Barcelona Review in May 2008; other sources about the subject uses almost the same information(NOR). The article also uses a neutral point of view (NPOV). neglecting four references(self-published online websites) other source of the article have acceptable ranges of verifiability like Olifante, El Periodico de aragon or Radio Farda (V). Another question about the article could be the question of notability and this question is tight to the situation and the ground of notability. If the editors are interested they can just have a look in report on censorship p.34-p.39 to know more about the situation of modern poetry inside Iran. The subject belong to the very first generation of Iranian poets after Islamic revolution that Euro-American society heard their voice and translated them. The censorship inside Iran also restricted western media to know more about a generation of poets and writers who appeared after the revolution. Iran student protests, July 1999 had important role to announce new voices of the country out of the country. The fist book of the subject in Spanish translation by Clara Janes appears in 2003 and the website for National Award for Work of a translator is verifiable enough to approve the book. Notes like Gizonak sugeari written by Kirmen Uribe in Berria and interviews like Iran en Trasmoz in El Periodico de aragon speak about a good coverage about his works. Also his presence in international ground of poetry festivals hold by Olifante or Imac founded by Ernest Benach bring some degrees of significance; the referenced talks of the subject in research and academic ground as in international symposium of Rumi hold by Tukish Government and UNESCO or International Nietzsche Symposium could also support the idea. Also he won the translation grant of FILI hold by Finnish Literature Society that approves his other mentioned activity as translator. While I was searching I found another reference speaking about his presence[16] in Semana Poética hold by Dickinson College, USA. Therefore, I think the article has all the conditions of being restored. --Transcelan (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC) You can only !vote once, and the nomination counts as one, so I've struck the "Restore" portion of your comment. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC) actually I did not vote, I opened the discussion. but I change your struck to a comment. my purpose was to clarify some sorts of references.--Transcelan (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Debrahlee Lorenzana – Endorse. BLP1E covers this pretty neatly, and the evidence given below doesn't point to sustained coverage (or more importantly, some coverage apart from the solitary event). I'm happy to userify the content or email it to anyone as needed. – Protonk (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Debrahlee Lorenzana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Since the close of the AfD (on a close call where the closer said he exercised his judgment based on his opinion of the weight of the arguments related to BLP 1-E and not news, since the keep and delete votes were balanced numerically), this woman and her case have continued to receive a great deal of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources [17]. I would like to see the article restored so that it can be expanded with the additional coverage and sources it has received. If it was a close call before, I don't see how it can still be considered so now. Thanks for your consideration. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse and censure nominator, as these frequent and frivolous challenges are becoming disruptive. We have a policy of WP:ONEEVENT that is as clear as day here and easily and correctly applied to a woman whose only claim to fame is being fired for having a nice rack. That is all. DRVs are to correct administrator mistakes and errors; "I don't like the decision" wastes everyone's time. Tarc (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) If I had recreated without permission you would be bitching and moaning. This is the correct process as far as I am aware to try and recreate an article that was deleted in a close call before getting lots more coverage. You are the one who should be censured for your misrepresentations of what policy says and your aggressively antagonistic behavior. I posted the one event policy once already for you, so please read it. The extent of the coverage makes clear that the event and the woman rise above the policy threshold. Whether you think she's insignificant and what you make of her "rack" is entirely irrelevant, and always has been. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Doesn't "nice rack" = nice BLP violation under the new Herostratus standards? Anyhoo, this DRV is completely legit, I'll write more about it later as I've previously discussed this close with the closing admin but it appears its archived already.--Milowent (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Oh darn, I got my "let's delete attractive chicks!" Afds confused, as this one has already been to DRV, and lukewarmly endorsed, I guess.-- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_14.--Milowent (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I thought I'd seen it before. Perhaps it's time to update WP:HOTTIE to indicate that being an attractive female is actually a reason to delete :-) Hobit (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination). Uncle G (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC) That one I'm actually okay with, she was trying to maintain a low profile and she was thrust into the spotlight very much against her will. The rest, of the recent "you can't be notable, you're too cute" ones leave me a bit cold. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Wow, deja vu all over again...I even made the same rack observation a month ago. Well, that makes this DRV even more ill-advised than previously thought. We've already been over this ground before, there is nothing new about this woman's case that warrants a second review, just a basic, inept understanding of BLP policy, particularly 1E. Close up this waste of time and move on. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Number 1, one issue in the AfD was that it wasn't clear if coverage would be sustained. It clearly has been... Hobit (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC) restore Leaving aside the question of the close of the AfD itself (which I'd say was boarderline at best), it's clear that coverage of her continues to exist and we are past BLP1E. I'm finding news coverage as recently as 18 minutes ago according to Google News and an article pretty much focused on her from last week. [18]. As this was deleted more than a month ago, I think we are seeing sustained coverage. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Reasonable DRV nomination. I think I am not seeing good new sources, just repetition of the original story, with no discussion of the person herself. Recommend userfication and improvement in userspace before reconsideration at DRV, to clearly show what new content new sources actually provide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Userfy per SmokeyJoe. Fair nomination, and there are new sources to consider, but they aren't enough for a speedy recreation. So let's try userfying it and see what happens. We might get a decent article out at the end... Alzarian16 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Restore-There is sufficient coverage that it exceeds WP:BLP1E. She was also featured on msn's front page several times in July and has a short msn popular searches article. She is still mentioned in reliable sources. Smallman12q (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and Restore as there was no consensus for deletion in the face of reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC) overturn The earlier deletion endorsement might have made sense when this was arguably a BLP1E. The ongoing coverage makes this no longer a BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC) overturn and Restore which was the apparent consensus--and according to the further coverage. I think Tarc should be careful about trying to impede or discourage reasonable appeals carried out according to perfectly normal of Wikipedia process. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn/Restore - There wasn't a consensus to delete this and there were valid arguments on how this was not a BLP1E case. And as for Tarc's comments in this DRV, this was a perfectly valid discussion opening. --Oakshade (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Strong endorse the status quo as the June DRV closer (I was just notified of this discussion). I think my previous DRV closure was correct in stating that there was no consensus to overturn the article in June (and the weight of that discussion should be considered by the closer of this DRV). Looking at this new July DRV, the line of discussion does not seem to be any referendum on the June DRV that I closed—but is instead reviewing the AfD that the June DRV reviewed. Although I appreciate not being raked over the coals for my DRV closure, I am kind of annoyed that the stare decisis that it represents is being ignored here. Although I see some vague hand-waving about continued coverage that somehow allows this article to pass BLP1E, there is really no convincing evidence that anything substantial has changed since June. Although consensus can change, this feels like repeatedly forum shopping DRV in an effort to get a more inclusionist sample of participants. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) As of July 23, she is still being referenced by reliable sources such as this Huffington Post blog post Just How Good Is Too Good Looking in the Workplace?. She has had sustained coverage for almost 2 months...well beyond that of BLP1E. (Sorry that you weren't notified earlier, I had believed that the nominator had followed procedure...).Smallman12q (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Two months of one events is still...wait for it...one event. Big breasts and lawsuits don't move one to the John Hinckley standard, the actual example cited at WP:BLP1E. The problem here boils down to WP:HOTTIE which is IMO a variation of missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC) John Hinckley is undoubtedly notable for one event. The same cannot be said for Shirley Sherrod, Alvin Greene or Debrahlee Lorenzana, only one of whom is white. Unsure on their respective breast size, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Alvin Greene is notable both for being a Senate candidate, for a felony sexual assault, and for being a bit...unready for public office, to put it mildly. I count 3 events there. For Sherrod, the article is actually about the event, Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, not the person. Any more red herrings you care to serve up? Tarc (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore: same thing as Oakshade and DGG. For what its worth, I have the article watchlisted and will keep an eye on it for any BLP concerns.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore The individual is not a non-public figure, coverage has been ongoing, and the original close should have been at most a no-consensus to begin with. The fact that it's been to DRV twice is disappointing, because it clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Wp:CCC is the WP equivalent of stare decisis, BTW. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Repeatedly polling DRV until you get the result you want is not consensus changing. It's forum shopping. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per my argument last time round. Spartaz Humbug! 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- one event is still one event, even though some members of the media still are covering her, it doesn't consist of a different notable event. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I can't tell if you are arguing WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, so I'll respond to both. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" (emphasis mine). The continued coverage is more than enough to show she isn't a low-profile individual and is unlikely to remain so. Of course her doing things (her stuff with lawyers, going on TV shows etc.) also add to that. The second is there to help resolve "unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both". If you are making that argument then I'd expect a rename and rewrite would make more sense than a delete as many of the sources and sections would be really useful in an article on the event in question. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Very well put Hobit. Essentially the delete arguments amount to "I Don't Like It", because the substantial coverage overwhelmingly establishes notability and it just keeps growing. For example we have more international coverage from the last few days including from India [19], Germany [20] and Thailand [21]. The legal case is also progressing with representation from Gloria Allred, and the latest edition of Newsweek (July 17) also reports on the issues involved. Individuals' biases against covering subjects related to beauty, discrimination against attractive women, and white people with breasts should be ignored as so much foolishness. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Except no one is actually saying "i don't like it". They are saying that continuing coverage does not make the singular event notable enough for an article in this particular case. Arguing against positions that none here are actually advocating is a bit of a strawman on your part. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC) WP:BLP1E states The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is appears clear that with persistent coverage for over a month in dozens of reputable sources that this should serve as indication that the individual is indeed notable for the event(s).Smallman12q (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) DRV day 10? Why is it when a BLP about a female like this is concerned, when its fairly obvious that the article should be restored, the deletion review stays open so long?--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC) because its a tough call and most passing admins probably don't agree with the consensus here... Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Well, that's silly, we have 3.36 million articles and this is no Brian Peppers drama fest.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Because it is fairly obvious, IMO, that it should stay deleted. If these "obvious" opinions are that disparate, then closing is no easy task. Tarc (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and relist - See what people think now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse/keep deleted. WP:BLP1E applies. @Hobit et al., BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, ..." (emphasis mine). The word "otherwise" indicates that the "low-profileness" is to be assessed without regard to said event; for otherwise by definition any person to whom BLP1E applies would not be low-profile precisely due to that event and that event alone. One event is one event, even if the event is long in duration. There's nothing that suggests that she would not remain low-profile, once we remove this single event - her firing from Citibank and its aftermath - from the calculus. No objections to userfication, because, after all, I could have missed something... T. Canens (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC) A good point. I see that otherwise as "other than that flash-in-the-pan coverage", but it can certainly be read as you are doing. I think that your reading allows for an "event" to be stretched to cover a wide variety of events. In fact, extended coverage usually isn't over the one event per se; it is about things that happen past the one event. In this case: She was fired. She sued. She prompted (and continues to prompt) discussion about appropriate clothing for work. Each of these things prompted new coverage. Even in some cases coverage about the coverage. Even if your reading is right, the thing we should do is move the article, not delete it. BLP1E states: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." I'm fine with renaming the article. As I recall the article was mostly about the event anyways. But BLP1E doesn't direct us to _delete_ the article... Hobit (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, not a particularly good point. One "event" is just one "event"--ongoing coverage is not the same event. See WP:WI1E. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. A reasonable close that had proper regard to policy, the rationale for which still applies. Agree with Tim Song's explanation of BLP1E. There may be occasions on which coverage of a BLP1E is so extensive that the subject is no longer a BLP1E but that is just not the case here.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Saul Farber – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Saul Farber (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) meets general notability requirements as per 3 sources: (1),http://www.nysun.com/opinion/new-yorks-rising-sarah-palin/86036/ (2), http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/albany/20081101/204/2730 (3), http://www.observer.com/lydiadepillis/344/swimming-against-tides-young-republican-challenges-gottfried. Saul Farber is the main subject in all sources and all sources are secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Saul Farber is also included as more than a trivial mention in several other articles and Saul Farber has received the republican nomination in the November 2010 state senate race. I spoke with the admin but he is busy/on vacation and unable to address it. Thank you! 69.193.146.42 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion - The notability guideline was correctly interpreted by the closing admin. Purely local coverage...an online tabloid (NY Sun), an online newsletter of a nonprofit watchdog group (Gotham Gazatte) and a borough paper (Observer)...falls short of the GNG. Tarc (talk) Does any of the substantial coverage relate to anything other than the 2008 election race? Freakshownerd (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. An uncontroversial consensus-based close. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse as the !vote was pretty clear, but the topic met WP:N with a bit of room to spare (2 good articles and 4-5 minor ones) and BLP1E is a stretch at best IMO. But others felt that BLP1E did apply and there you are. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UEFA Euro 2020 – No consensus to overturn and userfy to User:Avala/UEFA Euro 2020. This was a tricky discussion to consider. After discounting !votes focused on the procedure of this DRV (as opposed to the procedure of the AfD this DRV reviews), there is still a significant debate regarding whether the closing administrator was right to apply policy-based arguments (WP:CRYSTAL) when appeals to that particular policy were disputed in the course of the discussion. Administrators should be cautious to defer to the judgment of the community and not overly bias closures with their own judgments when it is ambiguous what does and does not follow policy. This deference does not, however, extend to cases when there is prima face evidence that an article fails a particular policy (in the face of insubstantial arguments that it passes said policy). After inspecting the DRV and the AfD, appeals to WP:CRYSTAL are particularly concrete and analogous to the examples offered in policy (e.g., United States presidential election, 2020) where a known event will occur but all information regarding that event is speculative (cf. 2016 referencing of UEFA Euro 2020). Consequently, there is not conclusive evidence raised in the DRV that deletion guidelines for administrators were breached. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
UEFA Euro 2020 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) By a simple count we see that there is nothing clear about the result, seven users said delete, seven said keep and a few users on both sides suggested alternatively for the article to be userfied. As for the arguments, administrator that deleted the article, chose to go with the argument on violation of WP:CRYSTAL which was not accepted but widely argued in the discussion and the issues raised were not addressed by the user who filed a request. The problem with this view is that 1) the UEFA European Football Championship takes part regularly, every four years, since 1960, and the assumption that it wont take place for whatever reason in 2020 can be seen as the violation of WP:CRYSTAL and not vice versa and 2) the acronym UEFA stands for the "Union of European Football Associations" and the fact that its member Associations are talking about the EURO 2020 means that there is no reason to believe that this tournament will not take place, the fact that the technical meeting of all Associations hasn't taken place in UEFA headquarters where the dates will be set and the official bidding open doesn't mean that the article should be erased as plenty of national Associations and national Governments have already announced their plans to file a bid (they haven't done so yet because the official bid filing process isn't open yet - and it will be some time before UEFA opens it - and not because there is some doubt over whether the EURO 2020 competition will take place which is the main argument for deletion). So I would like to request for the deletion to be overturned based on the fact that there was no consensus on the AfD. If there are open arguments and if there is not even a simple number majority (although it's arguments that count which is where we go to point one as we don't have consensus on any argument) then the closing decision cannot be deletion, it can only be a constatation of no consensus. Avala (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Have we stopped asking admins to look at the arguments again or is the policy now to just haul them in front of DRV if you don't like the outcome? I'm always dubious about any nomination here that starts with a nose count cos it shows the argument isn't going to be based on consensus in the way that wikipedia does it. So Endorse my own close because I read the arguments and this was a clear violation of crystal. Spartaz Humbug! 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Striking because I'm tired and forgetful and I actually directed people to DRV in my edit notice. Apologies for needlessly being mean Avala Spartaz Humbug! 20:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Your page says "I'm on holiday until 27 August" so why should I question that? As for reading it through, why are you focusing on vote count when I mentioned it only to show that not even there is any consensus on deletion while I discussed the issue with arguments with much more detail and quite clearly said that it's the arguments that count. Admin is to assess how the users expressed their will, not to choose which one he personally likes more. You are stating here how you deleted because "this was a clear violation of crystal" but this is not right, it's against the rules for you to delete because you chose in a tied no consensus situation which side you like more, you can only delete if you found "that there is consensus among the users to delete because this was a clear violation of crystal" but you couldn't do that as there is no consensus on arguments in that AfD (nor the numbers), it's the only fact and that is my point, this needs to be closed as no consensus.--Avala (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion as original nominator. AfD discussions are not a simple matter of counting "votes", they are based on who presents a better argument through knowledge of Wikipedia policy. The subject of UEFA Euro 2020 is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, there is no doubt about that. Just because a country has announced its intention to bid to host an event does not mean that event will take place. But I'm repeating myself. I completely agree with the decision taken by the closing admin. – PeeJay 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC) However this is only your view, but the matter in discussion here is that this was not a consensus view as there was no consensus while a decision was made by an admin to take action which is not in line with the fact that there was no consensus so that was supposed to be a conclusion. As for the argument on CRYSTAL, you can read below in a comment by another user why it simply doesn't stand here.--Avala (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn sources found in the cache appear to be plenty to overcome any kind of WP:CRYSTAL issues. From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." this is almost certain to take place and speculation about it is very very well documented from what I can tell. The !vote isn't strong enough to overcome the guideline policy. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse by default—the initiator of this DRV failed to discuss the XfD closure with the relevant admin, which is a required prelimanary step. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Hey TT, per the above, the admin's standard message had directed them not to (if I'm understanding the discussion correctly). Hobit (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I didn't contact the closing admin as his talk page notice says that he is on vacation until the August 27, not because I didn't want to. Please reconsider your vote in light of this information. Thanks,--Avala (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn: There was no consensus to delete this article. The closing admin's opinion that deletion was appropriate is a valid opinion, but the sum of good faith editor contributions to the discussion did not approve deletion. And no BLP or contentious materials concerns to support extra scrutiny arguments.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Al Fand training camp – Overturn to delete. The consensus is that the consensus was in favor of deletion, so this DRV can only be closed as such. That Iqinn nominated the article again after a short while and that they did not notify the creator were reasons for concerns but can be reasons to {{trout}} Iqinn but does not change the consensus - even most of those who raised those concerns still agreed that the AFD should have been closed as "delete". – SoWhy 06:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Al Fand training camp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This one is a bit of a long story. The first AfD was back in Aug 2009 by User:Anthony Appleyard as "casting keep". The second Afd, from May 2010, received basically no participation even after two relistings and got a NAC. The third one was closed as "no consensus" earlier this July, after two relistings and only two !votes. After that, it was AfD-ed again, by the same nominator, Iquinn. That was a mistake, IMO. I thin k there was a case to be made for a delete closure in the 3d AfD and I think that one should have been taken to DRV rather than submitted to AfD again. However, the 4th AfD received a substantial degree of participation. There was, IMO, a substantial policy-based consensus for delete in this 4th AfD. It was clearly demonstrated that there was a single source for the camp (a long judicial transcript of the Guantanamo Combatant Review report) that contain a single sentence with a single mention of the camp. A pdf copy of the report was also posted at the NYT site. Even if one takes the view, that that posting constitutes a separate source, this is stlll two one-sentence mentions. Barely passes WP:V and far far far below any reasonable interpretation of WP:N. These points were made at length during the AfD and no convincing counter-arguments were presented. If evaluated on the merits of policy-based arguments, the 4th AfD should have clearly been closed as delete. The article's creator commented in the AfD that he would have preferred to see that AfD extended for another week(since he was not notified of the last AfD). Even that would have been fine, IMO. Instead, the AfD was closed, again by User:Anthony Appleyard, as "The result was Keep as no concensus; this article has been under AfD almost continuously since 23 May 2010 over this and 2 previous AfD's all started by the same user." That is, it was closed on procedural grounds. I tried contacting User:Anthony Appleyard, but he did not really elaborate on his reasons and instead referred to the merge discussion that he started at the article's talk page. I feel that this AfD should have been closed on its merits, in view of its fairly substantial participation, and since the article so obviously does not satisfy our inclusion criteria. I request overturn and relist or overturn and delete. Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) overturn and delete - Fact: This here is the only know information in the universe about this camp and therefore it fails WP:GNG WP:V. The arguments and !votes clearly supported nothing else than delete. There was little participation in the first three discussions even after multiple re-listings only the 4th discussion finally had a good participation and discussion. I am not a wiki lawyer and i can not say if my re-listing violated any wiki laws. That what i can say is that it was done in good faith with the intention to have a good discussion and to improve Wikipedia and to get rid of an article that violated our own basic quality rules. I do not have any objection against relisting at Afd, if somebody expresses that he wants to further argue that this one sentence in one source would be "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete - I have no idea how this could have reasonably been closed as a keep. Every keep vote (all 3 of them) was based on a debunked argument saying that a single mention in a single transcript of a single detainee's hearing is "significant coverage". nableezy - 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) delete I can't !vote to overturn because I think a NC close was inside of admin discretion (if just barely) and I think merging would still be a reasonable outcome. But given the horrible sourcing, I'll treat this a AfDx (where x is a large number) and claim we should just delete this. Frankly there were no solid arguments to keep. 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) Overturn to delete - There was one primary "keep" by ANowlin, with 2 "per ANowlin" follow-ups. It does not seem that the closing admin took into account how weak this sole opinion was, and how easily it was rebutted. Two reliable sources hosting a PDF of an interrogation, during which the camp is name-dropped isn't even in the ballpark of "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I interpreted the closure as a procedural close, an appropriate one, given that how marred by irregularities the {{afd}} had been. Your characterization of the OARDEC allegation memo as the "PDF of an interrogation" is not accurate. The Supreme Court forced the DoD to prepare these memos in its 2004 ruling in Rasul v. Bush. OARDEC was a separate agency from JTF-GTMO that ran the camps. The officers who prepared these memos did so after reviewing intelligence reports from at least six agencies, the FBI, CIA, State Department, the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, and JTF-GTMO. They independently reviewed, collated, analyzed dozens, sometimes hundreds of documents per captives. If the Al Fand camp made it into the final memo summarizing those dozens or hundreds of secret reports then it has far more significance than your characterization that it was "name-dropped" implies. It was not a passing mention. I suggested merge in my proposal of late March. I suggested merge in the 3rd {{afd}}, and in all the other recent {{afd}}s our nominator instantiated. I think an important question that should have been considered at all these similar {{afd}} is whether there were sufficient WP:RS to support a paragraph, sentence, or list entry in a broader article. I request you give fair consideration to this question. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC) There where no irregularities in Afd's and there i nothing wrong with the description "PDF of an interrogation" and as said this is all information on the planet we have about the camp. One source one sentence. See the second document. It is the PDF of the controversial tribunal where the detainees had the opportunity to reply to allegations without given the right to see the evidence or sources for the allegations. Uuuuhhh... the State Department, the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, and JTF-GTMO, the FBI the CIA... Maybe it was even the MI6 or Mossad... Only the habeas corpus Judges had the opportunity to have a closer look at the source of the allegations. Just read some of there opinions how often the allegation were just based on the false statements of other detainees they made under torture or intelligence errors. Fact: All the talk about the original source here are speculations and waste of time. We do not know. Merge? This one sentence allegation against Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr? I agree this should be on Wikipedia. I have suggest to merge the allegation against him into Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr and i have pointed out that the one sentence information is already in that article. So there is nothing to merge. Time to get rid of the article here that always was nothing more than a Wikipedia:Coatrack of Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr. You created the article in 2006 with insufficient sources in the hope that more information would appear. But it did not happen. Time is up let's get this deleted now before it harms out reputation as an reliable encyclopedia. Just my opinion. IQinn (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and delete. Taking this AfD on its merits I cannot see how, on the basis of the arguments presented, it can possibly have lacked consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Sustain The information as reported by major internationally known secondary sources is sufficient for an article and meets WP:V. I note the extraordinarily close timing of three of the comments above. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Err, which three of the above comments were, in your opinion, extraordinarily close in time? And which major internationally known sources actually reported the information in question? Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC) There is no information being reported, it is a one-line mention in the part of a prisoner interrogation. And just what the hell is that "close timing of three of the comments above" comment supposed to mean? If you're going to make bad-faith accusations, at least man up and make them clearer. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) No "major internationally known secondary source" has said one word about this camp. Two "major internationally known secondary sources" host the same public domain document that makes exactly one mention of this camp. Would you also like to note the close timings in the three responses to your comment? nableezy - 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC) As someone who has seen significant off-site canvassing, I understand the concern, but there was, and has been, no communication with me about this DrV other than the text here. Also, there seems to be only one source that indicates this camp exists and given the lack of anything else, I don't see how we can claim that camp _does_ exist. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I have to say, the "extraordinarily close timing" remark was an unexpectedly low blow from DGG and I feel somewhat offended. DGG knows me reasonably well as we often comment in the AfDs listed in the academics&educators delsort list, and we also collaborated a couple of years ago on revamping the WP:PROF guideline. After I filed this DRV listing, I notified the closing admin, put a note at the top of the Al Fand training camp page and a note at the talk page of the last AfD. That was it, the grand total of my actions. I did not try to notify anyone else about this DRV in any way, shape or form, on or off wiki, or in the form of psychic signals or whatever. Nsk92 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) The close timing, NSK, foes not refer to your appeal--how could it? yours was the first comment--it refers to the timing of the comments after that DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC) It seems to me that you are repeating your peculiar slur. That is not an acceptable behaviour. Since I am obviously one of those to who you refer, come out and make your accusation in public. As I have said below, much earlier, it is offensive. Your equivocal comment abive simply adds weight to the slur. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Close timing? Better get off the fence and say what you mean, DGG. That was offensive. I dropped by the AfD page and thought the closure was disgraceful. Now what exactly are you accusing me of? What happened to civility and assuming good faith? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Hi DGG could you just confirm that this is the information you mean by "The information as reported by major internationally known secondary sources" or to provide a link to the information. All previous discussions have shown that there are no other information. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete - there was a clear consensus to delete, and there's no evidence whatsoever that the camp meets WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Claritas § 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete I looked at this and was going to close as delete but then got distracted. This clearly has no sources so we should not keep it and the closing rational has no basis in policy. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Closing admin on 3rd AFD – I stand by my close on the 3rd AFD, as there was no consensus for deletion there, with one person favoring deletion aside from the nom and two others for merging; there was no headway made since the 2nd AFD, and I made that clear in my closing rationale. That being said consensus can surely change, so I have no comment as to the 4th AFD close at the moment. –MuZemike 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse -- I believe there are very strong arguments that this article should be merged, which I was not able to express in a timely manner because of several factors that left the {{afd}} disrupted to the point of being compromised. I believe that a procedural closure was one of the appropriate choices open to the closing administrator. I believe the relisting I requested, and which the the contributor who initiated this DRV endorsed would also have been appropriate. I do not believe deletion was appropriate because the nominator's behavior left the {{afd}} too compromised. Full disclosure: (1) I started this article, and about two dozen similar related articles, as I described in this proposal. (2) User:Iqinn, the first contributor to weigh in on this DRV, is also the contributor who, in a series of consecutive nominations kept this article at {{afd}} for 52 days. Several of the contributors who have voiced "overturn" or "delete" opinions hav commented that no strong counter-arguments were offered at the {{afd}}. Well, if I had been informed of the {{afd}} I would have offered what I regard as strong arguments for merge. On the wikipedia we are supposed to make our decision through trying to establish a true consensus through collegial, informed discussion. Iqinn chose not to inform the individual who started the article of the {{afd}}. It is not a true consensus when a nominator chooses not to invite those he or she knows will disagree with them. For it to be a true attempt to arrive at a real consensus, those who hold a differing view need to have a fair opportunity to present their counter-arguments to the nominator's arguments. Further, I believe a nominator has an obligation to be collegial, not partisan. Nominators shouldn't withhold important information from the others interested in an {{afd}}. Iqinn chose not to inform those participating in the {{afd}} that I had drafted a good faith proposal to merge the less well documented training camps. Nominators should present misleading information in a misleading light in order to "win" arguments. Good faith contributors work to build a better encyclopedia, not to "win" battles. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a battleground". I have a serious concerns about this "request for eyes" at User talk:Jimbo Wales "...clearly fails WP:N WP:GNG since many years but continues pushing against policy makes a deletion impossible." This request inaccurately implies the article has been abandoned, for years, when the nominator is well aware I recently requested discussion about merging articles like this one. The comment unfairly implies I am a POV-pusher. The comment inappropriately implies bad faith on my part. A closing administrator can't say how many of those who voiced a "delete" in the {{afd}} would have been convinced that a merge was an acceptable alternative, if Iqinn hadn't chosen to withhold this informmation. Let me briefly explain why I think merge is more appropriate than delete. While there aren't sufficient WP:RS to support individual articles for most of these training camps, there are sufficient WP:RS to support a paragraph, or a sentence, or a list entry, in a broader article on the general phenomenon. Well over a third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified, at least in part, based on the allegation that they attended a training camp. Close to one hundred of the captives were alleged to have attended the Al Farouq training camp. The 9-11 hijackers were alleged to have trained here, as were the Buffalo Six. Dozen were alleged to have attended the Khalden training camp. Ahmed Ressam, the millenium bomber trained there. I suggest that the general approach favored by User:Iqinn, that the only coverage of the less well documented training camps should be in the articles on the individual captives alleged to have attended them, is a serious dis-service to readers who want to study the general phenomenon that over a third of the Guantanamo captives had their detention justified based on an allegation they attended a camp. Readers who look up a camp here on the wikipedia, because they read in the MSM that a certain individual attended a particular camp, they should be able to count on us to help them see who else was alleged to have attended that camp. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC) As I explained to you several times in AfD3, a merge as a form of AfD closure is only appropriate if the article to be merged is fairly long and contains a significant amount of verifiable material. This particular article is extremely short, and contains about one sentence worth of verifiable material. If you want to briefly mention the Al Fand camp in some other article, with a ref, there is nothing that prevents you from doing that right now. You don't need a merge for that. Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC) My comment on Jimbo's talk page does not suggest that you are a POV pusher nor did i suggest that you act in bad faith. That is simply wrong. Hmmm he was busy with Wikimania but maybe soon he will have more time and i am still interested to hear his opinion. Let's see. Correct me if i am wrong. So basically your argument is hey look User:Iqinn is acting in bad faith. How dare can he keep trying to delete one of my articles. I strongly reject this and your claims are simply false. As your recent personal attack on me that my User-Id had been used by multiple users is simply wrong. All this could have been fixed already if you would be willing to work with the community and please once again stop your personal attacks and withdraw your bogus accusations. Facts: You had the opportunity to merge or delete your article or moved it to your user space since more than three years. It had a notability tag since a very long time. The first Afd already left little doubt that it fails WP:V, WP:GNG. You vigorously rejected any attempt by the community to improve on this issue with any solution that did not meet your POV. Uninvolved people from the community in truly good faith took even the time and came to your user page to work with you and offered their advise and help with these articles that you have created. As far as i can remember you did not even answer him. Right? In your merge proposal here you basically justify it with the argument that many bad guys attended the Al Farouq training camp and Khalden training camp. That might be true and both of these camps have a lot of reliable sources. On contrast we know nothing about the al Fand camp. We do not even know if it existed. Where it was. Who run it. What happen there. Uuuuuhh...maybe even Osama bin Laden was running it in his basement? Maybe? Maybe not? Pure speculations. There are also no other detainees accused to have attended the camp. That is wrong. No verifiable information apart from this one sentence what is the allegation against Khalid al-Asmr and this information belongs and is already in his article and can be found by any Wikipedia user - once again there are no other verified information. Nothing is lost in deleting this article and you are free to move it to your user space. Regards IQinn (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse keep result: has multiple reliable sources, there's nothing here indicating an abuse of administrator discretion. Dedicated campaign against this one article is troubling--what exactly is it hurting, even if verifiable but non-notable, to draw such a dedicated opposition? Seriously... why? Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Just what exactly are the multiple reliable sources here that cover this camp? I have only participated in AfD4 and AfD3, and I find it shocking that an article with such dearth of coverage and so manifestly failing WP:N has been kept. Nsk92 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Why? Because if we do not care about our own basic quality standards than we loose our status as a reliable encyclopedia. IMO one even more important issue is that this one sentence is an allegation against Khalid al-Asmr and to have just visit an al Qaeda related training camp once is enough justification to keep somebody in Guantanamo without charges until the rest of his life. This one sentence allegation is covered in the detainees article Khalid al-Asmr and there is absolutely nothing else known about the allegation or the camp. Nothing else than this one sentence. Nevertheless we have this article here that has been online for almost four years as a WP:Coatrack most of the time with the claim that this camp was run by al Qaeda what is not verified at all. I have remove this misinformation here, it was re-added and i remove this misleading information again. We have to be careful with some articles. If this article stays on or would be merged into an article that suggest something that is not verified than we are losing all trust of our readers. Bottom line: I would like to ask you to have another look at the sources and to provide us with links to the multiple reliable sources. This here is everything we have so far. If you can not provide us with multiple reliable sources or you do not reconsider your !vote than i highly suggest that your !vote and argument should be discounted by the closing administrator. Why? Because i care about Wikipedia and i sure you also do. IQinn (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Accurate reading of lack of consensus by closing admin, especially if the comments at what has essentially been a continuously running discussion over multiple AFDs is taken into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Not even the creator of the article argued for keep since the 3th discussion and all keep arguments were debunked in the 4th. The closing admin did not really explain so far how he valued the strength of the arguments. Could you please just comment on the given arguments and policies. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete I was going to DRV this myself. I don't know the story behind, but no way the consensus was to keep. The only keep argument was rejected clearly in the AfD, by showing that the article cannot be based on more than a bare mention in a single source. --Cyclopiatalk 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure and Merge as was suggested in the AfD and by the closer. No sense in losing the history. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC) What history is there that is worth saving? There is about one sentence worth of verifiable material in this three-sentence article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Sounds like a good start to me. Why lose the history of that content and its creation? Freakshownerd (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC) What valuable content would we be losing? If the article's creator wants to add a sentence about the camp to another article, there is nothing that prevents him from doing that now. No merge is needed for that. Merges are for cases where a significant amount of verifiable information may get lost. This is not one of those cases. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) In fact, as I can see, somebody has already added such a mention to Afghan training camp. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC) It may not be a huge issue in this particular instance, but especially for a subject where there's some disagreement over whether it's independently notable, it seems to me especially prudent to preserve the history in case substantial coverage emerges and it is appropriate to break the content back out. One of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is the way that changes can be preserved so that the history of an article can investigated. I don't see any advantage to losing those tidbits however small may appear to be now. Amnesia and alzheimers are diseases of the memory, and similar afflictions have a tendency to corrupt our history. Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Well, in my book, having a single one-sentence mention in a single document is as far as the subject can be from being notable without failing WP:V. That sort of thing ordinarily does not even warrant a redirect, since redirects are meant for likely search terms. This one certainly isn't a likely search term. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Is this: Khalid al-Asmr the article you want to merge to. I suggested this before and explained why above. Could you please clarify what article you mean. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and Delete I never, ever, ever agree with overturning Admin decisions in a DRV -- not because Admins are infallible, but because because up until now I've never actually seen one where I find myself completely flummoxed as to how the Admin at issue came to the conclusion he/she did. I've seen plenty where I've disagreed with the outcome, but that's not the salient issue at a DRV. Here, I see absolutely no evidence that there is anything like consensus to Keep or "Keep as no consensus" (I'm not sure what that means -- which is not to say it's meaningless, this is actually a request for clarity if someone cares to offer). The one keep vote that actually offered an argument (the two others merely agreed) had their argument pretty thoroughly rebutted, in my view, and the snout count is 7 - 3 in favor of deletion (with one of the 3 keep votes qualified as a "weak" keep). Yes, I am perfectly aware that snout counts are not the be-all-end-all, but I'm not sure how you take a 7-3 count in favor of deletion, where only 1 of the 3 keep votes actually offered an actual argument, and where that 1 argument was subjected to a very policy-based rebuttal... I don't know how that amounts to a Keep consensus. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure and Merge (per Freakshownerd). I'm a little concerned with the "veracity" of the attempts made in trying to delete this article; and what damage its existence actually does to the project. Option "B", please... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC) See WP:NOHARM - a classic example of a bad AfD argument. As for "veracity", just what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that the arguments for deletion lack veracity? If yes, in what way? As for merging, the point has been already discussed above, in fact below Freakshownerd's comment. There is nothing to merge here and nothing of value in the article's history log that hasn't already been mentioned in another article. Plus, like I said above, a single source having a one-sentence mention of something does not usually merit even a redirect - redirects are meant for likely search terms. Nsk92 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the pointers! "Veracity" (headslap) - poor choice of words on my part, I guess. I'll comment further on this as it develops (or maybe I won't). We'll see... Doc9871 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete. Not only were there more delete !votes, they were also far better grounded in policy. I have great respect for Anthony but it looks to me like he's misjudged this one. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Without regard to the vote count, I believe the closing admin had the authority to close the {{afd}} on procedural gounds, because it had been disrupted. (1) Isn't a single nominator unhappy with previous {{afc}} closrures, keeping an article at {{afd}} for 52 days, is, I believe, unprecedented? (2) Aren't nominators obliged to offer collegial nominaions? Isn't the withholding of key information, like the original article creator asking for feedback on how best to merge the article information that should have been offered to participants in the {{afd}}? (3) Shouldn't nominators refrain from implying bad faith on the part of article creators, when asking for more input, as our nominator did at User talk:Jimbo Wales? (4) Aren't our decisions supposed to be made though a collegial discussion, where all the policy-based views are laid out? And is this process disrupted when the nominator chooses not to inform the article creator? I learned of the deletion when there were just hours before it closed. At that time I suggested relisting. I believe close as no-consensus due to disruption or relisting would have been appropriate choices. In my opinion, due to the diruption, neither a delete close of the 4th {{afd}}, or an overturn and delete conclusion here, are appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (1) Wrong. As explained above there where simply not enough participation in the first Afd's and in addition our article creator did not show any sign to work towards any consensus that did not meet his personal POV. His reluctance to fix the problem that he had created is unprecedented. (2) Wrong. No information were withhold in the 4th discussion. All arguments where on the table including the one of the previous 3 Afd's. One sentence in one source and an article creator who is unwilling to follow the rules and to listen to the community. (3) Wrong. My question to User talk:Jimbo Wales did not imply bad faith on your part. As i already have explained and clarified above. (4) No. there was no disruption just our creator who had the opportunity to work with the community and towards consensus in all these discussions but did not do so. Like he did not show any will to work towards consensus in similar discussions. He should have agreed do move these articles to his user space long time ago. His behavior is in my opinion disruptive. IQinn (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to Delete- Consensus was to delete. There is no room for administrator discretion here: the weight of numbers and weight of argument leaves no doubt what the consensus is. Reyk YO! 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Per the reasons articulately stated by JClemens. Accurate reading of lack of consensus by closing admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Comment JClemens reason is based on his claim that there are multiple reliable sources but all the discussions and search over years have shown that there are no multiple reliable sources. Just one sentence in one source. I suggest the same as i have suggested under JClemens !vote. Please provide us with links to this sources as this is a highly doubtful claim or otherwise your !votes should be discounted by the closing admin as the basis for your argument is simply wrong. IQinn (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete. The numerical count was clearly in favor of deletion, although in a range normally within the range of closing admin's discretion. Nonetheless, I respectfully disagree with the discretion of the closer in this case. The article's sourcing is not up to scratch, only one trivial mention of a camp which might have existed. All the "keep" votes seem to rely on a very thin foundation. The information on this supposed camp is so thin that there is absolutely no way a reasonable article, even a stub article, can be written. Nothing on the supposed location. Nothing on which people were a member. The camp is simply "too secret". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete per the clear consensus in the AfD debate to delete the article. The "delete" votes were well-grounded in policy, whereas the "keep" votes and their assertions were not. It appears that a merge to Afghan training camp is not viable per this edit summary (rv - it is not verified by any source that the camp was in Afghanistan nor that it was used for militant training so i remove it per WP:V), so I support overturning to delete instead of overturning to merge. Cunard (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Black Hollies – Moot now that this has been recreated so I have undeleted for history purposes. – Spartaz Humbug! 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Black Hollies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Contesting CSD. The group features three members of Rye Coalition and has three full-lengths out on Ernest Jenning; see [22] and [23]. Requesting Undeletion as the article is not a clear A7 target. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Can't see the deleted version, but if Chubbles is willing to commit to sourcing and expanding this in a reasonable time frame, I'd support undeletion. Otherwise I've no opinion on the A7 as I can't see the article. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I'll fix her up if she's in trouble. Chubbles (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Would a time frame of say 7 days after this DrV closes be something you think you could manage? I just think people are more likely to support the restoration if someone says they will fix it in a certain period of time... Hobit (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Or we could just userify it now for him to work on... Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Certainly, either works, but you're more likely to get more folks involved if it's in mainspace. Having it there for another week (assuming nothing actually happens) is an extremely minor cost. I can live with either... Hobit (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I can add a couple of references in this week. Chubbles (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Recreate Any disputed speedy arguing for notability based on a willingness to add sources and expand the article should be respected (unless there is a BLP issue or some other supremacy clause involved. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse by default—the initiator of this DRV failed to discuss the XfD closure with the relevant admin, which is a required prelimanary step. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The deleting admin does not appear to be active right now. In any case, to keep the link red just for that reason is a bit lawyerly... Chubbles (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC) WP:DRV clearly states, "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," (bolding copied from the original). That seems very clear to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Requesting Speedy Close. Ugh. I'll just recreate it. Chubbles (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC) You can't speedy-close if other editors have expressed multiple viewpoints. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rachael Faye Hill – Close endorsed - with no objections to recreate the article if the subject achieves notability for more than one event. – SoWhy 06:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rachael Faye Hill (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Hi. I believe that this article should be un-deleted because there were relevant arguments that the topic met notability requirements WP:NOTABILITY and that other articles exist that have passed previous AfD's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rachael Faye Hill (the articles topic) was also featured on the Granada News channel today speaking about the book that she is currently writing which means that the article can no longer be described as WP:BLP1E. All of the sources are also WP:VerifiableCrazyMiner (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Sourcing is not the issue when deciding a one-event BLP. Policy was interpreted correctly in this case, nothing to overturn or review. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse own Close Firstly, you are supposed to discuss concerns with the closing admin before listing a deletion review. Secondly this was deleted under BLP1E not notability so the question is whether the subject is notable for more then one event. The consensus was that she wasn't so under policy that was the correct close. Spartaz Humbug! 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) weak endorse A reasonable close given the discussion, but NC would have been fine too. We have football players whose "one event" was doing well at sports. We have actors whose one event might be winning an Academy Award and then fading from view. Why not a record setting academic? Well, that would have been a great AfD argument, but as far as DrV goes, there was a reasonable belief that this had a BLP1E problem and no solid arguments to the contrary. So acceptable close. If and when her book comes out, I think we'd be past BLP1E though... Certainly not trying to maintain a low profile at that point and we'd perhaps have more than one event. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse classic one event; the counterexamples listed are for significant achievements, not merely graduating from medical school. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I'd say getting a medical degree at 21 is a more significant achievement by nearly any measure than playing professional football. But more so, we use coverage, rather than our own opinions, to determine what is worthy of note. The coverage is there. Now is this one event? The AfD pretty much concluded yes, and so the closer correctly went that way. Do I think it qualifies as one event? No, not really, no more than winning a major prize or playing one season of a professional sport. It is a culmination of a lot of work and effort over an extended period of time and the coverage makes that really plain. Still more of an argument for AfD though, so I'll shut up. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Comment The articles topic (Rachael Faye Hill) was on BBC news again today discussing her book along with additional sources emerging from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-10637958). I think that this article is moving past BLP1E due to the fact that there is increasing activity around her book. As such, I believe that notability outweighs the previous BLP1E argument that closed the AfD. CrazyMiner (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Writing a book about being the youngest doctor ever doesn't really advance the notability much. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Recall notability isn't the issue, BLP1E is. No one, as far as I know, has contested her meeting WP:N. The question is if she violates BLP1E. And if she writes a book and that gets coverage I'd say A) we have more than one event and B) she's not maintaining a low profile so BLP1E wouldn't apply for 2 different reasons. Advance the notability beyond BLP1E, I meant. She is not going to suddenly be known as an author now though, she still has nothing going for her, encyclopedia-wise, other than being a young doctor. We need to resist the urge to write articles about every insipid flavor-of-the-week news story. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) That's a pretty crazy slippery-slope. X is one event. Y only happened because of X. Z only happened because of Y. You could argue that a Einstein's one event was being smart and everything followed from that... In any case, the low profile part would be blown to heck if she goes on a book tour. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Well that's why we have these sorts of discussions, to determine what is an actual event and what is not, or even if the event itself is so notable (e.g. John Hinckley) that it is an exception. 1E isn't a one-size-fits-all policy. Einstein is orders of magnitude more significant than big-breasted unemployed women and twenty-something doctors, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Weak Overturn to No Concensus. About an equal number of editors commented on both sides with concrete comments, some better-some worse. In my opinion that is the definition of NC. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Not a vote, look at the arguments not the headcount. See comment below the next vote. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn As above, no concensus was achieved - there were the same number of votes for keep as delete. As per the requirements of closing an AfD, if no concensus is achieved then the article is to be kept. By applying this principle, the admin who closed the AfD as delete did so incorrectly and went against WP:Articles for Deletion. Due to this, the article should be reinstated. MartinManson (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Its not a vote you know. Consensus is judged by measuring arguments against policy and guidelines, not by counting snouts. N/GNG is a guideline which means its subordinate to BLP1E which is part of a policy. So, if there are not well founded arguments that this is not a BLP1E, which there were not, then the policy will trump a guideline every time. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I'm aware that it is not simply a vote, however there were sound arguments on both sides and so this is where the main lack of consensus lies. There were many arguments that the article was not simply a BLP1E in that Dr Hill has been featured on the news many times, most recently last night which is around 3 to 4 weeks since she first made the news. The fact that a book has also been discussed on the news etc means that BLP1E no longer really applies as there is more to the topic than one sole event. MartinManson (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse—a well-reasoned decision from an administrator faced with what was anyway a rough consensus to delete. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) There was no consensus; the vote was even and there were strong arguments on both sides to both keep and delete the article. CrazyMiner (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Note—a query has been left for the initiator on their talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation Ongoing news coverage suggests subject is notable beyond one event. If improvements in sourcing are still insufficient another AfD is also an option. At the very least userfy the thing and give it some time so the author can work it up. Cheers. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Utterly illogical. There is nothing to work on; more work cannot make a "one event" event magically morph into one+. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) The policy states: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." If she is still being interviewed on television news, is writing a book, and still receiving coverage, those are good indications that she is not likely to remain a low profile individual and/ or that the event itself is notable. If the recent news coverage mentioned (that occured since the close of the AfD) isn't yet enough, then userfy, as I suggested, and allow the author time to see if additional coverage emerges. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Again, illogical. Articles are userfied because work could be done on them now, not to let it sit around and wait to see if things happen. If the situation changes down the road, undeletion can be requested. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC) You cannot just constantly say that people's arguments are illogical. Some good points are being made here. Due to the fact that there is on-going coverage of the story 4 weeks after it originally emerged shows the fact that the topic is trying to gain wide spread notability. The fact that a book is being produced on medical education, not about herself, removes the BLP1E argument from the situation. MartinManson (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I can constantly say whatever I please, it is up to him to refute it. This person is known for no other reason than being 21 and graduating form medical school. If she does something more with her life, great, come back in a few years and write an article. As long as it is just this "young doctor" angle, there is simply nothing to work with. Keep deleted, find something worthwhile to do elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC) You can indeed say whatever you please, as can we all - I refute it. There have been just as many arguments for keeping this article as there have from you and a few others to delete it. In this regard no consensus was made as the arguments for deletion were just as strong as those to keep it. The story is still being discussed in the media; it was on the news today that Rachael Hill is going to appear on GMTV which is a UK daytime chat show as well as appearing live on Channel 7 news in Australia tomorrow night. THIS IS NOT A BLP1E - the topic has been constantly discussed over the past 4 weeks and is evolving all the time. To be honest I don't like your tone, as others haven't, which is evident by the fact that someone has recently created a complaint discussion about your attitude. MartinManson (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Whether or not it is still being discussed is largely irrelevant, if it still about the same young-doctor story. Encyclopedias are not a repository for every nicey-nice, feel-good headline story of the day; this is still nothing more special than one smart woman who graduated early, a real-life Doogie Howser. WP:BLP1E, textbook. And please, I know it's hard, but try a bit less discussion of me, and a bit more about the topic. Your arguments will come across as more credible that way. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC) On-going coverage of an article reinforces its suitability to be included in Wikipedia. Multiple, on-going new sources mean that the article should be included to support further research on the subject which yes, is a public interest article at the moment, but is prompting discussions of ethical and morale issues in relation to entering advanced education at an earlier age than others. Believe us all, it isn't hard to ignore you, but the way you are dealing with some other issues, including this one, at times borders on WP:UNCIVIL. CrazyMiner (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Again, stop frothing at the mouth over me, please, it is quite unbecoming. There is little "on-going coverage", per Google news. That is not a whole lot of hits; what it is is exactly what you just admitted to, "a public interest article at the moment". Despite what you and some ardent supporters try to push other wise, it is no more than that. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Ardent supports? No, just those who can see two sides of an argument. Google News is not the be all and end all of citation sources... for a start it does not include the Daily Mail which has the 2nd highest circulation in the UK at 2.2 million papers per day - this paper did a full page spread of Rachael Faye Hill on page 5. MartinManson (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse The decision seems reasonable. If she becomes notable for her book, that's a different story, but it may never get written, who knows? And she isn't the youngest, as was made clear in her article, just the youngest in about 200 years (which is nice, but there's always going to be a youngest). Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC) You're right - there will always be a youngest, but the fact that she is the youngest now is highly notable. Wikipedia is full of articles about people who have, for example, played professional football for a short while and then never really done anything else again, yet they have wikipedia articles about them. I put it to you all that this topic is a lot more notable than a short term athlete. MartinManson (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The flaw with this argument is that WP:ATHLETE is a well-established and widely-accepted notability guideline, created to address athlete inclusion that may not meet the WP:GNG. Sadly, there is no WP:YOUNGESTDOCTOREVER to cover this specific topic, so the GNG and 1E are the measuring sticks that we use. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I repeat, she is not the youngest doctor ever, that so far as I can see goes to John William Polidori who received his degree as a doctor of physik, which was the 19th Century equivilant of a medical degree on 1 August 1815 "at the unusually early age of 19". Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and allow recreation No consensus was reached - strong arguments were made to both delete and keep the article. As such, I believe WP:NC applies here. The on-going coverage means that BLP1E is no longer relevant as the topic is not just a "news of the day" story. I also saw the news article about her appearing on GMTV which shows a strong, on going interest from the mainstream media. I also feel that deleting this article would be unjust as there are many different wiki entries about one-off celebrities that have attracted much less notability and a distinct lack of verifiable sources which goes against WP:verifiable. As such, I believe this decision should be overturned and the article recreated. CrazyMiner (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Please strike this vote, you already voted by nominating and you don't get two votes when everyone else has one. Spartaz Humbug! 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF is rarely a valid argument. If there are other problematic articles that you know of, feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is infact a very valid argument - it is a mechanism for finding out whether an article has grounding to exist as a wikipedia article. Obviously another article of a similar topic does exist, WP:HEENAL RAICHURA to be exact. As such, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good argument that this article should be reinstated. CrazyMiner (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Note—I now have reason to believe that the initiation of this DRV was wholly disruptive – ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 10:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Did you link to the right diff? That's a comment by you asking a question and him blanking it. Can't really get to where you are based on that. People can control their own talk page. Rude yes, but also allowed. Hobit (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Er—did you read the material he deleted? I asked if they would link to where they discussed with the closing admin before filing for DRV (as is required), and they removed my question without reply. From which one concludes that they did not fulfil the requirement, and will not even apologise for it, which is disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Hrm, all he did was link to the DRV that he had already started. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC) It is not a REQUIREMENT, it is SUGGESTED that the closing editor be contacted. I chose not to contact you which I am allowed to do. CrazyMiner (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC) "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," (bolding copied from the original at WP:DRV) – you think that that's completely optional and just a suggestion? And if so, perhaps you could explain your reasons for choosing not to. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, and people ignore or miss it all the time. Stifle and DGG even negotiated a standard question for that situation at some point I think and some folks !vote against those who bring DrVs here without contacting the admin first as a procedural thing. But it's not a sign of bad faith, just people who can't/don't read or choose to believe that doing so won't help (which it almost never does...) Hobit (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I overturned an afd close after reps on my userpage only the other day. Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Humm, first for everything :-). That one was a bit more open-and-shut however. Let's say I've never seen a request for an overturn happen when things weren't quite so black-and-white... Hobit (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Bloody cheek! More seriously, if you check my talk page archives, you see multiple occasions where I spend a lot of time explaining and helping users over closes and it not irregular for me to restore or relist stuff for further discussion. I think its a good time saver for everyone if users check with the deleting admin first. I'm sure I'm not the only one willing to review closing arguments. However, in this case I have specifically indicated that I'm not entirely around right now (been to sisters for dinner tonight!) so I did invite editors to bother DRV regulars or come straight for DRV so by definition this DRV isn't disruptive. Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The closing editors talk page said that he was on holiday from 25th July and so due to the timeframe involved I did not want to get into a conversation with him/her about reinstated the article to then find that he/she disappeared before a result was reached. Also Tarc, you seem to be taking a bit of a detective stance here - Constant questioning of my motives is getting a bit weary to be honest. I suggest that you take a bit more of a relaxed attitude to discussions on Wikipedia as it just puts everyone at ease. MartinManson (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I'd not realized who the closing editor was (I knew he had that notice up). Hobit (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Reasonable rough consensus close. Userfy on request. This is a very new story. In time, less newsy material might arise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Comment Obviously strong arguments to both overturn and endorse the deletion. Can we have an admin to decide on this matter as I have additional references to add to this article from yesterdays newspapers - shows that interest has carried on and that the article topic (Rachael Hill) is actively seeking further notability even though I feel that the sources already present are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. MartinManson (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 July 2010

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America – No Consensus closure endorsed. The consensus below is that the closer correctly found a lack of consensus at the AfD discussion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Irrelevant closing rationale. The concerns about WP:OR and WP:V were not addressed. Instead the closer did a numerical count (which is still in favor of the delete side), posted a more or less boilerplate rationale followed by a long rant and ignored the fact that the article has received zero improvement since the last time we had this debate. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Strong endorse (well, I even gave the closer a barnstar for this). Concerns about WP:OR are not a reason for deletion (if something in an article is OR, it can be dealt with editing, unless the very subject of the article is OR, which is not the case), and so they were correctly discarded. Concerns on WP:V were dismissed by sources presented by many in the debate, and the close acknowledges this. Most delete arguments relied on misunderstanding of NOTDIRECTORY and NOTDICTIONARY used in a WP:VAGUEWAVE fashion, missing the point of both policy sections (NOTDIRECTORY is not a blanket that makes every kind of list deletable, and NOTDICTIONARY refers to articles that are mere dictionary definitions). Article improvement is irrelevant for deletion: AfD is a consensus on the article subject , not on content, which can be always fixed by editing. In my opinion, in its simplicity it was one of the best closes I've seen on AfD. --Cyclopiatalk 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Within discretion given the numerous well-made keep arguments. The delete side didn't convincingly point to a policy imperative to delete the article: I'm not satisfied of the case for NOTDICT and NOTDIR; OR is the real problem in my view but that is salvageable by using some of the secondary sources pointed to in the AfD. That being the case, consensus rules and there wasn't a consensus either way. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) endorse It's within admin discretion but the closing statement was a bit off-topic (while I agree with it, I'm not sure it belonged where it was). There was no consensus in that discussion. The article needs a lot of help however. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Cyclopia. Lack of consensus was evident. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Extra opinion statements in a closing do not per se impugn the close. No consensus appears objectively reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse per Hobit—a No consensus outcome seems inevitable. The closing Admin's comments suggest a general objection to deleting articles regardless of policy-based reasons, so perhaps XfD is the wrong work for this Admin. I wouldn't object to an Overturn/Relist, but I doubt the outcome would be different. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse A no-consensus close is within admin discretion, so I don't want to encourage more drama through a relisting. That being said, if an admin has an opinion on the merits of an article he should comment at the debate and avoid closing per WP:INVOLVED. Mike, please try to stay away from closing AfDs when you have a personal opinion on the merits of the article; this isn't the first time a debate you have closed has been brought to DRV on this ground. ThemFromSpace 00:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Neither you nor Edgarde appear to have read the closure properly. The opinion actually expressed was on the sorry state of affairs that can be found at User talk:Korovamilkbar, not on the article. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Without re-reading the closure, I recall the opinion actually expressed was that the editor who created this article had not been appropriately nurtured. While a direct linkage was probably not made, there was implication that for this reason deletion of this article was a bad, and very tragic thing. The AfD is simply not a place for this type of soapboxing; that someone could read this as possibly the closing Admin's only reason not to Delete almost guarantees a visit to Deletion Review. This is a horrible, horrible closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Addendum: upon re-reading the closure, I'm noticing the closing Admin's observation of "obvious notability" based on the number of Delete Keep[changed 13:16, 16 July 2010, see below] votes. I very strongly recommend this Admin avoid closing XfDs. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Re-read the closure again. The very next four words after the ones that you quoted show that it is a paraphrase summarizing the arguments given in the discussion. Your recommendation is based upon your error, not the closing administrator's, here. Good grief! A closing administrator doesn't take the common route of just writing a bare unexplained "the result was X" but takes the time to explain how there is no consensus in the discussion. You should be praising such a closure, not censuring it. Uncle G (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The quote in question: A subject with some obvious notability per many keeps below. A title that could be improved. And many who disagree.[24] Right—based on the number of Keep votes. "Delete" was my typo, now corrected above. My point was that a count of Keep votes is not a measure of notability (and AfD is not a poll). As for the rest, you and I will have to agree to disagree, Uncle G. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC) endorse A correct result in closing, though it would have thought it better to close on the basis that it had been shown in the discussion that, though this was a weak article, the the subject did indeed have sources, which completely answered the delete objection. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete. The closer cites the arguments that there is supposedly evidence that this list is sourceable, as evidence that the deletes have been opposed enough to call a 'draw', yet the closer seems to have completely overlooked the fact that none of that evidence referred to, in any way supported this form of list, and more properly likely refered to another article, the existence of which already on Wikipedia was already pointed out multiple times. This list, and any possible future content which reflects its actual title, is always going to be pure trivial junk, even more so if the creator has been scared off, and nobody is ever going to waste time using those refs in two articles. MickMacNee (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The closing admin's job is not to argue in favor of or against one or more reasons raised for keeping or deleting the article. Their job is to assess the consensus as it presented itself in that discussion. There was no consensus and as such the admin closed it appropriately. DRV is not the place to repeat the arguments of the AFD in question and those arguing to overturn the close have failed to explain why consensus to delete should be assumed from this discussion. Regards SoWhy 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Pointing out the closer did not seem to notice that keepers ignored the rebuttal of their transformative/sourceable topic angle, is not repeating the Afd, it is pointing out how this closure as the consensus was an error. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC) No. The job of the closing admin is to evaluate the arguments and determine if the consensus on the AfD is in line with policy. Consensus among a handfull of AfD participants can never override a much broader consensus on what is and is not policy. See WP:CONSENSUS. If we're going to accept this kind of closing statements and even applaud them as Uncle G and Cyclopia suggest then we may as well start accepting bets on XfD outcomes because they don't get anymore random than this closure. There's a principle at stake here and I'm disappointed to notice that the closer has refused to participate. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Allow me to disagree on many levels. #1, yes we can override guidelines and even policy in some cases locally. That's at the heart of WP:IAR. Secondly, it is often the case that it is unclear if something in fact falls under a policy. Things like "is this a living person" are generally easy, but things like "is this one event" or "is this just a dictionary definition" are not. For that we rely on reasoned debate and getting opinions from people. Now, as noted, the closing statement is off topic, but I also think it is A) irrelevant to the close and B) very important that people see that this encyclopedia is worse than it should be because of the biting of newbies. The close, as I read it, had nothing to do with the closing comment. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn Counting votes and calling it no consensus is improper. In fact, the devastating arguments that the list is indiscriminate and a direct violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY were not countered, and the fact that the "oh, let's wait and see if better sourcing is added" argument is disproven by the fact that this was the 2nd AfD and no sourcing will ever be added. Abductive (reasoning) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) These "devastating" arguments were not devastating at all in being blatantly wrong -the list has nothing indiscriminate (it was poorly titled, but it has an obvious inclusion criteria) and there is no WP:NOT#DICTIONARY violating -the entry is not a dictionary entry. So, they were obviously not counted. The ability of the closer in distinguishing between WP:VAGUEWAVE and real policy based arguments is the reason I praised the close -too many admins, unfortunately, appear to just count the WP:ALLCAPSABBREVIATIONS as a bad proxy for "policy based arguments". --Cyclopiatalk 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The page consists of some definitions of words, which makes it a small dictionary. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Rationale isn't the best but it looks like the correct result. I don't see either policy or numbers especially strongly on one side, so this looks to be within administrative discretion. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Weak Overturn- I find myself faced with a tricky question. If an administrator closes an AfD with a terrible closing rationale when a more sensible admin could well have closed it the same way for good reasons, should we overturn it? And let's not make any mistake here: the close was bad. It started out by conspicuously ignoring policy-based arguments and finished up as a bizarre, irrelevant diatribe about how we should be nice to newbies. I'm not usually one to make procedural objections, but I think Wikipedia would suffer by legitimizing this bit of embarrassing twaddle. Reyk YO! 13:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse. The comments about the article creator notwithstanding, I don't see a consensus, even among policy-based rationales, for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Comment by closer: I stand by my close of No Consensus. As for the rationale given (1st 3 sentences), I believe it reflects accurately that there was no consensus in the debate, regardless of how many ways one chooses to interpret what I was thinking, weighing, considering, counting, et. al. when I reviewed the discussion. Since 90%+ of all AfD closes have ZERO rationale given (which seems to be a perfectly acceptable situation), it seems that actually providing a rationale has no upside as most assuredly, someone will think you got it wrong. I have intentionally delayed the following comment to the end of the DRV period so as not to divert attention from the purpose of the DRV. My comment re the treatment of the article creator was not in my opinion misplaced or inappropriate. Closers occasionally add additional comments to their closes addressing policy and guideline issues that are being misinterpreted or could be handled in different ways. Those comments are usually tangentially related in some way to the article or discussion in question. I can only assume those comments are being made in an attempt to influence behavior in future AfDs and other WP processes. My comment was no different. The first sentence: This AfD however provides a window into a more concerning issue. was clearly an opinion but one it seems many in this discussion agree with. The meat of the comment was merely a statement of facts derived from a review of the article and creator histories and talk pages. The last sentence was my opinion, although I would think that it also was an obvious conclusion. What I failed to do was cite a specific guideline WP:NOOB. The operative aspect of that guideline is hostility as stated in this paragraph: New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time. As a community of editors (not as individuals) we were hostile to this editor. Everyone one of the deletion notices on this editor’s talk page was valid and the editors looking out for the quality of WP content should be commended for doing so. But as a community of editors we failed to follow WP:NOOB with this editor. Our hostility took the form of indifference to the needs of a new contributor. I do not know why this editor ceased his participation, nor do I know whether or not this editor would have ever been a solid contributor. What I do know, and the facts bear it out, is that as a community, we did not do enough to give him a chance. In the guideline quoted above, the first sentence is either true or it is not—new members are either our most valuable resource or they aren’t. If they are, then as a community, we need to do a better job at Not scaring them away. A great many AfD discussions (including this one) lament the fact that no one has improved an article in a long time. There can be a number of reasons for that, but if the reason is that we’ve scared off the one contributor who actually might be motivated and capable of improving the article, it is a very hollow lament. For those of you who think (as some stated) that my comment was anti-deletion, you’ve got it absolutely wrong and your paranoia shows. WP:NOOB is no different than WP:AGF, WP:POINT and other behavioral guidelines. When they are violated we need to call attention to that violation and not selectively ignore one or the other because it is uncomfortable to do otherwise. The AfD in question provided, as I said, a window of opportunity to highlight the communities’ failure to nuture a newcomer, a direct and unequivocal violation of WP:NOOB. The fact that the AfD made it to DRV is bonus in that regard. Sincerely.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC) FFS. I am distinctly pissed off at having been forced to read this whole screed, only to find out that yet again, there's absolutely nothing here that gives anybody the slightest indication as to why you closed the discussion as no consensus. Frankly, "A subject with some obvious notability per many keeps below. A title that could be improved. And many who disagree" is a pointless rationale. It's a non-comment that could be applied to virtually any Afd that isn't a SNOW delete. Maybe you should just have done the normal thing and given no rationale at all, you could at least have then spent the time saved taking this rant about N00B to the correct place. It certainly doesn't interest me, nor does it involve most of the people who apparently wasted their time commenting in the Afd. Afd closing must be a piece of piss if all you have to do is say, 'wow, you both made arguments, that means it's a no consensus'. I don't know about anyone else, but I expect far better reasoning from closers if they are going to bother to attempt to summarise their thought processes with reference to the actual apparently contradictory arguments made. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and delete in reflection of the consensus. There must be a presumption that an article which has not been improved given ample opportunity is not improvable. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Surely you mean "there must not be". We have no deadline, we don't cut articles away only because they are not perfect, WP:ATD. The article can always benefit from some knowledgeable editor in the future who simply isn't available now. --Cyclopiatalk 21:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) This is a dictionary entry, not an article. Abductive (reasoning) 02:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC) No, I definitely mean there must be. WP:DEADLINE is an essay and does not enjoy consensus. The presumption that an article can be improved is reasonable at its first AFD; at subsequent listings, as time goes on, the weight behind that presumption starts to fall away. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Bingo. WP:DEADLINE should not be used as a means of indefinitely dodging core policies such as WP:V and WP:OR, but unfortunately that is pretty much the only reason it is ever invoked. Reyk YO! 06:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC) WP:DEADLINE is an essay, but WP:ATD is a policy. We don't delete what can be improved by editing. The article has been proven to be verifiable in the AfD and WP:OR concerns can be dealt by editing. --Cyclopiatalk 09:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I think the point Stifle is making is that if side says the article can't be improved by regular editing and one side says that it can be, then the side advocating to keep the article need to prove their argument rather than just asserting it. Talk is cheap. There comes a point when repeatedly failing to address legitimate concerns becomes evidence that those concerns cannot be solved, and WP:DEADLINE can't be used to evade that. Reyk YO! 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I agree it is his point, I don't see how it's valid here. This clearly can be improved and expanded. Just needs the right person who knows this stuff. Deleting it won't get it to be a good article. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 July 2010

Template:Expand – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Expand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) To quote what I said in the TFD: Literally every time I've seen this template used, the "discussed on the talk page" segment has been entirely overlooked — it's just been used as a simple drive-by tagging, no more[…]Discussion on the template talk page turns up points such as "This template tends to hang around on articles for years and doesn't seem to have any encouraging effect on expansion" — exactly what I've witnessed on the many articles I, myself, used to drive-by tag until I began reverting my own taggings[…]Just saying "this article needs expansion" and not elaborating is not helpful, and even counter-productive in that it adds nothing but another maintenance template that nobody ever takes care of. I've been here since December 2005 and the only times I have ever seen an {{expand}} template remedied are the times that I did it myself. I feel that the TFD was closed way prematurely and should've witnessed (at the worst) a relist since there was really only one !vote that had any weight to it (the "keep" was WP:ITSUSEFUL and the only other participant didn't really !vote either way). were only two !votes. In the past, there have been plenty of arguments going both ways about whether this template should be deleted or kept; as divisive as this template is, a TFD for it shouldn't simply be brushed off so fast with minimal activity. Overturn and relist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with a ITSUSEFUL argument in a TfD. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Even so, I still think that this was closed prematurely. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC) From the Desk of the Closing Admin - Lack of participation is a lousy argument for relisting. When a dead horse has been beaten for a long period of time, and only two people come along to beat it some more, the appropriate response is "get rid of the dead horse" not "invite more people to beat the dead horse." Maybe the issue needs or will need to be revisited, but not less than two months after the last visitation. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) endorse I'd have !voted for deletion here (this thing is useless) and a relist wouldn't have been wrong, but neither was the close. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Comment One of the problems was that there was no notification of the TFD. I guess because it's a highly (not to say overused) template there was no tfd message in the template. Therefore not many editors knew of the TFD. Perhaps next time a link could be added on wp:cent. That said, a relist really wouldn't have been a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Given that it's a high profile template and is therefore locked, I was unable to put TFD tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse and Relist, which anyone can do anyway since it was a "no consensus" close. I agree with Hobit that the close was well in discretion and I too would have !voted for deletion. Garion is right to point out that a template with this wide-ranging of an effect on the project should have more notification than whoever happens by TFD. So while endorsing the close, I think it would be a good idea to relist the template for a fuller discussion. --B (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per closing admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse as a proper close. I agree with Garion and B regarding wider notification. Perhaps WP:CENT should be used to notify a deletion discussion for a widely used template. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC) endorse we have already had sufficient discussions on this, including s prior Deletion review.[25] DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse The discussion was given the minimum time required for any TfD (one week). Relisting a TfD do to a lack of participation is not a right or a requirement, but based on the best judgment of the evaluating administrator. Given that the template had previously been at TfD less than two months ago and there was plenty of discussion back then, it was very reasonable not to relist the debate after the initial time period. It's time to put those WP:STICKs down for a while. —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse JPG-GR is correct, this horse has been beaten enough. Just accept that there is no consensus to delete this template and relisting it for deletion 2 months after the last TFD will not change it. The TFD is May had plenty of discussion. Just because it did not yield the result you want is not a reason to relist it again and again. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 July 2010

Jasmine Records – Deletion endorsed. Because there is a valid redirect/merge target, I am leaving as a redirect. Article can be improved or merged at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jasmine Records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Appears to be notable and unfit for speedy deletion. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Restored temporarily for this DR. —fetch·comms 02:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks very much for the restoration Fetchcomms so the content can be reviewed. It looks like an obvious merge to Tempo Records makes the most sense. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion, userfy if Freakshownerd or someone else desires. This venue is not designed to discuss the merits of sourcing, it is to review administrator's closing actions. Since a several-year-old unsourced article that makes no assertion of notability is a textbook A7 (Wikipedia:SPEEDY#Articles), the closing admin acted appropriately. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC) List at AfD This is a pretty clear merge (not that the target is any better) and I'm finding significant RSes that mention it in passing at the least. I see no reason not to give a "several-year-old" article another 10 days in the hopes someone can improve it. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

F Project – Deletion endorsed. Because there is a valid redirect/merge target, I am leaving as a redirect. Article can be improved or merged at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
F Project (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) One in a series of bad speedy deletions. Could easily have been merged into Formation Records. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - Looking at the history, it appears to be a blank page. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Until an admin restores the article and its history so it can be properly evaluated, common editors can only guess at its history and go by the Google cache here [26]. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - Looks like there are no reliable sources. Where you going to add some? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Sources are easy to find [27] for example. Even if it's not independently notable why wasn't it merged? That's why we have deletion discussions and only speedy delete content that has no indication of being worth including. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - If they are easy to find, then why were they left out(remember, I'm going by the google cache you showed me). And if you thought it needed to be merged, then why didn't you do it yourself? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I didn't have an opportunity to merge it because it was speedy deleted. In fact, I wasn't even aware it ever existed until just now. Since it was speedy deleted without appropriate consideration no one had an opportunity to look for sources or to consider how best to handle the content. That's why it should be speedily restored so it can at least be merged without any more time being wasted. Let's fix the damage and move forward. Hopefully something can be learned from this string of errors. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Comment What was the reason for the speedy deletion? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Restored for this DR. —fetch·comms 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - As there were no quoted sources in the article itself, and the fact that my search of the subject yielded nothing, I have to say that the original deletion should be upheld. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion, userfy if Freakshownerd or someone else desires. This venue is not designed to discuss the merits of sourcing, it is to review administrator's closing actions. Since a several-year-old unsourced article that makes no assertion of notability is a textbook A7 (Wikipedia:SPEEDY#Articles), the closing admin acted appropriately. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC) List at AfD again, with a speedy contested in good faith, I don't see a reason not to list at AfD upon request. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Incubate or userfy until someone adds a source. --B (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion. No attempt made to provide evidence even that it exists. It may be a spin-off but notability does not spin off at the same time. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Reelin' in the Years Productions – Speedy deletion endorsed, but userfy to User:Freakshownerd/Reelin' in the Years Productions. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Reelin' in the Years Productions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Deserves more consideration than a quickfire speedy deletion. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Google books has oodles of sources [28]. This is one of a string of deletions that needs reviewing. Any suggestions on how to proceed? I'm not sure how these article slipped through the cracks, but they deserved appropriate consideration. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Restored temporarily for this DR. —fetch·comms 02:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - I did a search and only found the main site, and a couple of brief blog and forum references. Not sure about the use of blogs as reliable sources. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC) You missed San Diego Magazine's article noting that "Reelin' in the Years Productions has become the major player in jazz on DVD." The company has produced a series of recording by notable Jazz icons including Louis Armstrong, Count Basie, and Quincy Jones. I would be fascinated to find out how deleting the subject and expunging it from Wikipedia improves our content. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC) It improves our content by removing unsourced cruft. To address the specific point of the San Diego Magazine, it was a minor blurb on a single page. Hell, it was even just a blurb within its own sub-section, appearing after news of the Chargers' and Raiders' team valuations. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion - The record label DRVs initiated today by this user are extremely misguided. Articles that have lain around for several years, unsourced and making no assertions of notability whatsoever, are textbook A7 speedy delete candidates. There is no wrongdoing on the closing admin's part that needs to be reviewed here. The better course of action here would have been to request userfication and then see if notability could be established. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Here's a review of one of their projects [[29] noting that the company was grammy nominated and the work of their anthologists "garnered rave reviews and topped many critics’ “best of the year” lists". There are many other articles like this one, including those for their Jazz Icons series for example. Let's not resort to lazy incompetence and uphold bad decisions that undermine the encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC) A product review would establish notability for the product, not necessarily the producer. Reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of "Reelin' in the Years Productions" is what you would need. But again, this is missing the point, as it is the type of thing that would be discussed in an AfD. The speedy deletion criteria was plainly followed by the deleting admin. This is the point you seem unable or unwilling to address. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Once the speedy deletion is overturned you are most welcome to take the article subject to AfD and argue that a Grammy nominated company holding one of the world's largest collections of filmed music recordings, and that has been described the major player in Jazz on DVD, and whose work has received substantial coverage in reliable souces shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Please provide a day or two first so the article can be improved and properly cited. That's what we're here for after all, to build an encyclopedia. I would work on the article now, but I'm not sure it's allowed. So I await the article's resoration so we can fix what was broken and all get back to work and stop wasting time. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - I agree with Tarc here. There is no need to keep a three year old article with no sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamecrazy123 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC) undelete no need to not do so if an editor claims the issues with an A7 deletion can be repaired and will be "in a day or two". Userfy if you must, but I'm not seeing a good reason not to trust Freakshownerd to give it a good try. Heck, how about we restore this one ASAP and restore the other ones if this one makes it up to a reasonable standard (likely to be kept at AfD)? Hobit (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) The fact that he is stalking the nominator's edits to bring them to DRV and aggressively lashing out at those who disagree with his opinions on sourcing are quite good reasons. He can have it in his own user space, there is no reason to overturn a valid speedy deletion. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC) First of all, no, those aren't good reasons to do anything in article space IMO. I realize a fair bit of this place runs on the "he is doing something I don't like so I'll push for something that will annoy him", but it's rarely a good reason. In any case, unless there is something going on outside of these DrVs I'm not seeing any significant lashing out, nor am I seeing stalking. These are all found in the same list and that's where I assume he found them, but again perhaps I'm missing something outside of these DrVs. In all cases I don't see any reason not to restore a speedied article that someone shows they can likely fix. Hobit (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse and userfy. Nothing much wrong with the initial deletion but the sources linked to by Freakshownerd make me think that he deserves a chance to improve it. Alzarian16 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC) What I don't understand is that, if he had found those links, why he didn't put them in in the first place. It's not like the article has just been created. Far from it in fact. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I'm assuming he just noticed the blue links go red. Like I said, I don't see why we don't give them another chance nor do I see any reason to start from scratch or in userspace. Hobit (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 July 2010

Linda Fox-Mellway – Restore – Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Linda Fox-Mellway (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The article was sourced and is relevant and notable, someone Speedy deleted it without any discussion. Articles about Major City Councilors have been deemed notable and this one who has spent almost 15 years on Calgary city council is defiantly notable. Þadius (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Comment I've moved this to the proper days log, which hadn't been created yet, and notified the administrator who speedied the page. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and list at AFD On the face of this, there is a claim to notability - being a member of the city council of a city with just under a million inhabitants. According to WP:POLITICIAN Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. I think there are two main issues here. Is a city will just under a million a major metropolitan city and are there any sources - because what we had otherwise was an unsourced BLP. The best place to resolve this is in a discussion which is why I vote to list at AFD. This should not be taken as criticism of the deleting admin as this was a BLP and there has been a recent shift towards not tolerating unsourced BLPs and local guidelines haven't caught up with this move yet, but the clear consensus is to be cautious in summary deletion and give time for improvement. In the evnt this does appear at AFD I will be voting delete if there are no sources provided. Spartaz Humbug! 05:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn per Spartaz, but if and only if sources can be provided. No sense undeleting it just to BLP prod it. NW (Talk) 13:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn as invalid A7 speedy. Summary deletion of recently created articles over sourcing issues conflicts with the BLPPROD process, which was established by consensus, and calls for a "window of opportunity" (idiom, not quote from process page) to improve article. Let this new process operate absent an urgent reason for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD. Note that the article was primarily sourced, making it ineligible for BLPPROD, but likewise demonstrates that the appellant's justification for undeletion overstates the case. Likewise, I think the A7 is entirely forgivable, since the assertions of notability in the article at the time it was deleted are very vague. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC) I can't see this article since it's no longer in the google cache but I'll take the word of 3 of the 4 !voters above who can see it that IoS was asserted and therefore it wasn't an A7 candidate. However, since sourcing seems to be an issue perhaps the best option is to userfy or incubate it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC) List at AfD as a reasonably contested speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 July 2010

My Darkest Days – Page undeleted. Any editor is free to bring it to AFD should they wish to do so. – NW (Talk) 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
My Darkest Days (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This article about a new Canadian band has been speedied four times on notability grounds since January 2008, mostly recently in June this year. Everyone Dies In the End has rewritten an updated version here. A request yesterday to unprotect the title so he could insert the new version was declined (see the discussion here) with the advice to take it to DRV. I'm bringing it here because I think the band is now borderline notable, with its first single #9 on the iTunes list for Canada, and its video #62 on the iTunes list worldwide. Also the title's getting a few hits even while deleted, so people seem to be looking for it. It got 888 hits in June, [30] and 144 hits so far this month. [31] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Undelete/unprotect as nominator. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Undelete - as I said many times to the protecting admin (which he just ignores) that (under WP:Band) this band satisfifies number 1, number 2 (since it's on the itune most download rock song at 9), number 4, number 11, and number 12 (they did an interview for etalk which has yet to air though). "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" that's wikipedia guidelines. This clearly is a band that is notable. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) This was speedily deleted as criteria A7, no assertion of importance/significnce which is somewhat lower than standard than WP:BAND, so what DRV needs to review is if the rewrite overcomes that. Beyond that I'll note the wording is "may be notable" not "is notable" questions as to which it is are decided at AFD. However to comment on the claims of meeting (1) and (2) for (1) I don't think the criteria for Natinoal music chart generally includes the genre specific subsets of Itunes - so if this does go to AFD you might have to do better than that for (2) I assume you say if passed this for this etalk interview - however than criteria list amoungst exclusions "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" which is generally what an interview is. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Itunes Canadian Rock Chart is comparable to the US Modern Rock Chart. Of course the charts are for genre specifics. You are also forgetting it's 62nd on the music video chart of itune in the world. Canada doesn't have a real Rock Chart (There are a couple but they're aren't notable they are also never listed on a discography). Also, they are 115 on the Canadian charts most downloaded (to check open itunes so if you don't have itunes you can't check and remember you must be in Canada's itunes as it will detect your location to change the itunes location to do this go to the bottom right hand of the page click the flag (this flag will be the Countries chart) and then click the Canadian flag) After you are on Canadian itune go to the music section, click song of the top song on the right toolbar and you have the Canadian chart. This band is 115 on the itunes Canada chart, 62nd on the itunes most downloaded videos (in the world) and 9th on the itunes Canada Rock chart.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Unless Itunes is the official chart in Canada this is no reason to undelete this article. Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC) There is no such thing as an official music chart. They are many national charts the most notable ones are the one done by Nielsen SoundScan, itunes and Muchmusic in Canada. There is no official chart. All of these are Canada's charts since they incorporate the popularity of song in Canada only that's what makes it a National Chart. There is no official in the guidelines for that reason too.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Just to add, The Nielsen Top Digital Download chart gets their info from Napster, puretracks, iTunes Canada, and Archambault. Since Nielson releases their charts a week after the final dat (IE July 1st's week was released July 8th and July 8th will be released on the 15th) and itunes Chart is updated daily. Since Nielson gets their stuff from itune it will be on their charts either on the 15th or the 22nd depending on when the band cracked the chart on itunes. itunes is one of the most notable charts now.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Unprotect and allow the new userspace version to be moved to mainspace, on the basis of a reasonable contest of an old speedy deletion. No prejudice regarding a subsequent AfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Unprotect/allow recreation per SmokeyJoe. The draft article has some sources and is clearly going to have a shot of being kept at an AfD, which is all we should really expect. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Unprotect/Allow recreation-As of now, the page easily passes A7. Notability can be argued in an AfD.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - the band is now 7th on the itunes Canadian Rock Chart and 104 on the Canadian itunes Chart. They are now ahead of otherbig Canadian bands like Three Days Grace, and Stereos--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC) I personally don't find the iTunes charts to be compelling sources, especially considering a substantial lack of coverage of the band in other sources (from an admittedly quick glance). However, as noted, the band may nudge above the requirements of WP:MUSIC, so unprotect and allow recreation for discussion at an AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Storm Front (disambiguation) – Restored. – T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Storm Front (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) N.B. Administrator has been asked about the deletion but has declined to reverse it. This redirect was create following the guidelines at WP:DAB, specifically at WP:INTDABLINK: "To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect... (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.)" (my emphasis). This is clearly not an implausible redirect under the guidelines for WP:CSD#R3. Tassedethe (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Never mind what the guidelines say, let us apply simple common sense! Storm Front and stormfront are both disambiguation pages with direct links between them. What earthly purpose is served by creating Storm Front (disambiguation). And while we're on the subject stormfront (disambiguation) is a pointless orphan which needs deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC) undelete - It's very common on wikipedia to have Something (disambiguation) redirect to Something. The guildlines clearly says it's fine. The guideline say, "When to link to a disambiguation page: Redirects from page names that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles – Britain (disambiguation) redirects to the "Britain" disambiguation page." the guidelines says it's fine so it's fine. There is no need for this discussion as the guidelines clearly say this is fine.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC) undelete. Sorry, RHAworth, but redirects are cheap, the WP:DAB page seems to endorse this practice for some reason, and templates like {{about}} automatically use the "(disambiguation)" title. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Sure redirects are cheap. My real objection was the attempt to make Stormfront point to Storm Front via a redirect. I would not go so far as Verbal and describe it as vandalism. But may we have a ruling here that Stormfront may link directly to Storm Front and vice-versa? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Further comment The place to discuss the nature of redirects between Stormfront and Storm Front is at Talk:Stormfront. The use of the (disambiguation) redirect outlined at WP:INTDABLINK is for 3 main reasons. To mark the link as intentional and therefore not needing to be 'fixed'. There is a whole project dedicated to fixing links to DAB pages at WP:DPL. To make it clear to the reader what the page is (per WP:ASTONISH). And also to ensure that such links are not broken if a primary topic appears and takes the main page. Tassedethe (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Is there a good reason why we have two disambiguation pages, one with and one without the space? Let's put 'em all into one big spot. I agree that redirects are cheap and we should probably have them, but that's not the most important issue here, in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Restore-Pages like this comply with both relevant guidelines and common practice.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Restore - the reason for having the (disambiguation) page exist is that if you want to link to the disambiguation page, it is better to link to Pagename (disambiguation) rather than Pagename itself. That facilitates checking for incorrect inbound links to the disambiguation page (eg, linking to Storm Front when they meant Storm Front (album) or some such thing). --B (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Delete Storm Front is already a disambiguation page, there's no need to disabiguate further (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Just for clarification, this page is/was a redirect, not a separate disambiguation page. The reason you want this redirect is that it makes repairing disambiguation links either. If you go to what links here, and you see five inbound links to Storm Front, you need to visit each one to see if it should be linking to a particular article instead. By making intentional links go to the (disambiguation) redirect, you don't have to sort through those and only have to worry about the ones that should be going somewhere else. --B (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 July 2010

Bacio Divino – Proposed deletion contested. Article undeleted. No more mountains out of this mole-hill. – Uncle G (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bacio Divino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Bacio Divino has produced numerous wines with over a 90 Robert Parker rating, making it both notable and highly acclaimed Auher (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest taking this to WP:REFUND. As the article was deleted without discussion (WP:PROD) you can request undeletion there rather than go through a fully-fledged deletion review here.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC) As the deleting sysop that closed the PROD, I've already offered to restore a copy for User:Auher. I'm just awaiting their reply. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC) you only offered to restore it to his userspace. A deleted prod generally can be restored on request to mainspace if there is a plausible good faith request and no BLP or copyvio issues. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 July 2010

Category:Future elections in Australia – Endorse but allow relisting. Consensus is that the closing administrator correctly closed the discussion as it was held but that individual concerns about that particular category were not addressed sufficiently to correctly assess whether this particular should be deleted and renamed as well. As such relisting this category seperately at CFD will be the best way to allow the community to discuss this specific situation. – SoWhy 20:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Future elections in Australia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The category was renamed to Category:Scheduled elections in Australia but many of the elections are not "scheduled" - they can happen at almost any time. The old category was appropriate. Barrylb (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- we can't write about an election until we know when it's going to be, ergo, the only elections Wikipedia can cover are scheduled ones. Reyk YO! 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn. We can have articles on future elections that have not been scheduled without violating WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think it is warranted to wait until the Governor-General prorogues Parliament to put up a page on an Australian federal election. The media coverage of the election commences well before that, so there is more than enough verifiable material to put in an article. I think this CfD - being a batch nomination - didn't properly consider the peculiarities about each of the particular categories. So while the consensus was to re-name, the nature of that consensus warrants DRV reconsidering the merits of the re-naming.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn. We certainly can write about elections that have not been given exact dates, and we do (across all countries) regularly. The term "scheduled" in the title is a factual inaccuracy since many of these elections have not been scheduled at all. For example, we know there is going to be a Next Australian federal election, and it has received extensive coverage across the media and in parliament, but it has not yet been scheduled. Frickeg (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn. Language is important here. The rename put Australian federal election, 2010 in the "Scheduled" category. It has not been scheduled. (In fact, it could happen in 2011, but that's another debate.) It is now in an inappropriate category. If this rename is not reversed, the only logical action is to entirely remove that article from the category. Future has a very different meaning from schedluled. Our Sun is exected to expand and consume the Earth one day in the future, but so far that event has not been scheduled. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn. Several of these elections are not scheduled - including the next Western Australian state election for which we don't even know the year at this stage! Orderinchaos 03:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I note as well that the problems with this change extend to some of the others as well. Laotian parliamentary election, 2011 for example is in Category:Scheduled elections in Asia when it has clearly, like the Australian ones above, not been scheduled. Same goes for New Zealand general election, 2011 in Category:Scheduled elections, and Fijian general election, 2014. In my view the entire CfD from 14 June should be reversed as it's been so ill thought out and poorly implemented. Orderinchaos 03:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn as per above. This is simply factually wrong - Orderinchaos in particular is right on the money. Rebecca (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn. The new wording is likely to confuse the readership. Scheduled can reasonably be taken to mean that a date has been set. Where is the discussion behind the change? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC) The discussion behind the change is here. Frickeg (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Having read the discussion: Overturn close and relist for more discussion. Recommend splitting the proposal, as it was too broad. Consensus was not clear given the breadth of the renames. From this nomination, it is clear that not all aspects were sufficiently considered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The admin closed this properly based upon the discussion. This is not CFD round 2. If you don't agree with the rename, renominate it to something of your liking. --Kbdank71 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn sine it is very clear the name is better. There needs to be a way of revisiting decisions. For categories, there's really no other way than this; refusing to do it would violate IAR and NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) DRV is to discuss the close, not the rename, and the close was sound. To revisit the rename, relist it at CFD. Discuss it and come up with a better answer. Use the right tool for the right job. --Kbdank71 19:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Your argument is basically "get the court to review its own decision", which never happens anywhere else. For the lesser watched corners, DRV is often the first chance issues get to be publicly known and scrutinised. Orderinchaos 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) No, my argument is that that if you disagree with the rename, relist it. If the people who are voting here really believe that a better name would work, they will show up at CFD and say so. There is no point in overturning the decision (which will revert it to what clearly isn't the best fit (and you yourself don't like)), when everyone here can get together and (hey, here's a novel idea) come up with a better name! --Kbdank71 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I really don't have an opinion on this, I'm just the little old closing administrator. As Kbdank71 points out, I have no doubt in my mind that I closed the discussion reflecting consensus, and the most suitable option should this DRV result in overturn is to relist. My question is, should the overturn really just involve this sole category instead of all the ones nominated? — ξxplicit 18:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I personally reckon the entire thing should be reverted, as I've found quite a few random cases across a range of categories where the same issues apply, and therefore the parent category has to go back anyway, and for consistency it would be stupid to rename the parent category and keep a speckled mix of subcategories. Orderinchaos 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse but relist the whole CFD. I think that the closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion (in which I strongly opposed the renaming), but the concerns raised here reinforce my view that the consensus was perverse. A fresh CfD is the way to go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse as original nominator. The close was clearly sound, and reflected the consensus of all who voted. However, I have no objection to a relist, since the opinions of many here suggest that it would not have passed as is. I will say that using the word "Future" has been discredited on CfD in every category that has been brought up, so I hope that if it gets relisted, it is not relisted as a reversion to something people on CfD have not supported, but rather a new suggestion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Mind you, the one you link to makes this look like yet another CfD "let's reorganise the world" campaign - there's been a long history of non-transparent decision making in there which has had to be overturned by a consensus of editors who actually edit the encyclopaedia down the track. I'm not actually a big fan of the word "Future" myself, but in this particular case (elections) I can't honestly think of a better one - "proposed" only really applies to Fiji and certain African countries, "scheduled" only applies to countries and places where it is set in advance by law, and I am not sure of an alternative that encompasses all of "going to happen", "going to happen on a certain date" and "might happen but who knows". Orderinchaos 20:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Do we have to throw around statements of sinister intent? I didn't say anything bad about anyone here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I didn't suggest there was sinister intent, more an overenthusiasm for the wrong cause and a complete failure to involve editors in decision-making processes. It wouldn't have taken much to drop a few notices on noticeboards / WikiProject talk pages. Orderinchaos 13:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn The problem with mass shotgun-style nominations like this is the scattershot effect of hitting innocent bystanders like this one. The argument presented here provides new evidence that was not presented at CfD that makes the result not only irrelevant, but wrong. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse and Relist this one. From the discussions it is clear that a few exceptions were not identified, with this being one. So it only makes sense to list the exceptions to get them to a name that is more appropriate. The recommendations to overturn are not based on the facts that resulted in the close, the object seems to be with the result of the discussion. If a blanket overturn is applied, we will not really achieve much and those who are complaining about this group nomination would only be compounding the confusion. So selectively relist only those changes that would work better with a different name. And then list those as single nominations so that the possibility of having different outcomes is clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC) This discussion shows the bureaucratic mess Wikipedia has become in some areas. I'm the person who triggered this discussion (along with Frickeg), because I found the article Australian federal election, 2010 in it. Clearly the wrong category for that article, because the election is not yet scheduled. I'm pretty new as an active editor, and I get very frustrated with responses of the form "Oh, we already decided that before you came along." What an arrogance! What a turnoff for new editors. It's virtually unanimous here that this category is the wrong one for the next Australian election. Whatever process led to the change was a bad process. If we cannot fix it simply now, there is something very wrong with Wikipedia. I don't pretend to understand all the rules of Wikipedia (Does anybody? This discussion suggests not), but I do know that next Australian election is NOT scheduled. If the category cannot be fixed nows, the obvious thing to do is to remove Australian federal election, 2010 from it, which I will do. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) This is more of an appeal process. Like someone pointed out above, the quickest and simplest solution would have been to renominate that at CfD. Bring it here makes the process longer. I suppose that one could have both discussions active at the same time. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I read "DRV" as more as a "review forum" than an "appeal process". What matters is what has been said, and how to fix the product. Where something is said, and what process is invoked, is less important than improving the product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse but allow renomination. The discussion was open for over 3 weeks and there's little doubt that the close reflects the consensus that was there. The more sensible thing to do would have been to just renominate the category for renaming. That way the debate that is being had above can be had in the proper forum. Complaint are made about bureaucracy, but it's the nominator who decided what forum to bring this up in, was it not? Why not just start a new CFD? (Had the closer been notified prior to the start of the DRV as is recommended, I wouldn't have been surprised if he would have just recommended that a new CFD be started. But that's speculative on my part.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) The message at the top of the closing of the original deletion debate says "subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)". The category talk page didn't seem like it would get an audience and I there was no other suggestion what is 'an appropriate discussion page' so I went to deletion review. At deletion review the documentation lists four number points in a box. Point 1 says "resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator.." which I didn't bother with because there is nothing wrong with the administrator's decision. Point 2 says "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly.." - makes me think perhaps this is not the right place. Point 3 says "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." makes me think this actually could be the right place. Point 4 "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead" does not seem relevant in this case. Then I looked through the rest of the documentation looking for any "see also's" or suggestion of other processes to follow in this particular case. In the absence of that it seem that this process is the best choice. Re-listing at CFD was not suggested in the documentation and never occurred to me because of the process issues mentioned by Orderinchaos above - "get the court to review its own decision". Barrylb (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Fair enough—but I do think mentioning it to the closing administrator would be a wise thing to do before you went down any path. It often saves a lot of time and unneeded process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC) I !voted "overturn and relist" because the content of the debate plus new statements here tell me that the original name was better than the current name. I mean no criticism of the closer, although I read BHG's unanswered strong statement as justifying a no consensus close. Those saying endorse and relist I guess are saying that there is good reason to relist but that in the event of subsequent CfD no consensus, it stays as "Category:Scheduled elections in Australia". Whether objections to the close were first made here or on the closer's talk page are irrelevant. This is a useful conversation about a complicated question. It is looking like there is a consensus for relist, the closer (User:Explicit) might close this DRV as a relist at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) It's already been listed at CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_8#Category:Scheduled_elections_in_Australia, which pretty much makes this entire discussion moot. I still stand by what I said about best practices though—you may deem it irrelevant to the result but it's not irrelevant to how we reach there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC) (ec)So it is! Thank you. (I don't disagree about better practice, but do object to shutting down a debate because best practice wasn't followed) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Is someone trying to shut down debate for that reason? The issue is the appropriate site for the debate, not whether or not it should occur. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Is someone trying to shut down debates for that reason? See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Proposal_re:_requirement_to_consult_with_closing_admin_in_advance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Interesting; thanks for the link. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC) The reason for listing it again at CfD was to allow a rename to happen without unnecessary delays, not to stop this discussion. I hinted about doing this above and no one objected so I followed WP:BOLD and opened the discussion. If an incorrect decision is made, the focus should be on fixing it and not reviewing the decision. My plan actually was to be bold again and early close the discussion, but that is not going to happen because there are many opinions on what the name should be. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and rename back to "Future elections...". This was probably not the right forum to challenge the outcome of the CfD, and I would probably endorse the closure itself. However, DGG is right: this is not a bureaucracy, we do not need to redo this discussion for the third time simply to abide by the technicalities of the CfD structure. This is precisely the kind of situation for which we have WP:IAR. The category should clearly be renamed back to the way it was, let's just get it over with.  -- Lear's Fool 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC) All of them, or just the Australian one? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC) The Australian one, the consensus for the others hasn't been tested here.  -- Lear's Fool 04:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC) So, how do we fix this quickly. Right now, Australian federal election, 2010, and others, are in the wrong category, due to some apparent bureaucratic disaster in the inner machinations of Wikipedia. I really don't like leaving things in articles that are just plain dumb. Do I just remove them from the category now? HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Not much point moving them now. I know the category is incorrect, but it's only for a few more days (we're "never wrong for long", after all), and when the thing is sorted a bot will send them all wherever it's decided that they go. Otherwise we'll have to perform both operations manually. Frickeg (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 July 2010

Jörg Guido Hülsmann – Deletion endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jörg Guido Hülsmann (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Administrator dismissed valid points that clearly established the fact that there was No Consensus. See here. I have to question the administrator's neutrality, research skills and professionalism. PtAuAg (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC) User:PtAuAg, what is your connection to Jörg? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Oh please - I'm not getting paid for this you know and you still haven't shown any decent sources. Spartaz Humbug! 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Reading this and the excessively patronising comment on the closing admins talk page, speedy endorse per m:DICK --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Restore and relist - Personal attacks - particularly calling a fellow editor a 'dick' - is prohinited on WP. Except, apparently, for the 'inner circle' of admins themselves. Regardless of the personal abuse the reason for the delete was the respectable but low Scopus h index. Sparta then accuses me of using this 'minutiae' as a basis to game the system to claim No Consensus. I have no relationship with JGH other than knowledge of his work and WP rules on notability. To say JGH is not referenced in academia is simply false. The issue is whether he is sufficiently referenced. In the context of a literary ethicist and biographer, the Scopus h index is obviously inappropriate. I also note this index is not mentioned at all in the notability criteria for academics. Why is it being used here, and why is this so uncontroversial that Sparta can delete the page without protest? It is not directly relevant, but it was amusing to see that Rachel Uchetel was accepted by WP editors as notable - unbelievable - but someone trying to save Western Civilization from a financial Armageddon is considered non-notable. This says a lot about both WP's twisted, trivia-oriented standards of non-professional 'editors' and Western 'civilization' in general. Admins are self-selected with the main criteria apparently being the ability to spend too much unpaid time on trivial pages. The chances of a capable admin understanding JGH's work - or proper notability criteria applying to this unique case - is virtually zero. - PtAuAg (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Please strike the vote - you already offered an opinion in the nomination. Given the patronising and offensive way you addressed me I think you got off lightly with my response. Given that you continue to use this discussion as a platform to attack me perhaps someone could close this now. Spartaz Humbug! 11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Having not registered an account I am of course not an admin. My comment relates to your behaviour in this matter rather than you as a person whom I do not know and have not looked around to see if this is typical behaviour. Your statements regarding the closer are however are a statement on a personal level and are in fact a personal attack. I'll stand by my original opinion that this should be speedily closed given your apparent unwillingess to behave in a collegial manner --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. No Third-party sources that have discussed the subject directly have been offered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Reluctant Endorse In practice, full professors at research universities are generally notable, and there's 3rd party documentation for that [32]. The problem here is the GScholar (and also Scopus) show very few citations. This is essentially due to the nature of his work being out of the mainstream--it it is cited, it is likely to be in publications not included in Scopus and other indexes. I would never go by h-index alone, but the overall citation pattern needs to be looked at. I think the closer did that, and did that correctly. If it could be shown that he is widely cited by economists or other writers in his special field even though not reflected in the usual indexes, then he would be notable. However, I say this endorse reluctantly because I disagree with the way we are using the criteria: I have the very strong personal view that we ought to include all full professors at all research universities (and Angers counts as one) and thus avoid the inevitable ambiguities and injustices of deciding by our self trying to validate scientific careers, instead of relying on those who are expert in doing so , but I do not not consider that this is the consensus position, at least not yet. (and because I know I have this position I do not close debates in this field.) I can not see reversing an admin who closed according to our established practices. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC) endorse per DGG. Probably should have an article, but AfD didn't show he met guidelines as they stand. Hobit (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 July 2010

1984 ghallooghaaraa – "Keep deleted". While the process was not entirely kosher, it seems that there is general agreement (discounting new users and SPAs) that the end result was an acceptable one. NW (Talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC) – close fixed by – T. Canens (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
1984 ghallooghaaraa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) It was closed by one administrator as No Consensus, then another changed that to Delete the day after. I talked to him on his talk page about that. [33] Once an AFD is closed by one administrator, should another be able to just go over and delete it anyway the day after? Dream Focus 08:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Relist There is a claim by the second admin that the discussion was tainted by socks, and looking at the discussion I can believe that. Even so, he should have asked the closing admin to reclose the discussion rather than just override it. In any case, I think a relist is the best way to go in order to get a fresh reading on the debate, with a rather large fish to the second closer for deleting out of process. A quick search turns up a number of solid sources under a different spelling [34]. This looks likely to be quite notable to me. Hobit (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Restore-notable, referenced article... Ofcourse Indian admins/editors with pro india views wp:pov can not like it.--166.205.138.6 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Restore and relist-Concerns about socks may be valid, but that did not give User:YellowMonkey the right to act as they did. That deletion was totally out of process. Admins don't get to change an XfD outcome on a whim.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn/relist/refer to Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) (the closer). Discovered sockpuppetry does change things, but it is not for a second administrator to overturn the first's close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted It's a waste of time to file papers as two of the IPs and DawnOfTheBlood = Singh6, and the last keep voter on the page has only one edit. And as for sources, the article is a pov fork by Khalistani separatists YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted - Will somebody read the deleted article please? Do we need to go through the entire process again?. We just spent a large amount of time and effort debating this. Three IPs turn up and vote keep. And the closing admin says he will take that into consideration. As they say AGF is not a suicide pact. If you overturn this and relist and if SPAs/IPs turn up again will you consider it again?. And Hobit, what you found already has articles - Operation Blue Star and 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Does this need a POV fork again?--Sodabottle (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC) It's a wildly out-of-process deletion and relisting is a reasonable step. Further at the very least this should be a redirect. I see no harm in relisting. Hobit (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Could someone please restore the article temporarily for the purpose of the DRV? Thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I see a 99-reference lengthy, well-written piece of prose, written in a single edit, with moderate WP:NPOV and WP:SYN issues. WP:NPOV and WP:SYN are rarely good reasons for delete, and neither is the presence of poor debate via sockpuppetry a good reason to delete. I think we have a valuable not-yet-fully encultured contributor here who should be worked with more amicably, not confronted with harsh administration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Refer to Beeblebrox and if not, overturn and relist. We don't need a precedent that a second admin can overturn a valid AFD discussion, even if people say this should be the exception. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted The presence of the socks clearly invalidated the lack of consensus that had resulted from the original decision. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and relist- That the discussion was tainted by socks is not the fault of the article, if the discussion was defective, then we need a new sock-free discussion. If one admin in good faith deemed there to be no consensus, then a second admin should not be allowed to reverse that decision on their own without discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC) <ec>Comment I've notified the primary author of the article of this DrV. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted, the article was a gross pov essay. I think the 'no consensus' close was a non-solution, which would only have opened a perpetual re-listing of AfDs. --Soman (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC) (nominator of the AfD, btw) Keep deleted Remove the socks and the consensus to delete this article is clear. Since the article has been deleted at AfD before, the only gain in being bureaucratic about this is that we'll keep encouraging these pov editors. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted - sock contamination, as observed above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted - once the sock puppet votes are disregarded, the discussion looks like a consensus to delete. I think this was an appropriate use of WP:IAR. Also retaining the article, even temporarily, just because the discussion was spoiled by sockpuppets means that socking works and we can't have that. Reyk YO! 19:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted. An obvious POV fork of a topic adequately covered in existing articles. One the socking was discounted, delete was the appropriate close. In this case, the outcome should be upheld whether or not it was within process (ie not merely overturning an obvious and correct outcome for process' sake). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Comment We've got an admin/CU who reclosed this discussion without consulting the original closer. This was done due to socking. I've been unable to find any evidence of abusive socking. There is no SPI case. Heck, the first time this person was accused of socking and blocked (by the same admin/CU) there was no SPI or CU case. As far as I can see the sock in question wasn't being abusive and had instead just changed accounts in a legal way (it looks to me the accused sockmaster stopped editing well before the accused sock started). Can anyone point out what I'm missing here? Were some of the IPs involved? If so which? Hobit (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted as per Mkativerata--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted as per RegentsPark and others. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Comment- A gentle reminder- we are here to discuss whether or not the deleting admin made a reversible procedural error, not to re-debate the AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Restore--Referenced, fradulatently deleted under wp:pov pushing...by a biased Hindu admin. Investigate his blocks as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.163.246 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Morning again Mr Singh6 YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, allow such as User:Utcursch to improve if they believe they can, with leave to renominate after a reasonable time if wished. I am not making any comment upon the article itself... only the out-of-process deletion. User:Beeblebrox made the good faith call, closed the AFD on 00:20 June 22,[35][36] and encouraged discussion on the article's talk page. User:Utcursch tagged the article for concerns on 8:45 June 22 and began working on improving it.[37] User:YellowMonkey offered his own re-evaluation of the AFD in his edit summary and deleted the article 6:12 June 23 and protected the page.[38] The talk page was deleted by User:Utcursch on 8:45 June 23rd,[39] so I have no idea what discussion took place there... if any. But here's the crux of the matter... If anyone feels an article should have been deleted but wasn't, there are processes set in place for just such circumstances... and a summary deletion if not agreeing with the close is not one of them. Considering the involvement of socks, it certainly could not have been an easy decision to close as no-consensus, but Beeblebrox was just as aware of sock participation as anyone, made the call, and AGF allows me to believe he took them into account. If an editor felt it should have been deleted, but was not, he should have brought it to DRV, rather then invoke an admin supervote and over-ride the closer out of process. And yes... it was finaly brought to DRV, but for reasons not based upon User:Beeblebrox's close, but rather to question the out-of-process deletion by User:YellowMonkey. As User:Umbralcorax gently reminds, THAT'S what this discussion is about... not the article itself... not the AFD... not the close... only whether or not the deleting admin made a reversible procedural error. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC) I guess most of you who want the article restored/re-listed are concerned about the "process" (checkuser/deletion) here, and it can be argued that it was a procedural error. Just for the record, while I did start working on the article, even I believe that the article is a hopeless POV fork of Punjab insurgency, 1984 anti-Sikh riots and Khalistan movement. It was first created at SikhWiki, and then copied here. I started working on the article so that any salvageable content can be merged to the respective articles and then redirected to 1984 anti-Sikh riots. utcursch | talk 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC) RESTORE - this article should be restored per afd and investigation should be launched against YellowMonkey for violating wikipedia policies and fradulent blocking several sikh editors.--24.5.233.42 (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC) A comment regarding Umbralcorax and Schmidt's comments: I think we have to be careful about being overly pure on the role of DRV. I can't accept the view that procedural error should vitiate any deletion outcome. If the outcome would have clearly been the same but for the procedural error, DRV should uphold the outcome to avoid bureaucracy. Such is the essence of IAR. Of course, if the outcome is called into question because of the process error, by all means we should overturn. But we shouldn't treat DRV like an appellate court - even if we did, appellate courts (at least where I practice) always throw out cases where it can be shown that a procedural error had no effect on the outcome. I haven't yet seen a single sound reason in the AfD or DRV why this article is justified with reference to wikipedia policy.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) It is claimed that the article is a fork. In such a case, merger is the natural corrective not deletion and so the result is not as clear as you suggest. Unfortunately, there is nothing to merge. All the material in the article is covered elsewhere and the only point of the POV fork is to cast the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots as a holocaust. When the holocaust title was deleted at AfD, the editors used this (unpronounceable and impossible to spell!) term. Other than the holocaust angle, I cannot see a purpose for a second article on the anti-Sikh riots. (This is a response to your merge comment and not a DRV comment.) --RegentsPark (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn Improper deletion contrary to our deletion and administration. policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC) RESTORE - this article should be restored and steps should be taken for any fraudulent mis-use --Fr1nkl3 (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Comment. Fr1nkl3 (talk · contribs) had only one edit prior to this comment. I smell sock-puppeting. --Soman (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC) RESTORE - Greetings. I confess to being absolutely naive about the inner workings of wikipedia and its review structure. When I saw the article was deleted I just forgot about it, but someone emailed me today: "...Now you are supposed to type Restore..... and add some comments and I will appreciate if you could add some comments to get the blocks investigated as well." I hope they are correct because I don't want to offend anyone or to break any rules. If you think it relevant, I can name the person who sent me the suggestion. I just looked up the wikipedia for "sock" and I can tell you I am a real person. My web-site is www.gurufathasingh.com. You can email at gurufathasingh@gmail.com. For reasons you can appreciate, of course I think the article has some merit and that it is balanced. It presents a long-term perspective of what Sikhs went through in the 1980s and 90s that is not readily found on-line. Thank you for your indulgence. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and relist is the precedent we should set in this weird case. First socks, then just overturning for whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Here's the crux of this matter as far as I am concerned: The outcome of no consensus was based on the strength of the various arguments made, not on who was making them or how many. It's not supposed to be a head count, it's supposed to be a discussion. So, if there are users making or agreeing with the keep reasoning who are not socks, then the arguments to keep are still equally valid. Since there were such users at the AFD I don't really feel that my original close was invalid despite the presence of the socks. I think the best course of action would be to restore the article and relist the AFD, and see if we can't get an untainted result. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Summary To briefly sum up an article was kept as NC, another admin (with CU) blocked someone for socking (though there is no SPI case) and then changed the close to delete without consulting the closer due to said socking. A fair number of users feel that the original article was a POV fork and so should remain deleted. The original closer stands by his close even in the face of the socking and a number of other users agree that the original close was correct though a relist is reasonable. No one has yet to dispute the fact that the term is used in RSes including books on the subject (though the spelling is generally different, see my first comment). Finally, no one disputes this close was out of process. Is this a good case for WP:IAR? I don't think so. It's not clear that deleting this article would help things, and it's _really_ clear that allowing things like this to stand would be a horrible precedent. YellowMonkey should have contacted the closer rather than deleting on his own. Heck, he should have documented the socking via an SPI case rather than just blocking on his own. At some point process is important and others shouldn't have to waste their time cleaning up the messes. Hobit (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Let's not get all hung up on the lack of a full SPI, that's not really the point here and it's perfectly reasonable for a user with CU to block any socks they detect. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed it's not overly relevant here, though I think a CU (or anyone else) blocking without any documentation, notice, etc. is problem and is part-and-parcel with ignoring process in this case too. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Im not sure why you have stated that "It's not clear that deleting this article would help things". I think it is pretty clear: It is a POV fork. The creator wants to create a new version of events that happened during the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots because he/she feels that the current article does not potray the haplessness/pain/victimisation of his community deeply enough. So he has created a new page, describing exactly the same event, only it focusses on the "victim" part,chooses a title with words that are only specific to his language and claims that it is equivalent to the "holocaust". That too after they failed to get other "Sikh Holocaust" articles through AfD.I fail to understand if DRV is about "deletion review" or about "deletion process review". Ok so YellowMonkey did take a short-cut. It may not be fine proceduraly but it wasnt in any way out of malice towards the subject or the community in question. I have seen instances where admins have closed AfDs going against the overall consensus if they believed there is a solid reason for doing so. To put it blandly, wheter you belive that decision is right or wrong depends on what you voted. Vote rigging is not uncommon in Indian article AfDs and quite a few admins are aware of this problem and take action accordingly. The end question is "was the deltion valid or not" and I beleive that it was.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Closing. It appears that my closing script does not work on Safari, so I am going to just write it out here. Could someone fix up the templates afterward? The result of the DRV discussion was "Keep deleted". While the process was not entirely kosher, it seems that there is general agreement (discounting new users and SPAs) that the end result was an acceptable one. NW (Talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 July 2010

Laura Massey – Deletion endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Laura Massey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) On June 14th Laura was the keynote speaker at the 2010 E3 Xbox 360 Media Briefing for Microsoft debuting a revolutionary motion controlled video chat system named Kinect chat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect Laura appears in this video at 02:03 http://cnettv.cnet.com/e3-2010-microsoft-kinect-xbox-360/9742-1_53-50088986.htmln Bawitdaba1337 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC) And? Is there more to come? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) there is a little more in the article; I restored it for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC) … and, from looking at a random selection of past revisions, a lot of it is just bad writing and bad content. One revision chides the biography's subject for not being able to upgrade a personal computer, for example. There's not a single source cited in the article, nor ever was by the looks of things (although I've not checked all revisions). Two editors in the AFD discussion actually tried to look for sources, and reported coming up empty-handed. And Bawitdaba1337 hasn't even addressed the sourcing question at all. Policy on this is very clear. Biographies must be properly written and properly verifiable. No sources existing means no article. The closing administrator appears to have quite properly put policy into practice. Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The strength of argument, measured objectively, was overwhelmingly on the delete side of the discussion. Throw in the verifiability problems in respect of a BLP and this close was well and truly within the admin's discretion. The new event in June 2010 could only change things if that caused the subject to be covered in reliable independent sources. Such coverage has not been presented.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- I also feel that the delete side made the stronger arguments and that the closing admin correctly judged consensus. Reyk YO! 05:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse it could have been closed as no consensus or delete, but delete was probably the better option. There just isn't anything in the way of independent reliable sources required by WP:BIO. I suspect we'll have an article on her at some point... Hobit (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Lack of sources, lack of evidence of notability, the decisions follows policy. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse I think "no consensus" would have been a better close here, but I can't really argue that the closer misread consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn It strikes me that Laura is now a major part of the Microsoft Xbox teams "public face", her recent notable performance at the E3 keynote and continued present on industry podcasts shows this. Surely that is reason enough to have this overturned, I know i came here to try and find out more information on her..--Lgladdy (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC) We're not in the business of making up badly written biographies from whole cloth purely in order to satisfy the desire to know about people that the world hasn't yet documented. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse, BLP with zero reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC) endorse No reliable sources. This individual might meet notability at some point in the future, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a reason to think otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jon Flip Muro – Endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jon Flip Muro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) under WP:RS#Self-published sources ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. If a music producers works are listed on the most reputable blogs in the format, as well as easily able to be fact checked by comparing it to 100's of other smaller independent blogs, especially if the blog in question is affiliated with a major radio station in the largest market in the U.S. wouldn't that be grounds to consider it one of these "unique" circumstances? music, Hip-hop music in particular, is becoming increasingly internet driven. Many new artist break through using blog sites and youtube and have legitimate careers. Many choose not to sign with major labels or don't have large marketing budgets but rely on sites like youtube and blogs to promote there material and reach there fan base. If there is video evidence to prove that these works exist as well, if there is BMI performing rights society records to substantiate these claims wouldn't it be fair to say that this individual deserves some small form of recognition? MY page was cited for speedy deletion by malik shabazz due to lack of resources because none of the 100's of blogs, youtube videos and major and independent record label releases featuring these works with UPC codes and both physical and digital distribution were enough to convince him that this person was relevant. Yet here is a page created by malik himslef for a band which he is no doubt a fan, but has even less verifiable references then I have listed and certainly have less legitimate credits to there name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_Sugar why is it fair for this page to exist and mine to be deleted? here are legitimate blog's industry standard ones that show works by this producer http://hiphopgame.ihiphop.com/news.php3?id=5081 http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.10574/title.inspectah-deck-announces-manifesto-for-march-23-release http://www.prefixmag.com/reviews/inspectah-deck/manifesto/37352/ http://nahright.com/news/2010/02/18/inspectah-deck-manifesto-track-list/ http://hiphop-n-more.com/2010/02/inspectah-deck-manifesto-album-cover-track-list/ http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90472 http://www.undergroundhiphop.com/store/detail.asp?UPC=CHR3007CD here is an example of one of the sites I have listed above which contains works from this producer, which was used as a suitable reference on a wikipedia page for the same artist that the producer has worked with. Why is it ok to use this blog as a reference for the artist, but not the producer? as listed on the artists wikipedia page under references # ^ http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-50744.html this is just a small example of why these references should be considered suitable, I can list many many pages with music producers that have less in terms of references and I can show many more examples of this producers works. respectfully yours, Nhw001123 Nhw001123 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion I have reviewed the articles provided by Nhw001123, and none are reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Jon Flip Muro. Those that may be reliable, such as this one, are not in depth enough to be considered the substantial coverage required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Nhw001123's comment about other Wikipedia pages lacking sources is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Vampire-queen.jpg – "No Consensus" closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Vampire-queen.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Not only did the only other editor engaging in discussion produce an argument transparently contrary to the Wikipedia non-free content policy as well as to the relevant WikiProject's manual of style, but WP:FFD clearly states that "files that have been listed for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them." This seems to suggest that a result of 'no consensus' (as the closing admin ruled in this case) should default to deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Question as closing admin: When has it ever been the case that "no consensus" defaults to delete on any XFD nomination? The full sentence at WP:FFD which you partially quote reads, "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised." That seems to indicate that a no-consensus close defaults to keep, just like all the other XFD processes. Explain to me why I am wrong. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Which part of the wording "if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them" do you think suggests that images without a clear consensus to keep should be kept? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC) This has come up before at DRV. Our deletion process says that no consensus defaults to keep for FFDs. I think the FFD wording identified by Treasury Tag is at least ambiguous and at worst contradicts the deletion process guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse keep, as Wikipedia:Deletion_process#FFD clearly identifies "no consensus" as a Keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC) WP:FFD clearly identifies "no consensus" as a delete. Do you perhaps think it would be easier to sort this disparity out rather than simply choosing which position to take based on whether or not you like the image in question? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Classic no consensus and our deletion process does say that no consensus defaults to keep. However I recognise that (1) as I say above, the text on WP:FFD can be read to mislead; and (2) I think there is good reason for FFDs involving non-free images to default to delete but that change would require an RFC process and shouldn't be imposed on this DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Comment—would it make everybody's life easier if I withdraw this DRV and simply re-nominate the image in the hope of garnering a clearer consensus, in that case? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC) That would be a Speedy Keep, actually.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, because it clearly meets at least one of the speedy-keep criteria </sarcasm> ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC) This DRV could, by consensus, resolve to relist the discussion (I wouldn't oppose that). And re-nominating a "no consensus" is not generally considered disruptive although doing so immediately after the FFD's closure might be seen as bad form. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I don't have as much experience with FFD as I do with AFD but I'll give this one a shot. WP:NFCC is a "policy with legal considerations" and that means that it's enforced "prescriptively". If an image is taken to FFD because the nominator feels that it fails NFCC 8 and makes a good case, then that image should be deleted unless someone can provide a damn good reason why it should be kept. If 8 editors show up and say "Keep OH PRETTY PICTURE" the file still gets deleted even though technically there's "no consensus" to delete the image. However, the discussion at issue here was mostly a back and forth exchange between the nominator and one other editor, both of which provided opposite but plausible interpretations of NFCC 8. Therefore I endorse the close as defaulting to "keep" with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC) endorse close per Ron. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 July 2010

Criticism of The New York Times – Endorse but allow relisting. Consensus here is split between those who endorse the admin's decision and those who criticize it and want to overturn it. Juding from the discussion below, I think consensus is this: Whack! Tim Song for not providing a closing rationale for a decision that clearly needs explanation. Most people here agree that the close is correct based on the actual discussion. Most people also think that the AFD did not correctly assess the situation and/or all relevant reasons for and against deletion. I am aware that no one actually argued to relist this AFD but the fact that many people brought forth arguments about the article's existence here implies that further discussion of the merits of this article is required. I think a new discussion will allow those objections raised in this discussion to be considered, so that the fate of the article can be determined correctly. The fate of the deletion of The New York Times and the Holocaust should be considered in a new AFD as well. The arguments in favor of overturning the decision are not valid based on the actual decision but on the merits of the article. Those in favor of endorsing are valid but cannot address the obvious need for further discussion. As such, consensus here supports both endorsing the close but allowing further discussion. If a new discussion is started, the article should of course be undeleted for the period of the AFD, possibly outside the mainspace. – SoWhy 21:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Criticism of The New York Times (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Should have defaulted to keep, there was no consensus for deletion. Deletion !vote included: "A malformed collection of axe-grinding that serves no real informational purpose" Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Per DRV instructions, did you raise this with the closing administrator before bringing it here? Doing so might have gained you more of an insight into his or her reasoning process and avoided the need to come here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC) History has been restored for this DRV discussion DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse – I think there was a rough consensus for deletion. One of the "keep" !votes included "Article is notable if not without faults" and another one without anything. –MuZemike 23:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse- excellent and gutsy decision from the closing administrator who correctly accorded "It's useful!" and contentless keep votes less weight. As for "A malformed collection of axe-grinding that serves no real informational purpose", that at least tangentially refers to one of our content policies (ie. WP:NPOV), so I'm not sure what the nominator's problem with it is. This was certainly within the closing admin's discretion. Reyk YO! 23:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn when you're calling a close "gutsy" you're acknowledging that the close was questionable, at best, and the hagiographic interpretations of delete votes as somehow being more valid than keep votes is rather specious. The article provided ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that the topic was notable and the consensus at the AfD I'm looking at was for retention. If we allow admins to cast a supervote, without any explanation for why consensus is to be ignored, then consensus is a worthless process. Alansohn (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, no. What you call a "supervote" I call the closing admin's reponsibility to weigh the arguments in light of policy. If closing admins did not do that, WP:CONSENSUS would degenerate into snout-counting and AfD would become a votestacker's paradise. On the strength of the arguments presented at that AfD, only "delete" and "no consensus" were available to the closing admin and picking the former was within his discretion. Reyk YO! 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, yes. What you derisively call "snout-counting" is what I call democracy in action, and is the exact process that will be used to decide this case and all other DRVs. I'm sure that you believe that there was not a single valid "keep" vote, but I see keep votes that address the topic of reliable sourcing and notability, all of which you (and apparently the closing admin) have decided can be summarily discarded without explanation or justification. The failure to respect consensus and the continuing arrogation of authority by admins to cast supervotes is destructive of any meaning of consensus. If any admin has the authority to disregard one side of a debate, purely based on whim, then consensus is worthless. Alansohn (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a democracy, AfD is not a vote and I did not say all the keep votes were invalid. I did however say that disregarding the one that was just a bare vote and the one that just amounted to "Useful!" was the right thing to do, and that once they were taken out what was left was leaning towards a delete consensus. So kindly stop arguing against points nobody has made. It's also unfair on the closing admin to dismiss their closing of the debate as a "whim" when in fact they were more than willing to provide a detailed explanation when challenged. And that should have been done on Tim Song's talk page before starting a DRV. As for the whole "supervote" thing, what would you say if I started going around to AfDs and saying things like "Delete- I hate it." or "Delete- I'm wearing shiny shoes", or just "Delete"? Would the closing admin be doing the right thing to disregard that kind of spurious crap, or would that be a "supervote"? Reyk YO! 22:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Democracy is the worst of all possible systems, except for the alternatives. A dictator who bases decisions on arbitrarily tossing out votes is hardly a better alternative. You did say above that "On the strength of the arguments presented at that AfD, only 'delete' and 'no consensus' were available to the closing admin", which could not be any clearer in summarizing your position that there was not a single valid keep vote, let alone being a "straw man". My simple observation is that if this could have been closed as "keep" or "delete" within admin discretion, then "no consensus" would have been the far better option. Alansohn (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC) So you admit the "delete" was within administrator discretion? Reyk YO! 00:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC) "Admit"?!?! It would appear that solely by discarding votes in favor of retention that the conclusion of Delete could have been reached. There was absolutely no consensus for deletion among the participants at the actual AfD in question and the close was beyond the grasping powers of any properly-acting admin. The fact that the closing admin refused to provide any explanation for why real consensus was disregarded only compounds the difficulties with this close. Alansohn (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Do you labor under the delusion that anyone can just show up to an AfD and say "keep its notable!", to establish consensus? Weak opinions simply do not count much, if at all, towards consensus-building. Otherwise this would be a ballot and not a discussion. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC) "Refused to provide any explanation"? What do you call this diff? Please stop mischaracterising the opinions and actions of other editors. Reyk YO! 19:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Notability along with verifiability are the pillars of Wikipedia. What more needs to be said except point out that it meets one of the pillars of Wikipedia? The new trend is like the hanging chad, where !votes are excluded because they don't have the magic phrase the closer is looking for. Remember, arguments to avoid is an essay, not a checklist for excluding !votes. Also none of the contributors to the article were notified that it was nominated for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC) The original creator of the articles was informed correctly by the nominator. There is no requirement to inform anyone else. I would have thought you'd have been here long enough to know that, frankly. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I apologize, one editor was notified who moved the material from the main article on August 16, 2007. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn - there should have been a better discussion and consensus, I want to apologize for not seeing the original debate until it was too late. I have a couple reasons here - bear with me. I understand the NPOV concern, but it should be kept in mind that this not a standalone article, but a sub-article of The New York Times, expanding on the section The New York Times#Controversy and criticism. It appears as though the section grew too heavy for the main article, and the info was moved out to a subarticle per standard practice and summartized in the main article. I guess a similar sub-article on the other side of the issue could be List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times. The article is cross-referenced and linked by many other pages. Since it is a subarticle, it would have been prudent, I think, to have placed a notice on Talk:The New York Times of the deletion discussion to get a better consensus by interested editors, it doesn't appear that was done. (Should we do it for this discussion? I don't want to give the appearance of canvassing.) When considering WP:NPOV, it's important to keep in mind the policy applies not just to a particular subarticle, but to the encyclopedia as a whole. Do we present a neutral depiction of the Times? For that matter, do we present a NPOV toward media in general? After all, we have the article Fox News Channel controversies which seems to have identical "problems" as this one. Would it be neutral to delete one and not the other? Many people might not think so. Personally I would prefer renaming the article to Public perception of The New York Times (and doing the same with the Fox News subarticle) and including a wider spectrum of views, positive as well as negative. Regards - Kelly hi! 03:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to NC I find Kelly's arguments very strong. This is actually a fairly important article, is a break out article and itself has at least one breakout article. In addition no one disagreed with the coverage or notability of the topic, it's the POV issue. A rename should largely solve that. Further, I didn't see anything close to a consensus to delete in the discussion. In fact I found arguments on both sides, other than the nom's, to be fairly weak. And as I think the nom's issue can be addressed without deletion, no consensus was probably the right close. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn as there was no consensus, at best in terms of favoring deletion, unless we just want to confirm admins as judges. It makes no difference, other than a waste of time to delete this, because the core information will pop up in the ny times article or elsewhere over time.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - another example of a link that directs readers here is John McCain lobbyist controversy (I think that issue is the reason I had that article on my watchlist.) Given the Times role in shaping media coverage, criticism of the paper can itself be historically significant. I would support a rename, as mentioned above, and tagging of the page as problematic NPOV-wise until it can be brought into balance. But it shouldn't just be discarded. With respect - Kelly hi! 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC) see CNN controversies and BBC controversies, this appears to be the standard title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. When the close goes against the !votes (5-4 keep, closed as delete) the closing administrator owes everyone an explanation of their rationale. No rationale means there's nothing to endorse. Show your work when closing contentiously, please. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to incubate only. One thing that's clear is that many of those on both sides of the debate felt that it was an encyclopedic topic, but that the current article wasn't very good and had POV issues. I don't really see a consensus to delete, but on the other hand many of the keep !votes acknowledge the poor nature of the article in its current form. As such, taking both policy and consensus into account, I feel that Bearian's suggestion of incubation and (hopefully) restoration following improvements is the best way forward. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse, but. JClemens is absolutely right; the closer should have provided a substantive explanation in this matter, and failing to do so makes it far too difficult to have a coherent discussion here. However, even though the cached text no longer includes the substance of the article, it appears clear that, given the NYT's long and complex history, this article will inevitably be a grab-bag of mostly unrelated controversies. To cite only a few, the Holocaust controversy, the Jayson Blair debacle, the Iraq WMD reporting, the Pentagon Papers, the NSA reporting regarding surveillance of al-Qaeda, and the general liberal bias allegations can't be fitted into any coherent structure for an encyclopedic article. (As distinguished, say, from Fox News, where there's at least a conceptual spine of "conservative bias" to build an article on; no opinion otherwise on the merits of that article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC) You would have got a rationale and/or got the article incubated if you talked to me before bringing this to DRV, you know... Briefly, the point that there is a NPOV violation was not contested anywhere in the discussion, and there appear to be a rough consensus that the content should not remain in mainspace (considering the deletes and the incubate !votes). I also read CaliforniaAliBaba's comment as against retaining the present content. Arguments such as "it needs to be available, as the NYT is certainly one of the most influential news organizations in the US. A less influential news organization, Fox News Channel, has Fox News Channel controversies", is basically WP:WAX and are accorded less weight; "Article is notable if not without faults" is WP:JNN but more importantly beside the point, since notability is not the reason for the nomination; and of course the bare "keep" is not accorded any weight since AfD is not a vote.T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - I direct attention to A tale of two articles -- a remarkably similar story to this one, with perhaps some food for though regarding the (unintended?) consequences of a blanket delete. Please try to leave the actual ideologies out, and focus on the implications overall. I personally would rather this article not be deleted (see link above), as I believe valid content will effectively be lost; however my opinion is one for AFD, not DRV -- I haven't examined the actual deletion rationale/procedure for defect in this case. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I'm a Marxist treeehugger and I think the O'Reilly article looks just fine, criticism-wise. People who approach this project with the intent on getting their version of "The Truth" inserted into articles are the real problem here. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Default to Endorse - "I disagree with the result" is an invalid reason to initiate a DRV as far as I am concerned. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC) It can be if the action is clearly wrong. But in this case the nom has explained that he didn't think the discussion reached a consensus for deletion, which is exactly when DrV should be examining the AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus or relist - yes, the article could stand to be restructured, but there is no overriding reason for deletion (eg BLP) and it's all well-sourced. This looks like an admin supervote. --B (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse, because it's within admin discretion, but an expanded explanation would have been useful here. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Deletion - well within admin discretion, not out of process, and a good close. Eusebeus (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. It seems to be a reasonable decision. There were 4 delete !votes, 1 incubate !vote and 4 keep !votes and 1 comment. The comment I read as more of a delete. Of the keeps, 1 gives no rationale at all and, since this is not a vote, should be discarded. Another gives a reason "needs to be available". That however is a personal opinion that should be discounted, we don't have articles on every topic that every editor feels needs to be available. A third says article is notable without explaining why it is notable. The only legitimate keep is the one HoundofBaskersville keep and Col. Warden has quoted an appropriate policy response to that one. The delete arguments are around the the neutrality policy which none of the keep !votes address. Since the main delete argument has not been shown incorrect, and no valid keep argument has been provided, the AfD was closed appropriately and should be endorsed. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn - Not any explanation and a frankly surprising result given how ambiguous the discussion was, that it wasn't relisted (why on earth was this not relisted?), it had very little input, and represents a pretty major discussion (not to mention that a related issue languished at ANI I think). Slipped under the radar in my opinion, and I'm amazed the article rescue crew didn't spend their time on a major, clearly notable (definitely with NPOV issues) article. Stunning. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC) They were obviously too busy with the important task of voting Keep on rescuing the vastly more encyclopedic List of fictional weasels and Smelly socks. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse—one of the "arguments" to keep was ITSNOTABLE and one provided no reason whatsoever. Another was based on the premise that the article "needs to be available" – which is just a marginally more literate version of ITSUSEFUL. Incidentally, I'm not sure what the problem with, "A malformed collection of axe-grinding that serves no real informational purpose," is. I'm also unsure why the person who instigated this review didn't approach the closing administrator first. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is an essay, not a checklist for invalidating people's !votes. Notability is a pillar of Wikipedia along with verifiability. Saying it is notable is affirming it adheres to the Wikipedia core pillar. I am not sure when this !vote invalidation concept started. It has become our version of the hanging chad. It has become the of a semantic equivalent of a poll tax to invalidate the will of editors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus The article The New York Times and the Holocaust was recently deleted, with many arguing that the sourced statements should be merged with this article. This article was meanwhile listed simultaneously at AfD and swept aside as well? After the massive amount of debate about the former, I don't think this article should have been deleted after such a (relatively) small conversation. Overturning to no consensus would allow this to be re-listed with a more substantive conversation. —Torchiest talk/contribs 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC) If your sole basis for overturning is that "not enough people commented" then you should be aware that AfD discussions routinely only get around ten participants. There is no problem at all with that. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC) It's not just that, precisely. It's primarily because there was such a hugely contentious discussion on the (very closely) related article, and a decent amount of it was about merging its contents with this article. I would guess that the discussion on that article would have been different if commenters had realized this article was up for deletion as well. So I'm saying that it's not just not enough discussion, it's not enough discussion by editors that were clearly interested parties. —Torchiest talk/contribs 20:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC) But on that basis no XfD closure would ever be valid. It is the responsibility of interested parties to watch out for anything they feel strongly about, not the general duty of the community to hold back from any action which might offend them. Not a single editor who commented on the first discussion was in any way prevented from commenting on the second, and therefore, this is not a valid reason to declare the second result invalid. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Since any XfD can be brought up for review, I don't think what you're saying applies. Yes, people are responsible for keeping up with articles, but sometimes things slip by, and that's exactly what this process is for. So I'd say my reasoning is valid in this situation, though it wouldn't apply for every XfD ever done. The large response here, much larger than the original AfD itself, and the larger response for the closely related article, indicates to me that the discussion was incomplete. —Torchiest talk/contribs 20:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) "More people participate at the DRV than the AfD, therefore the AfD debate was insufficient" ? Can we use this in the example section of false premise ? Tarc (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC) I think it's legitimate. The article in question seems fairly significant, and the amount of initial discussion wasn't very substantial, in light of the larger discussion for the Holocaust article, which was described as an inappropriate branching of this very article. In light of that, I think the people who made suggestions about merging it into this article would be interested in commenting on whether or not this article is deleted. —Torchiest talk/contribs 13:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn Clearly an act of overzealous editors. The references are notable and the information is useful. Should be merged into a subsection of the main NYT entry.--Wittsun (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Clearly an act of overzealous editors – meaningless. The references are notable and the information is useful – riiiight..... Should be merged into a subsection of the main NYT entry – this isn't the deletion discussion, where this comment would be better placed. This is to discuss whether the closure was adequate, not what you think should have happened. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 06:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and Incubate Echoing the sentiments expressed by others including concerns about the lack of visibilty of the movement to delete the article and the failure to explain why similar standards for said deletion are not being applied to other pages such as Fox New, CNN, BBC (etc.) controverises, I also wish to add that the article gives decent depth to each scenario, is (give or take) appropriately sourced, and it does offer the NYT an oppurtunity in the entry to address its criticism via statements made by its ombudsman. Therefore I am still puzzled by the nominator's rationale. They kindly offered a response to my previous encounter, yet still failed to provide exact examples of how this article was in violation of policy cited. In fact, all the criticisms listed in the article are still relevant even now (Jayson Blair, Duke Lacrosse for example) too modern journalism and the NYT Times proper. As I said previously, the sum of these certainly has a common theme dubious journalism by the NYT, which I wonder where else will be addressed if not here? User Colonel Warden's original claim the the material was "indiscriminite," and I asked for specifics, the rationale was then altered to favor neutrality. Since the prime rationale was never addressed, it seems presumptious to assume that that basis for deletion has any merit. As far as neutrality goes, CW explanation to me: "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." I agree. So how about changing the name of the article? Perhaps "New York Times' Controversies," to make it more in line with other articles of the same venue? I and several other responders offered to work to improve the article-perhaps this was one of those steps. This all seemed rather an excessive response and unneccessary process to undertake if the only objection was the name; a process that would have meant changing three words at max. I fear by the removal and manner of such for this article will hurt the overall sense of neutrality of Wikipedia that the nominator and like-minded editors claimed to uphold. Cheerio HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Your comments indicate that you still wish the article to have a hostile tone by focussing exclusively upon cases of "dubious journalism". Under whatever title you place this hostile commentary, it will still be hostile and so contrary to WP:NPOV and so this won't do. A neutral approach to the general topic would be to either have individual articles about specific notable incidents or to have a summary article which considers the NYT's coverage in a broad-brush way such as Coverage of sports in the NYT. A title of the latter sort would not prejudice the content by supposing that it must be critical or controversial. We would then be able to give appropriate weight to the balance between cases of good and bad reporting and so give a rounded and balanced picture. Such an article would be a new one and I see little merit in starting from the article in question which was too incoherent and was properly deleted for violating core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC) WP:NPOV says "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That doesn't mean we cannot have criticism, and we don't have to have have half an article on Hitler saying nice things about him for balance. I am not sure where your interpretation comes from. Please cite an exact quote from WP:NPOV to support your interpretation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC) overturn to no consensus If an admin is going to use their own judgment in closing a *fD they need a good policy reason to close an otherwise no consensus as anything other than no consensus. I don't see that here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - The keep !votes in this AfD clearly had very weak rationales, most (if not all) could be characterized by examples at WP:ATA. Most of the delete votes focussed on the NPOV issues of the article. The result of this AfD is clearly delete. This DRV is not "AfD, part 2", so attempting to discuss the sources and other AfD-like topics is inappropriate. We're simply discussing whether the closing admin correctly determined the consensus based on the comments made at the AfD. SnottyWong gossip 18:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn deletion Two reasons. The article New York Times and the Holocaust was deleted, largely under the argument that it should be merged into this one. If this article is deleted, that one needs to be restored. Secondly, there was clearly no consensus. When half the editors are saying "Delete it" and half of them are saying "Don't delete it", there is clearly no consensus, and the default action should be no action at all. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - 12 days. Someone wanna step up and put this baby to bed? Tarc (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rachel Uchitel – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rachel Uchitel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I'm bringing my own AfD close to DRV here. Firstly, because a number of people have questioned it; and secondly, because I'm questioning it myself. Technically, there is no consensus at the actual AfD and therefore the close is correct on a simplistic level; but given the previous AfD and the weakness of the "Keep" !votes, together with the fact that it's a BLP, I do think that I should probably have closed it as Delete. However, changing my close would've been controversial and almost certainly ended up with a DRV anyway; so let's do it here. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse original closing action. Reliable sources have been introduced to the article showing that the subject has received significant coverage in the mainstream media to include press and TV. Uchitel was notable prior to the BLP issue with Tiger Woods as a 9/11 victim. This was established within a week of the attack and cited again recently by the press and in the lede paragraph. Verifiable sources have identified her as being present in Australia where he stayed. And while other press suggest further ramifications due to her presence, they were not introduced into her article for BLP issues that could viewed negatively towards her or Woods. In other AfDs, just the mention of WP:RS links into the WP:AFDs have saved articles. Uchitel's article was and is fully backed by reliable sources that show she was notable before the Tiger Woods incident, multiple WP:CSDs, subsequent AFD and continues to receive press for other indiscretions. The only BLP issue that remains is not apparent as multiple sources show with discretion that something substantial took place causing a news conference to be cancelled and reported on by CBS News, international sources like The Independent and The Daily Telegraph, and multiple reliable US sources. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse From a purely guidelines prospective, this is an easy keep as there are plenty of sources. Throw in BLP issues, BLP1E, and a general desire for us not to cover "tabloid"-like things, it gets less clear and the discussion amply showed that a significant number of people favored deletion. That said, the arguments for deletion were weak given that she met WP:N, both in letter and (IMO) in spirit before the "Event", so BLP1E would seem not to apply nor has she tried to maintain a low profile. While I can understand the desire not to cover tabloid-like things, there was no consensus to delete this and no real policy or guideline-based reason to do so. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to delete – I had originally brought up the closure with Black Kite on his talk page on 23 June. Had I closed the AFD, I would have likely closed it as delete, as I found the delete arguments stronger than the keep ones. Three comments struck out to me; Excirial's analysis of the sources and even more particularly Nancy and Courcelles' comments that nothing had changed since the previous AFD (which was closed as delete and endorsed at DRV). No one was adequately able to refute their comments, so the AFD should have been closed as delete. NW (Talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) [40] is a 550 word article solely about her from 2008 (about a year before the "Event"), [41] is a 600+ word piece, again solely about her, her from 2006. In [42] and [43] she is cited in the context of her job. Both again are from 2005 and 2006. [44] is solely about her and her fiance from 2004. That gives as an article in the New York Times, Black Book, and the NY Post where she is the main (or in the case of the NYT article one of two) topic of the article and 2 articles from the Las Vegas_ Review-Journal which cite her as an expert in her field. This is all before the one event. Excirial's analysis of the sources is that "...most of them just mention her name in the passing." which is true, but a number of "in passing" references don't negate those that cover her in detail, in fact they reinforce them. And of course there are many, many sources after the event that are in massive detail. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) NW, you aren't saying the close was an breach of Black Kite's discretion though, correct?--Milowent (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Correct, I agree that a no consensus close was within Black Kite's discretion to make. I simply think that a delete close would have been better (though it appears that everyone else seems to disagree, which really is fine with me). NW (Talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC) A truly borderline one. I think either close would've been within discretion. Since there's no clear error, I'll default to endorse but I would also have endorsed a deletion.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Well within discretion. Some of the delete !votes, including my own, were well refuted and that has to be taken into account. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC) weak endorse- such an article is always bound to draw some vitriol on both keep and delete sides, but I don't see a consensus to delete in the afd, and some of the main delete arguments were reasonably refuted. As it stands, there just wasn't any consensus for deletion, and thats still what is required for an article to be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Good sources, including some from before the recent events. I am often willing to invoke NOT TABLOID, but at a certain level of coverage it beomes irrelevant. I don;t see how there is any fixed line; its a matter of judgement article by article. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse close. Close was well within discretion, I have no clue why admin would think its not. Stop wringing your hands, the coverage on her is substantial and for multiple events. But introduce some salacious coverage about a female and everyone starts wringing their hands, meanwhile the article is probably the best patrolled and least POV piece out there about her and that's not a bad thing.--Milowent (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse but with the added caveat that multiple AfD's are an argument for keeping an article, not deleting it. Unless there was some flaw in a previous AfD, then a future AfD has a pretty high hurdle to overcome, intentionally so. For example, if sources were provided in a first AfD, but never added to an article, an editor seeking to delete on a subsequent AfD is responsible for comprehending those sources, whether or not they've been added to the article yet. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC) You're absolutely correct when the first AfD is Keep - but the article was actually deleted at the previous AfD, and later re-created. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Strong arguments made by a large number of users on both sides. This was well within administrative discretion. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse This article should be kept, it is full of good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.69.68.60 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Weak Endorse I supported deletion, and I would have endorsed and preferred a delete close as well, but no consensus was within discretion. Courcelles (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - She meets our guidelines with ease, even though people say she doesn't and then back that up...nothing. Anyways, not AfD2 and nothing improper about the close, so leave it alone. People can run another AfD if they want, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 July 2010

Timeline of the future – Deletion Endorsed. There is no consensus to userfy this - rather the consensus is that this article violates SYNTH and CRYSTAL. – Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Timeline of the future (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page was deleted by quick deletion (because it had once been deleted and was recreated) without a chance for a defense. I created the page a few years ago, and, as I remember it, somebody complained that it was speculative or represented a "point of view". I think it was because I had said something about sea-level rise or something connected to global warming, which some people consider untrue. Since there were a couple people taking that position, and only me (as I remember) saying that if they didn't like the article they could improve it but that it was nevertheless a useful article, the "consensus" was against it and it got deleted. Later I recreated it, trying to explain that references could be found in the articles linked to, and I think leaving out something connected to global warming. I didn't know anything about "Deletion Review", I figured if I put back an improved version and nobody objected to it, then it was legitimate. Then the other day someone somehow discovered that the article had once been deleted, and for reasons I fail to understand nominated it for quick deletion. That quick deletion happened before I knew anything about it, so I had no opportunity to try to defend the article. In fact, this time no one even gave any reasons why the article is not acceptable. It was simply deleted on the basis of what was decided years ago. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC) It's possible to write a reliably-sourced timeline of the future, but the language used ought to be conditional or subjunctive as opposed to declarative (i.e. in most cases, "may", "might", "could" as opposed to "will"). Africa could split into two small continents along the East African Rift. In 4.5 billion years, the Milky Way may collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. Half a billion years after that the sun might expand to become a red giant, rendering the earth uninhabitable or completely destroying it, and so on out to the possible heat death of the universe. All of these things are sourceable and could make, I think, a moderately important article that Wikipedia ought to have. The important thing is that it isn't permitted to become yet another climate change battleground, which I see with some weariness is already happening. It'll need watching closely by editors uninvolved in climate change.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Oh—and as a PS: over and above the fact that it would be possible to have a reliably-sourced article with this title, there's a serious question about whether the speedy deletion criterion used was applicable, and there's been nowhere near enough communication between the parties to this DRV. Either the tagger or the deleting admin ought to have contacted Eric Kvaalen, who'd made a good faith attempt to write a sourced article. Eric Kvaalen then ought to have contacted the deleting admin before raising the DRV, which also wasn't done, but given that no attempt to communicate with him had been made beyond a standard templating tag appropriate for vandalism or thoughtless recreation and wholly inappropriate to the actual situation, it's overly harsh to censure him for that. Subject to seeing the deleting admin's comments I suspect I'll be needing the larger of my trouts.  :)—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't know that I was supposed to communicate directly with the administrator instead of coming here. Actually, an administrator called RL0919 (Richard Lawrence) did communicate with me (later), and I suppose he was the one who deleted it. He was very nice and sent me the source of the latest version for my personal files. He suggested I bring up the deletion here. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Comment the cached version seems to contain very little, the substantive text being "Global warming, Arctic Sea ice-free during the Summer. Devastating earthquakes in California, Tokyo, Istanbul, Palestine, Mexico City, Tehran (if they haven't already occurred in the next 10 years)." References for the Arctic Sea and Calafornian earthquakes. I can't compare to the original article but given the comments in the original AFD it doesn't appear to me that it has substantially addressed the concerns of the original discussion so G4 would be valid. I don't know what cached version you're looking at. The latest version had lots of stuff about the predicted future of continental drift, the Sun, galaxies, and so on. As I said, when I recreated the article a couple years ago I included a statement to the effect that it did not contain original references. It would be a lot of work to get original references for everything, but most of what I put in the article is found in the other Wikipedia articles that I linked to. I'd be happy for others to add literature references. But I don't see why the whole article should be deleted for not supporting every fact. I don't see why people go around trying to get articles deleted instead of improving them! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) The version from google cache, which I can only see the top revision for so if other stuff was there it was removed before it was deleted. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC) What I see in Google cache is not recent. For instance it mentions the Copenhagen conference, which I removed a long time ago. (It is now in the past, not the future!) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Even if the G4 isn't valid I doubt the article in this form could survive a further AFD. The sourcing is limited, NPOV says we give appropriate weight to sources, so that's where you get into the arguments about the global warming aspect failing NPOV which is hard to represent in the simple form this would demand. Other aspects outside of global warming could prove equally problematic where there are broad disputes/debates about it. e.g. The 2012 end of the world type speculation. The final part of the sentence (if they haven't already ocurred...) kind of makes a nonsense of the article, "there will be earthquakes at some time" which is sort of more or less guaranteed but doesn't make a useful encyclopedia article. The scope of the article is also incredibly broad making it more or less unbound for any old future prediction. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Look, all the article said about global warming was that sea levels are expected to rise and the Arctic should become ice-free during the summers. If those are really that sinful, we can take them out. It's not worth deleting a whole article which talks about a lot more than that just because of this current war about global warming. It's a minor issue compared to the billions of years ahead. Believe it or not, people attacked it last time (a couple years ago) for mentioning the Olympics or something. I mean, I tried to put in something that was fairly sure for the next 10 years, and people try to delete the article for it! I just don't understand what motivates these people. And as for the statement "if they haven't already occurred", there's a good reason for that. These earthquakes are all predicted to happen in the next 30 to 100 years or so. But we can't say that any particular one WON'T happen in the next 10 years. If "the Big One" hits San Francisco or Los Angeles in the next 10 years, then there probably won't be another "Big One" in the same location before 2110. It's that simple. As for the scope being broad, well, that's the nature of the future. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I don't think you quite get the points I am trying to make. Are we saying if the earthquakes occur in the next 10 years, then they will not in the following years. I doubt we can say that with any degree of certainty. If the sources aren't willing to commit to a time slot why should we then weasel our way out of it by putting in such a disclaimer? It is quite certain that these big earthquakes at these locations will occur. The timeframe is also known, in other words we know that there is a certain probability that a particular earthquake will occur in the next year, and if it doesn't, then it has about the same probability of happening the next year, and so on. If it does happen in a particular year, then that area might be relatively safe (compared to before) because the stresses will have been relieved. We can thus calculate the probability that a particular one of these earthquakes will occur in the next century, and it comes out pretty high! But if it occurs in the next 10 years, then it's not too likely that there will be another one in the next 90 years. That's the way the mathematics work. To leave out these earthquakes would be to leave out something that is quite likely and very important. By the way, at the beginning of the article I wrote something about these being things which are considered quite likely, not things which are necessarily certain. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) In which case placing them in the second slot rather than the first slot is purely arbitary? I am not asking for absolute certainty, but having to add disclaimers that it may happen earlier is ludicrous it is either in that timeline or it isn't --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) No, none of these earthquakes (I believe) is very likely to happen in the next 10 years, but they are likely to occur in the next 100. That's the nature of earthquake predictions. Yes, the event will occur in only one of the time slots, but to leave these out completely just because they MIGHT occur in the next 10 years or they MIGHT occur after 100 years is not good. Anyway, that's not a reason to delete the article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The point about global warming wasn't about if *I* believe it should or shouldn't be there, it's about the overall question of NPOV maintaining that standard giving balance to differing viewpoints within such a timeline could prove difficult. It didn't say anything about how much global warming or sea level rise there would be or what the causes would be. But I think you'll find that the articles on global warming and sea level rise also say similar things to what was in this article. Why not delete them as well if it's forbidden to say what most scientists think? Anyway, as I have said elsewhere in this discussion, I don't think the whole article, giving all kinds of things expected to happen (and when) should be DELETED because some people don't think sea levels will continue to rise. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Forget Global warming on it's own. Imagine it to be any point, it's about NPOV we need to maintain a neutral point of view. Presenting in this article a view point which says X will happen whilst not presenting the equally prevelant view point that X won't happen is a violation of NPOV. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, the view that sea levels will not go up at all or that there will be no more global warming is not an equally prevalent view among scientists. I'm really sorry that this is degenerating into an argument about global warming. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Again forget about global warming. If you want take X where we can accurately measure that 60% of recognised scientists say it will happen in the next 50 years, whilst the other 40% say it won't but will happen in 250 years time, NPOV says we give suitable weighting. We cannot pick one of the two views out to present in a timeline and ignore the other. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) It's not 60:40. And even if it were, what about all the other things in the table? They aren't controversial. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC) The point about 2012 was semi-serious why would that be excluded. I can cite a reference which backs it so why isn't it included? If you can cite one reference for one point on global warming why not the 2012 stuff? This again covers the NPOV issue, but also is an issue with inclusion criteria for such an article, it's not well defined so why isn't anything and everything going to be dumped into it, or do you and I decide what's important to go in? (Which is I guess the WP:SYNTH issue from the AFD) I didn't "cite one reference" for global warming. I simply referred to the Wikipedia article on it. (I don't see why we should have to give lots of references in this article to things like the ICCC report. Those can be left to the linked-to articles.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) You don't address how the selection of items to include in the timeline is determined a key point regarding WP:SYNTH. I could link to the 2012 article to back the end of the world being a prospect. Does the Wikipedia article on the world ending in 2012 say that it's likely to happen? This article is for things which will or are likely to happen according to the experts. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I'll give up here since you are clearly missing the point and I am clearly incapable of explaining it clearly to you. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Cherry picking points out of a much bigger article to place in a timeline is a problem of original research. We don't use other wikpedia articles as references since these aren't reliable sources, items need to have their own supporting references - as mentioned elsewhere these would ideally be to a holistic timeline from third parties. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) That's really stretching the meaning of "original research"! Look, I'm not against people adding original references for the things in this article. But I don't see why it should be my personal responsibility. Why can't any of you do a little work instead of insisting that I do it or else you'll delete the article which I committed the crime of creating? I have other things to do in life than spend my time writing on Wikipedia. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Have you read WP:SYNTH which people have pointed out time and time again? It's part of the original research, so not it's not stretching the meaning of it at all. Some wikipedia editors deciding what is and isn't important, what is and isn't "true" and mashing them into an article is original reasearch. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Everyone who writes on Wikipedia has to decide what is and isn't important, and what is and isn't true, and then they have to "mash them together into an article". If that's what SYNTH is against, then I think it's a bad policy. Why do people think it's so important to enforce such things? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Really none of these are issues for DRV to care much about, they are issues for AFD and AFD discussed them and concluded in deletion. In order to write an article which is not considered valid for G4 it needs to substantially address the issues of the AFD, which in my view the cached version doesn't. i.e. the issues of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. Neither are insurmountable. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC) As I mention higher up, the Google cached version is pretty old. The AFD discussion was years ago and I have added a lot since then about the far future, as well as references to some things and a note saying that most of the predictions are mentioned in the Wikipedia articles referred to. I don't think it was good to delete this article NOW when the only discussion was years ago on a primitive version. Anyway, I agree with you that the issues are not insurmountable. If a few other people would take an interest in this article, it might get improved a lot. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) No the cache version is where someone removed everything which wasn't referenced. I've seen the article as it was and still stand by my viewpoint the original AFD issues of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH haven't been addressed. If people wish to work on trying to address those then perhaps you should just have it userfied bring it up to scratch and have that reviewed. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The Google version I saw wasn't that. It contained the Copenhagen conference. If we "userfy" it, then will anybody work on it? I doubt it. Even when it was a normal article it didn't get much attention. Personally I don't have a lot of time for these things. Defending this article from deletion is taking a lot more time than I would like! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) If an article doesn't meet the required standards and no one wants to work on bringing it up to standards, then yes deletion is a sensible option. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (As a side thought if we do include 2012 end of the world, then the rest of it is pretty meaningless!) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I of course did not put in anything like that! I even took out something someone else put in once about some sort of death star. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Userfy An article with this title could exist quite nicely. But the one I'm seeing in the cache isn't it. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) So improve it, don't delete it. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I'm generally of that opinion, and seeing the "best" version that DGG has dug up,[45] you might well be right. But I think this kind of article might be best developed in userspace. It seems likely a good article could exist, but one that is better than worse than nothing and manages to avoid WP:OR will require a lot of effort. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Are you saying the latest version, for which I was mostly responsible, is worse than nothing? I am slightly offended. As for original research, I think that is being taken a bit too far if it is taken to mean that you can't take a fact from one article and a fact from another and put them all together into one article. It's almost as though the prohibitions on "original research" and "synthesis" are being used to prohibit anyone using his head a little bit. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse the article was originally deleted via valid AfD, and the nom did defend it then, but nobody agreed. In the debate, one commenter called the article "ridiculous", and frankly I think that pretty much sums it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I don't have the old discussion before me (don't know how to find it), but what was so ridiculous about it? Do you want to debate any particular thing? As I said, I suspect it was a global warming warrior who didn't like the phrasing of something I put in the first time, so he called the whole article ridiculous. By the way, I thought this page was for discussing technicalities. I don't mind debating anything in the article, but I'm not sure it's allowed here. (I'm getting paranoid!) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. None of the issues leading to the original deletion were adequately addressed, even though some of the speculation/predictions may have been changed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC) As I remember, the original criticisms (years ago) were that it didn't cite enough sources and that the predictions were too uncertain. So I added a line to the effect that the corroboration can be found in the Wikipedia articles linked to. And I challenge the notion that the predictions are too uncertain. (I would take out the mention of the "technological singularity", but someone else put that in, and I don't want to be too harsh towards the contributions of others.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse since we have zero reliable sources about what will have happened in the future, the entire thing is a CRYSTAL violation. Future possibilities (e.g., sea level rise) might be attached to individual topic articles as educated speculation, but if you take speculation X from source A and speculation Y from source B, you can't put both those speculations together without it being OR. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC) That's where I think the "original research" prohibition is being taken to the point of prohibiting the use of one's brain. I think it's ridiculous to call this kind of activity "original research". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse The only circumstances in which an article of this kind would not violate core policies would be if there were multiple reliable sources that set out a "timeline of the future" in a holistic way. Cobbling together individual predictions of events into a "timeline" is synthesis. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Reliable sources like this, you mean?—S Marshall T/C 21:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I didn't say the sources didn't exist. I'm just not seeing them in the cache'd article.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Sure. But wouldn't you agree that the fact that there are sources means the cached article is fixable?—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Here, "fix" means start again. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Why? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Because none of the article is based on the kind of sources mentioned in my post above. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I really think it's a bad idea that we can't have an article on Wikipedia that says the Olympics in 2012 will be in London unless we can find a timeline of the future somewhere where someone says that. It's like pretending to be stupid. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Here you are getting into trouble. If the article puts the 2012 olympics on par with the exhaustion of the sun, and no other reputable publication has similarly done so, then the WP:NOR line is crossed. This should not be reason for deletion, but it gives points to those arguing for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC) That's because of the logarithmic nature of the table. One would expect that things happening in the next 10 years would be MUCH less important than something happening between 1 and 10 milliard years from now! And I think it's proper that the both sorts of things be included. Now, there may be things in the next 10 years that are both predictable and as important as the Olympics and World Cups, but I don't happen to know about them. Can you help? Or would you doing so be called "original research"? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I can help. There seem to be lots of these timelines published. But decisions need to be made on a basis of what the most reputably published timelines do, and not on what is proper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Rather than speculate on what is in the cache, I have temporarily restored the article for discussion. The most recent version is [46]  ; but the fuller previous version seems to be [47]. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per WP:CRYSTAL. We may be able to skim around our policies and create an article about how mainstream science predicts the future, but it would still need a top-down rewrite. ThemFromSpace 07:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Restore or userfy. A decent article could be written from existing sources. I am satisfied that Eric Kvaalen knows what needs to be done, and is capable of doing it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, but does Eric Kvaalen have the time? Why can't other people take some of the work? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Very good point. This is why I think restore is a good outcome here. In mainspace, every visitor can feel the need and the right to improve it. I think it unfortunate that the eventualism versus immediatism balance has shifted to immediatism. The moderate eventualist in me says that the article belongs in mainspace where readers will be driven to work on it. If the community doesn't want it in mainspace as-is, I hope that by deciding to userfy, we are saying that with some work it can go back to mainspace. As an alternative to userfication, where it looks like it is Eric Kvaalen's problem to fix, we also have the Article Incubator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and let the article be improved. It seems capable of it. There are sources for quite a number of the events, and probably a good many more sourced events can be found. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC) I'm dubious. The article was deleted at afd for violating WP:SYN. The recreation (diff from last version pre-deletion) was identical, and edits since then (diff to version pre-cleanup) shows no understanding or improvement in this regard whatsoever; rather, it's worse. Even after removing the unsourced entries (diff), what we're left with does not address the reasons for deletion ("why should we use one scientists prediction of the effects of global warming over another's (that's POV)"). Endorse original AFD and G4 speedy and require a neutral, properly-sourced userspace draft before returning to mainspace. —Korath (Talk) 23:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC) You're being unfair. The first diff that you show was because I put back the original so I could have it available for reference and could work on it! Didn't you notice that one minute later I made a new version? I agree that this article is a sort of synthesis, since I didn't go find other sites or articles where someone else had already done this. (One is mentioned above by S. Marshall.) So let's reference some, instead of rejecting the whole idea of an article called "Timeline of the future". I agree that the version after UserVOBO savaged it is worse. He basically took out almost everything. I mean, can you imagine taking out the Olympics of 2012 because I didn't give a reference other than Wikipedia??!! This is being taken to extremes. And your mention of global warming strengthens my impression that there's a vendetta against this article because it dared to mention global warming. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC) People, I've spent enough time on this. I don't know what motivates people to roam about seeking what article they may devour. If it gives you a sense of satisfaction to purge Wikipedia of the original sin of synthesis, if I'm a recidivist researcher, if I have fumbled the forbidden fruit of discernment, if I have revealed sealed secrets of things to come, if I have prophesied woes you would not wish to witness, then purge away. Extirpate the evil. Enforce the Will of Wiki policy decisions. Let not the letter of the Law be lightly regarded. Your choice will be of none effect on whether any of the predictions come true of course, but only on how many people will be aware. If the world will be better without this article, then by all means delete it and expunge even its history. Send me a message afterwards that I may know its fate. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Although a discussion of possible futures is, um, possible, that's not what this is. We have, by the way, an article on Futurology although it's about the field of study and not about predictions. And yes, we don't allow synthesis. And we don't allow using other articles as sources. Even if they are good, well-sourced articles today, the relevant sources may be removed tomorrow. We need the actual sources in our articles. I'm not saying you have to source the 2012 Olympics, but that sort of short-term already planned major even is surely not what this article was meant to be about. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - The premise of the article is ridiculous. Apart from that, recreation of deleted material is eligible for a speedy delete. And since the creator seems little interested in adhering to basic editing policies, userfication would be a waste of time. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 July 2010

Nikolas Schreck – Disruptive nomination by blocked user – Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nikolas Schreck (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Should be restored; he is a niche performer who formed a band in California. He is known and has his work on Youtube and various pages when he is searched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.136.28 (talk • contribs) Keep deleted - doesn't meet WP:BAND. Yworo (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted subject was non-notable, meeting neither WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Content was obvious self-written vanity better suited to a personal webpage than an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted, speedy close. Opened by blocked user Sovietia while block on main account was in force. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

the back of lanes hand – No. Wikipedia is not a film prop. If you want to host the content somewhere else please drop a line on my talk page and I'll email it to you – Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
the of lanes hand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) i request that this page be reinstated untill 9 pm mst, 7-1-10 after that it should be deleted and all ref wiped to its exsitance. its just a funny artical that was never saved to anything other then wiki. its being used in an indi comedy and the filming isnt done yet. its mostly so the content can be saved and used on a social network insted of wiki. Frostypb88 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 July 2010

Fred Fields – No Consensus close endorsed. I think we are seeing a clear move towards deleting unsourced BLPs as a default just now so the lack of sourcing could have led to deletion but closing admins still have some discretion when there are good arguments to keep an article and the consensus was that this call was within administrative discretion. I would also suggest that should this remain unsourced then a further AFD is inevitable and the drift towards deletion of unsourced BLPs may well see the end of this so those wishing to retain this would be well advised to go look for some sources. – Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fred Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Requesting review of my own AFD close here. User:Quantpole has made some valid points on my talk page, and upon taking a second look at the AFD, I can see how I may have overlooked the discussion. I don't want to overturn my own close to delete, especially because others in the AFD have argued for retention. Hence, I'm bringing this close to DRV for further review. –MuZemike 20:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC) There's probably a case for a List of RPG Personalities (or similar title) and a merge to that.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I'd be happy for a list, equally I'd be happy for incubation. What I'm not keen on is going through afd and leaving a blp without independent reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Why is Dragon not an independent reliable source? Just because it's owned by the company that bought the artist's artwork, that doesn't mean that Mr. Fields controls it. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC) They likely have a financial interest in promoting the artist and are unlikely to be neutral, having total control isn't the only aspect of independence. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC) He worked for the publisher of the magazine for 10 years. I don't know how that can be viewed as not being affiliated with the subject. Quantpole (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - I didn't really see a clear consensus to delete, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone found me biased as I started this article and argued to keep it. :) BOZ (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Within discretion. With more contributors this debate probably would have lead to the delete outcome that it should have. But a no consensus close leaves it open to be re-nominated where it will hopefully be deleted. A delete close probably would have been on the cards here as there were problems with core policies (WP:V) but those problems weren't strong enough to mandate a delete a close as the only valid close possible.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Could have gone a number of ways, but this was reasonable (and best IMO). There are RSes (two) one of which provides solid bibliographic information. Doesn't meet the letter of WP:BIO, but not so far from it local consensus can't be to keep it. WP:V _is_ easily met which isn't negotiable. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn- sorry, but none of the keep opinions made any sort of relevant point. Vaguely waving your hands going "I'm sure there's sources out there somewhere" just don't cut it. Reyk YO! 09:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC) But what if my hunch turned out to be right? I see a couple of newly added citations to The Washington Times - that's not nothing. BOZ (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse looking at the debate, "no consensus" appears to have been correct. If no good sources show up in the next couple of months, it would probably not pass another AFD, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC) The AfD was somewhere intermediate between no consensus and delete, both defensible. Noting WP:BIO1E, perhaps a merge and redirect to Editions of Dungeons & Dragons is a good outcome, satisfactory to all? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Donny Long – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Donny Long (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Relist Improper early close, with numerous procedural errors. Cited reason was WP:SNOW, however there were numerous keep votes at that point. Nom improperly removed cited material that was pertinent to notability under WP:PORNBIO prior to nomination. Sockpuppetry, and general vandalism, in favor of deletion of such severity that the page had to be semi-protected.This should not have been closed early, requesting that it be given a new listing to run a discussion properly. Horrorshowj (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Keep Deleted the result was obvious from the status of the AFD at the time. Time to drop the stick. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Closing admin suggested DRV, this isn't about the blanking. Not everything's about you.Horrorshowj (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn - by closing early we were rewarding the subject of the article, who had been conducting a campaign of vile abuse, harassment, legal threats, sockpuppeting, shameless abuse of IP hopping, a dung-storm of lies and insults (on and off Wikipedia), and general nastiness unprecedented in my time here. I gather that he's not been above phone calls to Wikipedia offices, and I'm not sure what all else. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn this should not have been closed early. It may still end in deletion but should run its course. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse this excellent and thoughtful close. Orangemike's remarks about campaigns of vile abuse are well-taken, but when it comes to someone of marginal notability who's prepared to get nasty, the material simply isn't worth keeping. I'm thinking of a specific case here: Daniel Brandt, whose BLP, for the benefit of newcomers, was AfD'ed 14 times and DRV'ed twice. Not remotely worth the drama. This isn't quite in the same league, but I think the same principle applies.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - There was strong consensus to delete and it was snowing there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Not ideal to go with speedy but given the circumstances it was acceptable and I think the delete side were clearly winning the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per above. I strongly disagree with the view that the article should simply be deleted because the subject is willing to attack us until we give in, and I even more strongly disagree with those who seem to be of the opinion that that was our fault. However, the AfD was getting pretty snowy and I don't think leaving it longer would have influenced the results; all the arguments to be made, had been made. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - well within admin discretion, and there is ample precedent that the subject's wishes allow us to deviate from standard practice. Steve Smith (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Comment This Deletion Review shows the ineffectiveness of using a Snow Close for AfDs of this sort. It does not end the controversy & unpleasantness, it inevitably leads to an appeal, and then things continue for another week. They tend to be a little calmer here than at AfD, but that's not enough to provide a reason for appeal when it might not be necessary. Anyway, if people in good faith oppose a close, it isn;t SNOW, for they might convince others. But I'm not willing to say overturn, because it will not make things better. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - as one of the Keep !voters who was strongly leaning towards changing his !vote but hadn't done so. As far as Mr. Long goes, I'm reminded of the legal term "werewolf", someone who's on the right side of the laws but is so utterly unsympathetic it's difficult to support them. Most of the keep !votes say we shouldn't allow his behavior to influence the outcome, but I believe a lot of them, including my own, were partly based on not letting an abusively-behaving individual get his way. Also per Giftiger, all the arguments to be made had been made and the delete ones were more cogent. Seth Kellerman (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - We can relist it for 7 more days and the subject will still be non-notable. The consensus was very clear in this case. WP:PORNBIO is descriptive, not prescriptive, and Jimbo clearly outlined why that particular guideline isn't enough for this to be kept. Subject failed GNG. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure, per Steve. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I was actually considering closing this myself, at the end of the full AFD discussion period. I'd followed the discussion, and from what I could see (so far, of course) there were three main arguments (by everyone else outside of the contributions made by the article's subject, which could in large part be skipped with no loss). The first argument to delete "because the subject is a nuisance" I would have given little weight to. The arguments to keep were all pretty much variants on "WP:PORNBIO is satisfied". The other arguments to delete were quite compelling arguments that this is a demonstration that WP:PORNBIO is broken and in conflict with more general and fundamental policies and guidelines, combined with arguments that there simply weren't the good sources to write a biography. The third outweighs the second. Hence the conclusion is that policies, guidelines, and weight of argument lead to a delete action. On the gripping hand, DGG above is quite right. Early closure is very often more haste leading to less speed, and there really was not a good reason for it in this case. People (apart from Donny Long xyrself) were calmly and properly discussing the biography and the sources, not making insensitive remarks about the subject or others. Uncle G (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - This was a good close by the admin. Closing admin cited the subject's distress -- a perfect case for an early close because of the sensitivity required in handling BLP's and the preference in avoiding protracted discussions about negative aspects of an ambiguously notable BLP. Most of the sources were not reliable, containing only negative information about the subject by persons who were in open conflict with the subject. The only indicia of notability was the award (and it was not an individual award) thus placing the subject in the category of WP:BLP1E at best. Undue weight is necessarily given to this one aspect in the life of a person we know very little about. Err on the side of privacy and sensitivity -- he's not that notable, and his life shouldnt be indelibly and publicly summed up by reference to one award when the subject prefers to keep a low profile. Minor4th • talk 04:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse as a legitimate snow closure, but Orange Mike and DGG's points are well taken.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn and Relist The AfD closed with: "The result was delete. Closing this early, both per WP:SNOW and the fact that it is obviously causing distress to the subject. NW (Talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)", in it's entirety. While I can see that NW acted in good faith and made a well intentioned closing decision, it was a bad and very subjective close, with at least one major serious process violation (the other issues I'll deal with later). In WP:SNOW it says: "In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness." (excerpt). It also says: "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." (also excerpted). With thirteen policy based initial KEEP votes, SNOW can not be invoked as there is clearly a debate going on between both sides. In fact, that there were three editors that asked the closer to reconsider, and that this DRV exists is reasonable proof, per WP:SNOW, that there was no policy based rationale for SNOW. As DGG pointed out, short circuiting these kinds of AfDs just leads to (more) drama. It engenders hurt feelings, a sense that the proces is unfair and lacks transparency, and that it disenfranchises community editors. In short, it violates due process. That is the damage done to Wikipedia's integrity, just by cutting off debate, IMO. Just let the AfD continue for the full seven days, unless everyone votes either delete or keep. In this case, maybe the outcome would have been deletion, maybe not, and I agree notability was borderline. But we won't know unless the AfD is allowed to run for the entire seven day period. — Becksguy (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Technically, I agree the WP:SNOW was the wrong reason to end it. I would have been happy with WP:IAR - while there were keep votes, I agree with Uncle G that the arguments for deletion were stronger, noting that I'm biased here having voted to delete - but that would probably have ended up at DRV as well. Nevertheless, while I don't disagree with the early close anyway, restarting the debate would potentially cause a lot of problems. The subject was upset, whatever we may think of his behaviour, and restarting will risk making that a lot worse than it is now. If we accept that he was upset over the contents of the article, to then say, when he finally decides that it is done with, that we want to restore the article and restart the debate because we don't think it went long enough, isn't going to be the most compassionate path and it certainly won't reduce drama. I might think differently if I thought that a keep was still a viable outcome of the debate, but to stand on process now in order to get the same outcome would seem to be the worst of two bad choices. - Bilby (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - I initially was a bit "meh" over the invocation of snow, and commented as such over at NW's talk page, where he said the rationale I laid out there was essentially what he was going by as well, but it doesn't much matter. If someone really wants to re-close with a more detailed reason, go ahead, but at the end of the day we're still gonna arrive at the same end; Donny Long is a redlink. WP:IAR and acall it a day. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC) overturn closing statement, keep deleted the deletion is a good idea given the issues the subject has with it. The SNOW was not, it just dragged things out longer, which was quite predictable. I'd suggest the closer let Uncle G reclose. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse, per Mkativerata. Strong consensus to delete, although perhaps SNOW was not the best reason to cite. —fetch·comms 13:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Not a standard SNOW close, but the blizzard came in response to a particularly cogent comment from Jimmy Wales, which changed the tenor of the discussion, and the closer accurately perceived that the outcome was effectively settled. The subject's caterwauling about not being able to control he contents of his entry was really irrelevant (and not, I think, a good faith complaint); but sometimes you have to let the wookie "win" because that's the way the cards fall. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse; even if not properly WP:SNOW (which is arguable), it's a proper invocation of WP:IAR (which isn't). — Coren (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC) COMMENT: - I disagree, IAR is arguable. Also, one can apply the IAR concept to the IAR policy per se and discount it. IAR suffers from the same fatal flaws that SNOW does, as applied to this case. They both violate due process, disenfranchises editors, cut off debate, and result in an outcome that is tainted (regardless of which outcome would have been obtained), as in the fruit of the poisonous tree. As an example of disenfranchisement, deletion discussions were extended to seven days to facilitate more editors in participating, especially during weekends. Arbitrarily cutting off debate early goes against a wide community consensus that increased editor participation in XfDs is desirable. Further, can anyone absolutely, serious-as-a-heart-attack, guarantee that the final consensus would have been delete? I've seen AfDs that changed direction dramatically, often due to newly found sources that blow away the rationale for deleting, but also sometimes due to especially compelling arguments later in the process. — Becksguy (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC) IAR actually might be a reasonable justification for this given that A) it seemed to be causing active harm and B) there is not a real chance that this will be anything other than delete or a NC with default to delete. I'm a huge fan of proper process and fully admit it wasn't followed in this case, but consensus was strong and there was a reasonable reason to move quickly. Chiding the closer (while IAR does make some degree of sense, it predictably increased, not decreased, the drama and duration thereof) and keeping this deleted is the only thing that makes sense IMO. Dragging it out further is of no help. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC) IAR is not at subject here; SNOW is, since SNOW was referenced in the close and IAR wasn't. Also, No Consensus closes default to Keep, not to Delete. As to the so-called harm, I refer to Orange Mike and his arguments. Apparently some editors seem to think there is a process wonkery aspect to this DRV, process for the sake of process only. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have participated in deletion discussions in which I suggested SNOW closes with my Deletes, so I'm well aware that in certain limited kinds of XfD discussions, it's legitimate and commendable to save time and resources. But in this particular case it so clearly and so obviously is not. Otherwise, why would we be here? Why were there requests for NW to reconsider? Again, NW was well intentioned, but wrong in his application of SNOW. If the AfD had gone the full length and was closed as Uncle G suggested, by NW or by anyone else, I would have been fine with that, and I think many of the others arguing against the premature and arbitrary shutting down of debate would have been as well. Had the AfD run seven days, I would have even Endorsed here, had the DRV had been initiated, assuming no last minute rescue of the article took place. The issues raised here, in the Afd, and in other places, transcend one sorry ass borderline article, for which I might have even voted to delete. But thirteen keep votes do not make a SNOW close, regardless. So dragging this out does help, in as much as debating issues relating to a clear misapplication of SNOW, disenfranchised editors, and other procedural violations are concerned. However, maybe it should be continued in another more general venue. — Becksguy (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I'm largely in agreement with you, but I will point out there is a provision allowing an admin to close a NC discussion about a BLP where the subject has requested deletion as "NC defaulting to delete". But I agree about how things _should_ have gone. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse per longstanding belief that non-notable or borderline BLPs should be deleted upon reasonable request from the subject. Man, the stuff some people will argue/ whine about on Wikipedia! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Comment: though I have endorsed this closure also, let me be the one to point out that the subject did not make a "reasonable" request in any sense of the word. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC) As per DGG. It was not SNOW. If the page has been a problem for three years, we can afford to spend a week making the decision properly. Please don't SNOW close things due to controversy, it is counter-productive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. --JN466 18:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Marsel Efroimski – clearly G4 deletion is not going to be mandated here so we are pretty much done from a DRV pov. – Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Marsel Efroimski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article was recreated a few hours after being deleted following an AfD that was closed with three deletes and one keep. The article was tagged for speedy G4, but the admin reviewing the speedy tag expressed a concern that, in addition to the content not being quite identical and the AfD not having reached large enough a quorum to be unequivocal, he would have voted to keep in the original AfD as well. A comment from another editor on the talk page expressed the same concern. For my part, I am neutral, however, under the circumstances I do not believe that a G4 tag is the proper way to handle this situation. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Keep. I'm the editor who expressed the keep opinion. I had not seen the orginal AFD so I don't know what the article looked like when it was deleted. I think the article currently has sufficient assertion of notability and adequate sources. Efroimski has represented Israel at a Chess Olympiad, the highest level of international team chess competition. In my opinion this is sufficient for a wikipedia article. Quale (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Clarification: are you asking for an overturn of the original deletion or an overturn of the G4? If the second, the G4 was denied and so there is nothing to do here until such time as it gets deleted. If the first it seems unlikely we'd overturn something with that !vote ratio (although given some of the DrVs below that isn't clear it seems we're ignoring all opinions but the closers these days) but we'd welcome the recreation of the article given reasonable sources. The fact that the subject is a minor may bother some, but if there is _any_ vandalism at all I'm certain we could use that new fangled reviewer thing on the article (and maybe we should on all BLPs of minors actually, hummm). I suggest this be closed as wrong venue unless you really want a review of the first AfD for some reason... I do think that could have been closed as NC, but I'd have to endorse the delete result as well within admin discretion and I tend to be more inclusionist than most... Hobit (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Given that I'm the one who denied the G4, no, I'm not asking for a review of that. I'm asking for a review of the original AfD on the grounds stated by two uninvolved editors (not me!) on the article's talk page. However, if the outcome is speedy close with default to keep the current incarnation, I'll be happy with that as well. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Keep. I am satisfied that this person is notable enough to warrant an article and that the article is adequately sourced. Verifiable, major achievements at a European and World level ought to be enough in themselves, but coverage has also been given by Haaretz, one of Israel's leading news media organisations, as referenced in the current version of the article. Brittle heaven (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse the decision to not delete, and perhaps overturn the result of the AFD since the arguments given to delete seem to be a bit dodgy. Coverage in Haaretz rebuts the argument that there were no reliable sources, and "her ratings do not suggest that she is one of the best chess players in the world" is not a relevant argument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to overturn the original close. There was a weak and (likely) incorrect consensus, and now it's been replaced by a new and better consensus. I don't see why we can't leave it at that.—S Marshall T/C 11:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Could an admin check Mibelz's version against the deleted history and undelete if it's not a fresh rewrite? Free free to move this request into the collapse box once completed. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)  Done This had actually been substantially rewritten but I see no harm in putting the history back. Spartaz Humbug! 17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.